Messed up who I was posting on so I'm quoting myself to keep this in Fumel's history (although, like I said, I'm having some issues with my post history). Brahmina is my main (which I'm pretty sure I've pointed out before).10/23/2018 02:06 PMPosted by BrahminaHere is a nice idea from page 39 about role based permissions (among other things):07/29/2018 02:48 PMPosted by ApollorFor the past, what 10 years of WoW - I've been hoping for the day that the permissions would get an overhaul, so that they might actually be more useful, and more fine-grained controls.
Had to make do with the silly 'delete last created rank first' issue. That got fixed, and we could re-order them - which was a welcomed change.
We still had/have the annoying 'you have to empty the rank to turn-on 'Requires Authenticator" - Honestly this is like accepting a quest "you're currently mounted" just toggle the thing. If I turn on 'requires authenticator" pop a warning and say all those with will be dropped a rank - problem solved. But no.
I've always wanted a guild permissions panel more like a role based template - here's All the settings possible as a bunch of individual toggles. You make a Roll , set all the options that granting that role to a person would give them - and then you go and assign role(s) (yes- a person can be multiples) and their permissions become the result of all of those things turned on.
So you can have your pal John who is "a guildy", "a raider", "a raid-organiser", "an-officer" "bank-tidy-person" and they get the summation of permissions each of those roles grant.
When it comes to "Rank" - those should not be tightly coupled to permissions, but simply a guild-label so that others can easily see WHO is where in terms of "years of service" "smarty-pants" "twit" etc.
Anyway, at the end of the day I came here to see 40+ pages of people very-unhappy with a change, that I to am disappointed with - my main reason. "View and Edit Officer Note" and "Edit Public notes" are BOTH in the "is Officer" toggle.
Why... just.. why?
*sigh*
-A
OFF TOPIC: Is anyone else having trouble with their post history? I've not been finding my most recent posts in the history, which is making it more difficult for me to start my read-through where I left off.
Now I'm wondering if my project of highlighting salient posts from this thread is doomed due to the current post history malfunction. My idea was to highlight those posts I found most interesting or useful by quoting and reposting them. This would gather them all into my post history, thus making a condensed version of the thread. With no history showing since two days ago though, am I completely wasting my time? Will these posts eventually show up in my history?
After much thought, I've decided to keep on keeping on, no matter what. Thus, another post for today (just because I've been here trying to figure out what was going on with the history). This one (from page 39 still) is specifically complaining about removal of the ability to keep a guild member out of guild chat, and why it's important to be able to "mute" a guild member.
After much thought, I've decided to keep on keeping on, no matter what. Thus, another post for today (just because I've been here trying to figure out what was going on with the history). This one (from page 39 still) is specifically complaining about removal of the ability to keep a guild member out of guild chat, and why it's important to be able to "mute" a guild member.
07/29/2018 03:58 PMPosted by ArmoredraRemoval of the "MUTE" ability also destroyed the ability to stifle problems in a guild.
A mute rank is setup as the lowest permission rank. We called it the Time-Out room.
Overall the mute rank is a way we have more control over who speaks in guild chat so that we don't have spam or insults flying around. We gave officers the right to promote drunk people or people that were bad, to be governed by our Officers. Now if someone is acting up the only thing we can do is Kick them, this creates more drama then it is worth. Please bring back the "Mute" in the guild permissions
The mute status was restored months ago...facts matter.
10/23/2018 04:07 PMPosted by FumelI've decided to keep on keeping on, no matter what.
Please do.
Without your highlighting efforts I would have totally missed a post made up of amazing suggestions that was actually made weeks or months ago.
I'd actually love to see some of those suggestions implemented by Blizzard.
There are a lot of great ideas / suggestion here. It'd be a shame to lose them all in the shuffle so to speak.
Your efforts are quite worthwhile in my opinion.
Not going to read 100 pages to see if anyone has said it yet. I bet they have. But in the unlikely event that no one has, use /guildroster. Gives you the old, not awful, guild interface.
10/23/2018 04:20 PMPosted by ChehealsThe mute status was restored months ago...facts matter.
The post about not having the mute function was made months ago. :P
1 Like
10/23/2018 05:40 PMPosted by PeppermintNot going to read 100 pages to see if anyone has said it yet. I bet they have. But in the unlikely event that no one has, use /guildroster. Gives you the old, not awful, guild interface.
Thanks and you're right!
10/23/2018 05:54 PMPosted by Dlaciabia10/23/2018 04:20 PMPosted by ChehealsThe mute status was restored months ago...facts matter.
The post about not having the mute function was made months ago. :P
So you're giving carte blanche to basically necro posts about things that have already been fixed? I'm unclear...knowing that things have been addressed is important imho.
Let's not have everyone else believe this is still an issue right? Again, the issue is maintaining a positive outlook. Championing our cause. Not looking for new things to complain about....that have already been fixed. Right?
Sir, I am not "necroing" posts. I am deliberately quoting posts from this thread that I feel made their points clearly. The purpose of my quoting and reposting is to highlight such posts because Blizzard instructed us to provide feedback. I don't see anything amiss with quoting some of the excellent feedback already provided in this thread just in case it was overlooked the first time.10/23/2018 06:08 PMPosted by Cheheals10/23/2018 05:54 PMPosted by Dlaciabia...
The post about not having the mute function was made months ago. :P
So you're giving carte blanche to basically necro posts about things that have already been fixed? I'm unclear...knowing that things have been addressed is important imho.
Let's not have everyone else believe this is still an issue right? Again, the issue is maintaining a positive outlook. Championing our cause. Not looking for new things to complain about....that have already been fixed. Right?
Was I wrong to highlight the post about muting guild members? Perhaps so. I still feel it was a well-made post that illustrated why permissions can't be all-in-one, even though that particular permission has been reinstated. I probably should have explained my reasoning when I quoted the post. I confess I was feeling a bit frazzled by the post history snafu--which I'm very delighted to see has been fixed.
I'm sorry that you don't care for my methods, but you're welcome to simply skip over my posts if you find them irksome. Meanwhile, I intend to continue re-reading the thread and quoting posts I personally feel illustrate the issues with the guild changes.
1 Like
10/23/2018 06:08 PMPosted by Cheheals10/23/2018 05:54 PMPosted by Dlaciabia...
The post about not having the mute function was made months ago. :P
So you're giving carte blanche to basically necro posts about things that have already been fixed? I'm unclear...knowing that things have been addressed is important imho.
Let's not have everyone else believe this is still an issue right? Again, the issue is maintaining a positive outlook. Championing our cause. Not looking for new things to complain about....that have already been fixed. Right?
The only one causing issues in here is you. Either stop being so abrasive, or leave the thread.
Thank you.
1 Like
I'm going to say, not as a guild leader, but man.... the new 'interface' is garbage. It is buggy and shows people online who are not, shows a bunch of blank names with blank statuses, and just seems like a pain.
The removal of the detailed guild permissions..... wow... this makes me think that people at blizzard have nothing to do with the game. WHY even remove this? What benefit does it have?
The fact that this thread has gone on for so long and blizzard has not given a response shows that they don't listen and ignore feedback.
Actions are louder than your poor PR attempts.
blizzard doesn't care
The removal of the detailed guild permissions..... wow... this makes me think that people at blizzard have nothing to do with the game. WHY even remove this? What benefit does it have?
The fact that this thread has gone on for so long and blizzard has not given a response shows that they don't listen and ignore feedback.
Actions are louder than your poor PR attempts.
blizzard doesn't care
1 Like
I know somewhere in this long thread someone posted a great discussion on Least Privilege. I tried to parse all the pages but I did not find it. I'll have to go to the wider internet.
1 Like
10/23/2018 08:17 PMPosted by XakopaneI know somewhere in this long thread someone posted a great discussion on Least Privilege. I tried to parse all the pages but I did not find it. I'll have to go to the wider internet.
Here it is:
07/24/2018 06:58 PMPosted by Æthelwulf07/24/2018 06:30 PMPosted by AngosiaI'm going to argue against Blizzard in the case of the guild control changes but not in the context most are presently doing.
As Blizzard's security staff knows, when doing role-based access control permissions (and/or profiles), the principle of "Least Privilege" applies. This, in lay terms, means "Only what permissions are required to do the necessary tasks for that job role".
In this context, I am not comfortable granting a person who I did not designate an officer to have all officer permissions. Nor do I necessarily want to grant an officer all of the current permissions. In my guild hierarchy, the structure only allows 3 people to invite to the guild AND remove from the guild even though we may have a separate structure for officers.
(This is to combat the notion that 1 person is the benevolent dictator {i.e. GM}. We have a council of 3 Founders. If 2 disagree, I act as the tie-breaker as the "GM". Generally speaking, we don't disagree, but we can.)
I have a separate tier of "officers" in the context that most guilds use them today. These do my guild recruiting, raid leading, and class officer roles that most guilds have today. However, I do not grant them the ability to remove individuals from the guild nor would I.
This is a way of decentralizing power but also not providing a scenario where officers might disagree and act against each other intentionally or otherwise. They should be able to discuss this as a group and make the recommendation to the Founders. As a rule, I tend to let the two Founders handle those disputes (we really don't see any, but that's why the structure is there). I know both of the other Founders in person and I trust both implicitly, so it is a simple phone call or text from either of them to get my opinion if a tie should result.
In this context, as a person who has drafted security policies in a past architect role and as a current Operations Manager role, I am disinclined to give ranks permissions that I do not want them to have. It was granularly set in this fashion for a very good reason - and it is a technical control to help ensure that officers in my guild can't act on a whim.
While my vetting process is actually pretty good, it isn't perfect as nothing can be perfect. You're removing my ability to set practical guild permissions for the sake of simplifying the experience. I don't mind if there's a "simple" mode for folks who don't want to manage it, but give me an "advanced" mode so that folks who want to manage those things can.
I would like to expound on this topic and actually focus in on the principle stated in the second paragraph. Specifically the Principle of Least Privilege. There are literally enough volumes on this concept to fill libraries to overflowing.
The Principle of Least Privilege (PoLP) is the standard of Information Security that is adhered to by most if not all corporations (both public and private) government agencies (whether Global Federal State or Local in scope). It is the heart and soul of profile or role based security systems.
At its heart PoLP maintains that you only give the least permissions to a role that is necessary for that role to perform its function. You then assign users to that specific role so that should you need to change the scope of the role and the users in that role you do it once and each member then has the role's scope adjusted.
It saves the administrator time and effort in having to track down all the users of a role. He simply need only change the permissions assigned to that role.
Likewise if a user must be removed from a role there is no need to change the other users permissions you simply remove that person from the role. This can save enormously valuable time if the user is found to be a bad actor. You remove that users role from them while not disturbing the operations of others and prevent the bad actor from causing damage to you system.
Then there is the implied concept of granularity in the PoLP. Invoking PoLP allows the administrator to clearly define a role by assigning certain permissions to that role and not others.
A guild raid leader might need more access to guild bank resources and or guild reward systems for loot from bosses than a Class Officer might need. Similarly a Production Fire Team might need read access to Production Servers but probably should not be given write or modify permissions. A Production DBA who is the DB Owner might need read write and modify but certainly should not have sa privileges on a DB he does not own and likely should not have remote access OS Level permissions to a Production server.
By compromising this system intentionally, by flagging all of the above roles as simply Officer, you invite disaster.
You invite the accidental or incidental promotion of a bad actor to a level that has access to the guild bank and can then rob that guild blind. Then you have GL's sending in tickets for recovery of items and demanding (rightfully so since you put them in that position by lumping all Officer roles under one set of permissions) that they be reimbursed for the items.
Then you start getting false reports from gl's that think they can 'game' the system by filing false tickets and getting items they never had. This creates FAR more work for your GM's than you had previously slowing down the system AND making you hire more of them to handle the unexpected volume.
But lets turn the tables just for an instance. What if tomorrow you came in to work and all of the permissions for all of the data in your corporation were set to a single role. Could you be expected to continue business as usual? No? Then you have your answer for GL's too.
I believe Æthelwulf discusses this topic more than once (and I highlighted his posts earlier in my read-through posts).
10/23/2018 05:40 PMPosted by PeppermintNot going to read 100 pages to see if anyone has said it yet. I bet they have. But in the unlikely event that no one has, use /guildroster. Gives you the old, not awful, guild interface.
/groster and /guildroster do bring up the old interface. I'm sure you know, but in case it isn't clear to someone from this comment - this does NOT restore the old guild control interface which is what is primarily being discussed here.
@Fumel: Keep up the good work (and ignore those with a bizarre ax to grind here)!
I wanted to highlight this post from July (found on page 40) to show that Xakopane has been on this from way back. His more recent posts haven't been his first here.
Here is a short but still excellent suggestion for further utility in the guild roster (also from page 40):
07/30/2018 08:48 AMPosted by XakopaneI would like to thank the posters in this thread for being overwhelmingly constructive in their criticism as well as polite. Some excellent posts on information security practice and theory, and work arounds.
I thought the post with the scenario about HR and the discussions held around hiring an employee to be particularly powerful with regard to the current guild/officer chat logs.
Once again, thank you all for contributing. I have, repeatedly, brought this thread to the attention of the other MVPs (and our Blue Masters). We must just wait and see if anything is to be done. I suspect, given how rough the Communities roll out was, a "simple" reversion to what we once had is not possible but instead another recoding would be needed. One hopes any fix won't once again break the Internet ;)
Cheers,
Xakopane
Here is a short but still excellent suggestion for further utility in the guild roster (also from page 40):
07/30/2018 09:20 AMPosted by PolgaraI would also like to see an option to collapse the roster size down like you can do with the chat portion, with the ability to sort on activity.
To wit, it has been established within the general forums that Æthelwulf's proposition regarding PoLP on corporations when applied to Blizzard would be, and I quote:
"Very, very, bad"
The thread still cracks me up.
"Very, very, bad"
The thread still cracks me up.
post 2000 get
Wait...Unlocked?
Hello Blizzard, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
I hear my fellow GM's weeping
Our controls messed up while we were sleeping
And the vision that we had for all our guilds
are with us still.
Within the sound of silence
In desperation we post here
A lack of change we all fear.
'Neath the words of your forums
We gather here to speak among our quorum
When our guilds were stabbed in the back by a bad pre-patch
our controls were snatched.
And touched the sound of silence
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand guildies, maybe more
People talking without speaking
Blizzard hearing without listening
People writing posts that Blizzard rarely reads.
But trolls they feed.
And still the sound of silence
"Fools" said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear our words that you might fix it.
Enact ideas bit by small bit"
But our cries like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence
And the GM's found a friend
In the Blue named Ythisens
And Nobully flashed out his warning
In the words that he was forming
And the sign said, "The words of the DevGuys
Are written on the subway walls
And Blizzcon halls"
And whispered in the sounds of silence
* A lot of the original lyrics were apropos so I really didn't have to change much here...
I've come to talk with you again
I hear my fellow GM's weeping
Our controls messed up while we were sleeping
And the vision that we had for all our guilds
are with us still.
Within the sound of silence
In desperation we post here
A lack of change we all fear.
'Neath the words of your forums
We gather here to speak among our quorum
When our guilds were stabbed in the back by a bad pre-patch
our controls were snatched.
And touched the sound of silence
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand guildies, maybe more
People talking without speaking
Blizzard hearing without listening
People writing posts that Blizzard rarely reads.
But trolls they feed.
And still the sound of silence
"Fools" said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear our words that you might fix it.
Enact ideas bit by small bit"
But our cries like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence
And the GM's found a friend
In the Blue named Ythisens
And Nobully flashed out his warning
In the words that he was forming
And the sign said, "The words of the DevGuys
Are written on the subway walls
And Blizzcon halls"
And whispered in the sounds of silence
* A lot of the original lyrics were apropos so I really didn't have to change much here...
1 Like
Back home again in this cozy thread...
Good to see already 26 upvotes on the Blizzcon Q&A question!
MORE PLEASE! Ask everyone you know that's unhappy about this to vote on it!
We've been kind of led along for a while already ("tell us what isn't working", "we're talking internally", ...), but hopefully "If you see a question in this thread you would like an answer to, please feel free to "Like" or upvote it." is a comment they'll keep to and answer the question.
****UPVOTES****
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20769758452?page=21#post-416
Good to see already 26 upvotes on the Blizzcon Q&A question!
MORE PLEASE! Ask everyone you know that's unhappy about this to vote on it!
We've been kind of led along for a while already ("tell us what isn't working", "we're talking internally", ...), but hopefully "If you see a question in this thread you would like an answer to, please feel free to "Like" or upvote it." is a comment they'll keep to and answer the question.
****UPVOTES****
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20769758452?page=21#post-416