Ha ha thread op got owned like a bitch
Forum > Suggestions > Co-Owner shouldn't automatically get cut powers
Originally posted by redsoxboy34
Originally posted by All American Dude
+1
We should be able to decide which abilities any GM has.
This, I mean. You know how stupid people can be on this game? Piss off the Co Owner and he rage releases everyone on your team. How is that fair?
1) You can only cut two people per day. (during the regular season that is). Of course after this you can remove him from GM and contact support to get the two players back.
2) If you get into a fight with the co-owner you can always just remove him from Co-Owner, to prevent this
3) If you are pissing the Co-Owner off to the point where he's rage releasing people, and you didn't see it coming to enact option #2, you are probably a pretty rough owner to deal with.
4) You don't HAVE to have a Co-Owner, the game doesn't really offer a benefit to have one or not. So basically, if you don't trust anyone to do the job, don't assign a Co-Owner
5) Intentionally sabotaging a team is dealt with very harshly (seen bans handed down for this), so if he does something crazy, it may be the last thing he ever does in GLB. So as you can see, this feature allows for us to weed out the asshole players of the game. It's a good thing
Originally posted by All American Dude
+1
We should be able to decide which abilities any GM has.
This, I mean. You know how stupid people can be on this game? Piss off the Co Owner and he rage releases everyone on your team. How is that fair?
1) You can only cut two people per day. (during the regular season that is). Of course after this you can remove him from GM and contact support to get the two players back.
2) If you get into a fight with the co-owner you can always just remove him from Co-Owner, to prevent this
3) If you are pissing the Co-Owner off to the point where he's rage releasing people, and you didn't see it coming to enact option #2, you are probably a pretty rough owner to deal with.
4) You don't HAVE to have a Co-Owner, the game doesn't really offer a benefit to have one or not. So basically, if you don't trust anyone to do the job, don't assign a Co-Owner
5) Intentionally sabotaging a team is dealt with very harshly (seen bans handed down for this), so if he does something crazy, it may be the last thing he ever does in GLB. So as you can see, this feature allows for us to weed out the asshole players of the game. It's a good thing
Edited by Chysil on Jan 23, 2012 17:09:59
TaySC
offline
offline
Originally posted by Chysil
1) You can only cut two people per day. (during the regular season that is). Of course after this you can remove him from GM and contact support to get the two players back.
2) If you get into a fight with the co-owner you can always just remove him from Co-Owner, to prevent this
3) If you are pissing the Co-Owner off to the point where he's rage releasing people, and you didn't see it coming to enact option #2, you are probably a pretty rough owner to deal with.
4) You don't HAVE to have a Co-Owner, the game doesn't really offer a benefit to have one or not. So basically, if you don't trust anyone to do the job, don't assign a Co-Owner
5) Intentionally sabotaging a team is dealt with very harshly (seen bans handed down for this), so if he does something crazy, it may be the last thing he ever does in GLB. So as you can see, this feature allows for us to weed out the asshole players of the game. It's a good thing
1) You can only cut two people per day. (during the regular season that is). Of course after this you can remove him from GM and contact support to get the two players back.
2) If you get into a fight with the co-owner you can always just remove him from Co-Owner, to prevent this
3) If you are pissing the Co-Owner off to the point where he's rage releasing people, and you didn't see it coming to enact option #2, you are probably a pretty rough owner to deal with.
4) You don't HAVE to have a Co-Owner, the game doesn't really offer a benefit to have one or not. So basically, if you don't trust anyone to do the job, don't assign a Co-Owner
5) Intentionally sabotaging a team is dealt with very harshly (seen bans handed down for this), so if he does something crazy, it may be the last thing he ever does in GLB. So as you can see, this feature allows for us to weed out the asshole players of the game. It's a good thing
+1 only because the paying customer/TEAM OWNER should have rights to certain powers 
*edit*
+2 if it was a checkoff option
*edit*
+2 if it was a checkoff option
Edited by Team Nucleus on Jan 23, 2012 20:19:16
Edited by Team Nucleus on Jan 23, 2012 20:18:03
Dub J
offline
offline
Not really, he basically told everyone to add shit on to support's workload rather than implement something that would further streamline this site.
In the past I would never have a co-owner because of fear that they may do more than I wanted them to do. After being told by most everyone I was stupid for not having a co-owner. They said everyone should have one in case something happened to the owner and he couldn't log on. Now most everyone in this thread is making it out like owners are stupid for having co-owners.
GLB users flip flopping once again.
In the past I would never have a co-owner because of fear that they may do more than I wanted them to do. After being told by most everyone I was stupid for not having a co-owner. They said everyone should have one in case something happened to the owner and he couldn't log on. Now most everyone in this thread is making it out like owners are stupid for having co-owners.
GLB users flip flopping once again.
Dub J
offline
offline
Originally posted by Team Nucleus
-1 only because the paying customer/TEAM OWNER should have rights to certain powers
wat?
That post doesn't make sense.
-1 only because the paying customer/TEAM OWNER should have rights to certain powers
wat?
That post doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Chysil
Those titles are supposed to mean something and not just be a trophy with a fancy title...
if you don't trust someone to not cut someone from your team, he or she should probably not be a co-owner. Co-owner honestly should have all the rights as an owner, seeing as the title is co-owner and not assistant owner or anything like that.
It's just like you wouldn't give someone the OC title if you didn't want to give them the ability to mess with offense or defense
this
Those titles are supposed to mean something and not just be a trophy with a fancy title...
if you don't trust someone to not cut someone from your team, he or she should probably not be a co-owner. Co-owner honestly should have all the rights as an owner, seeing as the title is co-owner and not assistant owner or anything like that.
It's just like you wouldn't give someone the OC title if you didn't want to give them the ability to mess with offense or defense
this
Dub J
offline
offline
Originally posted by Darkstrand
Ha ha thread op got owned like a bitch
Something you have a lot of experience with, toon boy.
Ha ha thread op got owned like a bitch
Something you have a lot of experience with, toon boy.
TaySC
offline
offline
Originally posted by All American Dude
Not really, he basically told everyone to add shit on to support's workload rather than implement something that would further streamline this site.
In the past I would never have a co-owner because of fear that they may do more than I wanted them to do. After being told by most everyone I was stupid for not having a co-owner. They said everyone should have one in case something happened to the owner and he couldn't log on. Now most everyone in this thread is making it out like owners are stupid for having co-owners.
GLB users flip flopping once again.
Why are you listening to either group about having a co-owner? You are not stupid to not have one and you are not stupid to have one..... it is a personal choice/preference.
In the end though, if anyone doesn't like giving someone that much authority, they should NOT have a co-owner, since co-owner implies equal to the owner.
Whats funny is how many suggestions I have seen go through here that said the co-owner should have MORE rights and be equal to the owner, now we get the other side of that coin with someone saying the co-owner has to much power?
Just goes to show that no matter what you do someone won't be happy.
Not really, he basically told everyone to add shit on to support's workload rather than implement something that would further streamline this site.
In the past I would never have a co-owner because of fear that they may do more than I wanted them to do. After being told by most everyone I was stupid for not having a co-owner. They said everyone should have one in case something happened to the owner and he couldn't log on. Now most everyone in this thread is making it out like owners are stupid for having co-owners.
GLB users flip flopping once again.
Why are you listening to either group about having a co-owner? You are not stupid to not have one and you are not stupid to have one..... it is a personal choice/preference.
In the end though, if anyone doesn't like giving someone that much authority, they should NOT have a co-owner, since co-owner implies equal to the owner.
Whats funny is how many suggestions I have seen go through here that said the co-owner should have MORE rights and be equal to the owner, now we get the other side of that coin with someone saying the co-owner has to much power?
Just goes to show that no matter what you do someone won't be happy.
Dub J
offline
offline
And lol @ this notion that just because people have specific GM titles that they actually do anything.
Originally posted by All American Dude
And lol @ this notion that just because people have specific GM titles that they actually do anything.
+1
And lol @ this notion that just because people have specific GM titles that they actually do anything.
+1
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
