Warrior General Games

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but would really appreciate it as an owner if my Co-owner can do all of the things that I am able to do with the owners tag... Or at least have a permissions box like those of the GM's.

I'm in and out of a region with dicey internet in the next week or so... its important that its business as usual, during this kind of a period...


Just as an example; my co-owner was unable to enter us into the Soph league tourney.

+1

its been suggested in the thread below. but for some reason that no one understands an admin doesnt like the idea. its uber silly tho, because a Co can schedual scrims that actually costs flex. = real $$. the GLB tourneys are FREE!!

id rather them say "its my sim and ill do what the hell i want" rather than the lame excuse i got in the thread below.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4664155

Look... I totally see their point that it could be open to abuse...

However... 2 points...

1) If you made someone Co-owner (rather than GM, etc) - it means you are good with them making decisions about scims etc.... Even if it costs you flex...

2) a good workaround would be to put a checkmark system for permissions similar to that of a GM...


Most of us that play this game are not kids.. we are adults who have businesses, and family matters that pop up.

I've got 5 staff stuck in Thailand because an airline went into administration... and have to head out to Asia myself now.....

This means no internet time (possibly) for a few days as I sort this stuff out... surely this is the reason of having co-owners....?

+1

there is absolutely no "logical' excuse they can have at this point. maybe before they let Co schedual real scrims.

a co can do alot of damage to a team with the permissions they have now. so can gms.

f up ticket sales
f up the ai
cut dots...even the owners dot. hell if done that several times myself. (with permission )
trade the best players off a team.
over sign with salaries.
give out tactics.

on n on n on. whats so protective about scheduling a stupid free scrim???

I say +1 to an option, I couldnt agree more DTRAIN. doesn't make sense that the co-owner can't sign up for a free GLB Tourney, but be able to use the team bank to pay for frendlies

What's funny is some people complain that co-owners have too many powers (they don't like that they can cut players).


I personally think co-owner should mean co-owner. They should have all the rights an owner has. I'd actually like to see an option to have them pay half the costs too... but that's just me

+1

I wish the owner had the option to pick and choose any powers he/she wants. If I don't want the co-owner to handle the DC but hand finances I should be able to select that.

Originally posted by All American Dude
+1

I wish the owner had the option to pick and choose any powers he/she wants. If I don't want the co-owner to handle the DC but hand finances I should be able to select that.

Agreed... thats why I was thinking it should be a tick box kinda thing....


Originally posted by Chysil


I personally think co-owner should mean co-owner. They should have all the rights an owner has. I'd actually like to see an option to have them pay half the costs too... but that's just me

They can already with donating flex to the team.. cant they...?

+1. If you don't want someone to have those rights, don't make him co-owner.

Originally posted by Apallyon
Originally posted by All American Dude

+1

I wish the owner had the option to pick and choose any powers he/she wants. If I don't want the co-owner to handle the DC but hand finances I should be able to select that.

Agreed... thats why I was thinking it should be a tick box kinda thing....


Originally posted by Chysil



I personally think co-owner should mean co-owner. They should have all the rights an owner has. I'd actually like to see an option to have them pay half the costs too... but that's just me

They can already with donating flex to the team.. cant they...?

the flex that a co-owner donates to a team just covers scrimmages or tourney games. the flex isn't actually used to fund the team. I am not saying that I disagree with the idea I am just stating that just because a person is adding flex to the team fund doesn't mean they are helping pay for the team.

Yeah man.. I agree.. but if you've come up with the agreement of someone being a "Paying Co-Owner" you can then agree for how to fund the team if you so wish... they can drop the necessary flex etc

Was just thinking that technically that option is there to be used if need be...