Co-mayors And Recruiters

Commander + towny war

 

Can co-mayors do /t witdraw?????

 

Wow

 

I think it should be renamed HeadAssistant.

 

It's for people to set plots for sale and not for sale, without the ability to /t claim or have automatic perms on unowned plots, or the ability to add people to the town (unless they are also a Recruiter)... in chat, this was suggested for Recruiter, but some people (like me) said that would give them too much power.

I also like the Builder rank and can see how that will be helpful. They can both place blocks and destroy, right? But nothing else.

 

YES!

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 13, 2014, Original Post Date: Apr 13, 2014 ---

Don't allow co-mayors to have /t withdraw. Many mayors keep their personal money in their town bank.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 13, 2014 ---

No. People have wanted co-mayor for a LONG time. This is how it will stay.

 

Seems too overpowered. The mayor can already do that anyway.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 13, 2014, Original Post Date: Apr 13, 2014 ---

Well, you would have a trustworthy person in the position so you wouldn't need to worry about that happening.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 13, 2014 ---

I got a StopResseting like!

+2 cookies

 

Very true. Another suggestion to Fuzzlr: Allow builders to be able to destroy. They are the builders of the town. When building, many people make mistakes and it's annoying not being able to correct those mistakes.

 

That is a good point...

 

Co-mayors shouldn't be able to add or remove other co-mayors... they are now, and that could get problematic, haha.

 

Wait... can co-mayors name a mayor?

 

Terraformer
Able to /t claim and terraform land like plots.

 

Builder: can build and destroy anywhere in the town. Great for plot clearers

 

Assistants can't /t unclaim

 

I see a lot of complaints about co-mayor having /t withdraw. Honestly, it's not a bad thing... There's a very very very simple solution here. DON'T GIVE PEOPLE CO-MAYOR IF THEY ARE NOT TRUSTABLE!

 

But that would make things too easy

 

This is staff:

Nuff said. I like current ranks btw.

 

I agree, but this part bugs me - what's the logic in not giving co-mayors /t delete, then? Both can effectively do the same thing, especially if towny taxes actually line up with towny time.

 

Well, the thing about /t delete is that co-mayors aren't actually the "owner" of a town. It seems silly to give them the option to delete someone else's property, even if you trust the person.

 

For the record, I would trust both my co-mayors with /t delete. However the difference is, with /t withdraw, it's like having someone work around the nuke, and could indirectly launch it. But if you give them /t delete, it's like just giving them the launch key. Only a set number of people need /t delete because regardless of trust there should be only a set number of people to ever use it. Leaving it out isn't an issue of trust, but an issue of liability.

Aside from that, /t withdraw has a number of practical uses. Projects and work would slow to a crawl if everyone needed to wait for me to pull money out and/or pay for things. Now I can have a few people I trust, in this case founded Lakewood with me, pull that money out, and we have 2 more funding spigots for projects. /t delete has no practical usage outside of devastation, that command doesn't assist anything that would reasonably need assistance on.

You must trust your staff, and if they mess up, it's your fault. If people vetted who they gave assistant to, etc, there would also be less overall cases of mayoral/assistant abuse, theft, etc. Meaning outside this example itself, this system of trusting/knowing/vetting your staff first would bring improvements to a lot more things than an individual town.

Also to note, just because a co-mayor can withdraw, doesn't mean the money is his in any way as well. Legally, the town is owned by <player>, and all bank funds within the town also are owned by <player>. While assigning a co-mayor is an automatic grant of usage to those funds, it is/should be assumed withdraws are for town-use only. Withdraw of town funds for personal use(embezzlement) is clearly abuse, and illegal(theft). That warrants a removal from co-mayor in the lightest sense, to a ban in the harshest.

Which means you can react to these situations, and resolve them in some fashion, if from theft then with a refund perhaps. However with an issue of /t delete, you cannot get that back. There is no refund, there is no going back. There is no more.

This is why I think the /t delete is not an issue of logic, but of liability, practicality,