Server <-> Forum groups sync

[Connorious]

wtf now enforcers can see our usergroup? not good.

How to fix this?

If you don't trust them to see the usergroup, why do you trust them in the faction? i dont get it.

You and the rest can't think for themselves at all I see. You can't exactly know how people are like if they haven't been in the faction. For example I don't even know who our outsiders are, how would I know if I can trust them if they aren't "closer" to me?

yes ok i already spoke about this, no need to be a knob thanks.

[Alsarty]

no try to access any post

dat isnt anything XD

[K3]

You need to make an option where the group leader can disable the auto-updating for their group:

You will be automatically put and removed into the specific faction forum usergroups > this needs to be optional.

Tattaglia never allowed players who aren't Associate ranked or above to enter the usergroup and now we've got like tons of new people which we can't even kick out, people who don't belong there.

I'm sure that many other factions never instantly invite players to their group just because they became members. Perhaps you could add a few lines that determine how T3 members don't get automaticly added, meaning T3 members need manual approval.

Please read what I posted a few pages back.

And I deleted one of your posts, as you quoted yourself just to repeat what you said - for no reason.
Don't post unless it's relevant.

[leonzio]

Hope this gets changed as said in the 3rd page.

[Luigi Tattaglia]

You need to make an option where the group leader can disable the auto-updating for their group:

You will be automatically put and removed into the specific faction forum usergroups > this needs to be optional.

Tattaglia never allowed players who aren't Associate ranked or above to enter the usergroup and now we've got like tons of new people which we can't even kick out, people who don't belong there.

I'm sure that many other factions never instantly invite players to their group just because they became members. Perhaps you could add a few lines that determine how T3 members don't get automaticly added, meaning T3 members need manual approval.

Please read what I posted a few pages back.

And I deleted one of your posts, as you quoted yourself just to repeat what you said - for no reason.
Don't post unless it's relevant.

I suggested the same as Perry actually but didn't read his post because of the rate of posting as the thread was new. Its what we need simply because inviting doesn't mean we're giving section access.

That quote was a mistake anyway. Couldn't delete it either because its not possible to do so after someone posts.

[Ayden]

I like this

[Shawgi]

There are alot of subjects, that only "super" trusted members would discuss between eachother..
And the forum usergroup is the best way to discuss these subjects.

Yes, its normal to invite people who you Trust. And we do. But ofcourse, there are stuff that u simply cannot discuss with these Enforcers/Associates, as theyre not fully trusted yet. Unlike fully trusted members ( Soldiers+ are example in Tatt).

We do appreciate the update as its awesome. But, there are illegals such as Tatt & Cuneo(i guess).. Which have special purposes of those usergroups.
Thats the point.

And please, dont give me bullshit like " Why do u even /imvite if u dont trust " .. Because we dont. We simply trust High ranks more than the slaves(Enforcers/Associates).
Which is normal! Isnt it?

/phone

[Seb]

wtf shwagi make inslut on slave enforce and asociat
bro dont you have feeler???
you were enforcer or asociat be4 too bro!!!!
every1 was once (thrice in ur case br0) a low ranked newbie!!!!!!

[Giovanni_C]

yay mother pentrator ffs
thing you are said its 100% truely and u are is vato del jefe right ?
that feeling are is g00dly

[bassem]

Most people like me from egypt respect declan

[Shawgi]

wtf shwagi make inslut on slave enforce and asociat
bro dont you have feeler???
you were enforcer or asociat be4 too bro!!!!
every1 was once (thrice in ur case br0) a low ranked newbie!!!!!!

Jahahh how u know (thrice in ma case)

[Seb]

wtf shwagi make inslut on slave enforce and asociat
bro dont you have feeler???
you were enforcer or asociat be4 too bro!!!!
every1 was once (thrice in ur case br0) a low ranked newbie!!!!!!

Jahahh how u know (thrice in ma case)

i think mg

[CruzTheGr8]

Worst thing is people questioning our security measures while their faction rots with snitches.

[Alfredo Johnson]

lol my main Forum Account is Piyush and it is baned, but I filled that bound forum account Alfredo_Smith , but main is Piyush and I can't changed it, woot PLS HELP

[Sly]

2manygreennames
Great update.

[Calogepro]

So there isn't 1 official faction leader per faction anymore, just invited instant as soon as t0 ?f There should be some difference I think

[Giovanni_C]

So there isn't 1 official faction leader per faction anymore, just invited instant as soon as t0 ?f There should be some difference I think

if your forum accounts is sticked along with your sa-mp.im account=if you're t0 you get auto added to the f leader list.

[Calogepro]

So there isn't 1 official faction leader per faction anymore, just invited instant as soon as t0 ?f There should be some difference I think

if your forum accounts is sticked along with your sa-mp.im account=if you're t0 you get auto added to the f leader list.

I get that, but being a t0 doesn't automatically mean you should be an official factionleader in my opinion.

[Giovanni_C]

blame woot n k3 :p
they think this is better but actually is getting fucked up.example if ur newbie you cant know who is f leader :p

[Chucky]

I personally believe that a T0 should be invited in the "Faction Leader" section. Having the forum name doesn't originally make them THE faction leader. Kudos for this update

[Calogepro]

I personally believe that a T0 should be invited in the "Faction Leader" section. Having the forum name doesn't originally make them THE faction leader. Kudos for this update

I agree with that, but it should be posted somewhere who's the official ''1st'' faction leader and who is not.

[Chucky]

I personally believe that a T0 should be invited in the "Faction Leader" section. Having the forum name doesn't originally make them THE faction leader. Kudos for this update

I agree with that, but it should be posted somewhere who's the official ''1st'' faction leader and who is not.

Or maybe have an "OG" tag by the list on the redirection provided by k3l.
I agreed with this cuz I remember the tension of having the main T0, having to say each and everything to the other t0 and the other t0 sharing the things with his t1's etc. It's just easier now, an OG tag would help define who is the main leader.

[Oak]

This could be all sorted out by adding "tiers" on groups. For example, instead of SASF & PD having 50 groups, they'd have 1 group, and subgroups to depict the inner rankings, the same for illegals. Then Sub forums within faction forums for the different "tiers" (hence nullifying the "trust" problem).

This could also be used on the faction leaders, all T0 get into the faction leader usergroup, but only the manually added get T0 & green name

[Alsarty]

woot enable changing forum account pls

wtf i got my account binded to an oldie.acc

pls..

[K3]

This could be all sorted out by adding "tiers" on groups. For example, instead of SASF & PD having 50 groups, they'd have 1 group, and subgroups to depict the inner rankings, the same for illegals. Then Sub forums within faction forums for the different "tiers" (hence nullifying the "trust" problem).

This could also be used on the faction leaders, all T0 get into the faction leader usergroup, but only the manually added get T0 & green name

That would be too complicated to script.
SASF works very well with how it's set up now.

PD uses a separate forum despite me telling them not to, but that's Bill's decision.. Apparently.

[Oak]

This could be all sorted out by adding "tiers" on groups. For example, instead of SASF & PD having 50 groups, they'd have 1 group, and subgroups to depict the inner rankings, the same for illegals. Then Sub forums within faction forums for the different "tiers" (hence nullifying the "trust" problem).

This could also be used on the faction leaders, all T0 get into the faction leader usergroup, but only the manually added get T0 & green name

That would be too complicated to script.
SASF works very well with how it's set up now.

PD uses a separate forum despite me telling them not to, but that's Bill's decision.. Apparently.

Well, Yes, but if everyone would take the same system as SASF then there'd be way too many groups, that's why I mentioned SASF, no offense intended

[Chucky]

This could be all sorted out by adding "tiers" on groups. For example, instead of SASF & PD having 50 groups, they'd have 1 group, and subgroups to depict the inner rankings, the same for illegals. Then Sub forums within faction forums for the different "tiers" (hence nullifying the "trust" problem).

This could also be used on the faction leaders, all T0 get into the faction leader usergroup, but only the manually added get T0 & green name

That would be too complicated to script.
SASF works very well with how it's set up now.

PD uses a separate forum despite me telling them not to, but that's Bill's decision.. Apparently.

Well, Yes, but if everyone would take the same system as SASF then there'd be way too many groups, that's why I mentioned SASF, no offense intended

I believe SASF only has 2 groups, which wouldn't be a lot if 2 groups are there for each and every faction. Large server, large player base, large groups c:

[K3]

This could be all sorted out by adding "tiers" on groups. For example, instead of SASF & PD having 50 groups, they'd have 1 group, and subgroups to depict the inner rankings, the same for illegals. Then Sub forums within faction forums for the different "tiers" (hence nullifying the "trust" problem).

This could also be used on the faction leaders, all T0 get into the faction leader usergroup, but only the manually added get T0 & green name

That would be too complicated to script.
SASF works very well with how it's set up now.

PD uses a separate forum despite me telling them not to, but that's Bill's decision.. Apparently.

Well, Yes, but if everyone would take the same system as SASF then there'd be way too many groups, that's why I mentioned SASF, no offense intended

There are three groups. And I don't really see what the problem is in having an amount of groups available to moderate a faction.
Factions such as SASF and SAPD require a complex structure to function properly. The groups do no harm to anyone, and there's no limit to groups.

Please explain to me why you think it's 'too many'?

[Oak]

What I meant was, due to the complaints in earlier posts regarding the automatic sync, every faction could be like PD/SASF who have different groups (and as such prenting tier 3s from reading the most 'intimate' sections, as they wouldn't be part of that group). But then if every faction would have 2/3 groups, there would become a huge number of groups (and that's what I meant by too many), and rather than creating new groups, each group could have "group tiers" or "sub groups", in which case, it could apply to all factions. For example:

SASF has 3 groups, The Command (TC from now on), The Enlisted (TE from now on) and the NCO
Leone has 1 group, Leone.

My proposal would be SASF having only one group, with 3 subgroups, the TC, TE and NCO.
and Leone having only one group aswell, the Leaders, the "insert" and the "rest".

And this could also be applied to the Faction Leader usergroup:

Code: Select all

Faction Leader Group Leader
|
Actual Faction Leaders (would get green name)
|
Tier 0s that aren't the Leader (wouldn't get green name)

But, this is merely a proposal regarding the issues raised by others.

[K3]

Well, that would require a whole lot of coding to make. It's easier as it is now, and I'm certain mafias will figure thing out.
And if woot implements what was proposed by me, and others, earlier on it will be solved pretty soon.