🤷‍♂️ Secondary GMs can....

Should secondary GMs have the same game rights as primary GMs?

Should secondary GMs be able to make someone else a GM?
Can they toggle whether a game is open to applications?
Can they retire a game?
Make a game public?

It seems that I've seen a few requests to extend secondary GM functionality (never reduce it). My impression is that secondary GMs tend to be used when the main GM leaves - so they should have the same rights to manage the game, right?

Agreed, secondary GMs should just be the same as main GMs, rights-wise

Also agree.

The only thing the secondary GM should not be able to do is change the status of the primary GM.

And even changing the primary is a thing that should maybe be considered if the primary GM has been AWOL for a long time. But removing the primary and fully taking over might best be something they have apply to the admins for, the admins would consider things like if they are a secondary GM (I am not in one game, but would not mind being able to retire the game since the GM has ghosted the site) and how long the primary has been absent vs how long they have been on the site.

I've thought about that but honestly, I'd just give the 2GM full rights. If they act in bad faith, kick out the primary GM and retire the game, then the 1GM can always contact the mods and have Keleth fix it. But realistically, how often is that going to happen? You don't make someone GM unless you trust them enough for that.

It only has to happen once. Then it is a big problem.

It is a common idiom to have distinguish 'Owner' from 'GM'. The GMs get all the expected privileges except the ability affect the Owner.

Trust is a tricky thing and I fear if people had to worry about pissing off fellow player at the wrong time and getting booted from their own game there would be much more hesitancy about using this feature.

We don't know each other nearly as well as we think we do.

I cant imagine it happening really. To me the benefits of just giving 2GMs all privileges seem to outweigh that small, theoretical risk.
But let's see the others' opinions

I don't think it's just the risk - it's also the perception of risk that VagueGM is highlighting. I don't know either, but it would be interesting to see what the others think.

Do people even know that 2GMs cant do that now? I certainly didn't until I tried to retire a game yesterday.

Is the perception an issue if people don't perceive?

I think the 2 GMs should have the same rights. It seems like adding different rules for a second GM is a solution to a problem that doesn't yet exist.

While it could happen that a secondary GM and a primary end up in a tiff and something happens but I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Your and Keleth's plates seem full enough as it is to worry about solving problems that haven't occurred yet.

Players have expressed concerns about what the secondary GMs can do. Unless we can reassure them that system does not allow abuse they will be hesitant to use it. And rightly so.

Hm, interesting.
I was only ever frustrated that 2GMs can't do enough. Why would you give someone those rights at all if you think they can abuse them? A 2GM can already delete all threads, which I think is the only irreversible thing they could do even with all rights.
Seems silly to worry about that

Trust is a spectrum.

And it would be nice if the GM/Owner could set granular permissions on what the secondary can can can't do. I think the secondary GM bypasses all the ACLs which is a problem (one for v2, though?).

I have specifically been asked "can they kick me from my game". So that has been the primary concern.

As you say though, bowl, since they can delete everything, it may be a bit moot. But there is a (small) world of difference between a single click to to kick the main GM (to take over) and the amount of work needed to delete everything out of spite.

My advice, so far, has been "assume they can do everything, so you have to trust them completely". Mentioning that they can also delete all the posts/threads will not serve to reassure people about the feature.

We're trying to distinguish a third layer: Owner, Admin, Numptie. Is the solution to make it possible for the original GM to promote the secondary GM to Owner status OR just Admin/co-GM? Seems wide-reaching and may be difficult to code, but that is the solution. Give the Owner the right to transfer/share full ownership, or maintain it exclusively but promote a numptie to the secondary GM rights only.

It works like that in a lot of operating systems, doesn't it? You've got your admins, below them are power users, and below them are the unwashed masses (users)? That seems like a good idea. You can only promote or demote your rank or lower. Each rank has certain things it can and cannot do. Admins (primary GMs) can do anything as normal, power users (secondary GMs) can do anything except invite or kick members, users are just players as normal.

I see no value in this for the purposes of running a game. But if that's what the majority wants, it's not a hill I'm going to die on

It's mainly an idea of power structure to maintain control of something. If it's YOUR game but you want help, how do you make sure you get the help you want without someone utterly taking over without your input? No different than admins with mods underneath and users below that.

Though, as mentioned above, if any of the categories can delete all the posts, and there is no way for the owner to get them back (without asking the admins to restore the database from backups /urgh) then we can not really offer any protection.

While we can limit who can delete with the ACLs in the ACP, I wonder what value a secondary GM brings if they can not delete or edit.

I know Keleth is talking about a better ACL system for v2, maybe what we have now is good enough... for now?

Except the scale. This is a game,not something big and overwhelming. And having that intermediate level is just not needed. It only leads to problems. Like, the main thing being an additional GM is good for is to take over when the main GM leaves. Can't do that as 2GM because you still don't have all the rights you need, so we're back at the original problem we were trying to fix.
And honestly, I find this whole idea ridiculous. I can literally not imagine a situation where you would invite someone to your game, trust them enough to make them even secondary GM and then they just decide to kick you from the game.
And even if we concede this point, it's still moot because they can already delete everything. Kicking the GM or retiring the game can easily be fixed by Keleth. I don't know if deleting threads can. It's like giving little Timmy a loaded gun to play with but then saying it's too dangerous to also let him have a knife.

---

If you really want protection for the "owner" of the game, just make it so that GMs cannot be kicked or demoted except by Keleth, they can only retire or leave the game. That way you have all the protection without any of the problems that come with creating this pointless third level inbetween

I'm a little unsure what ACL and ACP mean. I assume the permissions that GMs can alter within the forum settings.

I could see the wisdom in disallowing a secondary GM to alter or delete a post, but then it forces the primary to do it themselves, which could be problematic.

As mentioned before, trust is a spectrum, so is it possible secondary GM permissions could be as well? Is it possible to give granular permissions to a GM in the same way we can do it within subforums for players?