Pay to change Group founder
tracked
Sasy Scarborough
many times a founder can leave Second Life and the group can continue without them, but the history of that founder can create confusion in the following decades.
If you have an owner title and are the only one or a ticket can be submitted with all owners agreeing and a small token fee charged like $10.00 then this could clean up a lot of things and stop the need for opening new groups for the same people.
Log In
Darling Brody
I would support this if the group founder was given the ability to pass their status to another person in a similar way to how we partner in SL, with someone offering and the other person accepting, but I do not support removing a group founder without their consent beacuse this is open to abuse.
Prokofy Neva
This is vital. I have my own old alts that I can't retrieve now as founders of groups and then no ability to create other owners, only officers with powers in the group. In one case, I finally pushed through a help ticket to retrieve an ancient founder who had US $1000 worth of Lindens on his account (!) but also owed that much in back tier. Finally I was able to fix up the land and permissions with that revived alt. But the "all owners agreeing" part seems problematic as some of them will be dead in RL or MIA or old, irretrievable alts. I think we should be able to petition Lindens to consider these cases and indicate the viable group officers in agreement.
Dictatorshop Resident
I like the idea of losing the founder and instead allow group owner(s) to specify the main group contact.
Spidey Linden
tracked
Issue accepted. We have no estimate when it may be implemented. Please see future release notes for this fix.
Silverdown Seetan
I think it be more benefical to actually get rid of the founder label, I personally just never understood it. In most cases, just checking charter can guide you to who to contact. If its a store or buisness, its usually very clear who owns it, just check who your paying (even if its a buisness alt, it usually says who to contact) :D haha
Sasy Scarborough
Silverdown Seetan: I thought the same after :) it should just go away...Linden can just keep it on file, or it can be in the archives of the group somehow.
Sasy Scarborough
I really need to stop suggesting fees, for some reason those tickets get locked down from editing :P.
Another scenario is not just owner has left, but that owner no longer wants to manage the group in any way, so they could themselves make the request. Or they made the group with one account years ago, and now find that it would be best to have the group founder as a management account etc. Again they would be the actual founder just not want that name listed.
Gwyneth Llewelyn
While Crush Cutie's argument is legitimate and valid, there is also the reverse issue to deal with: lots and lots of unmanaged groups out there, simply because they attracted a reasonable crowd back then, but the founder/owner left... and nobody around still has permissions to either change anything, or, worse, close the group down.
Note that the "automatic" group shutdown if it has less than X members (3 I believe) happens only in extremely rare cases (very small groups where the owners have
deleted
their accounts), since, given a few years, there will always
be a handful of perfectly harmless, inactive users listed there, thus maintaining the existence of the group for an eternity.(Speaking as a maintainer of a handful of such "zombie groups", I speak from experience... some of the group members are known to me personally iRL, and I'm very well aware that they left SL over a decade ago, and even if they wanted to come back just to remove themselves from the group, they have long forgotten not only the password, but the email they've registered with...)
There could be a mechanism to minimise "hostile takeovers", e.g. LL informing the founder that they have 30 days to refuse to be replaced (by clicking somewhere or replying to an email). This would be quite effective from the simple reason that the technical definition of "being an active user" means, for most platforms and environments, "logging in at least once per month".
Really, if you're
not
logging in regularly, what's the point of wishing to claim to be a "group founder", if you're not that interested in SL anyway? (But I'm just offering my opinion here, I understand that others might view the issue quite differently!)Crush Cutie
Gwyneth Llewelyn: There are also IP issues that could be totally invisible to anyone in SL or support.
Groups almost always start out tied to locations or brands, something any new owner will likely have no claim to at all.
A email from LL saying "you have 30 says to reject this other users hostile take over of your social group and related named IP" is not a basis that would absolve LL of any follow up disputes.
"You don't appear to be using this, mine now." is not how any of this works.
Kadah Coba
Group founder no longer wants to be such and wishes to transfer that to somebody else. That should be a thing.
Taking over a group cause the founder went away? Not sure how I feel on that. Could be abused but there are a lot of groups where the person that started it over 15 years ago hasn't logged in for many years. Maybe restricted to existing owners with the qualifier that the founder hasn't been online in over a year or something longer with a 30-60 notification period.
Crush Cutie
How can it be verified by LL that someone has actually "left SL" and has no interest in future use of a group they created ?
This seems like a great way to hostile takeover a group behind someone's back.