Shared Server Ownership

[alzalia1]

Note

Another discussion, #286 , talks about a similar problem, but the solutions we propose are somewhat different, although not exclusive. I did not see any other discussion mentionning that subject.

TL;DR: Add the ability to share the ownership between multitple people, mainly for communities that suffer from abusive owner and end up destroyed by them.

---

Hi.

So, this is an idea I've had for a while. Have you ever been in the server of a community without a defined "leader", or maybe a RP about democracy, or wathever ? On discord, and so revolt, there is always only one owner for a server. That can lead to many problems, if the said owner can't let go of his role, decides to go crazy and downrole everyone, etc. This can, really, kill a server, and it's kinda sad.

So, what is my proposal ? It would be that "owner" is not a status, but a "special role". I have thought a bit about it, and it would go like that :

• The role has a "seat limit"
  • By default, for any server, the seat number is 1, and occupied by the server owner. This is fine for most servers.
  • The owner can then decide to raise the number of seats. By doing so, it must be very clear to the owner that every other person with the role will have the exact same legitimacy as him, and power.
• Things are decided by votes
  • Starting from the moment there is more than 1 seat occupied, multiple decisions must go through a vote :
    1. The decision to change the number of seats
       • To raise it, there needs to be the decided majority
       • To lower it, there need to be the decided majority and the removed seats need to be empty (of course)
    2. The decision to change the required majority
       • By default, 50% of the votes would be required to make a vote valid, but that could be raised (and maybe lowered ? but I think a floor like 40% would be important to avoid troubles)
    3. Managing owners
       • Adding an owner needs the decided majority, and an empty seat
       • Removing needs the decided majority
    4. Deleting the server
       • Deleting the server is quite the operation. I think it could probably need like 85% of the votes or the decided majority if it higher. (So if the decided majority is 65%, you would need 85% to delete the server, but if the decided majority is 95%, then you would need 95% of the votes to delete).
    5. Adding a protection
       • Additionnal protections could be available and activated by default to avoid the server falling in the wrong hands, such as :
         • If less than the decided majority of seats are occupied, no other decision than "adding an owner" can be made. So, for example, is the decided majority is 65%, 10 seats are available, and only 6 of them are occupied, then it is not possible to vote anything other than "adding a new owner". When 7 seats are occupied, tho, only 5 votes are required to, for example, lower the number of seats. This would allow to avoid the situation where one person slowly eliminates everyone until only he·r remains and has access to full powers
         • Permanently floor the number of seats to 2 or 3. That way, no matter what happens, there will always be multiple seats available. Combined with the precedent option, it would make it literaly impossible for one person to take control of a server.
  • If the owner is alone (either because there is only one seat, or because there is no one left other than him), then the aformentioned decisions can be made without a vote.

I believe all those rules would allow for a truly fantastic way of managing a server. In no way does it take away the current way things work (one person can still very much be the only owner, and have full powers hover their server), but it would also unlock much more democratic communities !

I must admit : I have no idea how Revolt is coded, and how that could me implemented. I suppose this is quite the functionnality to implement, because it means rewriting all the ownership system. I'm honestly not expecting a feature of the sort in a long time, there are much more important subjects in the meantime. But I truly think this could be an amazing thing to have in the absolute !

Thanks for reading my proposal, and sorry for the wacky english : it's not my mothertongue ^^

[IAmTomahawkx]

This sounds extremely cumbersome to implement for a fairly niche usecase.

[alzalia1]

I don't know if it would be that niche, but I absolutely see how this is a massive thing to do. I'm just throwing an idea out in the wild, I hardly thought it would ever be made, but I mean, who doesn't try doesn't win right X)

[DeclanChidlow]

I can also see this being an issue from a support perspective. "Hey, One of my co-owners went rouge and destroyed the sever. Help please?".

[alzalia1]

True. But right now, the communities I'm on that try to be somewhat democratic have the same problems of someone trusted becoming owner and just deleting the server...

But yeah, I understand that this feature has a really bad cost-benefit ratio 😅