Suggestion: Using Access Lists in Access Lists
Keywords: ui, access control, access lists
Note: Directors and CEOs already have a lot of things to do with our limited game time. Please help us by making ACL maintenance both easier and more central in controlling accesses to the various aspects of the life of a corp.
The maintenance of access lists is much cumbersome. I have to manually add EACH directors, diplos, officers and their alts to EACH the relevant access lists they need to be able to manage in order to operate.
We are a small corp and yet it already feels like a no-brainer that i should be able to setup an access list such as “directors and their alts” and include this access list as the list of managers to the saveral access lists we actually use in order to control various structure usage restrictions.
Granting access and management of in-game chat channels, poco taxes, standings, corp roles/titles, as well as other various stuff would also be a great qol upgrade as has been mentioned quite a lot already.
Just consider how various lists of players for different kind of functionnalities are handled in a diversity of ways when ACL have the potential to keep everything clearly organized, in one place, and on a homogeneous ground of functionnality.
Lets see a practical example :
ACL “CEO and her alts” :
ACL “Directors and their alts” :
Grants director roles for corporation management, and most ACLs management rights
ACL “Officers and their alts” :
Grants Officer roles for corporation management such as srp and stuff
- Managers :
- ACL “Directors and their Alts”
- Members :
ACL “Diplos and their alts” :
Grants manager rights to ACLs that diplos need in order to operate
- ACL “Directors and their alts”
ACL “Members, alts and alt corps” :
Provides structures access, +10 standing, private chat channels access, and most structure services.
- ACL “Officers and their alts”
ACL “Temporary Blues” :
Provides +5 standing, access to structures and some structures services such as market.
- Managers :
- ACL “Diplo and their alts”
- Members :
- Corp “these guys who are helping”
Of course this is a simplistic and incomplete example in which complexity mainly stems from the intent of granting accesses to alts without having to manipulate every ACL whenever someone get promoted, demoted or creates and alt or something…
Now yes, using ACLs this way would require the creation and maintenance of a largeer number of ACL than are now required to achieve the same thing.
However i argue that this larger amount of ACLs to manage would actually make them easier to maintain.
Moreover, the overall spirit of such a change would fit in the continuation of that of the introduction of ACLs, just making them more powerful.
Just see how the number of managers in most ACLs is just 1 : the ACL of managers of that list that just happens to also be the ACL of managers of other lists as well, or the list of people who benefit from specific accesses or control over several stuff that this corp uses to function, factorizing redundancy across many areas of the game that use access control in general.
I understand that issues may arise from allowing loops to form that may include contradictory semantics. But you do not have to resolve automatically those that are really hard to solve without knowledge of the intent of the user.
Just make it clear what causes that conflict and why, and let the user figure out how to fix it. It really doesnt sound that hard…
an alterenative way of solving this would be to allow third party tools to modify ACLs via ESI so that we can do this for you if you think its too hard or not worth the effort.