Community Ownership Is Now Managed at the Community Level

This topic was automatically opened after 11 minutes.

I feel like this is another one of those pointless updates that could create confusion during the development process. A lot of older scripts and code are usually hardcoded to recognize rank (id) 255 as the group owner. If any role can now have that rank (id), older scripts could break if community

Seems unnecessary. How would we get the rank ID for 2 now? Edit: nevermind, Rank 255 still exists. I get this is for UI, but this still doesn’t feel right. Plus, can you even change the Owner name? I liked mine showing “Founder” instead of “Owner”.

Is there any possibility we can get Communities to own other communities in the future? Also, will the Owner still be shown under the community’s page? image 587×239 28.7 KB

AlteraDev: You also seem to forget that users want to be able to identify the owner quickly, which is done either by looking at the “By [name]” idelww: Also, will the Owner still be shown under the community’s page? This is not going away. I apologize if that was your takeaway from this post! The on

AlteraDev: A lot of older scripts and code are usually hardcoded to recognize rank (id) 255 as the group owner. If any role can now have that rank (id), older scripts could break if community owners don’t take proper precautions before assigning really high rank (ids) to their roles. Lulubulutagoo:

We hear the feedback! This change is primarily to prepare for some upcoming simplifications and improvements to role/permission management. We’ll share more on that in about a month. We understand there’s a shift here in how to check ownership. We need to make this change eventually – the old rank-b

There can be a point, which is when you want to display multiple people owning a community instead of 1 above the other (ex: cofounders). It also allows for a separate owner, such as a holding account, to be the actual owner but display the owning accounts as at the top.

Yes, this was one of the considerations as well in terms of use case unlocks. That being said, the group page would still show “By [singular name]”, but I think it still improves upon that case a bit.

idelww: Is there any possibility we can get Communities to own other communities in the future? I’m still wondering about this too. It was on the roadmap for a time but it kept getting pushed back until it fell off the roadmap entirely. I still hope this can be implemented in some form!

Since rank 255 will be able to be repurposed from owner status, maybe the max value for rank changes should be clamped at 254 to prevent people from accidentally shooting themselves in the foot when using outdated third party code. I’m not sure how likely this is to happen, but I can imagine someone

idelww: Is there any possibility we can get Communities to own other communities in the future? Scorch: I’m still wondering about this too. It was on the roadmap for a time but it kept getting pushed back until it fell off the roadmap entirely. I still hope this can be implemented in some form! Yeah

That feature would have been tremendously helpful for Ro-Nations and other roleplay communities. Where you have the “main” Group and then sub-groups for things like police departments, military branches, media outlets, etc. Being able to consolidate everything under one umbrella. I don’t know why it

I think, something that could help, with having different studios working on games under the same publisher, would be allowing community owners to clone their community. This would cost 100 robux, similar to creating a community, but basically allow users to clone one of their already owned communit

XenoSynthesis: Where you have the “main” Group and then sub-groups for things like police departments, military branches, media outlets, etc. My main use case is something along the lines of this. Not for Ro-Nations specifically, but for science-fiction communities like Pinewood Builders where there

idelww: and speaking of all this community stuff, would be really HUGE, if developers were given the option to join over 100 communities like when they increased the friend limit from 200 to 1,000! really looking forward to seeing an increased group join limit

It would be interesting to see in the future a system where communities can be “owned” by a legal entity or business rather than being directly tied to a single user, and in general move towards a model where a business itself is the top-level entity of all its assets; communities, ad accounts, expe

Lulubulutagoo: Today, many Communities show the Owner role at rank 255 as if it were a standard configurable role. That creates confusion because ownership is unique and shouldn’t be assigned, removed, or managed like a regular role. No it doesn’t. Nobody has ever said they were confused by this. Yo

It really feels like most of the people in here complaining really do not understand what this update is, nothing is changing to existing groups and from now on the Owner role is just an optional role the same as every other role in a group