Make "Unbrand" a seperate permission, or tie it to May Manage permission

[Ryshad 26]

Related to:

 http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/132744-cant-ride-branded-horse-as-villager/ 

and a little related to:

http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/132784-allow-us-to-set-default-permissions-for-all-newly-branded-animals/

 

Currently, if a citizen has the Brand permission, but no Mount/Manage permissions to an animal, they can simply unbrand it, erasing all permissions; this seems counter intuitive.

 

I think the permissions either need to be separated in the roles management (eg Brand and Unbrand as separate permissions), or make the Unbrand option usable only by players who have manage permissions on the animal (via "May Manage" or "Manage Allowed Objects").

 

 

[Aeryck 733]

I think the real issue is like you said in your OP; mayor or official with manage roles must be present. If you share a village there is only so much you can do for security with permissions and at some point you have to rely on trust, or just wait for your mayor to come online. This is probably the number one reason people don't share villages; having permissions for EVERYTHING is just too complicated.

[Ryshad 26]

The issue here is more to do with the conflicting permissions. As it stands, when an animal is branded, the deed becomes the owner and decides who can ride/manage the horse. I want my citizens to be able to protect their horses so I give them all brand permissions.

So citizen A brands his horse and I hop online and set the permissions, for private horses that might mean only they have ride/manage permissions. However, along comes citizen B - he too has brand permissions, but doesn't have Manage Allowed Objects. According to the permissions on the horse, Citizen B cannot manage or ride the animal and Deed permissions don't grant him the right to manage it either. But Citizen B can Unbrand the animal, deleting all of the other permissions and then ride off on the horse. 

 

To me, it doesn't seem right that one permission can circumvent several others, especially as the permission isn't a "management" permission.

 

tl;dr - It's the equivalent to the "Attach Locks" permission allowing citizens to unlock a house they have no permissions to enter/manage; seems counter intuitive.

[Aeryck 733]

So don't allow branding. Mayor must brand and manage all permissions.

[Tich 1388]

Would it make sense for the brander, to be automatically added with all permissions of that animal?

[Anarres 237]

Would it make sense for the brander, to be automatically added with all permissions of that animal?

 

Yes, if you mean when you brand, then it adds permissions for the deed/mayor on the animal, but also it keeps all permissions to manage/ride/equip for the player who branded.

 

It's the correct behavior. It doesn't make sense to let them brand in order to lose their own use of the horse, as I noted in the linked bug report as well.

 

 

Edit: this suggestion is on the other half of the issue, unbrand linked to brand acts to cancel all permissions on the horse, to take away the animal from deed. So did I understand you correctly above, or did you mean something else?

Edited October 24, 2015 by Anarres

[Ohana 808]

Would it make sense for the brander, to be automatically added with all permissions of that animal?

Yes I think that would be great.

I also agree that unbrand should be a seperate permission in roles.