+1

Yes please, I would love this capability. And, I think it would encourage more groups to offer this service. Thanks!

~Land Pirate Maylan~

From a technical standpoint, there is a way we can do this. As GMs, we can add/remove from an MHO's endowment (or a CHE's endowment/acct). However, it's putting some extra steps on us versus on you guys (we have to verify you are an officer in that MHO, we need to check that MHO's balance, and then we can withdraw the silvers). The way it exists now, you use your own silvers, then figure out internally how to get reimbursed. Obviously for CHEs this is a bit easier, because they have an account they can withdraw from for these purposes, but MHOs do not.

My thought on how it would need to be implemented and my rationale in brackets after each one.

1. There is no "opt in/opt out" -- all MHOs can do this [otherwise, we would have to track somewhere which MHOs said to allow it or said not to allow it, etc.]

2. Any officer in the MHO can authorize the withdrawal [same reason as above. We need to be able to just check if a PC is an officer in an MHO, not negotiate a whole tracking system]

3. It must be for the entire chosen group at the merchant (not just for one or two people). If it's a "pick one at a time," then it would need to be like "we'll pay for the first x #" so we can calculate and withdraw in advance. [Reduces potential for abuse to just use to cover one's own friends/other characters]

4. It must be publicly announced by the merchant that the services have been paid in advance by the MHO in question [I see this again as a potential abuse reducer -- it's transparent a group is doing it, they get the awesome credit for doing it, and if for some reason it's a bunch of alts, others there will be able to let the GM know so I can review]

5. It must be optional for the GM merchant -- if they aren't comfortable or don't want to do it, they don't and should not be hassled about it [Merchanting is insanely stressful for a lot of people. We're tracking a ton of different things already, so if someone isn't comfortable with touching the MHO commands to figure out all the advanced stuff needed, they shouldn't have to]

Downsides to this:
* If an MHO doesn't want to do this, but an officer authorizes it, there may be some internal strife since on the GM side, we're going to assume any officer is allowed to do this

* A few extra steps on the front end for a merchant, using some stuff that not everyone will be really familiar or comfortable with.

Next Steps
Review the above, let me know your thoughts, other ideas, etc. If we can get some sort of general happiness with the ideas, then I will draft up a more formal proposal and review it with senior staff to see what they think. I make no promises that it will be allowed, but we will review it.


--Xynwen--
World Team, MHO GM
>Emails for MHO business should go to GS4-MHO@PLAY.NET
"My real name is Mephistopheles, but you can call me baby"

Hi Xynwen, you knocked it out of the park! I also think these restrictions and boundaries are acceptable and greatly appreciate your willingness to help us explore the opportunity. Thinking ahead if this gets approved - MHOs would probably request enough time to reconsider their officer structure for risk mitigation purposes in advance of the go-live date.

Thanks!!

---

Some lady softly says, "Naamit is over-rated."
You reply, speaking to the lady, "At least I have ratings."

So if I'm hearing correctly, there's no way to limit the privilege to 1-2 people per MHO/CHE.

I'm sure there's also no easy way to set up a separate fund for each group called a Merchant Fund, so that members who contribute to it, KNOW it will be used for exactly this purpose (?) which would be ideal IMO.

- - -

I was there, a day or two ago, at one merchant session where MHOs/CHEs seemed to be sponsoring a few rounds of spins. It was fun. I do like the idea of giving merchants permission to use groups' endowment funds in such a way.

As for trust and the potential for officer abuse, I'm not worried much about LDI because I trust our other officers more than I even trust myself (to remember things, to generally not screw up things, etc).

- - -

But I do share the concern about the potential for problems:

A. a well-meaning officer offers to pay for services for a room and WOOPS there went the endowment because they either didn't realize there were other projects ahead that required the endowment funds, or they miscalculated (I could see myself being this guy who miscalculates). :x

B. an officer abuses the system in ways Xynwen already mentioned. I remember in one group before, an officer abused their privileges. Thankfully it doesn't happen often, but when it happens, it leaves a really sad (and potentially broke) group behind.

Thanks for this good thought, Naamit. I hope something can be worked out!!

Terabor
Staff Sergeant, Landing Defense Irregulars

"there's no way to limit the privilege to 1-2 people per MHO/CHE." -- Cadbury

Have only one or two officers.

.

But it sounds like the system-side stipulation is, "All Officers Get The Ability."

This sounds like an excellent system, and all the points raised seem more than fair. If a CHE/MHO is not confident in the abilities of their officers to represent both the CHE/MHO and its finances, then that person shouldn't be an officer to begin with.

- EK

>You now regard Eorgina with a warm demeanor.

>Any update on this, Xynwen? Would love to see this put into play.

None yet. It's on the list though!

--Xynwen--
World Team, MHO GM
>Emails for MHO business should go to GS4-MHO@PLAY.NET
"My real name is Mephistopheles, but you can call me baby"