Guild Harvest Box

[Mikai]

I don't know if this  is the place to post this.  Seeing as how it pertains to my guild's harvesters and crafters, and having seen Domino personally get involved when an issue needed to be addressed, i figured this might be the most likely place to post to have something done.

So, a little story first.  My guild is a casual guild.  We don't let just anyone in our guild, but we are not overly strict either.  Upon meeting our requirements, a new recruit is on probation for 2 weeks.  However, we still wish to extend the benefit of our guild hall to them.  this includes our harvest box.  We had a new member join who seemed like a cool guy when we talked to him.  Aside from being unable to makeup his mind as to what toon he wanted to play, he seemed very nice.  Fast forward a week and a half and we're unable to keep roots stocked.  I figured for a guild of 140, many crafters, it's entirely possible we crafted our way through them.  I brought it up with the guild, we all harvested and replenished.  the next day, I go to make some gear for a guildie and it says the imbue mats (of which we previously had 125 or so) are gone.  A little investigation revealed who was responsible and he was booted.  again, this guy seemed cool, and by then had been promoted to member.

We were, of course, perturbed not only that someone could be so crass, but also that SOE does not currently give us the tools to protect ourselves in this manner.  Unfortunately, one of our recruiters (of which we have few) unwittingly reinvited him on an alt.  I removed him as soon as possible, but in the ten minutes that he had been in the guild, he manaaged to deplete our box of all our roots, ore, and imbue mats, roughly 30 stacks (harvest box stacks, not inventory box stacks).

Now, I don't wish to be the umpteenth person to whine about this.  I am livid that this happened.  SOE I'm sure will try and tell us it's our fault.  However, I postulate that if SOE gave us the ability to prevent this, we could have. any of the following would be ways to help in this matter.  As it stands, we got gipped because we wanted our guildies to use an amenity we have.  SOE has to give us guild leaders teh ability to do something about this stuff or how can it possibly be our fault when some jack*** decides to take advantage of any guild with a harvest box

1.  Only trustees should be able to remove stacks from the box.  Anyone else should be able to only use items while crafting.

2. Implement some sort of logging.  I understand that would be semi-difficult, but the abiliity to see who deposits and withdraws at least, using is nto a huge issue, because that's what it's there for.

3.  All of the above.  Honestly, I see no reason both couldn't be implemented.  I would settle for number 1, but i don't see why we can't have loggin as well when it's really no different than a bank.

Incidently, after being kicked, he informed me that it was revenge for killing them (pvp server).  He also opened a trade window with me with 22p claimint that that wasn't even half..........We've stopped recruiting and limited our probationary members severly in how much of the guild hall they can use.  I hate doing it because of this drain on society, but we have little choice.  SOE depends on guilds for their game to survive, so why not give us the tools to manage our guild like we need to.

[zaneluke]

I 100% agree. I think you should be able to have it set where you can use items while you are crafting. And only those with permissions can withdraw items from it.

[Flame]

Ah the good ol' harvesters box!  We also had a similar problem in our guild with a member.  I petitioned and was informed that the person was a member and therefore there was nothing SOE could do about it.  However, they did say that they are working on getting us some settings for the harvesters box.  /crosses fingers and prays!!  Also, as a guild leader I monitor our gb regularly and check members broker sales.  This way if they are removing items that you know they can't use..ie; a Master 52 Conji spell for a Lvl 25 Guard, and it is on their broker you know they took it to make a personal profit.  I call this stealing and call them on it.  You can attempt to do the same with the harvester box.  However, it is difficult to do since they could have harvested them themselves.  Unless they are T8 harvestables and they are only a lvl 25...lol.  Good Luck and lets all hope for those settings!!

[Sharakari]

Yep.... there are numerous threads about this very topic.  Seems this scenario has happened more times than you would think.  Let's hope they get the fix in soon.

[Mikai]

Flame@The Bazaar wrote:

Ah the good ol' harvesters box!  We also had a similar problem in our guild with a member.  I petitioned and was informed that the person was a member and therefore there was nothing SOE could do about it.  However, they did say that they are working on getting us some settings for the harvesters box.  /crosses fingers and prays!!  Also, as a guild leader I monitor our gb regularly and check members broker sales.  This way if they are removing items that you know they can't use..ie; a Master 52 Conji spell for a Lvl 25 Guard, and it is on their broker you know they took it to make a personal profit.  I call this stealing and call them on it.  You can attempt to do the same with the harvester box.  However, it is difficult to do since they could have harvested them themselves.  Unless they are T8 harvestables and they are only a lvl 25...lol.  Good Luck and lets all hope for those settings!!

In the end, that's about how we found him.  Our sudden lack of sparkling materials caused me to search for them on broker and his name topped the list......with 33 in stock (on a lvl 14 sk....I think not).  Searched him specifically and i couldn't for the life of me figure out how said level 14 sk had over 2000 ferrite clusters......That was enough for me to kick him. 

As a guild leader, I do check the box regularly for this very reason.  Until this (Really wish I could think of an appropriate word for him that SOE will let me put in my reply..../sigh) [Removed for Content] showed up, It wasn't a huge concern.  I mean, 3 months ago, our bank was robbed and we tightened down security a LOT after that.  But there's simply no way to restrict access to the box except to completely DENY access.........Which I have seen other guilds do and it's resulted in a mass exodus.  I won't be doing that to my guildies who have done nothing wrong and have sacrificed immensely to make sure this box stays full.  We did, however, have to deny access to our probationary rank, which even this small measure kills me.

Fact is, the harvest box has been a feature in this game for months, and guild thieves have had that time to take advantage of guilds.  SOE should have come up with  and IMPLEMENTED  a solution by now.

Glad to see, however, that I'm getting some support in this.  I do appreciate it! 

[Tinrae]

I feel that the ability to withdraw without crafting should be based on rank as determined by the guild leader. I want the people who are working Mara & RoK factions to be able to pull mats as they need (the people working those factions are higher ranked members in good standing in our case), so unless there will be additional crafting writ-giver amenities in the foreseeable future I'd rather leave access open. I don't care about having a log, I think access based on rank should suffice. It wouldn't stop all theft but would curb a lot of the abuse.

I too am in a casual, family-style guild with a two-week probabtionary period and such for members. We do take some measures to screen members but this is the internet...no one is who them seem, hehe. Thankfully we haven't had materials go missing and I've been vigilant about fishing out rares and certain imbues from the depot to put in the guild bank.

[Deson]

Kaidia@Nagafen wrote:

Fact is, the harvest box has been a feature in this game for months, and guild thieves have had that time to take advantage of guilds.  SOE should have come up with  and IMPLEMENTED  a solution by now.

Glad to see, however, that I'm getting some support in this.  I do appreciate it! 

While I'm glad they are working on a more robust permissions system(only really necessitated by the guild halls and of unknown difficulty), it really does come down to how lax your own standards are when you get burned. Just about every complaint I've seen so far about both guild banks and harvet depots comes down to people being trusting. When you are so trusting, getting burned comes with the territory. It's unfair to rip SOE when your own trusting nature is a major part of the problem. As it is a social problem at its core, SOE would have had a hard time determining how much focus to devote to it and how exactly any of it would be used in the first place.Coupled with the expansion and the holiday's, it's not unreasonable that it has taken so long to fix a problem that is ultimately social and has the work-around of not being so trusting.

Again, not knocking the suggestion, just noting that ripping someone else for your own low standards is not a good way approach the people you want to help you. It's like ripping the locksmith when you lock yourself out or your keys in.

[Tinrae]

Deson wrote:

While I'm glad they are working on a more robust permissions system(only really necessitated by the guild halls and of unknown difficulty), it really does come down to how lax your own standards are when you get burned. Just about every complaint I've seen so far about both guild banks and harvet depots comes down to people being trusting. When you are so trusting, getting burned comes with the territory. It's unfair to rip SOE when your own trusting nature is a major part of the problem.

So everyone should just stop recruiting players, shut down the harvest depot and deny all access to the guild bank?

I wouldn't stay in a guild that treated its members like criminals.

[Mikai]

Tinrae wrote:

Deson wrote:

While I'm glad they are working on a more robust permissions system(only really necessitated by the guild halls and of unknown difficulty), it really does come down to how lax your own standards are when you get burned. Just about every complaint I've seen so far about both guild banks and harvet depots comes down to people being trusting. When you are so trusting, getting burned comes with the territory. It's unfair to rip SOE when your own trusting nature is a major part of the problem.

So everyone should just stop recruiting players, shut down the harvest depot and deny all access to the guild bank?

I wouldn't stay in a guild that treated its members like criminals.

That's precisely the problem.  We've had someone join our guild, advance in the ranks, earn our trust, and then rip us off.  True, many thieves would be deterred by the limits we've placed, but not all.  This guy indicated that there was more to come (Apparently some bitter rivalry with an opposing guild....I don't even know WHAT guild....) but I'm sure they have the patience to wait the two weeks to become a member and then rip us off.  As Tinrae said earlier, this is the internet and people are not necissarily who they appear to be.

That being said, the only fault I place on SOE is that they do not give us the tools to protect ourselves.  Using your example, The locksmith let us in but didn't give us the key, forcing us to either leave the door unlocked perpetually or lock ourselves out when we leave.

I am grateful that my guild is as understanding in this matter.  We have temporarily stopped recruiting until we are ready to again.  Our probationary members cannot use many amenities, such as the stable hand or mender, because we are limited in our ways to limit access.  Our guild hall is shut out to the public.  All of these things could have been avoided had we had the tools to moderate our box more carefully.  I just want the ability to protect my guild while still allowing new people to earn their way into the fold.

[Deson]

Kaidia@Nagafen wrote:

Tinrae wrote:

Deson wrote:

While I'm glad they are working on a more robust permissions system(only really necessitated by the guild halls and of unknown difficulty), it really does come down to how lax your own standards are when you get burned. Just about every complaint I've seen so far about both guild banks and harvet depots comes down to people being trusting. When you are so trusting, getting burned comes with the territory. It's unfair to rip SOE when your own trusting nature is a major part of the problem.

So everyone should just stop recruiting players, shut down the harvest depot and deny all access to the guild bank?

I wouldn't stay in a guild that treated its members like criminals.

That's precisely the problem.  We've had someone join our guild, advance in the ranks, earn our trust, and then rip us off.  True, many thieves would be deterred by the limits we've placed, but not all.  This guy indicated that there was more to come (Apparently some bitter rivalry with an opposing guild....I don't even know WHAT guild....) but I'm sure they have the patience to wait the two weeks to become a member and then rip us off.  As Tinrae said earlier, this is the internet and people are not necissarily who they appear to be.

That being said, the only fault I place on SOE is that they do not give us the tools to protect ourselves.  Using your example, The locksmith let us in but didn't give us the key, forcing us to either leave the door unlocked perpetually or lock ourselves out when we leave.

I am grateful that my guild is as understanding in this matter.  We have temporarily stopped recruiting until we are ready to again.  Our probationary members cannot use many amenities, such as the stable hand or mender, because we are limited in our ways to limit access.  Our guild hall is shut out to the public.  All of these things could have been avoided had we had the tools to moderate our box more carefully.  I just want the ability to protect my guild while still allowing new people to earn their way into the fold.

You don't have to treat you memebers like criminals  but really, just knowing someone for two weeks and tagging with sensitive access is treating everyone like a friend--expect to get burned.As for the locksmith, you already have a key, you just don't like the way it works.As said, I'm glad SOE is working on newer rules that are more accomodating to the social aspects of the game but it's not fair to rip them when your abundance of trust is at least as much to blame as their rules.I'm not against the change, just the tone.

[Tinrae]

Deson wrote:

You don't have to treat you memebers like criminals  but really, just knowing someone for two weeks and tagging with sensitive access is treating everyone like a friend--expect to get burned.

Our members don't have sensitive access after two weeks. They simply become 'Jr Members' with the ability to withdraw 1 item from the "random crap" tab of the guild bank every 24 hours at that rank. Nothing that will make or break our guild honestly, even if someone decides to slowly drain the crap tab of our guild bank one treasured item at a time. And of course full access to the harvest depot.  The most sensitive access anyone has been granted are the officers and above.

Overall, I don't care for a total lockdown of the harvest depot. I'd simply like a bit more control on who has access.

I sympathize with the OP's plight - it seems as if you have some sort of weird stalker after your guild - but that's an unusual scenario to say the least.

[Mikai]

Deson wrote:

Kaidia@Nagafen wrote:

Tinrae wrote:

Deson wrote:

While I'm glad they are working on a more robust permissions system(only really necessitated by the guild halls and of unknown difficulty), it really does come down to how lax your own standards are when you get burned. Just about every complaint I've seen so far about both guild banks and harvet depots comes down to people being trusting. When you are so trusting, getting burned comes with the territory. It's unfair to rip SOE when your own trusting nature is a major part of the problem.

So everyone should just stop recruiting players, shut down the harvest depot and deny all access to the guild bank?

I wouldn't stay in a guild that treated its members like criminals.

That's precisely the problem.  We've had someone join our guild, advance in the ranks, earn our trust, and then rip us off.  True, many thieves would be deterred by the limits we've placed, but not all.  This guy indicated that there was more to come (Apparently some bitter rivalry with an opposing guild....I don't even know WHAT guild....) but I'm sure they have the patience to wait the two weeks to become a member and then rip us off.  As Tinrae said earlier, this is the internet and people are not necissarily who they appear to be.

That being said, the only fault I place on SOE is that they do not give us the tools to protect ourselves.  Using your example, The locksmith let us in but didn't give us the key, forcing us to either leave the door unlocked perpetually or lock ourselves out when we leave.

I am grateful that my guild is as understanding in this matter.  We have temporarily stopped recruiting until we are ready to again.  Our probationary members cannot use many amenities, such as the stable hand or mender, because we are limited in our ways to limit access.  Our guild hall is shut out to the public.  All of these things could have been avoided had we had the tools to moderate our box more carefully.  I just want the ability to protect my guild while still allowing new people to earn their way into the fold.

You don't have to treat you memebers like criminals  but really, just knowing someone for two weeks and tagging with sensitive access is treating everyone like a friend--expect to get burned.As for the locksmith, you already have a key, you just don't like the way it works.As said, I'm glad SOE is working on newer rules that are more accomodating to the social aspects of the game but it's not fair to rip them when your abundance of trust is at least as much to blame as their rules.I'm not against the change, just the tone.

And i'm sure in my shoes, you'd feel the same way...  For petes sake, the only access levels there are are "Sensitive" and NONE.  This is what we have set up right now (by all means, give your two cents on our set up)

Trustee - Officers/Leaders. 

Friend - All but the lowest rank - Access to all amenities

Visitor (Mind you the game doesn't differentiate between guildied and unguildied visitors) - Recruits....Access to amenities that CAN NOT be restricted and druid portal only.  This is a recent change....effected by this theft.  Probationary members can no longer access (for with drawl or depost) the harvest box, mender, vendor, any merchant, writ giver........Currently, if a recruit (and this has been the case prior to the theft) is inactive for 10 days (with a consideration for promtion at 14 days) they are immediately booted.  Members inactive for 30 days are removed. 

All I'm saying is when the choice is NO access or All access, there are going to be problems.  Someone can seem to be a cool guy (as was the case here) and gain our trust only to wreck it.  If our choice is between denying everyone access or waiting until someone earns our trust only to sabotage it, why even have the box?  Eventually, if this doesn't get fixed, it will happen again.  Eventually, some long established member may get [Removed for Content] at us, rob the box, then leave.  This is not simply a matter of us being to trusting.

[Finora]

Deson wrote:

While I'm glad they are working on a more robust permissions system(only really necessitated by the guild halls and of unknown difficulty), it really does come down to how lax your own standards are when you get burned. Just about every complaint I've seen so far about both guild banks and harvet depots comes down to people being trusting. When you are so trusting, getting burned comes with the territory. It's unfair to rip SOE when your own trusting nature is a major part of the problem. As it is a social problem at its core, SOE would have had a hard time determining how much focus to devote to it and how exactly any of it would be used in the first place.Coupled with the expansion and the holiday's, it's not unreasonable that it has taken so long to fix a problem that is ultimately social and has the work-around of not being so trusting.

Again, not knocking the suggestion, just noting that ripping someone else for your own low standards is not a good way approach the people you want to help you. It's like ripping the locksmith when you lock yourself out or your keys in.

It doesn't necessarily mean people have low standards when they get ripped off like that. Did you hear about the big thing in Eve Online? The liquidation of one of the big boys(band of brothers I believe it was if you want to look it up). The person who did that was a trusted member, a director. Yes the game is WAY different from Eq2 but still. You can get ripped off and stabbed in the back by people who you've known and trusted for years.

[Deson]

Finora@Everfrost wrote:

Deson wrote:

While I'm glad they are working on a more robust permissions system(only really necessitated by the guild halls and of unknown difficulty), it really does come down to how lax your own standards are when you get burned. Just about every complaint I've seen so far about both guild banks and harvet depots comes down to people being trusting. When you are so trusting, getting burned comes with the territory. It's unfair to rip SOE when your own trusting nature is a major part of the problem. As it is a social problem at its core, SOE would have had a hard time determining how much focus to devote to it and how exactly any of it would be used in the first place.Coupled with the expansion and the holiday's, it's not unreasonable that it has taken so long to fix a problem that is ultimately social and has the work-around of not being so trusting.

Again, not knocking the suggestion, just noting that ripping someone else for your own low standards is not a good way approach the people you want to help you. It's like ripping the locksmith when you lock yourself out or your keys in.

It doesn't necessarily mean people have low standards when they get ripped off like that. Did you hear about the big thing in Eve Online? The liquidation of one of the big boys(band of brothers I believe it was if you want to look it up). The person who did that was a trusted member, a director. Yes the game is WAY different from Eq2 but still. You can get ripped off and stabbed in the back by people who you've known and trusted for years.

I can point you to EQ2 flames for a few as well. Still, the overwhelming majority is relatively lax standards. Not to knock the social atmosphere but there are work arounds for now and the contemplation that people don't need to have full access right away. I know my EQ1 guild without any of this still had people on a minimum 1 month probabtion to weed people out. You can't stop everyone but some barriers tend to reduce headaches to almost non-existance.

[kreepr]

Something we do is check there alts on Eq2 players. If there locked then we ask them to unlock so we can have a looksee. If they refuse they get booted.

[Mikai]

yeah, my co-leader is our self-appointed head of security.  And he's really good at it.  He looks up just about everyone who joins and dispatches unsavory characters with glee.  However, this is a guy that I know he looked up.  In fact, he invited him.  There was no reason to suspect him.  nothing stood out.  Just seemed like another joe bloe who wanted a casual guild.

/sigh....I hate people sometimes....

[Rothgar]

It would be a very easy change for us to limit the Harvest Depot withdrawals to Trustees only and make it so that the permission level on the amenity only affects who can craft from it.  Would this be a better solution than what we have now or would it cause more problems?

When it comes down to it, just adding logging isn't going to fix your problem.  An unscrupulous person could still join your guild, remove all the items and leave.  The log would just tell you who did it, which you'd probably already know anyway.  We'd have to implement limits by rank and now you're talking about a lot of work for just a single item in the game.  I don't think we want to start down the road of managing everyone's social interactions and create the expectation that every new feature we create must have this level of administrative features.

I'd still like to revamp the access level system for housing so it can be more specific, like guild rank permissions, but that will be further down the road.  In the meantime, if limiting withdrawals to trustees will be an improvement over the current situation, I'll make that change.

[macsux]

Please make the permissions change... We had the same problem early after guild halls were released when someone stole over 400 smoldering dust out of the box, we still don't know who.

[Nuhus]

I think both permissions and log would be useful to be honest.

[Snowdonia]

Rothgar wrote:

It would be a very easy change for us to limit the Harvest Depot withdrawals to Trustees only and make it so that the permission level on the amenity only affects who can craft from it.  Would this be a better solution than what we have now or would it cause more problems?

*snipped*

I'd still like to revamp the access level system for housing so it can be more specific, like guild rank permissions, but that will be further down the road.  In the meantime, if limiting withdrawals to trustees will be an improvement over the current situation, I'll make that change.

Yes, this would be a stellar solution! We'll probably still see the odd swipe, but not nearly so much as we do now in its current state.

PLEASE make this happen Rothgar and soon. I don't have this problem and it's a shame it is happening but I want to see all the real guilds out there have some sort of protection.

[Mikai]

Rothgar wrote:

It would be a very easy change for us to limit the Harvest Depot withdrawals to Trustees only and make it so that the permission level on the amenity only affects who can craft from it.  Would this be a better solution than what we have now or would it cause more problems?

When it comes down to it, just adding logging isn't going to fix your problem.  An unscrupulous person could still join your guild, remove all the items and leave.  The log would just tell you who did it, which you'd probably already know anyway.  We'd have to implement limits by rank and now you're talking about a lot of work for just a single item in the game.  I don't think we want to start down the road of managing everyone's social interactions and create the expectation that every new feature we create must have this level of administrative features.

I'd still like to revamp the access level system for housing so it can be more specific, like guild rank permissions, but that will be further down the road.  In the meantime, if limiting withdrawals to trustees will be an improvement over the current situation, I'll make that change.

The permissions change would be WONDERFUL!  Limit withdrawls to trustee only.

You are right that logging wouldn't fix our problems, but I have a guild of 125 people with over 300 alts.  Seeing who does what does make managing a guild a little easier.  It would serve to not only see who uses but also who contributes and honor them.  However, you are right.  It is more complex, i'm sure.

Please make this change.  Guilds throughout Norrath will thank you!

[Deson]

Rothgar wrote:

It would be a very easy change for us to limit the Harvest Depot withdrawals to Trustees only and make it so that the permission level on the amenity only affects who can craft from it.  Would this be a better solution than what we have now or would it cause more problems?

When it comes down to it, just adding logging isn't going to fix your problem.  An unscrupulous person could still join your guild, remove all the items and leave.  The log would just tell you who did it, which you'd probably already know anyway.  We'd have to implement limits by rank and now you're talking about a lot of work for just a single item in the game.  I don't think we want to start down the road of managing everyone's social interactions and create the expectation that every new feature we create must have this level of administrative features.

I'd still like to revamp the access level system for housing so it can be more specific, like guild rank permissions, but that will be further down the road.  In the meantime, if limiting withdrawals to trustees will be an improvement over the current situation, I'll make that change.

Logs would be a major boon not just for security but also usage tracking to get an idea of how much is being used. Withdrawals would be great as just a separate permission set. If you can't do that now, I'm indifferrent until I see your plan for more detailed permissions.

[RaveDragon9]

Thanks for listening, Rothgar! - that would be a definite improvement, if you could do that....many, many thanks! /BIG HUG/ - for Erollisi Day, of course.... Trea

[Tinrae]

The only concern I have with Trustee-only is for the members who are working on Mara writs and RoK faction writs - they will not be able to access the mats so they can go to those places to do their writs (and will have to keep their own supply of materials for those writs rather than relying on the communal pot). Would be nice if we could pick up crafting writs for those factions somehow in the guild hall.

Otherwise, yes access based on rank is wonderful. Thank you.

[greenmantle]

I know its not the solution most want but i didnt have a problem with the old system we used, we knew the people seriously grinding crafters and those that regularly tossed snacks in the guild bank and sent directly. XXX would mention in /gu after xx level mats for tailoring and a few of us would strip mine for an hour then spam their mail with stacks of what they needed. I know the harvest box is nice but its an easy way for some one nasty to cause greif.

As for the OP's problem the first time ok he was a member not much you can do, the second he admitted lying to get an alt in the guild for the express reason of stealing stuff that should be banable.

[Taylinn]

*snip

Rothgar wrote:

It would be a very easy change for us to limit the Harvest Depot withdrawals to Trustees only and make it so that the permission level on the amenity only affects who can craft from it. 

Just to clarify, I understand setting it to trustee, but the second part does that imply that if you are a crafter you will be able to only use items from the depot that reflect your current crafting level?

I realize that further permissions would take some time and that you might not implement those as it would affect other things down the road, but I for one would greatly appreciate more rank/level control for items in the guild hall as well for housing access.

[Kirianna1]

Tinrae wrote:

The only concern I have with Trustee-only is for the members who are working on Mara writs and RoK faction writs - they will not be able to access the mats so they can go to those places to do their writs [...]

Otherwise, yes access based on rank is wonderful. Thank you.

I vote for access based on rank and NOT limiting it to just Trustees for the reason stated about by Tinrae. Those who've earned higher ranks should be allowed to withdraw. Those with lower rank should be able to craft from it only.

[Adegx]

If i'm understanding this right the following will happen with the change:

1) only trusties can withdraw

2) the default permission level for the box.  (ie the way its set right now) will affect those who can craft from it.

What permission level will be required to deposit? If we can get it set so everyone can place in it. And the above 2 statements are true i'm all for this!

[Zehl_Ice-Fire]

Most guild's do not give Trustee to all of their members. Anyone who is running short on raws that has to go do out of hall writs/work etc is going to be screwed. It would work well if you could set permission to withdraw by rank.

[Mikai]

Taylinn@Everfrost wrote:

*snip

Rothgar wrote:

It would be a very easy change for us to limit the Harvest Depot withdrawals to Trustees only and make it so that the permission level on the amenity only affects who can craft from it. 

Just to clarify, I understand setting it to trustee, but the second part does that imply that if you are a crafter you will be able to only use items from the depot that reflect your current crafting level?

I realize that further permissions would take some time and that you might not implement those as it would affect other things down the road, but I for one would greatly appreciate more rank/level control for items in the guild hall as well for housing access.

My understanding is that the access level on the amenity itself would dictate who can craft using those items (i.e. if it's set to friend access, only friends+ can craft using the box).

I see it as a better solution, even if it means that for the time being, I have to withdraw mats for guildies who need to do crafting writs in TSO or ROK.  I'm perfectly ok with that.  It's better than the open-door system that exists now.  Yes, further changes should be looked into, and I personally would love to see access levels based on ranks, not on the housing access levels, but for now, this will make me happy. 

@greenmantle:  I'm petitioning and hoping to get him banned.  I have logs and a few screenshots to corroborate my story.....I'm not letting this one go without a fight.