Forum


Notice to all users

We are migrating towards a new forum system located at community.teamspeak.com, as such this forum will become read-only on January 29, 2020

Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Posts
    15

    Best Practices: How to setup Clan/Club community groups

    Hello,

    Have been through the permissions tutorials and having read the stickies and numerous threads as well as playing with the client some, I am thinking I am not utilizing the new permissions system to it's fullest and would love some suggestions or links to another thread for something similar.

    Basically the install is a community server that is host to many "clubs/clans" ... everybody is a member of the overall community with many being members to one or more clubs/clans. The power structure is simple: Guest -> Community Member -> Club Officer -> Club Leader. The server is semi-private where guests should be able to join the server as well as join any clubs "public" lobby. Any community Member should be able to join any club channel that is not "club officer" channel. Officers for a particular club should only have access to the Officer Channels in their particular club.

    So ... my knee jerk reaction is to use server groups to handle this. Guest is Guest .. Member is Member ... then adding a group for Club Officer and another for Club Leader. I worked out the whole move/kick/ban permissions to keep it all straight and I am happy with it.

    Question: Do I really need to have 2 or more server groups for each of my clubs? ie: If I have 30 clubs, do I need at least 60 server groups?

    Is that pretty much the "best practices" when dealing with multiple "sub communities" on the same server? setup multiple "server groups" for each of the sub communities?

    Or should I be doing something with the Channel Groups? Or since there is generally only 1 "Club Leader" should I just have 1 "Club Officer" server group, then give the 1 person special permissions via channel permissions?

    The more I look at it, the more I fell like having 2 or 3 "server groups" for each clan / club is how this system was "designed" to work ... yes / no?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The 3rd dimension
    Posts
    956
    I firstly create a copy of the server admin group, then remove all grant permissions and change most of the 75 to 70 except important "needed" permissions that need to stay on 75 for security reasons. Then I tweak it from there. After I am happy with that 1 level down admin then I duplicate that and limit that, then again and again. You should only have enough groups that you need. You could have 1 server group for each clup/group of people so only those people can do certain things. But to have true access on a group of people without allowing a top down access to everything under their level then you need to look at the room access restrictions topc pinned in the permissions forum for ideas on how to do that.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Morthawt View Post
    I firstly create a copy of the server admin group, then remove all grant permissions and change most of the 75 to 70 except important "needed" permissions that need to stay on 75 for security reasons. Then I tweak it from there. After I am happy with that 1 level down admin then I duplicate that and limit that, then again and again. You should only have enough groups that you need. You could have 1 server group for each clup/group of people so only those people can do certain things. But to have true access on a group of people without allowing a top down access to everything under their level then you need to look at the room access restrictions topc pinned in the permissions forum for ideas on how to do that.
    Thanks for the response ... and I have already done that. I pretty much get the permissions system ... the whole grant / need stuff ... the bool vs int ... the hierarchy where as channel permissions overwrite server permissions, etc, etc, etc.

    My question is really: What is the best practices for managing permissions structure for sub-communities.

    If you have 30 communities on your TS server, and you have 3 levels of permissions for each community, is that really 90 sever groups? 3 per each community? Is that how it was designed? or is there something I might be missing?

    From what I can see, it seems that is the way to go ... but not everything has been obvious to me so far, so I figured it's better to ask the question now and possibly change course then to find out later I chased the wrong rabbit down the wrong hole.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The 3rd dimension
    Posts
    956
    You cannot really do something like that because teamspeak works on power, as you know. That means there is always going to be someone who can do things from the ground all the way up to their own power. This group's rooms, that group's rooms but one group can get into all others below them. One server could be easily shared between a couple of groups of people but any more than that and you are asking for trouble lol.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Morthawt View Post
    One server could be easily shared between a couple of groups of people but any more than that and you are asking for trouble lol.
    You know what ... I just realized that "server groups" can't be assigned to sets of channels. I am so used to being able to create "sets of permissions" to attach to an asset, that I am transferring that to ideal to TS and TS doesn't work that way.

    The server groups could be used for the "community groups" ... but I really need a way to create "groups of channels" that I can then link to a "server group" and I am not seeing that. Basically, looking for a "bridge" to connect islands of clients to islands of channels.

    So, as of this point, I have the "Guest" server group, then a "Members" server group which has limited access to all channels. Then for each "club officer" I will have to do "Channel Client Permissions" to the "top channel" for that club? So if a "clan/club" has 5 officers, and their clan/club has 5 channels, I have to do 5 entries for each person (1 for each top channel).

    Question: If I set "Client Channel Permissions" on a top level channel, will those permissions cascade down to the sub-channels? Or is the "Client Channel Permissions" only valid for that channel and the sub-channels don't inherit?

    I guess the issue here really is that *normally* you would have 1 virtual server for each clan/club, where-as I don't want to fracture the community and I want them all on the same virtual server.

    Is there another option for what I am trying to do?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,029
    Yet another one trying to use Servergroups for everything as if there were nothing else....


    For dealing with multiple Sub Communities on a single Server it really depends on what you want to do...

    If you want each of them to have a different Icon on the entire Server then Servergroups that give the Icon and another Servergroup for the basic Member Permission (as you already did) are the way to go.

    For your situation (as far as I understood it) the way to go would be Channelgroups.
    If you really want Members to access all Channels no matter what sub community they belong to then a Servergroup is fine.
    But for your Officers and Leaders you will need to create a channelgroup.
    Depending on your needs either have one Channelgroup for both or one for each.

    then for all Leader only channels assign a Channel Permission of i_channel_needed_join_power of say 50
    for all Officer Channels do the same...

    then all Leaders of Clan X would get the Channelgroup in the Leader Only Channels for Clan X
    all Leaders of Clan Y would get the Channelgroup in the Leader Only Channels for Clan Y

    same for Officers.


    These Channelgroup(s) would get a i_channel_join_power of 50 (the value you decided on above).

    The Member Servergroup would get a join_power of say 30, and all channels only for members (non public) would have an i_channel_needed_join_power of 30.


    If you want to more fine grade it (ie. Members of Clan X can only access channels of CLan X) the Members Group would be a channelgroup as well instead of a Servergroup.






    Generally speaking:
    If you want someone to only have Permissions in specific Channels -> Use Channelgroups
    If you want someone to have certain Permissions on the entire Server -> Use Servergroups.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentStorm View Post
    Yet another one trying to use Servergroups for everything as if there were nothing else....
    Partly because sometimes "simple" is best.

    For your situation (as far as I understood it) the way to go would be Channelgroups.
    That was my thought initially, but since the interface for channel groups didn't *appear* to have a way to assign people like the server group interface, I discounted it. Especially when I "added" a person to a sub-channel and it didn't appear to cascade down to the sub-sub-channel.

    then for all Leader only channels assign a Channel Permission of i_channel_needed_join_power of say 50
    for all Officer Channels do the same...
    I got the permissions part down, my issue right now if finding an effect way to create "permissions containers" (aka group permissions) and then associating channels and people with those groups.

    When looking at the Permissions->Channel Groups it doesn't appear to actually "group channels", nor does it really "group people". It appears to just group the permission ... as I have to add each "person" to each "channel" in a particular group.

    It also appears that I could have 1 channel group, called "Club Leaders" and then take Persons A, B and C and attach them to Club 1 channels and then take Persons D E and F and attach them to Club 2 channels then take Persons G H and I and attach them to Club 3 channels.

    At least that is how the Channel Groups appears to allow me to do ... is this correct? Of course I would not want to do that cause it's way confusing, I would set up a channel group for each Club.

    Generally speaking:
    If you want someone to only have Permissions in specific Channels -> Use Channelgroups
    If you want someone to have certain Permissions on the entire Server -> Use Servergroups.
    What I really wanted was being able to create a "permissions container" (aka group) than attach/link channels to that container and then attach/link people to that container. That is pretty standard feature in most all permissions based systems. Here is the group ... here are the assets the group has access to ... here are the people that are in the group. Simply.

    ie: Create Group A -> Assign Group A to Channels 1, 2 and 3 ... Assign Joe, Frank, Mary to Group A.

    That would be ideal and that is such a basic / standard feature that I simply assumed I that would be there. I can't remember the last permissions systems I ran across (or programmed) that didn't have this and if it's not on the Dev's "ToDo List", it should be.

    Anyways, thanks for all the explanations so far ...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,029
    Channelgroups pretty much already do exactly that... It's just not really presented that way.

    Channelgroups work on any Channel, which is superior to having them work on only a subset of all channels... Since you can just create one Channelgroup for each Permission Set and assign it to those People in the Channels they should have that Set of Permissions.

    Create Group A (you know how to do that already)
    Assign the Permission Set to Group A (you know how to already)
    Assign group A to Channel x, y, z (Not needed, see above)
    Assign Foo, Bar, Moo to Group A: Select the Channelgroup, right Click and hit Clients in channel group -> Select Channel -> Add Users.

    Quote Originally Posted by David.C
    It also appears that I could have 1 channel group, called "Club Leaders" and then take Persons A, B and C and attach them to Club 1 channels and then take Persons D E and F and attach them to Club 2 channels then take Persons G H and I and attach them to Club 3 channels.

    At least that is how the Channel Groups appears to allow me to do ... is this correct? Of course I would not want to do that cause it's way confusing, I would set up a channel group for each Club.
    The beauty of the Channelgroups is that for any infinite amount of subsections / Clans you only need 1 Group (or one group for each level inside the clan - so ie. 1x ClanLeader, 1x WarOrga, 1x Clan Officer) and you use this Channelgroup for every single Clan.
    If you ever encounter the situation that you'd like ClanLeaders to be able to do xyz which requires a new Permission you just have to edit 1 group and every ClanLeader can do it instantly, where as when you create 50 Groups which all have the same permissions and stuff you'd have to change 50 Groups... takes 50 times the time and is 50 times more error prone than editing 1 group.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The 3rd dimension
    Posts
    956
    I just did some testing (because I have not really experimented before with this) but client groups do indeed take effect throughout all sub channels so it should be very easy to have certain trees for certain clans and they can admin inside their own channels and not other channels.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,029
    Unless the Client gets assigned a Channelgroup different from the Default one the client will inherit the Channelgroup from the first parent Channel where he has any non Default Channelgroup.

    So:
    Code:
    Channel 1
    |- Channel 1.1
    |  |- Channel 1.1.1
    |- Channel 1.2
    If Client 1 has Operator in Channel 1 and the default Guest in all other Channels, he will be Operator in all of them.
    If Client 1 has Operator in Channel 1 and Channel Admin in Channel 1.1 (because he created 1.1) then he will have Operator in Channel 1 and Channel 1.2 and ChannelAdmin in Channel 1.1 and Channel 1.1.1 (unless he has a specific Channelgroup in that one too)


    There is also the Permission b_channel_group_inheritance_end which when assigned on Channel 1 (as Channelpermission - the only place where this particular permission has any effect) in above example Client 1 will be Guest (or whatever the default Channelgroup is) in all the Channels unless he has been assigned a specific Channelgroup in that Channel.
    In the second Example he would be Operator in Channel 1, Guest in Channel 1.2 and Channeladmin in Channel 1.1 and Channel 1.1.1 (unless a specific Channelgroup in this one)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Morthawt View Post
    I just did some testing (because I have not really experimented before with this) but client groups do indeed take effect throughout all sub channels so it should be very easy to have certain trees for certain clans and they can admin inside their own channels and not other channels.
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentStorm View Post
    Unless the Client gets assigned a Channelgroup different from the Default one the client will inherit the Channelgroup from the first parent Channel where he has any non Default Channelgroup.

    So:
    Code:
    Channel 1
    |- Channel 1.1
    |  |- Channel 1.1.1
    |- Channel 1.2
    If Client 1 has Operator in Channel 1 and the default Guest in all other Channels, he will be Operator in all of them.
    If Client 1 has Operator in Channel 1 and Channel Admin in Channel 1.1 (because he created 1.1) then he will have Operator in Channel 1 and Channel 1.2 and ChannelAdmin in Channel 1.1 and Channel 1.1.1 (unless he has a specific Channelgroup in that one too)
    Thanks for the info ... I was very concerned that the channel group permissions would not cascade to sub channels. Cascading (or sub-channel inheritance) definitely mitigates the lack of traditional "group asset" permissions system (create group, assign assets, assign users).

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentStorm View Post
    The beauty of the Channelgroups is that for any infinite amount of subsections / Clans you only need 1 Group (or one group for each level inside the clan - so ie. 1x ClanLeader, 1x WarOrga, 1x Clan Officer) and you use this Channelgroup for every single Clan.
    If you ever encounter the situation that you'd like ClanLeaders to be able to do xyz which requires a new Permission you just have to edit 1 group and every ClanLeader can do it instantly, where as when you create 50 Groups which all have the same permissions and stuff you'd have to change 50 Groups... takes 50 times the time and is 50 times more error prone than editing 1 group.
    Yes this is nice, but it's also bad. It's is bad in that it promotes mistakes in assignments because it adds more decision points to the process. In the "group asset" scenario, you decide "once" what channels belong to a group and then admin is a matter of the single decision point of who to add (or remove) from that group.

    In the TS3 implantation you literally get to re-decide, for each user, what the definition of the group is ... and you can mess it up by choosing the wrong channel for the wrong person. Remember, your example is 50 clans, which means at least 50 channels (if not more like 400-600) to shift through. From a "business efficiency" standpoint, that would be considered "non-optimal" and fixing that would be a high priority.

    I am not suggesting that the current method should be dropped or is bad ... what I am suggesting is that the Dev's "missed" a key component of the security system that not only makes the system more approachable, more acceptable, and easier to use ... but missing that component actually adds un-needed complexity because it goes from the blanket "server groups" to the precise channel/client rules.

    The permissions system really needs the "intermediate" group/asset system ... a system that would bridge "server groups" with "channel groups" ... and would essentially be nothing more then a "relationship" table added to the current system.

    ie:
    Panel 1: Current Groups (with add/edit/delete) ... (existing)
    Panel 2: Permissions Selection ... (existing)
    Panel 3: Channel Assignments window (where you choose what channels belong to this group) ... (New)
    Panel 4: User Assignments (drag and drop) ... (existing)

    Behind the scenes the system would probably create "channel group" rules (that were not displayed) and then reference them with a new relationship table that stored the "group name" and the id of the channel group rule it created. Or something like that ... not having seen the source code, that is my best guess. Pretty much a "cosmetic" change for all intent and purpose, but would have huge impact on use-ability, in my opinion.

    Keep in mind, my perspective is a new programmer / community manager, picking up TS pretty much from scratch and trying to use it for my community and trying to integrate TS3 with my back end systems.

    Anyways, thanks for the help ... the cascading information is going to make this much much easier to implement. I am off to go code the object ...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. TS3 Server Groups for a Clan
    By itsXthomasTAG in forum General Questions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 7th, 2014, 02:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •