True Peng, but think more from the perspective of a regular player, instead of an OP. Not all OPs are active, and the ones who are don't always tend to be helpful. There are some unnamed individuals who I've hardly seen helping any other players when needed, even when clearly addressed, and a lot of the time when I come onto the server, even though other OPs are online, I end up being overworked by player issues, and OP jobs... Which quite a lot of the time, I end up not doing, either becuase me, or that player doesn't have time.
It's something seemingly simple, yeah, but what's the harm with letting players add/ remove members from their own zones? It'd still save time and effort for OPs, and make zones more customisable for the players who own them. Problems would obviously come with it, but it couldn't hurt too much to test... I mean I'm pretty sure the main problems with that are already issues which are present in the current system.
As for WarPlayer's point about players messing around with commands they shouldn't... My guess is that players would only have the access to add, and remove players from their own zones. To explain it a bit... every zone has two sections which you can add players to: owners, and members. Really, there is little difference between owners and members in terms of building permissions within that zone, except obviously, the owners of the zone are the players who are primarily in charge of it. The permissions we would give to players, are the abilities to add/ remove "members" into the zone, but not other "owners", and as well as this, they can only do this if they are an "owner" of the particular zone. Sorry for making this so lengthy, I just wanted to address your point, while trying to make things clearer... Technically, allowing owners to add members to zones should hopefully not allow unauthorised access to players' zones. On the other hand, it could still be used for bad causes, but in those cases OPs could get involved to sort out any problems...
In the end, it depends whether players can be trusted with this type of responsibility with their zones, and other people's buildings which are inside them... and whether the problems caused by abusing that responsibility outweighs the benefits and priveledges it can provide... I personally think it'd have to be tested, before any final decisions are made. Damage can be undone afterall.
It's something seemingly simple, yeah, but what's the harm with letting players add/ remove members from their own zones? It'd still save time and effort for OPs, and make zones more customisable for the players who own them. Problems would obviously come with it, but it couldn't hurt too much to test... I mean I'm pretty sure the main problems with that are already issues which are present in the current system.
As for WarPlayer's point about players messing around with commands they shouldn't... My guess is that players would only have the access to add, and remove players from their own zones. To explain it a bit... every zone has two sections which you can add players to: owners, and members. Really, there is little difference between owners and members in terms of building permissions within that zone, except obviously, the owners of the zone are the players who are primarily in charge of it. The permissions we would give to players, are the abilities to add/ remove "members" into the zone, but not other "owners", and as well as this, they can only do this if they are an "owner" of the particular zone. Sorry for making this so lengthy, I just wanted to address your point, while trying to make things clearer... Technically, allowing owners to add members to zones should hopefully not allow unauthorised access to players' zones. On the other hand, it could still be used for bad causes, but in those cases OPs could get involved to sort out any problems...
In the end, it depends whether players can be trusted with this type of responsibility with their zones, and other people's buildings which are inside them... and whether the problems caused by abusing that responsibility outweighs the benefits and priveledges it can provide... I personally think it'd have to be tested, before any final decisions are made. Damage can be undone afterall.