01-29-2014, 06:10 PM
I'm afraid I don't quite understand the model you're trying to describe.
If you give everyone the permission to create areas, then you can as well have no protection at all - if anyone wants to build anywhere, they just create a new area for themselves there. (note that in the current implementation the areas may intersect). You obviously don't want that, so you choose a group of people who receive the protection.add permission (usually these are called Protectors, if i recall), these can then create protection for others; yet because the permissions are separate, they needn't (but can) be allowed remove the protection. You can have another group of people called Deprotectors who can only remove protection; you can of course have people who belong to both groups, thus being able to both add and remove protection.
If this is not the model you want, could you describe yours in more detail? Name the groups, and write exactly what they should be able to do and what they shouldn't be able to do.
If you give everyone the permission to create areas, then you can as well have no protection at all - if anyone wants to build anywhere, they just create a new area for themselves there. (note that in the current implementation the areas may intersect). You obviously don't want that, so you choose a group of people who receive the protection.add permission (usually these are called Protectors, if i recall), these can then create protection for others; yet because the permissions are separate, they needn't (but can) be allowed remove the protection. You can have another group of people called Deprotectors who can only remove protection; you can of course have people who belong to both groups, thus being able to both add and remove protection.
If this is not the model you want, could you describe yours in more detail? Name the groups, and write exactly what they should be able to do and what they shouldn't be able to do.