📢 Proposal: Add Creator & Admin Permissions — Stop Instant Wipeout, Save Everything You Built ✅ Expected Behavior Clear role separation: Only Creator/Admins manage settings, members & rules; ordinary members can only chat & view — NO right to alter, remove, or destroy anything. Independent section …

This is a duplicate of: [image] Bug and suggestion regarding the group User Testing This issue duplicates the following: TL;DR The scenario DC aims to solve at the moment is to only create small private groups with friends & family who you trust and w…

[image] AKM2498K146: Even small, close-knit groups with people you trust can still have bad actors Yes, and that’s quite unfortunate! But it’s literally how life works. If you set up strict permissions to protect yourself, you’re never really “trusting” anyone, which hinders your ability to t…

First, in my proposal, this is fully optional, not mandatory at all. You can absolutely turn off the “admin permission” feature for people you fully trust. Second, some may see rules as a sign of distrust, but think the other way around: it actually stops many bad actors from doing harm, while letti…

[image] AKM2498K146: This logic doesn’t need to be enforced or processed by servers at all — it’s just a local rule set inside the app itself. Can you explain this a bit more? I’ve worked in the decentralized space quite a bit and AFAIK the only way to achieve what you want is smart servers e…

all permission checks and rule judgments happen inside the client app, not on the server. When someone tries to change group settings or manage members, their own app first checks if they have the right to do so — if not, the action gets blocked right there, and no request is even sent to the server…

I have listed almost a dozen topics where many people have requested the same thing that you have, sometimes with similar wording, at other times, using a different solution. It is best to not fragment or repeat discussions and instead comment on existing issues in such cases. I have not done this …

As far as I know, among the “related topics” you listed, there is one from 2019 — more than 6 years ago. People have been asking for this year after year, and nothing changed. Telling us “don’t repeat” doesn’t solve the problem; it just buries it. If old requests got done, nobody would post new one…

[image] AKM2498K146: When someone tries to change group settings or manage members, their own app first checks if they have the right to do so — if not, the action gets blocked right there, and no request is even sent to the server. Yes, so it’s not a real permission system. It’s a system bas…

First: This is an OPTIONAL, SEPARATE mode. Old groups work exactly as before — no changes, no force. Let me explain clearly: :small_blue_diamond: 1. Owner = Single Source of Truth The creator holds the ONE official master copy of all data: members, roles, settings, rules. :white_check_mark: Rule…

I changed my mind. I’m against AI slop now lol. I understand the idea though. It is a client-enforced social contract, like I said. “Privileged groups” would use keys that already exist, just with clients applying stricter rules about whose signature makes a group state change valid. This should …

Add creator/admin permissions for groups, with optional independent section separation

Feature Proposal

ian May 27, 2026, 6:17pm 3

This is a duplicate of: