Who grants permissions?

Currently we have two user types, the "male" user (wearer) and the administrator.
It will be possible for the administrator to grant some particular privileges to other "sub-admins" (ex pulses up to level 2, or full pulse capabilities, leash mode etc).

However the conundrum is that there is both a need for the male to be prevented from accessing administrator functions, and a need for the male to deny the administrator access to the device.

Examples of the latter:

- the administrator has become unavailable and a new administrator must be chosen
- the administrator has abused their powers and the male is no longer willing to continue training

The second case can be debated, but given that our device may be purchased by the male it seems unfair to completely deny the possibility to choose his administrators.

A possible solution is to have three user types:

- male
- administrator
- device owner

The device owner can select, remove and assign administrators with different permissions, including the permission to add other sub-admins.

The male can shut up and receive pulse packets and stay within the perimeter and not much else.

The administrator can trigger whatever actions are allowed by the device owner.

In this way we accommodate cases in which the device owner is a male trying to find a remote training partner, and cases in which the ladies have purchased the device for their own male and don't need him messing with their permissions.

Obviously an unwarranted permission change on the part of the male will not be tolerated in the majority of circumstances, but this would eventually be up to the individuals to work out.

Comments

By onehundredyears at 2010-10-06 11:06:26 Reply

I assume version 1.0 will be great but that user feedback will help you incorporate changes for version 2.0.
I hope 1.0 ships soon.

By akw123 at 2010-10-06 19:02:57 Reply

I think this would cover most applications.

By smackMyNuts at 2010-10-06 20:29:25 Reply

I would probably simplify it by just allowing the owner to add and remove administrators. Letting them add or take away specific privileges seems like it would be more control than is needed. Plus it puts the male in the awkward position of having to specify exactly how much he trusts his trainer. If he really doesn't have a long-term trainer and just wants to play with people he's never met before, he can make himself an administrator and then give sub-admin privileges to his play partners as needed. But for a regular mistress or master, if he doesn't trust them enough to give them full control of the device, then he had problems that software isn't likely to solve.

By dreamloverlabs at 2010-10-06 23:37:01 Reply

Permissions are still needed in case a user (not the male himself) wants to grant limited privileges to another user:

Ex.:
- watch my male while I'm gone
- male training lessons for couples
- online counseling

By smackMyNuts at 2010-10-07 20:50:51 Reply

I wasn't arguing against permissions generally, but rather suggesting that allowing the owner to grant specific permissions to administrators was a bad idea. I'm all good with allowing administrators to create subadministrators with limited permissions.

By dreamloverlabs at 2010-10-11 07:27:21 Reply

The current version allows the owner to elect an "assignee owner" - this person will have ownership instead of the actual owner, until the actual owner decides to revoke these privileges (which will be documented both to the assignee and on the male's record associated with his male ID).

By ZoefRa at 2010-10-08 00:16:16 Reply

Rather than introducing the 3rd category of device owner, I suggest to add an 'emergency rest' function for the male user. Think about medical emergency, or fire breakout when leashed inside the house, or indeed when the administrator disappears or forgets the access code. The emergency reset would reset the device and of course the administrator would get notified. If it was not a real emergency, the administrator can punish the male. For those males who don't want this emergency mode, the male could opt to disable the emergency mode, and then it would require an admin action to re-enable it again.

By dreamloverlabs at 2010-10-11 07:28:21 Reply

Seems like a useful safety function that can be implemented separately from the actual admin permission levels. The current version of the device can be deactivated in case of an emergency when the male's scrotum is not secured to the bottom electrode. So essentially this mechanism is already in place.

By lizliz at 2010-10-08 03:51:03 Reply

In setting up sub-admins, it would also be useful to be able to set timers or click limits on some of the settings. I'm thinking along the lines of loaning him out to one of my friends. She might need the capability to deliver a level 3 correction (so he knows it's serious and not just joking around), but I don't want her to use it more than once per thirty minutes or so. Or maybe I only want to let her use it twice.

The idea being that once he gets a level 3 correction, he'll know she's capable of keeping him in line. He wont know if she's limited after that and will hopefully carry the memory of the correction and think back to it before attempting to misbehave again.

Can the remote control be set up to work as a particular sub-admin? or is this strictly for DL2K-Link (and web) operation?

By dreamloverlabs at 2010-10-11 07:30:03 Reply

Sub-admin privileges can only be assigned through the web. The remote control has all privileges except customization of the parameters. The remote's firmware still has 40% space left so once people have become accustomed to the existing feature set there's still some potential for additional settings and interaction with the remote.

By knightservant at 2010-10-08 13:58:11 Reply

Would it be possible to have a superlevel, one that all Ladies transmitt from their control, but that can be selectable by each Lady whether the device should react to orders from?

Such as that those subs who are to obey ALL Ladies could be punished by any Lady having such a control?

By dreamloverlabs at 2010-10-11 07:31:05 Reply

We've thought about it and temporarily call it "Queen mode". Seems it will be useful for social situations and when our product becomes wide spread (we hope it will). Small firmware tweak, but not for v1... that's why we've created the firmware updating logic...