Austin,
You missed 2 out of the 3 organisation structures specifically pointed out in that post.
Your comments are only valid from perspective of your company/other companies like yours (SMBs, SMEs, and corporates).

Community organisations don't operate that way, and neither do collaborations. No need to impose your world view on the millions of organisations who don't operate like that. Think about more situations than just one, yourself.

In a collaboration there is joint ownership, not just a single business owner/corporate entity like yourself. So OWNER control is often held by 2 equal representatives, and OWNER access is limited to their respective sections, with a safeguard that a joint decision is required for an intervention like a team deletion. Exactly like the twin-key system activating the nukes – no single person with power and control issues can destroy a large number of innocent targets.

There are many more structures in the real world than a 'one key to rule them all' type.

Jeff, It's not that simple to have an option to see all/archive/delete in free version, and super admin accessing all content in enterprise version.

Organisations are diverse in structure and permissions hierarchy; and are corporate, community, and collaborations of both, for three common structures that exist. Setup options for choosing the type of organisation and its admin structure would be highly beneficial for the millions of non-corporate structures out there in real life, for the way they operate and the safeguards they need to have...

SuperAdmins that can see content of private teams are a disaster for team collaboration and deletions can wipe out years of work for a private team. Whole organisations can be destroyed in minutes. Continuity of organisation content is paramount for security of asset management.

Ryver is based on the transparency of open forums with the co-existence and integrity of private team communications, and I for one cannot believe this proposal has not been thought through clearly enough.

Transparency, openness and oversight are wonderful attributes in organisations, but they come up against the natural antagonist of privacy. And privacy for individual communications usually wins.

In my country the current proposal would institutionalise the facilitation of contravention of federal and state privacy legislation.

In addition, sensitive personal, health and financial information, are being placed at risk through admin access to content.

However a baseline argument would be this; compare this:

a) seeing content/archiving/deleting a private team of 3 people,

to,

b) a direct message conversation of 2 people

Are you proposing a different approach between a) and b) ?

Why not go the whole hog, and allow admin access to content of direct messages as well?

And are you really validating spying by letting people know that they are being "spied on”??

How about a UI guarantee that teams can determine a block for being spied upon!!!

I’m shocked Jeff, and Pat, if you see this, we are a million + membership of a community organisation in partnership with an corporate organisation in final trials of Ryver. Our needs are not met by this current proposal.

Who guards the guards?

Ditto for our teams. We have remote and local users across the country in large numbers. Compiling @s all the time would be tedious, frustrating and counter-productive. Push notifications are essential. Happy to about even a rough timeline... thanks for the great platform >>>>> awesome!!