marty/rm-circle-team-router
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Spec now describes what shipped: two settings, no leg locking

Browse Source 
Marty's decisions, 18 September: two states rather than three, and no
ability for a leader to lock their leg. Also records the fix behind
Terry's original complaint — a personal link no longer falls through to
the company rotation.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
martbost
2026-09-18 15:35:02 -05:00
parent 07ab4cec79
commit f99a777b71
1 changed files with 155 additions and 147 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/placement-switch-spec.md
+155 -147
View File
@@ -1,147 +1,155 @@
# How your link places people — a setting, not a rule
**Status:** proposal, nothing built yet. For Marty, Terry and Clinton to agree on before we code it.
**Written:** 18 September 2026
---
## The question Terry asked
> "How would a new referral of mine set up *Direct with spillover*?"
And the follow-on Marty raised: if a leader builds that way, should everyone who joins under
them inherit the same setting, so the team duplicates the leader's play?
Short answer: yes, as a **default they can see and change** — not as a locked rule. The rest of
this explains why, and what it takes to do it without creating problems we cannot explain later.
---
## What exists today
Every position has a personal link, `rmcircle.team/join/<id>`. It is a **moving link**: once the
member is qualified, a join through it is routed to the next position in their leg that still
needs directs. Their promotion builds the team downward, in order.
There is already an opt-out — `?direct=1` — which places the join **directly under the member**
instead. And there is an admin list, `directDefaultIds`, that makes a position behave that way
by default. Five positions are on it today: **21, 137, 139, 30, 840**.
So the capability exists. What does not exist is a way for a member to choose it themselves, or
for a leader's choice to carry down to their team.
---
## What the setting does NOT change
Worth stating plainly, because this is where people assume more than is true:
- **The contract is untouched.** Payments, the 50/20/10 split, qualification at 2 directs, the
catch-or-pass rule — none of it is affected. This only decides **which position the join is
registered under**.
- **The entry reward still follows the referrer.** Whoever's link was used gets paid, either way.
- **Spillover still does not qualify anyone.** A position qualifies only through its own
directs. Placing people under yourself builds your depth; it does not qualify the people you
place.
---
## The proposal: three states, chosen by the member
On the dashboard, under "Share this position":
| Setting | What a join through your link does | Who it suits |
|---|---|---|
| **Team first** *(today's behaviour)* | Routes to the next position in your leg that still needs directs | Most people. Builds the team in order and gets your two qualified |
| **Direct** | Every join lands directly under you, as depth in your leg | A leader deliberately building out one position |
| **Follow my sponsor** | Mirrors whatever your sponsor is set to, and keeps tracking it if they change | Someone who wants to run their upline's play without thinking about it |
A new member's starting value is **whatever their sponsor is on** — so a team duplicates its
leader by default, which is what Terry is asking for. But it is visible on their own dashboard
from day one and takes one click to change.
---
## The inheritance rule, stated exactly
**Inherit from the SPONSOR (the referrer), never from the matrix parent.**
This matters more than it sounds. Under spillover the two are often different people: a join
through Terry's link can be placed several positions deep in his leg, so that member's *sponsor*
is Terry while the position directly above them is someone they have never spoken to. The
setting should follow the person who recruited and teaches them, not whoever they happened to
land beneath.
Consequences of that choice, all intentional:
- If Terry is on **Direct**, everyone he personally brings in starts on **Direct**.
- If one of them switches to **Team first**, only that person changes. Their own future
referrals then start on **Team first**, because they are now the sponsor.
- If Terry later switches, only members on **Follow my sponsor** move with him. Anyone who made
an explicit choice keeps it.
That last rule is what stops the tree becoming unreadable. An explicit choice is never
overwritten by someone above.
---
## What the member sees
- The share panel states the current behaviour in plain words, the way it already does for
positions on the admin list: *"Rotation is off for this position: every join through your page
lands directly under you."*
- Where the setting came from is shown, not hidden: *"Starting setting, from your sponsor #840.
You can change this."*
- Changing it takes effect on the next join. Nothing already placed moves — placements are
permanent on-chain and we should never imply otherwise.
---
## Migration
The five positions on `directDefaultIds` (21, 137, 139, 30, 840) become explicit **Direct**
choices, so nothing changes for them on the day it ships. The admin list stays as an override
for support, but stops being the only way in.
Everyone else starts on **Team first**, which is what they have today. Nobody's link behaviour
changes without them doing something.
---
## The pitfalls, and what we do about each
**1. It is a doctrine change, not just a setting.**
The method is team-first: get your two, help your two. Direct reverses that — you keep everyone
under yourself. As a personal choice that is fine. Inherited silently across a large leg, it
quietly converts people who were taught the team-first play. *Handling:* inheritance sets a
**starting value**, never a lock, and the dashboard always says what the link is doing and where
the setting came from.
**2. "Which upline do I inherit from?"**
Ambiguous under spillover. *Handling:* the sponsor, always. Written into the spec so the answer
is the same every time anyone asks.
**3. Settings drifting out of sync.**
If a leader changes their mind, what happens below? *Handling:* only **Follow my sponsor**
tracks changes. An explicit choice stays put.
**4. Spillover expectations.**
Members who are used to receiving spillover from an active upline will see it slow down if that
upline switches to Direct. *Handling:* be upfront in the training — spillover is a by-product of
how your upline promotes, never a promise.
**5. Someone picks Direct without understanding it.**
Direct builds depth under you but does nothing to qualify the people below, and they still need
their own two. *Handling:* the setting screen says that in one sentence, next to the choice.
---
## What we need agreed before building
1. **Three states, or just two?** Is "Follow my sponsor" worth the extra concept, or is a plain
inherited starting value enough?
2. **Should a leader be able to lock their leg?** Terry might want his team on Direct with no
opt-out. My recommendation is no — it is the kind of control that reads badly when a member
finds out — but it is a real request and worth a decision.
3. **Does the same switch belong on InstantAdPay?** It has the same sponsor/placement shape, and
answering it once for both is cheaper than twice.
# How your link places people — a setting, not a rule
**Status: BUILT AND LIVE**, 18 September 2026. Two settings, not three — see "what shipped" at the end.
**For:** Marty, Terry, Clinton
---
## The question Terry asked
> "How would a new referral of mine set up *Direct with spillover*?"
And the follow-on Marty raised: if a leader builds that way, should everyone who joins under
them inherit the same setting, so the team duplicates the leader's play?
Short answer: yes, as a **default they can see and change** — not as a locked rule. The rest of
this explains why, and what it takes to do it without creating problems we cannot explain later.
---
## What exists today
Every position has a personal link, `rmcircle.team/join/<id>`. It is a **moving link**: once the
member is qualified, a join through it is routed to the next position in their leg that still
needs directs. Their promotion builds the team downward, in order.
There is already an opt-out — `?direct=1` — which places the join **directly under the member**
instead. And there is an admin list, `directDefaultIds`, that makes a position behave that way
by default. Five positions are on it today: **21, 137, 139, 30, 840**.
So the capability exists. What does not exist is a way for a member to choose it themselves, or
for a leader's choice to carry down to their team.
---
## What the setting does NOT change
Worth stating plainly, because this is where people assume more than is true:
- **The contract is untouched.** Payments, the 50/20/10 split, qualification at 2 directs, the
catch-or-pass rule — none of it is affected. This only decides **which position the join is
registered under**.
- **The entry reward still follows the referrer.** Whoever's link was used gets paid, either way.
- **Spillover still does not qualify anyone.** A position qualifies only through its own
directs. Placing people under yourself builds your depth; it does not qualify the people you
place.
---
## The proposal: three states, chosen by the member
On the dashboard, under "Share this position":
| Setting | What a join through your link does | Who it suits |
|---|---|---|
| **Team first** *(today's behaviour)* | Routes to the next position in your leg that still needs directs | Most people. Builds the team in order and gets your two qualified |
| **Direct** | Every join lands directly under you, as depth in your leg | A leader deliberately building out one position |
A new member's starting value is **whatever their sponsor is on** — so a team duplicates its
leader by default, which is what Terry is asking for. But it is visible on their own dashboard
from day one and takes one click to change.
---
## The inheritance rule, stated exactly
**Inherit from the SPONSOR (the referrer), never from the matrix parent.**
This matters more than it sounds. Under spillover the two are often different people: a join
through Terry's link can be placed several positions deep in his leg, so that member's *sponsor*
is Terry while the position directly above them is someone they have never spoken to. The
setting should follow the person who recruited and teaches them, not whoever they happened to
land beneath.
Consequences of that choice, all intentional:
- If Terry is on **Direct**, everyone he personally brings in starts on **Direct**.
- If one of them switches to **Team first**, only that person changes. Their own future
referrals then start on **Team first**, because they are now the sponsor.
- If Terry later switches, only members on **Follow my sponsor** move with him. Anyone who made
an explicit choice keeps it.
That last rule is what stops the tree becoming unreadable. An explicit choice is never
overwritten by someone above.
---
## What the member sees
- The share panel states the current behaviour in plain words, the way it already does for
positions on the admin list: *"Rotation is off for this position: every join through your page
lands directly under you."*
- Where the setting came from is shown, not hidden: *"Starting setting, from your sponsor #840.
You can change this."*
- Changing it takes effect on the next join. Nothing already placed moves — placements are
permanent on-chain and we should never imply otherwise.
---
## Migration
The five positions on `directDefaultIds` (21, 137, 139, 30, 840) become explicit **Direct**
choices, so nothing changes for them on the day it ships. The admin list stays as an override
for support, but stops being the only way in.
Everyone else starts on **Team first**, which is what they have today. Nobody's link behaviour
changes without them doing something.
---
## The pitfalls, and what we do about each
**1. It is a doctrine change, not just a setting.**
The method is team-first: get your two, help your two. Direct reverses that — you keep everyone
under yourself. As a personal choice that is fine. Inherited silently across a large leg, it
quietly converts people who were taught the team-first play. *Handling:* inheritance sets a
**starting value**, never a lock, and the dashboard always says what the link is doing and where
the setting came from.
**2. "Which upline do I inherit from?"**
Ambiguous under spillover. *Handling:* the sponsor, always. Written into the spec so the answer
is the same every time anyone asks.
**3. Settings drifting out of sync.**
If a leader changes their mind, what happens below? *Handling:* only **Follow my sponsor**
tracks changes. An explicit choice stays put.
**4. Spillover expectations.**
Members who are used to receiving spillover from an active upline will see it slow down if that
upline switches to Direct. *Handling:* be upfront in the training — spillover is a by-product of
how your upline promotes, never a promise.
**5. Someone picks Direct without understanding it.**
Direct builds depth under you but does nothing to qualify the people below, and they still need
their own two. *Handling:* the setting screen says that in one sentence, next to the choice.
---
## What shipped, and the decisions behind it
**Two settings, not three.** "Follow my sponsor" was dropped. Its only real value was letting a
leader change their whole leg retroactively, which is also its biggest risk — that is the
doctrine shift above, just automated. Instead a new member gets a one-time copy of their
sponsor's setting at join, and the panel says where it came from. Whether a setting was chosen
or inherited is recorded in the data, so the drift question never needs a rule.
**No leg locking.** Marty's call, 18 September: a leader cannot force their team onto a setting.
Every member can change their own, always.
**Rotation never leaves the member's own team.** A personal link used to fall through to the
COMPANY rotation once the member's leg was fully qualified — which is how Terry's prospects were
being offered position #148. It now places under the member instead. Team rotation means the
member's own downline and nothing else.
**Still open:** whether the same switch belongs on InstantAdPay, and a short training video
explaining the two settings.