Editor Common Confusion

[ghost]

### Description
I've been doing some hobby-support in the LuckPerms Discord lately and it appears that there is a common misunderstanding regarding tracks using the editor. As soon as people assign group weights, the editor will, smart as it is, sort the group by weight, highest up top, lowest in the bottom in the 'Groups' section.
Once people advance enough to use tracks, the order in which the tracks are being dragged is lowest up top to highest in the bottom, exactly the other way around as the group sorting. I have seen people getting confused with this a lot, regardless of the editor showing arrows and numbers to indicate the proper order - and I understand why. They get to see the order of ranks based on group weights first and then have to think the other way around.
I think we can solve this relatively easy.

### Proposed behaviour
I propose to turn the order in the track menu (on editing a track) around to keep the format equal, lowest at the bottom, highest at the top.

### Con
Users who have already figured this out might get confused at first if this was changed.

### Pro
New users will more likely make sense of the track sorting, resulting in less issues/questions about this in the discord support channels, which also kills other questions such as some permissions not working due to upside down inheritance and promotion commands not working for them due to the same problem.

### Alternative
As an alternative option, we could try a display addon in the track editor, in bright red so people read it 'HIGHEST' and 'LOWEST' next to highest and lowest group. I know - this is just like the arrows and numbers, but those don't really catch your eye, especially for an unsure newer user of the editor who is confused to begin with.

Hope we can do something for the newbs :P
Cheers! ~Silver

[benwoo1110]

I think the order really is quite trivial, I'd say number the tracks with something like this for each list item in track list.

[Turbotailz]

wrong repo -> lucko/LuckPermsWeb

[Laarryy]

This is now on the correct repo and an enhancement that we can totally make. FWIW I agree it needs either numbers or to be ordered the 'rational' way.