BPO locking changes (CSM)

From sdeevelopedia
Revision as of 10:55, 17 July 2009 by Dierdra Vaal (Talk) (New page: == Stats == * '''Raised by''': Dierdra Vaal * '''Submission Date''': 19 July 2009 * '''Issue ID''': tbd == Summary == Blueprint Originals owned by a corporation can be 'locked', allow...)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt


  • Raised by: Dierdra Vaal
  • Submission Date: 19 July 2009
  • Issue ID: tbd


Blueprint Originals owned by a corporation can be 'locked', allowing the BPOs to be used without risking theft. This is a great system, but can be quite unwieldy. To unlock a BPO, a corporate vote needs to be made, all shareholders cast their vote and if the vote is succesful, the BPO is unlocked. As a way for shareholders to prevent a CEO running off with the BPOs this is a good system. For mass unlocking BPOs it is not a good system.


Make the voting procedure to unlock BPOs optional. You can keep them on or turn them off completely. By default, BPOs should require a vote to be unlocked. In order to change it, a new vote should be passed succesfully - allowing shareholders to prevent a rogue CEO to hijack the BPOs without their consent.

If you choose to turn unlock-voting off then the CEO or anyone with the designated role of Technical Security Officer (new role) should be able to unlock/lock the blueprints easily and en mass.

Additionally, a way to unlock/lock BPOs in batches is desired.

This solution allows both the current system (which is useful for IPOs and organisations that depend heavily on their shareholders) and a new system that is not quite as secure but a lot faster to use. This system is not really open for abuse since the only way the locking mechanism can be changed is if the shareholders agree to it.


  • Less hassle to maintain blueprint collections


  • Corps may become more vulnerable to BPO theft (but only after a succesful vote to accept the more risky setup)

Relevant Forum Threads