Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.10.23 18:51:00 -
[1]
Ok, what's the deal with these?
Here's what I'd like for them to be used for. I'd like to have a hangar where users can deposit minerals into, but I'd like to be able to audit who deposits what amounts. So I figured hey, lets put a station container in there.
The container's set to not require a password open or lock items, but to require a password to lock and configure. The hangar is configured to allow members to query but not take. But when users double-click on the can to open it to drop things in they get an error that they need take access on the hangar to perform that task.
Am I setting something wrong here or is this how those cans were intended to be used? Because if it's by intent, it's relatively useless for auditing of minerals by normal corp members, when you want them to be able to help out, but not rip off, the corp.
|
Freada
|
Posted - 2005.10.23 22:50:00 -
[2]
You can set TAKE access to the HANGER without allowing cans to be taken. This is a seperate option.
|
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.10.24 01:04:00 -
[3]
That's great and all, but I don't want them to be able to take the container or take FROM the container. I want the container to be left as is, and act as a kind of auditing drop box for minerals mined by my corporation's members for the corp.
|
Paladine Tor
|
Posted - 2005.10.24 01:40:00 -
[4]
You can have them Escrow or Trade the minerals to you, then just write down what you've been given and from whom.
|
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.10.24 03:23:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Paladine Tor You can have them Escrow or Trade the minerals to you, then just write down what you've been given and from whom.
We at one point had a system like that, and found that it was way too cumbersome to have a length process for some people to follow in order to make sure the minerals went to the right person and the proper people were reimbursed for their efforts.
Anyway, I'd figured that was the whole point of these cans, but what's the point of having an audit log on something that can be taken by someone at any time.
|
Wee Dave
|
Posted - 2005.10.24 04:23:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Winterblink That's great and all, but I don't want them to be able to take the container or take FROM the container. I want the container to be left as is, and act as a kind of auditing drop box for minerals mined by my corporation's members for the corp.
I was under the impression that if the container is password protected you can't move it without the password.
|
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.10.24 13:36:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Wee Dave I was under the impression that if the container is password protected you can't move it without the password.
I'll have to give this a test tonight and see if it's true. I'll post my results here later. :)
|
J Squared
|
Posted - 2005.10.24 14:59:00 -
[8]
You will have to dedicate one hanger for this purpose. Make this hanger full access to everyone with one exception. (This will allow them to place items in there own container or anyone elseÆs.)
Under container access disallow ôtakeö access to everyone except maybe the CEO and directors. If you donÆtÆ do this step it will allow anyone to drag the entire can into there hanger and then circumvent the security your going to do in the next paragraph.
Now.. use secure audit containers and config them to require a password only to unlock items and change password. You (as CEO) sets the passwords yourself and only share it with people that will need to take the ore out of the can. (CEO, Directors, refiner)
This will make it so your general members can place things in cans but not allow them to take them out unless someone that knows the password unlocks the items for them.
You can eather set the same password for everyoneÆs can or a different password for each personÆs can. If you do the latter then each person will have the power to also remove from there own can but not someone elseÆs without the password. The down side to that is.. you have to maintain a lot of different passwords.
Hope this answers your question. If not ask it again. What you want to do is possible. A lot of corps do it with 100% security, including us.
JSquared
|
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.10.24 17:49:00 -
[9]
Ok, I'll just clarify what my current setup is.
We have a hangar, lets call it Ore. Ore Hangar's access is set so any member can Query but not Take. Exceptions are CEO, Directors, hauler types, etc.
In said hangar I've placed a single station container (big suckers, basically secure audits). I've set both the can and config passwords, and configured it so people only need a password to unlock and configure the can.
With that setup, a normal member gets an error when they double-click to open the can, that they do not have Take permission.
Now from what I'm reading, I've got the same setup as you're suggesting except I think you're talking about using secure audit containers (for each member?). I can't imagine there's much difference between secure audits and station containers, since they both afford the same functionality except the latter cannot be hauled.
And by now, I'm thinking it would be nice to see a note from the guy who worked on this to maybe shed some light on things. :)
|
Captain Thunderpants
|
Posted - 2005.10.24 18:58:00 -
[10]
You need to give take access to this hangar to all members.
To stop people taking the container you need to set the container access function in the corp menu to off. This function allows people to take containers from the hangar and not access to the container. If you need more help convo me in game.
|
|
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.10.24 20:43:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Captain Thunderpants You need to give take access to this hangar to all members.
To stop people taking the container you need to set the container access function in the corp menu to off. This function allows people to take containers from the hangar and not access to the container. If you need more help convo me in game.
I'll give that a shot, thanks. Nice charname by the way. :)
|
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 18:02:00 -
[12]
Just a quick note on this, the problem is now solved thanks to help from you guys. Thanks a whole bunch.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |