Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

---

The shareholders need to retain control over locking, for use in businesses built around such things(e.g., Titan BPC investments), where the CEO cannot be trusted with the corp assets. I would, however, favour a shareholder vote to set the corporation to "role lock" or "vote lock" - role lock being the proposed system, vote lock being the status quo. Don't really care which is the default, but you have to allow the BPO investors to maintain security even against the CEO if the corp is set up appropriately.

With that caveat noted, I support this.

---

Login attempt #7 worked

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

---

The shareholders need to retain control over locking, for use in businesses built around such things(e.g., Titan BPC investments), where the CEO cannot be trusted with the corp assets. I would, however, favour a shareholder vote to set the corporation to "role lock" or "vote lock" - role lock being the proposed system, vote lock being the status quo. Don't really care which is the default, but you have to allow the BPO investors to maintain security even against the CEO if the corp is set up appropriately.

With that caveat noted, I support this.

---

good solution

---

Originally by: Misha Soon

---

Is it just me that thinks one of the most important corp security measures is that the BPO's are locked down and hence can't be stolen without all the shareholders allowing it?

Here is a counter proposal. You propose one vote (1) for a batch of BPO's at the same time. The vote therefore goes "Unlock the following BPO(s): Capital Drone Bay, Capital Armor Plates, Capital Antimatter Reactor Unit blah de blah de blah".

Pros: less RSI and time wasting as the OP wanted, but still keeps the accountability of votes for unlocking valuable assets;

Comments invited ;-)

---