Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dennmoth Ferdier
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 19:07:00 -
[1]
I'm the CEO of a corp and I'm leaving EVE for a few months, and I'm giving some director roles to 3 of my most trusted.
However, to avoid any foul play, I'd like to arrange it so that the three of them need to vote to unlock stuff in corp hangar.
How do I got about doing that?
Also, if I don't leave myself 51% of the shares, does that mean they would in theory be able to remove my CEO rights?
If I do leave myself 51% of the shares, will they still be able to lock and unlock stuff with the 3 of them?
What I basicly want to achieve is, that there has to be 3 people in agreement to take stuff from corp hangar, and if possible so that they can't overthrow me even if all 3 together wanted. ------ Dare to challenge me? |
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 19:37:00 -
[2]
Edited by: De''Veldrin on 01/09/2009 19:38:02
Originally by: Dennmoth Ferdier I'm the CEO of a corp and I'm leaving EVE for a few months, and I'm giving some director roles to 3 of my most trusted.
However, to avoid any foul play, I'd like to arrange it so that the three of them need to vote to unlock stuff in corp hangar.
How do I got about doing that?
Also, if I don't leave myself 51% of the shares, does that mean they would in theory be able to remove my CEO rights?
If I do leave myself 51% of the shares, will they still be able to lock and unlock stuff with the 3 of them?
What I basicly want to achieve is, that there has to be 3 people in agreement to take stuff from corp hangar, and if possible so that they can't overthrow me even if all 3 together wanted.
You're overthinking this.
1. They get their new rights 2. You go on vacation 3. They vote to unlock everything. 2. They remove everything from corp hangar 3. They leave Corp 4. They start new corp 5. You come back to a classic WTF moment.
They don't need to remove you as CEO. Either you trust these people or you don't. If you do, fine. If you don't, well...might wanna rethink that vacation. --Vel
Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you're an asshat. |
Dennmoth Ferdier
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 20:03:00 -
[3]
Well the whole point of it is, that while I may not trust anyone of the 3 individually, it doesn't mean all 3 are going to screw me over.
At least this way, there has to be 2 out of 3 willing to stab me in the back. ------ Dare to challenge me? |
Hoo Is
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 20:21:00 -
[4]
you keep 40%, give each of them 20%. Then it takes all 3 of them to hit 60% to do anything...
---- a reply which adds nothing to a thread or results in a thread being bumped with no new discussion worthy content is considered spam and as such warrants a forum ban |
Ninja Troll
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 20:25:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Dennmoth Ferdier Well the whole point of it is, that while I may not trust anyone of the 3 individually, it doesn't mean all 3 are going to screw me over.
At least this way, there has to be 2 out of 3 willing to stab me in the back.
I thought any CEO can be voted out of office by a majority of employees -- eBank as example.
Further more, an alliance executor can be voted out by a majority of member corps all choosing to support one of the other member corps.
|
Rotnac
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.02 04:30:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ninja Troll
Originally by: Dennmoth Ferdier Well the whole point of it is, that while I may not trust anyone of the 3 individually, it doesn't mean all 3 are going to screw me over.
At least this way, there has to be 2 out of 3 willing to stab me in the back.
I thought any CEO can be voted out of office by a majority of employees -- eBank as example.
Further more, an alliance executor can be voted out by a majority of member corps all choosing to support one of the other member corps.
That is incorrect - its the shareholders that can change the CEO, not the members, who actually get no say in it. You are correct about the alliance thing though.
|
Yarinor
|
Posted - 2009.09.02 07:07:00 -
[7]
Doesn't the CEO have a veto right on unlocking BPOs? I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere.
|
Sen Quenten
Beacon of Light
|
Posted - 2009.09.04 12:59:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Yarinor Doesn't the CEO have a veto right on unlocking BPOs? I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere.
Yes. Without the CEO, it's impossible to unlock BPOs. Directors can vote all they want, but even after the vote succeeds, the CEO must "sanction" the action before it is actually unlocked.
In addition, a director with 1 share can lock/unlock BPOs if nobody votes against it. The rule is that >50% of the *votes cast* must be yes in order to exceed, not >50% of the shares outstanding.
|
Sidrat Flush
Caldari Life is Experience New Eden Hardware Emporium
|
Posted - 2009.09.04 15:02:00 -
[9]
If you don't trust them individually don't give them director roles simple as that.
You also don't need to lock blueprints to keep them from sticky hands either simple allow viewing in that hangar division (HQ, personal base or Other) where the blueprints are stored and give them corp manufacturing rights and a spare wallet division.
They put the minerals in the same hangar division (which they can't take back either) and select the output to a division they CAN access. The blueprint gets returned to the original division and the output gets sent to their specified hangar division on delivery.
Locking and unlocking blueprints are a major pain in the knee caps so coming up with a way of keeping prints secure while allowing usage is the best thing a CEO can do. I keep the corp minerals in the same hangar division as well so that remote manufacturing can occur - of course this means some idiot could end up building 2500 shuttles on a whim but that's the price to pay (it hasn't happened in my corp but I know it has happened).
Eve-online Industrial Organiser thread t1 & t2 batch manufacturing |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |