| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2009.10.15 00:39:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Solisk
A discussion in scc-lounge today brought an interesting question to mind.
When using a "trusted third-party" to hold collateral (a BPO to be exact), is it considered a breach of etiquette if that trusted person uses the collateralized BPO for production/copying?
I don't believe this scenario has been discussed in MD to date (to my knowledge at least), but appears to be a question that needs to be addressed.
If it is indeed bad form to do so, then there is only one option available to us currently that could guarantee that the BPO's aren't being used and that is API monitoring for the trusted third-party.
What are you guys' thoughts?
I would think that it is assumed that an unused BPO would be copied while its sitting in the third parties possession.
And that the charge the third party was charging to hold it would reflect the value of them copying it, even if they aren't.
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.15 00:51:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Solisk
I think assuming that you can just copy collateralized BPO's without permission is assuming too much.
Most third-party's don't charge, or charge very little, to hold collateral. I think in this case, the third-party should be allowed to make copies, but only if they have an agreement with the owner.
I really liked the method Brock brought up. Utilizing the BPO's and splitting any profits would be beneficial to both parties and may even provide an avenue for people asking for public funds to provide BPO collateral without having to take a profit hit because they can't produce from it.
I don't see what's taken away by copying the BPO so long as its returned when it is supposed to be.
I also think BIG's BPO policy is one of the things that really sets them apart from the normal "I'll hold it".
Now a lockdown in a corporate hanger is the best of both worlds.
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.15 02:39:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Solisk
Originally by: Stardust CEO
Originally by: Solisk
So by that reasoning, you would consider it ok for a developer to build on property he doesn't own and the landowner selfish for caring?
Take some kind of logic class, or critical thinking class, or debate class... then get back to me with an apology, and your admission that the above applies in no way.
Whoa, slow down there. Why are you taking offense and attacking me? My intention wasn't to offend.
I looked in the phone book and didn't see anyone advertising a logic/critical thinking/debate class, so I think I'll need you to explain why my admission doesn't apply here.
I thought, after all, that it was an issue of property being used without owner consent.
I agree with stardust.
Your comparison is stupid at best.
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.15 13:48:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Chribba
I don't use the collateral I hold for a customer unless I asked for permission first, that's just my view of how I run my business.
For a real life comparison (yeah I know stupid since this is a game) - but if I hand my car to my bank as collateral, I sure as hell wouldn't want the bank guy to drive it around.
But I do see the point in using an otherwise unused blueprint for example, guess it comes down to how you want to run your business and how you would like others to treat you if you hand away your things as collateral.
The main difference I see between using a BPO when it's being held as collateral, and driving a car, is that the wear and tear and mileage on the car change the nature of the product.
The BPO will be in exactly the same condition when it's returned to its owner.
I'm curious, how much you charge to hold collateral for third party loans?
|
| |
|