I'd vote yes...
If it was a new challenge for a new server. If so, I'd vote for the mechanics being the GB can only be built once the player reaches the tech era of that GB. Goods can still be obtained, but I have flakey feelings on the BPs. If it is 'tech' locked, why/how could the BPs be stored and understood? Then again, limiting BPs would slow down GB construction. Then again again, that would be a good incentive for people on the challenge server to spend diamonds once the 1st BP is obtained... I digress.
Assuming this would be applied to all current servers, it should be an obvious no. Practically speaking.
The proposal isn't feasible without an absurd amount of planning, work hours and inevitable bugs. Would the Prime Directive dictate that all FPs gained from Arc owners be vaporized or placed into a time capsule? Same for all goods obtained by DT (including the coveted BA goods)? A LMA city using the workforce of an Inno, what will happen when the people are in cyro, yet the 'approved' buildings are still in the city? All Rain Forest BPs and Seed Vault diamonds whisked into a vault? All Battle points obtained thanks to the help of The Kraken, held by a retainer?
Now to catch up on the 11 pages of civil discussion that Surly ensued from this well thought out and not-at-all troll bait(ing?) proposal.
Edit @End of Page 2: Huh. So this is what it feels like to beat a dead horse when coming into a thread late. 8 pages to go... Thought: A lot hinges on the exploit assumption. I'm guessing that gets sufficiently argued in 8 pages.
Edit @Finale: That was a hellva thing. A small part of me (The Sn part) wants to believe in the 'it's all a hoax troll'. I mean, Prime directive, locking away technology ahead of your 'tech tree'. Secret Star Trek fan with an elaborate troll to birth a meme?
Too bad my Occam's razor foils that. Regardless, what a wild ride. I guess my original argument is outdated so I better update it.
I'd vote no.
As written, it would rob Inno of easy revenue. I can see the beginnings of an argument of future tech GBs being an exploit, but reject the evidence used to support it as strong enough to justify the proposal. I see the current state as 'normal' rather than an exploitative state.
That was before other forum users brought other evidence forward. That evidence seems solid enough to favor the argument that the current GB situation is, at the very least, tacitly approved of by the devs. At best, it was designed with full cardinal knowledge to maximize revenue. I think the stronger 'exploit' argument would be in regards to Inno's business practices... But that is less Prime Directive and more Rules of Acquisition.