Well done EHG you learned

[Kulze]

@DJSamhein

I obviously meant that Judd could have not sold to Krafton and instead shut down after a week. Or Krafton could buy it and shut it down after a week. What is the difference?

None, which is the point there. Unless I misunderstood the ‘has everything to do’ as the demand to do everything the same while you meant ‘has the option to do’.
Might just be a misunderstanding there.

@DJSamhein

But a company cannot exist without an individual or individuals owning it.

Ehhh… it’s a bit iffy in that regard actually.
Treasury stocks for example can ‘own themselves’ by buying back their own stocks. So now it owns partially ‘itself’.
So while technically you’re right in reality there exists the ‘last shareholder paradox’ which is commonly legally forbidden though. In such a case the entity itself already own itself to large degrees and the last individual shareholder can state that they’re selling their shares to the entity, which then makes the entity self-owned… which obviously has a lot of issues attached because a entity without a individual owner cannot act.

And you’re right that it is ‘in-between’. But legally it has nigh every right a person has. It is created that way, and the issue is that it’s not treated as a system led by people which are responsible for the system but instead a entity which is separate from the people leading it.

That’s brought out the issues described for example by the ‘investor-employee-paradox’ which states that the short-timed sight of investors to raise the value they own through cost-reduction (and hence short-term profit increase before collapse) stands directly against the employees which want a long-term stable environment to work in obviously rather then having no stability for their job. Long-term the investors also destroy their own growth potential with that. It also leads to R&D reductions which would be necessary to stay competitive.
There’s a load of studies about that out there, and especially worrysome that in the last 30 years the total count of companies has halved on the stock market since this has become the norm to happen.
Which means there is ‘something wrong’ when it’s night everywhere world-wide happening and causing the same repeated issues. My argument is solely ‘the focus on unrealized value’ is the major issue there.
If stocks are legally enforced to be bought/sold at the asset-value estimation without and unrealized value then those things for example cannot happen. Unimportant if ‘someone wants to pay more for it’ is existing or not. So long-term holding is hence the way it’s commonly handled.
Which is why I stated that the limited liability terms which have become a standard for corporations are a ‘cop-out’ method to avoid active detriment at the cost of the total stability of the system, which is the ‘responsibility’ part I’ve spoken about.

@DJSamhein

The people responsible for that company (or responsible at that time) are very much on trial when that happens.

Which commonly is the CEO or COO though, not the shareholders. So in those cases despite being in the responsible position (it’s their stuff after all, right?) they are often legally not touched.
Otherwise with a small share count in your name for a company getting sued you would still be legally liable. Which is what those designs try to avoid, to allows investors through shareholding solely for the monetary influx through the shares (or example by self-owned shares of the corporation) to not take on any responsibility as they just get dividends for example or it’s for a singular influx of money while they get the option from the rising value inside the company to the sell their shares for a higher price.
It’s a core reason as to why daytrading can even exist, because it’s not hinged on any material value but only on the perception. Which creates the whole mess after all.

@DJSamhein

Just because most use legal loopholes to evade those responsibilities doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

I mean… the function kinda isn’t there then, is it?
If people can just circumvent a rule and it hence cannot be enforced and it’s also commonplace to do so… what effect does it have?

@DJSamhein

Product is simply something that can be traded. You give something and get something in return.

Yeah, here it’s differentiated a bit more, that’s the basis from me hence. In the case you mention it it makes absolute sense. Limiting though obviously as it’s less precise.

@DJSamhein

But this fails when you realize that, for all intents and purposes (even legal ones), the owners of EHG are now the owners of Krafton. Not Krafton itself. Their owners.

You’re shifting away from the example to reality again. Nobody can make a point of something with an example when the example is just ignored.
Once again. I know the actual rules and laws there. I don’t speak for the sake of the example outside the rules and lows as it’s a thought experiment. ‘What happens if?’. This is the way to get potential solutions after all, or at least a deeper understanding of existing situations. But for that one needs to act inside the framework of the ‘what if?’ and point out the respective flaws inside… and not jump in and out willy-nilly.

@DJSamhein

Milk only has the value that people attribute to it.

This is the point I have to argue against. Milk is a directly functional product, tangible. You cannot just ‘remove milk’ and keep the actual practical situation in the world the same. You can remove ‘artwork’ though and absolute do so. They work on completely different layers of necessity. Sustenance is life, base value which is intrinsic hence. Remove food/water and people die. Remove transportation or information networks and the access to Sustenance is gone, hence once again… people die.

It’s fine to handle perception based value or ‘unrealized value’ for things which have no functional existence for the base demands of humanity. But corporations are to a large degree structures which are made to create and support the supply of those necessities. So they cannot realistically be treated similar to a piece of artwork in a gallery which someone pays 5000 times the amount it’s in effort worth since they bring the artist into their circle and hence cause demand to rise for those overpaying people so then the value ‘creates itself’ through the perception of status related to it.

So for the basic necessities it needs to be forced through regulation to ensure function. And we’ve seen in the last 30 years a constant dwindling in functionality through the stock-market, hence through the rules of how ownership and liability is handled for corporations.

This is exactly what I stated relatively at the beginning with ‘socialistic fairness’ versus ‘individual fairness’. Individually it’s fair to allow selling over value for those things. After all… supply/demand, right?
Socially it’s not, it causes a collapse worst-case and hence needs to be regulated to not do that.
Now is the individual fairness or the socialistic fairness more important here?
And as stated… rampantly allowing either direction is destructive, not productive. Long-term for everyone universally, even those initially profiting from it if given enough time.
Which was the motivation to start the thought project there in the first place as it’s interesting to see what the results would be in such a case. And EHG’s sale is a prime example of several parts interacting badly which led to such an exaggerated outcome.

[DJSamhein]

@Kulze

If people can just circumvent a rule and it hence cannot be enforced and it’s also commonplace to do so… what effect does it have?

Rich/powerful people (and more often their kids) often get away with DUIs just because of their money/influence. Does that mean we should allow everyone to drive drunk? Or should we instead aim for a justice system that disregards money/power and doesn’t allow some to avoid consequences?

OJ Simpson got away with murder because of his money/fame and connections. Does that mean that we should just allow people to kill each other?

It’s not commonplace for everyone to use legal loopholes to evade responsibilities. Only commonplace for the very wealthy/powerful ones. And that is a failing of the justice system, not the legislative one.

@Kulze

This is the point I have to argue against. Milk is a directly functional product, tangible. You cannot just ‘remove milk’ and keep the actual practical situation in the world the same.

Sure you can. All you need is medical statements saying that milk is actually harmful for you and shouldn’t be consumed. And then milk becomes worthless. It happened before with plenty of products.

Much like you have worthless (tangible) products being sold for way more because of health fads. Add a “gluten free” or “omega 3” or even still “aloe vera” on your product and it’s now worth 10x more, even though the tangible product didn’t change.

And that is because people attribute their own value to products. Even tangible physical ones.

Individual perception (and the sum of those perceptions, which is the social perception) is all that matters to attribute value to something.
You can have a product that costs 1M to create, but if no one thinks it’s worth more than 100k, then no one will pay 1M.

Likewise, getting back to milk, you can have a cost price of 1 euro, but if people think it’s harmful for them, they won’t buy it. So it’s value is effectively zero.
Somethings aren’t even worth zero, because if they have no value people don’t want them, even for free.

[Kulze]

@DJSamhein

Does that mean we should allow everyone to drive drunk? Or should we instead aim for a justice system that disregards money/power and doesn’t allow some to avoid consequences?

Obviously the second. Which is to a degree why I play with those thought examples around. Only through in-depth understanding and potential of a situation can one realize which actions might be a necessity without stumbling in the dark.

@DJSamhein

And that is a failing of the justice system, not the legislative one.

To be exact it’s a failing of the layer of a societal structure which is in charge of optimizing the rule-based layer if we wanna be precise. But that’s besides the point, it’s a more foundational concept you started there then the one I threw into motion even So yes, true, but if we can enforce it… what should we enforce even is the question here rather.

@DJSamhein

It happened before with plenty of products.

Yes, individual ones, not the whole ‘layer’ of necessity though.
You cannot state ‘food is dangerous’ and everyone stops eating. I mean… some dimwits will likely… but not the general population

Since the concept of corporations does affect the whole ‘layer’ of necessities and not solely the types demanded it hence can simply be applied as a generalization there instead of a precise example. ‘Necessities for immediate survival’ for example as a term. And if we apply it to the group itself rather then allow interchanging things we see that a problem exists if it now with only a single thing upholds the problems.

[ExSea]

@ZyruanVoresu

yikes, the hatred towards the devs of this game is really uncouth.

i do find “hating” a company can be distasteful but if its justified. sure why not. as for EHG, i feel they dont deserve hate. they could have let the game die but theyre still trying their damn hardest to keep it alive.

to me thats worthy of praise.

on the flipside. i would say that harsh criticism sometimes usually is derived from passion. once upon a time my ex told me that if i hated her it meant i still loved her. i hated it but she was right. if i didnt love her so deeply, i would have just been impartial. similarly i ve been bitching on LE/POE forums “forever” because i love those games.

nowadays its different. especially to LE where i participate in forums because i find it entertaining to participate in.

[Llama8]

@Kulze

When have you lost the line of me still talking about the thought experiment and wanting you to engage with it? I can simply not say anything at all since I know what the limitations in reality under the current state are

Good, 'cause English has a different term for “what if things were different”, that’s called a dream or hope. When you’re in s discussion with someone about how things are it’s not helpful to suddenly veer off into *how you might want them to be", especially if you then get surprised about how people are misunderstanding you & your not-based-in-reality suggestion.

@Llama8

@Kulze

This is a prime example for the split between ‘product’ and ‘entity’.
You in this case own the psychiatric clinic, right? So you offer the service. No product existing without you.
Now if you sell your clinic you sell the assets respectively needed or wanted for a functioning clinic. You don’t sell ‘yourself’ here, which is the ‘product’ in this case.
If you leave and someone else comes in they have to build up their reputation from scratch.

I used to be the FC for a dental chain. What you’re saying is just wrong.

Ok. As I said, I used to work in a company where this (the bolded bit) happens. We would buy small dental practices (staff & all, no we weren’t buying the people, they weren’t slaves & they were treated better than Roman house slaves) & add them to our group, sometimes the original owner/practitioner would stay on as an employee, sometimes they would leave. In either case, things generally just carried on as they were before. So your assertion/belief that in the scenario of a psychiatrist selling their practice & potentially moving on that the new owner has to start from scratch, isn’t generally played out in this thing we call reality (that’s what we call what happens outside our own heads).

@Kulze

Not in the thought experiment, which is still the thing I’m arguing about.

Your thought experiment is like saying “what if neutrons only interacted via the weak force” when discussing how fission reactors work. Altering how reality works is not useful when discussing how reality works.

@Kulze

Once again, differentiation between reality and thought experiment.

Yes, “making shit up” isn’t always helpful when discussing how real things work, this is one of those times. As was the slavery discussion (and by that I’m referring to your belief/hope that all/most slaves were treated similarly to Roman house slaves, they weren’t but things might well be different if they were, but we’ll never know because they weren’t).

@Kulze

@Llama8

Steam is not Gabe Newell, to say so is a falacious argument & ridiculous.

50,1% ownership, he’s the majority owner.

Yes, I agree with that. But that’s not what I said. Steam != Gabe Newell. This is not how reality works. There can be a difference between the owner of a company (the shareholders) & the people who run it, there can be overlap but the larger the company the less likely that is, especially when you get into listed companies.

Gabe is also the CEO. If a majority shareholder of a listed company comes in & tells you to do something, that’s different to if the CEO comes in & says the same thing. What do the byelaws of Steam say about the shareholders rights?

@Kulze

Sure, and if he drives the whole product into the ground in a manner which is ‘just’ mismanagement,… what does he personally have to pay?

If the company goes bust then the shareholders loose their investment. They may possibly with to sue the directors/employees for something (depends on the circumstances).

@Kulze

No risk = no responsibility.

Not how things work IRL. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT HOW THIS WORKS IRL.

@Kulze

He can ruin the company entirely if Krafton just does nothing and lets him do it, causing 100 people to loose their jobs worst-case… and he’ll still have gotten his salary, just no bonus.

And he would loose his salary & be sued for negligence. Please just work for a few large corporations, it would help you understand how things work rather than whatever feverdream you come up with.

@Kulze

Well, then you cannot do a thought experiment and only blindly follow rules without expanding your horizon through ‘what if’s?’

Nope. Schrodinger’s cat says hello. Good thought experiments help to understand how reality works.

@DJSamhein

A corporate entity is ALWAYS owned by someone.

Eventually.

@Kulze

Because he’s not owning it? So he has no control in that regard?
If you own 0% of the shares you have 0% of the decision power for it. You can say ‘I wanna disband the company’ and the owner just says ‘no’.

Yes & no. The senior leadership team may not (or may ) be the owners of a company, buy you can bet your bottom Peso that they have decision making power. This just shows how little knowledge/understanding you have about corporations & their power structures. Generally, shareholders/owners control is limited to approving who runs the company (the CEO, etc) & approving certain things. Shareholders are not the same as boardmembers. Shareholders get to have a vote of no confidence in boardmembers (kick them off the board) plus whatever other rights are in the companies byelaws (yes, they are a thing). Boardmembers get to make the biggest decisions (eg, do we make a dividend payment, are the statutory accounts ok to be published, are the bonus & payreview totals ok & anything else that the company’s rules say they should. Boardmembers are generally the most senior people in the company (CEO, CFO, CHRO & the like). A shareholder is not going to come into the office & tell me how to do my job, they got golf to play & yachts to have orgies on.

@Kulze

It’s a puppet position in terms of decision-power. There is no weight behind it, and potentially even communication is controlled.

No, it’s not. At least not IRL, if you want it to be in Kulze-world, you do you. But IRL, if CEO tells everyone to GTFO, he has that authority. He will then likely be sued by everyone (for different reasons), but that’s the risk he takes.

TBH, I’m staggered that anyone’s view on this can be so far from reality.

@Kulze

Also don’t conflate topics together again, you love doing that.

Don’t make shit up, you love doing that.

@Kulze

Then you’re ill-informed.

Eye-row-knee.

@Kulze

but a ‘thing’ cannot be sued, a thing cannot enter contracts, a thing cannot own property

But companies can do all so that, so, I guess that means you’re wrong.

@Kulze

Could be another language barrier here as a ‘product’ in my country has to be tangible
…
The software for a system a product

The later quoted sentence is contradicted by the former.

@Kulze

And on what is the value perception based?

Depends on the individual & the circumstances.

@Kulze

Since stocks can be acquired and sold and their value not hinged on total asset value but on speculative measures

Not solely based on total asset value. Besides, if a company looses a significant amount of asset value then the forecast performance also drops. You are assuming a lack of causal linkage when there totally is one.

@Kulze

No sane person would do it.
But it’s commonplace in corporate trading.

You not understanding how traders value shares doesn’t mean they’re not valuing them in a sane way. Also, they’re probably less risk averse than you which does not necessarily make them insane.

@Kulze

If a idiot is so brainless to do it then they can. But it wouldn’t ever be the close to the norm. With stocks it is the norm.

It’s not, you just don’t understand.

@Kulze

failed utterly to stay even in the framework of the example.

The “framework” was bullshit. We were talking about reality, you then veered off into fantasy land.

@Kulze

Unless you say ‘but no! Because banana!’

Amusingly, that’s how I felt about your “thought experiment”.

@Kulze

Also you shouldn’t throw stones when sitting in a glass-house.

That goes for you too. You demonstrate a lack of understanding as to how things work IRL.

@Kulze

Treasury stocks for example can ‘own themselves’ by buying back their own stocks.

No, a company can buy back shares, this is a way to give money back to investors. The shares themselves obviously can’t buy themselves. After the stock buy back the company is still owned by it’s investors, just that there are less shares in circulation. A share buy back wouldn’t (as far as I understand) change the ownership unless it involves a buy back that is not in equal share to the ownership (ie, preferentially buying back some investors shares while leaving other investors unaffected, rather than just buying a % of everybody’s shares).

@Kulze

So while technically you’re right in reality there exists the ‘last shareholder paradox’ which is commonly legally forbidden though. In such a case the entity itself already own itself to large degrees

Not from your description. That “last shareholder” would own 100% of all shares at that point.

@Kulze

which obviously has a lot of issues attached because a entity without a individual owner cannot act.

It can because it still has management. It may have issues if certain actions are required by its byelaws to require a shareholder vote. But not having shareholders or owners isn’t necessarily the company paralysing thing you appear to think it is. Or is this another example of your “thought experiments” based on rules that don’t apply IRL? If so, you do you boo, the rest of us will discuss reality.

@Kulze

So in those cases despite being in the responsible position

They aren’t in a responsible position. They own it, they are generally not responsible for most decisions. That would paralyse a company if any decision required a full vote of the shareholders. A competitor has just entered the market & we need to take immediate action? Give me a month or two to organise a shareholder vote!!

@Kulze

@DJSamhein

Just because most use legal loopholes to evade those responsibilities doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

I mean… the function kinda isn’t there then, is it?

Just because crime happens doesn’t make it legal.

[Kiadaw]

I don’t think Poe is what LE should be worry about most. I think crimson desert is, if it is remotely as good as people said it is….

I think also dragonkin might surprise people, and I can see many arpg creators playing it over LE, if they are not playing crimson already.

From what I seen, it looks really really good.

LE season 4 need to be a Bangle . But let’s see.

[DJSamhein]

@Kiadaw

LE season 4 need to be a Bangle

So they need to walk like an egyptian?

[Kiadaw]

Haha, if ehg knew what the players want.

[Llama8]

The season’s going to be manic on Mondays.

[Kulze]

@Llama8

Good, 'cause English has a different term for “what if things were different”, that’s called a dream or hope.

Even I know that while it’s often taken this way it’s not how that’s universally used for good reason. And my statement that I’m doing a thought experiment should’ve made the differention more then clear.

That’s not a mistake on my side in this case, other parts aside.

@Llama8

Ok. As I said, I used to work in a company…

So circumstancial evidence without the position of taking it as it being ‘not the norm’… since it’s not the norm? It’s comparably very rare that it happens what you describe. Sure, it does… but it’s not the going practice.
You’re using an exception to talk against a general statement, if the outcome would be that more people do it this way it would actually improve situations as old&new handling would allow to see the differences in results easier.

But alas, sadly that’s not the case usually. And your statement of my assertion/belief being wrong with the argument that it’s not ‘generally’ playing out this way is not founded in reality, it’s only founded in yours from personal experience. It’s sadly not common practice.

@Llama8

Your thought experiment is like saying “what if neutrons only interacted via the weak force”

Oh? So you’re stating that the ongoing situations are immutable like a physical law?
Well, if that’s the stance then there is no need to even discuss further, it’s a lost cause to achieve anything but a narrow view as a outcome.

Just because you don’t have the ability to change it directly now doesn’t mean that there is no possible situation happening where it can get to this. Not only that, it’s also far from unrealistic to state in our example ‘I have no sway at all’, which is factually wrong here as unless you’re a hermit you inherently change the thoughts and behaviours from those around you according to your actions.

Otherwise humanity as a whole would still be in the ‘might makes right’ position fully rather then only partially.

@Llama8

Yes, “making shit up” isn’t always helpful when discussing how real things work,

Oh, let’s check if it’s ‘helpful’ then, sure.

My argument was that the volume of remuneration isn’t based on a proper metric of ‘fairness’ as I’ve described it, including individual and social fairness in conjunction.

Do see if there is a alternative option which would cause it to be ‘more fair’ we cannot adhere to the ‘is’ state, we can only adhere to states outside of it.

So how would ‘making shit up’ (which by the way is how every single change happens universally, even if you talk down on it you should realize that) not be a viable option to explore the possibilities? Obviously if only one person talks about the ‘what if’ and otherwise it’s failed to adhere to it then there is no result. But that’s not from any lacking position of the one suggesting but from the one don’t interacting with it. As inside the thought construct which was imagined there hasn’t been a refute to my statements yet, just a persistent diversion from it.

That’s not how you create fruitful argumentation of any kind, that’s actively lacking.

@Llama8

But that’s not what I said. Steam != Gabe Newell. This is not how reality works.

In the case of Steam as a private company it actually is the reality.
Gabe has ‘near absolute’ decision power. He just doesn’t use it in every aspect, but he can.

@Llama8

If the company goes bust then the shareholders loose their investment. They may possibly with to sue the directors/employees for something (depends on the circumstances).

Exactly, ‘depends on circumstances’ describes it aptly here.
Can or cannot be. Hence it is reasonable to expect that the example I provided can be a thing.
And it’s also repeatedly happening, if you cannot find those examples that’s also on you. They’re aplenty by now, especially in the gaming sector. Just look at Ubisoft as a prime example.

@Llama8

Not how things work IRL. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT HOW THIS WORKS IRL.

No u!
Once again, explain how instead of throwing out random stuff without value.

@Llama8

And he would loose his salary & be sued for negligence.

Not the salary up to that point.
And the sueing is up for discussion, could be or could not be.
That’s the reality of it. You can screw up the lives of dozens, hundreds or thousands of people and face no consequences beyond ‘I’m out of a job personally’.

Or do you want to deny that this is a reasonable possibility to happen?

Actually we can even look back as to why modern corporation CEO’s are running companies like they do. Do you know the story of ‘Jack Welch’ of General Electrics? In management circles he’s seen as the prime example of being a CEO, raising stock values of GE back then through the roof.
All based on short-term decisions though, in the 20 years he was there he caused personally the downfall of the whole corporation, nigh every department vied for recognition while avoiding accountability. It was a near universal situation. Overextension, disjointed product lines, a well oiled well running company completely dismantled over 20 years as a direct result from him.
His ‘punishment’? Over 100 million he earned for that. A high retirement package for ruining the business and no personal consequences at all.

That’s why he’s seen as a sort of ‘idol’ for CEO’s in modern companies. They’re directly following his management ways, which are directly causal to the outcomes.

So the only ‘fever dream’ here is denying it being a realistic existing possibility to happen.
Maybe you should actually take a second look at ‘how things work’ rather then argumenting in such a nonsensical manner.

@Llama8

Good thought experiments help to understand how reality works.

That’s a factually wrong statement.
Conceptional analysis, Testing moral intutions, challenging/supporting theories, exploring possible spaces, generating new ideas…
All things you state do not exist here hence. I would recommend to rethink that argument.

@Llama8

The senior leadership team may not (or may ) be the owners of a company, buy you can bet your bottom Peso that they have decision making power.

To be entirely clear here, it is known that the senior leadership has a 0% stake. So that’s not an unknown.
Also autonomy is granted, but they’re a ‘independant subsidiary’ structuraly, which means while they can make their own contracts and decisions they are mandated to follow any decisions from the ‘parent’ company should it so desire.
Until 2033 there’s a total incentive of up to 60 million payouts for respective results set. But that’s it, a incentive. Which means until 2033 unless that is substantially interfered with by Krafton they have at least in that regard autonomy as far as it wouldn’t directly cause them to loose the ability to get those 60 million.
And given the way Krafton handles those ‘incentives’ with other companies under their umbrella like Unknown Worlds Entertainment it’s reasonable to expect that they’ll try to infringe upon it to their legal limits so they don’t have to pay a dime… or going vastly below the acceptable line, potentially while learning the limitations from their ongoing lawsuit.

To be entirely clear here, that’s the real situation without speaking against or for EHG here, just what the circumstances are.

If your argument was meant as a showcase how ‘how little’ I personally know in those regards then you’ve just shot yourself in the foot with it.

You’re right though that shareholders are not the same as boardmembers. But that also depends entirely on the respective structural setup.

In the case of Krafton and EHG we have Krafton as the holding company to be specific.
Krafton’s decisions of shareholders is limited to ‘big ticket’ items like acquisition, mergers, business scope changes and so on.
The board itself decides on any actionable things below those, hence individual project changes are fully decided from the board.

EHG itself is a autonomous subsidiary type of company, hence they have to abide by the decisions of Krafton’s board. The only legal limitation is interfering with outcomes for existing contracts, like the one for result payouts up to 2033, which to be quite clear here is what EHG was given as their ‘safety net’ to not be controlled entirely.
If you follow actual outcomes related to those contractual obligations and what actions infringe on it then you’ll easily see that EHG simply from a structural standpoint has a very very bad position. Unlike directly at fault (rather then indirectly, which would just be such a bad outcome on the side to loose the goals but save the 60 million, right?.. no legal consequences here and a playfield of 60 million missed goals to ‘break even’ still.) there is no infrigement and that security also vanishes entirely after 2033.

And you’re right that shareholders have some sway in terms of the board of directors. That’s absolutely true!
How much you should actually read up upon though: https://www.krafton.com/en/ir/governance/directors/board-regulations/

In reality what this means is that the shareholders can cause a director to abdicate the position, but who to get into the position instead? Krafton specifically works on a ‘majority’ voting system for the appointment of directors, not a plurality one.

Now where it gets even more interesting is that the chairman of the board (Byung-Gyu Chang) holds by himself over 15% of the votes. With the total board members holding over 22%.
The ‘general public’ holds 40% of the shares, those are nigh impossible to bring to action commonly. So we can ‘remove the from the total’ as a end-result, leaves 60% are actually the ‘100%’ voting power in reality, outside of very very extreme situations.
5,1% are ‘Treasury shares’ hence ‘owned by itself’, also to be removed as the company is not a person and has no voting right. So we’re down to 55%.

Hence in reality to even appoint a single new director nigh unanimously all non-board shareholders have to agree to it together to make it work.

So please… if you wanna rant against me then do your homework first. There is no substantial changes in the board of directors happening as the board is closing in on being totally self-controlled already. This is leading to the situation where the intended safety measures are having so little sway that they loose nigh all function. Some left… but it’s a hard sell to provide a reasonable situation which is so severe as to them kicking into action.

@Llama8

A shareholder is not going to come into the office & tell me how to do my job

Actually that’s exactly what happens in most big companies. That’s a failure of knowledge to realize that.

Want a few examples?
Ubisoft: Chairman of the board has a measly 0,5%, basically nothing, right? Just too bad that he’s part of the Guillemot family which owns ~13,5%
So yes, this ‘golf-player & yacht enjoyer’ is telling the people how to do their job.
Activision/Blizzard before being taken over from Microsoft had Brian Kelly and Bobby Kotick as the highest shareholders on the board, nearly 25% for them alone. They’re close associates by the way.
Bethesda, also now Microsoft by the way had Robert A. Altman as the chairman with around 30% shares and Robert Weaver (creator) held also 30%, they’re close friends too.

So come on… that’s the common way it goes actually, which is the major problem when shareholders and board are the same individuals, hence the board being nigh infallible to be removed even with severe shortcomings.

Yes, you’re absolutely being told what to do by the yacht-club there.

@Llama8

No, it’s not. At least not IRL,

As stated: That’s also wrong.
They are subsidiary of Krafton. EHG’s control once more is ‘0%’, it’s completely held by Krafton. They have the ability to tell EHG’s CEO ‘you have to do that’ and EHG’s CEO then… has to do that.
Yes, it’s actually that simple with 100% shareholder control, which is the case currently.

How would you even say otherwise? On what basis are you making that argument even?

@Llama8

But companies can do all so that, so, I guess that means you’re wrong.

As stated, companies are legally treated as a ‘person’, it’s not without reason called ‘corporate personhood’.
So legally: No.

Look into the legal definitions if you don’t believe it.

@Llama8

Depends on the individual & the circumstances.

That answer is he same as ‘everything and nothing’.
There are universal guidelines as to what is the primary reasoning behind it. That’s what I was out for to check the knowledge base in that regard. It’s moving into psychology again there.

@Llama8

Not solely based on total asset value

At big corporations actually anything but asset value.

For example the S&P 500 does only hold the price based on 10% assets, hence 90% imagination basically.

The common company has 90% ‘unrealized value’ pricing.

The stock market is since a long time not based on reality but based on hopes and dreams of the potential (and rarely actually happening) future. Which kinda makes the argumentation of ‘staying in reality’ regarding arguments kinda humorous actually.

@Llama8

You not understanding how traders value shares doesn’t mean they’re not valuing them in a sane way. Also, they’re probably less risk averse than you which does not necessarily make them insane.

Obviously they are! Doesn’t change that based on their entire internal system it’s not hinged on reality though but in prospective future results. We can see that clearly based on the chart for Krafton directly even.
After the initial major blunders their strong huge price dropped substantially without ever recovering. They were rather stagnant then until the large acquisitions started to happen regularly. Despite annual income not rising very substantially and actual assets becoming less related to that even the stock price soared up nearly 100% in a bit more then a year. Then the lawsuit happened, which doesn’t affect the actual assets held yet and the stock price obviously goes down, only with the acquisition of EHG stabilizing again and starting to recover a minimal amount.

It’s always the same crap cycle which is showcased. Heck… I made a good buck from those markers over the years because the whole system is inherently broken since over 100 years already, but especially so specifically since 1971 to give it a exact point in time with global markets not adhering to any gold standard anymore and hence all of it becoming a system which does create itself out of nothing as it’s not based on anything tangible anymore since then at all.

@Llama8

The “framework” was bullshit. We were talking about reality,

You mean the person which started the whole argument - me - and being answered to as the thought experiment was created as a premise was argued against with reality?

I mean… I hope you can showcase the capacity to realize how that’s completely backwards.
Llama… show some basic quality at least, ok?

@Llama8

No, a company can buy back shares, this is a way to give money back to investors.

‘No!’ so ‘Yes!’… what?
The reasoning for it was not included. You just stated ‘no, they cannot own itself’ with the first word… then followed with stating that they can. And followed with an explanation of how it works despite saying with your first word it doesn’t.

Umh… hello? Someone home there?

@Llama8

Not from your description. That “last shareholder” would own 100% of all shares at that point.

No? But I get the sentiment behind it. Since the entity has no voting right it doesn’t mean though that the last shareholder holds a higher percentile. Just holding a higher percentile of the rights then should be accompanied with the percentile share they actually hold.

I get the sentiment though there.
Was included already inherently though.

@Llama8

It can because it still has management.

It cannot appoint or remove members anymore, which every individual leaving for whatever reason leaves a permanent hole which then causes the entity to be unable to act after a while, just the timeframe is open. But it’s got the death-sentence for actions.

That’s why even in the case the last shareholder dies a coroporation in such a situation becomes commonly state owned property. The situation isn’t even allowed to occur in the first place in most countries for a reason, so you don’t have to wait it.
Depending on country this leads to different outcomes. Usually dissolving it or it’s becoming state managed. But potentially they could also auction it off or outright sell it to new owners re-creating a proper shareholder owned position.

@Llama8

They own it, they are generally not responsible for most decisions.

So… ownership includes no responsibility over the owned things?
I dunno… in Germany that’s actually in the statutes of being the case as one example.

So don’t say ‘no that’s not the case’ when it is ‘yes, that’s the case’ already in reality depending on where you go.

So yes, they are potentially responsible from a legal basis.
And from a social basis they’re always responsible inherently as that’s a fundamental aspect of social structures inherent to them.
Also in US law you’re outside of a corporate entity also responsible for everything your possessions cause.

Your statement is factually wrong there, in reality.

If your house breaks apart because you’ve neglected it and it slams onto a passerby on a public road then you’re liable for it. Hence you have the responsibility to ensure it doesn’t happen. You’re not ‘free to do whatever’ with your belongings either. That’s a wrong assumption and hasn’t ever been the case in any society with laws. The last timeframe where this was the case was before individually lead groups, hence tribalism in the original form. Since then it doesn’t uphold.

@Llama8

Just because crime happens doesn’t make it legal.

But it’s not a crime if you have a loophole.
You didn’t do something illegal, you used a legal route to lead to a unwanted outcome for the system.

That’s a difference.

Also it’s going to be my last post related to the topic, be free to write whatever. As mentioned, it’s not interesting if basic conversation principles are not even followed and then terminologies are thrown around which aren’t even properly understood basing it on a false inherent premise of the position already.

[Llama8]

@Kulze

So circumstancial evidence

It’s not circumstantial. Circumstantial means “information that suggests a conclusion through inference rather than direct, first hand proof”. What I gave is *direct, first hand proof". This is good quality evidence/information, not “I think society would be nicer if stuff happened like xxx”.

@Kulze

It’s comparably very rare that it happens what you describe

Unless you’ve got some proof, you might want to acknowledge the reality that disagrees with your “thought experiment”, take the loss & move on.

Unless you want to move the goalposts or use some other falacious argument.

@Kulze

It’s sadly not common practice.

Trust me bro.

@Kulze

Oh? So you’re stating that the ongoing situations are immutable like a physical law?

No, I’m saying that your “thought experiment” has sufficiently departed from reality to be of no use.

@Kulze

My argument was that the volume of remuneration isn’t based on a proper metric of ‘fairness’ as I’ve described it, including individual and social fairness in conjunction.

Your argument can be boiled down to "I think how things currently work isn’t fair so I’m going to make some things up & then argue as though that was how reality works. That is of no use when discussing how things work IRL. If you want to have a discussion on how to make things fairer, that’s fine, but you’re arguring something different to what everyone else is.

@Kulze

In the case of Steam as a private company it actually is the reality.

It’s not. Gabe has that authority because he’s the CEO, not because he’s the majority owner. Two very different things that you appear to have significant difficulty getting your head around. And because he’s the majority owner he probably can’t be removed from his position of CEO.

@Kulze

Hence it is reasonable to expect that the example I provided can be a thing.

It’s also reasonable to expect that it isn’t a thing.

@Kulze

And it’s also repeatedly happening, if you cannot find those examples that’s also on you. They’re aplenty by now, especially in the gaming sector. Just look at Ubisoft as a prime example.

Dude, you are the one arguring that investors should be held liable for the company they invest in over & above their investment.

Can you point to where I’ve daid that investors don’t sue management? You are also the one suggesting that management has no power, despite that being demonstrably not the case.

@Kulze

Once again, explain how instead of throwing out random stuff without value.

I have, you’re just taking the flat earther tactic of ignoring it.

@Kulze

Not the salary up to that point.

Never said he would.

@Kulze

You can screw up the lives of dozens, hundreds or thousands of people and face no consequences beyond ‘I’m out of a job personally’.

Maybe, maybe not. As I’ve said repeatedly. Just because some house slaves are treated not badly management may not be sued for negligence does not mean that they have no risk or consequences. In the US, if management sign a SOX report & that is found to be false, they can personally face jail time. Same for other scenarios (that I have to snooze through in the various annual corporate training refresher courses), I want to say AML/fraud/not being sufficiently pro-active on the risks & controls stuff.

@Kulze

Actually we can even look back as to why modern corporation CEO’s are running companies like they do.

But Kulze, you’ve earlier said that CEOs are powerless, it’s the individuals who own the company that actually wield the power!!! Please, make up your mind.

@Kulze

@Llama8

Good thought experiments help to understand how reality works.

That’s a factually wrong statement.

Yeah, I mean what would Heisenberg, Einstein, Feynman & the like know about that. They were clearly doing it wrong. I doubt anyone knows who they are now.

@Kulze

Conceptional analysis, Testing moral intutions, challenging/supporting theories, exploring possible spaces, generating new ideas…

None of which is pertinent to what we’ve been discussing here, which is this trifling thing us who don’t live in ivory towers call “reality”. It’s messy, flawed & unfair, but it’s the only game in town.

@Kulze

To be entirely clear here, it is known that the senior leadership has a 0% stake.

Which SLT? SLTs in general? Nope, a demonstrably false statement. Plus, you don’t know the Ts & Cs of thecontract. I have personally seen sales contracts that specify that consideration (payment) is partially withheld & based on various metrics. So no, you’re assuming, based on nothing more than your feels & lack of experience/knowledge that they have 0 stake in EHG.

@Kulze

Until 2033 there’s a total incentive of up to 60 million payouts for respective results set.

Oh, so they do have a stake in the performance?

@Kulze

If your argument was meant as a showcase how ‘how little’ I personally know in those regards then you’ve just shot yourself in the foot with it.

Not really. You’ve said something with no proof or supporting evidence (though I choose to believe you) & then demonstrated your lack of understanding by saying that they have no stake in the success of the company despite apparently there being ~$60m dangling in the wind.

@Kulze

But that also depends entirely on the respective structural setup.

As I said, yes.

@Kulze

The board itself decides on any actionable things below those, hence individual project changes are fully decided from the board.

I wouldn’t expect the board to get involved in that level of minutia, no. Given my actual experience of it.

@Kulze

In reality what this means is that the shareholders can cause a director to abdicate the position

Yes, this is what I said.

@Kulze

but who to get into the position instead? Krafton specifically works on a ‘majority’ voting system for the appointment of directors, not a plurality one.

That would be Krafton. Since there is a singular entity owner (Krafton), there is no plurality, since there’s only 1 entity making the decision.

@Kulze

Now where it gets even more interesting is that the chairman of the board (Byung-Gyu Chang) holds by himself over 15% of the votes.

That’s Krafton’s board, we’re talking about EHG’s board here. It doesn’t matter how Krafton’s board splits its votes, they make 1 decision (yes/no) which would be passed down to EHG. They wouldn’t say, well, 30% of us voted yes, 60% no & 10% abstained, the result of that would be a no.

@Kulze

The ‘general public’ holds 40% of the shares, those are nigh impossible to bring to action commonly. So we can ‘remove the from the total’ as a end-result, leaves 60% are actually the ‘100%’ voting power in reality, outside of very very extreme situations.

No. If a vote requires a certain % to pass, that’s of the total votes, of only half of the public shareholders voted, the other half would be counted as either abstaining or voting with the majority (or whatever the byelaws say. You don’t get ot just ignore stuff 'cause it’s difficult to count.

@Kulze

Treasury shares’ hence ‘owned by itself’, also to be removed as the company is not a person and has no voting right.

Not quite. The treasury shares don’t have voting rights because the company itself bought them back, not because the company is a company. If a 3rd party company owned those shares (say, a pension fund), that would totally get to cast those votes.

@Kulze

if you wanna rant against me then do your homework first

Your maths & assertions are wrong.

@Kulze

Chairman of the board has a measly 0,5%, basically nothing, right? Just too bad that he’s part of the Guillemot family which owns ~13,5%
So yes, this ‘golf-player & yacht enjoyer’ is telling the people how to do their job.

Because he’s the chairman, not because he’s a shareholder!!! Why is this so difficult to understand???

@Kulze

So please… if you wanna rant against me then do your homework first.

Cherry picking is certainly an option. I’m happy you’re happy.

@Kulze

Activision/Blizzard before being taken over from Microsoft had Brian Kelly and Bobby Kotick as the highest shareholders on the board, nearly 25% for them alone. They’re close associates by the way.
Bethesda, also now Microsoft by the way had Robert A. Altman as the chairman with around 30% shares and Robert Weaver (creator) held also 30%, they’re close friends too.

So, boardmembers… I refer you to my previous comment. Also, cherry picking.

@Kulze

There is no substantial changes in the board of directors happening as the board is closing in on being totally self-controlled already.

Did I say that couldn’t happen?

@Kulze

They have the ability to tell EHG’s CEO ‘you have to do that’ and EHG’s CEO then… has to do that.

Though Judd does have the option to not do that & risk the consequences (yes, CEOs have consequences). But the shareholders would have to jump through some legal hoops to get rid of him. They won’t just be able to wake up one morning, decide he needs to go & by the time they’ve showered he’s gone.

@Kulze

On what basis are you making that argument even?

Experience & knowledge. It’s a thing.

@Kulze

@Llama8

But companies can do all so that, so, I guess that means you’re wrong.

As stated, companies are legally treated as a ‘person’, it’s not without reason called ‘corporate personhood’.
So legally: No.

This is what you said that I disagreed with because all of these things can happen in the real world, just maybe not in Kulze-world:

@Kulze

but a ‘thing’ cannot be sued, a thing cannot enter contracts, a thing cannot own property

Can a company be sued? Absolutely!
Can a company enter into contracts? Absolutely! That’s the basis of the economic system & even your employment (unless you’re self-employed).
Can a company own property? Oh hell yes.

To say no to any of those things is to deny reality to the extent that maybe you’re a “sovereign citizen” or flat earther. Seriously.

@Kulze

Look into the legal definitions if you don’t believe it.

I know, but unless you’ve forgotten what you were replying to (which is why I try to include some context), you were arguing for something that is demonstrably not true.

@Kulze

That answer is he same as ‘everything and nothing’.

Yup, 'cause there’s no one size fits all answer.

@Kulze

then followed with stating that they can.

No, they don’t own themselves. As I said, a share buy back is a way to give cash back to the investors & increase share price. That doesn’t mean the company owns part of itself. The investors still own 100% of the available shares (with the exception of treasury shares, I’ll give you that, bug they are not a common thing), it’s just that instead of 2 million shares (for example) in circulation, there may only be 1.9 million shares (for example) in circulation (which is why the price goes up).

@Kulze

Since the entity has no voting right it doesn’t mean though that the last shareholder holds a higher percentile.

It does. If a person owns 1 share out of 100, they have 1% of voting stock (ignoring non-voting shares). If there are only 10 shares, they have 10% of the voting power. Finally, if there were only 1 share available, they’d own 100% of the voting right. I, personally, call this “maths” (with an s), not sure if the name will catch on.

Now, that said, I have absolutely no idea if that scenario would ever occur rather than a % based buy back, so

@Kulze

It cannot appoint or remove members anymore,

Nah, the management can still perform their day to day tasks. Plus I’m sure there’s something in Corporate law to deal with that weirdarse scenario, I just have better things to do with my time than try to find out.

@Kulze

That’s why even in the case the last shareholder dies a coroporation

I would argue that in that scenario, the share becomes part of the dearly departed’s estate & thus passed on. And I know that happens, shares are totally an inheritable asset.

So no, your lack of experience & knowledge has lead you down an erroneous path.

@Kulze

a coroporation in such a situation becomes commonly state owned property.

Only if the singular shareholder died intestate (without a will) & without any surviving relatives. please don’t say that’s common…

@Kulze

ownership includes no responsibility over the owned things?

Depends.

@Kulze

So don’t say ‘no that’s not the case’ when it is ‘yes, that’s the case’ already in reality depending on where you go.

So you’re saying that in Germany, if a company was convicted of murdering someone, the shareholders would go to prison. That is some fucked up shit.

@Kulze

So yes, they are potentially responsible from a legal basis.

So the German shareholders were legally sanctioned because Volkswagen had that diesel emissions scandal 10-20 years ago?

@Kulze

then terminologies are thrown around which aren’t even properly understood

Yes, it’d be nice if you stopped that. You are not immune to doing this yourself, regurgitating google results is nit the same as knowledge, skill or experience.

[Kulze]

@Llama8

No. If a vote requires a certain % to pass, that’s of the total votes, of only half of the public shareholders voted, the other half would be counted as either abstaining or voting with the majority

Yep, was my mistake, didn’t think to the end.

Makes it only less realistic for a board-change to happen though, which goes against your arguments of ‘they can make it happen if not happy’.

Not gonna answer the other parts, a few bits are reasonable, a boatload is plain bullcrap though, like the ‘I don’t agree with the legal terminology of a corporation being treated as a person’. At which a ton of the answers hinge and are just wrong hence. Read up simply.

[Dubee]

If you guys spend even half the amount of energy on something productive, instead of arguing about legal terms, who and what can be sued, and what is and is not fair and ethical business practices, this world would improve somewhat.

[d3viant]

@ZyruanVoresu

yikes, the hatred towards the devs of this game is really uncouth.

It’s frankly BIZARRE - I left the game a year and a half ago because it needed 1) POLISH and 2) CONTENT - I can see the polish (it’s much improved) but I still feel the CONTENT needs biggest improvement - we need IN MONO (or out, IDC) > COOL MECHANICS like abyss or breach in POE. THAT BEING SAID, I don’t get the HATE on the forums, it’s disgusting.

[Kahzimi]

Yeah bro I started a year ago right before the long as update dropped where they added the cemetary stuff and uber then next release they added primordials and ancient eras and rift beasts as well as the new chapters and this time round in 2 weeks it’ll be omens (breach from poe) and item corruption and another new boss so it’s coming just gotta give it time when comparing it to a game that launched like in 2012/2013 vs 2019, few years behind with the content dropping lol

[Macknum]

@Kahzimi

just gotta give it time when comparing it to a game that launched like in 2012/2013 vs 2019, few years behind with the content dropping lol

Why? They descided to make a game and publish an unfinished product in a bad state intentionaly. I compare it to every other game and if they can’t take the heat they should get out of the kitchen. EHG made their own bed and now they have to lay in it.

A lot of people told them “Give it another year it’s not in a good state.” and they released just to need a year to fix fundamentals and the game is still in a bad shape. So even optimists with experience like me were wrong when they told EHG they need another year because it looks like 2-3 years would’ve been more realistic.

[Kahzimi]

I was referring to giving them time to add the content and the fact the other game mentioned has over 6 years of creating and launching new content each season. Don’t come at me for something I specifically and respectfully directed at someone else. D***.

But honestly, do whatever the f*** you want bro, compare away but here’s the thing - no ones making you play this game and no ones making you sit on these forums working yourself up into a fizzled little pile of sweat and rage so feel free to just go away and play something else. You won’t be missed, I promise you that. You’re not an optimist.

“give it time” - hopefully, optimistic, having a growth mindset, realistic patience.
“they made their bed now they have to lay in it” - this is resigned / fatalistic.

Basically you should move on with the other dozen or so negative poster boys on these forums who just hate on the game one dig at a time.

[d3viant]

@Kahzimi

Basically you should move on with the other dozen or so negative poster boys on these forums who just hate on the game one dig at a time.

YEP 100% - I wasn’t happy, even after being a donator of much more than measly $34, just walked away for a bit, it seems MUCH improved. Take your hate and LEAVE

[Macknum]

@Kahzimi

I was referring to giving them time to add the content and the fact the other game mentioned has over 6 years of creating and launching new content each season.

Again… so what? If you want to make a good game today you should make it in a way it lives up to the competition. D4 is in the same boat, heck even PoE2’s content amount is trash compered to PoE 1 and so on and so forth. Now chill out if you react like this when someone has a different oppinion then you you look like a fool with agression problems ^^.

[ExSea]

@Kiadaw

if ehg knew what the players want.

i think its important that they know what they want AND what the players want and find the intersection. i think the players have told them what they want. and did actually did fulfill their part and gave player a huge lot of what they wanted.

players wanted more.

but players did not give ehg enough. ehg overcommitted to the players and ended up selling their game.