phoenixdownita Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Thomas Jentzsch said: I think the paying members are pretty irrelevant to Atari. AA is an important platform to e.g. spread news, check reactions and research and create demands. See my problem, if paying members are irrelevant then they should stop paying, but Al says those contributions are still relevant to keep AA alive. Edited June 3 by phoenixdownita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+GoldLeader Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 39 minutes ago, Thomas Jentzsch said: All companies which are listed at the stock exchange must operate like this. Else their stakeholders can sue the CEOs if they forgo any potential profit. Everybody seems to think this, but it's wrong (and I personally disagree)... Well, here's a quick quote I like that is much more accurate... "Nonetheless, corporate law does not impose upon management an exclusive profit-maximizing duty, but merely links management's fate to the stockholders' pleasure. The aggregated choices of participants in the stock market will determine the extent of management's freedom to pursue goals apart from profit-maximization." -Ian Lee Basically the law is what they call persistently ambiguous. Also there are corporate charters which include social responsibility and ethics etc,... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 2 minutes ago, phoenixdownita said: See my problem, If paying members are irrelevant then they should stop paying, but Al says those contributions are still relevant to keep AA alive. AtariAge not Atari. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 4 minutes ago, GoldLeader said: "Nonetheless, corporate law does not impose upon management an exclusive profit-maximizing duty, but merely links management's fate to the stockholders' pleasure. The aggregated choices of participants in the stock market will determine the extent of management's freedom to pursue goals apart from profit-maximization." So, what besides profit makes Atari's stockholders happy? Do you have any information that I am not aware of? 4 minutes ago, GoldLeader said: Basically the law is what the law is what they call persistently ambiguous. Also there are corporate charters which include social responsibility and ethics etc,... Again, I am not aware of such a charter of Atari. Do you know better? Edited June 3 by Thomas Jentzsch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+GoldLeader Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 27 minutes ago, Thomas Jentzsch said: So, what besides profit makes Atari's stockholders happy? Do you have any information that I am not aware of? Again, I am not aware of such a charter of Atari. Do you know better? Well I wasn't talking ATARI specifically...And I'm Not a stockholder in PONGF, but what makes me personally happy is that ATARI got rid of a certain earlier CEO, has slowed down its bad behavior (going after fan sites for example), focused more on video games, even added some Retro goodness; Though if it was profit they were after, IMHO an FPGA Atari 2600/7800 could have sold for more (and present as a premium product from a serious company) and would likely have sold more units, although it might have taken longer, but it would have built goodwill (also part of most Corporation's MO)...Also they never should have greenlit the 400 Mini (or at bare minimum they should have tested the joysticks, fixed some things etc.)...but I could go on and on... My point was more In General. For example take Whole Foods or Natural Grocers; They may charge more but it's part of their goal to pay the farmers more and to more responsibly source their products etc. BTW it's not that you're completely wrong, merely that there's more to it; And Profits over People is Never a good look. PS While there is no exacting law,...Most CEOs would consider it the duty of a CEO to maximize profits where possible; Although there's also lots of examples where they don't. And sometimes they are proven right (For example, CBS keeping M*A*S*H on the air despite bad ratings for its first season), sometimes they are proven wrong (Too many examples haa)...Just my two cents here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixdownita Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Thomas Jentzsch said: AtariAge not Atari. They are now the same, paying customers of AA are paying customers of Atari at large, the converse is also true for inasmuch as Atari diverts resources into AA. Edited June 3 by phoenixdownita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+D Train Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 I had a long post written about profit motive, nonprofit corporate structure and the obligations of a corporation but decided that unless someone really wants to hear my thoughts on that, it's just not necessary. blah, blah, blah, As an observer, since the purchase, the forums have stayed non-commercial. To the best of my knowledge, no posts have been removed. With the exception of the removal of games that "overlapped" someone else's IP, there doesn't appear to have been any change in operations. Furthermore, Atari employees and partners are on the forums and engaging with the public, which is...exciting? It's my understanding that atari employees and partners are also engaging with developers and other people in the atari community in private. Wade seems to believe that retro-gaming is important to the company. He's on his way to obtaining a majority of ownership, which, if he is a good guy, is a good thing. Two very trusted members of the community (Al and Tim Lapetino) are now working for Atari. While there is no certainty that this means that AtariAge will be protected in the future, it at least does not bode poorly. And there was no guarantee that under Al things would have stayed the same or that AtariAge would have continued to be stable with Al in charge (not knocking his business acumen. personal and economic issues change and sometimes that is destabilizing). So while I don't really want to carry The Man's water, I don't understand why this is coming up now. Even with the understanding that vigilance is never inappropriate, things right now look sort of good both for Atari and AtariAge. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Living Room Arcade Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) I agree with @phoenixdownita. Atari employees should be identified as such whenever they post here in the AA forums. Right under their avatars. Where ours say "Member," theirs should say, "Atari employee." (That's actually what I wanted to ask you about back in January, @Albert Mr. Albert.) And the Atari Privacy Policy governing the AA forums should be released to the public right now if it hasn't been released already. That document should answer pretty much all of the privacy questions about AA members' private information such as how much access Atari has to it and how Atari legally can use it. Edited June 3 by Living Room Arcade 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixdownita Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 34 minutes ago, D Train said: So while I don't really want to carry The Man's water, I don't understand why this is coming up now. Even with the understanding that vigilance is never inappropriate, things right now look sort of good both for Atari and AtariAge. I just kinda recently got out of a job so I have free time. I was reading and so started thinking what changed to the status of content and info and personnel on AA now that is owned by a different company. The only known facts are: 1) AA was sold to Atari (I assume the sale contract is a public document if I really need to find out if Al is now bathing in a 20M$ golden bathtub or such 😊 ) 2) Al is an employee of Atari, currently overseeing AA but not only (there was some mention of historian related work) 3) one of Atari official spokesperson accounts TrodgarRobusto wrote: if I had a choice between answering a lot of granular "what if" questions or saying "AA will operate under Albert as it did before" I'll pick the latter because it remains an accurate statement 1 and 2 are backed by legal contracts among the interested parties, 3 I am not sure it’s any binding or if it should even be, it’s more of a statement of current status and so subject to change at any time for any reason or no reason (mind you that it may well be rightfully so). My experience taught me to trust but verify, hence all these questions. As stated above Atari has not done anything wrong with AA as far as I can tell … at least so far … and I would like it they keep it that way. Edited June 3 by phoenixdownita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchoolRetroGamer Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 This thread makes me feel like....... 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mushroom Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 3 hours ago, GoldLeader said: "Nonetheless, corporate law does not impose upon management an exclusive profit-maximizing duty, but merely links management's fate to the stockholders' pleasure. The aggregated choices of participants in the stock market will determine the extent of management's freedom to pursue goals apart from profit-maximization." -Ian Lee But as a majority owner, which Wade is scheduled to become, you can´t overlook the minority investors. If Wade as a majority owner publicly stated that he wanted to spend a lot of company money on unprofitable projects for his own amusement, minority investors could legally force him to change, or compensate them for their losses. So Wade would not be legally allowed to keep AA ad-free as a majority owner, if his sole reasoning was that he personally enjoys it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixdownita Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 56 minutes ago, OldSchoolRetroGamer said: This thread makes me feel like....... Yeah, sorry about that, I do have some senile moments here and there. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevEng Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 52 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said: So Wade would not be legally allowed to keep AA ad-free as a majority owner, if his sole reasoning was that he personally enjoys it that way. He could give the site away ad free, if he believes it enhances the brand and will result in more profit elsewhere, even if that profit is down the line. The justification just has to be gut feel. He's not going to say to the board "hey I like it this way, even with no benefit" as a justification. Sure if he believed he was giving corporate money away for no benefit to the corporation that would be contrary to his fiduciary obligations. Good luck proving that as a shareholder. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+bent_pin Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 59 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said: If Wade as a majority owner publicly stated that he wanted to spend a lot of company money on unprofitable projects for his own amusement, minority investors could legally force him to change, or compensate them for their losses. Which law allows for that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mushroom Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 29 minutes ago, bent_pin said: Which law allows for that? Abuse of a majority position: minority shareholders who suffer an abuse by the majority can bring a civil action (there is an abuse of majority if the decision of the majority has been taken contrary to the general interests of the company and with the sole purpose of favoring the majority shareholders to the detriment of the minority shareholders). [...] Any shareholder may ask the court to hold the corporate officers liable and to obtain damages for the losses suffered personally by the shareholder, as distinct from the losses suffered, as the case may be, by the company (Article L.225-252 of the French Commercial Code, action ut singuli). https://rmt.fr/legal-overview-how-to-establish-a-business-entity-in-france/?lang=en Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+bent_pin Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 9 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said: the sole purpose of favoring the majority shareholders to the detriment of the minority shareholders How does keeping ads off of AA benefit the majority holders to the detriment of the minority holders? According to the law you referenced one must gain at the loss of the other for there to be a case. I don't see anything of the sort here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mushroom Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 minutes ago, bent_pin said: How does keeping ads off of AA benefit the majority holders to the detriment of the minority holders? He gets to enjoy using AA without ads, and the minority holders miss out on profit from ads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+bent_pin Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 5 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said: He gets to enjoy using AA without ads, and the minority holders miss out on profit from ads. What's his username here on AA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mushroom Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 5 minutes ago, bent_pin said: What's his username here on AA? I don´t know if he has one. It was a made up scenario to illustrate that a majority owner can´t do whatever he wants. For the scenario to work, he doesn´t even have to be a member, he could just be browsing. He could even never have been to the site, just like the idea that it has no ads. Edited June 4 by Lord Mushroom 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+bent_pin Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 minute ago, Lord Mushroom said: It was a made up scenario I'm good there. Certainly, the CEO could have special access without ads, if they so wished. Even if that was the case, good luck proving that as profit over detriment it in court. The law you quoted is very specific and requires substantiation. You aren't even close to having that here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mushroom Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 minute ago, bent_pin said: Certainly, the CEO could have special access without ads, if they so wished. The scenario said AA would be ad-free, not just for the majority owner, so that is irrelevant. 3 minutes ago, bent_pin said: Even if that was the case, good luck proving that as profit over detriment it in court. I didn´t say it could be proved, just that it would not be allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 Guys. Please. ..Al 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Neon Wraith Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 I'm with Al and Old School Retro Gamer. Now you're all nitpicking. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razzie.P Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 3 hours ago, OldSchoolRetroGamer said: This thread makes me feel like....... I don't know what's going on in this tread and don't care enough to learn, but seeing the look on that cat's face, I'm glad it happened. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchoolRetroGamer Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 8 minutes ago, Razzie.P said: I don't know what's going on in this tread and don't care enough to learn, but seeing the look on that cat's face, I'm glad it happened. That cat be like "Look I've had just about enough of our sh*t Bill!" 😂 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.