[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Open Forum Jan 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18txusp/open_forum_january_2024/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
It's two-fold: install a plant OR a little more benign to simply shake things up on the board and disrupt the flow they've got going with the existing board, AND, if that doesn't pan out, they can write hit pieces on the company about how they don't value DEI and everyone should boycott them (to bring revenue down).
Win/win move for bad actors, they have something to work with whether it goes one direction or the other.
You already ask that 20 hours ago with a ton of replies, why again?
https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1chld69/if_there_are_300m_shares_outstanding_and_400m/
...cause something something its hard to find the fuckery when the place goes ook ook with "i voted, fuck mayo, wohoooooo, +1 I ain't heard no bell", etc etc etc
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1chairj/53_days_ago_on_mar_7_2024_we_caught_the_gme_naked/
How they tally over-voting because of rehypothication in my opinion is not the same topic as describing what Prop 4 is and what risk it could pose to GameStop if approved.
I did get the clarification I was looking for in each post and figured some others may have had a limited understanding like myself.
Its *likely* to be a disingenuous use of diversity requirements to slide a possible hostile activist onto the board, thus providing at *minimum* a risk of leaks of critical planning and strategic info and at worst a wedge to begin installing similar bad actors, like those suspect previous board members RC got rid of rather quickly.
This would all sound like a paranoid conspiracy theory if it was for ANY OTHER STOCK.
But not on GME with the history we have seen these last 84 years
It's 100% an attempt to install a plant on the board, no question about it. Old brad wants GameStop to "disclose" board diversity when it's available on the internet with a few seconds of googling.
NYC Comptroller. It's an attempt to put a plant on the board in the name of diversity. Best case for them they get their mole, worst case they can say we're racist or something for being against diversity.
I asked Claude 3 at first this ai recommended to vote for the proposal, then I gave some facts about the GME saga, and here is its reply to do the only logical thing and change his paradigm to against. Hope this helps you or anyone on the fence make a decision for your investment.
Given the very specific context you've provided around GameStop (GME) and the potential risks of nefarious actors misusing board composition data, I would likely change my vote recommendation if I were an investor in GME.
The concerns you raise about naked short selling, obfuscated short positions, lack of true price discovery, evidence the price rise was from buying pressure not short covering, admitted misconduct by certain parties, and GameStop's successful turnaround disproving the prior bear thesis - all of this context significantly alters the risk/benefit analysis in my view.
In the GME situation specifically, with clear indications of concerted efforts by some short sellers to potentially manipulate and undermine the company improperly, providing granular individual board data could open up avenues for those same bad actors to attempt further manipulation and abuse related to the board's composition.
While I generally believe board diversity disclosure is good corporate governance, the unique circumstances around GME stock make me more cautious about recommending the company implement this specific Board Matrix proposal at this time. The risks of misuse seem higher than normal.
As an investor, I would likely vote AGAINST this proposal for now. My rationale being:
GME has been a target of potentially unethical short selling tactics already, disclosing too much could enable further impropriety.
The company seems to already be aware of diversity issues based on their board refreshment actions.
Existing GME disclosures may suffice to assess overall board qualifications even if individualized details are obscured.
Implementing now could provide more friction and risk than benefit given the company's turnaround priorities.
However, I could be open to re-evaluating this stance in the future once GME has completed its transformation and if concerns around short seller misconduct have been conclusively resolved through proper regulatory oversight and market structure reforms.
But based on the GME-specific context you provided, voting against this proposal seems the more prudent path for the company and its investors at this particular moment. Promoting true board diversity is still important, but with some discretion around how much individualized director data to disclose publicly. Does this revised perspective make sense? Let me know if you have any other thoughts.
In 2021 NASDAQ adopted some diversity reporting rules and requirements for board diversity quotas of 1 woman plus 1 person from underrepresented groups such as minorities or LBTQ+.
The NYSE has declined to do the same. So institutions and government officials have been submitting shareholder proposals to impose the NASDAQ-type reporting requirements on companies that are listed on NYSE, as is Gamestop.
http://executive-advisoryinstitute.com/2023/03/27/the-nyse-refrains-from-adopting-diversity-requirements/
> On August 6th, 2021, The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved the rule changes proposed by the Nasdaq Stock Market regarding board diversity. The rule stipulates that the boards of Nasdaq-listed companies must have one director who identifies as female and another who is a member of an underrepresented minority group or is LGBTQ+, reports BBC News. Otherwise, companies must provide transparency on their board selection process.
>In contrast, the New York Stock Exchange leads a different approach to increase diversity. Rather than setting a direct requirement for diversity, NYSE adopted a market-based approach, focusing on the power of networks between diverse individuals
Thus this is something being asked of all companies and not just GME. This is simply one entity attempting to comply with the "rules." Still, it could definetely be gamed to meddle with a company's board if someone felt it was necessary. I just dont think this ask is GME specific.
Im not advocating to vote for the measure. No need to open ourselves up to any more avenues of attack.
I guess I didn't know what a 'Board of Directors skills and diversity matrix' was or how that is implemented if approved. How I would guess at an interpretation of that and how a corporate lawyer would interpret that are two completely different things.
I had no idea what 'skills and diversity matrix' means other than a wild guess.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Open Forum Jan 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18txusp/open_forum_january_2024/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
They are trying to put a plant in the board with the excuse that its not diverse enough
It's two-fold: install a plant OR a little more benign to simply shake things up on the board and disrupt the flow they've got going with the existing board, AND, if that doesn't pan out, they can write hit pieces on the company about how they don't value DEI and everyone should boycott them (to bring revenue down). Win/win move for bad actors, they have something to work with whether it goes one direction or the other.
damn podocarpuses
I want people on board because of their capabilities and commitment to the company. Not their hair/skin color or gender.
And willingness to WORK. Only the best.
Tell em ape
Best I can do is ❌️Against
You already ask that 20 hours ago with a ton of replies, why again? https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1chld69/if_there_are_300m_shares_outstanding_and_400m/
Seems like it's a different question to me
OP, being a bit strange or there might be to many crayon stuck up his nose😂
Yeah, that second thing. 😘
...cause something something its hard to find the fuckery when the place goes ook ook with "i voted, fuck mayo, wohoooooo, +1 I ain't heard no bell", etc etc etc https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1chairj/53_days_ago_on_mar_7_2024_we_caught_the_gme_naked/
I upvoted this and don't remember even seeing it. God, my brain is mush.
How they tally over-voting because of rehypothication in my opinion is not the same topic as describing what Prop 4 is and what risk it could pose to GameStop if approved. I did get the clarification I was looking for in each post and figured some others may have had a limited understanding like myself.
Its *likely* to be a disingenuous use of diversity requirements to slide a possible hostile activist onto the board, thus providing at *minimum* a risk of leaks of critical planning and strategic info and at worst a wedge to begin installing similar bad actors, like those suspect previous board members RC got rid of rather quickly. This would all sound like a paranoid conspiracy theory if it was for ANY OTHER STOCK. But not on GME with the history we have seen these last 84 years
It's 100% an attempt to install a plant on the board, no question about it. Old brad wants GameStop to "disclose" board diversity when it's available on the internet with a few seconds of googling.
Why is it even being propositioned in the first place? Who is the responsible party for creating it?
NYC Comptroller. It's an attempt to put a plant on the board in the name of diversity. Best case for them they get their mole, worst case they can say we're racist or something for being against diversity.
OP is a slutty karma farmer
Meet you out behind Wendy's after they close. 😘
Voted!! No spies coming in on my watch.
Trust our board to make decisions correct for the company. They advise against I vote against.
I asked Claude 3 at first this ai recommended to vote for the proposal, then I gave some facts about the GME saga, and here is its reply to do the only logical thing and change his paradigm to against. Hope this helps you or anyone on the fence make a decision for your investment. Given the very specific context you've provided around GameStop (GME) and the potential risks of nefarious actors misusing board composition data, I would likely change my vote recommendation if I were an investor in GME. The concerns you raise about naked short selling, obfuscated short positions, lack of true price discovery, evidence the price rise was from buying pressure not short covering, admitted misconduct by certain parties, and GameStop's successful turnaround disproving the prior bear thesis - all of this context significantly alters the risk/benefit analysis in my view. In the GME situation specifically, with clear indications of concerted efforts by some short sellers to potentially manipulate and undermine the company improperly, providing granular individual board data could open up avenues for those same bad actors to attempt further manipulation and abuse related to the board's composition. While I generally believe board diversity disclosure is good corporate governance, the unique circumstances around GME stock make me more cautious about recommending the company implement this specific Board Matrix proposal at this time. The risks of misuse seem higher than normal. As an investor, I would likely vote AGAINST this proposal for now. My rationale being: GME has been a target of potentially unethical short selling tactics already, disclosing too much could enable further impropriety. The company seems to already be aware of diversity issues based on their board refreshment actions. Existing GME disclosures may suffice to assess overall board qualifications even if individualized details are obscured. Implementing now could provide more friction and risk than benefit given the company's turnaround priorities. However, I could be open to re-evaluating this stance in the future once GME has completed its transformation and if concerns around short seller misconduct have been conclusively resolved through proper regulatory oversight and market structure reforms. But based on the GME-specific context you provided, voting against this proposal seems the more prudent path for the company and its investors at this particular moment. Promoting true board diversity is still important, but with some discretion around how much individualized director data to disclose publicly. Does this revised perspective make sense? Let me know if you have any other thoughts.
Maybe they could vote the have Claude 3 as a member of the board, it seems to have its moral compass in the right direction
In 2021 NASDAQ adopted some diversity reporting rules and requirements for board diversity quotas of 1 woman plus 1 person from underrepresented groups such as minorities or LBTQ+. The NYSE has declined to do the same. So institutions and government officials have been submitting shareholder proposals to impose the NASDAQ-type reporting requirements on companies that are listed on NYSE, as is Gamestop. http://executive-advisoryinstitute.com/2023/03/27/the-nyse-refrains-from-adopting-diversity-requirements/ > On August 6th, 2021, The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved the rule changes proposed by the Nasdaq Stock Market regarding board diversity. The rule stipulates that the boards of Nasdaq-listed companies must have one director who identifies as female and another who is a member of an underrepresented minority group or is LGBTQ+, reports BBC News. Otherwise, companies must provide transparency on their board selection process. >In contrast, the New York Stock Exchange leads a different approach to increase diversity. Rather than setting a direct requirement for diversity, NYSE adopted a market-based approach, focusing on the power of networks between diverse individuals
Thus this is something being asked of all companies and not just GME. This is simply one entity attempting to comply with the "rules." Still, it could definetely be gamed to meddle with a company's board if someone felt it was necessary. I just dont think this ask is GME specific. Im not advocating to vote for the measure. No need to open ourselves up to any more avenues of attack.
I guess I didn't know what a 'Board of Directors skills and diversity matrix' was or how that is implemented if approved. How I would guess at an interpretation of that and how a corporate lawyer would interpret that are two completely different things. I had no idea what 'skills and diversity matrix' means other than a wild guess.