Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Riot Games laying off 11%

riotgames.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 158 posts

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#101

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

acdha wrote: post #73
imgabe wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, someone who gets laid off is not a victim. It's a known part of the deal of having a job. You might decide to quit and leave the employer. The employer might decide they don't need you anymore and lay you off. You both have that option. You know this going in and you both are supposed to make arrangements to be able to deal with this possibility.

Sophistry aside, it’s still profoundly disruptive for many people. Whether or not they know there’s a risk, it means people are scrambling to reestablish their finances and routines, and in many cases that can have long-lasting impacts – people have to move, Americans have disruptions to their healthcare access & providers, and older people might never regain their old salary. That doesn’t make it illegal, or even a…

I agree, but layoffs are not necessarily sacrifices. layoffs really are necessary sometimes.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#102

Post by imgabe »

Apocryphon wrote: post #93
imgabe wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there's a systemic solution, called unemployment insurance, that every company is required to pay into, and they pay more when they lay people off. What else would you have us do? These are grown professional adults we're talking about, not helpless wards of the state. It's not unreasonable to expect people to be able to take care of themselves.

Decouple health insurance from employment, for starters.

I don't necessarily disagree, but we're getting into the weeds here. My point is just that choosing to voluntarily end a business arrangement, within the the terms of the agreement, does not constitute "victimizing" someone. Otherwise, the employer could claim they're a victim when an employee quits. A store could claim they're a victim if a customer starts shopping at a different store, and so on. It's ridiculous.

The tendency to cry victimhood at every obstacle is pernicious and debilitating to those who practice it. I would encourage people to avoid it.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#103

Post by computator »

leetrout wrote: post #68
izzydata wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how hard it would be to wait 4-6 months and then attempt to get rehired at Riot again. It seems unlikely that they will be on a total hiring freeze for over 6 months.

Some places make you sign papers you wont reapply to get your severance. Someone explained that in one of the other recent layoff threads.

What is the rationale of promising to not reapply? If a company is hiring again 6 months after some layoffs, what would be wrong will rehiring an ex-employee who was one of those laid off, assuming they are the best candidate for the new job opening?

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#105

Post by klodolph »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #72
klodolph wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible This is from the OED. There’s no mention of consequences. You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions. I’m an on-call engineer, I’m accountable for outages. That means that I give a root-cause analysis when they happen. I’m not given dis…

> You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions. If an accountant lies in his numbers, they go to prison. Why are you missing the most obvious explanation, it’s simply a political point they have to be seen saying, but have no intention of doing - I.e. it’s a lie

There are lots of scenarios where a CEO can go to prison.

I don’t think we get a lot of mileage when we argue about the right words used in corporate comms. Like, “this person is accountable to some extent, but not enough for my standards, so the word ‘accountable’ should not be used here.”

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#106

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #72
klodolph wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible This is from the OED. There’s no mention of consequences. You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions. I’m an on-call engineer, I’m accountable for outages. That means that I give a root-cause analysis when they happen. I’m not given dis…

> You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions. If an accountant lies in his numbers, they go to prison. Why are you missing the most obvious explanation, it’s simply a political point they have to be seen saying, but have no intention of doing - I.e. it’s a lie

what makes it even worse is just the usage of the word accountable is technically correct but awkward as shit because no one actually uses that word in that manner, they use it in the manner you suggested.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#107

Post by noobermin »

irjustin wrote: post #100
eganist wrote: post #12

It's a decent severance package, honestly. But, as usual, > As CEO, I’m accountable for the changes we’re making and where we’re headed in the future. So, I think it’s important for me to share how we got here and how the next few days will work. I see no indication as to how Dylan will actually be held accountable for the decisions that ultimately led to this.

> I see no indication as to how Dylan will actually be held accountable for the decisions that ultimately led to this. I believe you're reading the sentence differently than how it's being conveyed. Dylan is talking about the decision to layoff will improve the company for the future. If it does not then the board should "hold him accountable" and remove him. You're hoping that Dylan gets punished for being forced to…

Was he also forced to over hire? Will anyone face consequences for that?

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#108

Post by rapind »

irjustin wrote: post #100
eganist wrote: post #12

It's a decent severance package, honestly. But, as usual, > As CEO, I’m accountable for the changes we’re making and where we’re headed in the future. So, I think it’s important for me to share how we got here and how the next few days will work. I see no indication as to how Dylan will actually be held accountable for the decisions that ultimately led to this.

> I see no indication as to how Dylan will actually be held accountable for the decisions that ultimately led to this. I believe you're reading the sentence differently than how it's being conveyed. Dylan is talking about the decision to layoff will improve the company for the future. If it does not then the board should "hold him accountable" and remove him. You're hoping that Dylan gets punished for being forced to…

OP stated specifically (which you quote) “the decisions that ultimately led to this”.

So…

> You're hoping that Dylan gets punished for being forced to layoff employees.

Seems to intentionally misconstrue what OP said.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#109

Post by [deleted] »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #82
acdha wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sophistry aside, it’s still profoundly disruptive for many people. Whether or not they know there’s a risk, it means people are scrambling to reestablish their finances and routines, and in many cases that can have long-lasting impacts – people have to move, Americans have disruptions to their healthcare access & providers, and older people might never regain their old salary. That doesn’t make it illegal, or even a…

Riot is offering a minumum of six months of severance. I agree, layoffs are disruptive, but this view that somehow if you get hired the company can't ever decide to let you go is totally bizarre to me. Plus, what you would be essentially arguing is that it would have been better to never have hired these people in the first place, which I strongly disagree with in the vast majority of cases. People need to stop actin…

[deleted]

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#110

Post by eganist »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #66
eganist wrote: post #12

It's a decent severance package, honestly. But, as usual, > As CEO, I’m accountable for the changes we’re making and where we’re headed in the future. So, I think it’s important for me to share how we got here and how the next few days will work. I see no indication as to how Dylan will actually be held accountable for the decisions that ultimately led to this.

A more literal interpretation of accountability would mean that they can tell the story, the accounting, of how things happened. Now if they are responsible, maybe they should be liable for consequences

> A more literal interpretation of accountability would mean that they can tell the story, the accounting, of how things happened.

That's not a common interpretation in this context, especially the part about responsibility v. accountability. If it helps to understand it in a business process context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matr...

Often, the entity accountable for an outcome owns the consequences regardless of who's responsible for implementing it. It doesn't help that accountability and responsibility are often synonyms in all other contexts. It's why the department executive gets fired if 30 million dollars was spent and the program doesn't get the job done, at least if they manage not to skirt accountability for it.

Post reply on HN