News Support update - Reiteration of player harassment rules

[Red Anders]

EVERYTHING that was said within this post has absolutely NO legal standing within a court of law and has arbitrary and vague definitions.

Shall I tell you what people often forget when making this argument, which I have seen countless times in the past?

It's the fact that what you wrote only becomes relevant at the point that you have appointed counsel and are actually taking legal action about something. Until that point, where money begins to change hands, it is p... and wind. As Shakespeare wrote, '...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'

I'd say the same thing to you as I do to anybody else who makes the point. Fine, do whatever you want and if you do end up with some form of sanction get your wallet out and start paying a legal professional. Not just the £150 they will charge you to write a letter either because everybody laughs at those, you need to actually take it to court. If you're not prepared (or financially equipped) to do that though, probably better to stop going on about it.

It's actually abundantly clear from Zac's post what kind of behaviour is being talked about and it sure as hell isn't just having pvp fights. The fact is that just like any other online game, you can't set out to do nothing but make other people miserable for your own kicks and expect to get away with it. Frankly, the fact that you're obviously willing to fight so hard to defend a right you never had to begin with speaks volumes about your character, or rather the complete lack of it.

Fly safe Commander. [smile]

 

[Taimaru]

It's also worth pointing out that Stream Sniping is prohibited within Twitch's Rules of Conduct.

 

[Ashnak]

Wondered whether I should post this - if this is over the line for the UK or US, mods, please kill this post immediately (should I have reported my own post?).


Anyways, there's a German proverb that fits this thread to the point. On any German media, I could post it, as it is a common proverb. Here and at the moment, I'll try to be careful and just leave the link to a German proverb website here. Especially since the object of this proverb has a very close relation to the player group/minor faction we're avoiding to name here in order to avoid all this 'name and shame' stuff.

If you can manage to read German, fine. If not, well, Google Translate makes a pretty mess of it - the first word would better translate as 'hit' or 'hurt'.

 

[xondk]

It's also worth pointing out that Stream Sniping is prohibited within Twitch's Rules of Conduct.

That's a weird thing...because you can watch twitch without signing up or logging in. So what can twitch actually do, I mean how would twitch even figure out which of the IP of the many none logged in watchers is the one that did the sniping so they could ban/punish them appropriately?

 

[Roybe]

Wondered whether I should post this - if this is over the line for the UK or US, mods, please kill this post immediately (should I have reported my own post?).


Anyways, there's a German proverb that fits this thread to the point. On any German media, I could post it, as it is a common proverb. Here and at the moment, I'll try to be careful and just leave the link to a German proverb website here. Especially since the object of this proverb has a very close relation to the player group/minor faction we're avoiding to name here in order to avoid all this 'name and shame' stuff.

If you can manage to read German, fine. If not, well, Google Translate makes a pretty mess of it - the first word would better translate as 'hit' or 'hurt'.

We have something similar in English..."Methinks he doth protest to much' William Shakespeare...most people know the gutter version 'He who smelt it, dealt it.'

 

[Chance-]

Wondered whether I should post this - if this is over the line for the UK or US, mods, please kill this post immediately (should I have reported my own post?).


Anyways, there's a German proverb that fits this thread to the point. On any German media, I could post it, as it is a common proverb. Here and at the moment, I'll try to be careful and just leave the link to a German proverb website here. Especially since the object of this proverb has a very close relation to the player group/minor faction we're avoiding to name here in order to avoid all this 'name and shame' stuff.

If you can manage to read German, fine. If not, well, Google Translate makes a pretty mess of it - the first word would better translate as 'hit' or 'hurt'.

You're not wrong at all! I'm against this post because I've done or been with others doing some of these things because we are allowed to. Personally I never liked the intrusion on Mobius and was never a part of it but the rest is simply silly. Banning people for killing charity streamers? How do you define something as being disruptive when the whole role you play in the game as a mercenary/terrorist is being disruptive? Am I going to be banned for posting a video of me killing others because I'm SDC and somehow that is interpreted that I was trying to gain notoriety? All of the offenses in this thread that are considered punishable are left vague and indefinite specifically so that they can be applied in any situation that Frontier feels fit. At the end of the day we all know nothing will come of this so this entire argument is pointless. Don't believe me? Look at the combat logging thread and tell me that wasn't another empty promise.

 

[Elethiomel Zakalwe]

Star Citizen might be one to watch.

Lotta money invested by some people in that, there's exactly the same "heated" discussions and back and forth happening over there as there is here re PvP, except over there you have real cash in the equation.

Imagine if you'd dropped a thousand dollars on a ship and it was "griefed" from under you.

Certainly some players will be looking at those high value targets.

IN game/ out of game sometimes the lines can be a bit blurry.

Well to be honest this is the fault of SC's developers. I don't see how anyone can approve of that pay-to-win funding model.

 

[bitstorm]

You're not wrong at all! I'm against this post because I've done or been with others doing some of these things because we are allowed to. Personally I never liked the intrusion on Mobius and was never a part of it but the rest is simply silly. Banning people for killing charity streamers? How do you define something as being disruptive when the whole role you play in the game as a mercenary/terrorist is being disruptive?

Not being funny I mean I do tend towards all gameplay is fine if it's permitted by the game.

But one person going through all streamers involved in a single charity event and killing them is a pretty straightforward example I think given Zac's post.

I mean sure you can complain it's silly because sometimes it isn't always clear cut, but the obvious reply to that is that well sometimes it is clear cut.

 

[Elethiomel Zakalwe]

You're not wrong at all! I'm against this post because I've done or been with others doing some of these things because we are allowed to. Personally I never liked the intrusion on Mobius and was never a part of it but the rest is simply silly. Banning people for killing charity streamers? How do you define something as being disruptive when the whole role you play in the game as a mercenary/terrorist is being disruptive? Am I going to be banned for posting a video of me killing others because I'm SDC and somehow that is interpreted that I was trying to gain notoriety? All of the offenses in this thread that are considered punishable are left vague and indefinite specifically so that they can be applied in any situation that Frontier feels fit. At the end of the day we all know nothing will come of this so this entire argument is pointless. Don't believe me? Look at the combat logging thread and tell me that wasn't another empty promise.

I think that the idea was that you would have to be intentionally targeting the charity stream in order to disrupt it for it to be against the rules. But yes, I agree that this will be impossible to enforce fairly and it was probably silly for Frontier to even bring it up.

 

[Chance-]

Not being funny I mean I do tend towards all gameplay is fine if it's permitted by the game.

But one person going through all streamers involved in a single charity event and killing them is a pretty clear cut example I think.

I mean sure you can complain it's silly because some examples aren't always clear cut but the obvious reply to that is that well some examples ARE clear cut.

On that same note I could say we weren't disruptive at all but rather providing a more interesting experience for the streamer and the viewers. Kateclick was the only one who got mildly upset while Jenner actually thanked us for it and the third streamer didn't really care. In any case, I don't consider that to be disruptive I just think we're making it more interesting and it is within the rules to hunt other players.

 

[xondk]

You're not wrong at all! I'm against this post because I've done or been with others doing some of these things because we are allowed to. Personally I never liked the intrusion on Mobius and was never a part of it but the rest is simply silly. Banning people for killing charity streamers? How do you define something as being disruptive when the whole role you play in the game as a mercenary/terrorist is being disruptive? Am I going to be banned for posting a video of me killing others because I'm SDC and somehow that is interpreted that I was trying to gain notoriety? All of the offenses in this thread that are considered punishable are left vague and indefinite specifically so that they can be applied in any situation that Frontier feels fit. At the end of the day we all know nothing will come of this so this entire argument is pointless. Don't believe me? Look at the combat logging thread and tell me that wasn't another empty promise.

Here's the problem....
Killing others, yes that's allowed, pvp is allowed, heck encouraged.
Griefing, killing people disrupting, harassing, was never allowed. I don't know if SDC is build around griefing but the invasion of mobius was clearly an action not allowed.
You can easily be a mercenary/terrorist without being disruptive, the idea being that you interact with people, it is the non interacting griefing, simply blowing people up left right, that is not allowed, if you have a clear in game motive, and you actually interact with people then I doubt few will have an issue with you, and you can easily gain that notoriety you want, but simply killing people left right and center without reason other then "I'm a terrorist" yeah...that's not going to make you seem notorious, that's just going to make you look like you want to annoy people.

Sit down, figure out what it is you want to be, and build on it, attack people at specific goals and such, simply attacking and ramming people at community goals, are not the act of a terrorist however, unless you are referring to attacking a place with a lot of people, but in that case I believe SDC claimed to be enforcing the speeding limit apparently, by speeding and ramming people..to abuse a clear mechanical issue. That is not the act of a terrorist, that's an act of a griefer, abusing a mechanic to cause others harm.
A terrorist would not only be attacking people either, but would amongst other things be working to spread their influence, maybe try to spread their anarchy faction into a fed/alliance/imperial system and take over it, destroying anyone fighting against that, and that's just one of the options.

 

[z3r05k1ll]

Zac, your post disturbs me greatly. Your post amounts to a threat that you will start policing conduct (actions) based upon intent and reception. This idea is something that is regarded universally as impossible, dangerous. The reason it is considered impossible and dangerous is intent is arbitrary as is reception, they both differ from person to person. In other words, there is no reasonable legal obligation, action, or recourse, for any party involved that can pertain to intent or reception.


To re-inforce this point, let’s go to the EULA. The portion of the EULA being quoted by you is:
7.3.1 The Game and/or Online Features may allow communications between users by means including but not limited to text and voice. When using such features you must use common sense and good manners, your behavior, conduct and communications must be considerate to other users and you must not be directly or indirectly offensive, threatening, harassing or bullying to others or violate any applicable laws including but not limited to anti-discrimination legislation based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
In a legal sense, where-in action is justified to be taken against me or another player within the context of the contract that took place between me or any other player and Frontier Developments, this line means nothing outside of the discrimination portion as it almost exclusively relies on evaluation of one player’s intent and another’s reception. The problem with intent, and reception, is they are not apparent. In courts, an event is evaluated for whether or not it happened and whether or not it caused loss or injury in violation of applicable statutes. Hints of motivation may be used to persuade that something is within the scope of someone’s character, but motivations and intent are never prosecuted or even prosecutable. I do believe the majority of humanity agreed long ago that thought policing is a very very bad idea. The one and only portion of this clause that has any bearing within a legal context is at the end, wherein it states that anyone making communications in violation of anti-discrimination laws are in violation of the EULA.


Now, while the portions of 7.3.1 you aim to reference in justification for potential future actions to be taken against legally participating users of your game, you seek to further expand upon the legally baseless clause by adding more legally baseless examples to its definition. The phrase “purely for the purpose of being disruptive, to cause offence, or to upset players within the community” is again, too ambiguous to apply in any legal framework. Either you target actions, or you target effects. Either player vs player interactions are allowable within the framework of the EULA or it is not. The reasoning behind one party’s initiation of a player vs player encounter is immaterial because it is something that is not testable. However, someone’s reaction to an event is something that can be acquired as it is self-reportable by the complainant, the problem in this context though is reception is also quite arbitrary. In consideration of the arbitrary nature of second party reception of actions taken, it is unreasonable to expect one player to tailor their gameplay choices to the reactions that one or many player may or may not have to those gameplay choices. Plain and simple arbitrary factors are not good basis for judgements in any objective decision making process, legal, contractual or otherwise.


If one was to evaluate these incidents you are referring to objectively, one would find no wrong doing on the part of any party. Let’s take the charity snipe I was involved in as an example. By far the least ‘sinister’ of the 3 highlighted snipes:
· I and 3 other individuals requested access to a private group, in accordance with the game’s interface provided to us by Frontier Developments.
· The streamer accepted the requests made by me and the three other players.
· We found, and attempted to hold hostage the streamer, demanding more donations to her cause.
· She replied “Kappa” and ran.
· I warned the streamer repeatedly to stop or we would be forced to terminate her vessel.
· Streamer continued to run.
· I destroyed the streamer’s ship.
Where, in this chain of events did I or any of my wing mates commit any provable transgressions that violated the EULA? All of the actions I took were legally within my rights as outlined by the EULA, that is to say, I used the client as provided without modification to take action within the game. Neither I nor any of my wing mates conducted any communications that could be characterized as racist, sexist, anything-ist. But yet here we are, with you asserting that my actions were in violation of the EULA.


Ultimately, it’s not about context. Context is meaningless. If I attack a player, my reasons for doing so do not change the characterization of that attack, and neither does that player’s reception to that attack. I simply attacked a player. Is that ok, or is it not?

 

[Chance-]

simply blowing people up left right, that is not allowed

You're wrong though...

 

[Elethiomel Zakalwe]

Sorry, but no, that's not harassment, that is an entire in-game reaction, if or if not it is motivated and encouraged out of the game on forums, it is a consequence to what SDC did.
And if someone is a consequence it can hardly be seen as harassment, because SDC could easily have avoided it by not doing what they did, which as described here is clearly an act of harassment, SDC harassed mobius, they reacted.

There's no ground at all for any class action law suite, because guess what, SDC broke very clear rules, that have even now been clarified further, so yeah..and the mobius and others response is done entirely in game via in game mechanics that are a part of the game, it is no different then if they decided to attack them for any other reason. Where what SDC did was based purely around enjoying harassing others, unless you can explain what possible other reason there is for going into a group and disrupting it?

I have to disagree. If targeting a stream in game is harassment then inciting people to specifically target SDC in game is also harassment.

"because SDC could easily have avoided it by not doing what they did, which as described here is clearly an act of harassment, SDC harassed mobius, they reacted."

Doesn't matter. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Jypson]

Originally Posted by Chance-
You're not wrong at all! I'm against this post because I've done or been with others doing some of these things because we are allowed to. Personally I never liked the intrusion on Mobius and was never a part of it but the rest is simply silly. Banning people for killing charity streamers? How do you define something as being disruptive when the whole role you play in the game as a mercenary/terrorist is being disruptive?

---

There is so much to unpack in this comment. I'm just going to address the two big ones here.

1)

I'm against this post because I've done or been with others doing some of these things because we are allowed to.

This isn't an opinion piece, this is directly from FDev. You are now dutifully informed that you are not allowed to.

2)

How do you define something as being disruptive when the whole role you play in the game as a mercenary/terrorist is being disruptive?

You just answered your own question. Using roleplay to be disruptive is not allowed, you are now dutifully informed.

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

To be honest this could be solved pretty easily by the 'game' fighting back.

If your out there causing trouble (ganking or otherwsie) and you get a massive bounty on your head then the next time people leave a space port they should be running for their lives. Personally I Have no issues with people playing the game and assuming the role of a bad guy, or just a mass murderer. But the game should be set up to deal with people like that.

Unfortunately the game currently doesn't work like that. Hopefully some day it will.

This! Plus some better tools for player bounty hunting. While I agree griefing doesn't seem to have any real consequences. Its worsened by the fact that someone with a huge bounty can just cower in Mobius or solo until it expires. What annoys me is all the people that level up to a federal corvette in solo (easy mode) and then come out like they're all bignuts for PVP in open when the odds are disgustingly in their favour then duck out into easy mode (Solo or PvE group) as soon as they find themselves outmatched.

Not only that NPCs pull you up and attempt to kill you with no rhyme nor reason,n the only difference is when a human does it is that you stand a chance of losing. To many people are just punking out into private groups where they only play PvE while in traders, this cocks up the food chain of the game. No traders means no pirates, no pirates means no player bounties which means no real bounty hunting.

People who act like cowering in private groups doesn't have an outcome to other peoples play in an already sparse universe are deluding themselves. The more traders duck out the higher the pirate to player ratio is in open making it even harder to trade than it was. This is a positive feedback mechanism and it will kill the game.

I've got no problem with people playing in private groups but the movement between them is a nuisance, why should someone who never fought a player previously be able to drag his corvette out of a private group to muller eagles in erevate?

Half these griefers, when they come up against a decent pilot aren't as good as they seem; they can be beaten or escaped from, but some people would rather trade shields for cargo space (and expect no additional risk). If you're getting killed get better at fighting or running.
The problem is that some people cant handle losing, they expect pirates to play by rules.
If you ask someone for their cargo they log out, if you fit a cargo scanner you loose the opportunity to have something else that's more useful. As soon as anyone dies they've been griefed (whether they have actually been griefed or not) this is a problem and this is why the groups are getting invaded, open is boring now!!

Now to balance that out I do think the consequences for player killing are far too low, your last season in this expansion should be called "JUSTICE" it should have pirate stations that pirates can dock at and sell their wares without triggering alerts. If you have a federation bounty then someone allied with the federation should be able to pick up a job for your bounty off the bulletin board at a federation station and receive updates on screen whenever you dock at a federation station so they can track you along with details of when you're online or off line. They should also be given instance priority to join you in any instance you are in. Pirate stations could also be embargoed much the same way as SDC and CODE have done in the past with legal stations.

Introduce this and player bounties will become much more lucrative and a pirates or griefers life should be much more challenging. Enough I dare say to reduce griefing to sensible levels. I am aware people will jump into sideys to get friends to kill them and claim their bounty, the solution to this is to make the fines a player has to pay on the rebuy be twice the bounty claim, along with the fines having to be paid out before you can use the remainder for your potential rebuy, piracy could really be a double edged sword.

I play as a bounty hunter, and I am the law!

No traders means no pirates
No pirates means slim pickings
Slim picking means I end up just grinding a REZ

That gets old real quick

I'm losing interest.

I've been a bit course for entertainment purposes, I don't really want to upset any of the carebe..... I mean PvE players but it is the easier option to work your way up to a decent ship in private groups and the problem with easy options is that too many people take them.

How many players in Mobius alone?

Do people really think that loss of players doesn't affect the viability of the open game for certain playstyles?

That's my two cents

Fly safe commanders (don't need to tell PvE players that as they already are

 

[bitstorm]

On that same note I could say we weren't disruptive at all but rather providing a more interesting experience for the streamer and the viewers. Kateclick was the only one who got mildly upset while Jenner actually thanked us for it and the third streamer didn't really care. In any case, I don't consider that to be disruptive I just think we're making it more interesting and it is within the rules to hunt other players.
View attachment 107711

In this example sure hunting players is one thing but the only link between those players was that they were doing a charity event.

The apparent motivation then moves away from the claimed "hunting players", and becomes "targeting a charity event", and that's where the issue occurs. In the end this becomes targeting some players due to something that is actually nothing to do with the game.

One player killed, yes maybe this would be overlooked, but multiple? I think FD will step on this going forward.

My attitude is, just keep it in game and it's all good.

FWIW I consider the options menu "out of game" if you get my drift.

 

[Chance-]

https://forums-cdn.frontier.co.uk/images/elite/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chance- https://forums-cdn.frontier.co.uk/images/elite/buttons/viewpost-right.png
You're not wrong at all! I'm against this post because I've done or been with others doing some of these things because we are allowed to. Personally I never liked the intrusion on Mobius and was never a part of it but the rest is simply silly. Banning people for killing charity streamers? How do you define something as being disruptive when the whole role you play in the game as a mercenary/terrorist is being disruptive?

---

There is so much to unpack in this comment. I'm just going to address the two big ones here.

1) This isn't an opinion piece, this is directly from FDev. You are now dutifully informed that you are not allowed to.

2) You just answered your own question. Using roleplay to be disruptive is not allowed, you are now dutifully informed.

Congratulations on saying the same thing twice? You didn't answer or respond to anything I said and I'm quite certain you didn't actually read it. Frontier can threaten to ban us all they want but a forum post does not mean they can start banning people for it. If it isn't in the EULA or the TOS I never agreed to it and neither did anyone else.

 

[Elethiomel Zakalwe]

https://forums-cdn.frontier.co.uk/images/elite/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chance- https://forums-cdn.frontier.co.uk/images/elite/buttons/viewpost-right.png
You're not wrong at all! I'm against this post because I've done or been with others doing some of these things because we are allowed to. Personally I never liked the intrusion on Mobius and was never a part of it but the rest is simply silly. Banning people for killing charity streamers? How do you define something as being disruptive when the whole role you play in the game as a mercenary/terrorist is being disruptive?

---

There is so much to unpack in this comment. I'm just going to address the two big ones here.

1) This isn't an opinion piece, this is directly from FDev. You are now dutifully informed that you are not allowed to.

2) You just answered your own question. Using roleplay to be disruptive is not allowed, you are now dutifully informed.

More clarification is necessary. RPing as a terrorist/murderer is specifically permitted and the game was even advertised as such. If Frontier wants this to be taken seriously then they need to define 'harassment' more clearly such that it can not be interpreted as prohibiting behavior that was established to be legitimate long ago.

 

[Chance-]

In this example sure hunting players is one thing but the only link between those players was that they were doing a charity event.

The apparent motivation then moves away from the claimed "hunting players", and becomes "targeting a charity event", and that's where the issue occurs.

One player killed, yes maybe this would be overlooked, but multiple? I think FD will step on this going forward.

"Hunting players" being plural. I can hunt anyone I want and it is advertised as such on the game's website right? Then why do they get to choose who I can engage and who I can't?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Zac, your post disturbs me greatly. Your post amounts to a threat that you will start policing conduct (actions) based upon intent and reception. This idea is something that is regarded universally as impossible, dangerous. The reason it is considered impossible and dangerous is intent is arbitrary as is reception, they both differ from person to person. In other words, there is no reasonable legal obligation, action, or recourse, for any party involved that can pertain to intent or reception.


To re-inforce this point, let’s go to the EULA. The portion of the EULA being quoted by you is:
7.3.1 The Game and/or Online Features may allow communications between users by means including but not limited to text and voice. When using such features you must use common sense and good manners, your behavior, conduct and communications must be considerate to other users and you must not be directly or indirectly offensive, threatening, harassing or bullying to others or violate any applicable laws including but not limited to anti-discrimination legislation based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
In a legal sense, where-in action is justified to be taken against me or another player within the context of the contract that took place between me or any other player and Frontier Developments, this line means nothing outside of the discrimination portion as it almost exclusively relies on evaluation of one player’s intent and another’s reception. The problem with intent, and reception, is they are not apparent. In courts, an event is evaluated for whether or not it happened and whether or not it caused loss or injury in violation of applicable statutes. Hints of motivation may be used to persuade that something is within the scope of someone’s character, but motivations and intent are never prosecuted or even prosecutable. I do believe the majority of humanity agreed long ago that thought policing is a very very bad idea. The one and only portion of this clause that has any bearing within a legal context is at the end, wherein it states that anyone making communications in violation of anti-discrimination laws are in violation of the EULA.


Now, while the portions of 7.3.1 you aim to reference in justification for potential future actions to be taken against legally participating users of your game, you seek to further expand upon the legally baseless clause by adding more legally baseless examples to its definition. The phrase “purely for the purpose of being disruptive, to cause offence, or to upset players within the community” is again, too ambiguous to apply in any legal framework. Either you target actions, or you target effects. Either player vs player interactions are allowable within the framework of the EULA or it is not. The reasoning behind one party’s initiation of a player vs player encounter is immaterial because it is something that is not testable. However, someone’s reaction to an event is something that can be acquired as it is self-reportable by the complainant, the problem in this context though is reception is also quite arbitrary. In consideration of the arbitrary nature of second party reception of actions taken, it is unreasonable to expect one player to tailor their gameplay choices to the reactions that one or many player may or may not have to those gameplay choices. Plain and simple arbitrary factors are not good basis for judgements in any objective decision making process, legal, contractual or otherwise.


If one was to evaluate these incidents you are referring to objectively, one would find no wrong doing on the part of any party. Let’s take the charity snipe I was involved in as an example. By far the least ‘sinister’ of the 3 highlighted snipes:
· I and 3 other individuals requested access to a private group, in accordance with the game’s interface provided to us by Frontier Developments.
· The streamer accepted the requests made by me and the three other players.
· We found, and attempted to hold hostage the streamer, demanding more donations to her cause.
· She replied “Kappa” and ran.
· I warned the streamer repeatedly to stop or we would be forced to terminate her vessel.
· Streamer continued to run.
· I destroyed the streamer’s ship.
Where, in this chain of events did I or any of my wing mates commit any provable transgressions that violated the EULA? All of the actions I took were legally within my rights as outlined by the EULA, that is to say, I used the client as provided without modification to take action within the game. Neither I nor any of my wing mates conducted any communications that could be characterized as racist, sexist, anything-ist. But yet here we are, with you asserting that my actions were in violation of the EULA.


Ultimately, it’s not about context. Context is meaningless. If I attack a player, my reasons for doing so do not change the characterization of that attack, and neither does that player’s reception to that attack. I simply attacked a player. Is that ok, or is it not?

Thank you for putting it in a more eloquent manner.