Guild Wars 2

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Lord Yameon.5902:

But let me know what parts of the Scenario you have trouble with and i will
try to assist to the best of my ability.

Let me know what part of “did not respond to the GM while AFK” you have trouble understanding and I will try to assist you in understanding why the rest of the scenario doesn’t matter all that much.

---

This reply makes me think that you have not and will not try to understand the Fictional Scenario that is being presented here . .

And if that is the case then there is little i can do to help you.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

I took the time to read your scenario several times. I don’t think I’m missing anything. Your claim is that an account was hypothetically sanctioned in a situation in which the autoattack was not keeping the account logged in. The only evidence of that claim (in the scenario) is that the player says that’s not what they were doing.

I ask you again: how much do you think that matters, given that your scenario includes a GM whispering and getting no response?

The policy is extremely liberal — it’s so flexible that it allows people to watch videos while farming (which upsets a lot of folks). As long as the player can keep moving around, casting skills, it’s okay. Your scenario is way past that line — it includes someone being away long enough to get a GM whisper and long enough for the GM to record “no reply” as the response.

So why exactly is it that you think there’s any question at all about what should have happened?

How hard is it to just take the facts presented and base an opinion upon the same mentioned Facts without trying to read between the lines . . . the part where some
try to read betweeen the lines is where some get themselves lost . . and as i see it
Rules should not be up for Interpretation .. they should be clear . . as people dont
Interpret thing’s the same way most of the time . . . as clearly can be seen here.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

The three points mentioned by Mr Cleary are not rules in my opinion so much as tbey are some of the tools used to assist in determining whether or not the rule bas been broken. If they, individually, were rules then breaking any one of them would be a rules violation and could be grounds for action against the account.

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

To save space and to not filling this thread too much with quotes and Re-posts i would advice you to Read my dialouge found above that i had with mr:mtpelion.4562*

Follow the line of logic that was outlined dusring our Conversation that led mr:mtpelion.4562* to his conclusion and then let me know if you come to
a different conclusion and why.

[Sidenote]:
Pardon for using you as a reference here mr:mtpelion.4562 but you are
the one that i know of that Officially understood the Fictional Scenario.
______________________________________________________________________________
Thanks in advance for your Time and Patience: ¥ameon

I think everyone understands what you’re suggesting but they just disagree with you.

The first rule revolves around the player having things set up so that they don’t time out. The rule states using a skill but having something knock your character around to prevent a time out is practically the same thing. You’re more than welcome to try that and see if you get actioned against. You’ll know your answer then.

---

Ok .. lets Copy-Paste in Rule no:1 here for refference:

1) Using skill (1 or more) while AFK

How do you read in to above rule the following:
Quote: The rule states using a skill but having something knock
your character around to prevent a time out is practically the
same thing :EndQuote

I dont quite understand how to manage to interpret the Rule in
the way that you do.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

You look at the intent.

Ashen.2907:

The three points mentioned by Mr Cleary are not rules in my opinion so much as tbey are some of the tools used to assist in determining whether or not the rule bas been broken. If they, individually, were rules then breaking any one of them would be a rules violation and could be grounds for action against the account.

Then by using those “Tool’s” (in your opinion) would the Fictional Account
be Qualified for having action taken against it ?

And if theese are just “Tool’s” used to determine if a Rule has been Broken . .
where does one find the real Rules ?

If you would be so kind as to clarify.

¥ameon

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

To save space and to not filling this thread too much with quotes and Re-posts i would advice you to Read my dialouge found above that i had with mr:mtpelion.4562*

Follow the line of logic that was outlined dusring our Conversation that led mr:mtpelion.4562* to his conclusion and then let me know if you come to
a different conclusion and why.

[Sidenote]:
Pardon for using you as a reference here mr:mtpelion.4562 but you are
the one that i know of that Officially understood the Fictional Scenario.
______________________________________________________________________________
Thanks in advance for your Time and Patience: ¥ameon

I think everyone understands what you’re suggesting but they just disagree with you.

The first rule revolves around the player having things set up so that they don’t time out. The rule states using a skill but having something knock your character around to prevent a time out is practically the same thing. You’re more than welcome to try that and see if you get actioned against. You’ll know your answer then.

---

Ok .. lets Copy-Paste in Rule no:1 here for refference:

1) Using skill (1 or more) while AFK

How do you read in to above rule the following:
Quote: The rule states using a skill but having something knock
your character around to prevent a time out is practically the
same thing :EndQuote

I dont quite understand how to manage to interpret the Rule in
the way that you do.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

You look at the intent.

---

You must be Trolling me . . .

---

¥ameon

That rule involves players keeping themselves from being timed out to the character select screen. It mentions using skills but would likely include everything else that would prevent this.

---

Quote: Likely :EndQuote

So your counter-argument is based on if one thing would
“likely” be that way or the other . . you are taking a great
deal of liberty with your interpretations i would say.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

How about this:

Go ahead and and AFK at an advantageous spot, ignoring PM’s from GM’s, while allowing getting attacked from booting you to the character select screen.

I don’t see why you’re insistent on trying to justifying cheating.

I put ‘likely’ only because I do not speak for Anet. There’s more going towards the side of it being against the rules than towards your side.

You’ve already admitted that you disputed the action taken on your account, and were, at least, twice informed by the CS Team there would be no change in the determination that what you did was found, indeed, actionable.

What, exactly, is the purpose of bringing it to the forums (which is, again, against the rules, as you well know)? Masquerading it as a ‘fictional’ scenario isn’t really going to fool anyone.

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

To save space and to not filling this thread too much with quotes and Re-posts i would advice you to Read my dialouge found above that i had with mr:mtpelion.4562*

Follow the line of logic that was outlined dusring our Conversation that led mr:mtpelion.4562* to his conclusion and then let me know if you come to
a different conclusion and why.

[Sidenote]:
Pardon for using you as a reference here mr:mtpelion.4562 but you are
the one that i know of that Officially understood the Fictional Scenario.
______________________________________________________________________________
Thanks in advance for your Time and Patience: ¥ameon

I think everyone understands what you’re suggesting but they just disagree with you.

The first rule revolves around the player having things set up so that they don’t time out. The rule states using a skill but having something knock your character around to prevent a time out is practically the same thing. You’re more than welcome to try that and see if you get actioned against. You’ll know your answer then.

---

Ok .. lets Copy-Paste in Rule no:1 here for refference:

1) Using skill (1 or more) while AFK

How do you read in to above rule the following:
Quote: The rule states using a skill but having something knock
your character around to prevent a time out is practically the
same thing :EndQuote

I dont quite understand how to manage to interpret the Rule in
the way that you do.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

You look at the intent.

---

You must be Trolling me . . .

---

¥ameon

That rule involves players keeping themselves from being timed out to the character select screen. It mentions using skills but would likely include everything else that would prevent this.

---

Quote: Likely :EndQuote

So your counter-argument is based on if one thing would
“likely” be that way or the other . . you are taking a great
deal of liberty with your interpretations i would say.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

How about this:

Go ahead and and AFK at an advantageous spot, ignoring PM’s from GM’s, while allowing getting attacked from booting you to the character select screen.

I don’t see why you’re insistent on trying to justifying cheating.

I put ‘likely’ only because I do not speak for Anet. There’s more going towards the side of it being against the rules than towards your side.

It is starting to become a bit tiresome how you can get this so wrong
and in so many way’s all at once.

¹ Although it could be interesting to Replicate the Fictional Scenario
while at the same time recording how the situation would unfold …
However . .
I would advice people not to do this as it may involve some risks.

² You read in your own interpretation here again about what motif
i would have for raising this question in the first place.

³ And again . . . anouther one of your own interpretations.

I am starting to allmost get a little bit Jealous regarding how much
freedom you allow yourself with your interpretations.

As for myself i try to see thing’s in a way that is a bit more Strict
that would not leave much room for interpretation . . Either you
break a Rule .. or You dont Break a Rule … It does not seem
logical that you allmost broke a rule and get punished for it.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

To save space and to not filling this thread too much with quotes and Re-posts i would advice you to Read my dialouge found above that i had with mr:mtpelion.4562*

Follow the line of logic that was outlined dusring our Conversation that led mr:mtpelion.4562* to his conclusion and then let me know if you come to
a different conclusion and why.

[Sidenote]:
Pardon for using you as a reference here mr:mtpelion.4562 but you are
the one that i know of that Officially understood the Fictional Scenario.
______________________________________________________________________________
Thanks in advance for your Time and Patience: ¥ameon

I think everyone understands what you’re suggesting but they just disagree with you.

The first rule revolves around the player having things set up so that they don’t time out. The rule states using a skill but having something knock your character around to prevent a time out is practically the same thing. You’re more than welcome to try that and see if you get actioned against. You’ll know your answer then.

---

Ok .. lets Copy-Paste in Rule no:1 here for refference:

1) Using skill (1 or more) while AFK

How do you read in to above rule the following:
Quote: The rule states using a skill but having something knock
your character around to prevent a time out is practically the
same thing :EndQuote

I dont quite understand how to manage to interpret the Rule in
the way that you do.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

You look at the intent.

---

You must be Trolling me . . .

---

¥ameon

That rule involves players keeping themselves from being timed out to the character select screen. It mentions using skills but would likely include everything else that would prevent this.

---

Quote: Likely :EndQuote

So your counter-argument is based on if one thing would
“likely” be that way or the other . . you are taking a great
deal of liberty with your interpretations i would say.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

How about this:

Go ahead and and AFK at an advantageous spot, ignoring PM’s from GM’s, while allowing getting attacked from booting you to the character select screen.

I don’t see why you’re insistent on trying to justifying cheating.

I put ‘likely’ only because I do not speak for Anet. There’s more going towards the side of it being against the rules than towards your side.

---

It is starting to become a bit tiresome how you can get this so wrong
and in so many way’s all at once.

¹ Although it could be interesting to Replicate the Fictional Scenario
while at the same time recording how the situation would unfold …
However . .
I would advice people not to do this as it may involve some risks.

² You read in your own interpretation here again about what motif
i would have for raising this question in the first place.

³ And again . . . anouther one of your own interpretations.

I am starting to allmost get a little bit Jealous regarding how much
freedom you allow yourself with your interpretations.

As for myself i try to see thing’s in a way that is a bit more Strict
that would not leave much room for interpretation . . Either you
break a Rule .. or You dont Break a Rule … It does not seem
logical that you allmost broke a rule and get punished for it.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Take it up with support then. You’re not going to justify it here on the forums.

Only Lord Yameon and maybe Anet know if he was casting skills or not. The problem is that the way the 3 rules are stated there’s a way to AFK farm without satisfying all 3 rules. That vagueness doen’t close loophoes, it creates loopholes. It clearly says you have to be violating ALL 3 rules.

Imagine this scenario:
A ranger is parked at a beneficial location with all skills and traits removed. The person is AFK while the pet kills things and autoloot is active. This would satisfy rules 2 and 3 but not rule 1 as there would be no possibility of casting any skill. Clearly this is AFK farming but based on the 3 rules it’s not enough to count as a violation. “If all 3 of these apply to what you are doing, you may get actioned for it.”

Why can’t an official statement be made simply stating that “AFK farming is not allowed and doing so risks getting actioned?” AFK farming can be further defined as gaining loot or other benefit while not directly interacting with the game for ANY period of time. Obviously it will be hard or impossible to catch someone who’s semi-afking but that would be true anyway.

Rule #1 should be taken out. Rules 2 and 3 are enough. Also, maybe it’s just me but the “you may get actioned for it” part seems to minimize the severity of the violation. It should say “you risk getting actioned” to indicate that if you don’t get actioned it means you just got lucky and didn’t get caught.

Does autoloot prevent afk timeout or have they fixed that?

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

You’ve already admitted that you disputed the action taken on your account, and were, at least, twice informed by the CS Team there would be no change in the determination that what you did was found, indeed, actionable.

What, exactly, is the purpose of bringing it to the forums (which is, again, against the rules, as you well know)? Masquerading it as a ‘fictional’ scenario isn’t really going to fool anyone.

I am having some questions about the rules and to illustrate my questions,
i deploy the means of a Fictional Scenario … is that against the rules ?

What other means would serve better to prove the point than a Fictional
Scenario in this case ?

I have allways stated that for the sake of this Argument that this is a
Fictional Scenario.

And i have not admitted anything along the lines of to imply that this is
a real case . . if you read in to this dialouge or mis-interpred what i say
to such a degree, then you can not truly hold me accountable for your
own imaginations.

I would rather have a Constructive and calm discussion regarding this
Topic, than having it turning in to a veritable slug-fest of slander,
mis-interpretations and base-less accusations . . . as now seems to be
happening.

So therefore i would advice you and anyone that if you cannot Discuss
this topic calmly and rationally .. then perhaps it would be better
adviced to remain silent.

Thanks in Advance:
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Lord Yameon.5902:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

You’ve already admitted that you disputed the action taken on your account, and were, at least, twice informed by the CS Team there would be no change in the determination that what you did was found, indeed, actionable.

What, exactly, is the purpose of bringing it to the forums (which is, again, against the rules, as you well know)? Masquerading it as a ‘fictional’ scenario isn’t really going to fool anyone.

---

I am having some questions about the rules and to illustrate my questions,
i deploy the means of a Fictional Scenario … is that against the rules ?

What other means would serve better to prove the point than a Fictional
Scenario in this case ?

I have allways stated that for the sake of this Argument that this is a
Fictional Scenario.

And i have not admitted anything along the lines of to imply that this is
a real case . . if you read in to this dialouge or mis-interpred what i say
to such a degree, then you can not truly hold me accountable for your
own imaginations.

I would rather have a Constructive and calm discussion regarding this
Topic, than having it turning in to a veritable slug-fest of slander,
mis-interpretations and base-less accusations . . . as now seems to be
happening.

So therefore i would advice you and anyone that if you cannot Discuss
this topic calmly and rationally .. then perhaps it would be better
adviced to remain silent.

Thanks in Advance:
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

You pretty much admitted it with this post (amusing, you’re the one that bolded that part):

Lord Yameon.5902:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

If your account has been actioned, you would best contact the CS Team via the ‘Support’ link above/below and discuss the issue with them.

You are unlikely to get a Dev response here.

Good luck.

---

That may have been tryed before posting here.
Though all parts involved may have not been
willing to co-operate in order to resolve this
Situation*.

Therefore, Posting on the Forums may be the
plan:B

(*It is against the rules to discuss account Details
and so forth openly … so for that purpose this is
to be seen as a Purely Fictional Scenario)

In order to not do what one must not do, one
need’s to know what one cannot do.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Oh, and FYI, if this fictitious scenario or whatever parallels an actual action taken against you, you’ll be violating forum rules. Labeling it as fictitious doesn’t allow you to get around the rules.

kitten.4078:

Only Lord Yameon and maybe Anet know if he was casting skills or not. The problem is that the way the 3 rules are stated there’s a way to AFK farm without satisfying all 3 rules. That vagueness doen’t close loophoes, it creates loopholes. It clearly says you have to be violating ALL 3 rules.

Imagine this scenario:
A ranger is parked at a beneficial location with all skills and traits removed. The person is AFK while the pet kills things and autoloot is active. This would satisfy rules 2 and 3 but not rule 1 as there would be no possibility of casting any skill. Clearly this is AFK farming but based on the 3 rules it’s not enough to count as a violation. “If all 3 of these apply to what you are doing, you may get actioned for it.”

Why can’t an official statement be made simply stating that “AFK farming is not allowed and doing so risks getting actioned?” AFK farming can be further defined as gaining loot or other benefit while not directly interacting with the game for ANY period of time. Obviously it will be hard or impossible to catch someone who’s semi-afking but that would be true anyway.

Rule #1 should be taken out. Rules 2 and 3 are enough. Also, maybe it’s just me but the “you may get actioned for it” part seems to minimize the severity of the violation. It should say “you risk getting actioned” to indicate that if you don’t get actioned it means you just got lucky and didn’t get caught.

Does autoloot prevent afk timeout or have they fixed that?

Good evening mr:kitten.4078

It is refreshing to see that anouther have managed to grasp the
point i am trying to get across here.

To have an actual rule that would not allow Un-Attended
Gameplay would/could also create a more flexible scenario
for how to apply the rule . . but perhaps the best would be
to fix the game-mechanics in such a way that they can not . .
Intentionally or unintentionally . . be exploited.

As for if Autoloot still prevent AFK Timeout i have no idear . .
i never even knew it did untill i started reading this thread.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Ayrilana.1396:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

You’ve already admitted that you disputed the action taken on your account, and were, at least, twice informed by the CS Team there would be no change in the determination that what you did was found, indeed, actionable.

What, exactly, is the purpose of bringing it to the forums (which is, again, against the rules, as you well know)? Masquerading it as a ‘fictional’ scenario isn’t really going to fool anyone.

---

I am having some questions about the rules and to illustrate my questions,
i deploy the means of a Fictional Scenario … is that against the rules ?

What other means would serve better to prove the point than a Fictional
Scenario in this case ?

I have allways stated that for the sake of this Argument that this is a
Fictional Scenario.

And i have not admitted anything along the lines of to imply that this is
a real case . . if you read in to this dialouge or mis-interpred what i say
to such a degree, then you can not truly hold me accountable for your
own imaginations.

I would rather have a Constructive and calm discussion regarding this
Topic, than having it turning in to a veritable slug-fest of slander,
mis-interpretations and base-less accusations . . . as now seems to be
happening.

So therefore i would advice you and anyone that if you cannot Discuss
this topic calmly and rationally .. then perhaps it would be better
adviced to remain silent.

Thanks in Advance:
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

You pretty much admitted it with this post (amusing, you’re the one that bolded that part):

Lord Yameon.5902:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

If your account has been actioned, you would best contact the CS Team via the ‘Support’ link above/below and discuss the issue with them.

You are unlikely to get a Dev response here.

Good luck.

---

That may have been tryed before posting here.
Though all parts involved may have not been
willing to co-operate in order to resolve this
Situation*.

Therefore, Posting on the Forums may be the
plan:B

(*It is against the rules to discuss account Details
and so forth openly … so for that purpose this is
to be seen as a Purely Fictional Scenario)

In order to not do what one must not do, one
need’s to know what one cannot do.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Oh, and FYI, if this fictitious scenario or whatever parallels an actual action taken against you, you’ll be violating forum rules. Labeling it as fictitious doesn’t allow you to get around the rules.

Perhaps i did not construct the sentence in the best way Possible .. but i did
mention that the Discussion was to be seen as a Purely Fictional Scenario

Now you on the other hand, seem intent on shutting this whole discussion
down . . . what is your motif here i do wonder ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Here is a picture of one of the official statements released by ArenaNet regarding extended unattended play: https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/22768/report.png

If the CS Team finds any fictitious accounts in violation of this statement/rule, they will action the account. (Fortunately, the fictitious account in question only received a Suspension rather than a Termination of the account.) Another of the game’s rules is that they do not accept appeals for administrative action taken in connection with in-game behavior. (See Conduct Breaches and Outcomes.) That the CS Team even considered an appeal from any fictitious accounts was above and beyond their duty. Thus, any fictitious accounts should consider themselves lucky, and accept the ‘warning’ (again, see the aforementioned legal document).

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Here is a picture of one of the official statements released by ArenaNet regarding extended unattended play: https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/22768/report.png

If the CS Team finds any fictitious accounts in violation of this statement/rule, they will action the account. (Fortunately, the fictitious account in question only received a Suspension rather than a Termination of the account.) Another of the game’s rules is that they do not accept appeals for administrative action taken in connection with in-game behavior. (See Conduct Breaches and Outcomes.) That the CS Team even considered an appeal from any fictitious accounts was above and beyond their duty. Thus, any fictitious accounts should consider themselves lucky, and accept the ‘warning’ (again, see the aforementioned legal document).

If theese Statements are so official then why do we have to go to
some Obscure site where people can upload Pictures to find this
information.

Furthermore: Unquestioning Loyalty and Blind Naivity may sooner
or later lead us to places and situations where we would prefer
not to be.

Something that has been forgotten by most people in our times is
the Civil Duty to question Authority (Although within Reason) ..
to make sure that those we entrust with the Power to govern us
do so with our best interest’s in mind.

To be sure that we get a fair treatment in all matters of
importance . . if we can not expect fair treatment in a mere
Video Game .. then how can we then expect to get it elsewhere.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Lord Yameon.5902:

Ashen.2907:

The three points mentioned by Mr Cleary are not rules in my opinion so much as tbey are some of the tools used to assist in determining whether or not the rule bas been broken. If they, individually, were rules then breaking any one of them would be a rules violation and could be grounds for action against the account.

---

Then by using those “Tool’s” (in your opinion) would the Fictional Account
be Qualified for having action taken against it ?

And if theese are just “Tool’s” used to determine if a Rule has been Broken . .
where does one find the real Rules ?

If you would be so kind as to clarify.

---

¥ameon

You have quoted or referenced the post in which Mr Cleary pretty clearly indicated tbat unattended gameplay was the line in the sand.

Something to keep in mind is that listing tbree measures, tools, or rules which may lead to account action does not mean that they are the only measure of activity tbat can lead to such action. The statement that exceeding the speed limit on the highway may lead to action against your driving privileges does not mean that such is the only way to lose such privileges. Even if we add that police may use radar guns to determine vehicle speed, we have not excluded the possibility that other measures may be used.

So was your fictional player engaging in unattended gameplay?

Lord Yameon.5902:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Here is a picture of one of the official statements released by ArenaNet regarding extended unattended play: https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/22768/report.png

If the CS Team finds any fictitious accounts in violation of this statement/rule, they will action the account. (Fortunately, the fictitious account in question only received a Suspension rather than a Termination of the account.) Another of the game’s rules is that they do not accept appeals for administrative action taken in connection with in-game behavior. (See Conduct Breaches and Outcomes.) That the CS Team even considered an appeal from any fictitious accounts was above and beyond their duty. Thus, any fictitious accounts should consider themselves lucky, and accept the ‘warning’ (again, see the aforementioned legal document).

---

If theese Statements are so official then why do we have to go to
some Obscure site where people can upload Pictures to find this
information.

Furthermore: Unquestioning Loyalty and Blind Naivity may sooner
or later lead us to places and situations where we would prefer
not to be.

Something that has been forgotten by most people in our times is
the Civil Duty to question Authority (Although within Reason) ..
to make sure that those we entrust with the Power to govern us
do so with our best interest’s in mind.

To be sure that we get a fair treatment in all matters of
importance . . if we can not expect fair treatment in a mere
Video Game .. then how can we then expect to get it elsewhere.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

ArenaNet does not govern us. They govern behavior on their private property. This is not all that different than asking someone to leave a party at your house after they choose to ignore your house rules regarding appropriate attire, language or something similar.

It is clear that i cant get through to some of you that keep posting here .
So i will stop trying . .

Either you get it . . . or you dont.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

You are wise to have decided to follow the advice given: Just let it go, and insure fictitious accounts refrain from AFK farming.

Lord Yameon.5902:

It is clear that i cant get through to some of you that keep posting here .
So i will stop trying . .

Either you get it . . . or you dont.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Hi, I’m a neutral party to your argument that will give feedback to you.

Because it is against the rules to discuss the punishment Anet gave to you, you then called it a “fictional situation”. That is first problem, since calling it a different name doesn’t make you safe from breaking the rules since yesterday.

In the rules that Cleary gave, it appears that you broken them. I would be thankful you only got 70 hour punishment.

In your arguments, you try to explain you did nothing wrong. But so far, the evidence you provide show that you did break rules, but you just don’t understand the rules. Not understanding the rules doesn’t make you innocent. When I was little, I was in a bakery and started taking bites out of each donut to find the one I wanted. I didn’t know I was doing something bad, but my action got me in trouble. But I learned my lesson. That’s why Anet give you only 70 hour punishment, so you can learn your lesson too.

If you keep fighting with other players on forum who are correct, you can get in trouble. I suggest that you just don’t AFK farm anymore. Press F12 and log out if you need to go away from your computer. Please don’t get mad that you don’t like the rules or punishment.

Last thing. Anet has the right do what they want to your account for any reason. It is in the User Agreement.

I’ve never seen anyone twist and stretch and jump so much to defend AFK farming. It’s somewhat fascinating.

In his follow up post, Chris pretty much underline the purpose behind the three rules is a stopgap on unattended farming — in that regard, rule 1 is likely irrelevant if a GM determines a player is afk farming through other means.

On the flip side, I couldn’t actually find any language in the GW2 Rules of Conduct that specifically addresses unattended farming or similar activity. I am curious to know how those banned letters look like for afk farming or is it the standard template? Perhaps I missed that (in the RoC).

“To be sure that we get a fair treatment in all matters of
importance . . if we can not expect fair treatment in a mere
Video Game .. then how can we then expect to get it elsewhere.”

That was funny. You love to play with words, uh?

I guess what it should read is: “If we can not expect fair treatment in cases that actually matter (like a homicide in the real world) what can we expect in a mere videogame.”

But you decided to mix that up a little for your case. Oh well, I guess videogames are so important for some people that they would want their rules to be the measuring stick for justice everywhere.

Guys, this thread keeps popping up on top because a troll has fun with it.

Just let it die, this thread should not have been resurrected for a personal vendetta anyway.

And here comes the next one.

What i am trying to point out is that there is here an Anomaly in
the Rules that could lead to some players thinking and engaging
in activities they would not think are against the rules.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

I dont think there ever will be a set of rules like you seem to ask for. To make a rule for just about every possible (and impossible) scenario beforehand is firstly close to imossible, and secondly, lots and lots of work. It wouldnt just be about afk-farming, but all kinds of question and grey areas throughout the game would need its own set of rules, covering every aspect.
So, there are somewhat vague rules, or guidelines, to cover everything, so they dont have to think up if then, maybe that, perhaps like this and probably not for every single action/circumstance beforehand.
For your ban, fictional or not, there is no need to go into specific, a fictional gm tried to ask what was going on, no response, unattended gameplay.
For what points to get or miss, such very spesific scenario SEEMS to be a way to come as close to cheating as possible without crossing the line. It may not be so, but rather a courious look into academics, though it will still not end up in any clarification, because I dont think Anet, (or any other gamedeveloper I have run across) want you to know exactly where lines go. As I understand it, mostly because of the work it brings, but also because things may change as a game and players evolve.

Jooeeyy.4917:

I dont think there ever will be a set of rules like you seem to ask for. To make a rule for just about every possible (and impossible) scenario beforehand is firstly close to imossible, and secondly, lots and lots of work. It wouldnt just be about afk-farming, but all kinds of question and grey areas throughout the game would need its own set of rules, covering every aspect.
So, there are somewhat vague rules, or guidelines, to cover everything, so they dont have to think up if then, maybe that, perhaps like this and probably not for every single action/circumstance beforehand.
For your ban, fictional or not, there is no need to go into specific, a fictional gm tried to ask what was going on, no response, unattended gameplay.
For what points to get or miss, such very spesific scenario SEEMS to be a way to come as close to cheating as possible without crossing the line. It may not be so, but rather a courious look into academics, though it will still not end up in any clarification, because I dont think Anet, (or any other gamedeveloper I have run across) want you to know exactly where lines go. As I understand it, mostly because of the work it brings, but also because things may change as a game and players evolve.

I think you are Over-Complicating thing’s a bit.

Im not talking about one rule to rule them all here … the focus here is on
AFK-Farming .. and when you risk Account Suspension/Termination
then the rules should be made very clear as to what you can and cannot
do.

The rules should also be Proactive and not Reactive in this case .. The
Player should know beforehand what they can and cannot do when the
Punishment for AFK-Farming is as severe as it is . . I dont think it is
sufficient that the way a Player have to to find out if he or she did
something wrong is to see What type of message they get when they
no longer can log in to the game.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Lord Yameon.5902:

Nusku.3941:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Nusku.3941:

People who play this game have a natural tendency to complain about stupid things such as this. But I guess stupid complaints come from stupid people anyway.

---

Your own post explains your own post quite well.

Perhaps if you have nothing of value to add then
Perhaps it is better to be silent .. there are other
threads you can use to get a higher post-count.

Thanks in Advance.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Intriguingly, your assumption to getting a higher post count didn’t cross my mind until you said it, you don’t see it clearly but you’re just supporting yourself as evidence that ego driven people like yourself are flooding this thread. Oh and you’re welcome.

---

Let me remind you that before you edited your post, there was only the bit of
text in there that i Quoted … then you put the rest of the text in there after i
posted my post quoting your un-edited post . . if we want to be a bit pedantic.

Anyhows:
And after reading what you added to your post afterwards i see that once
again you are yet anouther one of the Personas who do not grasp the point
and argument that i am presenting.

I do give you bonus points for trying however, but your text has little to
nothing to do with the anomaly in the Rules that i am trying to bring
awareness towards.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Well originally I wasn’t targeting you as a specific audience, rather everyone that complains on this thread, I love it when people think the sun revolves around them.

So to sum up this year old thread since it got necro-posted:

Someone thought they had found a loophole in the rules in regards to AFK farming. They got in trouble and was told twice that they were wrong. Unable to accept that they come on here as a ‘Plan B’ and argue about how they’re in the right. Since they cannot discuss matters that they had with customer service, even though they kind of did, they use another ‘loophole’ where they refer to everything under the guise of a ‘Fictional Scenario’.

They believe themselves to be so far in the right that there’s only two sides:

• You agree with them
• You just don’t understand what they’re saying

Simply disagreeing with them isn’t a valid option.

I just really don’t see what has actually has been added to this thread.

Nusku.3941:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Nusku.3941:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Nusku.3941:

People who play this game have a natural tendency to complain about stupid things such as this. But I guess stupid complaints come from stupid people anyway.

---

Your own post explains your own post quite well.

Perhaps if you have nothing of value to add then
Perhaps it is better to be silent .. there are other
threads you can use to get a higher post-count.

Thanks in Advance.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Intriguingly, your assumption to getting a higher post count didn’t cross my mind until you said it, you don’t see it clearly but you’re just supporting yourself as evidence that ego driven people like yourself are flooding this thread. Oh and you’re welcome.

---

Let me remind you that before you edited your post, there was only the bit of
text in there that i Quoted … then you put the rest of the text in there after i
posted my post quoting your un-edited post . . if we want to be a bit pedantic.

Anyhows:
And after reading what you added to your post afterwards i see that once
again you are yet anouther one of the Personas who do not grasp the point
and argument that i am presenting.

I do give you bonus points for trying however, but your text has little to
nothing to do with the anomaly in the Rules that i am trying to bring
awareness towards.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Well originally I wasn’t targeting you as a specific audience, rather everyone that complains on this thread, I love it when people think the sun revolves around them.

Fair enough.

But depending on the point of View applyed
we can all be seen as complaining about
something or the other in this Thread.

Perhaps you want to be a bit more specific
in the future then to avoid any confusion.

I have gotten used to being on the Defence
in this Thread so i took for granted that this
was yet anouther case where a more
defencive aproach was deemed apropriate.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Ayrilana.1396:

So to sum up this year old thread since it got necro-posted:

Someone thought they had found a loophole in the rules in regards to AFK farming. They got in trouble and was told twice that they were wrong. Unable to accept that they come on here as a ‘Plan B’ and argue about how they’re in the right. Since they cannot discuss matters that they had with customer service, even though they kind of did, they use another ‘loophole’ where they refer to everything as a ‘Fictional Scenario’.

They believe themselves to be so far in the right that there’s only two sides:

• You agree with them
• You just don’t understand what they’re saying

Simply disagreeing with them isn’t a valid option.

I just really don’t see what has actually has been added to this thread.

And still you fail to see the Point . . you got lost where you think
someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong . . .

What i am trying to point out is that there is here an Anomaly in
the Rules that could lead to some players thinking and engaging
in activities they would not think are against the rules.

It should not realy be this difficult to get at this point.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

What i am trying to point out is that there is here an Anomaly in
the Rules that could lead to some players thinking and engaging
in activities they would not think are against the rules.

Interesting if true but pointless to bring it up on the forums without sufficient detail for anyone (including ANet) to do anything about it, either to avoid or to solve. If you think there is an actual anomaly then you should either make a ticket and give the exact details to support or you should give the exact details in your post, including all relevant traits. Detailess statements about anomalies on the forum gets zero results.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

What i am trying to point out is that there is here an Anomaly in
the Rules that could lead to some players thinking and engaging
in activities they would not think are against the rules.

Interesting if true but pointless to bring it up on the forums without sufficient detail for anyone (including ANet) to do anything about it, either to avoid or to solve. If you think there is an actual anomaly then you should either make a ticket and give the exact details to support or you should give the exact details in your post, including all relevant traits. Vague statements about anomalies on the forum gets zero results.

I have given sufficient details regarding the Fictional Scenario

Trait’s does not matter or else they would be included .. this all hinges on the Auto-Cast Feature . . Traits have little to no impact on the AutoCast feature
in this Purely Fictional Scenario . . .

Perhaps you dont understand because you have not tested how the Skill-No 1
Auto-Cast Funktion works in relation to being AFK on for example an
Elementalist, Im not saying you should try to AFK-farm . . just to try it for a
minute or two .. to see if it funktions on its own in a way as to Facilitate
un-Attended Gameplay.

Furthermore:
If you dont want to make post’s regarding this Topic then all you have to do
is to stop .. as i see it people come here with a lot of Questions and
Assumptions that i am responding to.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

So, it’s a fictional scenario that hasn’t resulted in any sanctions to you (and probably no one else). Call us when the fictional scenario has actual repercussions. That’s when it will be worth discussing. Maybe’s and might happen that don’t actually happen isn’t something you’ve shown to be something that ANet needs to consider. It’s only idle theorizing.

There is nothing wrong with what the Dev. said. I did not find any part of it confusing, neither did my wife. I get that you made a poor choice (in your purely fictional scenario) and got a suspension (personally I wish all those suspensions were bans), but coming on the forums and telling everyone that offers a counter they’re wrong isn’t going to change anything.

I just tested the auto attack skill 1 on every class. Put myself in a place mobs spawn and let mobs hit me. At no point, since I was not touching the keyboard or mouse, did my character target and attack a mob after being hit. Every class stood there and died except the ranger, whose pet popped out and killed the mob (I got no drop). The auto attack doesn’t work that way. So, there is no way the games built in auto attack feature could, by default, trigger unattended gameplay and a suspension.

The players who are AFK farming (whether by pets or 3rd party tools) KNOW they are. Going to the bathroom and and coming back 3 minutes later to a drop or two because you are a pet class and your pet killed something will not get you actioned. Setting up your character to get you drops for extended periods of time while you go to work/sleep/mow the lawn/play Xbox, etc is actionable.
There is no grey area here…and nothing confusing about what is actionable and what isn’t.

Lord Yameon.5902:

I have given sufficient details regarding the Fictional Scenario

Trait’s does not matter or else they would be included .. this all hinges on the Auto-Cast Feature . . Traits have little to no impact on the AutoCast feature
in this Purely Fictional Scenario . . .

Perhaps you dont understand because you have not tested how the Skill-No 1
Auto-Cast Funktion works in relation to being AFK on for example an
Elementalist, Im not saying you should try to AFK-farm . . just to try it for a
minute or two .. to see if it funktions on its own in a way as to Facilitate
un-Attended Gameplay.

Furthermore:
If you dont want to make post’s regarding this Topic then all you have to do
is to stop .. as i see it people come here with a lot of Questions and
Assumptions that i am responding to.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

We understand that you’re mad you were punished. And just remember that calling it a “fictional situation” doesn’t make you immune to the rules against discussing GM punishments on the forums.

I think there is no anomaly in the system, since Anet people said no bots are used to kick and punish people. Anet person was online, saw a rule being broken, and would have given the “player” a chance by whispering to prove they’re not AFK. So then the punishment was handed down by human.

By the way, you complain about people making assumptions. Aren’t you doing the same thing with your “fictional situation”? You assume you’re correct, but your “fictional” actions are not. Maybe if you still have trouble understanding what Anet said, you should stay away from AFK farming and just play the game?

Let’s go over all the Details again then and try to get them in to (1) post
for your Convenience:

(First we take a look at the Parts relevant, written by Chris Cleary)
______________________________________________________________________________

The auto-cast feature was never intended to be used as an AFK farming mechanism, and usage of the auto-cast feature while AFK is fine as long as it is not used to facilitate unattended gameplay.

1) Using skill (1 or more) while AFK
2) AFKing in a place where it is beneficial for your character to be at
3) Unresponsive to interaction with GMs

If all 3 of these apply to what you are doing, you may get actioned for it.

(Read carefully the first sentence)
(The last line in the quote is of particular interest as i see it)

(Next we take a look at my opening Post)
______________________________________________________________________________
Lord Yameon.5902

There are some thing’s here that i am Curious about.

Isnt skill 1 Activated for Auto-Cast by default on all Account’s/characters ?

And also in some cases (as far as i know) Many Skill’s “Even on Auto-Cast”
has to be manually activated for each new Target that the user would want to
attack .. with that in mind it wouldnt work to have some skills on Auto-Cast
while AFK.

So if for example you where investigated by a GM while AFK in a location that
was Advantageous to you (With Auto-Cast Turned on but as above described not
funktional in a way as to facilitate Unattended Gameplay) . . and you where
not responding to the GM (As you are AFK) . . and in addition to this there
is anouther Funktion (Like Enemy uses fear or in other ways make your
character move while being AFK) that would/could interrupt the Auto-Logout
Funktion . . .

I wonder if a player could,would or should get actioned in the above mentioned
Scenario.

(Also im not trying to give anyone any ideas for how to AFK-Farm here)
_____________________________________________
¥ameon
______________________________________________________________________________
(Then Lets also add this part to the Equation)
______________________________________________________________________________
Lord Yameon.5902

Let’s say the Fictional Player was AFK on an Elementalist with Autocast on skill 1
If you would run some test’s . . we could discuss the results afterwards.
_____________________________________________
¥ameon
______________________________________________________________________________
(Next we take a look at the results that mr:mtpelion.4562 found)
______________________________________________________________________________
mtpelion.4562

Skill #1 autocast functions differently from other “no target required” autocast skills that are used to bypass the auto-logout. Dropping your character somewhere and only having auto-cast on skill 1 should result in you being kicked to the login screen.
______________________________________________________________________________
(And)
______________________________________________________________________________
mtpelion.4562

Skill #1 will only autocast until the current target is dead, so your Character would NOT be violating rule 1 in this example. You would either never be using a skill while AFK, or would only be doing so for less than 1 minute until the mob you attacked before going AFK died and your character went dormant until auto-logout kicked in.
______________________________________________________________________________

The Question as mentioned above Remains:

I wonder if a player could,would or should get actioned in the above mentioned
Scenario.

The problem with thing’s being as they Currently are, As i see
it .. is that the 3 Rules are formulated in such a way that there
seem to be an Anomaly in the Rules that could lead to some
players thinking and engaging in activities they would not
think where against the rules.

If someone actually could manage to find additional Rules
that would expand on, or in other ways Complete this set of
3 Rules . . with above mentioned Fictional Scenario in mind ,
Then that would be of interest.
_____________________________________________________________
SideNote’s:
(I do not know how to make a post with multiple Quotes in it
so i had to piece it together in this way)

(Remember also that the Above mentioned Fictional Scenario
with the Elementalist is Purely Fictional and only serves as
a means to illustrate the Potential Anomaly of the rules)
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

If you “fictionally” AFK farm, then you should be “fictionally” punished.

You also seem to misread rule 1: Using skill while AFK. It doesn’t matter what skill you have on autocast. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. There is no anomaly since Anet watches you before punishing.

Lord Yameon.5902:

Natto.5819:

If you “fictionally” AFK farm, then you should be “fictionally” punished.

You also seem to misread rule 1: Using skill while AFK. It doesn’t matter what skill you have on autocast. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. There is no anomaly since Anet watches you before punishing.

---

Your resistance to logic is magnificent.

Well done.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

As is your understanding that Anet owns the rules, and is able to choose how to enforce them.

Natto.5819:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Natto.5819:

If you “fictionally” AFK farm, then you should be “fictionally” punished.

You also seem to misread rule 1: Using skill while AFK. It doesn’t matter what skill you have on autocast. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. There is no anomaly since Anet watches you before punishing.

---

Your resistance to logic is magnificent.

Well done.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

As is your understanding that Anet owns the rules, and is able to choose how to enforce them.

Ok then . . let’s study what is written in greater detail.

What does Use or Using mean ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

AFK Farmers in Silverwastes.

AFK by the score in WvW.

AFK in many other maps, but since I do Silverwastes and see them all the time, and they do scale the events, I think it’s time for the powers that be to put a timer down to two minutes.

I can’t think of a single player who is ‘active’ who will not ‘move’ in two minutes.

atheria.2837:

AFK Farmers in Silverwastes.

AFK by the score in WvW.

AFK in many other maps, but since I do Silverwastes and see them all the time, and they do scale the events, I think it’s time for the powers that be to put a timer down to two minutes.

I can’t think of a single player who is ‘active’ who will not ‘move’ in two minutes.

That is indeed one solution.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Lord Yameon.5902:

---

Ok then . . let’s study what is written in greater detail.

What does Use or Using mean ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

“Using skill” means that when the skill icon flashes, something in game happens because of it, and then the skill icon goes into recharge, that means a skill was used.

Natto.5819:

Lord Yameon.5902:

---

Ok then . . let’s study what is written in greater detail.

What does Use or Using mean ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

“Using skill” means that when the skill icon flashes, something in game happens because of it, and then the skill icon goes into recharge, that means a skill was used.

Ok . . this is a good start.

So with that in mind we could do the following Experiment:

Let’s say the Fictional Player was AFK on an Elementalist with Autocast on skill 1
If you would run some test’s . . we could discuss the results afterwards.

Good Luck!
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Lord Yameon.5902:

Natto.5819:

Lord Yameon.5902:

---

Ok then . . let’s study what is written in greater detail.

What does Use or Using mean ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

“Using skill” means that when the skill icon flashes, something in game happens because of it, and then the skill icon goes into recharge, that means a skill was used.

---

Ok . . this is a good start.

So with that in mind we could do the following Experiment:

Let’s say the Fictional Player was AFK on an Elementalist with Autocast on skill 1
If you would run some test’s . . we could discuss the results afterwards.

Good Luck!
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

But I don’t AFK in game. I log out when I need to go somewhere. It is your own question that you can answer for yourself, unless you’re not able to log in because of the “fictional situation”.

Natto.5819:

Lord Yameon.5902:

Natto.5819:

Lord Yameon.5902:

---

Ok then . . let’s study what is written in greater detail.

What does Use or Using mean ?
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

“Using skill” means that when the skill icon flashes, something in game happens because of it, and then the skill icon goes into recharge, that means a skill was used.

---

Ok . . this is a good start.

So with that in mind we could do the following Experiment:

Let’s say the Fictional Player was AFK on an Elementalist with Autocast on skill 1
If you would run some test’s . . we could discuss the results afterwards.

Good Luck!
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

But I don’t AFK in game. I log out when I need to go somewhere. It is your own question that you can answer for yourself, unless you’re not able to log in because of the “fictional situation”.

I am quite certain that it would not be against any Rule to
remain Idle for 1 or 2 minutes while observing if Skill 1
on Auto-Cast would funktion in the way that is described
in the Rule: 1) Using skill (1 or more)

How will you understand this Scenario if you dont know
how the mechanic’s for said Scenario work ?

If you dont know then all you are left with is Guess-Work.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

You’ve never answered the pertinent question. Was this ‘fictional’ character AFK-farming or not? No matter if said character broke the 3 rules or not?

If in this ‘fictitious’ scenario, the character was only AFK, and not using any skills, whatsoever (as you seem to want to imply, as Auto-cast Skill #1 won’t cast without a target), why not just say, “I believe my account was unfairly actioned as an AFK-farmer, when I was just AFK”, instead of saying you interpreted the rules to mean you could farm in this spot because you did not break all 3 rules?

The whole scenario is suspect.

Again, were you, or were you not AFK-farming?

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

You’ve never answered the pertinent question. Was this ‘fictional’ character AFK-farming or not? No matter if said character broke the 3 rules or not?

If in this ‘fictitious’ scenario, the character was only AFK, and not using any skills, whatsoever (as you seem to want to imply, as Auto-cast Skill #1 won’t cast without a target), why not just say, “I believe my account was unfairly actioned as an AFK-farmer, when I was just AFK”, instead of saying you interpreted the rules to mean you could farm in this spot because you did not break all 3 rules?

The whole scenario is suspect.

Again, were you, or were you not AFK-farming?

I think he just wants us to test his theories in game so he doesn’t get into more trouble. And he can’t complain that he was unfairly actioned, since that is against forum rules, which is why he’s talking about a “fictional situation” to get around that rule. A moderator sent me a message saying they had to delete a bunch of his posts that I replied to already.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

You’ve never answered the pertinent question. Was this ‘fictional’ character AFK-farming or not? No matter if said character broke the 3 rules or not?

If in this ‘fictitious’ scenario, the character was only AFK, and not using any skills, whatsoever (as you seem to want to imply, as Auto-cast Skill #1 won’t cast without a target), why not just say, “I believe my account was unfairly actioned as an AFK-farmer, when I was just AFK”, instead of saying you interpreted the rules to mean you could farm in this spot because you did not break all 3 rules?

The whole scenario is suspect.

Again, were you, or were you not AFK-farming?

None but the Fictional Character himself would know his intent .. if
we are to also Determine judge the intent of everyone then we are
getting in to murky waters indeed . . better to stick to the actual
Facts and Rules . . The Rules also does not mention (As far as i know)
anything that warrant’s actions against players based on their intent.

With Regard’s to this Fictional Scenario at least.

You should be able to form an opinion based on the (Fictional) Fact’s
provided .. and if you cant or wont then that is fine too.

And the Fictional Scenario i provided could cover both types of Cases
that where suggested by you.

And it is not Interpreted . . if you carefully read the Rules it actually
leaves a potential Loophole that some may try to use to their
Advantage as they could be led to think that it would not be against
the Rules to operate in such a fashion.
______________________________________________________________________________
¥ameon

Ok, so it is admitted that one tried to use a loophole, got caught, and now is trying to…geez, I’ve no idea what the purpose of this ‘debate’ is.

I’m guessing the purpose is to be allowed to AFK-farm using said loophole. Gotcha.

Good luck, you are going to need it.