These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Regarding AFK Complex Farming

First post First post
Author
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#461 - 2012-08-11 07:04:47 UTC
So does this mean that sitting in an ice field 23x7 with 23 accounts mining ice the entire time is an exploit and will be properly handled from now on?
xXxNIMRODxXx
Arial Enterprise
Sigma Grindset
#462 - 2012-08-11 07:26:08 UTC  |  Edited by: xXxNIMRODxXx
was just laughing abt it and i only want to share:
what if this thing happen:

someone that does this, using a drone boat in that static plex, using sentry drones, doesn't go afk, but just fall asleep in front of the pc?

He is using the mechanics, so he's not breaking any rule; he is not afk at all, he is there, just fell over the keyboard (LOL).
He is abusing it you say....LOL how can you decide how much time and what kind of stuff he wants to use, are you god? how can you judje it? do you want us to play like you decide? time to pack up my stuff, and more will follow (like a jewish exodus, i guess, cause your behaviour here reminds me abt the N-a-z-i "do what we want you to do, or die -ban in our case-")
Like someone else stated, we pay for 720 hour of gametime, every month. So i guess that everybody here will agree saying that if there is someone that is using in game mechanics to its finest, and not exploiting the game, because - actually - from my point of view, those who did this, are just playing by the rules within the limits, cause you can't actually know IF (and only IF) they are AFK, let's say, for a drink, or at the phone, for a shower, or (reality to its core) had a friend come by, and, anyway, they are still not breaking any EULA imho nor exploiting but using the game mechanics YOU made, cause they are there, using stuff that can grant them some free-time more than having to constantly hit F1 to 8, so, in the end... how can you seriously tell they are breaking the rules or violating the EULA. Just because they are using (not abusing) what you gave us? You know what a software/mechanic exploit is? something broken in the game that the discoverer can get advantage out of it. There is no exploit in here. Or are you telling us that the sites you made are broken? Well then fix them.

Seriously, this is pathetic. You can't tell us how to play the game the way you want us to play it, nor the time we can spend on it, nor you can tell if a man needs to rest in 24 hours , or 9 or 72 or every 10 seconds.
You can't give someone a Ferrari and tell him "don't go more than 50 km/h, cause i could sht in my pants", get a tampon, the problem is yours. I got a car that can go 370 km/h, i got a free road to run it at it limits, i'm on a racetrack......and i gotta slow down cause you are scared? get out (gently) and let me run. Otherwise, don't give a Ferrari.
Ensign X
#463 - 2012-08-11 07:26:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ensign X
Xython wrote:
So does this mean that sitting in an ice field 23x7 with 23 accounts mining ice the entire time is an exploit and will be properly handled from now on?


No. It means you need to learn to read or have somebody read the announcement to you as it has nothing to do with mining, ice mining or anything else that isn't specifically mentioned in the announcement.

Keep trying.

xXxNIMRODxXx wrote:
nonsensical rant


Da **** did you just say? AFK bleaching out my eyeballs.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#464 - 2012-08-11 07:39:09 UTC
I'd like to get this straight.

The issue is people using current game mechanics to make exorbitant amounts of isk endlessly without having to do anything but relog once a week. This issue was seen to be unacceptable and the programming is being worked on to prevent this from further exploitation. So for now until the game mechanics are fixed it will be a bannable offense.

That is reasonable.

What is not reasonable is the snarky and sarcastic attitude. Sreegs you are addressing your customers not you're friends or team mates. A certain level of professionalism is expected when you release news with such strong implications to your customer base. Your ability to communicate in a non-aggressive manner can be the difference between a smooth patching period and a public relations "**** storm" as has been so specifically discriptive of this particular incident.

The news post by Sreegs (current and edited) is alarming to anyone who partakes in any kind of afk isk generating activity because of the sarcastic remarks about doing laundry and watching a marathon of a show. A large portion if not the vast majority of the player base will identify with at least one of those practices. If you do want to be sarcastic useing an imaginary scenerio in the future, please try to be more specific with the "unusual" practice in question. Maybe a 7 day cruise or a weekend get-away in the mountains while continuously generating lots of isk. That sounds more like something i'd be against as well.
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#465 - 2012-08-11 07:55:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Xython
Ensign X wrote:
Xython wrote:
So does this mean that sitting in an ice field 23x7 with 23 accounts mining ice the entire time is an exploit and will be properly handled from now on?


No. It means you need to learn to read or have somebody read the announcement to you as it has nothing to do with mining, ice mining or anything else that isn't specifically mentioned in the announcement.

Keep trying.


Ok, I will.

There's a quoted segment up there from CCP Sreegs stating that making isk or other forms of income while logged in for 24 hours is a "bad thing" (tm). Specifically, the quote I'm speaking of is:

CCP Sreegs wrote:
Protip for the future: if your computer is logged in 24 (or way more than a person can) hours a day making money in a way that is meant to be active and you're not in front of it you're probably doing something wrong


AFK Ice Mining falls under this category.

1. A person AFK Ice Mining can mine for 23.5 hours straight without having to stop. (With the proper bot setup, they literally don't have to stop at all. Without a bot, then they merely have to check every so often and kick their cans out for a friend to pick up, or drag it back to the nearest station.)
2. This is a direct source of income (making money).
3. Mining is meant to be active, which is why mining materials take up more mass than 0 m3.

Therefore, since CCP Sreegs is stating that making money for more than 24 hours a day while you are actually AFK is "doing something wrong" -- which, by definition, means an exploit. (CCP saying you are playing the game wrong.)

Therefore, without a doubt, we can logically extrapolate from this:

CCP Sreegs is stating that AFK Ice Mining (alongside other forms of AFK Mining) is a bannable exploit.
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#466 - 2012-08-11 07:58:11 UTC
Anyone else annoyed that the "fix" for this is going to be large swarms of weak Frigates to screw up drones? Drone ratting is already a horrifically annoying affair without "fixes" trying to keep highsec exploiters from abusing mechanics.

(The most annoying part of drone ratting is not knowing your drones are being pelted from the overview, you have to keep your drone window open and expanded so you can watch HP. If a person could see when drones or fighters under your command are being shot -- say, with a different color or pattern to the targeting icon -- it'd go a long way towards making it not horrible.)
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#467 - 2012-08-11 07:59:25 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:

What is not reasonable is the snarky and sarcastic attitude. Sreegs you are addressing your customers not you're friends or team mates. A certain level of professionalism is expected when you release news with such strong implications to your customer base. Your ability to communicate in a non-aggressive manner can be the difference between a smooth patching period and a public relations "**** storm" as has been so specifically discriptive of this particular incident.


There is nothing wrong with Sreegs attitude tbh. The real issue lies in people have reading and comprehension skills comparitable to that of roadkill. People raised their initial concerns. Clarification was provided. Then page after page saw the same stupid posts with the same questions that had already been previously answered. If anything he has done a good job to keep replying to all the ragers.

...

xXxNIMRODxXx
Arial Enterprise
Sigma Grindset
#468 - 2012-08-11 08:01:09 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
I'd like to get this straight.

The issue is people using current game mechanics to make exorbitant amounts of isk endlessly without having to do anything but relog once a week. This issue was seen to be unacceptable and the programming is being worked on to prevent this from further exploitation. So for now until the game mechanics are fixed it will be a bannable offense.

That is reasonable.

What is not reasonable is the snarky and sarcastic attitude. Sreegs you are addressing your customers not you're friends or team mates. A certain level of professionalism is expected when you release news with such strong implications to your customer base. Your ability to communicate in a non-aggressive manner can be the difference between a smooth patching period and a public relations "**** storm" as has been so specifically discriptive of this particular incident.

The news post by Sreegs (current and edited) is alarming to anyone who partakes in any kind of afk isk generating activity because of the sarcastic remarks about doing laundry and watching a marathon of a show. A large portion if not the vast majority of the player base will identify with at least one of those practices. If you do want to be sarcastic useing an imaginary scenerio in the future, please try to be more specific with the "unusual" practice in question. Maybe a 7 day cruise or a weekend get-away in the mountains while continuously generating lots of isk. That sounds more like something i'd be against as well.


The point is about the mechanics of the game.
They made a game.
The game is made this way.
We are using the game, so, the mechanics, to the maximum, cause the game and the mechanics themselves, let us do that.
We are not cheating, then.
But we are exploiting.
Exploiting:An exploit, in video games, is the use of a bug or glitches, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.[1] It is often colloquially abbreviated sploit. Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating;

Are we cheating? No
Are we using a bug at our advantage? No
A glitch? No
Etc.? No

Yo Devs, there's something wrong WITH YOU.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#469 - 2012-08-11 08:07:40 UTC
except AFK icemining will stop once your ore bay fills up so for it to fall under normal play you will have to check your ship every so often. (and if they have a bot set up well then they are botting and that is something different than afk play) although I'm pretty sure someone already went over this in much greater detail already.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#470 - 2012-08-11 08:11:23 UTC
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
except AFK icemining will stop once your ore bay fills up so for it to fall under normal play you will have to check your ship every so often. (and if they have a bot set up well then they are botting and that is something different than afk play) although I'm pretty sure someone already went over this in much greater detail already.


And I'm sure the AFK Dominix "exploit" required you check it every so often, if only to set it up after downtime.

That's really no different than having to jetcan your ice every so often. How often does a fully yield fit ice mining setup require you jetcan ice out?
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#471 - 2012-08-11 08:23:18 UTC
except it does not require you to check your ship.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#472 - 2012-08-11 11:20:01 UTC
xXxNIMRODxXx wrote:

The point is about the mechanics of the game.
They made a game.
The game is made this way.
We are using the game, so, the mechanics, to the maximum, cause the game and the mechanics themselves, let us do that.
We are not cheating, then.
But we are exploiting.
Exploiting:An exploit, in video games, is the use of a bug or glitches, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.[1] It is often colloquially abbreviated sploit. Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating;

Are we cheating? No
Are we using a bug at our advantage? No
A glitch? No
Etc.? No

Yo Devs, there's something wrong WITH YOU.


Just putting this out there, but I'm pretty sure when CCP created their game, they actually intended for it to be played... by people.

Are you playing? No

...

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#473 - 2012-08-11 13:11:10 UTC
Xython wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
except AFK icemining will stop once your ore bay fills up so for it to fall under normal play you will have to check your ship every so often. (and if they have a bot set up well then they are botting and that is something different than afk play) although I'm pretty sure someone already went over this in much greater detail already.


And I'm sure the AFK Dominix "exploit" required you check it every so often, if only to set it up after downtime.

That's really no different than having to jetcan your ice every so often. How often does a fully yield fit ice mining setup require you jetcan ice out?


Since you asked....

3 harvesters x 1,000 m^3 = 3,000 m^3 yield per cycle on a hulk.

Cycle time 500s * .8 (hulk bonus) = 400s

400s * .91 * .91 *.91 (3 T2 ice harvester upgrades) = 301.4s

301.4s * .88 (ice harvester rig) = 265s

Hulk will hold 8500, so 2 cycles max before you have to empty it.

265 * 2 / 60 = 8.8 minutes.


Yeah, Emptying your hulk every 9 minutes is almost the same as being afk for 23 hours straight.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#474 - 2012-08-11 13:47:21 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Xython wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
except AFK icemining will stop once your ore bay fills up so for it to fall under normal play you will have to check your ship every so often. (and if they have a bot set up well then they are botting and that is something different than afk play) although I'm pretty sure someone already went over this in much greater detail already.


And I'm sure the AFK Dominix "exploit" required you check it every so often, if only to set it up after downtime.

That's really no different than having to jetcan your ice every so often. How often does a fully yield fit ice mining setup require you jetcan ice out?


Since you asked....

3 harvesters x 1,000 m^3 = 3,000 m^3 yield per cycle on a hulk.

Cycle time 500s * .8 (hulk bonus) = 400s

400s * .91 * .91 *.91 (3 T2 ice harvester upgrades) = 301.4s

301.4s * .88 (ice harvester rig) = 265s

Hulk will hold 8500, so 2 cycles max before you have to empty it.

265 * 2 / 60 = 8.8 minutes.


Yeah, Emptying your hulk every 9 minutes is almost the same as being afk for 23 hours straight.


You're still generating isk while AFK while doing something the game intends you to be active during. That, according to CCP, is an exploit.

It doesn't matter how many overly entitled players with an Isk addiction do it, wrong is wrong.
Kyle Frost
Inagawa Kai
#475 - 2012-08-11 13:49:40 UTC
Xython wrote:

You're still generating isk while AFK while doing something the game intends you to be active during. That, according to CCP, is an exploit.

It doesn't matter how many overly entitled players with an Isk addiction do it, wrong is wrong.


Please, go consult your corp mate, his name is Richard Desturned. He will explain in goonie-speak so that you can understand. Idea

Let the gun do the talking!

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#476 - 2012-08-11 14:08:08 UTC
Xython wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Xython wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
except AFK icemining will stop once your ore bay fills up so for it to fall under normal play you will have to check your ship every so often. (and if they have a bot set up well then they are botting and that is something different than afk play) although I'm pretty sure someone already went over this in much greater detail already.


And I'm sure the AFK Dominix "exploit" required you check it every so often, if only to set it up after downtime.

That's really no different than having to jetcan your ice every so often. How often does a fully yield fit ice mining setup require you jetcan ice out?


Since you asked....

3 harvesters x 1,000 m^3 = 3,000 m^3 yield per cycle on a hulk.

Cycle time 500s * .8 (hulk bonus) = 400s

400s * .91 * .91 *.91 (3 T2 ice harvester upgrades) = 301.4s

301.4s * .88 (ice harvester rig) = 265s

Hulk will hold 8500, so 2 cycles max before you have to empty it.

265 * 2 / 60 = 8.8 minutes.


Yeah, Emptying your hulk every 9 minutes is almost the same as being afk for 23 hours straight.


You're still generating isk while AFK while doing something the game intends you to be active during. That, according to CCP, is an exploit.

It doesn't matter how many overly entitled players with an Isk addiction do it, wrong is wrong.


No, according to CCP, it isn't an exploit to be AFK while mining. They said so.

Read more better. You'll catch on.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Subrahmaya Chandrasekhar
#477 - 2012-08-11 15:32:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Subrahmaya Chandrasekhar
Not sure how relevant my little note here is, so take it with a grain of salt:

I recently read that sitting for extended periods of time shortens your lifespan - anything over a few hours a day - and that the shortening can be as much as quitting smoking can add to your life. There was also a headline somewhere about some Koreans gaming online ... they just keep playing and playing until they literally die in front of their computers, I guess.

So maybe we should all try to limit the time we play. I have played for 18 hours a day on numerous occasions, and I know it's bad for me. I nod off too, anywhere from a second on up to much longer periods of time. Frankly, I'm addicted, and to Eve in particular. It's funny, but it's not funny, if you know what I mean.

(I used to be in good shape, I've run the Boston marathon 3 times, but over the years I've been playing this game I've gradually become less and less fit. Obviously it's my fault. No fate but what we make, as Sarah Connor said.)
Kyle Frost
Inagawa Kai
#478 - 2012-08-11 16:21:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Kyle Frost
daddi0 wrote:

Gee, I thought You were going to make some sense this time. You're entire tirade seems to be based on the idea that I'm in favor of allowing bots or game exploits. Its a great argument except that it overlooks the facts:

  1. I haven't EVER argued in favor of bots
  2. I haven't even argued in favor of allowing this exploit
  3. I explicity stated that changing the EULA was a proper step to take


What I have discussed is the inability to distinguish between certain human bahavior and bot behavior, and the enforcement applied when that behavior is discovered. Let's face it, this exploit haas been available for years, and most likely in use without detection until it got so big that it bacame obvious, or a bot scanner discovered a new behavior and flagged it; a false positive in point of fact, since its not a bot.

The quoted text above suddenly explains quite clearly the lack of understanding about the need for clear rules and a transparent and forgiving exnforcement mechanism, which seems to be the grievance of many "edge" players.

The simple answer is that it is a cultural difference. I live in the United States. We expect the EULA to be the basis of the contract that both sides agree to, otherwise what's the point of having to agree to it. We also expect to be charged with specific crimes, by a known accuser, with evidence to warrant those charges, and provided with the open and adequate means to refute them even BEFORE we are imprisoned. In others words, the ability to receive a fair trial, where it is the state's responsibility to prove a crime has been committed. You on the other hand, live in a region when the citizens accept the fact that the police can imprison them without reason, without charges and without showing any evidence. Thus you accept the fact that defense must take place after the fact, and it is your responsibility to discover what you've been accused of and whyand prove your innocence.

This is an irreconcilable difference in point of view and thus not possible to change with any form of discussion of facts or philosophy about law and safeguards. /discussion

My entire “tirade” was based on the idea, that in order to get my message across, I have to start from A and B and teach you the alphabet. Amazingly, not even that worked.

The reason why I wrote that little piece about the bots, was because of how focused you were on the EULA. “It’s doesn’t violate the EULA, so it’s fine. You can’t possible ban somebody for that!” You in-directly acknowledged that there was a problem and suggested a fix, but your main focus was how you can’t tell if somebody was AFK and how this doesn’t violate the EULA. The fact that AFK complex camping is pretty much the same as botting and what kind of effect it can have on other players – those are minor details.

It doesn’t violate the EULA, never mind the rest… not another thought. See, that’s why I called you ignorant. Straight This is probably going to be considered an extreme example, but you don’t seem to understand the easy, simple ones. I’ve also noticed, that you have a hard time understanding simple questions, but I am gonna risk it. Do you know, that in some countries in the Middle East and Africa, stoning to death is a legal punishment for people who have committed adultery? You can join the crowd and throw stones at some defenseless woman, who cheated on her abusive husband. How about that, ah? You think it is ok, because it’s legal? You think the people who participate in this should go free?

And yeah, you said they should change the EULA, which brings another very interesting, and somewhat funny question. And please, put those few brain cells together and give me a reply on that one, cause I bet it will be hilarious! Big smile What would have happened if they had done exactly that – change the EULA and then proceed to ban AFK complex farmers? That would have been the right thing to do from a legal point of view, yes? Instead of posting some vague, arrogant message in the news column, the next time you start EVE a window pops up – “The EULA has changed. Please read carefully and indicate that you accept the new terms by clicking Accept”. Everyone has seen the EULA window numerous times. What do 95% of the players do when they see that window – they just scroll to the bottom and click Accept. Hell, I bet that’s what you do! (like secretly, when you are not arguing on the forums Cool)

You know what would have happened in a day or two, after the bans settled? This thread would have been not 20 but 120 pages long and the tears would be dripping from your monitor and falling on your desk. P Those poor farmers wouldn’t be happy at all – accounts banned, no refunds (cause they all accepted the EULA without reading), various other morons whining for their “sandbox” and bla, bla, bla... But you - you would be perfectly fine with it because you, as a seller of software, take license agreements VERY SERIOUSLY and you always read the fine print before playing with internet spaceships. Well I believe congratulations are in order, fine sir! You are probably not gonna get caught cheating… Lol I mean, provided that was the way CCP did things. Are we on the same page now?

For dessert – you stated, several times I believe, that CCP can’t be sure if a person is AFK or not. Considering that they have access to all the server side data, that’s just not true - not when it concerns greater periods of time. But for the case in question, you don’t really need an automated bot detector or a CSI team to figure it out, do you? (ok, maybe YOU do). 9 accounts, all registrated to one person, all logged from one IP, online 23/7, all doing the same thing. You think a human can actively play 9 accounts 23/7? Actually, looking back to some of the posts on this thread, I am expecting somebody to jump and say – “Yeah, I do that on regular basis – I double team with my wife”.

Let the gun do the talking!

daddi0
Brooklyn Tax Dodgers
#479 - 2012-08-11 21:33:46 UTC
Kyle Frost wrote:


And yeah, you said they should change the EULA, which brings another very interesting, and somewhat funny question. And please, put those few brain cells together and give me a reply on that one, cause I bet it will be hilarious! Big smile What would have happened if they had done exactly that – change the EULA and then proceed to ban AFK complex farmers? That would have been the right thing to do from a legal point of view, yes? Instead of posting some vague, arrogant message in the news column, the next time you start EVE a window pops up – “The EULA has changed. Please read carefully and indicate that you accept the new terms by clicking Accept”. Everyone has seen the EULA window numerous times. What do 95% of the players do when they see that window – they just scroll to the bottom and click Accept. Hell, I bet that’s what you do! (like secretly, when you are not arguing on the forums Cool)

.
.
.

For dessert – you stated, several times I believe, that CCP can’t be sure if a person is AFK or not. Considering that they have access to all the server side data, that’s just not true - not when it concerns greater periods of time. But for the case in question, you don’t really need an automated bot detector or a CSI team to figure it out, do you? (ok, maybe YOU do). 9 accounts, all registrated to one person, all logged from one IP, online 23/7, all doing the same thing. You think a human can actively play 9 accounts 23/7? Actually, looking back to some of the posts on this thread, I am expecting somebody to jump and say – “Yeah, I do that on regular basis – I double team with my wife”.



Actually I do read the EULA on every prodcut I buy and use, and expect the vendor to abide by their side of it as well, otherwise I don't accept it. And that's just the problem, just because its possible to determine some of the behavior, you can't be sure of th rest.

Now, back to AFK and determining behavior. Yep, 9 accoutns doing the same thing is pretty easy to figure out, so is the guys standing over the bodey with a smoking gun. Those are not the cases in question, but the more subtle ones. If I only have one account , and perfomr any activity for 18 hours without any keys strokes, am I AFK or just sitting there? And as you have so often pointed out, not every case can be pre-determined, so how do you know which of them is okay. CCP says minitg is okay, what about anything or everything else thatt no one has run across or been caught doing yet?

Hows this for an example, if I dont' respond to you on the forum, did you win, or am I just ignoring you as not worth the effort? How can you tell? Are you sure you shut me up, or did I just assume you're too narrow-minded to see the broader implications of the decisions like this, regardless of any single, specific case.

Maybe this one is easier for you you understand. Since you've already applied derogatory labels, I'll do the same in the example. From everyting I've written can you determine for certain whether I think you're well meaning but witout a broad sense of vision, or just a pompous ass who can't accept the fact that some people are concerned about the impact of events beyond just the current situation. In any case I'm done with the particular thread of discussison , so you can take you pick of the posibilities from the prior example.
Kyle Frost
Inagawa Kai
#480 - 2012-08-11 22:35:43 UTC
“Winning” or driving you off was never my objective. You think I would write one wall of text after another just to “beat you” in a forum war? And you call me a pompous ass?!

And narrow-minded? Well there is an irony overload! Big smile I did try to explain to you just how limited your perspective is, you bringing up the EULA again and again. I asked you a number of simple questions, trying to provoke some basic logic and thinking in you – that didn’t work, you didn’t answer a single one. What am I supposed to do next – draw you pictures? Nah, **** that – I don’t think even electroshock therapy is gonna help you. But hey, you know what – that’s your problem. Blink And the really good news is – CCP cares even less than I do. So go ahead and protest this grave injustice as much as you wish. Don’t give up – the future of EVE is in your hands! Lol

P.S. It’s amazing how you skip everything I wrote, even when I directly address and develop scenarios that you brought up. You just go on and on about the same thing like a broken lantern. It’s ok bro, don’t feel bad – I’ve done it too, when I was talking to one of my ex girlfriends. Whatever she said, my reply was – It wasn’t me. Roll

Let the gun do the talking!