These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

An Announcement Regarding Real Life Harassment

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1941 - 2014-04-02 14:04:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ssabat Thraxx
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Speaking of general media, I wonder what the larger gaming community as a whole will think of CCP apparently asserting (through it's actions) that their TOS and EULA extends outside of the game and into the personal lives and private property of it's players.



Like the WoW player base who by the rules of their EULA can be banned for giving their character a name, and for the very act of using VOIP in the first place?

Or Anyone on an EA server who can be banned under their EULA for bad mouthing EA on facebook?

Im guessing they would say "about time"


Would they? Or would they say it's about time that gaming companies be held accountable for overstepping the boundaries of reason and respect? We all agree to play their rules when we're playing their games, but maybe, just maybe (hold on folks, this is a wild concept) what we do when we're not playing their games is none of their damned business?

Edit: THERE THEIR AND THEY'RE Oops

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1942 - 2014-04-02 14:05:44 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Speaking of general media, I wonder what the larger gaming community as a whole will think of CCP apparently asserting (through it's actions) that their TOS and EULA extends outside of the game and into the personal lives and private property of it's players.



And not giving a **** about the racism and irl threats the victim made?

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#1943 - 2014-04-02 14:11:21 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Speaking of general media, I wonder what the larger gaming community as a whole will think of CCP apparently asserting (through it's actions) that their TOS and EULA extends outside of the game and into the personal lives and private property of it's players.



Like the WoW player base who by the rules of their EULA can be banned for giving their character a name, and for the very act of using VOIP in the first place?

Or Anyone on an EA server who can be banned under their EULA for bad mouthing EA on facebook?

Im guessing they would say "about time"


Would they? Or would they say it's about time that gaming companies be held accountable for overstepping the boundaries of reason and respect? We all agree to play their rules when we're playing their games, but maybe, just maybe (hold on folks, this is a wild concept) what we do when we're not playing their games is none of their damned business?

Edit: THERE THEIR AND THEY'RE Oops


Ok well as I dont agree that they have overstepped anything, Im not able to answer this reply, sorry.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#1944 - 2014-04-02 14:12:08 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Speaking of general media, I wonder what the larger gaming community as a whole will think of CCP apparently asserting (through it's actions) that their TOS and EULA extends outside of the game and into the personal lives and private property of it's players.



And not giving a **** about the racism and irl threats the victim made?



It doesnt matter whether somethign neither of us can prove or disprove did or didnt happen.

His Alliance mates did.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#1945 - 2014-04-02 15:54:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Kinis Deren
Are we there (100 pages) yet?

Edit: Boooo! I suffered from premature post insertion. Blink
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#1946 - 2014-04-02 17:14:32 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
Are we there (100 pages) yet?

Edit: Boooo! I suffered from premature post insertion. Blink


You can get an ointment for that...

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#1947 - 2014-04-02 20:10:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
In short...

1. Erotica 1 was 'mean' out of game to another EvE player Sohkar.

2. Sohkar did not file criminal charges of harassment et al against Erotica 1, so real world harassment has not been proven in law. Erotica 1 hasn't been convicted of anything. More telling is that Sohkar has since made it clear he does not feel Erotica 1 harrassed him.

3. Additionally, it should be noted Dominatrixes in my area charge $140 for 1/2 of willing S&M or BDSM abuse, while Erotica 1 charged Sohkar nothing. Submissives in these scenarios typically use 'safe words' to end abusive play at their choosing. Sohkar had a teamspeak disconnect button. He didn't press it.

4. Ripard Teg however felt Sohkar was 'abused', 'harassed' and 'tortured' in real life, and in his holy estimation of morality that Erotica 1 should be removed from taking part in in-game EvE gameplay.

5. Carebears and pansies joined Ripard Teg's witchhunt,

6. CCP did more 'research', six months after the event, and banned Erotica 1 from EvE online.

Now despite CCP not saying why exactly Erotica 1 was banned, and folks like Malcanis saying 'you dont have the full information', I think we have all the information we need...

By all appearances Erotica 1 was not banned because of a violation of TOS or EULA that CCP can honestly defend (or they would perhaps quote it), he appears to have been banned based on moral hand wringing by pansies and the fact people in power dont like him or his actions.

Welcome to the 'sandbox'. Be the villian...until someones feelings get hurt, then you are screwed.

p.s.
Given Ripard Teg may have actually made real-world accusations about Erotica 1's 'torture', 'harassment' and 'abuse' of Sohkar, I would find it entertaining indeed if Erotica 1 now successfully sued Ripard for publishing slanderous libel against him. For surely if Erotica 1's actions outside of the game were real acts of 'torture', 'harassment' etc, then equally Ripards comments are actionable for libel and slander if said acts weren't provable true in court?

F

Would you like to know more?
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1948 - 2014-04-02 20:17:11 UTC
I wish Orias would comment on this thread.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#1949 - 2014-04-02 20:18:05 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
In short...

1. Erotica 1 was 'mean' out of game to another EvE player Sohkar.

2. Sohkar did not file criminal charges of harassment et al against Erotica 1, so real world harassment has not been proven in law. Erotica 1 hasn't been convicted of anything. More telling is that Sohkar has since made it clear he does not feel Erotica 1 harrassed him.

3. Additionally, it should be noted Dominatrixes in my area charge $140 for 1/2 of willing S&M or BDSM abuse, while Erotica 1 charged Sohkar nothing. Submissives in these scenarios typically use 'safe words' to end abusive play at their choosing. Sohkar had a teamspeak disconnect button. He didn't press it.

4. Ripard Teg however felt Sohkar was 'abused', 'harassed' and 'tortured' in real life, and in his holy estimation of morality that Erotica 1 should be removed from taking part in in-game EvE gameplay.

5. Carebears and pansies joined Ripard Teg's witchhunt,

6. CCP did more 'research', six months after the event, and banned Erotica 1 from EvE online.

Now despite CCP not saying why exactly Erotica 1 was banned, and folks like Malcanis saying 'you dont have the full information', I think we have all the information we need...

By all appearances Erotica 1 was not banned because of a violation of TOS or EULA that CCP can honestly defend (or they would perhaps quote it), he was banned based on moral hand wringing by pansies and the fact people in power dont like him or his actions.

Welcome to the 'sandbox'. Be the villian...until someones feelings get hurt, then you are screwed.

p.s.
Given Ripard Teg actually made real-world accusations about Erotica 1's real-world 'torture', 'harassment' and 'abuse' of Sohkar, I would find it entertaining indeed if Erotica 1 now successfully sued Ripard for publishing slanderous libel against him. For surely if Erotica 1's actions outside of the game were real acts of 'torture', 'harassment' etc, then equally Ripards comments are actionable for libel and slander if said acts weren't provable true in court?

F


That's a lot of words based on the mistaken assumption that the ban was because of something that happened out of game.

Mr Epeen Cool
Toshiro Ozuwara
Perkone
#1950 - 2014-04-02 20:25:04 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Now despite CCP not saying why exactly Erotica 1 was banned, and folks like Malcanis saying 'you dont have the full information', I think we have all the information we need...

"I don't know what I am talking about, but I am going to carry on like I do know what I am talking about."

It didn't take long to locate the tracking beacon, deep inside the quarters for sleepin' They thought they could get away Not today, it's not the way that this kid plays
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#1951 - 2014-04-02 20:27:00 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
In short...

1. Erotica 1 was 'mean' out of game to another EvE player Sohkar.

2. Sohkar did not file criminal charges of harassment et al against Erotica 1, so real world harassment has not been proven in law. Erotica 1 hasn't been convicted of anything. More telling is that Sohkar has since made it clear he does not feel Erotica 1 harrassed him.

3. Additionally, it should be noted Dominatrixes in my area charge $140 for 1/2 of willing S&M or BDSM abuse, while Erotica 1 charged Sohkar nothing. Submissives in these scenarios typically use 'safe words' to end abusive play at their choosing. Sohkar had a teamspeak disconnect button. He didn't press it.

4. Ripard Teg however felt Sohkar was 'abused', 'harassed' and 'tortured' in real life, and in his holy estimation of morality that Erotica 1 should be removed from taking part in in-game EvE gameplay.

5. Carebears and pansies joined Ripard Teg's witchhunt,

6. CCP did more 'research', six months after the event, and banned Erotica 1 from EvE online.

Now despite CCP not saying why exactly Erotica 1 was banned, and folks like Malcanis saying 'you dont have the full information', I think we have all the information we need...

By all appearances Erotica 1 was not banned because of a violation of TOS or EULA that CCP can honestly defend (or they would perhaps quote it), he was banned based on moral hand wringing by pansies and the fact people in power dont like him or his actions.

Welcome to the 'sandbox'. Be the villian...until someones feelings get hurt, then you are screwed.

p.s.
Given Ripard Teg actually made real-world accusations about Erotica 1's real-world 'torture', 'harassment' and 'abuse' of Sohkar, I would find it entertaining indeed if Erotica 1 now successfully sued Ripard for publishing slanderous libel against him. For surely if Erotica 1's actions outside of the game were real acts of 'torture', 'harassment' etc, then equally Ripards comments are actionable for libel and slander if said acts weren't provable true in court?

F


That's a lot of words based on the mistaken assumption that the ban was because of something that happened out of game.

Mr Epeen Cool

Remind me again what the title of this thread is, who posted it, and the timing of said post?

Would you like to know more?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1952 - 2014-04-02 20:31:20 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
In short...

1. Erotica 1 was 'mean' out of game to another EvE player Sohkar.

2. Sohkar did not file criminal charges of harassment et al against Erotica 1, so real world harassment has not been proven in law. Erotica 1 hasn't been convicted of anything. More telling is that Sohkar has since made it clear he does not feel Erotica 1 harrassed him.

3. Additionally, it should be noted Dominatrixes in my area charge $140 for 1/2 of willing S&M or BDSM abuse, while Erotica 1 charged Sohkar nothing. Submissives in these scenarios typically use 'safe words' to end abusive play at their choosing. Sohkar had a teamspeak disconnect button. He didn't press it.

4. Ripard Teg however felt Sohkar was 'abused', 'harassed' and 'tortured' in real life, and in his holy estimation of morality that Erotica 1 should be removed from taking part in in-game EvE gameplay.

5. Carebears and pansies joined Ripard Teg's witchhunt,

6. CCP did more 'research', six months after the event, and banned Erotica 1 from EvE online.

Now despite CCP not saying why exactly Erotica 1 was banned, and folks like Malcanis saying 'you dont have the full information', I think we have all the information we need...

By all appearances Erotica 1 was not banned because of a violation of TOS or EULA that CCP can honestly defend (or they would perhaps quote it), he was banned based on moral hand wringing by pansies and the fact people in power dont like him or his actions.

Welcome to the 'sandbox'. Be the villian...until someones feelings get hurt, then you are screwed.

p.s.
Given Ripard Teg actually made real-world accusations about Erotica 1's real-world 'torture', 'harassment' and 'abuse' of Sohkar, I would find it entertaining indeed if Erotica 1 now successfully sued Ripard for publishing slanderous libel against him. For surely if Erotica 1's actions outside of the game were real acts of 'torture', 'harassment' etc, then equally Ripards comments are actionable for libel and slander if said acts weren't provable true in court?

F


That's a lot of words based on the mistaken assumption that the ban was because of something that happened out of game.

Mr Epeen Cool
But it was because of something out of game. The bonus room portion didn't occur in game, but some key points are being overlooked.

1. The out of game incident was prompted by an in game interaction which used CCP's properties, specifically the characters of the involved players
2. The EvE TOS/EULA are not meant to address criminal actions and have no place trying to do so. As such Sohkar not filing criminal charges is irrelevant.
3. I'd have hesitated pressing the disconnect button too if all my character's in game assets were in someone else' possession and doing so meant they would stay there.
4. Ripard is entitled to his opinion, just as others are entitled to disagree.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#1953 - 2014-04-02 20:48:37 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

1. The out of game incident was prompted by an in game interaction which used CCP's properties, specifically the characters of the involved players
2. The EvE TOS/EULA are not meant to address criminal actions and have no place trying to do so. As such Sohkar not filing criminal charges is irrelevant.
3. I'd have hesitated pressing the disconnect button too if all my character's in game assets were in someone else' possession and doing so meant they would stay there.
4. Ripard is entitled to his opinion, just as others are entitled to disagree.


Exactly.

That's the part that certain people keep glossing over but is the only thing of import.

Mr Epeen Cool
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#1954 - 2014-04-02 20:50:22 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

But it was because of something out of game. The bonus room portion didn't occur in game, but some key points are being overlooked.

1. The out of game incident was prompted by an in game interaction which used CCP's properties, specifically the characters of the involved players
2. The EvE TOS/EULA are not meant to address criminal actions and have no place trying to do so. As such Sohkar not filing criminal charges is irrelevant.
3. I'd have hesitated pressing the disconnect button too if all my character's in game assets were in someone else' possession and doing so meant they would stay there.
4. Ripard is entitled to his opinion, just as others are entitled to disagree.


Sohkar not filing (and proving) charges of harassment in court is EXACTLY the point. Erotica 1 appears to have been banned for real life harassment (see thread title), yet no real life harassment has been proven in court. Many accused Erotica 1 of real life harassment as their main rallying cry to ban him remember?

Then Erotica 1 was tried in the court of pansy opinion, with CCP & CSM running a back-room star chamber.

I would indeed find it delicious if Erotica 1 successfully sued Ripard for publishing libelous false claims that he tortured Sohkar, which couldn't be defended in court as 'truth' when Sohkar himself has said he was NOT harassed.

F

Would you like to know more?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1955 - 2014-04-02 20:55:45 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

But it was because of something out of game. The bonus room portion didn't occur in game, but some key points are being overlooked.

1. The out of game incident was prompted by an in game interaction which used CCP's properties, specifically the characters of the involved players
2. The EvE TOS/EULA are not meant to address criminal actions and have no place trying to do so. As such Sohkar not filing criminal charges is irrelevant.
3. I'd have hesitated pressing the disconnect button too if all my character's in game assets were in someone else' possession and doing so meant they would stay there.
4. Ripard is entitled to his opinion, just as others are entitled to disagree.


Sohkar not filing (and proving) charges of harassment in court is EXACTLY the point. Erotica 1 appears to have been banned for real life harassment (see thread title), yet no real life harassment has been proven in court. Many accused Erotica 1 of real life harassment as their main rallying cry to ban him remember?

Then Erotica 1 was tried in the court of pansy opinion, with CCP & CSM running a back-room star chamber.

I would indeed find it delicious if Erotica 1 successfully sued Ripard for publishing libelous false claims that he tortured Sohkar, which couldn't be defended in court as 'truth' when Sohkar himself has said he was NOT harassed.

F
You seem to be confused. CCP is not a criminal court. CCP is not obligated to use the same measures of harassment that a criminal court uses. CCP is not obligated to wait for a criminal investigation to take place. CCP's definition of harassment has been met, that is the ONLY definition that matters. This is why bringing criminal charges is irrelevant.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1956 - 2014-04-02 21:05:17 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

1. The out of game incident was prompted by an in game interaction which used CCP's properties, specifically the characters of the involved players
2. The EvE TOS/EULA are not meant to address criminal actions and have no place trying to do so. As such Sohkar not filing criminal charges is irrelevant.
3. I'd have hesitated pressing the disconnect button too if all my character's in game assets were in someone else' possession and doing so meant they would stay there.
4. Ripard is entitled to his opinion, just as others are entitled to disagree.


Exactly.

That's the part that certain people keep glossing over but is the only thing of import.

Mr Epeen Cool


I get it all. I think it's all off the mark and missing the point.

1. There were NO TOS/EULA violations in the in-game interaction.

2.The TOS/EULA specifically lay out what "criminal" (bad word choice, you'll see why in a minute) actions are. When you petition someone, you are petitioning because you believe they have "broken the rules," which means, you believe they have violated the TOS/EULA. That Sohkar didn't petition indicates that he didnt feel any rules were broken, and he would be correct, none were. Nothing happened at that point that doesn't happen hundreds of timesz a day, and CCP is fine with it.

As an aside, Sokhar did himself, however, commit an actual criminal (in the real and legal sense of the term) act when he started making threats of bodily harm against E1 and his family. Serious enough that E1 could have had him arrested. CCP didn't care about violating the TOS/EULA on his part at that point, so there's that pesky double standard again.

3. I understand the desire to try to at least get your money back, too. However, anyone objectively judging this case has to wonder why he didn't leave once he felt himself passing the point at which he could no longer control his emotions and behavior. Some judges may even say that Sokhar had a DUTY to leave once he felt that he was begining to lose control over himself.

4. Ripard's blog is a registered Fansite, is it not? That means it falls under CCP's TOS and EULA. It is against CCP's TOS and EULA to publicallu defame a fellow player. Have you read that blog post? Blatant TOS/EULA violations. From a CSM at that. No action was taken by CCP.


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Tesco Ergo Sum
#1957 - 2014-04-02 21:20:11 UTC
Posting on page 100
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#1958 - 2014-04-02 21:30:47 UTC
There are no winners in this except for ripard teg who has removed a potential political opponent from eve, the rest of us do lose however as more theme park is built over the sandbox.

The biggest loser is sokhar whose character and in game reputation has been utterly destroyed making him toxic to any Corp he might want to join, despite the fact that he got over the manipulations of erotica1 and still carried on playing eve.

he didn't get over ripard tegs manipulations though and I don't think he ever will, the poor guy will probably have to make a new toon.

so who has done the most damage here? Erotica or Ripard Teg.

I hope Ripard Teg never campaigns on my behalf, I would really miss being able to play eve.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1959 - 2014-04-02 21:31:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

1. The out of game incident was prompted by an in game interaction which used CCP's properties, specifically the characters of the involved players
2. The EvE TOS/EULA are not meant to address criminal actions and have no place trying to do so. As such Sohkar not filing criminal charges is irrelevant.
3. I'd have hesitated pressing the disconnect button too if all my character's in game assets were in someone else' possession and doing so meant they would stay there.
4. Ripard is entitled to his opinion, just as others are entitled to disagree.


Exactly.

That's the part that certain people keep glossing over but is the only thing of import.

Mr Epeen Cool


I get it all. I think it's all off the mark and missing the point.

1. There were NO TOS/EULA violations in the in-game interaction.

2.The TOS/EULA specifically lay out what "criminal" (bad word choice, you'll see why in a minute) actions are. When you petition someone, you are petitioning because you believe they have "broken the rules," which means, you believe they have violated the TOS/EULA. That Sohkar didn't petition indicates that he didnt feel any rules were broken, and he would be correct, none were. Nothing happened at that point that doesn't happen hundreds of timesz a day, and CCP is fine with it.

As an aside, Sokhar did himself, however, commit an actual criminal (in the real and legal sense of the term) act when he started making threats of bodily harm against E1 and his family. Serious enough that E1 could have had him arrested. CCP didn't care about violating the TOS/EULA on his part at that point, so there's that pesky double standard again.

3. I understand the desire to try to at least get your money back, too. However, anyone objectively judging this case has to wonder why he didn't leave once he felt himself passing the point at which he could no longer control his emotions and behavior. Some judges may even say that Sokhar had a DUTY to leave once he felt that he was begining to lose control over himself.

4. Ripard's blog is a registered Fansite, is it not? That means it falls under CCP's TOS and EULA. It is against CCP's TOS and EULA to publicallu defame a fellow player. Have you read that blog post? Blatant TOS/EULA violations. From a CSM at that. No action was taken by CCP.

1. That would matter if the ban was based on the in game interaction, it wasn't. What they failed to realize was that they still represent the game even after moving the conversation to a private server should that recording ever become public
2. The TOS/EULA states they can ban based upon potential reputation damage. In that case the petitioner would be CCP itself, not Sohkar. It's speculation, but how many bonus rooms are there? Are those really happening hundreds of times a day?
3. Indeed, which is why it's disappointing that he himself didn't receive some form of discipline for that failure and the language that resulted, but that wasn't the point of the original post I was addressing
4. So it's against the EULA to find another players actions reprehensible? Maybe I need to reread the blog, I personally didn't find it to be objectionable in the ways described, though admittedly I haven't looked in over a week.

Edit: Reread it, "despicable, vile human being" is the only thing I can find that broaches the accusation being levied here. It's admittedly sensationalist but no worse than James 315's direct statements to literally dehumanize miners.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1960 - 2014-04-02 21:49:53 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
[
1. That would matter if the ban was based on the in game interaction, it wasn't. What they failed to realize was that they still represent the game even after moving the conversation to a private server should that recording ever become public


Im still on the fence on this one. Ive heard some pretty nasty things bantied about on various TS servers, things that actually offended ME (u believe that? lol) but I wouldnt dream oof going to CCP with it, because I view it as outside their jurisdiction.

Making it public, though, not yet sure what my opinion is regarding if that makes a reasonable difference here or not.

Quote:

2. The TOS/EULA states they can ban based upon potential reputation damage. In that case the petitioner would be CCP itself, not Sohkar. It's speculation, but how many bonus rooms are there? Are those really happening hundreds of times a day?


In lesser degress, I know it happens every day, many times a day, maybe not hundreds, tho. My point is that scamming ...what shall we call them? ...people who are easily taken advatage of... is perfectly within the bounds of acceptable gameplay.
Quote:

3. Indeed, which is why it's disappointing that he himself didn't receive some form of discipline for that failure and the language that resulted, but that wasn't the point of the original post I was addressing

I agree. If they were gonna ban 1 they should have banned them all, including the victim, and the "agents."
Quote:

4. So it's against the EULA to find another players actions reprehensible? Maybe I need to reread the blog, I personally didn't find it to be objectionable in the ways described, though admittedly I haven't looked in over a week.


Yeah he makes really derrogatry personal remarls about players by name, and that's a no no.

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project