Oh Dear God

[[Q]]

in my post, I was assuming that Jae & Matthew stay retired and don't pull a Michael Jordan. Of course there is a possibility that they will come back, but it seemed like the way Matthew left, he lost all taste for posting here.

should the mods be flaming and insulting more posters? should the mods be spamming/posting more in the general talk? should they completely dominate the forums so that everyone will fear them? should they be trying to cut down on dicussing and "try to reach stalemates"?

I'm not certain if you're trying to give options or taking potshots at Jae & Matthew. If it's the latter part, you've certainly misunderstood the impact these fella's have made. Discussing further would be pointless but since I don't think you're that bad of a guy, let's continue this fruitful conversation.

I don't know what you expect out of the new moderators, who have been doing what they were brought on to do, which is "maintain the peace" to use your words. would you have us not maintain the peace and allow people to be at each other's throats and flaming each other? could you elaborate more on this?

If you did do that, I would've left this comment alone. I'm just going to say one thing and then I'll leave it alone. Sit + Zoom. Had it not been leaked, he would've kept on posting. One of the things you're brought on to do is make sure people who have been banned do not return to the forums. I've gathered that the course of action against Sit was being discussed behind the scenes, in every other case, that's the way to go, in this case, whoever found out should've immediately banned him. Same goes for Dweaver, this is where it shows that you don't really know what you're doing. This goes to show you don't really have the balls most people are looking for. Make a decision and stand by it. Don't discuss it, not in such an open and shut case atleast. Shit, in this case you even had one of your own advocating for one of them. I can't comprehend why the lot of you can't see where I'm coming from on this. You guys just don't see anything wrong with Sit being allowed to stick around as long as he did. Nothing at all.

In the above quotes, I was not taking pot shots at J&M, I was trying to giving examples to try to get you to say what moderators should be doing in the general talk forum (which explains all those questions directed towards you). I was trying to get a feel for how you think mods should be running the show. The point of giving the examples was to try to get you to immediately say "yeah that's it" while reading, or at least help you respond a little easier.

If it's the latter part, you've certainly misunderstood the impact these fella's have made. Discussing further would be pointless but since I don't think you're that bad of a guy, let's continue this fruitful conversation.

again, it wasn't the latter part (taking pot shots at J&M) and you didn't really continue the conversation on the same topic, which I was hoping you'd do, so I'm going to ask you directly:
what do you think a moderator of the General Talk Forum has to do that's different from moderating the Live forums?

[Indy]

I love Jackal's idea about the modding the Live forums.

However, I wouldn't do it, because I do not play Live, nor do I post there.

[Jackal]

what do you think a moderator of the General Talk Forum has to do that's different from moderating the Live forums?

General talk mods should be willing to not be a mini Andrew. Cyanide clearly doesn't suit that description. (Willing to not be...)

Indy, I wouldn't dare suggest you be a Live mod, you're willing to be your own person opposed to following in Andrew's footsteps. When I'm talking about the newer mods, I exclude you.

[[Q]]

what do you think a moderator of the General Talk Forum has to do that's different from moderating the Live forums?

General talk mods should be willing to not be a mini Andrew. Cyanide clearly doesn't suit that description. (Willing to not be...)

It's still a little vague, but I'll take it. THanks for your input.

[BigKaboom2]

Oh please. I will post wherever the fuck I want, as long as its a valid point. I have had some real good debates and discussion not just about the NBA, but about life in general on this forum. I have also made mistakes, like the 3 I made tonight that caused you to have your period. Grow up, be a man and let it slide. I'm sure I will get the hang of forum etiquette over time. You don't have to read my posts, even if I personally think I'm adding to the discussion at hand.

It's really not your constitutional right to post here. Obviously Dramacydal has no authority to stop you, but I agree that you seem to post in nearly every thread countless times.

To Dramacydal - you knew you were going to derail this thread by calling out Flite_23 - not very helpful and it's still not quite back on topic as a result.

Cyanide, I have a question. When you guys do the IP check, is it done individually or can you select many members to check the IPs of at one time? If it's the latter, do the mods regularly do mass IP checks to make sure no one has gone ahead and made alternate accounts to bypass the ban?

I simply can't understand why guys like CoolMac (assuming) and Dweaver not to mention countless other pre-banned members can just "sign up again" and bypass the whole thing. Banning seems almost useless if it is that easy.

...You already made a thread about this - why make yet another attempt to get this one off-topic? People need to actually read threads before posting in them, instead of just mouthing off whatever they happen to be thinking at a given moment.

First off I need to have my say on the situation. The banning of the new poster MacGyver is wrong.

Nobody in this thread cares, to be honest. I actually thought you were going to address the situation judging by the first sentence, then you launched into a completely unrelated tirade. "I'm friends with Coolmac" doesn't make him suddenly a worthwhile poster.

Flite_23, Dramacydal -- shut the fuck up. Seriously. The next one of you who posts in this thread that doesn't pertain to its original intention, will no longer have to worry about the other because you'll be gone. There's a useful conversation going on here, and I'm actually enjoying reading it thus far -- even the shots at myself. I don't even want to see an apology post. Either post on the topic being discussed, or go get a room together and work out your differences in private. Nobody wants to read your bullshit.

Why would either of them be banned for these posts? Nothing in the forum rules suggest that this would ever happen. I'm getting sick of all the random threats being made by the new mods and the abundance of "Don't worry about it - let the moderators handle these things" posts.

You don't get to trash rational people's opinions just because of your Moderator tag, nor is "Watch out or you'll get banned" a reasonable interpretation of the following moderator rule:

Locking topics and punishing members should be a last resort. Encourage members to follow the rules and delete offending posts if necessary. Always try to salvage a discussion rather than putting an end to it.

You guys have been locking threads like crazy because it's one of the few special abilities you have. Granted, there are some atrocious threads, but every single question pertaining to the Live 07 patch doesn't need to be crammed into the sticky thread. That forum is about Live 07, not about the unpatched version of it only. We barely get any worthwhile new threads in there because people are justifiably concerned of it being locked if it's even about the game in any way.

You don't need to try to establish dominance over the board - just do what Jae and Matthew's precedent suggests you should do.

[cyanide]

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. They were banned. That means no more coming back. What do I have to say to make it get through that fuckin skull of yours? You guys left Coolmac as long as he was around just by saying he's got a different IP and he's not causing chaos. Jeez...

They were banned and that means no more coming back. What about other members that were banned but were given second chances? CoolMac, the original poster, was around forever under J&M, while this MacGuyver guy was hardly ever around. The only reason he wasn't banned right away was because there's no solid evidence that he is in fact CoolMac. He was banned based on speculation.

Indeed, just with you, you're the only one that's been actually advocating the stay of those three faggots. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised Arvin is back at posting if it were left up to you.

They weren't causing chaos. That's my point. The whole ironic thing is that while they weren't causing chaos, it's the long-time members that are causing chaos over the whole thing.

Which is exactly why I'm still posting. We need an opposite, not another Andrew. Look at J&M, they were the opposite of everything Andrew is. I picked up on the fact you guys want to be more like Andrew, which is why I suggested everyone just go be polite to the noobs in the live section, positive public relations and what not. The balance isn't there.

What bothers me is that why should there be an opposite to mod the general forums? The general forums were fine and I sure don't see any indication of chaos there. I think there's just too much of the whole we need another J&M rather than having a new personality on the forums.

I also find it quite insulting that you'd say something like they only made decisions based on their personal vendetta's and were unfair in their decisions. Matthew may be hot headed, I'll give you that, but as much as he's done for the place, I think it would be clear that whatever course of action he takes, it's by thinking that it'll be better for the NLSC. I can't say the same for you, you are willing to keep Dweaver because you think he's an excellent poster, if he was that excellent, a lot of people would've advocated his stay when he was just banned.

Actually, a lot of people did advocate his stay when he was banned. It was pretty much split down the middle when he was banned. Riot was ready to leave when it happened. Matthew may say it's better for the forums, but you can't really ignore the arguments that Dweaver and Matthew had together. Dweaver might spam, but at least he does put in contributions and thought provoking discussions. We have other spammers here that I'm not going to name that should be banned if we're going by the same logic.

It might as well be said now given it's on my mind and I'm not one to beat around the bush, Andrew isn't perfect. Andrew knows it and we all know it. This isn't a knock on him, more of an observation. I don't see the harm in having J&M as co-admins, it'll only lighten the decision making burden, right? But as long as I've known Andrew, he's managed to diplomatically say he doesn't want to share power, the final say should go to him.

Andrew's not perfect, and neither are J&M. I can't hold anything and everything J&M does as the gospel truth.

[J@3]

It was pretty much split down the middle when he was banned. Riot

No it wasn't, there was more of an outrage when COOLmac was banned. Even some of Dweaver's friends (The X specifically) didn't entirely disagree with it.

[cyanide]

I remembered they both caused an outrage, but didn't think CoolMac would cause more controversy.

[J@3]

COOLmac's had an entire 100+ post thread, admittedly it was a thread that he himself created. I don't remember there being much of a big deal when Dweaver was banned, I think a large majority of the people who did previously respect his posts probably got put off by the constant off topic, un-funny things he was posting more and more in random threads to de-rail them.

[Oznogrd]

Locking topics and punishing members should be a last resort. Encourage members to follow the rules and delete offending posts if necessary. Always try to salvage a discussion rather than putting an end to it.

You guys have been locking threads like crazy because it's one of the few special abilities you have. Granted, there are some atrocious threads, but every single question pertaining to the Live 07 patch doesn't need to be crammed into the sticky thread. That forum is about Live 07, not about the unpatched version of it only. We barely get any worthwhile new threads in there because people are justifiably concerned of it being locked if it's even about the game in any way.

Gotta disagree with you Kaboom. All the new mods locking and moving stuff has made the NBA Live 07 forum for me much easier to sort through and find the legitimate topics. However, I will agree new posters are discouraged from making posts sometimes, i certainly spent alot of time scouring before creating a new thread to make sure i didnt tick anyone off and most people arent going to go to that effort. However, if a question is answered and the original poster has come back and said "thanks" why keep the thread open? Most of the locked threads i've seen have been this type of case. Also, about cramming everything in the sticky: at least 9/10 of the questions are answered in the sticky that get posted as their own thread. Often times on the first page of the sticky. I'm personally glad we keep it all in one spot because hearing "my patch doesnt work! HELP!" and then something in a bastardized mix of languages 80 times as their own threads i think would get old fast.

As for everything else, I havent been here long enough to truly say. I didnt see the Coolmac/Dweaver situations and I only saw the end of the Sit/Zoom situation. I was not here for the days of Jae and Matthew except for the tail end. I saw nothing wrong with the zoom persona: but the rules do say do not make second accounts, and after the first warning from whatever happened as Sit, second chance was gone. He chose to remove himself rather than be banned again, but i saw nothing wrong with the decision to ban him based on my understanding of the rules. But my understanding of the situation isnt what determines what occurs; Basically it looks to me that the Mods here are like the judicial and executive branch of the government. It is their job to interpret the law and then also to enforce it. But the first part of this sentence is the issue. Not everyones personality is going to interpret the laws the same when it comes to gray areas. Perhaps we need to have a mod/respected member of the community meeting (Jackal, Jae and Matthew, etc.) to make some of the rules more specific? (EDIT: This thread could even become it, but i think it would be best done not in public) I mean, what one sees as spam, one might see as contributing; so it becomes a fine line.

As someone said awhile back, this forum is what we make it (i think it was Andrew) and i think we can fix these problems. I believe LBJ said it best. "Let us reason together"

[Riot]

I really do not know what to think. In my personal experience, the new moderators or the old moderators who were handed even more powerful positions are a lot more defensive. I got in a little flame war with a moderator and ended up getting banned for over two weeks. I don't think anyone noticed but that is why I was gone for so long during the beginning of November.

I think Andrew needs to go back and look over the moderating team and make decisions about what he wants to do. I think the guys that are currently moderators have the potential to be great ones but right now it seems they are struggling to find what the "line" should be. The old moderators had a comfort zone and they knew when to draw the line. That obviously comes with time though and it becomes a problem when you have a bunch of new moderators at once. It was fine when there was a new moderator here and the rest were experienced.

That's my opinion. Go back to arguing with yourselves again.

[Axel]

I agree with Jae here, there is a definite lack of leadership on the part of the moderators. Andrew is only one person, and can't patrol every thing that happens here, so essentially there needs to be at least one other person here who sees eye to eye with him on most all things. I think in general, things here are handled far too informally. A lot of decisions seem to be made with other things in mind than just the rules. Yes, I can understand circumstance to a point, but when circumstance becomes more important than following the rules it becomes a problem. The Sit decision is a prime example of this. Since when did it become acceptable to show complete and utter disregard for the rules? It's pathetic, not to mention completely hypocritical. Again, circumstance takes precedence to rule enforcement. Many other people have been banned for disrespecting moderators, but "good spam" is better?

Letting people off the hook does two things. It shows the weakness of the moderators, and it sets a bad example for others to follow. Not a great combination.

[Andrew]

Want to make the forums run smooth? Appoint Jae & Matthew as administrators. Both of them. Jae doesn't question Matthew, Matthew doesn't question Jae, Andrew questions neither and Matthew & Jae might question some of Andrew but they've got a way of working things out amongst themselves. I know Andrew isn't keen on the idea of sharing the "power", but you always say you're open to suggestions and what not, so there you go.

Well, that's something I'll have to talk to them about privately. At the end of the day it comes down to their interest and willingness to do that.

[BigKaboom2]

http://www.nbaliveforums.com/ftopic44414.php

No explanation given whatsoever to someone who may be entirely new to the forums.

http://www.nbaliveforums.com/ftopic44365.php

Locked for absolutely no reason. They were just discussing the fact that the patch wasn't released for a certain version of the game, but apparently it didn't matter.

http://www.nbaliveforums.com/ftopic44270.php

Whoever locked it didn't even make a post in the thread, when a simple link to one of the stickies would have sufficed.

http://www.nbaliveforums.com/ftopic44137.php

Nobody gave a correct answer to this question, and it was locked for a reason completely irrelevant to said question, seemingly just for fun.

http://www.nbaliveforums.com/ftopic44104.php

What if somebody else had something relevant to say on this subject? Too bad for them.

http://www.nbaliveforums.com/ftopic43952.php

Locked for no reason.

http://www.nbaliveforums.com/ftopic43918.php

No explanation given.

http://www.nbaliveforums.com/ftopic42558.php

The lock-happy moderation continues.

http://www.nbaliveforums.com/ftopic43370.php

This is probably my favorite one, since Cy first scolded the original poster, then locked his perfectly harmless thread.

http://www.nbaliveforums.com/ftopic43356.php

Second-best.

http://www.nbaliveforums.com/ftopic42795.php

The fact that this wasn't locked immediately is embarrassing.


I'm just hoping all the high-and-mighty posturing ends at some point, as I'm growing quite weary of it.

[bigh0rt]

BigKaboom2 -- that's a nice little list there, but unfortunately, in many of the cases there, you simply don't know the full story. You don't realize the number of PMs we (I'll speak on behalf of the other moderators, assuming theirs is comparable to mine) receive in a given day. Looking over a great number of these, I can tell you with certainty that along with the thread, I received a PM asking the question, answered it via PM, and then proceeded to let the poster know I'd be locking their thread, or they replied to me asking that the thread be locked. If it's a question that's been asked previously or is common, I don't feel the need to answer it on the forums again, to create clutter. Now, also, I can't speak on behalf of the threads I was not directly involved in, but as I opened with -- you don't have a full story all the time. That goes for a lot of the things being said and thrown around in this thread. But I digress.

There's some excellent points going on in this thread, and as I've already stated, I'm really enjoying reading it. There's been some ideas tossed out that I really think would be beneficial, and there's some things that have been said that make me chuckle, because some people are incredibly misinformed but are unaware of it.

If you feel that any members of the moderation team are being "high-and-mighty" or too strict well, you're more than welcome to your opinion. As you've certainly read, there's forum members who feel a complete 180 with regard to your opinion. See, it's impossible to please everybody all the time. I can only speak for myself, but when I'm making a decision, I'm thinking of what's best for the forum. It's the same thing I was thinking when Jae and Andrew approached me about taking the moderator position to begin with (there's a direct answer to your concern Nick), and the way I'll continue to act when moderating the forums.

Either way, Bigkaboom2, a certain level of trust is necessary (a level of trust which through reading recent threads at this point seemingly doesn't exist -- but I hope will, over time). Trust that things aren't just happening without good reason, or to flex some little e-muscle. I know I can't be bothered with it, myself.

[Nick]

Jeez the mod's heads must be spinning right now. Some people are saying they're too soft and indecisive, while others say to stop being high and mighty.

And Jackal, i think your points would come accross a lot better if they weren't interlaced with personal attacks. What happened to Jackal, the new man?

BTW, i've been observing and judging: I like bigh0rt's personality. Maybe he could be a good mod down the road based on personality alone, even if it's a shitty start. He's got the balls and the logical thinking that i like to see. Got a while yet to earn my full respect, but on the right track i'd say.

[BigKaboom2]

I never claimed to know the full story, but you've got to give a reason for closing these, or it just doesn't look good to the average poster.

There's some excellent points going on in this thread, and as I've already stated, I'm really enjoying reading it. There's been some ideas tossed out that I really think would be beneficial, and there's some things that have been said that make me chuckle, because some people are incredibly misinformed but are unaware of it.

Either way, Bigkaboom2, a certain level of trust is necessary (a level of trust which through reading recent threads at this point seemingly doesn't exist -- but I hope will, over time). Trust that things aren't just happening without good reason, or to flex some little e-muscle. I know I can't be bothered with it, myself.

That's what I was referring to when I used the term "high-and-mighty", by the way. You've given me the "don't worry about it - the mods will eventually take care of it" response, which in this case makes little sense because you can't "take care" of yourselves.

I know I can't be bothered with it, myself.

I'm not sure what this means.

...I don't understand what the thumbs-up has to do with anything.

[Nick]

That's what I was referring to when I used the term "high-and-mighty", by the way. You've given me the "don't worry about it - the mods will eventually take care of it" response, which in this case makes little sense because you can't "take care" of yourselves.

You know what BKB, i think it's a good thing that he takes a high-and-mighty approach...

[bigh0rt]

That's what I was referring to when I used the term "high-and-mighty", by the way. You've given me the "don't worry about it - the mods will eventually take care of it" response, which in this case makes little sense because you can't "take care" of yourselves.

It's high-and-mighty to say, "a certain level of trust is necessary"?? Interesting. I'll need further explanation on that one, because from where I'm standing, it's far from an unreasonable request. I find it hard to believe that any of us would've been offered the position had Andrew not had faith in trusting us with the duties, and the assumption that others would grant the same trust. It's also an interesting shot that we "can't take care of ourselves." Either way, onward.

If you need explanation for every single action a moderator takes on these forums, then you'll likely never be satisfied. In fact, if that's something that becomes a requiremend of moderators in the future, I'll gladly turn over my position; because I'd rather just enjoy the forum and let other people worry about letting the entire forum know their every move. As I stated above -- you either trust to a degree that we're doing what is right for the forum, and are specifying our actions where necessary, or you don't. That's my stance, and it's unlikely to change.

"I can't be bothered with it." means that I can't be bothered to try and feed my own ego by flexing e-muscle -- I think it's stupid. The thumbs up means I'm glad we're having discussion, and overall I think some positives will come from this. I haven't quite abandoned ship and proclaimed the NLSC dead, or that it'll never be the same or be as splendid as it once was, as some people have (I know you haven't quite done that, but others certainly have).

[BigKaboom2]

Not many people are going to have the exact same view as you on what is "right for the forum", so for you to ask them to lay back and trust you comes off as a little arrogant to me. Perhaps that's not what you intended.

You've given me the "don't worry about it - the mods will eventually take care of it" response, which in this case makes little sense because you can't "take care" of yourselves.

You took that quote completely out of context, which is not something I expected from you. I was saying that this thread is mainly about the shortcomings of the new moderators, but the mods are telling us to trust them to work out the problem when it is centered solely around them, according to certain people in this thread.

If you need explanation for every single action a moderator takes on these forums, then you'll likely never be satisfied.

The straw man argument is not the most effective debate tool. I quite clearly was not suggesting that the moderators document everything, only that they don't close threads with sarcastic remarks like "Nice try " and instead give an actual reason - it wouldn't require too much effort.

[---]

It's really not your constitutional right to post here. Obviously Dramacydal has no authority to stop you, but I agree that you seem to post in nearly every thread countless times.

Fair enough, if I am not contributing to these forums then I might as well stop.

...You already made a thread about this - why make yet another attempt to get this one off-topic? People need to actually read threads before posting in them, instead of just mouthing off whatever they happen to be thinking at a given moment.

I don't believe I asked that question in my thread (that by the way, was "derailed" also), so why not ask it once we are on the topic of banning? What do you want me to do? Bump up my old thread for a question I didn't originally ask?. As for another attempt to go off topic, Dramacydal called me out, of course I was going to respond.

Why would you discuss it further? The argument was dead and the thread was back on topic. I am finished with this little argument, so please, don't bring it up again.

[Axel]

Either way, Bigkaboom2, a certain level of trust is necessary (a level of trust which through reading recent threads at this point seemingly doesn't exist -- but I hope will, over time). Trust that things aren't just happening without good reason, or to flex some little e-muscle. I know I can't be bothered with it, myself.

Just a casual observation here, you have to earn that trust. It's pretty difficult to trust a staff that describes itself as "inexperienced", as well as completely erratic in decision making. I personally don't read the Live sections, but it would appear that the exact opposite of the Sit situation is happening there. There needs to be some consistency here, people have no idea what to expect from the moderators. It would appear that now the mods are on an overzealous streak to make up for not taking action on Sit. Just a little bit of consistency would be nice.


Edit:

Flite, just had to get the last word in didn't ya?

[bigh0rt]

Not many people are going to have the exact same view as you on what is "right for the forum", so for you to ask them to lay back and trust you comes off as a little arrogant to me. Perhaps that's not what you intended.

Certainly not my intentions. Apologies if I did come off that way. My point is, part of the job of being a moderator is making sometimes split-second (sometimes not) decisions on what is right and what is wrong. Up until this point, I've never seen such an outcry of people saying this, that, and the other thing was a sham, with so many shots taken at moderators. For the most part, things are running exactly as they were under previous moderators, except now you've got, what, five new characters in positions -- so some differences are to be expected.

You've given me the "don't worry about it - the mods will eventually take care of it" response, which in this case makes little sense because you can't "take care" of yourselves.

You took that quote completely out of context, which is not something I expected from you. I was saying that this thread is mainly about the shortcomings of the new moderators, but the mods are telling us to trust them to work out the problem when it is centered solely around them, according to certain people in this thread.

I misinterpreted what you wrote, then. I initially took it the way in which I replied to it. Glad to have some clarity on it now, though.

If you need explanation for every single action a moderator takes on these forums, then you'll likely never be satisfied.

The straw man argument is not the most effective debate tool. I quite clearly was not suggesting that the moderators document everything, only that they don't close threads with sarcastic remarks like "Nice try " and instead give an actual reason - it wouldn't require too much effort.

I do agree. However, then there's the gray area between what you think needs clarification and what I feel needs it. Obviously if I don't feel it warrants it, I'm unlikely to specify. I think a great answer to this potential problem would be, if you see something and think to yourself "This looks strange." by all means shoot a PM to the moderator who locked said thread, of if it's unclear who did, shoot a PM to any of us and we'll check with the others and try and get you an answer. My main gripe here is the method in which a lot of things have happened. Friendly and inquisitive PMs, to me, would be just as effective (going forward -- not thinking retroactively) as designated threads asking "Why did Mod A do this?", etc. So, if you're on the same page as me, by all means, feel free to send me a PM any time you're wondering why I did something, and I'd be glad to specify.

[Donatello]

I quite clearly was not suggesting that the moderators document everything, only that they don't close threads with sarcastic remarks like "Nice try " and instead give an actual reason - it wouldn't require too much effort.

I absolutely must agree with BigKaboom2 on that part. I don't believe anything should be locked without explanation (not saying I've never been guilty of it; perhaps I have).

If you lock it without explanation, "Newbie123" looks at the locked thread, is not familiar with the posting rules, and learns nothing. If you put a short explanation, no matter how generic or scripted it is, at least they will see the rule and learn about it that way.

Everyone SHOULD read the posting rules, but many people don't, so giving reasons in a locked thread is great way to educate.

[BigKaboom2]

I'm not sure about there being too many split-second decisions, but I can certainly imagine you've got some weird ones to make.

However, I'd be interested in knowing how you'd respond to Matthew's original post. I think the reason you've never seen an outcry like this is because no moderators have left under such chaotic conditions since you've been around here and it was Matthew who started the thread.

Most of the time I don't specifically require an explanation myself for moderator actions, but it just seems that for the "good of the forum" they should be there, in my opinion.

EDIT: I agree with Donatello's post and Axel's edit.