I understand that the way this is set up is designed to prevent gamey behavior (among other goals I'm unaware of, no doubt). It is presently resulting in very gamey behavior.
Terran has fallen. The invading army is very far away and doesn't want to conquer the land for themselves; instead they struck a deal with the Duke of the capital (me) to establish a new realm. The capital can't secede, so we had the option of temporarily joining another realm (so that we wouldn't be the capital) but that was deemed too gamey - i.e. 'we aren't actually changing allegiance to you, we're just de-capitalizing ourselves and we'll be gone in a week.'
So we convinced a neighboring Duke in Terran to secede with the idea that we'd then pledge to join them, since we previously had the option of pledging to another, neighboring realm even though we couldn't secede.
Neighboring Duke secedes and we go to pledge only to get this message:
'You cannot change allegiance with the last city in the realm.'
If the intention here is to prevent gamey behavior, the only solution I can see is to force our new neighbors to conquer us. Terran has no ruler, and I won't run for ruler because it will kick me out as Duke if I do.
What is the solution here? Do we just appeal to Tom to please switch us over to another realm? Do we force people who like us to 'conquer' us and spend two weeks TOing several regions?
Why would it kick you out of Duke if you become Ruler? It doesn't break the Chain of Hierarchy so there is no conflict. You can be Ruler and Duke at the same time. You just can't be Lord/Knight and Ruler without being the Duke as well.
Why not just rebel and take over the realm. You become, effectively, a new realm with a new government, and you're done.
Or, you could have swapped the capital to the other city, then seceded.
Quote from: Telrunya on March 25, 2013, 07:18:53 PM
Why would it kick you out of Duke if you become Ruler? It doesn't break the Chain of Hierarchy so there is no conflict. You can be Ruler and Duke at the same time. You just can't be Lord/Knight and Ruler without being the Duke as well.
I can verify, from personal experience, that you do not get kicked out of your position as Duke upon becoming a ruler through election. In addition to what has already been stated.
Edit: I suppose you could then change the realm name, once you are ruler? And Flag, Icon etc.
QuoteI can verify, from personal experience, that you do not get kicked out of your position as Duke upon becoming a ruler through election.
You do in a Republic. At least in this one.
We couldn't have swapped the capital prior to now because we haven't had a ruler - and even so, that's still just as gamey, and we'd just have the same problem with the other duchy instead of this one.
Quote from: Scarlett on March 25, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
You do in a Republic. At least in this one.
Well, not in the Barcan Republic...
Do you have region lordship elections? I think that's the thing that does it.
If you appoint your lords, it stands to reason that it shouldn't kick you out because you could just re-appoint yourself. But if duke-ships are elected positions, it's a way to promote turnover.
Quote from: Scarlett on March 25, 2013, 08:26:00 PM
Do you have region lordship elections? I think that's the thing that does it.
If you appoint your lords, it stands to reason that it shouldn't kick you out because you could just re-appoint yourself. But if duke-ships are elected positions, it's a way to promote turnover.
Yes, we have elected Lordships.
Seems like Terran really was corrupt :o ;D
Huh. That's odd. I'm positive that Alura lost her region lordship when she was elected, and I think Kas did too.
Quote from: Scarlett on March 25, 2013, 08:36:49 PM
Huh. That's odd. I'm positive that Alura lost her region lordship when she was elected, and I think Kas did too.
Used to. Not anymore.
Dukeship and lordship are not the same. Depending on the government system, you may lose your lordship, but I think you get to keep your dukeship, allowing you to appoint yourself right back. I'm not 100% sure, though.
Well to answer the question of why the last city can't secede, its about one person having too much power. One person being able to completely destroy a realm simply by changing allegiance/seceding is something that is considered bad.
Quote from: Penchant on March 26, 2013, 06:17:53 AM
Well to answer the question of why the last city can't secede, its about one person having too much power. One person being able to completely destroy a realm simply by changing allegiance/seceding is something that is considered bad.
It's also to prevent the easy formation of big merged realms. Although that's not the case here, the game has no way to know that.
QuoteOne person being able to completely destroy a realm simply by changing allegiance/seceding is something that is considered bad.
QuoteAlthough that's not the case here, the game has no way to know that.
It is already easy to form big, merged realms, and it is already easy to destroy a realm by seceding. It's just not easy to finish the job.
Quote from: Scarlett on March 26, 2013, 01:54:40 PM
It is already easy to form big, merged realms, and it is already easy to destroy a realm by seceding. It's just not easy to finish the job.
That is the point to your second statement. If you want to secede with most the realm, whatevs, but if you were able to take every last region the realm has been completely destroyed. Realms that are huge now have been reduced to only a couple of regions in the past, but once you lose everything, its over for that realm.
Quotebut once you lose everything, its over for that realm.
In this case it is already over. Not just 'according to one character' but according to everyone involved. It's done.
The fact that the last secession is more serious than the next-to-last may make it the last nail in the coffin, but it doesn't make sense that the Duke of Duchy B has a power that the Duke of Duchy A hasn't got, particularly when there is no ruler (or else the ruler signs off on it).
Quote from: Scarlett on March 26, 2013, 06:03:53 PM
In this case it is already over. Not just 'according to one character' but according to everyone involved. It's done.
The fact that the last secession is more serious than the next-to-last may make it the last nail in the coffin, but it doesn't make sense that the Duke of Duchy B has a power that the Duke of Duchy A hasn't got, particularly when there is no ruler (or else the ruler signs off on it).
*facepalms* This is not about something IC, its about not being able to destroy a realm. Right now, many say the realm is over, but it still has a chance. If you take the last regions away, you take their chance of survival away. If its already proclaimed dead, become ruler and make the capital a separate duchy, secede and take it back. If the ruler signs off on it, he can do the duchy making for you, and you do what I just stated.
QuoteThis is not about something IC, its about not being able to destroy a realm.
That is a circular argument. 'You can't destroy the realm because destroying the realm would destroy the realm.'
It's pretty simple: this is an area where BM-the-game is getting in the way of the players doing what they want to do because, as you say, they might screw it up and do something with poor results that can't be un-done. Okay, that's at least a valid concern. What are we accomplishing instead?
Zombie realms with joke governments that have to have non-wars with friendly neighbors so their regions can be 'taken over.' Nobles fighting other nobles on the battlefield, usually by accident, because you can't 'take over' without a declaration of war.
This is the game mechanism equivalent of life support for a terminal patient. I understand that you don't want a legit one-Duchy realm to have a 'end realm forever' button, but it seems like this could be circumvented easily enough with a minimal amount of design: for instance, allow any region to 'change allegiance' to a realm that no longer exists but did exist within the last month. That solves your problem and doesn't cause mine and you eliminate the potential damage a crazy Duke can do if the rest of the realm isn't on board.
QuoteIf its already proclaimed dead, become ruler and make the capital a separate duchy
It says you can't secede the last city, not the last Duchy. I can save some time by making a new Duchy out of the neighboring townsland and having that secede, but that is really, really gamey. Congratulations, you're a Duke! No, not really, just to do this paperwork.
For the record, townslands can't secede. You need a city to secede, and the old realm has to be left with a city or stronghold.
You are probably correct that there may be better ways to handle it. However, this is not likely to get any dev time any time soon.
It is intended that it be hard to destroy a realm.
You can't secede the last viable Duchy of a realm because...then you just have exactly the same regions, duchy, and people, with a new realm name.
You can't change the allegiance of the last viable Duchy of a realm because that would be a realm merger, which is prohibited.
Yes, if you want to make a completely new realm out of what's left of Terran, the only way is to create the new realm out of part of it, then have everyone else join it and take over the remaining pieces, one way or another. That is intentional, and not likely to change any time soon.
Quote from: Scarlett on March 27, 2013, 01:39:47 PM
Zombie realms with joke governments that have to have non-wars with friendly neighbors so their regions can be 'taken over.'
If you really don't want to play in Terran, then you are free to leave Terran and pledge allegiance to another realm. What you cannot do, however, is destroy what remains in the process.
If everybody else wants to follow you, then there will be nobody left in Terran, and you can take the regions over without fighting single battle. It will be over in a day. If some people decide they would rather stay in Terran, then they can try to defend it - as is proper IC.
Quote.then you just have exactly the same regions, duchy, and people, with a new realm name.
Which is an outcome whose judgment should be left to other characters, not the game system. Not especially applicable in this case because the realm has already split in two, so you'd have two new realms with a lot of the same people but totally different institutions. Something the game can't know, of course, but that's why it should be left to the person or persons catalyzing the change to decide whether a change in flag is sufficient, necessary, or just window dressing.
QuoteHowever, this is not likely to get any dev time any time soon.
Actual development is out of my wheelhouse. I'm just making suggestions to avoid the absurdity that's happening now in Terran. I've been through it before and stuff like this tends to be quickly forgotten once one does jump through all the necessary hoops, which is why I'm trying to get it down now while we're doing the jumping.
QuoteIf some people decide they would rather stay in Terran, then they can try to defend it - as is proper IC.
If a Duke and his vassals all change their banners (and all want to change their banners) it is ridiculous that a handful of knights could 'try and defend it.' What is Terran? A collection of castles and estates all flying one flag. The people on top are empowered to change that flag. Your argument is an argument against secession or changing allegiance at all -- why do knights of a region go with their lord when he changes allegiance? They don't get a choice to 'try and defend it' - they are told 'this land is now x instead of y.' That the very last Duchy/city can't do the same is a game prohibition. One that has a valid reason, to be sure, but it's not an IC reason at all.
I didn't destroy a realm here. Somebody else did. I'm the guy filling the vacuum. And even though there is neither an army nor a government opposing me, I can't do what the other two Duchies did and say 'here is the next step.' The reason I can't do it is because of a mechanism designed to prevent something else from happening. The solution is a mechanism that enables A but continues to prevent B.
Quote from: Scarlett on March 27, 2013, 01:54:08 PM
I didn't destroy a realm here. Somebody else did. I'm the guy filling the vacuum. And even though there is neither an army nor a government opposing me, I can't do what the other two Duchies did and say 'here is the next step.' The reason I can't do it is because of a mechanism designed to prevent something else from happening. The solution is a mechanism that enables A but continues to prevent B.
You're right, it seems to be a race condition here. If things had happened in a different order you could have changed allegiance, and someone else would end up with rump Terran. In any case however a rump Terran would have existed - someone, somewhere, is left with the last of the crown jewels from which all legitimacy follows, and the only choice left is to wear them or to abandon his titles.
It's not exactly how feudal law worked - it's BM law. It can reasonably roleplayed though. If you take this as being how things work, you can work with it.
QuoteIf you take this as being how things work, you can work with it.
There is no basis in history for anything like this, and even so, it doesn't seem to be this way because that's the most accurate model. It seems to be this way because of the dangers inherent of giving one player an 'end realm forever' button, and I definitely agree that that is a danger.
One can suspend disbelief to choke down a lot of game mechanisms. We do it all the time. It makes no sense for the Duke of York to have to travel to London to recruit troops, for instance, and then have those troops be Welsh longbowmen instead of Yorkshiremen because they had better gear or anything like that. We can and do gloss over this stuff all the time. This one is just particularly difficult because it requires an extended period of 'this makes no sense but let's all go through the motions.'
Quote from: Scarlett on March 27, 2013, 02:07:11 PM
There is no basis in history for anything like this, and even so, it doesn't seem to be this way because that's the most accurate model. It seems to be this way because of the dangers inherent of giving one player an 'end realm forever' button, and I definitely agree that that is a danger.
One can suspend disbelief to choke down a lot of game mechanisms. We do it all the time. It makes no sense for the Duke of York to have to travel to London to recruit troops, for instance, and then have those troops be Welsh longbowmen instead of Yorkshiremen because they had better gear or anything like that. We can and do gloss over this stuff all the time. This one is just particularly difficult because it requires an extended period of 'this makes no sense but let's all go through the motions.'
Think of BM realms as the Byzantine Empire, and it makes more since.
Everybody wants to call themselves Emperor until the Ottomans (Aurvandil) come and destroy the whole system.
Why did a duchy secede if it already meant to reunite with Terran's capital... I don't see the point.
Because it isn't 'reuniting with Terran's capital.'
Chesney and Chateau Saffalore are both forming a new Kingdom. The Chateau couldn't secede to form it, so Chesney did, thinking that the Chateau could follow.
Different government, different people in power, and it doesn't include Phantaria.
Quote from: Scarlett on March 27, 2013, 01:54:08 PM
I didn't destroy a realm here. Somebody else did. I'm the guy filling the vacuum. And even though there is neither an army nor a government opposing me, I can't do what the other two Duchies did and say 'here is the next step.'
Quote from: vonGenf on March 27, 2013, 02:04:31 PM
You're right, it seems to be a race condition here. If things had happened in a different order you could have changed allegiance, and someone else would end up with rump Terran.
Indeed, it really is. This mechanism even partly encouraged me to go ahead and secede Phantaria. I could see the writing on the law in terms of Terran's falling apart, however I was worried that if Aurvandil went through with a TO of the Chateau that somehow the Capital might shift to Shokalom and I would be the one ending up with the "rump end of Terran" that no one wants.
I agree that this system needs fixing. It seems there is an easy solution to please both sides of the issue.
Capitals *never* move by themselves. It is always a manual process that the ruler must initiate and pay for, regardless of the situation.
So the ruler is allowed to hand over the last region via region exchange?
Hrrmm.... Not sure. If it's not a city/stronghold, then it may be possible.
The button says 'You cannot give you capital away, silly.'
Sorry, I misunderstood your 'manual process' - I thought you meant that the ruler could do something about this situation that the Duke couldn't.
No, he was talking about capital moves. You can move the capital to another city or stronghold manually, and it costs money and hurts the realm.
Sorry, the capital move thing I posted was a response to this from Penchant:
QuoteI was worried that if Aurvandil went through with a TO of the Chateau that somehow the Capital might shift to Shokalom
If your capital is ever lost, whether it revolts, is TOd, or changes to another realm via lord/duke move, then your ruler must move it manually to another city/stronghold by going there and paying the gold to do it. The game will never just declare another of your cities/strongholds the capital for you.
Quote from: Scarlett on March 28, 2013, 02:31:35 PM
The button says 'You cannot give you capital away, silly.'
Sorry, I misunderstood your 'manual process' - I thought you meant that the ruler could do something about this situation that the Duke couldn't.
If Aurvandil TO'd the chateau, you could probably hand over the other regions.
Quote from: Indirik on March 28, 2013, 02:38:15 PM
Sorry, the capital move thing I posted was a response to this from Penchant:
If your capital is ever lost, whether it revolts, is TOd, or changes to another realm via lord/duke move, then your ruler must move it manually to another city/stronghold by going there and paying the gold to do it. The game will never just declare another of your cities/strongholds the capital for you.
Good to know.
Another gamey aspect of this system:
When in its last throes, you have government elections where 1-2 people vote.
The ruler (which by chance ended up being me - 3 candidates, 3 votes) of course cannot change his own allegiance, so I have to step down. Because I've only been ruler for a short time, the cost is 5 prestige and 24 honor.
A previous ruler who went off the deep end and was protested out of office lost less than this.
Quote from: Vellos on March 28, 2013, 06:24:09 PM
If Aurvandil TO'd the chateau, you could probably hand over the other regions.
Which is quite unlikely to happen any time soon
Quote from: Scarlett on March 31, 2013, 05:12:42 PM
Another gamey aspect of this system:
When in its last throes, you have government elections where 1-2 people vote.
The ruler (which by chance ended up being me - 3 candidates, 3 votes) of course cannot change his own allegiance, so I have to step down. Because I've only been ruler for a short time, the cost is 5 prestige and 24 honor.
A previous ruler who went off the deep end and was protested out of office lost less than this.
Its extremely dishonorable and frowned upon to get yourself elected and then give up in the first week. That is not gamey, that makes complete sense. Give it a bit more time and it will drop down a fair amount I believe.
Quote from: Scarlett on March 31, 2013, 05:12:42 PM
The ruler (which by chance ended up being me - 3 candidates, 3 votes) of course cannot change his own allegiance, so I have to step down. Because I've only been ruler for a short time, the cost is 5 prestige and 24 honor.
If you didn't want to be the ruler, why did you run in the elections?
Quote from: Indirik on April 01, 2013, 02:49:13 AM
If you didn't want to be the ruler, why did you run in the elections?
"So I could change stuff related to the government that makes things easier for me, then switch realms."
QuoteIf you didn't want to be the ruler, why did you run in the elections?
There is no opposition, no loyalist faction wanting to continue. There couldn't be: every region lord and Duke either has abandoned or wants to abandon the flag. There wasn't an 'election,' there were three nobles who each voted for themselves and I got randomly chosen. It's not even explicable ICly.
The only reason I ran at all was because I thought I might be able to speed up handing over perhaps one region, but the reference point here is that the entire government is a farce. The realm has four people. You are talking about my making 'gamey' moves when the only reason the realm still exists is to satisfy a game mechanic that is wildly inappropriate for this particular situation.
Quote"So I could change stuff related to the government that makes things easier for me, then switch realms."
I don't know what you're talking about. There is nothing about being the ruler that has made anything easier for me.
Quote from: Scarlett on April 01, 2013, 03:45:16 AM
There is no opposition, no loyalist faction wanting to continue. There couldn't be: every region lord and Duke either has abandoned or wants to abandon the flag. There wasn't an 'election,' there were three nobles who each voted for themselves and I got randomly chosen. It's not even explicable ICly.
You had to click the link to run in the election. You had to say, at least to yourself, "I want to win this election." If you didn't want to be ruler of the realm, then *don't click the link*. Clicking the link to run in the election, and then complain about what happens when you win is... ridiculous.
No, I said to myself 'If somebody else, like Kas, wins the election and starts pushing every button they can, they can probably tie up this process with more game mechanic bull!@#$. Or maybe he'll write a letter to a GM NPC faction and get them to invade a realm that doesn't exist anymore.'
Oh wait, he did!
Quintus Scarlett is not the ruler of Terran. There is no ruler of Terran just like there is no Terran. This is not some fluffy roleplay-only event I am talking about: every single Duke and Lord of the realm up and left the realm except the one guy who can't (me) and is stuck holding the bag and dealing with last throes.
Do you seriously imagine that I of all people am sore because my IC plans got derailed? I already have a great realm that I made and enjoy. I don't need another. I was just playing along and the way the dominoes fell, I got left with the mopping up. I'm telling you that the way you the game handles this has no correlation at all to what is actually happening in character and you are inventing some abstract realm where there are still lords and politics and gears of government turning when that just isn't happening here.
As for ridiculous: if you think it's more dishonorable to step down after a couple days of mopping up a dead realm than tor have two dozen nobles protest you out office after you went bananas on the neighboring Daemons, you might have had too much Easter punch.
I tried to communicate this same point back in 2006 and 2007 when a dozen players in my immediate circle all left for the same reason. A dozen may not be a statistically valid sample and you can write me off if you like. It's just a shame, because so much of BM is better than it was back then, and it's better precisely because this kind of thing is now an exception to the rule. But when the game takes over to this extent, you're going to have pissed off players.
Like any other BM player I'm happy to put up with some frustration and inconvenience because the world of what is possible in-character is much larger than the system of game mechanics that has to simulate it all. But the problem you are ostensibly solving with this particular game mechanic seems a lot more trivial than the problems you are creating with the solution.
Perhaps the mechanic is not the best, but I have yet to read a suggestion from you other than give X person the power to destroy the realm, which is the reason there is this. No one person should be able to destroy the realm regardless of how hopeless the realm is. If you really want Terran to die, tell your vassals to switch to the other realm, then takeover the last region and demand your duchy back within Saffalore.
Quote from: Scarlett on April 01, 2013, 04:08:54 AM
As for ridiculous: if you think it's more dishonorable to step down after a couple days of mopping up a dead realm than tor have two dozen nobles protest you out office after you went bananas on the neighboring Daemons, you might have had too much Easter punch.
I agree with you. Getting protested from office should have a much larger H/P hit than it does. If you think the saem, then why not submit a feature request about it?
However, I still maintain that if you didn't want to be ruler, then you shouldn't have run in the election. If the realm was as dead as you claim it is (and I admit that I know no details of your situation) then who cares who the ruler is? Just have your people bail to the new realm, and take over the dregs of what is left. With no one there tending the lands, they won't last too long, and there won't be anyone there to defend it anyway. Or, you could just wait a couple days for the penalty to go down. It goes down pretty fast.
It is unfortunate that these restrictions are in place. But in this case, it is not there because someone on the dev team sat down and said "Hey, stepping down from rulership should really !@#$ over your H/P. It should be at least 15 times worse than getting protested from office." These things were implemented because people were abusing the system. If people hadn't been abusing things, these restrictions wouldn't be there, and we wouldn't be talking about this.
For the record–
Hireshmont is totally going to try and restore Terran.
Quote from: Vellos on April 01, 2013, 05:18:33 AM
For the record–
Hireshmont is totally going to try and restore Terran.
This is why one person can't destroy a realm, which applies even for you (Quintus) thinking its dead, because other people in the realm might not have gave up and they want to salvage the realm. I have been told both Arcaea and Tara have been reduced to just a few regions but they have still survived and now thrive each being one of the biggest realms on their continent.
Quote from: Penchant on April 01, 2013, 06:24:12 AM
This is why one person can't destroy a realm, which applies even for you (Quintus) thinking its dead, because other people in the realm might not have gave up and they want to salvage the realm. I have been told both Arcaea and Tara have been reduced to just a few regions but they have still survived and now thrive each being one of the biggest realms on their continent.
True on both counts.
Quote from: Vellos on April 01, 2013, 05:18:33 AM
For the record–
Hireshmont is totally going to try and restore Terran.
Three words:
One. Man. Realm.
QuoteThis is why one person can't destroy a realm, which applies even for you (Quintus) thinking its dead
No, it isn't. Hireshmont has no power and publicly said the opposite as well as publicly resigning all authority. The only reason he got anything back was during the 3-man elections - he became Judge. If the game mechanic is that Hireshmont Vellos should be able to perpetuate a realm even though he has no land and no soldiers and no vassals, that's a stupid game mechanic.
Same thing with Arcaea and Tara. Being reduced to one or two regions does not mean that the realm is dead. Being reduced to one or two regions when the lords of both regions and the Duke all want to surrender does, and that was never true of Arcaea (which had powerful diplomatic allies as well).
So let's look at what we are trying to prevent, because obviously that's got to be important. Look at Ohnar West in FEI. One duchy realm with a small but dedicated group of active players. If the Duke of Sasrhas could push a button and join Arcaea or Coralynth, that would register on my scale as gamey because even though the Duke of a one-duchy realm is going to be a powerful person and even though there may not be one other single person with that level of power, there exists a larger number of quasi-influential people - namely the region lords, and of course the ruler. Collectively they could just switch their banners right back, or refuse the directive from the Duke to change in the first place.
Versus Terran, where you had every last region lord on board and where the now sole opposing noble repudiated his authority up until there was not anyone around left to challenge it. No offense to Vellos, here, if he'd been a Duke or even a Lord I'd say there's at least a case that Quintus could've been delayed.
So how do you prevent one and not the other? Seems pretty straightforward to me: either require the ruler and the capital Duke to sign off on it, or if you want to be super careful, require a majority of region lords and then enable a region lord to pledge to a realm that used to neighbor his region, say, within the last few weeks. If the Chateau went rogue tomorrow and Vellos was able to get a half-dozen nobles to come back to him, for instance, there's no reason why he shouldn't be able to raise Terran's flag again.
The argument that 'one person can't destroy a realm' is facetious in the event that the realm has already been destroyed according to everybody except the server, and Vellos admitted as much himself - plus even without Quintus, let's be honest, unless he's got a hidden stash of nobles somewhere there's no way he can make it happen. Arcaea and Tara still had fighting nobles who were not going to desert it.
Quote from: Perth on April 01, 2013, 09:00:38 AM
Three words:
One. Man. Realm.
Minas Ithil is still totally alive.
Quote from: Chénier on April 02, 2013, 03:42:37 AM
Minas Ithil is still totally alive.
Terran has regions, Minas Ithil doesn't so that comparison does not fit. Minas Ithil is dead and can not get any regions or anything like that, there is 0 chance of success for the realm because it is no longer exists. Terran has regions, and while unlikely can still survive and can become successful still.
QuoteTerran has regions, and while unlikely can still survive and can become successful still.
Anyone in Terran, Vellos included, could tell you how absurd this is. The only reason Terran has a region (one) is because game mechanics forced it to. This is a circular argument: you can't kill it because it's not dead yet.
Quote from: Penchant on April 02, 2013, 05:53:10 AM
Terran has regions, Minas Ithil doesn't so that comparison does not fit. Minas Ithil is dead and can not get any regions or anything like that, there is 0 chance of success for the realm because it is no longer exists. Terran has regions, and while unlikely can still survive and can become successful still.
If Stanislav was a priest and religion elder... He could have recreated the realm somewhere. Unfortunately, he is not. :P