Wurm Justice System

[SweetSusie 300]

-1

I had to deal with a lot of grief and harassment for the past months and i think the current system is a pretty good system.

I agree its flaws tho. GM's are humans and they also make mistakes or miss stuff sometimes.. I hope in the future they will improve the system tho..

Until then.. please no lawyers and prisons.

[Edge 141]

These situations are never ruled over by one single GM, the entire GM team discuss all cases as a group

 

It's very easy for the GM who handles it to present the "facts" in a biased way to help their friends. All these rulings are just personal interpretations.

 

If you want rules, hardcode them.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Edge

[SmeJack 5,798]

Which is a good reason for why we step back if personally involved, it's pretty easy to see when someone has emotional interests and luckily we don't all share the same friends

[Spolmit 620]

Wurm has its rules and as players we must abide by those rules. We agree to that when we play.

If anyone bends or breaks said rules then there are existing mechanisms for dealing with them.

No system of justice is infallible but I would suggest that the current Wurmian method is at least as good as that which is currently being proposed. When a proposal gets universal acclaim then perhaps it is a signal for GM et al to take notice but at the moment I do not see that happening through this suggestion.

[Kagrenac 812]

It's very easy for the GM who handles it to present the "facts" in a biased way to help their friends. All these rulings are just personal interpretations.

 

If you want rules, hardcode them.

So instead you want someone who lives in the area, and is probably going to have some connection to the people involved to go and gather "evidence"

[Edge 141]

So instead you want someone who lives in the area, and is probably going to have some connection to the people involved to go and gather "evidence"

 

I don't want any kind of human intervention that leaves things to judgement calls. Code rules into the game.

[Alexgopen 2,376]

Join a pvp server.

 

I am the law.

[Kadore 926]

What next? your infraction here goes on your resume, school permanent record ... I had the grades to get into Yale, but alas I stole a cart off deed in an online video game.

 

The court system in Archeage was won or lost by how many buddies you had on the jury, I can't see it being much different here if used a player jury idea.

 

If do it directly with staff, while I believe 99% of the staff is unbiased and impartial, it only takes one incident of bias and favortism to make this plan crash down like a house of cards.

[Ayes 3,715]

The Game Masters with consultation amongst themselves already have the ability to ban players through their own system. Giving this power over to any other players or staff of lesser authority would not bode well for those who propose ideas contrary to those players viewpoints of how the game should function. Even if only unintentionally, this bias would influence their decisions in these matters.

 

The GM's do a fine job in handling these types of situations and usually those dissatisfied are the ones that have not taken proper measures to prevent these occurrences. I prefer to leave these decisions in their hands only.

 

=Ayes=

[Taung 17]

The idea is interesting but looks difficult to carry out in a way others would not call bias or unfair.  I do know some games have a banished island that would be interesting to experiment with...filled with nogumps

[Chiqa 742]

AS Taung spoke of, banishment is rather interesting. I have played a game where bad children where suddenly teleported to a jail type cave, for questioning. Scary as hell to arrive there suddenly.  This was used for all questioning situations. No interaction or other chats worked.  Those convicted of certain things did their time there with the only mobs to kill being mice.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Chiqa

[Reylaark 1,100]

A good legal system on Freedom would make sense, but I'd rather see it implemented as a feature of the game, rather than something external.

 

Ideally, I think players should have the tools needed to enforce various degrees of "rehabilitation"  depending on the severity of the infraction as they see it.

I think it'd be cool if when neighbors band together, they can choose what they'll put up with and themselves be local judge and jury.

 

What makes sense in the backwoods of Release may not be right for the population centers of Deliverance.

 

You'd only call in "Federal Law Enforcement", ie. GM's + associated staff, when local measures have failed to address the problem.  Those cases can then be used to assess the efficacy of options given to the populace, see why it wasn't enough, or maybe was unduly harsh, and perhaps make revisions accordingly.

 

just my 2i

[Wraithglow 787]

temporary bans are a joke for those wishing to engage in this anti-social behavior much like getting expelled from school which only worked at all because it effected the parents meanwhile the kids were happy to be expelled.  

 

Not exactly a reasonable comparison - kids don't want to be in school. Generally speaking, people playing Wurm (yes even griefers) actually want to be there. Even if their sole fun in Wurm is to grief, they lose out on that fun by being banned.

 

  Also it seems the GM's do not have the time to properly investigate the causes, effects, and most effective response for this behavior.

 

We do have the time. Granted, it takes up a significant part of our time, but any delays in cases are almost always due to us taking the time to gather all the relevant information not due to a shortage of man-hours. 

 

I am suggesting a justice and punishment system similar to real life to bring a new layer of consequences to this anti-social behavior that will hopefully lessen the part GM's play and give players the ability to govern  themselves while preventing any seemed favoritism.

 

Wurm is like real life. In few reasonable societies are locals allowed to apply their own justice - the whole point of a legal system is to have an independent, impartial group as far removed from the situation as possible be the ones making the decision.

 

When an incident happens it is investigated by the nearest CA, CM, or GM if they actually play in that area.  They gather statements from both sides, what evidence they see possibly screenshots as well, and report any other evidence they deem necessary.  They then form a report and submit it to a justice committee (formed of CA's)  who render a verdict of guilty or innocent, perhaps with a recommendation of punishment  to the GM who carries out the sentencing.  The council would be 3 CA's who would change month to month basically acting as a jury and the GM would be the judge. 

 

This all seems to rely on the assumption that all that's needed to determine griefing can be determined from talking to people and taking some pictures. There are tools available to GMs that are not available to CAs, and so you're actually reducing the ability for the true facts of a case to be established. Not only that, since individual cases are not shared in all their gory details with the world, CAs would be less able to achieve consistency (something the GMs are often accused of).

 

For a minor infraction a sentence could be 30 days or the mission of mining and making 3000 bricks.  When their mission is completed they can portal back to their home server starting point.

 

This is more lenient than a temp ban, so I don't see the point. If someone has earned a time out from the game, then they get a temp ban.

 

In summary, I don't think local players should decide what the rules are - rules should be consistent in a game. It's unreasonable for me to say "you cut down that tree 50 tiles from my deed, I say that's griefing" and then get my neighbours to agree and punish you for it, when the creators and moderators of the game do not support that opinion. Whether you like it or not, we don't get to set the rules for others to play by.

 

As for bias accusations with current method, all cases are reviewed internally and there aren't so many that they don't get read by at least a dozen different GMs. To honestly believe that individual GMs can swing a case in favour of a friend, you'd have to believe that the entire moderation team structure right up to Enki are in some big conspiracy to deliberately protect some and not others. At that point I don't know how you could even play the game.

 

It saddens me that people can think that I or other GMs wouldn't speak out if we saw all this supposed bias and favouritism going on.

[rixk 830]

In summary, I don't think local players should decide what the rules are - rules should be consistent in a game. It's unreasonable for me to say "you cut down that tree 50 tiles from my deed, I say that's griefing" and then get my neighbours to agree and punish you for it, when the creators and moderators of the game do not support that opinion. Whether you like it or not, we don't get to set the rules for others to play by.

 

As for bias accusations with current method, all cases are reviewed internally and there aren't so many that they don't get read by at least a dozen different GMs. To honestly believe that individual GMs can swing a case in favour of a friend, you'd have to believe that the entire moderation team structure right up to Enki are in some big conspiracy to deliberately protect some and not others. At that point I don't know how you could even play the game.

 

It saddens me that people can think that I or other GMs wouldn't speak out if we saw all this supposed bias and favouritism going on.

But that is the thing, currently the rules aren't consistent.. The rules are so vague, that it all comes down to the GM who responds, how (s)he interprets the situation.

"Play Nice Or We Will Rip Your Heart Out (griefing)

Definition: Activities that are not constructive and with deliberate intent to do harm to others."

This can mean everything and this can mean nothing. What it really means, we don't know, not even GMs themselves seem to know. What it means to you, you will only hear from the GM, who responds the "call". And that makes the statement "all cases are reviewed internally and there aren't so many that they don't get read by at least a dozen different GMs" pretty much pointless. Because of the inconsistency in decisions you(all GMs) practice, you can decide to take action and you can also decide to ignore and you have done nothing wrong in the eyes of ohter GMs.

Examples from recent history. When LorraineJ-s horses were killed infront of her eyes, nothing was done despite it being the clearest case of griefing. But if you had taken action against the griefer, it would've been OK also. Or when from Silent Hill stuff was stolen, because permissions allowed to bash some walls, Enki himself stepped in and told how this wasn't in the spirit of freedom and offender was punished. But in my case suddenly it was in the spirit of freedom and every GM only focused on the lock which I didn't attach assuming deed rules don't allow horses to be hitched. So in one case the theft was enough for the Head GM to step down from his high horse and take action, yet in other case it was victims own fault and I was basically told "suck it up".. Yet in Silent Hills case I didn't see GMs spamming, that "If you had disabled bashing permissions for villagers on deed settings, your stuff would still be there".

If there are completely different decisions in similar situations, then the question is: "What leads to such conflicting decisions"? One thing I can think of is people involved in the case and that is the reason why you read the words "bias" and "favoritism". Whatever it is, it is clear that this isn't objective rule enforcement.

I agree with the point that has been made tho, that if we chose player council, it would face same problems.

Edited July 29, 2015 by rixk

[Aleaiactaest 10]

+1 The threat of compulsory prison labor for an indefinite period in the most difficult sin instead of bans or other punishment.

 

 

 

I dont think here are punishment very often.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Aleaiactaest

[Bachus 462]

 

 

1.) Not exactly a reasonable comparison - kids don't want to be in school. Generally speaking, people playing Wurm (yes even griefers) actually want to be there. Even if their sole fun in Wurm is to grief, they lose out on that fun by being banned.

 

 

2.)We do have the time. Granted, it takes up a significant part of our time, but any delays in cases are almost always due to us taking the time to gather all the relevant information not due to a shortage of man-hours. 

 

 

3.) Wurm is like real life. In few reasonable societies are locals allowed to apply their own justice - the whole point of a legal system is to have an independent, impartial group as far removed from the situation as possible be the ones making the decision.

 

 

4.) This all seems to rely on the assumption that all that's needed to determine griefing can be determined from talking to people and taking some pictures. There are tools available to GMs that are not available to CAs, and so you're actually reducing the ability for the true facts of a case to be established. Not only that, since individual cases are not shared in all their gory details with the world, CAs would be less able to achieve consistency (something the GMs are often accused of).

 

 

5.) This is more lenient than a temp ban, so I don't see the point. If someone has earned a time out from the game, then they get a temp ban.

 

6.) In summary, I don't think local players should decide what the rules are - rules should be consistent in a game. It's unreasonable for me to say "you cut down that tree 50 tiles from my deed, I say that's griefing" and then get my neighbours to agree and punish you for it, when the creators and moderators of the game do not support that opinion. Whether you like it or not, we don't get to set the rules for others to play by.

 

7.) As for bias accusations with current method, all cases are reviewed internally and there aren't so many that they don't get read by at least a dozen different GMs. To honestly believe that individual GMs can swing a case in favour of a friend, you'd have to believe that the entire moderation team structure right up to Enki are in some big conspiracy to deliberately protect some and not others. At that point I don't know how you could even play the game.

 

8.) It saddens me that people can think that I or other GMs wouldn't speak out if we saw all this supposed bias and favouritism going on.

 

1.) It is a reasonable comparison because a 7 day ban is not a deterrent there have been people who purposely tried to get banned just for the notoriety of it and 7 days means they play something else for a week and come back with 5 hours sleep bonus. 

 

2.)  with people waiting for up to 24 hours for a response to a support ticket it does not seem that you do.

 

3.) In democratic societies you are judged by a group of your peers.  Currently Wurm works more like a aristocracy where a few that are chosen make, enforce and determine punishments which is why some believe favoritism comes into play.

 

4.) I know the GM's do have more tools at their disposal, but most situations are very obvious (fencing in a deed, Digging a moat around a deed, slaughtering animals, etc.) and do not require the way back machine of the GM's to figure out.

This system was meant as a way to lighten the load of the GM's and if a situation were beyond the CA's ability to handle then a GM would be called in.

 

5.) NO it is not more lenient; any parent will tell you if their child is given the choice of being grounded to their room for a week or doing the dishes for a month the child will hardly ever choose the dishes.

 

6.) Which is why I said 3 CA's the chances of all of them even being form the same server deciding that month of service are slim or could even choose only one from a server to be on council. So it would not be neighbors deciding anything.  Their decision would be based on the rules of the game and the intent of the actions. 

""Play Nice Or We Will Rip Your Heart Out (griefing)

Definition: Activities that are not constructive and with deliberate intent to do harm to others."

 

7.)  As I stated before I do not think the GM's are biased but I have seen some very arbitrary decisions where one person was threatened with banning for KOS'ing on a highway and another was allowed to KOS not only a highway but a marketplace.

 

8.)  Yes this saddens me as well I have great respect for the Wurm team both volunteer and paid, but it has become evident in this thread that many do not trust them.  This constitutes a Personal Relations problem in the game which is actually a much bigger issue than griefing by players and more difficult to solve. 

 

Perhaps with more clarification of the rules and more transparent application of punishments some of this distrust of the team can be abated.

[Ayes 3,715]

8.)  Yes this saddens me as well I have great respect for the Wurm team both volunteer and paid, but it has become evident in this thread that many do not trust them.  This constitutes a Personal Relations problem in the game which is actually a much bigger issue than griefing by players and more difficult to solve.

 

I don't buy this at all, that "many" don't trust Wurm staff members. Mostly those that don't supposedly "trust" them are those who have been dissatisfied with the results when they have had dealings with them. Probably because they were the ones in the wrong in that particular situation or there was no justification for taking the particular actions that the player expected/requested. Some players just have a very difficult time admitting that they did something wrong or made a mistake in judgment. 

 

=Ayes=

[Wraithglow 787]

 

2.)  with people waiting for up to 24 hours for a response to a support ticket it does not seem that you do.

 

 

 

This depends on the type of ticket, and the player being online. I find it very unlikely anybody who actually stayed online for 24 hours would not see their griefing ticket responded to these days. The only exception I can think of is if someone raises a new ticket to add information to an existing case - at this point it might sit until the primary person handling the case can take it. In my view that's more reasonable - we can't resolve all cases immediately.

 

3.) In democratic societies you are judged by a group of your peers. 

 

But not by your neighbours, which is what you are suggesting with "it is investigated by the nearest CA, CM, or GM if they actually play in that area."

 

4.) I know the GM's do have more tools at their disposal, but most situations are very obvious (fencing in a deed, Digging a moat around a deed, slaughtering animals, etc.) and do not require the way back machine of the GM's to figure out.This system was meant as a way to lighten the load of the GM's and if a situation were beyond the CA's ability to handle then a GM would be called in.

 

None of these actions have creator tags visible to players, so any evidence could be falsified and based on "he says she says".

 

 

5.) NO it is not more lenient; any parent will tell you if their child is given the choice of being grounded to their room for a week or doing the dishes for a month the child will hardly ever choose the dishes.

 

A temporary suspension with the option to shorten it through work is, by definition, more lenient than a temporary suspension alone as the person can choose which they think is better.

 

 

7.)  As I stated before I do not think the GM's are biased but I have seen some very arbitrary decisions where one person was threatened with banning for KOS'ing on a highway and another was allowed to KOS not only a highway but a marketplace.

 

I find at least half of claims like this baseless. The general public do not see all actions taken by GMs - people say "GMs did nothing on this case I heard about" when actually a player got banned, because bystanders don't get informed of the result of a case once GMs have completed investigations. They only saw the uproar earlier on where someone publicly complained about it. Your first person could have been threatened with a ban for not obeying the directive to remove KOS (perfectly reasonable), and the second person might not have actually had a highway (just because someone has merchants on-deed doesn't mean they can't KOS other people) or they might have been given a timeframe to remove KOS by, or given the option of rerouting the highway around their deed then re-applying KOS. Just because two cases are based around the KOS on highways rule, doesn't mean they are identical.

 

 

Perhaps with more clarification of the rules and more transparent application of punishments some of this distrust of the team can be abated.

 

I can accept this point to a degree, but it's impossible to be 100% explicit with rules when intent plays into the decision. If you could, then you could code those protections. The purpose of game rules is to cover behaviour that the mechanics can't prevent but are still not acceptable, and this will always be a judgement call.

 

As for transparency, this is a tricky one. While we could publish every result (player xxx banned for 7 days for <reason>, player yyy ordered to remove kos from <deed>) I don't think this would solve the problem. If anything, it might make us seem even more arbitrary and inconsistent since two people won't necessarily be treated in exactly the same way. Unless we publicly publish every single detail of our investigations and conversations with the playerbase, it's not possible to understand the nuances of the decision. If we did publish everything, then it would open up all our tools to anyone who may want to exploit weaknesses or boundaries, as well as stopping people from being able to approach us anonymously or have a conversation free from public ridicule/scrutiny. I don't think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, and this is why I think it is better that much of the information relating to moderation is kept within the team even if this means some are suspicious.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Wraithglow
fixed formatting

[Bachus 462]

The reasons I stated someone who plays in the are are twofold; one if Ca's are doing the investigating they do not have the magical teleport powers of a GM so it would be most convenient for them, second was because of an idea brought up earlier in this thread where certain actions may be seen as more heinous in different areas. ( Example killing a 5 speed horse on Indi would be an inconvenience compared to a newly opened server where fewer are available.)

 

In number four if there were witnesses and sometimes the perpetrator even admits doing it if the way-back powers were deemed necessary then a GM could be called in.

 

Evidently you still did not get the example.

 I am not talking about a 30 day ban or 30 days in prison with parole for hard labor; I mean a 30 day ban or a 90 day stay in prison with parole for hard labor and They would NOT  be given a choice it would be given TO them during sentencing.

 

The example I used in #7 was actually two neighboring deeds on the same highway.

 

You could have minimum penalties. 

In real life if you speed you pay X fine but if you speed in a suburban area, construction area, or school zone the fine goes up and may even include jail time.  So you could say this is the least that will happen if you do this and it may be worse than that if we deem necessary, which would paint a clearer picture of what is deemed unacceptable behavior than 'play nice'.

[LorraineJ 1,099]

7.)  As I stated before I do not think the GM's are biased but I have seen some very arbitrary decisions where one person was threatened with banning for KOS'ing on a highway and another was allowed to KOS not only a highway but a marketplace.

 

Me too. And I was the main customer but now I don't shop there.

[rixk 830]

This depends on the type of ticket, and the player being online. I find it very unlikely anybody who actually stayed online for 24 hours would not see their griefing ticket responded to these days. The only exception I can think of is if someone raises a new ticket to add information to an existing case - at this point it might sit until the primary person handling the case can take it. In my view that's more reasonable - we can't resolve all cases immediately.

Even most hardcore players don't stay online for 24 hours(or at least aren't able to respond, when they leave their character online). Let's talk about real average playing sessions. One example:

Logging started <b>2015-07-19</b>

....

[13:54:12] <*******> How long support ticket will wait for GM response? I have made that ticket 06th of this month. Here is very serious griefing around....

[13:54:36] <*******> CM did response already and did foward it to GM"

That is what, two weeks wait time? Extreme of course, but even as a single case it is unacceptable. Haven't talked to the person lately, so I have no idea if it has been solved or not, I hope it has been.

He lives not far from me, I know he has been online daily for few hours. I also have a very good idea who is/was the griefer and the griefing done has been norm in our neighborhood for years(and I am not talking about someone cutting down a tree 50 tiles away). Despite GMs being called repeatedly. A while ago me and my alliance had to deal with his behavior for almost two months, while everything he did was also reported. Few CMs already, when they saw my support call, told me "Oh it is you again, I will forward it to the GMs". Currently I do know that the person still plays and still griefs people(luckily me and my alliance are not the target any more).. that all means, that the GMs haven't been able(or wanted) to find a solution for years.

 

... 

I find at least half of claims like this baseless. The general public do not see all actions taken by GMs - people say "GMs did nothing on this case I heard about" when actually a player got banned, because bystanders don't get informed of the result of a case once GMs have completed investigations. They only saw the uproar earlier on where someone publicly complained about it. Your first person could have been threatened with a ban for not obeying the directive to remove KOS (perfectly reasonable), and the second person might not have actually had a highway (just because someone has merchants on-deed doesn't mean they can't KOS other people) or they might have been given a timeframe to remove KOS by, or given the option of rerouting the highway around their deed then re-applying KOS. Just because two cases are based around the KOS on highways rule, doesn't mean they are identical.

One thing is making different decisions based on investigation.. another thing is, how GMs close tickets(which have lead to punishment in the past) without even investigating. That indicates, that you haven't even made clear to yourself, what "Activities that are not constructive and with deliberate intent to do harm to others." means in the first place. If you haven't done that, you can't expect your players to follow that "rule". (Just remark: Intent is the key word here I think. Currently GMs only focus on mechanics and whether mechanics allow something or not. Basically, if it is allowed to use a knife, that means stabbing someone with that knife is also perfectly fine.)

About the false "claims", even when GMs don't tell about their decisions, you can still have pretty good idea based on the persons actions, whether action was taken or not. If the person keeps logging in, I think it is very safe to say, that he was NOT banned.. If they continue their actions, it is probably safe to say, that nothing was done(and trying to keep the decisions under the cover of secrecy, that only reassures that).

 

 

I can accept this point to a degree, but it's impossible to be 100% explicit with rules when intent plays into the decision. If you could, then you could code those protections. The purpose of game rules is to cover behaviour that the mechanics can't prevent but are still not acceptable, and this will always be a judgement call.

 

As for transparency, this is a tricky one. While we could publish every result (player xxx banned for 7 days for <reason>, player yyy ordered to remove kos from <deed>) I don't think this would solve the problem. If anything, it might make us seem even more arbitrary and inconsistent since two people won't necessarily be treated in exactly the same way. Unless we publicly publish every single detail of our investigations and conversations with the playerbase, it's not possible to understand the nuances of the decision. If we did publish everything, then it would open up all our tools to anyone who may want to exploit weaknesses or boundaries, as well as stopping people from being able to approach us anonymously or have a conversation free from public ridicule/scrutiny. I don't think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, and this is why I think it is better that much of the information relating to moderation is kept within the team even if this means some are suspicious.

Again you go to extremes? You don't need to make every decision public, it is unthinkable, I don't know what made you think that was even suggested?? You would only have to tell about your decisions to all the parties involved in the case.. And that includes also the person(s), who started the ticket. What decision was taken and why you came to that conclusion(no, you don't have to tell about your top secret investigation methods). Only that little thing would give more transparency to GMs work and we could then appeal, when we feel the GM has been biased.

[Kagrenac 812]

The reasons I stated someone who plays in the are are twofold; one if Ca's are doing the investigating they do not have the magical teleport powers of a GM so it would be most convenient for them, second was because of an idea brought up earlier in this thread where certain actions may be seen as more heinous in different areas. ( Example killing a 5 speed horse on Indi would be an inconvenience compared to a newly opened server where fewer are available.)

So you just want more GMS, but lacking most of the tools that can be used to show what actually happened, and instead rely entirely on testimony which is inherently unreliable and often biased.

You also want to cheapen the system and introduce even more bias by having the only judges involved be people who are likely to know the parties in the case..

 

You want people to be punished not based on the rules, but on what people think the rules should be.

 

 

Freedom already has a reputation for witchunting, a system like this would just make that into the norm, but with actual punishments being handed out.

 

Evidently you still did not get the example.

I am not talking about a 30 day ban or 30 days in prison with parole for hard labor; I mean a 30 day ban or a 90 day stay in prison with parole for hard labor and They would NOT  be given a choice it would be given TO them during sentencing.

I assume you mean that they would not always be given the choice, otherwise you are just arguing semantics.

 

Either way the system is more lenient, since the person can be given the choice to lessen their sentence.

[Bachus 462]

1.) So you just want more GMS, but lacking most of the tools that can be used to show what actually happened, and instead rely entirely on testimony which is inherently unreliable and often biased.

You also want to cheapen the system and introduce even more bias by having the only judges involved be people who are likely to know the parties in the case..

 

2.) You want people to be punished not based on the rules, but on what people think the rules should be.

 

 

Freedom already has a reputation for witchunting, a system like this would just make that into the norm, but with actual punishments being handed out.

 

3.) I assume you mean that they would not always be given the choice, otherwise you are just arguing semantics.

 

Either way the system is more lenient, since the person can be given the choice to lessen their sentence.

1.) Sure all griefers are best buds with all the CA's even when they play on Deli and the CA doing the judging is on Release.

 

2.) Evidently the GM's do not know what the rules are either and just make them up as they go.

 

3.) You are now deliberately choosing not to see it because no one can be that dumb. 

[Bachus 462]

Me too. And I was the main customer but now I don't shop there.

I was actually talking about an instance that happened on Indi a while back but thanks for pointing out that this was not a one time occurrence. 

[Bachus 462]

bump