# New Moderation Rule



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

A forum is a place where people can openly share ideas and thoughts. Many of those ideas and thoughts are opinionated. As sailors, we are full of opinions. I remember a really old salt telling me once, "Ask four sailors the same questions and you will get five different answers." Such sage advice has never been more true.

The issue(s) that have come from this is that arguments ensue. I don't mind a good argument, but I have also come to the realization that some people simply are polar opposites and will NEVER get along. In the days, weeks, and years passed, these arguments follow around the board (and to other boards) and have resulted in a lot of bad blood between all involved. We have lost a lot of super members because of this. I genuinely believe that many of these members would still be here if they could have found a way to ignore the offensive poster, and likewise. Instead, the board as a whole is worse off.

Up until today, when these matters have happened, we have tried to reason with the arguing parties. We have threatened both and even given out bans when we felt it crossed the line. Unfortunately, it would not take long before (upon return) the posters were right back into it and we followed them around the board, cleaning up their posts and again trying to reason between them. It did not take long before we were at a loss for options.

There are many examples of these incidents and I point no finger at any party. It is just a sad reality of life that some people will never get along. Does not make either right or wrong, it just is.

I wanted to go into a long explanation of the circumstances leading up to this so everyone will understand why we are doing what we are doing. These issues have now forced us to reconsider our moderating options and we are in 100% agreement on a potential solution: * Forced Ignore*.

A forced ignore will not be used lightly. We realize that members want to know everything that is going on, etc. But when we as moderators feel that we are at the end of the line with reasoning and we see little other choice, we will enfore a Forced Ignore on both parties. What this means is that you will not be able to read anything posted by that poster and he will not be able to read anything posted by you. Neither will ever know the other is even there.

We will alert both parties ahead of time. We will give both parties a chance to rectify it on their own. We will also give both parties a chance to do the Ignore Function themselves. But after that point, we will instigate it.

*If any member removes the Forced Ignore and replies to any post in any way to someone that was supposed to be on their ignore list, they will be banned for the remaining of the forced ignore. Repeat violations will get you permanently removed from this forum and your IP address blocked so you cannot even read Sailnet, much less participate in it. I hope that is crystal clear to EVERYONE.
*

The intention of this is to make the forum a better place for everyone - including those we Force Ignore. I hope everyone will see that. I also hope everyone will understand that it is a weapon of last resort and we have always tried to be fair even handed in our actions.

Regards,

Brian and ALL the Mods.


----------



## glmark (May 14, 2010)

WOW! sanity and civility on the web! Good for Sailnet.


----------



## captbillc (Jul 31, 2008)

I could never understand why some people continue to argue. everyone is entitled to their opinion , but our purpose here should be to give good advise to anyone who asks for it, & try to help the other sailors.


----------



## PaulfromNWOnt (Aug 20, 2010)

Bravo!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Works for me.


----------



## rayncyn51 (Aug 8, 2008)

Me, too!


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

You mods are acting like such a dads!!

(... huffs off to sulk, while trying to crack level 249 on his GameBoy, with his earbuds in and his iPod cranked up...)


----------



## PatA (Dec 12, 2010)

Sounds reasonable since the level of civility seems to have waned.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

Cruisingdad said:


> What this means is that you will not be able to read anything posted by that poster and he will not be able to read anything posted by you. Neither will ever know the other is even there.


Yep, I unreservedly support the principle because I agree that we don't want to reduce the brains trust of the board due to personal sniping but at the same time we don't want to make the board an old lady's tea party. Sometimes blatantly stupid or irresponsible posts have to be reacted to. It's a tough job, being a moderator.

But CD, you have just made your job (and all the other moderators) a whole lot tougher. Why? Well because the last thing we need now is for you to place a Forced Ignore on Member A and Member B which allows Member A to post whatever vitriol he wants about Member B safe in the knowledge that Member B will never get to read it and react. But the rest of the board will see it.

The moderators will have to be ever wary and control this element.

I hope that the members are responsible enough to see the value of the new rule and not abuse it but there is always one . . . .


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Omatako said:


> Yep, I unreservedly support the principle because I agree that we don't want to reduce the brains trust of the board due to personal sniping but at the same time we don't want to make the board an old lady's tea party. Sometimes blatantly stupid or irresponsible posts have to be reacted to. It's a tough job, being a moderator.
> 
> But CD, you have just made your job (and all the other moderators) a whole lot tougher. Why? Well because the last thing we need now is for you to place a Forced Ignore on Member A and Member B which allows Member A to post whatever vitriol he wants about Member B safe in the knowledge that Member B will never get to read it and react. But the rest of the board will see it.
> 
> ...


Just because a person is on ignore does not give anyone the right for personal attacks. That is not allowed no matter what. Would be a quick way for the offending party to earn a vacation.

The point of this is to make the board better. Those that would use this rule to its detriment wont be here for long. This is kinda the hail-marry pass. If a person does not get it, they will pursue excellence elswhere.

Brian

PS This was not directed at you... only answering the question.


----------



## tomperanteau (Jun 4, 2009)

Hey, I used to do this with my two boys when they got out of hand. Had to send them to their rooms for a timeout. Worked with those children, so should work with the ones here.


----------



## craigtoo (Aug 17, 2007)

WOW.. as one of the original Ignore thread posters, I am personally honored that the Mod's have finally seen the "Ignore light" and have chosen to formalize their ignore participation.    

Denby, BLT2SKI, Chef where are you guys!    


(PS please force ignore me with Denby...)


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

Im here C2...dont worry!


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Just because a person is on ignore does not give anyone the right for personal attacks. That is not allowed no matter what. Would be a quick way for the offending party to earn a vacation.
> 
> The point of this is to make the board better. Those that would use this rule to its detriment wont be here for long. This is kinda the hail-marry pass. If a person does not get it, they will pursue excellence elswhere.
> 
> ...


Just to ask the question, and take it one step further. What about when "member A" doesn't actually attack "member B" to a degree that breaks the rules, but belittles them? As was pointed out, the rest of the board still sees it and may even have their view of "member B" clouded by those comments.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Anthing which will bring hopefully bring civility back is worth trying. Most of us know the difference between a "tweak" of someone....banter....honest strong difference of opinion and plain vicious personal attack. There is no room for the later in a forum where people come to learn and share ideas and knowledge. 

I disagree with anyone who would say well you have to expect to get attacked personally since after all its the internet or its a forum or I have seen it on verey forum I have been part of so get used to it. No one has to get used to uncivility....anywhere and no one should put up with it.

My biggest worry would be the moderators using "censorship" to control the tone or ideas of the forum to their own personal comfort zones. I have found the moderators to be eminently fair on here and maybe too lax in enforcing the civility, especially when it came to an "older" member or one who had many posts. The rules should apply equally for all. I beleive this is an attempt to bring back the civility and therefore appropriate.

I somewhat like this to the threshold for harrasment in the workplace. It is not what you and I think is harassment, yet it is the perception of the person who feels the harrasment who makes the determination. With that in mind if a poster feels that the language, or civility is in question then they should say so without repudiation. They should not be ridiculed, nor ignored no matter if it is a nubee or an old salt. At that point the moderators should step in with the ruling/ warning iof necessary to the person who was felt to be offensive and let them know that they have offended another member. That enough is all that is needed. Degree or severity should not be a determination. If the Person who has made the offensive remark/ or continues to pursue the offended individual, then the mods should step in with escalating action to the OFFENDING party.

Again I trust the moderators in this forum as I have found them decent and civil. I have seen that if someone felt they were offended by the moderators that moderator made the situation "right" by speaking and correcting the situation. We should all learn a page from them. Especially since words in a forum or the internet come without sound and can be interpreted so many ways. Treat others as you want to be treated yourself...its easy.

Dave


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

I have a question too. Does this new rule mean that you can't read the person that is on forced ignore when you are just lurking? 

I often read threads without logging in and am able to read everything Ragnar writes. When I log on I can't which is usually just enough to keep me from being tempted to respond. 
Sorry Rags.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Ah yes, Master Denby is at work! I do here we are working on an addition i Master Painkiller is almost there!

With this BS about ignoring........ no issues with this version of ignore!

Can I go back to ignoring, so I can become a master ignoramous?!?!?!?

Marty


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

knothead said:


> I have a question too. Does this new rule mean that you can't read the person that is on forced ignore when you are just lurking?
> 
> I often read threads without logging in and am able to read everything Ragnar writes. When I log on I can't which is usually just enough to keep me from being tempted to respond.
> Sorry Rags.


Or, when someone else quotes the person, does it show up in that persons reply??


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

craigtoo said:


> WOW.. as one of the original Ignore thread posters, I am personally honored that the Mod's have finally seen the "Ignore light" and have chosen to formalize their ignore participation.
> 
> Denby, BLT2SKI, Chef where are you guys!
> 
> ...


BITE ME!


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

Omatako said:


> Yep, I unreservedly support the principle because I agree that we don't want to reduce the brains trust of the board due to personal sniping but at the same time we don't want to make the board an old lady's tea party. Sometimes blatantly stupid or irresponsible posts have to be reacted to. It's a tough job, being a moderator.
> 
> But CD, you have just made your job (and all the other moderators) a whole lot tougher. Why? Well because the last thing we need now is for you to place a Forced Ignore on Member A and Member B which allows Member A to post whatever vitriol he wants about Member B safe in the knowledge that Member B will never get to read it and react. But the rest of the board will see it.
> 
> ...


I don't see this as a high probability. Most arguments happen when one poster deliberately provokes, or trolls another. Without the interaction the dissagreement loses most of it's fun


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

CapnBilll said:


> I don't see this as a high probability. Most arguments happen when one poster deliberately provokes, or trolls another. Without the interaction the dissagreement loses most of it's fun


Except to say that over the years I have more than once backed out of an acrimonious discussion only to find some weeks later that the person I had a difference of opinion with had persistently posted questions like "Where is he now?" or "Looks like he's chosen not to respond" and similar statements.

Not that it's a big deal but it does create the impression that the other member was right and I was the dumbo.

Anyway, enough from me, I fully support the initiative and I'm sure there will be many more up-sides than down.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

blt2ski said:


> Ah yes, Master Denby is at work! I do here we are working on an addition i Master Painkiller is almost there!
> 
> With this BS about ignoring........ no issues with this version of ignore!
> 
> ...


That's "ignoranus" to you..

...and, nope, sorry, you have to be *specially qualified *to do that. Like me: 









I'm so proud of my Diploma. 

:laugher :laugher :laugher


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

I think this is a good rule. I know from personal experience how hard it can be to actually disengage from someone pushing your buttons and feeling the need to push back. That said, when the cycle is broken, the forum becomes a much nicer place. 

Even hearing things second-hand or seeing things quoted by others (ignore, obviously, does not handle quoted text), the fact you're not presented with the insults or flame-bait whilst reading an otherwise interesting & engaging thread gets you past the need to instantly respond.

A question on the "forced ignore", will it prevent the people in question from viewing blocked posts? While I don't take advantage of the ability to look at his posts, my use of the Ignore feature on RAGNAR was voluntary & without admin suggestion. If those forced into the Ignore can get around it by simply clicking the link proffered in the thread - it sort of defeats the idea.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

So are you guys just not answering questions on this, or are we supposed to start throwing out random insults and play it by ear?


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

Omatako said:


> Except to say that over the years I have more than once backed out of an acrimonious discussion only to find some weeks later that the person I had a difference of opinion with had persistently posted questions like "Where is he now?" or "Looks like he's chosen not to respond" and similar statements.
> 
> Not that it's a big deal but it does create the impression that the other member was right and I was the dumbo.
> 
> Anyway, enough from me, I fully support the initiative and I'm sure there will be many more up-sides than down.


Don't worry that's not the impression I get from posts like that. A few "where'd he go" comments and THAT person is cruising for my ignore list. Fair Seas


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

The idea sounds good to me. Back in the day, before the public had widespread access to the internet, electronic communication relied on linked BBS systems. FidoNet, the largest of those, operated with only 2 rules. These rules were entirely interpreted and enforced by the network administrators. Even so it worked well. Since most kids can usually figure this out, I would think that sailors could as well.

1. Don't be excessively annoying.
2. Don't be easily annoyed.

Simple and effective.

Dave


----------



## mgmhead (Jan 14, 2007)

I'm good with it...MGM


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

T34C said:


> So are you guys just not answering questions on this, or are we supposed to start throwing out random insults and play it by ear?





> Just to ask the question, and take it one step further. What about when "member A" doesn't actually attack "member B" to a degree that breaks the rules, but belittles them? As was pointed out, the rest of the board still sees it and may even have their view of "member B" clouded by those comments.


To my mind I'm thinking your question is covered by basic rules of abuse, the abuser should be admonished and post edited as required. You know well enough that oft times these tit for tats have vague beginnings and its really difficult to nail down the original culprit.

This rule is intended to cover those kinds of disputes. Where 'enough is simply enough' and neither participant is willing to make the decision themselves. I'd have probably only used it once in all the time I've been a mod here. If I had to use it on a consistent basis I'd be very disappointed in my own peace keeping abilities which while not Kissingerish have proved reasonably capable.

Cheers

Andrew


----------



## centaursailor (Nov 7, 2010)

As long as it is the last resort.
In the few wrangles  I have been involved in I just let it go after I realised it was getting a bit personal.
After all, lifes to short. 
Safe posting.
CD, Best looking kids anyway:laugher


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

T34C said:


> Just to ask the question, and take it one step further. What about when "member A" doesn't actually attack "member B" to a degree that breaks the rules, but belittles them? As was pointed out, the rest of the board still sees it and may even have their view of "member B" clouded by those comments.


My fault. I told the mods I would answer your question but took an early weekend instead and walked away from this stuff.

I guess I would need to see that example in action. If it breaks the rules, then it would be no different than if they were not on ignore. I guess your concern is someone talking behind your back and not getting the chance to respond? But the tit-for-tat is what escalates these things to the point they break and cause us a lot of frustrations. SO I think it all depends on what is said, etc. I cannot make a rule for all eventualities but have to make judgement calls based upon what is happening.

Brian


----------



## 75R20 (Jun 20, 2008)

This "new rule" is all good with me, but if it is meant to encourge poster "X" to return.....then it needs a re-think. I have backed away from several boards over the years, and only once did I return to one, and that was short lived.....people will be people, and the internet allows for lots of mis-interpatation of what people mean, as the keyboard shows no affect.
If it is Poster "X" then they also need to re-think their own position. If You do the math (and I did once not that long ago) 6 years / 43,255 posts.......thats 20 post every day of every year...that sure doen't leave much time for sleeping/eating/kids/ or sailing....... Isn't a forum about the free and unfettered exchange of Ideas by many, many members, and not just a select few ?

All I'm saying is I couldn't do it, no matter what info I had to share, I wouldn't do it..
With that kind of time on-line, feathers are bound to get ruffled, just grow more.

I've seen Poster "X" also make attacks, un-provoked attacks, on others and when I did, I PM'ed him privately. Never heard back, but I'm still here......
If I get attacked for this post........maybe I deserve it, maybe not, but I am allowed an opinion, until someone higher up tells me different.
GO sailing........
Kary 
S/V Mariah
#49080


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

75R20 said:


> This "new rule" is all good with me, but if it is meant to encourge poster "X" to return.....then it needs a re-think. I have backed away from several boards over the years, and only once did I return to one, and that was short lived.....people will be people, and the internet allows for lots of mis-interpatation of what people mean, as the keyboard shows no affect.
> If it is Poster "X" then they also need to re-think their own position. If You do the math (and I did once not that long ago) 6 years / 43,255 posts.......thats 20 post every day of every year...that sure doen't leave much time for sleeping/eating/kids/ or sailing....... Isn't a forum about the free and unfettered exchange of Ideas by many, many members, and not just a select few ?
> 
> All I'm saying is I couldn't do it, no matter what info I had to share, I wouldn't do it..
> ...


The new rule was not formulated in order to tempt the mysterious Poster X back from the wilderness rather to hopefully prevent this BS from recurring.

As far as I am aware Citizen X has not revealed his reasons for departing to any of the moderators though of course we can surmise. I did of course suggest we whisk him off to Room 101 and beat it out of him but my fellow moderators, a pack of lily livered pussies, felt this was perhaps going a tadge overboard. For myself I strongly believe a good solid thrashing never hurt anyone, indeed it can give one a life time affection for the joys of sado masochism .. ah but I digress. 

Seriously though, it's hard to believe that anyone with as many posts could possibly have avoided offending other members on many an occasion or in fact been offended, and that has undoubtedly been the case, but nonetheless he was a valuable contributor to these pages and its sad to see him go particularly as his problem was with only one other member and he could have avoided that annoyance simply by hitting the 'ignore' button.

Its a shame, but such it is. No one member be they Omega or Alpha can be allowed to dictate how the board is run, not even the cute and fuzzy ones.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

tdw said:


> For myself I strongly believe a good solid thrashing never hurt anyone, indeed it can give one a life time affection for the joys of sado masochism ...


Yeah, yeah... we've all seen Aussie Rules Football on late-night TV. BTW, are the actually any "rules" in Aussie Rules Football???

S.B.(beat me, whip me, make me write bad checks) S.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Hey, I can only read three posts in this thread. The rest is all blank for some reason.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

SlowButSteady said:


> Yeah, yeah... we've all seen Aussie Rules Football on late-night TV. BTW, are the actually any "rules" in Aussie Rules Football???


Sure there are... but it takes **real men** to play the game. It's no wonder only us Aussies understand and play it, any other nationality would complain about an elbow to the face :laugher

I'm getting the feeling that this rule was put together because of Forum Citizen X... is his particular situation that common?


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

tdw said:


> For myself I strongly believe a good solid thrashing never hurt anyone, indeed it can give one a life time affection for the joys of sado masochism


 a SaDist and a sMasocKist are walking down the street. The masochist begs, "hurt me, hurt me!" The sadist replies "No."


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Points

Steady - You expect rules in a game that is the mongrel offspring of Gallic Football and Tiddlywinks invented by a bunch of failed Irish criminals ?

Bent - Its the tight shorts that are the secret of the game's success though why anyone would wish to lust after Warwick Cappers smuggled budgie I have no idea. 

Jones - you are a sick puppy. Not that there is anything wrong with that.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

CD your a genius. But you already knew that 
If only real life contained a Forced Ignore button.

Now for my two cents on this...

Personal attacks are one thing guys, but there is IMHO a time and place for telling someone who is talking crap that they are talking crap.

This isn't Knittingnet, this is Sailnet. *Advice given on this forum and acted upon on the sea could save or destroy lives.*

The freedom to continue to identify and decry the idiots amongst us goes far beyond whether this board is a happy civil place full of nice people, it is crucially important. If a few people's sensibilities are ruffled in this pursuit then so be it.

Maybe it was this concern to address idiocy as he saw it that frustrated our departed friend??


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

I've suggested that individuals take advantage of the ignore feature several times. I think of SailNet as what I always wanted a business meeting cocktail hour to be like. I don't get to choose the guests, but I do get to choose who I speak with, and to whom I listen. Like a cocktail party, sometimes the conversation just gets silly... I wish that more people took that advice.

Put another way, I suggest using the IGNORE feature, or take Chopper's advice, and harden up. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

Because the mod's have no control over the latter, I am glad to see them implementing the former on our behalf.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

chall03 said:


> CD your a genius. But you already knew that
> If only real life contained a Forced Ignore button.
> 
> Now for my two cents on this...
> ...


Ha !! with genii like that who needs idiots ? Idii ? 

CH, its always a worry how to deal with dumb posts. Might I surmise that it wasn't so much that the addressing of the idiots was a problem but the manner of the address (and I confess I've been guilty of the same sin). I say that not as a moderator but as a simple (oh so simple I hear you cry) poster. 

I also agree that we don't want to be overly smiling happy people either. Its a fine line and in general one I reckon one the members here navigate with aplomb. As EH says there are times when the cry of HTFU is apt.


----------



## centaursailor (Nov 7, 2010)

tdw said:


> Points
> 
> Steady - You expect rules in a game that is the mongrel offspring of Gallic Football and Tiddlywinks invented by a bunch of failed Irish criminals ?


Gallic 
Póg ma thoin :laugher
Seoltóireacht slán


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

I can't wait to visit Australia! Via my own boat!!! Why would anyone object to an elbow in the face? "Sticks and stones (and elbows) can break my bones but words will....."

Down


----------



## Jace2 (Oct 13, 2009)

On another sailing website I had a problem with a moderator. Thankfully, I have not had a problem with this site as I have with one in reference but not mentioned in the exchange below. The italicized section is from the other site's moderator. Mine follows in regular type.

_I have deleted your post to the "***************" thread. As *** reminded everyone, the thread topic is sailing or racing encounters with the late Senator Kennedy, and whether his passing will stimulate any interest in sailing. Your post ignored that reminder completely, and resorted to the passive-aggressive "biting my tongue to the point ripping through flesh!"

By not stating your hatred for Kennedy, you've done so in a way that any reader with at least a 70 IQ will understand that you loathed him. The inevitable reply from someone of the opposite political persuasion will then take the thread down the political, name-calling road.

We're not even going to let it start. Read the rules: <a 
_

Here is my response:

Mr. ********,
I will reply to your email as you have offended me and such an offense requires a response.
No undue disrespect intended, but you show, sir, your bias. I'm sure you have heard, When we assume, we make an ass of you and me. In your email to me, you have shown that you lack the wisdom to simply say that you've taken down my post, and leave it at that. I would've expected a correspondence from ***** to be more, professional, more neutral with their members, and not so biased against a particular poster.

To correct your assumptions, I do not hate or loathe Teddy Kennedy, as you have twice accused me of doing - ignorantly and falsely, I might add. I didn't even know the man. I do have opinions as to his conduct to women, babies, and our great country, America, that are in opposition to him. But that does not mean that I hate him. Do you hate everyone with whom you disagree? I hope not. I suppose by your intellectually deficient logic, one could say that you hate me! Have you deleted everyones' post that was less than neutral, such as *******, ********, ********, or is it just me that you have targeted your vitriol towards?

I do not mind someone questioning a point I may make. I don't mind someone disagreeing with my opinions. I do mind someone in authority such as yourself accusing me of hating a person out of sheer partiality to the opposing political view without so much as asking me if indeed I do hate someone. I don't appreciate your accusation, your, in my opinion, tactless and vituperative jabs at my character, and I most certainly don't appreciate your assumption that you know what is in my mind when you don't even know me personally.

I will thank you in the future to please have someone a bit more fair minded, kind, and professionally responsible to correspond with me if there are any offenses that you think I may have committed. 
Sincerely, Jace.

I realize that all of you here on this site don't have all the correspondence needed to make a fair assessment of the 'problem' I had with the moderator in question, but as you can see - I hope - simply being a moderator does not imbue one with a Solomonic wisdom and fairness. I think the real problem the moderator had with me was a difference of political views. Other posters had made more 'politically saturated' posts and and were even a bit insulting to me, yet they were not targeted. Their posts were left standing.

I do understand that the job of moderator is a tough one. I have been a moderator in a a live discussion colloquy before, and although difficult, I had to make the difficult and concerted effort to reign in my 'steeds of conviction' in order to avoid bias and untoward opprobrium to the participants and the subject at hand.

I hope, and do indeed, trust we will not have such a problem on this site. Thanks.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

Do we really need to bring issues from other forums here? I don't think the mods want an inter-forum tit-for-tat to start based on one's feeling about their treatment elsewhere. I know I'm not terribly interested.


----------

