knsumeLew
spending an hour writing my comedy magnum opus so i can get downfragged on tftv
I just googled "Blizzard apology copy paste" and changed Blizzard to RGL and changed the player's name to Aim. I wanted to highlight the juxtaposition of a fake lengthy apology that means nothing regarding the RGL stance. In the end I got owned by downfrags. Circle of life continues.
[quote=knsume][quote=Lew][/quote]
spending an hour writing my comedy magnum opus so i can get downfragged on tftv[/quote]
I just googled "Blizzard apology copy paste" and changed Blizzard to RGL and changed the player's name to Aim. I wanted to highlight the juxtaposition of a fake lengthy apology that means nothing regarding the RGL stance. In the end I got owned by downfrags. Circle of life continues.
ESEA I miss you....
[img]https://media.tenor.com/images/7e623e17dd8c776aee5e0c3e0e9534c9/tenor.gif[/img]
Very excessive ban amount for casting the same game as RGL. 1 day or a warning would have been better? ESEA for CS:GO has the "GOTV" hidden from people so nobody casts the games without permission.
Very excessive ban amount for casting the same game as RGL. 1 day or a warning would have been better? ESEA for CS:GO has the "GOTV" hidden from people so nobody casts the games without permission.
remember when esea had one admin for the whole league, who was asleep about 90% of the time (higher on match days), and there was infinitely less admining-related strife or controversy?
im not really making any specific point here just saying god bless tri
remember when esea had one admin for the whole league, who was asleep about 90% of the time (higher on match days), and there was infinitely less admining-related strife or controversy?
im not really making any specific point here just saying god bless tri
[quote=frenzy_]ESEA I miss you....
[img]https://media.tenor.com/images/7e623e17dd8c776aee5e0c3e0e9534c9/tenor.gif[/img][/quote]
esea also fucking sucked
I'm pretty sure someone else can answer this, but when admins start making rules for the sake of monopolizing their own league instead of enriching the community it automatically thinks that there has to be profit motive for ownership.
You can justify bans against a lot of controversial issues (like harassment even outside of league matches) as helping maintaining safety in the community but you can't justify this in any other light than capitalizing on the fucked-six-ways-to-sunday situation tf2 is in.
I'm pretty sure someone else can answer this, but when admins start making rules for the sake of monopolizing their own league instead of enriching the community it automatically thinks that there has to be profit motive for ownership.
You can justify bans against a lot of controversial issues (like harassment even outside of league matches) as helping maintaining safety in the community but you can't justify this in any other light than capitalizing on the fucked-six-ways-to-sunday situation tf2 is in.
am I stupid or is whatever sigafoo said in this thread just more incriminating to their awful admin process? I feel like I've never read less substance in more words in my entire life, and the only substance I got was that despite the council of admins that congregates to discuss infractions, they still managed to decide to ban him only to rescind it later? that's almost less inspiring than just banning him and keeping it that way, considering despite 12 different perspectives they still thought the ban was merited, but collectively their decision matters so little that they'll unban based on a tftv thread. is that right or did I just misread? maybe they didn't start the council until aim's ban? I'll stress again I literally have no idea what that block of text is saying, it's an insane skill to dedicate that many words to such little meaning.
the solution to this seems pretty simple, whether you compare it to csgo or dota. just get a couple invite players who like to cast matches in close communication and give them the OK to cast matches. doesn't seem too hard. it seems based on one of the chatlogs, rgl is concerned with no-names and trolls signing up to cast matches and make a mockery of the quality of the league, so just make sure you get some people who are eager and skilled enough to cast? I swear though it's shocking that there's so much scrutiny over each report and bans still manage to be so poor that they upset the entire community. I don't even understand the point of banning... it's tf2, why would you want to ban anyone for an extended period of time unless they're bigots or something. even if the council thought aim did something wrong, you'd think it would start with a warning...
am I stupid or is whatever sigafoo said in this thread just more incriminating to their awful admin process? I feel like I've never read less substance in more words in my entire life, and the only substance I got was that despite the council of admins that congregates to discuss infractions, they still managed to decide to ban him only to rescind it later? that's almost less inspiring than just banning him and keeping it that way, considering despite 12 different perspectives they still thought the ban was merited, but collectively their decision matters so little that they'll unban based on a tftv thread. is that right or did I just misread? maybe they didn't start the council until aim's ban? I'll stress again I literally have no idea what that block of text is saying, it's an insane skill to dedicate that many words to such little meaning.
the solution to this seems pretty simple, whether you compare it to csgo or dota. just get a couple invite players who like to cast matches in close communication and give them the OK to cast matches. doesn't seem too hard. it seems based on one of the chatlogs, rgl is concerned with no-names and trolls signing up to cast matches and make a mockery of the quality of the league, so just make sure you get some people who are eager and skilled enough to cast? I swear though it's shocking that there's so much scrutiny over each report and bans still manage to be so poor that they upset the entire community. I don't even understand the point of banning... it's tf2, why would you want to ban anyone for an extended period of time unless they're bigots or something. even if the council thought aim did something wrong, you'd think it would start with a warning...
clckwrkconsidering despite 12 different perspectives they still thought the ban was merited, but collectively their decision matters so little that they'll unban based on a tftv thread. is that right or did I just misread?.
What you're suggesting is that we went through our normal process and then I decided to completely go against our normal process due to a tftv thread. However, that is not what happened. I laid out the situation in these two paragraphs. What did happen in the first paragraph, and how it should have gone in the second.
sigafooNow we have today, the ban that went in on aim. What happened is that there was a discussion that happened in an admin discord about the rule that was broken and the punishments that should take place. Then a ban was issued. There was confusion internally as to if this is something that is not a misconduct report (e.g. slurs, harassment, etc...), so it might not go through the normal misconduct ban review process. However, any punishment that results in a league ban, should be reviewed by that process.
Our normal process: We have two separate meetings each week where two unique groups of admins meet to review the submitted reports, review evidence, and decide the next steps. Whether that's to throw it out (most common) or issue a warning or issue a ban. We started this process about a year and half ago when we had issues with inconsistencies in our bans. Depending on which admin did it, they might have slightly different lengths or reasons to do it. Whereas when we have 7-12 people review and discuss it. We make sure that our bans lengths are consistent and for edge cases, we discuss what the correct length is and is it even ban worthy or is it covered in our rules, etc...
And then I stated it a second time, that we did not follow the normal "12 different perspective process" here
sigafooThis decision did not follow our normal process we setup and was put in prior to our meetings. Which is very unusual. Even for clear bans (e.g. slurs in a match), we still would wait until the second of the meetings to put in a ban. That's why you would see bans go in on Friday night consistently.
And then to your reference of avoiding bans for non-misconduct related issues. We also referenced that at the bottom of the post and also our steps to avoid this mistake in the future.
sigafooWith that said, here are the next steps
- aims ban has been removed
- Going forward, league bans must require head league admin approval (exa) to be placed. This is not that he is deciding them, more that he is validating our procedures were followed.
- During the next offseason we will be reviewing our rulebook and try to make it more streamlined and have more clear reasoning and punishments/warnings (where applicable.)
- We've also been leaning more on initial warnings for minor penalties. That's not clear in this case, and we don't report them on the site, but that has been an internal policy change that we've been doing more often.
Full post
[quote=clckwrk]considering despite 12 different perspectives they still thought the ban was merited, but collectively their decision matters so little that they'll unban based on a tftv thread. is that right or did I just misread?.[/quote]
What you're suggesting is that we went through our normal process and then I decided to completely go against our normal process due to a tftv thread. However, that is not what happened. I laid out the situation in these two paragraphs. What did happen in the first paragraph, and how it should have gone in the second.
[quote=sigafoo]Now we have today, the ban that went in on aim. What happened is that there was a discussion that happened in an admin discord about the rule that was broken and the punishments that should take place. Then a ban was issued. There was confusion internally as to if this is something that is not a misconduct report (e.g. slurs, harassment, etc...), so it might not go through the normal misconduct ban review process. However, any punishment that results in a league ban, should be reviewed by that process.
Our normal process: We have two separate meetings each week where two unique groups of admins meet to review the submitted reports, review evidence, and decide the next steps. Whether that's to throw it out (most common) or issue a warning or issue a ban. We started this process about a year and half ago when we had issues with inconsistencies in our bans. Depending on which admin did it, they might have slightly different lengths or reasons to do it. Whereas when we have 7-12 people review and discuss it. We make sure that our bans lengths are consistent and for edge cases, we discuss what the correct length is and is it even ban worthy or is it covered in our rules, etc...[/quote]
And then I stated it a second time, that we did not follow the normal "12 different perspective process" here
[quote=sigafoo]This decision did not follow our normal process we setup and was put in prior to our meetings. Which is very unusual. Even for clear bans (e.g. slurs in a match), we still would wait until the second of the meetings to put in a ban. That's why you would see bans go in on Friday night consistently.[/quote]
And then to your reference of avoiding bans for non-misconduct related issues. We also referenced that at the bottom of the post and also our steps to avoid this mistake in the future.
[quote=sigafoo]With that said, here are the next steps
- aims ban has been removed
- Going forward, league bans must require head league admin approval (exa) to be placed. This is not that he is deciding them, more that he is validating our procedures were followed.
- During the next offseason we will be reviewing our rulebook and try to make it more streamlined and have more clear reasoning and punishments/warnings (where applicable.)
- We've also been leaning more on initial warnings for minor penalties. That's not clear in this case, and we don't report them on the site, but that has been an internal policy change that we've been doing more often.[/quote]
[url=https://www.teamfortress.tv/58722/seriously/?page=2#60]Full post[/url]
thanks for the clarification! in the future I think you could take a bit more time to make sure your writing is on point when addressing all the complaints. I still get basically nothing from
Now we have today, the ban that went in on aim. What happened is that there was a discussion that happened in an admin discord about the rule that was broken and the punishments that should take place. Then a ban was issued. There was confusion internally as to if this is something that is not a misconduct report (e.g. slurs, harassment, etc...), so it might not go through the normal misconduct ban review process. However, any punishment that results in a league ban, should be reviewed by that process.
but I guess I could've read a little more closely. I agree that whatever council you've put together should review pretty much anything that results in a league ban. at the same time, though, I'm still pretty confused by how the ban was issued. Like, you're referring to this discussion that occurred like it's some piece of lore with unknown origins. "an admin discord," like it's a faraway land that you or others with more jurisdiction don't have access to. is this admin discord prone to these missteps? how many people were a part of the discussion? should this discussion ultimately end with the banning of a player? I dunno, again, that's where I think most of my confusion with your writing stems from. "What happened is there was a discussion that happened in a discord." Like, IDK kinda hard to follow and get anything from that. Appreciate the transparency, though.
I think the more important thing people want addressed is the future of other people casting matches, because some vague promises on "fixing the admin process" really means nothing. Bans could be more difficult to hand out, you could require more infractions, minor penalties, whatever. I don't really think it fixes or comments on the topic at hand which is why someone got banned for casting a match, and if that rule can be updated.
edit: also I'd like to apologize for sort of going in on your writing! I was definitely kind of a dick, but it's just a pet peeve of mine. I think in situations like these, in which the league has to respond to a massive thread on the game's biggest forum, more attention to detail is probably advisable.
thanks for the clarification! in the future I think you could take a bit more time to make sure your writing is on point when addressing all the complaints. I still get basically nothing from [quote]Now we have today, the ban that went in on aim. What happened is that there was a discussion that happened in an admin discord about the rule that was broken and the punishments that should take place. Then a ban was issued. There was confusion internally as to if this is something that is not a misconduct report (e.g. slurs, harassment, etc...), so it might not go through the normal misconduct ban review process. However, any punishment that results in a league ban, should be reviewed by that process.[/quote]
but I guess I could've read a little more closely. I agree that whatever council you've put together should review pretty much anything that results in a league ban. at the same time, though, I'm still pretty confused by how the ban was issued. Like, you're referring to this discussion that occurred like it's some piece of lore with unknown origins. "an admin discord," like it's a faraway land that you or others with more jurisdiction don't have access to. is this admin discord prone to these missteps? how many people were a part of the discussion? should this discussion ultimately end with the banning of a player? I dunno, again, that's where I think most of my confusion with your writing stems from. "What happened is there was a discussion that happened in a discord." Like, IDK kinda hard to follow and get anything from that. Appreciate the transparency, though.
I think the more important thing people want addressed is the future of other people casting matches, because some vague promises on "fixing the admin process" really means nothing. Bans could be more difficult to hand out, you could require more infractions, minor penalties, whatever. I don't really think it fixes or comments on the topic at hand which is why someone got banned for casting a match, and if that rule can be updated.
edit: also I'd like to apologize for sort of going in on your writing! I was definitely kind of a dick, but it's just a pet peeve of mine. I think in situations like these, in which the league has to respond to a massive thread on the game's biggest forum, more attention to detail is probably advisable.
the takeaway from this thread is that if you have access to STVs, and dont plan on playing anytime soon, RGL cannot touch you
the takeaway from this thread is that if you have access to STVs, and dont plan on playing anytime soon, RGL cannot touch you
sigafooOne of the big things about RGL that we try to do is transparency and owning our mistakes.
If you don't mind me asking, what's the reason behind "Casting the same match as RGL.gg" being against the rules? Looking at the article where the rule was announced, the only thing said was "[1010.2.5] - Casting the same match as RGL.gg is a new rule that will go into effect starting in our autumn seasons". No reason is provided in the rules either, with the only text being "Only casting organizations can broadcast into the STV and cover the same match as RGLgg". I feel like one of the problems people have in this thread is why such a rule exists.
Also, sorry if this was already explained by an admin somewhere and I missed it/I got any info wrong. Tried looking around but couldn't find anything.
[quote=sigafoo]One of the big things about RGL that we try to do is transparency and owning our mistakes.[/quote]
If you don't mind me asking, what's the reason behind "Casting the same match as RGL.gg" being against the rules? Looking at [url=https://rgl.gg/Public/Articles/Default.aspx?a=1428&r=40]the article where the rule was announced[/url], the only thing said was "[b][1010.2.5] - Casting the same match as RGL.gg[/b] is a new rule that will go into effect starting in our autumn seasons". No reason is provided in [url=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jfp2o6X4m0zdrX50kZ5YNsrvBANqxfDb-nEsRBb1wh0/edit#]the rules[/url] either, with the only text being "Only [url=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jfp2o6X4m0zdrX50kZ5YNsrvBANqxfDb-nEsRBb1wh0/edit#heading=h.fl7qzgybvw]casting organizations[/url] can broadcast into the STV and cover the same match as RGLgg". I feel like one of the problems people have in this thread is why such a rule exists.
Also, sorry if this was already explained by an admin somewhere and I missed it/I got any info wrong. Tried looking around but couldn't find anything.
EMERALDIf you don't mind me asking, what's the reason behind "Casting the same match as RGL.gg" being against the rules? Looking at the article where the rule was announced, the only thing said was "[1010.2.5] - Casting the same match as RGL.gg is a new rule that will go into effect starting in our autumn seasons". No reason is provided in the rules either, with the only text being "Only casting organizations can broadcast into the STV and cover the same match as RGLgg". I feel like one of the problems people have in this thread is why such a rule exists.
Also, sorry if this was already explained by an admin somewhere and I missed it/I got any info wrong. Tried looking around but couldn't find anything.
My understanding is that most STVs have limited slots. Generally the ones available for CSGO Majors and other high traffic availabilities (I believe all ESEA servers were STV/GOTV relays, hence that weird issue where the STV was broken in later seasons, but thats a longer story) are STV relays. Relays can support a much higher number of people in it without causing lag to the GOTV/STV. They dont tend to have a capacity limit or if they do it is very high. I'm not sure how setting up a relay works but it's more effort server side to set up. STVs themselves can have incredibly low numbers, I remember we had to change servers for a TFLive cast I did in like...2015? Where the STV had a capacity limit of 2 people, which meant we couldnt have our observer and both casters in.
Realistically the rule is in place so there isn't some awkward issue where RGL is all set to cast their match but cant get their casters into the game due to STV capacity and have to try and figure out who got in instead, ask for a server change and a new STV, or cancel their cast. Ideally as well, the rule theoretically forces the limited coverage resources in the scene to spread themselves out among different games, maximizing invite coverage, as opposed to having 4 feeds on the same game. (Again, showing my age, I remember a big UGC HL set of drama with eXtv and EVLTV covering the same match even though the agreement was they wouldn't)
Hopefully that slightly clarifies things regarding STV and also helps explain what I am assuming (Note: Im just a simple caster, I'm not privy to how rules come around, this is just speculation from 7 years of source game casting) is the reason this rule exists in the first place.
Edit: Ideally someone from ozfortress can hop in this thread and either confirm my understanding of relays or debunk something I said as I know ozfortress frequently had relays done for casting purposes. Alternatively Mitch could also confirm this as he took care of a lot of relay related stuff when I worked with him for CSGO.
Edit #2: I reached out to a non RGL TF2 admin I worked with frequently from my casting days, they told me that what I've said is correct, and added that having >3 normal STV slots can cause lag on the player side, hence the use of relays for more prominent streams.
[quote=EMERALD]
If you don't mind me asking, what's the reason behind "Casting the same match as RGL.gg" being against the rules? Looking at [url=https://rgl.gg/Public/Articles/Default.aspx?a=1428&r=40]the article where the rule was announced[/url], the only thing said was "[b][1010.2.5] - Casting the same match as RGL.gg[/b] is a new rule that will go into effect starting in our autumn seasons". No reason is provided in [url=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jfp2o6X4m0zdrX50kZ5YNsrvBANqxfDb-nEsRBb1wh0/edit#]the rules[/url] either, with the only text being "Only [url=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jfp2o6X4m0zdrX50kZ5YNsrvBANqxfDb-nEsRBb1wh0/edit#heading=h.fl7qzgybvw]casting organizations[/url] can broadcast into the STV and cover the same match as RGLgg". I feel like one of the problems people have in this thread is why such a rule exists.
Also, sorry if this was already explained by an admin somewhere and I missed it/I got any info wrong. Tried looking around but couldn't find anything.[/quote]
My understanding is that most STVs have limited slots. Generally the ones available for CSGO Majors and other high traffic availabilities (I believe all ESEA servers were STV/GOTV relays, hence that weird issue where the STV was broken in later seasons, but thats a longer story) are STV relays. Relays can support a much higher number of people in it without causing lag to the GOTV/STV. They dont tend to have a capacity limit or if they do it is very high. I'm not sure how setting up a relay works but it's more effort server side to set up. STVs themselves can have incredibly low numbers, I remember we had to change servers for a TFLive cast I did in like...2015? Where the STV had a capacity limit of 2 people, which meant we couldnt have our observer and both casters in.
Realistically the rule is in place so there isn't some awkward issue where RGL is all set to cast their match but cant get their casters into the game due to STV capacity and have to try and figure out who got in instead, ask for a server change and a new STV, or cancel their cast. Ideally as well, the rule theoretically forces the limited coverage resources in the scene to spread themselves out among different games, maximizing invite coverage, as opposed to having 4 feeds on the same game. (Again, showing my age, I remember a big UGC HL set of drama with eXtv and EVLTV covering the same match even though the agreement was they wouldn't)
Hopefully that slightly clarifies things regarding STV and also helps explain what I am assuming (Note: Im just a simple caster, I'm not privy to how rules come around, this is just speculation from 7 years of source game casting) is the reason this rule exists in the first place.
Edit: Ideally someone from ozfortress can hop in this thread and either confirm my understanding of relays or debunk something I said as I know ozfortress frequently had relays done for casting purposes. Alternatively Mitch could also confirm this as he took care of a lot of relay related stuff when I worked with him for CSGO.
Edit #2: I reached out to a non RGL TF2 admin I worked with frequently from my casting days, they told me that what I've said is correct, and added that having >3 normal STV slots can cause lag on the player side, hence the use of relays for more prominent streams.
DreamboatI reached out to an admin I worked with frequently, they told me that what I've said is correct, and added that having >3 normal STV slots can cause lag on the player side, hence the use of relays for more prominent streams.
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for that very detailed post. Definitely helped me understand some things and it's good to have admin confirmation on why the rule exists.
EDIT: Quote used above was from Dreamboat's original edit #2, not the most recent version.
[quote=Dreamboat]I reached out to an admin I worked with frequently, they told me that what I've said is correct, and added that having >3 normal STV slots can cause lag on the player side, hence the use of relays for more prominent streams.[/quote]
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for that very detailed post. Definitely helped me understand some things and it's good to have admin confirmation on why the rule exists.
EDIT: Quote used above was from Dreamboat's original edit #2, not the most recent version.
EMERALDDreamboatI reached out to an admin I worked with frequently, they told me that what I've said is correct, and added that having >3 normal STV slots can cause lag on the player side, hence the use of relays for more prominent streams.
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for that very detailed post. Definitely helped me understand some things and it's good to have admin confirmation on why the rule exists.
I feel like I should clarify it wasn't an RGL admin I reached out to, but a server admin from LAN days. Edited my post to make that clear
[quote=EMERALD][quote=Dreamboat]I reached out to an admin I worked with frequently, they told me that what I've said is correct, and added that having >3 normal STV slots can cause lag on the player side, hence the use of relays for more prominent streams.[/quote]
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for that very detailed post. Definitely helped me understand some things and it's good to have admin confirmation on why the rule exists.[/quote]
I feel like I should clarify it wasn't an RGL admin I reached out to, but a server admin from LAN days. Edited my post to make that clear
Just to add to Dreamboat, afaik the reason relays have stopped being used over recent years is due to some unknown bugs causing mad lag spikes inside the STV relay making it unviewable. Here's an example from a past ESEA cast.
https://youtu.be/I2AihrVthrI?t=1491
ESEA, ozfortress and serveme EU all used relays and which gives context as to why ESEA STV's sucked a lot. I don't know if someone had a solution for it but if anyone does please reach out!
on the note of mustard's screenshot, please note I don't support RGL's decision and was only offering some insight on why they probably had these rules.
Just to add to Dreamboat, afaik the reason relays have stopped being used over recent years is due to some unknown bugs causing mad lag spikes inside the STV relay making it unviewable. Here's an [url=https://youtu.be/I2AihrVthrI?t=1491]example[/url] from a past ESEA cast. [youtube]https://youtu.be/I2AihrVthrI?t=1491[/youtube]
ESEA, ozfortress and serveme EU all used relays and which gives context as to why ESEA STV's sucked a lot. I don't know if someone had a solution for it but if anyone does please reach out!
on the note of mustard's screenshot, please note I don't support RGL's decision and was only offering some insight on why they probably had these rules.
its not a drama thread if cw doesnt come in on page 4 to say something reasonable after a month of not posting
its not a drama thread if cw doesnt come in on page 4 to say something reasonable after a month of not posting
[img]https://puu.sh/HoI6m/216cc9a11f.png[/img]
your life is in shambles
https://imgur.com/a/XH6uuV0
https://imgur.com/a/Vh68MQI
https://imgur.com/a/THNHpwV
y they gotta keep the mans down :/
y they gotta keep the mans down :/
I thought first offense of not sending demos was a warning
I thought first offense of not sending demos was a warning
PoptobobI thought first offense of not sending demos was a warning
its been pretty well known for the last 2 season that failure to submit playoffs demos is instant 2nd offense, thats what admins told me and team leaders last season and its listed in the rules
^ = Failing to provide demos during playoffs is an immediate 2nd offense. Matches will only be overturned should a player fail to submit their demos for their 3rd offense. Teams will receive a minor warning if their player(s) fail to upload demos.
[quote=Poptobob]I thought first offense of not sending demos was a warning[/quote]
its been pretty well known for the last 2 season that failure to submit playoffs demos is instant 2nd offense, thats what admins told me and team leaders last season and its listed in the rules
[quote]^ = Failing to provide demos during playoffs is an immediate 2nd offense. Matches will only be overturned should a player fail to submit their demos for their 3rd offense. Teams will receive a minor warning if their player(s) fail to upload demos.[/quote]
Can't believe safrix was SPINBOTTING vs Froyo
Can't believe safrix was SPINBOTTING vs Froyo
I'd rather them just take a bit off their prize money or wait till post-season to ban, but tbf, this game has had issues with cheaters and fair warning was given.
I'd rather them just take a bit off their prize money or wait till post-season to ban, but tbf, this game has had issues with cheaters and fair warning was given.
Dont defend glimmer he manually deleted the demo and emptied his recycle bin this is fully deserved
Dont defend glimmer he manually deleted the demo and emptied his recycle bin this is fully deserved
trippaDont defend glimmer he manually deleted the demo and emptied his recycle bin this is fully deserved
why tho
[quote=trippa]Dont defend glimmer he manually deleted the demo and emptied his recycle bin this is fully deserved[/quote]
why tho