Veneke

Chimaera: I don't like the OWF. Never have to be honest, so me posting here on a more regular basis is not going to happen. I am curious though as to where people are getting this impression of Lord Panda from. Was it his posts prior to becoming a government member of the 57th? They hold no weight at all with regards to his competence as a government member. Does it prove that he's capable of going toe-to-toe with "the bad people" on Bob? It surely does, how this reflects on his competence in a negative light is lost to me. That said, I have no wish to debate the point any further. Your impressions of Lord Panda are your own. If you've a need to be concerned, come talk to me, or maybe even do him the justice of talking to him yourself. If you don't have a need to be concerned, then it matters to you not in the slightest. (Chim - the tail end of the that trailed off, and is more generally directed at Bob in general rather than you in particular.) Asriel: I said nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that nobody in the current reformed Browncoats was privy to the information that I was describing. If you were, then somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak information out of a private forum. If such is the case, I am entirely unaware of it and consider you all the better off for it. As I've said though, this does not take from the fact that only the 57th, Silence, CoIN, CD, IoM (since disbanded) and NSO who were aware of that information. Neither BC, nor any of BC's membership (past nor present), were involved in these discussions. I will continue to keep an eye on this thread, but I'd as soon have it dead than not.

The facts of the matter are thus: SSX presented concerns to the 57th. These concerns were her treaty to Veritas Aequitas and the apparent incompetence of her government. More accurately, she expressed further concerns (though these were not stated as the need for the "downgrade"), that she had no wish to engage certain alliances despite the lack of a treaty between SSX and these alliances. The 57th regards her treaty to Veritas Aequitas as unbreakable. She (VA) was one of the three alliances who signed a MDP with the 57th when she was first created (The other two being The Federation and the Coalition of Royal Allied Powers). As for the incompetence of her government, the issue in particular raised was the apparent incompetence of Lord Panda. This was further developed by SSX to claim that she had no knowledge of how Lord Panda nor TheHIV (the Lieutenant) operated. These were legitimate concerns, to an extent. Whether we felt so or not though is irrelevant, SSX believed them to be. The only possible solution to this is time. Clearly SSX considered a MDP an unviable treaty at this point in time, and as such suggested an ODP (though they did apparently play around with cancelling it themselves). That said, a full and proper ODP is quite simply not an option for the 57th (I'll return to this further down in my post). Countering the downgrade option, we presented SSX with several alternatives. 1. A temporary downgrade to ODP (on their end, the 57th would still maintain her end of the MDP, which was why I insisted on this option being implemented as a private measure - this was the 57th's wrong, and we would honour our end of things until we had it righted) with a review of the situation after X days, during which time alliances that SSX had no wish to enter into combat against could be NAP'd or treatied in another fashion, and also during which time they could get to know the 57th's government better. After the X day review, the treaty could be returned in force, or else cancelled. 2. A temporary (public) suspension of the treaty in it's entirety with the same revision clauses. SSX rejected both options. 1. The first on the grounds that SSX had no wish to clutter up their treaty listings, that NAP's and other low level treaty's were out of vogue, that they were uncomfortable with private deals like this and that it was ridiculous that we were demanding that they do anything. 2. The second largely on the same grounds with the obvious exception that they were not uncomfortable with it being a public announcement. With the rejection of both options, we were left with the choice to downgrade to an ODP, or cancel ourselves. Having discussed the matter at some length, the 57th decided upon cancelling the treaty. This lead to notification of intent to cancel in 72 hours, as stated in the treaty. Why SSX posted this considering it was the 57th who cancelled and not them I can only speculate on. A full and proper ODP between the 57th and any alliance is unacceptable at this time. The reasons for this are obvious to anyone who is aware of the history of the 57th, of her foreign policy, her ideals, or indeed even of the people themselves who constitute the 57th. An ODP is nothing more than the expression of every alliance's sovereign right to help out a friend in need, or even just someone who's being done over. There is but one exception to this, and that is bandwagonning, but in the main, there is no real need to sign an ODP. In point of fact, the 57th have always acted on ODP's as if they were MDP's for various reasons prior to the formal announcement of the policy. Any Brown alliance (with exception to the reformed Browncoats, who are too new to the sphere to be aware of this) can confirm this. Schattenmann, one man does not the 57th make. I realize that your ego is so large as to render such a conclusion absurd (or perhaps your opinion of us so low as to do the same), but for the rest of ye reading this, what one man does for the 57th is done for the 57th, and not for himself. The policies decided upon before Mechanus left were policies I agreed with, and the vast majority of the 57th agreed with (I think we've only one dissenter on the MDP+ issue). The policies decided upon while any dictator is in command are obviously going to be backed by the majority of the community or else he will quickly find himself out of a job. Shattered Star Exiles I still count as being friends of the 57th even if we have, at the moment, drifted apart. I wish them luck in their future endeavours and clear skies wherever they may find themselves.

Congratulations StarKrunk. I for one welcome our new 58th Overlords. /me chuckles Free tot of rum for you back at our place for this.

We're fashionably late, again. Fair play to all involved.

In typically Irish fashion, I arrive late to the party. In typically 57th fashion, I re-iterate the facts to cut through the amount of spin going on here. Browncoats made plans to attack the 57th Overlanders (see screenshot). They had planned on doing so through an ODP treaty with Cult of Justitia (see screenshot and wiki with link - both confirm the ODP). Cult of Justitia had planned on using their oA clause with Nemesis to hit the 57th in the larger TPF war which has recently ended (for the record, we would have no trouble with Nemesis or CoJ acting in this manner had they done so during the conflict). Nemesis it would appear, based on what makes the most logical sense off of those screenshots, had planned to hit us after we defended Veritas Aequitas. This is a small amount of speculation, but is the only possible way in which CoJ and BC 2.0 could possibly attack us to begin with. This last point however, is beside the point of our CB. Browncoats were planning to attack us, via an aggressive clause in their ODP treaty with CoJ that doesn't exist, along with Nemesis and possibly LoSS too. I, and the 57th, have no problem with Nemesis hitting us in that context, nor even with CoJ. I have trouble with BC 2.0 doing so. To head off the logical counter that they would move alongside LoSS, I point you to the screenshots. They were planning on moving with CoJ, and not LoSS. In fact, they couldn't even be certain of LoSS's support. Nemesis alone is more than capable of engaging the 57th, CoJ merely adds to this. BC would merely be bandwagonning. Browncoats wanted a war against the 57th, we gave it to them, actually allowing them to keep what little honour they may feel they have, intact. Nemesis engaging the 57th took me by surprise, I expected better. I was waiting for CoJ to engage as per their ODP with BC, and LoSS to move in defence. What Nemesis have to do with this war at this point in time is quite lost on me. I will take this time to reply to the "negotiations" that my Lieutenant, Kodiak, partook in, in which the now apparently famous line "We seek to end the alliance, BC2, that schemes to attack us." appears. In short, those "negotiations" were a farce. CoJ/Nemesis/BC2.0/LoSS were involved, with NSO moderating and only Kodiak there from the 57th. Kodiak has a history with BC, and the logs show CoJ/BC 2.0/LoSS and Nemesis clearly demanding an answer Kodiak was uncertain on. He was clearly already flustered by the people he was facing, who outclass him in political experience and diplomacy. The answer he gave was a poor one. Although, if Nemesis had managed to look at our DoW, they will see that has already been answered. BC wanted a war with the 57th, this they received. Our goal here is to give BC this. Not in the manner they would like perhaps, but the lads weren't up for getting jumped on by opportunistic tools. I know, we're not much fun like that. Next time maybe, we'll see. Of course, now it appears that Nemesis jumped on us because they can't keep it in their pants for the length of time it takes for CoJ or LoSS to issue a DoW means that whether we're up for getting jumped on by opportunistic tools is a somewhat moot point.

Congratulations to our allies in Silence and our Brown brethren in GATO.

I'll play... 1. Offensive Nuclear Policy? Authorization by Captain, Lieutenant and Quartermaster. Only against nuclear capable (or nuclear offensive - spying away nukes) nations. 2. Defensive Nuclear Policy? As above. We consider spying away a nuke, or attempting to spy away a nuke a nuclear attack though. 3. Does your alliance endorse tech raiding? It allows us with clearance from the Quartermaster. 4. (Answer to #3) Why? Tech-raiding is part of the life of an unaligned nation. If we didn't, someone else would. In practice, very few of our people ever tech raid, but it is a right they have, and provided they do it correctly, no harm is done and everybody gets to enjoy CN just that little bit more. 5. Why did your alliance choose your color? Brown suits our theme. 6. Are NAPs useless? It depends. Given the general character and attitude of Bob and the people who are here, they are. 7. Do you believe in MADPs? (Meaning, why not just have MDoAPS just in case if you do not believe in the cause) Personally, no I don't. MDoAP's give you some leeway in case your ally does something god-awfully idiotic. That said, I'd still honour the Defensive part of the arrangement if they were counter-attacked.[/i[ 8. Do you believe in the use of sanctioning during war? I've always separated politics and economics as much as I possibly can. Using economics as a tool to beat your opponent with is smart, but not honourable. 9. Can you provide me a link to your flag? Indeed I can. 11. What small alliances do you feel will be major political players in the long run? 57th Overlanders, obviously. 12. Do you consider TDO neutral? You can't be neutral and have treaties at the same time, even economic ones. That said, they're more neutral than most. 14. Current recruitment? (Open-door? Applicant interviews? Invite-only?) We interview people, and there's a minor test they have to take to become a full member. 15. Does your alliance believe in preemptive strikes? Preemptive nuclear strikes? No. Preemptive attacks on other alliances without a proper CB? No. 16. Current view concerning NPO? They were bad folk, I still don't trust them, but they do have a point with regards to the current state of things. 17. Who are the alliances you are closest to who you do not have a treaty with? Probably ICB or UBD. 18. Do you believe/support in NPO's Revenge Doctrine? In a word, no. You can claim sovereignty over an entire sphere, and the NPO managed to actually hold on to it for quite some time. Which is impressive work. Doesn't mean it's right though. 19. Rate 1-5 (1 being lowest) for which how well your alliance has each of the following: Military, diplomacy, economical, internal organization, stability. Military: 4, Diplomacy: 2 (we're not easy to get on with), Economical: 5, Internal Org: 5, Stability: 5. 21. What are your alliance's strengths? Organization, without a doubt. Community, commitment, intelligence all that good stuff. 22. What are your alliance's weaknesses? We can be arrogant, which annoys people. We're also not exactly known for our ability to forgive and forget. Well, we are, just not in the good way. 23. What alliances do typically the majority of your alliance descend from? Most of them are new people, or have come through with us from the Hegemony of Periphery States. Though we have picked up a few others along the way, no "typical" one though. 25. Alliance A declare war on Alliance B. You have MADPs with both. Morally, you agree with Alliance A and feel they have a good enough reason for attacking alliance B, how do you go about handling this situation? Why on earth would I sign a MADP? To be honest, without knowing more of the details, any answer I give here is inherently flawed. That said it would, I'd have hoped, been discussed beforehand, if not, Alliance A has probably violated the terms of the treaty rendering it void. (There's usually something about keeping us abreast of plans). In such a scenario, I'd be inclined to back alliance B, regardless of the situation considering our treaty with alliance A was voided the moment they attacked. 26. Do you believe in Perma-ZI? That term means different things to different people. I believe in keeping the same nation at zero-infrastructure. I don't believe in transferring that sentence across different nations (even ones controlled by the same person). 27. An alliance called The Fookheads has a MADP with The Asgards. The Asgards decide to declare war on an alliance called Icantbelieveitsnotbutter alliance. Asgards reasoning for attacking is simply because they want dominant control over the silver senate, and they feel this is the only way possible. The Fookheads, whom have an MADP with The Asgards, feel the reasoning is both unethical and illogical, thus canceling their MADP. Are The Fookheads dishonorable for standing up for what they believe in and canceling the MADP? This is why people shouldn't sign MADP's. The Fookheads are morons for getting themselves into that position in the first place. They have no good choice available to them. Both options are dishonourable, so yes, though in this situation at the least they can hold their head high and say that did what the believed to be right. 30. Thoughts concerning... 30.1 ...Citadel? No opinion of them. 30.2 ...Frostbite? An interesting group. 30.3 ...Superfriends? I like RIA. The rest we have little to no communication with. 30.4 ...Complaints and Greviances? I like the look of them, but haven't talked to them much. 30.5 ...Common Defense Treaty? Haven't seen much of them about lately... 33. Do you ever censor your members? Rarely, if ever, on the OWF, though they're all told the rules of proper conduct. At times when dealing with another alliance we have rocky relations with. I don't particularly enjoy doing it though, and they appreciate that. 34. Are coups ever justifiable? No. 36. I respectively tell you I dislike your alliance, I feel your leaders are disrespectful who feed on power and power only. I also state I feel the general membership has no respect and constantly flame. What would your response/actions be? I'd tell you that you probably weren't burdened by an overabundance of schooling, so why don't we just ignore each other until we go away? Then my members would probably flame you, apparently. 38. State the results of any wars you have been in. Er... mostly defeats, bar a few skirmishes early on and the last war we had against RDD. 44. Your members wish for a new government, they don't like it and feel a different kind would be better. What do you do? This is when I break out the Jayne quote "You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til you understand who's in ruttin' command here!" 45. What traits make a good alliance? Organization, Creativity, "Fun", Good community. 46. Current Government type? Going to guess you mean of the alliance - dictatorship. 47. What are your alliance's ideals? Firefly. 48. Did you support GGA's doctrine concerning the Green team, stating an alliance needs permission from the to form on GGA and no alliances other than GPA can vote for senate? If a senator from any other team has more than 20+ votes, they will be attacked. They're free to do as they please, though I think the less of them for it, and if they did attack someone, well, their CB is less than ironclad. 49. Do you believe in moral police? I think they're there, but I don't think they have half the power they seem to think they have. 50. What treaties do you have? Read the wiki... 55. Do you feel you will ever be sanctioned? It's possible, but easily two years off yet. 56. How many members must be in an alliance before you consider them an actual alliance? 1? 5? 10? 20? 30+? Communities start with 1, alliances start with 10. 60. Age range most of your members are? Early to mid twenties. 61. Where do most of your members live? Mostly US I think, but we're more diverse than most from what I can tell. Fair few Canadians too. 62. What crisis's have your alliance overcome? Too many to count. 63. (#62) Did you become weaker or stronger because of them? Eventually stronger, even if we don't see it at the time, or it takes us a while to figure out the how. 64. What were some of the most important steps your alliance have made in its history? Going over the 50 member mark (we were set against it for about a year). The decision to only sign MDP's and MDoAP's. Expanding out into other games. The decision to form (almost didn't happen). Moving back to Brown. The style of government. We've made other decisions that are important, but in terms of historic decisions, those would be it. 66. What are your alliance's plans internally for the future? 100 members and 1 million NS by mid-Spring. 67. What are your alliance's plans externally for the future? You realize where this is right? 68. GPA wants a MDP, do you accept? No. 69. The Hydra Clan enter a war you do not agree with, you have a MADP with them. You are seriously against it and it is against your morals, though, if you do not comply, you can be seen as traitors. What do you do? Why do people keep signing MADP's? There is no good option here. I'm assuming that The Hydra Clan are attacking. If they're being attacked, there's no question, we're coming to their defence. If they're attacking, I'll talk to my members. At the end of the day though, if I can't look my members in the eye and tell them we're doing the right thing, then I'd see the war through, one way or the other, and resign thereafter for making such a grossly terrible decision. 70. What is honor? How is an alliance honorable, what makes an alliance honorable, and what makes an alliance dishonorable in your opinion? Honour is keeping your word. Pure and simple. You keep your word, your an honourable alliance. You don't, you're not. Honour is not a difficult concept to grasp in the way that the internet has come to see it. 71. A GOONS member flames you, and you respond back, publicly, with harsh words as well. Who is wrong? Nobody. They're words. People have them sometimes. Grow a thicker pair of skin if it offends you. 73. What is more beneficial in the long run, diplomacy or war experience? Ultimately, war experience. You're going to go to war at some point, no matter how good your FA skills. Your ability to survive and keep your economic base intact is what's important. 75. Which alliances would you sign an MDP with if you had free choice? 76. What makes a effective fighting alliance? Organization. Proficiency with the war system. Correct target selection. More men, guns and nukes helps of course. 77. In a war against a much bigger opponent against who you could not win, would you use the alliance nukes to go down fighting (to take as many of them down with us as possible - FAN style) or disband the alliance? I'm going to assume that those are the two options available. I'd do both. Disband and leave roam free those who want to have no part in it, and lead the guerrillas myself FAN style. 78. Might makes right. True or false? False. 79. About the Unjust War: which side do you think was in the right, if either, and are you happy with the result? 80. Do you think that CN politics and diplomacy bear much of a similarity to diplomacy in real life? How are they similar or different, and why do you think this is? Does the diplomacy of CN more closely resemble that of any particular time period in human history, and would you change anything about the way it is generally conducted? It can at times. Not very often, but in general sweeps it does, and certainly in particular situations. It varies by situation though, so there's no general era you can equate it with. Change it? Last time we tried changing it things seem to have gotten worse, so no... let's leave well enough alone. 81. Does the majority of your alliance sell tech or buy tech? For what price? Sell, 3 million for 50 tech. 82. Does the majority of your alliance buy donations or sell tech? For what price? 83. What was the cause of the Unjust War? (note: not the actual casus belli but the wider interrelation) Before my time I'm afraid. 84. Do you have any ideas about where the next major tension or war might be? I do. 85. What do you think the effect of an alliance sanction is? Is it a good thing or a bad thing for most alliances? Mostly a morale booster. It's a good thing. 90. Would your alliance ever spy on an alliance if you felt threatened? (Not in-game spying) 91. The Fookheads have a NAP with TheMenHuggers. You have a MADP with The Fookheads, who break their NAP and attack TheMenHuggers. What do you do? Seriously, first, I'd stop signing MADP's. Secondly, I'm obliged to follow my own treaties, regardless of what The Fookheads do. 93. You send a member 15 Million Aid. 2 weeks later, the member leaves. Do you make the member pay 15 Million back? Or more? Repay the cash back. 94. Is there such thing as respectful freedom of speech over the CN forums? There is, I've yet to see said fabled beast though. 95. Should an entire alliance pay the price for one member's actions? (Non-government) No. 96. Should an entire alliance pay the price for one member's actions? (Government) No. 97. Quality or Quantity? Quality. 98. The Fookheads, who you have a MADP with, are forced to cancel all treaties to avoid war with the ILovePooNuggets Alliance. The ILovePooNuggets alliance finds a questionable cassus belli, do you help your ally even though they were forced to cancel the treaty? Treaties are deterrents. We're still a sovereign alliance and if we feel we have to intervene, then we bloody well will. 99. Will alliances like NADC/WTF ever do anything? Are they isolationists? 100. Your member sends aid to Mangina, who is on NPO's ZI list. (Not really, theoretical situation), who they never announced. There was no way for your alliance to know Mangina was on the list. NPO then attacks your member's nation. How do you handle this situation? What if it leads to a potential war, what will you do? Pay reparations to one of NPO's fighters for the exact damage caused. Tell NPO to call that bloke who attacked one of my own off. If it leads to a potential war then so be it, but I'm hardly going to leave one of my own members be ZI'd because of something he had no knowledge of. Obviously if he had that changes things, but I'm assuming the best here. Done. Edit: Fixed formatting.

Congratulations to our friends in Silence and in RIA. o/ Silence o/ RIA Also, Silence, don't think we don't spot your treaty-whoring.

Congratulations on the upgrade. o/ Silence o/ CSN

Congratulations Penedono on your promotion, and to the rest of you as well. Also, well done on hitting 3 million NS! o/ GLOF

It's this one "KD randomly told his members to hit wF so that he could later deny it and let some of his members get ZI'd and remove a gov member." isn't it? Can I have a cookie?

So... 1. CB is non-existent. (and no, incompetence is not a valid CB, nor in fact is hatred, that just gives you bonus PR. ) 2. The proof is faked. (!@#$%* link...) 3. It's a curb-stomp. (WF - 195/2.5/305, UED - 71/.67/80) I've seen this before, I know I have... The more things change the more they stay the same I guess. Edit: 3 comes after 2....

Most cowardly act I've ever seen around here, and for this place, that's saying quite a bit.

It's my estimation that... every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sum!@#$%* or another. Ain't about you, Jayne. About what they need. 57th Overlanders, for the blokes who get statues made of them...

Congratulations on reforming OTS. I remember talking to ye about two years back. Quite a long story between then and now. Good luck lads.

So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem. 57th Overlanders, some of us are just a tad crazier than others...

Well, we're an odd conglomeration. Got a preacher, a married fellah, and the doctor… well, he'd have to… relax for thirty seconds to get his play. That'd be more or less a miracle. 57th Overlanders, the odder kind of folk...

I spotted you on our boards, and was wondering where you had disappeared off to. We're not big on forcing people into doing things, we rely fairly heavily on volunteers and personal initiative. In short, you'd be expected to follow orders, obviously enough. Participation in tech deals in-alliance is a big thing. They help you out anyway, but keeping it in-alliance is key, due to our rate - 3 million for 50 tech - this matters more to tech buyers to follow. That said, where possible we try to move people out into external deals at the standard rate of 3 million for 100 tech, but the sellers always take priority in the 57th. The more you do, obviously, the higher your priority for going into the external deals if you're a buyer, and the higher your priority for going into internal deals if you're a seller. We do ally tech raiding, with permission from our Quartermaster. Mostly, that's pretty much it. The more active you are, the higher your priority, and the more you do, the more likely you'll gain something positive out of joining the 57th. If you want more specific questions answered, I urge you to come on IRC (#CN-The57th, or use our "Link to the 57th IRC" at the top of the 57th's boards) and talk to some of the people involved already in the 57th Overlanders.

"Seems odd you'd name your ship after a battle you were on the wrong side of." "May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." 57th Overlanders

Congratulations to our allies in Silence and our Brown brethren, ICB.

I was going to reply to you Mathias, but I see I was beaten to the punch. Cheers lads, next round's on me.

Voldorish: How you're able to admit joining under false pretences and then claim not to be spying, when you have already admitted to making use of the information you've gained is mind-bogglingly idiotic. Here, it's like this. You went to place X, looked at their private info and used it. That's a simple case of spying mate, pure and simple. Be that as it may, I'm glad things have worked out between yourself and VA. Edit: mind-bogglingly

"Serenity... you lost everything in that battle. Everything you had, everything you were. How did you go on?" "If you're still standing there when that engine starts, you never will figure it out." Care to figure it out?

As is tradition for me, I'm typically late to these things and try to compensate by typing very large posts with no real point at hand other than to make you read a little bit more. True to form, here I am, late, writing a long post with no script and even less idea of what it is I plan on saying. Mech there pretty much laid it all out on the table, which is probably all for the best, as I'd simply talk your ear off and that'd be the end of all of that. The tradition of shooting new people, both our own and others, I am happy to say will continue unabated. Its been a remarkable success and I see no reason why we shouldn't continue it. As for Mech's resignation. Well, if there's anybody on this here boat that deserves it, it's him. What he was doing putting me in charge I'll never understand... The community that we all founded and Mechanus led for the past year is special to a lot of people, and the things that made the 57th such a home to us all will be continued, with very few changes. So, anyone who's hoping we'll stop being stubborn, arrogant, difficult to get on with tough blighters is going to be woefully disappointed. The 57th is the way it is for a lot of reasons, and regardless of who's in command, that's the way it'll remain. For anyone wondering about the new government, well obviously, I'm going to be the Captain, my Lieutenant (Kodiak) and Quartermaster (Lord Panda) have yet to be ratified by the membership, but that will be sorted shortly. Right so, now just to reply to a few people: Erixxx: Cheers, and I'll be poppin' over later. Kittiquel: Phil: I did try to talk him out of it, never listened to me though... just as I plan on ignoring my own Lieutenant. Tradition - best thing in the 'verse. Goon: The 57th makes Brown what it is so we do. As for Mech, unfortunately he's still here with us... don't worry though, we've a complicated plan to shove him out the airlock. I say its complicated because last time we tried to that, we managed to flush one of our own out it... poor Jimmy. Conner: You're a good bloke, better than most, and VA's one of the best of them out there. Keve, Penedono, monkeybum, Lonewolfe, Poyples, Moose: Cheers! Scorcher: We <3 you too. Miasma: We'll return your door... promise. Although, considering what's being done to it, you may be better off buying a whole new one. Jake: Oh, you know you <3 us. Also, I can kill you with my brain....

I'm pretty sure it was from the moderator, Megabyte, as he locked a thread.