Steam raked in nearly one billion dollars in 2010 (http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/call-of-duty-black-ops/news/steam-raked-in-nearly-one-billion-dollars-in-2010/a-2011020485712484007/g-20100430155446363032)
What are the sales figures for the whopping 2 games you linked?
I think you are glossing over one very important aspect: This is not just about Sony controlling the online experience, which I agree with. This is about a "bait and switch" with the core functionality of hardware that I bought. Mainly, the OtherOS feature and backwards support for PS2 games. So I agree with Sony cutting down on cheating to preserve the experience of non-cheaters with online play. I DO NOT agree with functionality that I paid for being taken away for no good reason other than they were tired of supporting it.
I haven't done ANY modding to my PS3, yet it is still a shell of its former self with the aforementioned features now gone. I played by their rules and got screwed anyway. So I have NO sympathy whatsoever for them. DIAF Sony.
And your analogy is a little weak in that when you are issued a COMPANY laptop, you aren't out any money and of course you should only do things related to your job description with it. The paradigm changes once it is hardware that YOU pay for.
Not idiots per se, just very predictable. The problem comes in when other people know how your brain/perception works better than you do. In the US, and it would appear in Bulgaria, the political parties know very well how beliefs work. In the US they send properly constructed messages design to elicit the response they want and they refer to it as "solidifying the base" (political base, as in your most hard core supporters).
What is interesting is to see that they do this right out in the open. If you can set aside your emotional beliefs about the political parties and watch their conventions it is an amazing sight to behold. And fear, oh yes there will be fear. For a while, the biggest campaign contribution draw for the Republicans was Bill Clinton, or more to the point, the idea of Clinton they fostered. And the Democrats did the same with Newt Gingrich, with similar results.
They know that if they can foster certain foundational beliefs, the rest will take care of itself with a little nudge here and there. Once someone believes that one political party is better/worse than another, they will begin to filter out information that does not fit this belief. Since this process occurs in our unconscious, we are not consciously aware of it...and the hook is set.
Sorry I don't have any solutions for you, other than to try and patiently explain to others that they need to be more open minded.
So I am curious how this evolved into this form. How did this get implemented? How did you get the buy in that you should actually take the time to do this assessment?
I agree about the "no" thing. I think IT needs to replace that with "how". If you want X, then you need to do ABC to get it done, and here is an estimated cost. If we in IT don't make their jobs easier, why would they keep us around? After I had been in IT awhile, I found out that people were less likely to do an asshat move like an end around if I framed their request as "how" rather than yes/no.
Does that mean that everyone is reasonable and we all work together in a cloud of pixie dust while riding our unicorns? No, not at all. But if you stop taking it personally and use more "how" than "no" you might be surprised at how much your stress level goes down. At least it did for me. And as an added bonus, now that I have been doing this for awhile, sometimes people actually listen when I say that something may not be a good idea. I think this changed because they at least feel respected since I take the time to listen and think about it.
I think there are a couple of issues here. First of all, how are you going to define a "casual hothead" before the fact? Sure it easy to see after the fact, but how do you define it beforehand in a way that isn't also going to snare a lot of people that it shouldn't?
With someone who is insane, once they are diagnosed you have a paper trail. But what about before that? Exactly when are they insane? How can you tell before they act without also limiting the rights of everyone?
The NICS guidelines (http://crime.about.com/od/guns/a/handgun_check.htm) can help, but what about people that up to a point have been good citizens, but for whatever reason, go off?
And if you look at what has been going on in CA (http://www.redding.com/news/2009/oct/12/gov-signs-ammunition-sales-bill/)
check this part out:
De Leon spokesman Dan Reeves has said the local laws have helped police track down 200 criminals who bought handgun ammunition. Some were drug dealers and many had large caches of illegal guns or explosives
So even with a BUNCH of laws, both state and federal, covering both guns AND ammo bad guys still get guns/ammo. Now true, they are referring to convicted felons, which is not what you were talking about. But none of those people were convicted felons the first time they committed a felony. Are you sure it is so easy to predict? At some point, if you aren't careful, the gun laws will just put law abiding citizens at a severe disadvantage without actually helping to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Where that point of diminished returns is, I don't know. But my point is that I think you are oversimplifying things a bit.
While I agree there is a BIG difference between satire and actual death threats, I think you also have to be careful when you use language that "dehumanizes". A byproduct of that is you are implicitly stating that they are not worthy of being treated as a human being. Surely the satire will survive without inference.
And you are right on about the Palin thing...just understand you are probably not being heard. There are people that NEED to believe she was the cause of it, regardless of facts. I wish she would just go away, and I think she often exhibits a poor choice of words. But to imply that Loughner was her follower is simply not supported by the facts known at this time.
Good point, but then the question is are those items going to be considered "newsworthy" enough to get the coverage that JA got? I think probably not. That doesn't mean they won't be dealt with, just that you will have to go looking for updates rather than having it spread far and wide. Or maybe it just gets "parked" and powerful people let it gather dust until no one is looking anymore and it just goes away.
Agreed.
That is how it is probably perceived by many, and I think may be the point of what he is doing. Namely, let's think about how we are spending other people's money. Let's think about how we could do things cheaper than we are today. If there is a budget surplus that's one thing...when you are DEEP in the hole, every little bit of savings helps. You gotta start somewhere, might as well be here I guess.
Well that is may be because that among publicly traded companies, Apple is second only to Exxon-Mobile in Market Cap, and is ahead of both MS and Google.
While I mostly agree with what you say about WOW, I think there is more to it. I've only played WOW for nearly a year, so I don't have the experience of the "old school" players but I have been around long enough to notice a couple of trends. Firstly, I think WOW has been smart to put emphasis on the social aspect...as in guilds and guild achievements. This allows you to have advantages that you simply won't have going it alone. That means you now have an emotional investment in people, not just the game. And if you work with those guildmates you can form effective teams that allows you to get through stuff that is painful to try with just PUGs.
Also, while the quests may not be like they were before, you still have other avenues to advance, such as the dungeons. And while initially the wait times (if you were DPS) were long, it is getting better as more tanks/heals get familiar with the new dungeons. New dungeons that require WAY more tactical sense than the LK ones IMHO.
I don't think they will get away from the stats and gear dependency simply because that is part of what keeps people coming back and playing more. Get geared for dungeons, get geared for heriocs, get geared for PvP, etc. One of the things that initially drew me to WOW was the fact that my success was not based solely on how fast I could click but based on stats/gear and how well I worked within the group. I guess what I am trying to say is that they are stat/gear dependent by choice, not just design.
Because sometimes you don't know all the facts upfront, so you start a discussion and try to piece things together. If you make a rule that you can only discuss KNOWN and PROVEN facts you will probably have worse problems than "some context, lots of opinions"
Since they basically did a "bait and switch" with the PS3.
When I bought it, it had the OtherOS feather AND I could do all the online stuff...not now
When I bought it, it had backwards comparability for almost all PS2 games...not now
So it appears to me that in a sense the "hackers" have returned my property that was stolen from me by the "legitimate corporation"
I doubt that Sony will learn anything from this, and after our family owning a PS2 and 3, the next console I buy will be Xbox...I had no idea a company could be dysfunctional enough to make me regret not buying a MS product.
Yes, once you rid yourself of the "gotta have the latest games" mindset you can have a LOT more games for the money you spend. I rarely play games within the first year of their release...they are still "new" to me:)
I didn't realize how crappy my connection was until I started playing WOW...before with Steam only needing occasional access I didn't notice.
I switched providers once I realized how bad my connection was. I just don't think it is a smart thing to do to require constant connectivity...unless most other people have much better connection experiences than I have had. Seems like a recipe for disaster.
I'm not criticizing people for correcting themselves, so I don't know where you got that. Just pointed out that there are errors and the people that make the errors are not always the ones that discover it.
I understand your point about extant arctic ice, but you miss my point that it is possible that when the interpretation changes, the result may change as well. Not saying it will or won't in this case, but as you allude to, it is evolving. So when we further refine the methods, the rate of change may be more or less that previously thought.
For instance, if you look at cryosphere today, you can see the sea ice area in decline for the N hemisphere from about 2000-2007 but at that same time it went up in the south.
As for the "hottest year", considering this:
In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027
I think I'll wait and see if there are any "corrections"
While I don't defend the "village idiot" you allude to, there is a valid reason why we need skeptics in all phases of science.
Science recently has done a good job of identifying how loose and fast our brains can be with facts. This is how a president like Bush can massively expand the federal government with nary a whisper from Republicans that howl at the first sign of a democrat doing the same thing. Same holds true for a president like Clinton that screwed the unions with NAFTA and got a response from Democrats that I would venture was much different than they would have given a Republican president.
The very instant that something becomes emotionally important to us, beliefs included, the less interested we are in the truth to the extent that it actually affects what information we perceive on a conscious level. It gets filtered out before it gets that far.
As an example, years ago NOAA or GISS proclaimed a month to be the "hottest ever". Problem was, due to a technical glitch, they just repeated the numbers from the month before. Viewed skeptically, would it even be possible for the numbers to be EXACTLY the same 2 months running? Unlikely. But it was not the "believers" that discovered this error, it was the "skeptics" or "deniers" if you wish.
In ANY scientific endeavor or theory, it will ALWAYS be the skeptics that have a better chance of seeing the error. Does the above example mean that ALL NOAA data is wrong, or even that their underlying theory is wrong? Of course not. But if you always accept their data and decry the "skeptics" you may end up with more in common with that villager than you would care to admit.
My point? You can't rely on ANY one source, and you need to allow for data "correction" from errors both intentional and accidental. But when the errors are "outed" not by the people that claim to be the "authorities" but only when they are caught, credibility is lost.
And as far as the climate vs weather thing goes, unfortunately there were some that used the warming weather of the 90s as proof of their climate theories, thus further eroding their credibility if they try to play the "climate isn't weather" card now.
I agree with what you say about Israel, but that to me makes it LESS likely they would do something so indirect. From my limited knowledge of the whole thing, this attack appears much too subtle for Israel's taste...as in no bombs. A subtle approach like a virus where you really aren't going to be able to prove the source the way you can with aircraft and bombs suggests someone who wants to get it done without rocking the boat. Like someone with a bunch of side deals or other things at stake...both of which could describe the US and China.
I guess what I am trying to say is that IMHO when Israel does something, they WANT you to know they did it. For this virus, someone wanted to remain somewhat anonymous.
On the other hand those who voted Democratic were more likely to incorrectly believe that: it was proven to be true that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates (voted Democratic 57%, voted Republican 9%); Obama has not increased the level of troops in Afghanistan (51% to 39%); and Democratic legislators did not mostly vote in favor of TARP (56% to 14%).
So where did Dems get their false beliefs? Oh wait, here it is:
Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP.
Gee it's like if you want to believe something, you will seek out info that reinforces that, and filter out info that doesn't...did anyone not know this?
Well no surprise that it would be mostly Republicans challenging a law passed by mostly Democrats. Just as Democrats have challenged laws passed by mostly Republicans...in a two party system, it is unlikely to be any other way. A Democrat that voted for the health care bill is unlikely to challenge it on legal grounds. Once Republicans votes against it but it still passes, this is the only recourse left.
Many expected this to land in the Supreme Court's lap even before it was officially passed, so no surprise there. Considering the complexity of the law as passed, and the potential of "alterations" if the courts ultimately uphold this decision, I am afraid that "messy" won't begin to cover it.
Slashdot Mirror
From Games Radar:
Steam raked in nearly one billion dollars in 2010 (http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/call-of-duty-black-ops/news/steam-raked-in-nearly-one-billion-dollars-in-2010/a-2011020485712484007/g-20100430155446363032)
What are the sales figures for the whopping 2 games you linked?
I think you are glossing over one very important aspect: This is not just about Sony controlling the online experience, which I agree with. This is about a "bait and switch" with the core functionality of hardware that I bought. Mainly, the OtherOS feature and backwards support for PS2 games. So I agree with Sony cutting down on cheating to preserve the experience of non-cheaters with online play. I DO NOT agree with functionality that I paid for being taken away for no good reason other than they were tired of supporting it.
I haven't done ANY modding to my PS3, yet it is still a shell of its former self with the aforementioned features now gone. I played by their rules and got screwed anyway. So I have NO sympathy whatsoever for them. DIAF Sony.
And your analogy is a little weak in that when you are issued a COMPANY laptop, you aren't out any money and of course you should only do things related to your job description with it. The paradigm changes once it is hardware that YOU pay for.
Not idiots per se, just very predictable. The problem comes in when other people know how your brain/perception works better than you do. In the US, and it would appear in Bulgaria, the political parties know very well how beliefs work. In the US they send properly constructed messages design to elicit the response they want and they refer to it as "solidifying the base" (political base, as in your most hard core supporters).
What is interesting is to see that they do this right out in the open. If you can set aside your emotional beliefs about the political parties and watch their conventions it is an amazing sight to behold. And fear, oh yes there will be fear. For a while, the biggest campaign contribution draw for the Republicans was Bill Clinton, or more to the point, the idea of Clinton they fostered. And the Democrats did the same with Newt Gingrich, with similar results.
They know that if they can foster certain foundational beliefs, the rest will take care of itself with a little nudge here and there. Once someone believes that one political party is better/worse than another, they will begin to filter out information that does not fit this belief. Since this process occurs in our unconscious, we are not consciously aware of it...and the hook is set.
Sorry I don't have any solutions for you, other than to try and patiently explain to others that they need to be more open minded.
So I am curious how this evolved into this form. How did this get implemented? How did you get the buy in that you should actually take the time to do this assessment?
I agree about the "no" thing. I think IT needs to replace that with "how". If you want X, then you need to do ABC to get it done, and here is an estimated cost. If we in IT don't make their jobs easier, why would they keep us around? After I had been in IT awhile, I found out that people were less likely to do an asshat move like an end around if I framed their request as "how" rather than yes/no.
Does that mean that everyone is reasonable and we all work together in a cloud of pixie dust while riding our unicorns? No, not at all. But if you stop taking it personally and use more "how" than "no" you might be surprised at how much your stress level goes down. At least it did for me. And as an added bonus, now that I have been doing this for awhile, sometimes people actually listen when I say that something may not be a good idea. I think this changed because they at least feel respected since I take the time to listen and think about it.
With someone who is insane, once they are diagnosed you have a paper trail. But what about before that? Exactly when are they insane? How can you tell before they act without also limiting the rights of everyone?
The NICS guidelines (http://crime.about.com/od/guns/a/handgun_check.htm) can help, but what about people that up to a point have been good citizens, but for whatever reason, go off?
And if you look at what has been going on in CA (http://www.redding.com/news/2009/oct/12/gov-signs-ammunition-sales-bill/) check this part out:
De Leon spokesman Dan Reeves has said the local laws have helped police track down 200 criminals who bought handgun ammunition. Some were drug dealers and many had large caches of illegal guns or explosives
So even with a BUNCH of laws, both state and federal, covering both guns AND ammo bad guys still get guns/ammo. Now true, they are referring to convicted felons, which is not what you were talking about. But none of those people were convicted felons the first time they committed a felony. Are you sure it is so easy to predict? At some point, if you aren't careful, the gun laws will just put law abiding citizens at a severe disadvantage without actually helping to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Where that point of diminished returns is, I don't know. But my point is that I think you are oversimplifying things a bit.
While I agree there is a BIG difference between satire and actual death threats, I think you also have to be careful when you use language that "dehumanizes". A byproduct of that is you are implicitly stating that they are not worthy of being treated as a human being. Surely the satire will survive without inference.
And you are right on about the Palin thing...just understand you are probably not being heard. There are people that NEED to believe she was the cause of it, regardless of facts. I wish she would just go away, and I think she often exhibits a poor choice of words. But to imply that Loughner was her follower is simply not supported by the facts known at this time.
Good point, but then the question is are those items going to be considered "newsworthy" enough to get the coverage that JA got? I think probably not. That doesn't mean they won't be dealt with, just that you will have to go looking for updates rather than having it spread far and wide. Or maybe it just gets "parked" and powerful people let it gather dust until no one is looking anymore and it just goes away.
but that the game encourages players to become obsessed with mentally escaping the restrictions of prison life
Because surely it NEVER occurred to inmates to attempt to mentally escape the restrictions of prison life until the DM told them to
Agreed.
That is how it is probably perceived by many, and I think may be the point of what he is doing. Namely, let's think about how we are spending other people's money. Let's think about how we could do things cheaper than we are today. If there is a budget surplus that's one thing...when you are DEEP in the hole, every little bit of savings helps. You gotta start somewhere, might as well be here I guess.
On a related note, can I use my hours of playing DOOM as proof that I am ready to go?
Well that is may be because that among publicly traded companies, Apple is second only to Exxon-Mobile in Market Cap, and is ahead of both MS and Google.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/03/apple-300-billion/
When you have $300 billion in market cap the possibility ALWAYS exists that what you do can be a game changer.
While I mostly agree with what you say about WOW, I think there is more to it. I've only played WOW for nearly a year, so I don't have the experience of the "old school" players but I have been around long enough to notice a couple of trends. Firstly, I think WOW has been smart to put emphasis on the social aspect...as in guilds and guild achievements. This allows you to have advantages that you simply won't have going it alone. That means you now have an emotional investment in people, not just the game. And if you work with those guildmates you can form effective teams that allows you to get through stuff that is painful to try with just PUGs.
Also, while the quests may not be like they were before, you still have other avenues to advance, such as the dungeons. And while initially the wait times (if you were DPS) were long, it is getting better as more tanks/heals get familiar with the new dungeons. New dungeons that require WAY more tactical sense than the LK ones IMHO.
I don't think they will get away from the stats and gear dependency simply because that is part of what keeps people coming back and playing more. Get geared for dungeons, get geared for heriocs, get geared for PvP, etc. One of the things that initially drew me to WOW was the fact that my success was not based solely on how fast I could click but based on stats/gear and how well I worked within the group. I guess what I am trying to say is that they are stat/gear dependent by choice, not just design.
Because sometimes you don't know all the facts upfront, so you start a discussion and try to piece things together. If you make a rule that you can only discuss KNOWN and PROVEN facts you will probably have worse problems than "some context, lots of opinions"
Since they basically did a "bait and switch" with the PS3.
When I bought it, it had the OtherOS feather AND I could do all the online stuff...not now
When I bought it, it had backwards comparability for almost all PS2 games...not now
So it appears to me that in a sense the "hackers" have returned my property that was stolen from me by the "legitimate corporation"
I doubt that Sony will learn anything from this, and after our family owning a PS2 and 3, the next console I buy will be Xbox...I had no idea a company could be dysfunctional enough to make me regret not buying a MS product.
Yes, once you rid yourself of the "gotta have the latest games" mindset you can have a LOT more games for the money you spend. I rarely play games within the first year of their release...they are still "new" to me :)
Agreed...this is why I didn't buy Settlers 7, even though it looked like the type of game I like to play.
I wish these companies would spend as much time figuring out how many customers they lose due to DRM as they do making up BS piracy numbers
I didn't realize how crappy my connection was until I started playing WOW...before with Steam only needing occasional access I didn't notice.
I switched providers once I realized how bad my connection was. I just don't think it is a smart thing to do to require constant connectivity...unless most other people have much better connection experiences than I have had. Seems like a recipe for disaster.
I'm not criticizing people for correcting themselves, so I don't know where you got that. Just pointed out that there are errors and the people that make the errors are not always the ones that discover it.
I understand your point about extant arctic ice, but you miss my point that it is possible that when the interpretation changes, the result may change as well. Not saying it will or won't in this case, but as you allude to, it is evolving. So when we further refine the methods, the rate of change may be more or less that previously thought.
For instance, if you look at cryosphere today, you can see the sea ice area in decline for the N hemisphere from about 2000-2007 but at that same time it went up in the south.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png
So I understand your point about local patterns.
As for the "hottest year", considering this:
In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027
I think I'll wait and see if there are any "corrections"
While I don't defend the "village idiot" you allude to, there is a valid reason why we need skeptics in all phases of science.
Science recently has done a good job of identifying how loose and fast our brains can be with facts. This is how a president like Bush can massively expand the federal government with nary a whisper from Republicans that howl at the first sign of a democrat doing the same thing. Same holds true for a president like Clinton that screwed the unions with NAFTA and got a response from Democrats that I would venture was much different than they would have given a Republican president.
The very instant that something becomes emotionally important to us, beliefs included, the less interested we are in the truth to the extent that it actually affects what information we perceive on a conscious level. It gets filtered out before it gets that far. As an example, years ago NOAA or GISS proclaimed a month to be the "hottest ever". Problem was, due to a technical glitch, they just repeated the numbers from the month before. Viewed skeptically, would it even be possible for the numbers to be EXACTLY the same 2 months running? Unlikely. But it was not the "believers" that discovered this error, it was the "skeptics" or "deniers" if you wish.
In ANY scientific endeavor or theory, it will ALWAYS be the skeptics that have a better chance of seeing the error. Does the above example mean that ALL NOAA data is wrong, or even that their underlying theory is wrong? Of course not. But if you always accept their data and decry the "skeptics" you may end up with more in common with that villager than you would care to admit.
You mean this NOAA?
NOAA’s sea ice extent blunder
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/15/noaas-sea-ice-extent-blunder/
And just so you don't think I am just anti-NOAA, here they are being vindicated in some of their data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/spurious-sst-warming-revisited/
And here is NASA's GISS with an error:
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/giss
My point? You can't rely on ANY one source, and you need to allow for data "correction" from errors both intentional and accidental. But when the errors are "outed" not by the people that claim to be the "authorities" but only when they are caught, credibility is lost.
And as far as the climate vs weather thing goes, unfortunately there were some that used the warming weather of the 90s as proof of their climate theories, thus further eroding their credibility if they try to play the "climate isn't weather" card now.
You mean this Al Gore:
Al Gore: Votes, not science, led me to back corn ethanol
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40317079/ns/us_news-environment
I agree with what you say about Israel, but that to me makes it LESS likely they would do something so indirect. From my limited knowledge of the whole thing, this attack appears much too subtle for Israel's taste...as in no bombs. A subtle approach like a virus where you really aren't going to be able to prove the source the way you can with aircraft and bombs suggests someone who wants to get it done without rocking the boat. Like someone with a bunch of side deals or other things at stake...both of which could describe the US and China.
I guess what I am trying to say is that IMHO when Israel does something, they WANT you to know they did it. For this virus, someone wanted to remain somewhat anonymous.
From a link in the article:
On the other hand those who voted Democratic were more likely to incorrectly believe that: it was proven to be true that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates (voted Democratic 57%, voted Republican 9%); Obama has not increased the level of troops in Afghanistan (51% to 39%); and Democratic legislators did not mostly vote in favor of TARP (56% to 14%).
So where did Dems get their false beliefs? Oh wait, here it is:
Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP.
Gee it's like if you want to believe something, you will seek out info that reinforces that, and filter out info that doesn't...did anyone not know this?
Well no surprise that it would be mostly Republicans challenging a law passed by mostly Democrats. Just as Democrats have challenged laws passed by mostly Republicans...in a two party system, it is unlikely to be any other way. A Democrat that voted for the health care bill is unlikely to challenge it on legal grounds. Once Republicans votes against it but it still passes, this is the only recourse left.
Many expected this to land in the Supreme Court's lap even before it was officially passed, so no surprise there. Considering the complexity of the law as passed, and the potential of "alterations" if the courts ultimately uphold this decision, I am afraid that "messy" won't begin to cover it.