Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 03:26:18 GMT From: Chaos Harlequin To: Orjan Johansen Subject: Round 73 Summary Here's the summary. A pretty nice round that petered out at the end. Hopefully with 74 we can go a little longer before we're out. Sorry for mall the poor judgements, y'all. ------------------------- All times are EST. PLAYER ELIGIBILITY LAST RULE STYLE ------------------------------------------ Doug INELIGIBLE 73:11 +5.0 Swann WINNER 73:12 +2.0 Chuck INELIGIBLE 73:8 +1.2 John INELIGIBLE 73:3 -1.5 Murphy INELIGIBLE 73:4 +0.5 Bill INELIGIBLE 73:10 +0.5 All other players are INELIGIBLE. RULE POSTER VALIDITY STYLE TIME POSTED ---------------------------------------------------- 73:1 Doug VALID +0.5 10:48 AM 2/ 9/97 73:2 Swann VALID +0.0 1:15 PM 2/ 9/97 73:3 John UNSUCC.* -1.5 1:31 PM 2/ 9/97 73:4 Murphy INVALID +0.5 10:07 PM 2/ 9/97 73:5 Doug VALID +2.0 2:03 PM 2/11/97 73:6 Swann VALID +0.5 12:40 AM 2/12/97 73:7 Bill VALID** +0.0 9:58 AM 2/12/97 73:8 Chuck VALID +1.2 11:40 AM 2/12/97 73:9 Swann VALID +2.0 11:09 PM 2/14/97 73:10 Bill VALID*** +0.5 1:20 PM 2/17/97 73:11 Doug VALID +2.5 11:56 PM 2/17/97 73:12 Swann VALID +0.5 10:44 AM 2/18/97 * Changed from VALID by Judicial Prerogative, 5:22 PM 2/9/97 ** Changed from INVALID by Judicial Prerogative, 7:29 PM 2/14/97 *** Challenged as INVALID by Chuck, 12:58 PM 2/18/97 Rule: 73:1 Poster: Doug Style: +0.5 Validity: VALID >Having rescued Schrodinger's cat from its uncertain fate, I went back home >to enjoy a round of FRC. I was shocked to discover that invaders from a >certain nomic (which shall remain nameless) had split the round into a >myriad of Gamestates. > >After some initial confusion, the several Gamestates agreed to try to work >together. One major agreement we were able to reach was a system of naming >Gamestates based on local conditions. For example, in my Gamestate, >Tennessee, and in all other Gamestates whose name ends with an vowel, >Schrodinger's cat was rescued and is alive. However, in Gamestates whose >name ends in a "z","b", or "c", the cat died after it was rescued. > >Each future rule (in all Gamestates) shall give the name of the Gamestate it >is in, state a condition which holds in its Gamestate but not in all >Gamestates, and state a rule which applies to all Gamestates. > >(end rule) Validity: VALID. Not much you can do to invalidate the first rule... Style: +0.5. No major innovations, but it sets up the multiple gamestates well and provides a nice framework to work from for future rules. Restriction is sensible but not really interesting. Rule: 73:2 Poster: Swann Style: +0.0 Validity: VALID >It seems the aforementioned invaders employed a quantum bubble to split the >round. However, their power supply for said bubble was limited... it seems >any gamestate which is not visited (and thus, mentioned in a rule) for a >period of five rules ceases to exist--or at least becomes unreachable by >members of the FRC (we have not determined which of these two is the case, >though I theorize it is the latter). This of course includes gamestates of >which we have no knowledge. >It seems I am in the gamestate dubbed Confusion. Time has slowed in this >gamestate, so the cat has yet to be rescued--but neither has she yet >died--she is still in that theoretical state of both life and death. I have >noticed that in Confusion, the cat is female, while in Tennessee, he is >male--seems similar to a phonomenon underwent by Spot (those of you who >watch Star Trek: The Next Generation closely enough will understand the >reference). >In any case, here in Confusion--and apparently, in all gamestates who's >names contain a non-prime number of characters--the quantum bubble is still >in partial operation, and we can use it to switch freely between gamestates. >One can only leave a gamestate which has a quantum bubble in operation, but >one can enter any gamestate which is still reachable by memebers of the FRC >(or still exists, depending on which theory you ascribe to). >Here in Confusion however, time moves slowly--this is why each rule from >Confusion must state more restrictions than the last rule that was submitted >from another gamestate. Validity: VALID. It follows the restrictions of 73:1: that it must be in one gamestate, and define both a restriction on that gamestate and on all gamestates. Style: -1.5. Sorry, I dislike the "quantum bubble" restriction because it significantly limits the number of gamestates we can use in the round, and the rule about all gamestates whose names contain a non-prime number of characters was unclear. Rule: 73:3 Poster: John Style: -1.5 Validity: UNSUCCESSFUL >(begin rule) > >First off I am sad to announce that my attempt to rescue Schrödinger's cat >was a success, >but the cat died. > >Needless to say I was confused when I discover that Doug not only reports >saving the same >cat, but that the FRC Gamestate has split into a number of indeterminate >states. >After pondering this I have come to a number of different conclusions: > >I) In my state, named "Swann" (for obvious reasons); The cat died and I am >the only Player > in that state. > >II) All Players are in one specific Gamestate wherin they attempted to >rescue the cat. > >III) In any Gamestate, the rescue has three possible outcomes: > 1) Success, the cat lives. > 2) Success, the cat dies. > 3) Failure, the cat's status is unknown. > >(end rule) Validity: Since John's rule did not go through to the list, 73:2 is indeed the proper number for this rule, so I have to look at actual content to judge it. :) It's very close to the edge, but I'm willing to let I) slip by as a restriction on an individual gamestate -- no player may be in the "Swann" gamestate but Swann. III) of course satisfies the need for a universal restriction on all gamestates. Therefore, I find it VALID. Style: +0. Doesn't really do much but solidify what Doug already said w/ 73:1, and not much of a restriction. However, no real flaws that I can see. Rule: 73:4 Poster: Murphy Style: +0.5 Validity: INVALID >In my Gamestate, Apartment, I rescued Schrodinger's cat (a male named >Milo) alive. Imagine my double-take when I came home to find a second >cat! However, when I put Milo down and tried to pick her up, my hands >passed straight through. > >Later, after discussing the situation with a fellow Player who >appeared in the same way, we discovered that living creatures in all >Gamestates were able to see each other. Of course, the cat from >this other Gamestate (Condominium), a female named Minerva, had also >also been rescued alive. Furthermore, we discovered that living >Schroedinger's cats were able to cross freely between each other's >Gamestates; thus, both cats gained a new playmate. > >All fantasy rules (in all Gamestates) shall describe an interaction >between its own Gamestate and at least one other. Validity: This obeys rule 73:2 fine. Since John's rule was finally sent to the list, I'll consider 73:4 the proper number for this rule. The question, then, is if it obeys 73:1. It does have a rule which applies to all gamestates. However, it doesn't seem to me that it describes a condition applying to Apartment and only to Apartment. Sorry, Murphy, I have to find this INVALID. Style: +0.5. I like having *some* interaction between the gamestates; however, it does seem somewhat contrary to what I know about quantum theory.... Rule: 73:5 Poster: Doug Style: Swann Validity: +0.5 >(begin rule) > >This comes to you all from the Gamestate of Tennessee, which has fortunately >not yet been personally visited by the invaders, unlike Gamestates like >Zagreb which are suffering horribly under the invaders' occupation. > >Anyway, here are some facts we've been able to gather about our situation: > >1. Transportation from any Gamestate to another is only possible for those >who have one of the invaders' "VOC-Directive devices". (VOC apparently >stands for "Voyage into Other Continua".) > >2. The invaders have (at least) two purposes for their incursion: (a) they >hate short rulesets and are experimenting to see if they can permanently >force our rules to be as long as theirs and (b) they're searching for a >legendary tooth which is supposed to have magical powers. (Our Player who >is trapped in Zagreb reports that the invaders regularly yell "The Tooth is >out there!") > >(end rule) Validity: The statement that Tennessee has not yet been visited by the "invaders" fulfills part of 73:1, and clause 1. applies a rule to all gamestates, fulfilling the rest of 73:1. This takes place in the gamestate of Tennessee, which fulfills both restrictions of 73:2 (Doug's attempts to rescue the cat were described in 73:1.) Therefore I find it VALID. Style: +2.0. I like this one. I realize it *is* one big in-joke, but most (?) of us seem to be in on it anyway, and I appreciate the reference. Doug's method of continuum-travel is much simpler and more aesthetically pleasing to me than John's, in combination introduction of a factor (the invaders) which can allow for interesting things in future rules, makes me think that this rule will provide a gateway to keep the round from getting stale once each player has defined eir own gamestate. Rule: 73:6 Poster: Swann Style: +0.5 Validity: VALID >(begin rule) > >Dispatch from Swann in "Swann": > >I am sending this rule under duress. The invaders have taken over >my apartment and are forcing me to write this for their own nefarious >reasons. Since they are heavily armed, I have no choice but to do as >they bid and submit this rule. > >First, it should be obvious now that the invaders have taken over in all >the gamestates where the cat was rescued (and died) such as "Swann" and >"Zagreb." (The invaders do not seem to object to me telling you this >since they are convinced of their own omnipotence.) > >Other facts that I have discovered are; > >I) If a fact can be proved true for all knowable gamestates, it is true > for all gamestates known and unknown. >II) There is only one player in any gamestate where the cat definitely > lived or died. (There might be any number of Players in a > gamestate where the cat's fate is indeterminate.) >III) If a cat is rescued by a Player, it generates a new gamestate that > includes only that Player. (Be careful, that's how this mess > started.) > >Unfortunately, the invaders will not let me (or anyone in a gamestate >they inhabit) send any more information on how to defeat them, or any >information that might compromise their plans. They do not seem to >object to the transfer of factual information, which I'll transmit as >long as I am able. They will let me (and others in the states they >inhabit) submit rules, since that seems part of their evil plot. (At >least, they tell me, as long as the rules are four paragraphs or longer.) Validity: This satisfies both clauses of 73:1 fairly easily. By virtue of being in an already extant gamestate it satisfies 73:2. Fits with the invaders as described in 73:5. I find it VALID. Style: +0.5. The facts provided, while not crucial, help explain the nature of the quantum split. They also back each other up without contradicting with Swann's last set: III) would seem to imply II). The final restriction loses a little for the way in which it was thrown in, but gets 'em back because I think it'll be interesting to see what happens when the rule force players to be *long* instead of, as is usually the case, short... Rule: 73:7 Poster: Bill Style: +0.0 Validity: VALID >Cat? What cat? In my gamestate, "Pfft," I seem to have failed to >rescue the cat, since I couldn't find the chamber it was trapped in. >Due to a temporary misconnection, Pfft has been until recently out >of touch with the rest of the gamestates. Now, however, it has been >connected, and I will renew my efforts to rescue the cat since I see >that in all other gamestates (all those mentioned in valid rules), >the player has succeeded in finding the cat. >On the other hand, life in Pfft is not that bad, since the invaders >have not yet found their way here. The invaders, however, are >resourceful, and are making their way quickly into all gamestates. >By the time the next rule is posted in each particular gamestate, the >invaders will have made it there (if they haven't already...). >Start making plans for your defense now! Validity: It violates the final restriction of 73:6 -- all rules must be four paragraphs or longer. Sorry, it's INVALID. Style: +0.0. Fairly normal. No real innovations or interesting points. Rule: 73:8 Poster: Chuck Style: +1.2 Validity: VALID >From: Sub-Rakher Carroll >To: The Supreme Ober-Gretch > >Sir, > >I am reporting to you from the Gamestate Pfft, which we have >now successfully invaded. The invasion was a swift one, >as Pfft was found to contain only one Player before we >invaded. He has been subdued. > >We have set up communications between the Game States >we have invaded, and we are pleased to report that any >such Game State will split into two Game States whenever >an Invader posts a valid Rule from there. One will >retain the name of the unsplit Game State, while the >other will have a new name, which will be specified >in the Rule. For example, this Game State is now >split into Pfft and Arrgh. > >When a Game State is split, Invaders who were in the >pre-split State will remain only in the Game State which >retains the original name; however, non-Invaders who were >in the pre-split State will exist simultaneously in >both Game States. > >We also have a setback to report. Due to an unforeseen >design flaw in the VOC-Directive devices, no Player >can return to a Game State which he previously left. >For example, I will not be able to return to my earlier >Game State of Fez. (Not that I would want to; a dead >cat is too much for even a hardened Invader to take!) Validity: It follows 73:1 by providing a Pfft-only condition and a rule on all gamestates (the way in which they split.) It is again arguable as to whether it follows 73:2, but based both on the wording of that rule (which does not actually state something which players must do, only something that holds true for all gamestates) and the existance of 73:7, which provided that information, I will say that this works. No travel between gamestates except for with VOCs, so 73:5 is fine. No cat-rescuing or fact-proving is going on. In Pfft, the cat was not rescued, so 73:6:II does not apply. And it's four paragraphs, fulfilling 73:6's final restriction. I find it VALID. Style: +1.2. That style is by and large for the idea of having *Players* be invaders -- a nice touch which put a new spin on the round's conduct so far, especially considering the nature of the "Invaders." Hmmmm, will the other Invaders reveal themselves, turn traitor, or merely lay low? The plot thickens... The restrictions, OTOH, did not especially appeal to me but neither offended me, thus no style change for them. Rule: 73:9 Poster: Swann Style: +2.0 Validity: VALID >From: The Supreme Ober-Gretch in | Dispatch from Swann in Nwass > Swann | >To: Invasion force | > | >I applaud all my loyal subjects | I don't know what just happened >for making a swift takeover of | but for a moment I seem to be >a myriad of different gamestates, | able to transmit a message >by the sacred tooth we will see | without the invader's influence. >Rulesets without end! | > | I seem to be in two states now, >Bending the Players of FRC to our | Swann and Nwass both. (In Nwass >will has proved to be child's play, | there's no sign of the cat, and >but I must warn all loyal | I don't know what its fate is.) >Sub-Rakhers of the possible side | >effects of mental control of these | This is the opportunity to tell >beings: | all of you something that I wasn't > | able to with the Invaders >In addition to the game-split | monitoring my transmissions; >described by Sub-Rakher Carroll | >(a side effect of inter-state | The invaders are alternate >communication that has, for | versions of ourselves! In fact >instance, split the state I am in | it might be possible that some >into Swann and Nwass) there will, | players may in fact be Invaders! >in fact, also be a multiple split | Apparently this allows them a >of the rules themselves, resulting | diabolical form of mind-control >in a Rule from two gamestates. | that permits them to send rules >It's caused by an interaction | themselves, or to program other >between our mind-control devices | players to submit rules for them! >and our VOC directive devices. | > | So, while I can, I must warn all >This has been a matter of concern | of you that any rule from a >to some of the scientists that | gamestate that's been invaded may >operate our VOC directives, saying | in fact be an Invader plant to sow >that such a rule-split, whenever | confusion in our ranks, so rules >it occurs, will create interference | originating in uninvaded >that will expel our forces from at | gamestates should always take >least one gamestate we have | precedence and-- what's that?-- >occupied beforehand, so be careful. | Oh no! The door's breaking down > | again, the Invaders are about to >Invasion note: we have unexpectedly | take over here too. I have to >lost contact with our forces in | stop transm... >Pfft. | > >(end rule) Validity: Passes 73:1 no problem. 73:2 does not apply. Fits the thematic restrictions of 73:5. No problems with 73:6, and each part is over four paragraphs, being doubly sure that there's no problem. The state is now invaded, so 73:7 is fine. The split went normally, and no one used a VOC, so it holds up to 73:8. Guess this one's VALID. C'mon, people, let's have some INVALID rules! :) Style: +2.0. Nice. The "split rule" is a concept I had considered a while ago, during round 71, and it's nice to see it here. This rule also cuts back through Bill's loophole, not only insuring that there will still be uninvaded states, but also puts the ball back in Bill's court by designating Pfft. Chuck came up with the Players-as-Invaders concept but here Swann runs with it, bringing it to the forefront and also using that hole that the SOG set up to drive in the point by giving uninvaded states a slight advantage. I just like this rule. Why does my style description sound like a football play-by-play? Rule: 73:10 Poster: Bill Style: +0.5 Validity: VALID >From: bill in Pfft | From: bill in Arrgh >To: Supreme Ober-Gretch | To: loyal FRC-players > | >Hail the mighty Ober-Gretch! | After the gamestate Pfft split into >As your subordinates may have | Pfft and Arrgh, leaving me alone in Arrgh, >told you, my mind is now at | I began immediately to attempt to rescue >your complete disposal. Your | my other-self who was trapped in Pfft with >forces' plan to take over the | the invaders. Fortunately, when Pfft and >other gamestates, as they did | Arrgh split, the immense energy required >mine, with the mind-control | caused the invaders to disappear completely >devices is foolproof! | from Pfft. > | >Again I say: Hail the mighty | However, the invaders' devices remained in >Ober-Gretch! | Pfft, and their diabolical mind-control of > | my other-self was still in place. It seems, >Unfortunately, I must bring | however, that these devices require some >to your attention some bad news:| sort of mystical energy that is transmitted >after my mind became one with | through the invaders' life force. The >the mystical toothness, the | devices, if the invaders are expelled from >invaders in Pfft suddenly | a gamestate, will stop functioning quickly, >disappeared to who knows where. | thereby freeing residents from the mind- >Please send more forces to | control devices and rendering VOC-Directive >protect Pfft from those | devices unusable. >horrible FRC-players. I find | >myself filled with apprehension | It seems that the devices are relinquishing >when I remember that there are | their hold on Pfft-bill, and I will try to >still more of them out there. | contact him again. By the way, I still > | haven't found that darn cat. >Hail the mighty... Ouch.. um | >fft.. tooth... | Wait - I hear something... Ack! It's the > | invaders! Arrgghhhh! > | > | ...... > | > | Hail the mighty Ober-Gretch! > | To all invading forces: Notice that former > | FRC-players under invader mind-control do > | not cause gamestate split when sending > | interstate messages (since we're not > | technically invaders...). Therefore, in > | the future, you should always use these > | automatons to send messages, since these > | state splits are causing our operatives to > | disappear. This restriction must hold true > | until the Ober-Gretch decrees otherwise. > >-bill Validity: Defines a condition in one gamestate and one for all gamestates; 73:1 satisfied. 73:2 isn't going to apply to any more rules until we have another state-split (which, due to this rule, may not happen for a while.) No travel between gamestates, so 73:5 doesn't apply. No cat rescuing, and both rules are 4 or more paragraphs, so 73:6 is satisfied. 73:7 doesn't apply since Pfft had already been invaded. No invader postings or travel between states, so 73:8 is fine. The only possible issue is how to interpret 73:9. It says that a *rule split* will take place whenever a player is taken control of. Pfft-Bill is taken over in Rule 73:8, causing the split here, I would assume. However, as Pfft-Bill breaks free, Arrgh-Bill is taken over. Should this rule be "split" further? No. I rule that a Rule-Split has occured because of Arrgh-Bill's control (with all the usual consequences of that) but that it's effect on rules from Pfft-Arrgh is redundant because there's no other gamestate to "link" to. So Bill just sli s through with a VALID rule. If you have any problems with this ruling, please post them. Style: +0.5. The final restriction on Invader postings should make life much, much easier for all of us. The temporary misfunction of Invader devices when a gamestate is emptied is nice, but it'll cause a bit more confusion as people are constantly going in and out of Invader control. Overall, the rule is nice but nothing groundbreaking. Rule: 73:11 Poster: Doug Style: +2.5 Validity: VALID >Greetings, FRC members and invaders! This comes to you from the gamestate >of Fez, which was recently invaded, then abandoned, by the Invaders. (Thank >goodness they're gone! All that nonsense about "fighting for the one true >nomic" and "Flat earth t-shirts" quickly becomes irritating.) > >Anyway, my name is Schrodinger and I'd like my cat back in one piece. To >rescue my cat, I'll have to use the Tooth. > >That's right! I and I alone (and only in this Gamestate) have the >one-and-only Tooth. If the Invaders do not send all copies of my cat >(excluding this dead version I have here) to me within 24 hours after this >posting, I'll use the magical properties of the Tooth to remotely destroy >all their precious VOC-Directive devices. > >Oh, don't try to reinvade Fez.... the Tooth will prevent anything except my >cat(s) from entering. Now, FRCers, just to show you all that I haven't >forgotten your theft(s) of my cat(s), the Tooth will also prevent >transmission (in all gamestates, starting 1 minute after this post) of any >_further_ information that would allow you to eliminate the Invaders. > >Have a nice day! >_________ >(rule end) Validity: Follows 73:1 in spades (the tooth and the final paragraph). Fez already existed, so follows 73:2. Follows the "suggestions" of 73:5 perfectly fine. No cat-rescuing or fact-proving, once again, and it's four paragraphs (although it didn't actually need to be) so it follows 73:6. It squeaks by 73:7 by having the Invaders arrive (although the power of the Tooth kicks them back out again.) No Invader postings or VOC use, so satisfies 73:8. No mind control, so passes 73:9. No VOCs, mind control devices, or Invader postings, so again, slips by 73:10. Style: +2.5. I like this rule. First, it brings the round back to the stated theme ("Schrodinger's Cat") by bringing in Mr. Schrodinger. (Geez, how many real-life figures have we had in FRC up til now?) This rule pulls off something very interesting, which is to have only *two* of all eight valid rules actually apply to it, an accomplishment in itself. Bringing the fabled Tooth into the game introduces yet another new element into this round, which is what we need to keep it interesting. The two restrictions are also nice -- both are entirely dependent on the choices of the other three players, and neither screws up the game, but just changes it. The t-shirt bit was just icing on the cake. Rule: 73:12 Poster: Swann Style: +0.5 Validity: VALID >From: Swann in Fez(2) (Supreme Ober-Gretch) >To: Invasion force > >All hail the Tooth! Victory is at hand! Yes, the Supreme One's plan >was as devious as it was cunning. The supreme one gave me a VOC >Directive device, in all appearance to accede to the demands. >We had the dead cats from Swann and Zagreb, and a short excursion by >our omnipotent armies granted us the cat from Tennessee. It was then >child's play to send a lone operative (your humble servant) to rescue >the uncertain cats from the other gamestates that Schrodinger was aware >of when he posted his demands. (Those would be the states of >Nwass, Pfft and Arrgh-- the cats from which all turned out to be >definitely living.) > >[... hey ...] > >I then, according to plan, collected all the cats in one spot in Pfft, >the closest [... what is going on? ...] gamestate to Fez and sent them >through to Schrodinger. As predicted, he immediately used the power of >the Tooth to reunite the felines, his emotions preventing him >[... where am I ...] from realizing that in the process of reuniting the >cat, he reunited the gamestates of Fez, Tennessee, Swann, Zagreb, Nwass, >Pfft and Arrgh. As any child can [... something's wrong ...] predict, >reuniting the cat reunites the gamestates that split from it. > >This of course meant that all Players, Schrodinger, his cat, and the >Tooth were in one _new_ gamestate of Fez(2), surrounded by the entire >Invasion force! Needless to say, we now have control of the Tooth >(and need not heed any more demands . (The man is lucky we let >him keep his cat!)) and only one gamestate from which to rule with it! > >All hail the infallible Ober-Gretch. > >[... This is Swann in Nwass(2) is there anyone out there? ...] >[... This is Swann in Pfft(2) is there anyone out there? ...] >[... This is Swann in Arrgh(2) Is there anyone out there? ...] > >Invasion note: The Supreme Ober-Gretch has commenced the immediate >invasion of the following three gamestates, Nwass(2), Pfft(2) and >Arrgh(2)... Validity: 73:1 is no problem. With the collapsing of the original gamestates into Fez(2), it resulted in a single cat whose state is unknown -- so 73:2 is fine. No real restrictions in 73:5. Since the cat's current status is unknown, all players can be in Fez(2), and the rule is more than four paragraphs, so 73:6 is also fine. Swann lucked out by naming the new state Fez(2) rather than keeping it as Fez -- otherwise, it would try to bring players back to a state which they had already been in, violating 73:8. Since the rule was posted by mind-controlled Swann, it would not cause a gamestate-split a la 73:8. Since Fez(2) has not split, the rule-split of 73:9 is not neccesary. Swann's sending of the rule goes by 73:10. It was posted within 24 hours of 73:11, so VOC devices could be used, and no information is given that would allow the FRC players to defeat the Invaders -- so it fits 73:11. Congrats, another VALID rule. Style: +0.5. I like the technique used to defeat Schrodinger -- very clever! And story-wise, very nice. However, the lack of explanation for the other extant gamestates, and the lack of an actual *restriction*, loses most of those points. /---------------------------Joshua Hall-Bachner---------------------------\ | particle@servtech.com http://www.servtech.com/public/particle/ | | "We all have our idiosyncracies -- maybe thinning hair, or gum disease."| \---- Kowanko, "Will You Come To?" ------ Thank You, And Goodnight. ------/