Professor by day, griefer by night

[kildorn]

I'm don't see how the simplicity argument of Occam's favors "secretly this is all just another layer of testing" over the simpler "he's just kind of a dick" response. Especially with his admission that this entire thing isn't really an experiment at all, he just called it one in the paper for no reason. Unless that's also another layer!

By that logic, conspiracy theories HAVE to be true, because a government coverup is the simplest answer.

[Khaldun]

Maybe it started out that way, but the discussion morphed into how he is a terrible person in general.  Mocking his "shock" at the reaction to him is a just a thinly veiled way to criticize him for his underlying playstyle preference.

Bottom line:  If Cryptic can't even be bothered to have one intern take 15 seconds to post on a message board about how a behavior is illegal/an exploit- well, this thread should properly be about their incompetence, not the reaction of ADD-addled 15 year old COX forumites to a very clumsy troll.   

My commentary on his personality/playstyle entirely stem from his knowing full well in any logical progression (as in, write down steps 1-10 of what you will do, this was the logical and easily assumed case), and continuing to do it anyways, then posturing how he was SHOCKED that anyone would actually take offense at his methods. Knowing full well that he was doing what the social construct in the game would term a "dick move"

Again, just throw out the real life analogies. There's nothing stopping me from showing up at your birthday party with flowers and chocolates for your girlfriend and talking about our hot passionate tryst years ago in gory detail. But the social constructs we have as a society would likely term this a "dick move", and it wouldn't work out well in the end. But it's totally legal to do so!

I'm not seeing how this is passing by people. There is a ton of shit you can do that's entirely within the laws of the country you are in at the moment that are still considered by the society you're surrounded by at the moment as being total douche actions. All he's doing in this "study" is the equivalent of saying "but have you ever been a douchebag... ON THE INTERNET?!"

Look, again, I'm not wild about the methodology or presentation of this particular research. (I especially find a performance of naivete-to-knowingness annoying in someone doing this kind of research, because it either means they didn't read the scholarship at the outset or they're exaggerating to make it seem like they 'discovered' something.) There are far better studies of both cheating and griefing out there.

However, just look at this discussion if you want to get a sense of how messy the intersection of games + rules + social norms + moral beliefs is in general and how messy it can be in any given particular situation. People stay in some games or play contexts even when one participant is a douchebag; they walk away from others when that happens; they seek to punish or restrict a douchebag player in still other contexts. Sometimes people try to change the game or form of play itself to prevent douchebaggery. And sometimes they have long-standing debates about what is or is not douchebaggery. Sometimes we even watch or participate in games where there's a deliberate contrast between douchebag play and "sportsmanlike" play because we like rooting for one side or the other.

Think of all the movies about games and sport where that's the basic storyline, and sometimes we're encouraged to identify with the more cunning rule-breaker because he's smarter or more charismatic than the dully sportsmanlike opponent. Sometimes the person who bends a rule creates an exciting new playstyle--in baseball, when the players were integrated after Jackie Robinson, a lot of older white players complained because the Negro League players stole bases a lot more. It was legal, it was exciting to watch, and it wasn't as if the white players weren't in some cases fast enough. It's just that they had a kind of understanding that it was something you didn't do often. It made the game better when that covenant went into the trash pile. Sometimes people hotly debate where the line between douchebaggery and sportsmanlike play lies. There were a lot of people who hated Muhammed Ali's trash-talking and ring-dancing and rope-a-doping and wanted people to just punch it out like Foreman and Frazier usually did; and then suddenly everyone loved Ali and saw him as legitimately redefining what boxing could or should be.

Cheating/griefing is a really potent zone of intersection between games, rules, the social life of play and our general moral beliefs. I can't imagine why anyone would ever think this is a totally settled, obvious or boring thing to look at (academically or otherwise).

[Nevermore]

Gah.  Now having read his comments I can say this is like the worst idiot professor I've ever encountered.  He speaks of Twixt like some separate entity and using flowery language calls Never a liar.  Yet he takes personal offense at all this, and has been said repeatedly, at people insulting him for behavior his insider knowledge knew would cause such reactions.  I wasn't ever close to being involved and I'm offended just having to listen to his lame, convoluted reasoning.

His idiocy is griefing me.

I only had time to skim over that thread but it didn't seem like he was calling me a liar per se so much as just picking one part of my quote and counterpointing it.  He was technically correct in some of the points in his reply but he was also disingenuous in a lot of it.

There are other counters to TP Foe but only the one grantable buff as I said.  The other defense are:

• A handful of specific powers in a small number of defense sets (not whole archetypes).  I can think of three defense sets offhand out of ten or so sets that originally had it, available to two of the five Villain archetypes (both the melee archetypes), with one or two more added later (which may or may not have been post-Twixt, I don't remember the timing).  Those are the 'always on' powers.  There are also a handful of temporary self buffs that provide protection but that list is even shorter and that's including the one or two 'tier 9s' Myer's is referring to.
• One type of inspiration, which are basically CoX's version of potions: temporary short duration (30 seconds for the common ones, 120 seconds for the largest iirc) buffs.  Since they have to be used proactively and only a limited number of inspirations can be carried (up to 20 of all kinds total) these can be considered a limited couter.
• Invisibility is of course a counter because you can't TP what you can't see.  However, the Drones provide a passive buff to nearby players providing increased perception, allowing them to see invisible characters from a greater range.  The drone buffs stack with each other (Drone density means it's not uncommon to get up to 3 overlapping buffs) and also stack with player perception powers.  Basically, if you aren't a Stalker (Stalkers have a higher Invisibility cap than other archetypes and generally can't be seen with perception buffs) then Invisibility is not a big issue for a TP Droner.  And everyone, including Stalkers, become visible again as soon as they attack something.  This includes the pillbox turrets.  The only way the situation Myers describes where a Stalker ninjas the Alpha pillbox can happen is if all the turrets were already destroyed somehow and Myers wasn't paying attention to the villain that materialized in the center of the pillbox and remains visible for the 10 or so seconds it takes to capture it.
• And of course numbers.  Yes, throw enough people at a problem and you can eventually overcome it.  It should be noted that Teleport Foe has a base recharge time of 20 seconds, easily enhanced to well under 10 seconds.  There are four turrets per pillbox that have to be destroyed and each one has very high resistance to all damage types and a *lot* of hit points.  But technically he's right so good job to you, sir.

That covers the counters he gave that have some merit.  There are a couple of other things he mentioned that don't.  There are no Accolades that provide TP protection.  I would invite him to name the one he thinks does.  While it's true that Teleport Foe has an accuracy check, Defense powers (those that lower the opponent's chance to hit as opposed to Resistance powers which are those that reduce damage) offered very little protection due to the way game mechanics worked at the time.  Without getting into the complexities of exactly how hit checks worked in CoX (Accuracy was a separate stat from To Hit, for example.  It was pretty non-intuitive) it was very easy to overcome Defense in PvP.  Myer's various Twixt characters had access to Build Up, Tactics, Insight inspirations amongst other abilities that easily overwhelmed even the highest Defense when stacked.  The problem was so bad that when PvP was redesigned as part of Issue 13 (aka: the issue when Twixt bailed out on the game because his tactic became much more difficult to accomplish), changing the way the hit formulas work in PvP so Defense wasn't so easy to overcome was one of the priorities.

As for smarts, I realize no one could possibly hope to rival his own intellect so I'd love to hear what other tactics could be used besides all the other ones already listed.  Oh, you mean that was just included as a cheap shot to imply people are just too stupid to beat him and it wasn't because of an enormous game mechanics advantage he was abusing?  Sorry, I'm not smart enough to have picked up on that.  Then again, I'm not the one who's had a pillbox stolen right out from under my nose by a Stalker that had to be visible for 10 seconds to do it.

Edit: If he's going to nitpick, so can I. /shrug

[Amarr HM]

I'm don't see how the simplicity argument of Occam's favors "secretly this is all just another layer of testing" over the simpler "he's just kind of a dick" response. Especially with his admission that this entire thing isn't really an experiment at all, he just called it one in the paper for no reason. Unless that's also another layer!

By that logic, conspiracy theories HAVE to be true, because a government coverup is the simplest answer.

Maybe you should post this admission for us, instead of telling me about it, the wordiness of this thread is enough without having to trawl through external ones.

"The chilling text shook Myers two years ago. It served as a telling detail for his ongoing study of social customs in Internet gaming communities.

At the time of his clash with Syphris, Myers was just three months into an in-depth behavioral study of the "City of Heroes/Villains"" online community. Already, someone had threatened to unearth his real identity and take his life."


That's what I'm going on and it's definitely the most logical assertion here, I'm not even gonna entertain your last comment it's so ludicrous.

[kildorn]

Look, again, I'm not wild about the methodology or presentation of this particular research. (I especially find a performance of naivete-to-knowingness annoying in someone doing this kind of research, because it either means they didn't read the scholarship at the outset or they're exaggerating to make it seem like they 'discovered' something.) There are far better studies of both cheating and griefing out there.

However, just look at this discussion if you want to get a sense of how messy the intersection of games + rules + social norms + moral beliefs is in general and how messy it can be in any given particular situation. People stay in some games or play contexts even when one participant is a douchebag; they walk away from others when that happens; they seek to punish or restrict a douchebag player in still other contexts. Sometimes people try to change the game or form of play itself to prevent douchebaggery. And sometimes they have long-standing debates about what is or is not douchebaggery. Sometimes we even watch or participate in games where there's a deliberate contrast between douchebag play and "sportsmanlike" play because we like rooting for one side or the other.

Think of all the movies about games and sport where that's the basic storyline, and sometimes we're encouraged to identify with the more cunning rule-breaker because he's smarter or more charismatic than the dully sportsmanlike opponent. Sometimes the person who bends a rule creates an exciting new playstyle--in baseball, when the players were integrated after Jackie Robinson, a lot of older white players complained because the Negro League players stole bases a lot more. It was legal, it was exciting to watch, and it wasn't as if the white players weren't in some cases fast enough. It's just that they had a kind of understanding that it was something you didn't do often. It made the game better when that covenant went into the trash pile. Sometimes people hotly debate where the line between douchebaggery and sportsmanlike play lies. There were a lot of people who hated Muhammed Ali's trash-talking and ring-dancing and rope-a-doping and wanted people to just punch it out like Foreman and Frazier usually did; and then suddenly everyone loved Ali and saw him as legitimately redefining what boxing could or should be.

Cheating/griefing is a really potent zone of intersection between games, rules, the social life of play and our general moral beliefs. I can't imagine why anyone would ever think this is a totally settled, obvious or boring thing to look at (academically or otherwise).

Can douchebaggery eventually evolve into a new social norm? Of course. It doesn't mean that you should be surprised that initially people will call you a douchebag for it, however.

My main annoyance at this is that it's being expressed in the stupid form of "look, people who play VIDEO games have social constructs and get all pissy when I violate them!" instead of the rather obvious removal of VIDEO, or even games, and understanding that the study of social constructs, the evolution of social rules of behavior and such are all fascinating and worthy of study.

But what isn't worthy of study is the blindingly obvious when not backed up by any scientific method or even seeming to start as an experiment, and starring the researcher. At this point, the study has about as much of a scientific basis on the study of cultural reactions to situations outside the social norm as Borat. While it could be interesting, it's more entertaining due to it's complete lack of any meaningful data correlation.

[kildorn]

I'm don't see how the simplicity argument of Occam's favors "secretly this is all just another layer of testing" over the simpler "he's just kind of a dick" response. Especially with his admission that this entire thing isn't really an experiment at all, he just called it one in the paper for no reason. Unless that's also another layer!

By that logic, conspiracy theories HAVE to be true, because a government coverup is the simplest answer.

Maybe you should post this admission for us, instead of telling me about it, the wordiness of this thread is enough without having to trawl through external ones.

"The chilling text shook Myers two years ago. It served as a telling detail for his ongoing study of social customs in Internet gaming communities.

At the time of his clash with Syphris, Myers was just three months into an in-depth behavioral study of the "City of Heroes/Villains"" online community. Already, someone had threatened to unearth his real identity and take his life."


That's what I'm going on and it's definitely the most logical assertion here, I'm not even gonna entertain your last comment it's so ludicrous.

You know, I regret ever saying this was an "experiment" in the paper. That description was supposed to reference an analogous set of studies -- Garfinkelings -- that indeed have some similarities to what I was doing, but also have some important differences.

I addressed this issue on my blog way back, but I won't go and find the comment -- it's there somewhere. What I said then, as I remember, more or less, was that this was more of an investigative journalism piece.

Was it an experiment? I don't think so. It was more like an endurance test.

DMeyers, Jul 09, 2009 at 22:09

From Lum's link, where he defends himself against people assaulting the scientific value of his study. Essentially that he violated pretty much every rule for a study he possibly could. At that point he cops to it not really being an experiment.

The simplest answer: he was being a douchebag and violating the social norms of the social group he was playing a game with. He wrote down his experiences. He then calls it an experiment, promptly regrets calling it that, and the reality is he was a douchebag who wrote the equivalent of a blog about it.

[Amarr HM]

Yes that just refers to fact it wasn't an "experiment" which means he used the wrong wording but this is only a self-deconstruction of what he was actually doing, investigative journalism or research for a case study whatever you want to call it. This doesn't take away from the fact that being a douchebag is not a logical answer, why was he being a douchebag? people aren't just douchebags there's a reasoning behind it, in fact I would call that more of a conspiracy theory. He was a douchebag because his dog just died etc. opens up assumptions so Occam's Razor can't apply to that.

Although I can see some of points being made he seemed to take particular glee in what he was doing, so he was probably a douchebag that found a logical reason to behave like one. Again though this is only an assumption on my part.

[Lantyssa]

Occam's points to the other direction actually, simplest answer being he did it for an ongoing case study. Being a douchebag is far too vague, why would someone especially a college professor continually do a cheap trick over and over just for the sake of it? Being a douchebag leads to far too many other questions or assumptions which is against the principle of Occam's razor as you should know.

Since it keeps being missed, there is not a single review board in this country (or many others) that would approve of this as a study the way it was conducted.

It was most definately not scholarly research.

[Nevermore]

By that way, now that I've had time to read it more it looks like a great conversation going on over there at Terra Nova.  A lot of people in that discussion get it.

[Amarr HM]

Since it keeps being missed, there is not a single review board in this country (or many others) that would approve of this as a study the way it was conducted.

It was most definately not scholarly research.

That doesn't make it illogical just means he broke the mould.

[Lum]

I'm don't see how the simplicity argument of Occam's favors "secretly this is all just another layer of testing" over the simpler "he's just kind of a dick" response. Especially with his admission that this entire thing isn't really an experiment at all, he just called it one in the paper for no reason. Unless that's also another layer!

By that logic, conspiracy theories HAVE to be true, because a government coverup is the simplest answer.

Maybe you should post this admission for us, instead of telling me about it, the wordiness of this thread is enough without having to trawl through external ones.

"The chilling text shook Myers two years ago. It served as a telling detail for his ongoing study of social customs in Internet gaming communities.

At the time of his clash with Syphris, Myers was just three months into an in-depth behavioral study of the "City of Heroes/Villains"" online community. Already, someone had threatened to unearth his real identity and take his life."


That's what I'm going on and it's definitely the most logical assertion here, I'm not even gonna entertain your last comment it's so ludicrous.

Myers' post history on the CoH boards is far older than 2 years. The newspaper quote above is incorrect. He may have been calling it a study by then but he was playing CoH (and posting on their forums) since at least 2004.

As pointed out in the comment thread for the newspaper article, the reporter failed to do any actual research on this story at all, such as contacting any of the people Dr. Myers interacted with or NCsoft itself. To put it mildly, the Times-Picayune doesn't have a reputation for stellar reporting standards.

[Nevermore]

I'm don't see how the simplicity argument of Occam's favors "secretly this is all just another layer of testing" over the simpler "he's just kind of a dick" response. Especially with his admission that this entire thing isn't really an experiment at all, he just called it one in the paper for no reason. Unless that's also another layer!

By that logic, conspiracy theories HAVE to be true, because a government coverup is the simplest answer.

Maybe you should post this admission for us, instead of telling me about it, the wordiness of this thread is enough without having to trawl through external ones.

"The chilling text shook Myers two years ago. It served as a telling detail for his ongoing study of social customs in Internet gaming communities.

At the time of his clash with Syphris, Myers was just three months into an in-depth behavioral study of the "City of Heroes/Villains"" online community. Already, someone had threatened to unearth his real identity and take his life."


That's what I'm going on and it's definitely the most logical assertion here, I'm not even gonna entertain your last comment it's so ludicrous.

Myers' post history on the CoH boards is far older than 2 years. The newspaper quote above is incorrect. He may have been calling it a study by then but he was playing CoH (and posting on their forums) since at least 2004.

Registered on 06/21/04 10:33 AM

Fasque was his forum name.  He used to like to post about his exploits there in the form of bad poetry.  Sadly, almost all of his old posts have been lost to forum maintenance.

Edit:

As pointed out in the comment thread for the newspaper article, the reporter failed to do any actual research on this story at all, such as contacting any of the people Dr. Myers interacted with or NCsoft itself. To put it mildly, the Times-Picayune doesn't have a reputation for stellar reporting standards.

They can PM me here. 

[kildorn]

I'm really failing to see how the simple answer to the guy is "it's all secretly another study" and not "for whatever reason, he likes playing in a way that the social construct of his chosen game considers to be bad behavior"

Can't someone just be antisocial? His posting on TN seems to indicate someone who just HATES the idea of social constructs and social lubrication rules. Sure, we can get into the idea that maybe that's all an act, too, but that seems rather complicated and runs directly contrary to everything he posts.

[Lum]

Registered on 06/21/04 10:33 AM

Fasque was his forum name.  He used to like to post about his exploits there in the form of bad poetry.  Sadly, almost all of his old posts have been lost to forum maintenance.

He archived his poetry.

[amiable]

That doesn't make it illogical just means he broke the mould.

It kind of does.  Review boards exist to make certain that:

1. Research has value and
2. Research conforms to certain ethical standards

I have no idea why you are defending him Amarr, he is the worst kind of douche, one who can't accept the consequences of his actions.  I (and I'm pretty sure you) have engaged in plenty of "griefing" behavior in EvE, but we both accepted that folks weren't going to like us for it.  That's the whole point!  To generate a reaction!

[Nevermore]

Can't someone just be antisocial? His posting on TN seems to indicate someone who just HATES the idea of social constructs and social lubrication rules.

It's just a small, loud-mouthed, self-centered pack of bullies, Richard. It's a bunch of squatters. It's a bunch of campers who got to RV first and camped it with their bully rules and their bully values and their bully society.

These aren't the same players who complained about Fansy the Famous Bard; those players had a beef. These are the people who swarm the gamer forums with their pseudonyms and their profanities; these are the same people who have tried, over and over again, to run Prok-ofy Neva into the ground.

You can't call these people players, because they don't play the game. Guess you have to call them The Society.

Ya think?

[Amarr HM]

That doesn't make it illogical just means he broke the mould.

It kind of does.  Review boards exist to make certain that:

1. Research has value and
2. Research conforms to certain ethical standards

I have no idea why you are defending him Amarr, he is the worst kind of douche, one who can't accept the consequences of his actions.  I (and I'm pretty sure you) have engaged in plenty of "griefing" behavior in EvE, but we both accepted that folks weren't going to like us for it.  That's the whole point!  To generate a reaction!

Just cause the review board doesn't think it of value doesn't mean it isn't of value, that's why conforming to these governing bodies isn't always the answer. As 10101011 said earlier he tried to do something similar and got knocked back. I can't tell you whether it's valuable research as I haven't investigated it further but I do think it's an interesting topic and has obviously struck a small chord in the gaming community, so from that perspective it holds some value. I'm not really whiteknighting him, but I am definitely not agreeing with some of the ad hominem being thrown around, it remains to be seen for me whether he's a douchebag or not.

I don't grief, it implies doing something without any reasoning just to piss someone off. I did a fair amount suicide ganking cause I was really well skilled for it and it was highly profitable. I did take some enjoyment out of it at the same time, but generally only if the other person was a douchebag after I did it. Sometimes people were nice to me and I helped them out a little but very rarely, as they were likely just douchebags metagaming to get their stuff back.

[Lantyssa]

Just cause the review board doesn't think it of value doesn't mean it isn't of value, that's why conforming to these governing bodies isn't always the answer.

The fuck?

The boards don't exist to determine the value, they exist to make sure it's ethical.  Were he really trying to turn this into an actual study and bypassed the board, his tenure would be up for review.  It's not a matter one can just skirt because the board "doesn't get it".

He isn't interested in research though, he's interested in writing a book.  For that he can write down whatever gibberish he wants and obtain the materials in whatever fashion he wants.  He just hopes to fool people about it's value by saying he 'studied' the matter.  From a scholarly perspective it is absolute rubbish, yet you're buying into it.

[Amarr HM]

Who cares what this so called review board thinks? He's welcome to write a book as far as I'm concerned. I'm also not necessarily buying into it, but I sure ain't buying into the fact that a 50 odd year old Loyola Professor would continually get his rocks off griefing some idiots in a Superhero game, unless he was doing it for some external purpose

[cironian]

Who cares what this so called review board thinks? He's welcome to write a book as far as I'm concerned. I'm also not necessarily buying into it, but I sure ain't buying into the fact that a 50 odd year old Loyola Professor would continually get his rocks off griefing some idiots in a Superhero game, unless he was doing it for some external purpose

You think people magically stop being assholes once they hit 50?

[Musashi]

Registered on 06/21/04 10:33 AM

Fasque was his forum name.  He used to like to post about his exploits there in the form of bad poetry.  Sadly, almost all of his old posts have been lost to forum maintenance.

He archived his poetry.

You gotta give it up for artful trolling.

[Nevermore]

There's an age limit on griefing?  There exists some very mean-spirited, spiteful people and some very large egos in academia.

[Lum]

One of the first things you discover when working in MMOs is that the stereotype of the grief player as a whiny teenager in their parents' basement is wrong.

A month after DAOC shipped, we had a middle-aged lawyer who burned his frequent flier miles to fly out to our office to demand in person that his banning be revoked. (I'm fairly certain it wasn't.)

[Amarr HM]

There's an age limit on griefing?  There exists some very mean-spirited, spiteful people and some very large egos in academia.

Depends on what your meaning of griefing is here, if you mean the pure sense that there is no obvious reason just for pure lols, then I would say yes, but this is not necessarily to do with age you're leaving out the college professor part. If you were to say he hated his students so went home and griefed a load of people who he considered a similar mindset/age bracket in an attempt to let off a bit of steam, then I would say it's quite possible but only an assumption.

[Nebu]

I think the point is that assholes come in all shapes, sizes, and educational backgrounds. 

[Amarr HM]

Ok if you are gonna simplify it, why would he behave like an asshole then?

[Prospero]

Cuz he's an asshole? Maybe a bored asshole? Maybe a bored asshole who thinks he can make some money talking about video games? Sanity is not a reigning characteristic amongst academics of any age.

[Nebu]

Ok if you are gonna simplify it, why would he behave like an asshole then?

Many people can only feel better about themselves by stepping on the heads of others.  This can be by insults, physical abuse, berating, griefing, etc. 

Hell, you can see examples of this daily in the Politics forums on these very boards. 

[Nevermore]

As was pointed out earlier, his postings seem to indicate a hatred of the idea of social constructs and social lubrication rules.  What better way to express that than to shit all over said constructs in an MMO.

[tmp]

Just out of curiosity because i know next to nothing about sanctified methods of research... what would be the "proper" way to test how people react in situations where someone is breaking for prolonged time a social norm they've grown used to take for granted? I mean, people in comments are raising objections the subjects were not informed beforehand and the practice wasn't stopped as soon as they requested it, but wouldn't either of these things affect the results?

[kildorn]

Or to step back and use his own study's general point:

Why not just be an asshole for no reason? Nothing actually says you can't just be a raging douchebag for no reason.

Really though, I'm sure there's always a reason for every asshole. But do we really want to take a trek down imagining his childhood to find out where he was touched? Or can we simply accept in this case that he apparently dislikes social constructs for ____ unknown reason, and as a result, he enjoyed fucking with the social construct in a game.

[Bzalthek]

Have to side with "sometimes a dick is just a dick."  Even if it was something he was researching, that doesn't dismiss the dick scenario.  He could very well have decided to do this research as justification (to himself) to be a dick.

[Dtrain]

Slow news month or something?

tl;dr version:
Bad game design and assholes - crapping on your MMO since 199X.
Assholes - crapping on you for a lot longer than that.
Somehow these revelations are shocking.

[Montague]

Given the reactions here and elsewhere I think the most salient point is that this reinforces yet again that when people say they want MEANINGFUL PVP (whatever that is) they don't really mean it.

[Amarr HM]

I think the media interest stems mainly from the real life death threats he received which likely haven't been documented in this way before. Oh for sure you say we've all experienced this, but if we were to take those death threats as seriously as some of you are taking Myer's in game behaviour then a lot of people should also be on police record.