804 replies to this topic

[Ethan Kell]

I want to throw out a friendly reminder that Battletech started out as a war game, and that the role-playing aspect of the game wasn't added until later.

I think everyone should also be ready for the eventuality that the role-players will be in an extreme minority and that this game is going to draw people who just want to blow stuff up, or the people who enjoyed the war-gaming aspect of this more than the role-playing (that's me).

[Marowi]

Actually, let me take a stab at this. Here's the Marowi Vagueness Chart:

Northwind Highlanders:

Ghaidhealtachd Guards -- Super okay
Hadrian's Wall -- Clearly okay
Glasgow's Grenadiers -- Clearly okay
Black Bear Highlanders -- Okay
Northwind Regulars -- Okay
Northwind's Own -- Most likely okay
MacLeod's Highlanders -- Pushing it
Kearny Highlanders -- Over the line (A unit within the NWH? Come on!)
Northwind's Highlanders -- lol
Northwind Highlanders -- Critical Hit

Edited by Marowi, 05 May 2012 - 08:02 AM.

[Jaroth Corbett]

Christopher Dayson, on 05 May 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

Ok so how about this:

STOP TRYING TO GET CLOSE.

Just make something 100% original.

It's not hard. Say (completely off the top of my head) Finn's Green Lightning

They can have the exact same sort of scottish personality and history (Cuz believe it or not, there was a LOT more scottish derivative people than on Northwind alone) but be from a different planet. It can even be a similar planet or it can be different.

My point is there is more than one way to skin a cat. NWHL for example has been going on and on about it being based on a RL army unit, and their heritage and whatnot.

Wicked Cool.

My heritage is Blackfoot and Sioux Native, I 'get behind' characters (when they're done well anyways) of that sort of background because I can relate to it.

That doesn't mean I can't make my own Merc Company, have it come from a planet of my own making, where one of those tribes took over and settled.

Nothing's stopping anyone else either.

Just be original.

The point is I have read the sourcebooks & novels, have grown to like/love certain units & want the oppotunity to play as said unit. I have no problem not being in control. On the contrary, in my draft proposal about the introduction of the Clans, I want the top positions filled by either the devs or AI. From what I have read on the forums, there are LOTS of people that want the same thing. Yes there are the ******** that want to claim an entire Faction for themselves but they seem to be in the minority, not the majority.

If you have Clan Wolf e.g you have Alpha Galaxy, Beta Galaxy etc. & sub-units within those units e.g 4th Battle Cluster, 13th Battle Cluster etc. All I am saying is, if this is supposed to be a retelling & not a reenactment, what is the problem? If we are writing our own history & the outcome of events can be changed then WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

Maybe the Falcon Guards do not lose on Twycross...... Maybe the Wolves win the Refusal War........ Maybe there is no Refusal War..................Maybe the Clans win on Tukayyid.........Maybe there is no need for Tukayyid............Maybe the Clans take Terra

If this is supposed to be OUR experience then let us embody the units that played active parts in the story of the BT universe & cast history to the winds.

[Marowi]

You will still be able to "embody" the units, you will just not be able to control them, their targets, or their membership. If the issue is one of joining these units, then everything that we have heard indicates that we will all be able to do so. By joining them and fighting for them, we will get to "embody" them. However, if what you mean by "embodiment" is actually control--over customs, behavior, targets, or membership--then that is clearly inappropriate because there is no mechanism for fairly deciding which specific players will get to do so. In other words, are you saying you just want to fight for Clan Wolf, or are you saying you want to be Khan of Clan Wolf? The former is okay and will be allowed, the latter is not regardless of whether this game will let us "forge our own path" or not.

Edited by Marowi, 05 May 2012 - 08:24 AM.

[Samuel Maxwell]

I'm relieved that canon names are untouchable. I'd never have joined those units anyway. The devs made a good choice for allowing players to start from bottom up.

[Thorn Hallis]

I must have missed the post where a developer said that a unit with an original name (i.e. not even close to canon) claiming affiliation with a canon merc outfit would be renamed. And where did this "banned"-part come from?

[Eagle HH]

I feel all the points have been made and all of the good ideas have been meantioned. The devs have what they need to understand the concerns, I guess it's hard for people to understand that and will continue posting about their side of the argument as if it will grant them a winning position with the devs. Just let it be, what the hell would be so wrong if the devs decided to give some clarification on this matter? There would be nothing wrong with that! So stop arguing for the sake of arguing already.

Marowi, on 05 May 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

Actually, let me take a stab at this. Here's the Marowi Vagueness Chart:

Northwind Highlanders:

Ghaidhealtachd Guards -- Super okay
Hadrian's Wall -- Clearly okay
Glasgow's Grenadiers -- Clearly okay
Black Bear Highlanders -- Okay
Northwind Regulars -- Okay
Northwind's Own -- Most likely okay
MacLeod's Highlanders -- Pushing it
Kearny Highlanders -- Over the line (A unit within the NWH? Come on!)
Northwind's Highlanders -- lol
Northwind Highlanders -- Critical Hit

Marowi, as much as you think you are helping the matter I feel people might be keen enough by now to name their unit based on what PGI deems as acceptable and not how the guy from the MWO forums interprets the policy to be.

Thanks,

[Sassori]

Jaroth Winson, on 05 May 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

The point is I have read the sourcebooks & novels, have grown to like/love certain units & want the oppotunity to play as said unit. I have no problem not being in control. On the contrary, in my draft proposal about the introduction of the Clans, I want the top positions filled by either the devs or AI. From what I have read on the forums, there are LOTS of people that want the same thing. Yes there are the ******** that want to claim an entire Faction for themselves but they seem to be in the minority, not the majority.

If you have Clan Wolf e.g you have Alpha Galaxy, Beta Galaxy etc. & sub-units within those units e.g 4th Battle Cluster, 13th Battle Cluster etc. All I am saying is, if this is supposed to be a retelling & not a reenactment, what is the problem? If we are writing our own history & the outcome of events can be changed then WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

Maybe the Falcon Guards do not lose on Twycross...... Maybe the Wolves win the Refusal War........ Maybe there is no Refusal War..................Maybe the Clans win on Tukayyid.........Maybe there is no need for Tukayyid............Maybe the Clans take Terra

If this is supposed to be OUR experience then let us embody the units that played active parts in the story of the BT universe & cast history to the winds.

You're wanting more interaction from the dev's in regards to the mercenary units than other games get in full RPG games online. It's pretty much not going to happen. I am all for wanting a more RPG experience, but, we're really not going to get it. MW:O is all about the giant mech fighting part. Anything /beyond/ that is up to us.

Instead of trying to re-imagine what might happen with the GDL, Wolf's Dragoons, Highlanders or anyone else in the novels/books/source, instead you get to make a completely original merc unit and be /BETTER/ than those guys we've read about. It's an opportunity to /completely surpass/ what was written.

I understand that people want to play what they think is 'cool' or have grown attached to. I get it. I really do, however when the guys running the game say 'No.' you play by their rules, or you don't play.

Inspiration is awesome, Plagiarism sucks.

[Nighthound]

This will be a long one ..... sorry!

Marowi, on 05 May 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

I think we're just talking past each other at this point, but I'll give it one last try. You just said two things: (1) "if you claim to have some affiliation with a canon unit" and (2) or "if a CSR believes your unit name infers association to a canon unit", then you will be forced to rename your unit. (1) is the obvious and seemingly-agreed upon prohibition against player control of canon factions or units. (2) is the proscription against circumvention. This is not vague. This is why complaints about "vagueness" from the same people (from the same unit, I've only now just noticed) are a red herring, because point (1) deals with people trying unfairly to exert control over canon faction and unit names and point (2) deals with people attempting to circumvent the proscription against point (1). This policy is far from "unheard" of, rather it seems to be the mainstay of online gaming. If you want to see the official CSR guidelines, then you should wait until the rule is finalized. But even if you get to see them, you already know that you will not be allowed to call yourselves the "Northwind Highlanders" or any variation thereof. If you want to be from adjective=Northwind, then you will obviously have to choose a different noun from Highlander. Give me an example of a name you think is truly "vague" under this policy, and why.

I think we can skip the whole (1) part as clearly anyone (except the Devs and GMs) who want's to be in control over these units is of their rocker. I would even go so far as being against the posibility of joining them through any means .... why?
Because they will have to play a Part in the History to come. (If and thats on big if they will allow us to change the future then thats something completely different and I have not seen one scrap of Information that suggests this, but a lot that inforces the belief that they will stick to history) Take for example the Kell Hounds, they are one of the first Units to encounter the Clans on the Rock. Do you realy think the Devs would allow you to play that? And how could that be fair to all the other players out there who would want that chance? Same goes for the 12th Donegal Guards and all the others like them. So this clearly has to be of the Table.

Now to point (2). This is the point we are all kind of fighting over, because one man's circumvention is a nother ones Bad Luck at this Point. I concede that with Merc Units it is kind of difficult because they mostly use just words. But let's see if I can come up with some stuff ..... Sarna Highlanders? Northwind Fusseliers? Black Death Legion? Grey Death Battalion? Light Eridani Pony? Heavy Eridany Horse? Kell Dogs? ..... are those circumventions? You have to be a mind reader to determine that! ..... take for instance the Black Death Legion .... this is double Jeopardy because it could refer to the Grey Death Legion or the Black Knight Legion. This has to be some kind of record, I can't think of anything where intent is punishable.
Don't get me wrong (Don't know how many times I said this now) I am against player controled canon units! So, Grey Death Legion is of the Table, all the other colors are (or better should be) ok. To make it realy crass I now leave BattleTech to try to make my Point as understandable as I can.

Microsoft ..... can't do that it is registered ...... Microhard, Macrosoft .... are not (damn it I just googled them they are too .... but I think you get my Point because those are two different companies)

50th Armored Devision ..... can't do that they exist(ed) ...... 51st Armored Division ..... does not (at least not officially)

Blackwater Security Consulting ..... no go ....... Whitewash Security Conulting .... should be ok (at least until they come calling because they don't like the joke)

Mordred ... no go, half fictional Character ..... MoreDread .... sounds alike, is surely a circumvention but is actually two words stuck together.

I repeat myself but there is no way around it ..... If you change just one Word or one Number, sometimes even a few letters it becomes something different, and you have to be a mindreader to imply circumvention or intention. How many Words and Numbers do you think are on this 5965 Unit list? Do you wan't to disallow all of them just to be on the safe side? That surely can't be the case! What about Words and Numbers that are to close to those on the list? What about translations? If you start to go down this path you have to ban ALL Numbers for starters as there are 100s if not 1000s of Units with Numbers in them, you have to ban ALL Military designations as those are also plentyfull.
As I have stated before (as a suggestion to the Devs) .... take that Unit List and be done with it, everything else will get you in trouble with a whole bunch of people.

Marowi, on 05 May 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

And you should be able to do this! I assume that you have read everything the devs have said closely, and nothing that has been said contradicts this position. However, what confuses me is why the entirety of your post before this point argues for a different proposition--that, either, the rule is vague, or, players should be able to claim or infer association with canon units. You can't have it both ways. I'm not convinced by the former argument, and I think it's a waste of our time and the devs', but if there's a really good argument for the latter that we haven't seen or considered, then I think we should hear it! We haven't, in my opinion, not yet.

Agreed no claiming of canon units what so ever. But where is the harm in associating? I am a former member of Group xy, does that mean anything? Not to me it does. If the Northwind Runaways wan't to be THAT .... let them. I can in no way see any harm in that .... (sorry to turn the table on you, but) please tell me if there is just one good reason why this would be wrong!

Marowi, on 05 May 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

We do understand that you want to roleplay a canon mercenary unit. I want to roleplay a Swedenese brawler. I will get to. I think you should get to, too. This is why I think that the "major" mercenary factions should be join-able units within the mercenary "house". That will give you the same rights and privileges afforded to us house players, but obviously you will have to surrender control. That's only fair.

As I said above, any kind of player involvement in any kind of canon unit should be restricted, because there is just no fair way to guarantee equality. If you would need xxxxxx Loyalty Points to join one special specific canon unit, that would mean 100s of players would wan't to join that unit as this unit will do something special in the next few days. Who do you allow to join? First come first serve? How many can be in this Unit at the same time? What happens if the event has come and gone? Will this Unit be an empty shell because all those players now jump to the next unit which does something special? Problems without end. Again a suggestion .... everything or nothing. Allow player controled canon units (I'm against that) or disallow player involvement in canon units all together, otherwise you will have "Why them and not me?" and "Why didn't you do it another way?" Stuff to fight with.

Either way, draw a Line, make it a good one, maybe explain why you drew it there and stick to it!

Edited by Nighthound, 05 May 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[Marowi]

Eagle: the point is that they are claiming that they aren't "keen enough by now to name their unit based on what PGI deems as acceptable"--that's ridiculous, and I think I'm allowed to illustrate that. Also, there's no reason to be snide.

Edited by Marowi, 05 May 2012 - 08:55 AM.

[Eagle HH]

Marowi: To say they aren't keen because they have questions and would like to see something written in greater detail is what is ridiculous. You offer no solution to the mentioned concern and you amongst many others insult with the idea that "This is how the devs want it, get over it." and "It is very clear." and "be original." so forgive me if I am snide for being insulted with useless ideas and perceptions and leave the "This is how it shall be." for the devs.

[Opus]

And Another Smoldering Ember....

[wwiiogre]

Samuel Maxwell, on 05 May 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

I'm relieved that canon names are untouchable. I'd never have joined those units anyway. The devs made a good choice for allowing players to start from bottom up.

So does this mean you are giving up Rasalhague? since Rasalhague is a known canon House/Faction? I would love to be able to start from the bottom up in NWH. You get to, Steiner players get to, Davion players get to, Liao players get to, Marik Players get to, Kurita players get to, All players of the invading clans will get to. Mercs players that want that same connection, ooops frac off.

Rasalhague is a Canon name and by your own statement should be untouchable as should any clan or any house.So if we take the current rule applied only to known canon/merc corps names and apply it to the entire universe perhaps some of you would be singing a different tune. Yet, it is only applied to a small section of the community, not all. And it is not fair. All of us would be happy to start in the faction NWH, GDL, WD, KH etc, knowing that if we joined that unit and our friends joined that unit we would still get to play together, meaning in mission without being sorted with random player 213,000. Same as in any modern multiplayer game online that allows drops with friends/squads/etc.

Wait but that is not what PGI said, they said you can't have known merc names, everyone else can or associate with all of the Clans and Houses.

Which in the end is what we are talking about. We do not want control, merely to be able to play for the Merc unit we like.

Christopher Drayson is a House Steiner Faction player, Marowi Rasalhague, Samuel Maxwell Rasalhague, etc, etc, etc. Love the fact you guys specifically say its ok to not let people play known units. So please practice what you preach and be a lone wolf. Otherwise, your argument is intellectually dishonest and your continued posts appear to be antagonistic.

Note I did not single you three out as an attack but as an example and I apologize upfront if this in some way offended you. It is not meant that way but is merely to make a point. A point that continues to be ignored. Some here continue to make the you cannot control x merc unit. That is not the issue. Never was, it is a red herring argument being put forward to say its a good idea. There might have been one or two munchkins running around claiming they are the only Il Kahn of some clan or that they are Grayson Death themselves. But those are rare and fringe.

Thanks all for the wonderful and thoughtful comments.

Chris

[Marowi]

Eagle: We've talked about a lot of solutions; but what's really going on here is an attempt to clarify the issue. Is it about vagueness? That's kind of silly because the rule hasn't even been finalized yet. Is it about player control of canon units? The devs have stated their position and the community, more or less as a whole, purports to have come to a consensus that players should not control canon factions or units. Nevertheless, there are still unhappy parties. Are they unhappy about the policy or the (non-existent) "implementation"? It's just not clear. You're right, I haven't offered a solution save for, what I think, is the good compromise of join-able famous mercenary units within the mercenary "house", but as far as the NWH parties' concerns, no one can "offer a solution" unless the question is clear. I'm just showing why it isn't clear, and asking for what would make it clear. We're not trying to be insulting; we're just trying to approach this whole conversation with humor, sure, some of it at the expense of others. You shouldn't try to be insulting, either. If you don't think that I or anyone else has anything to add to this, then don't read! Simple solution, buddy.

Also, consider that a major issue here has to do with circumvention. Maybe a lot of us would be way more sympathetic to the NWH parties' position if it didn't come off as such a thinly-veiled attempt at circumvention of a rule that doesn't even exist yet. "Well, would Northwind be okay?" I'm not saying that's what it is; but I am saying that's what a lot of people will interpret it to be. Their position would be a lot stronger if they waited until the game was released and then tried to use an alternate unit name and then were rejected. Like everyone else who is going to have that problem. Then they would have a legitimate grievance; as it stands what they're asking for is pre-emptive, ad hoc adjudication of their specific issue. As it stands I still think a lot of people want the devs to pre-emptively "okay" names or parts of a unit name and I think that's just unrealistic. Is it crazy for me to suggest this? This is being too harsh? There's a difference between poo-poo'ing roleplaying and poo-poo'ing what are, right now, unreasonable demands.

EDIT: Nighthound: I think it's interesting that we disagree at all, since it seems that you're even more dead-set against player control of canon faction or units than I am. I respect your position on that and I don't take issue with it. But what I want to point out is that there are two layers to the "association" problem. (1) Intent to associate and (2) reasonable interpretation of association. If you're dead-set against any player-control over canon factions, then creating a unit that purports to associate with a canon unit should be off-limits. The "Renegade" Northwind Highlanders would still have implications for the story, right? Clearly, that group would intend to associate with the Northwind Highlanders, and it would be reasonable for other players to interpret them as associating. When it comes to enforcement, however, no one is going to admit to "intent" to associate--assuming that association is what we're going to control. It will all come down to whether it's reasonable to interpret a name as association.

Is association something that we want to control? If I understand you right, then the answer is yes, because a strict "no player control over canon factions" rule would bar even association. (Why should some people have total control over the Gray Death Legion's "associates", for example? Here they're still assuming a lot of in-game authority that they're not entitled to.) I also think that's the only rule that doesn't devolve into a shades of gray problem; it's absolute liability, and is easily workable from the CSR standpoint.

Opus: lol

EDIT 2: wiiogre: I'm not offended, but I want to point out that my association with Rasalhague is a trade-off. I get to put the badge on, but I don't get to control the unit. I'm not policing who joins Rasalhague, and I'm not claiming any rights over other players that I'm not entitled to. I think my suggestion of doing the same for the Big Mercs would afford you all the same rights. But, is it the control that you really want? You should make this clear.

Edited by Marowi, 05 May 2012 - 10:23 AM.

[Elder St00bert]

Perhaps it would have been a better idea for Bryan, PGI, et al to have just asked the uber-lords of the BT universe to come up with an ELE in 31-whateveryeartheloreisatrightnow, and start over from scratch, Post-ELE.

No Clans, no Houses, no Merc Corps. Just us 90,000 smarties who got underground with everything our mechs & trucks could carry. Then we get to decide where it goes from there. 'Cause some of this is just gettin' ridonkulous.

[Eagle HH]

Marowi: I agree with you here... and you just have to understand that for people that go with a certain name and wait until the release of the game to find out they have to rename can be disheartening and at the expense of role-play which is what I thought is what this game is supposed to be, somewhat a role-play game? So we are left with having to decide on contingencies as well. I don't have a problem with this but merely stating that it concerns the people that have already developed teams and need a direction to go in and the way it has been left right now it can go in quite a few directions. If we hear nothing from the devs then so-be-it but I think it should be left up to that rather than to have some squash others while they're already down.

[wwiiogre]

Marowi,

thanks, we never wanted control and when we say association we mean wearing the badge same as you. We hope that in faction we will get to drop with our friends and not with random pub 23,569. But that is the same in any multiplayer game.

chris

[Marowi]

If PGI pre-releases the mercenary unit naming guidelines before the actual release of the game, that would be great. Until they do, though, all we're debating is policy.

EDIT: wwiiogre: I think that's perfectly reasonable and I don't see why you shouldn't be able to do that. Assuming that they make the unit functionality within the mercenary "house" the same as the great houses, you should be able to form companies (little "c"; again, you won't have control over who else gets to wear the badge or where you drop) and drop together.

Edited by Marowi, 05 May 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[guardian wolf]

wwiiogre, on 05 May 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

So does this mean you are giving up Rasalhague? since Rasalhague is a known canon House/Faction? I would love to be able to start from the bottom up in NWH. You get to, Steiner players get to, Davion players get to, Liao players get to, Marik Players get to, Kurita players get to, All players of the invading clans will get to. Mercs players that want that same connection, ooops frac off.

Rasalhague is a Canon name and by your own statement should be untouchable as should any clan or any house.So if we take the current rule applied only to known canon/merc corps names and apply it to the entire universe perhaps some of you would be singing a different tune. Yet, it is only applied to a small section of the community, not all. And it is not fair. All of us would be happy to start in the faction NWH, GDL, WD, KH etc, knowing that if we joined that unit and our friends joined that unit we would still get to play together, meaning in mission without being sorted with random player 213,000. Same as in any modern multiplayer game online that allows drops with friends/squads/etc.

Wait but that is not what PGI said, they said you can't have known merc names, everyone else can or associate with all of the Clans and Houses.

Which in the end is what we are talking about. We do not want control, merely to be able to play for the Merc unit we like.

Christopher Drayson is a House Steiner Faction player, Marowi Rasalhague, Samuel Maxwell Rasalhague, etc, etc, etc. Love the fact you guys specifically say its ok to not let people play known units. So please practice what you preach and be a lone wolf. Otherwise, your argument is intellectually dishonest and your continued posts appear to be antagonistic.

Note I did not single you three out as an attack but as an example and I apologize upfront if this in some way offended you. It is not meant that way but is merely to make a point. A point that continues to be ignored. Some here continue to make the you cannot control x merc unit. That is not the issue. Never was, it is a red herring argument being put forward to say its a good idea. There might have been one or two munchkins running around claiming they are the only Il Kahn of some clan or that they are Grayson Death themselves. But those are rare and fringe.

Thanks all for the wonderful and thoughtful comments.

Chris

Preachin to the friggin choir on this one. I personally would hope that inside a Merc unit that is run like a faction, we could still join sub units to stick with our already pre-made groups, then the AI overlord would pass down missions related to a certain faction that we are under, and we could maybe do a little on the side... but honestly, making us sit on the sidelines and watching our favorite faction fight without us, is a little sick, when the actual house faction players, get to play as their favorite faction.

[Sassori]

wwiiogre, on 05 May 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

*snip*

Christopher Drayson is a House Steiner Faction player, Marowi Rasalhague, Samuel Maxwell Rasalhague, etc, etc, etc. Love the fact you guys specifically say its ok to not let people play known units. So please practice what you preach and be a lone wolf. Otherwise, your argument is intellectually dishonest and your continued posts appear to be antagonistic.

*snip*

Thanks all for the wonderful and thoughtful comments.

Chris

Here we go again...

Fair is Fair. Everyone needs to have the exact same opportunity to play their favorite. For some, that's a House, For other's that's a Bandit Kingdom, still others it's a small republic, or a Mercenary company.

Personally if it were an option I'd have picked Magistracy of Canopus or to be a pirate. Those weren't options so I went with a fall back (Almost went with Liao but decided against it).

Unfortunately when dealing with a mercenary company you are dealing with a group of people who are getting together and those people have the power to tell other people: No!

No matter how far I advance in House Steiner, I'll never be Archon, Even if I was, I'd never have the ability to say to /anyone/ 'No, you cannot play House Steiner.'.

A Mercenary Company however /CAN/ tell people No. However, once you start being affiliated with canon forces and gain the ability to tell people 'No' you start tromping on their ability to have fun.

That's simply not fair.

I /want/ the major merc companies to be a faction just like any of the Houses, even if it does break lore a bit if there's 10,000 wolf dragoons in game. I want everyone to be able to play what they want. I don't want someone to be able to with hold something by going:

Nyah-nyah I was here first!

Which could happen.

Tell you what, I'll stop associating with my house, when /your/ branch of the NWHL start accepting /everyone/ and treat /everyone/ the same. Go on, go invite Chuckie. Reduce everyone to the same rank until they earn it in game. Make them pug it up just like everyone in a House will have to do.

It's not going to happen. You want to have an exclusive group. Claim it's 'part' of the NWHL all you want, it's still an exclusive group. It excludes people. More power on you, but going to war with the Dev's isn't helping, and it's wrong to do.

Long and the short is: It's not Fair to /everyone/ who wants to be 'associated' with any faction if there are parts of it going 'No'. It's got to be all or nothing to be fair.