Spam Attacking - Let us begin the conversation here

Discussion in 'Player's Council /Community Discussion' started by Oelyndeus, Aug 10, 2018.

  1. Jalmundr the Bear

    Jalmundr the Bear Hipparchus

    May 24, 2018
    Here's a better solution:

    All of you crybabies stop crying that someone is PLAYING A WAR GAME and actually doing what it takes to win because you guys certainly are not. Ghost out and go play sim city. Spam has been part of the game since Grepo has been out. So long as you can attack someone, there will be Spam. So either ghost and don't come back, or grow a pair and play the game.
    How Do I Snipe likes this.
  2. Itbered

    Itbered Hekatontarch

    Nov 26, 2017
    Lol more people will just leave inno killing themselves by giving into the nubs and noobs spamming is a great aspect of the game same as spell bombing it just one of the many tactics used to take groups and mass golders out
  3. 0ZZZ

    0ZZZ Phrourach

    Feb 19, 2012
    Current definition of spam:
    (Based on what I have read so far, here and other threads)
    "Any attack I do not like that is bad when other people do it but ok when I some times do it because (paste hypocritical excuse here)."

    This definition is not only a non definition but not going to help, and it is going to harm.

    Because Mods/council/devs will consider this a public mandate to "fix spam!"

    So they will pull out their scalpel or sledge hammer and remove what THEY consider spam Which aint what YOU consider spam thinking they are doing what the public asked for.
    Then when their "solution" tanks the game they will not undo it because that would require them to admit they were wrong.

    I have been gaming since PONG. I can not count the number of good games that tank because the devs listen to the loud cries and gnashing of teeth from a small but loud minority that in no way represents the average silent player.
    And when they give the special snowflakes what they think they want, players start leaving, and even the snowflakes leave the ghost town they created.

    Why there is no working definition of spam:
    Players are too stupid, lazy, or cowardly to appropriately label different actions with unique labels so we know exactly what they are talking about.
    Much easier to cry mmMC SPAM! BOO WHOO! so every one will agree with you and express sympathy.

    Way to solve this:

    First logically define spam.
    Second come up with other logical labels for other naughty game actions you do not like.
    If it is a good label it will stick.
    If others dislike the appropriately labeled action as much as you, then it might get addressed.
    If not it wont, and your just being a crybaby and it will get ignored while you are possibly ridiculed for being weak sauce.

    The etymology of spam:
    Spam is a tasty canned square meat that goes great with rice and eggs. Just ask any Hawaiian.
    But some find it quite disgusting so it has become synonymous with "YUCK in a can."

    Then came the internet and email. Along with that came advertising email. Or "unsolicited stuff you do not want that just clogs up your mail box" Or "SPAM."

    Spam is:
    "Any thing sent at you in mass with the sole purpose of clogging up your notifications and or locking you out of game in the hopes of causing you grief."
    Usually as some response to some perceived slight or seeking a tactical edge.
    But there are some people that are just &^%#s and they will spam you just cause they can.
    There is your definition. NEEEEXT!

    A post worth reading should either be entertaining or provide possible solutions. so.... Here are 5 realistic answers to spam that are less likely to wreck the game.
    1. Grepolis can work on making their code tighter and more capeable of recieving a lot of commands over a shorter period of time or add a system that prioritizes some actions over others to avoid lock up. Honestly constant improvement of this nature should be standard and not require the community to squawk.

    2. Grepolis can remove the alarm. It is a far newer feature than many attack parameters that have been here from day one if memory serves me correct.
    (if some thing is not working right you remove the newer added features first)

    3. You as a player can plan your defense system to handle this sort of asault and always punch back twice as hard.

    4. You. If you do not like tactics a guild uses DO NOT JOIN THEM! Provide your skills and value to their competitor.

    5. You. As a guild can band together with other guilds that do not like this tactic and insure the offending guild does not attain the win.
    Instead of joining them like cowards in order to avoid the pain of being on the receiving end of this tactic.

    Those actions would remove the lock up function of spam and bring back sneak attacks so there are other options for the underdog to take cities from mega guilds.
    While not eliminating spam, they would lessen its frequency and perhaps the special snow flakes would stop screaming like a 4 year old with a paper cut.

    A few notes:
    This is a war game. People will do things you do not like. Yes there is a subjective situational specific limit of "going too far." But...
    Some one spams you constantly for a few hours or even a day (if your not totaly locked up), o_Oget over it.
    Some one attacks you from 2 days away, o_Oget over it.
    Some one attacks you for 24 hours straight, o_Oget over it.
    Some one twice your size decides they want the city you built from scratch, o_Oget over it.
    Some one cats your city down to a nub, o_Oget over it.
    Some one golds the wall or troops you just smashed back up from 0 to max, o_Oget over it.
    Some one boobie traps the ghosts in your area, o_Oget over it.
    Some one smashes your city just to make it a BP or favor farm, o_Oget over it.
    You invade a guilds core and suddenly find their response a bit over the top......
    you bought this response, o_Oget over it.

    If you can not handle the examples listed above, you have no business in a PVP game.
    You need to go back to PVE where the computer has "nice guy" limits.
    I recommend Farmville, where you can grow your nice crop of soy without us uncouth Vikings coming along and molesting it.
    Their are plenty of "safe space games" out there with training wheels for you.
    Stop trying to install "training wheels" on every game you come across.
    Us non soy boys would like to test our metal against each other.

    To the OP. I tried to remain within the perimeters you set for this thread, but several children either ignored your request altogether,
    or found their "agenda" far more important than respecting your original intent.
    They needed a nice Hockey check before the devs replaced the "attack" button with a "spam" button.
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2018
  4. FutbolTango

    FutbolTango Banned Banned

    Mar 29, 2017
    I do agree very much with your points.
  5. ana perssons

    ana perssons Phrourach

    Oct 20, 2011
    Spam is:
    "Any thing sent at you in mass with the sole purpose of clogging up your notifications and or locking you out of game in the hopes of causing you grief."


    and you are absolutely right that the game servers should be more robust. Sadly, they are not.

    Once a person finds that their game is unplayable because of mass trades/support-recalls notifications, pm's, whatever, then there is little enjoyment left in the game. May as well go and find another game. This is not the same as a snowflake crybaby, cant-stand-a-wargame reaction. For the rest of us not being spammed, we see another player leave the game. What is the point in that?

    The game is a lot of fun when there are lots of people playing, and causing players to leave via spam is the worst kind of play ever. You dont want that player in your ocean, then op him. Do the work, play the game. Lets have a war game, not a spam game.
    Raydium88, Rachel.L and Kal Gordon like this.
  6. FutbolTango

    FutbolTango Banned Banned

    Mar 29, 2017
    I can see your frustration. This is a war game. Small attacks are part of the game. Fake attacks are part of warfare and has been since the beginning of human kind. Alexander The Great and Gengis Khan used equivalent tactics. The same for the VietCong during the Vietnam War.

    The problem that I see here is that people do not want to play a "war" game. I have been playing Grepolis for years, and I do love it.
    In many aspects is the closes that you are going to get to a long run strategic war campaign. I have been "spammed" and I have "spammed" opponents. It is simple a tool in warfare. As anything, if you do not like it, you can turn it into your advantage if you think carefully.

    The alarm to a large degree ruined some interesting aspects of the game. Spamming is simple a logic counter tactic to the alarm.
  7. Kal Gordon

    Kal Gordon Phrourach

    Nov 2, 2016
    This may be a war game, but that doesn't mean it should involve everything that a war involves. Wars are not pleasant. The most important thing to remember is that this is a game. We play it for entertainment, and being spammed isn't entertaining.

    The alarm has changed the game, yes (although I wasn't around before it's introduction). However the natural reaction to it shouldn't be to try and take all the fun out of the game for someone who uses it.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2018
    Rachel.L likes this.
  8. Semajoes.

    Semajoes. Banned Banned

    Feb 6, 2014
    Spam is horrible. It needs to stop.
    tetrahydrocarbon420 likes this.
  9. Itbered

    Itbered Hekatontarch

    Nov 26, 2017
    Lol only nubs and noobs complain about spam in a war game go play Farmville cal you might be good at that doubtful though anyone who doesn't spam attacks and or spam spells just don't know how to play fully heck might as well take stonehail and the cave out also if you are going to take spamming out it the same as spamming spells/stonehail or spamming attacks/1000 1k silver checks it all the same
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2018
    dadofwildthang likes this.
  10. Itbered

    Itbered Hekatontarch

    Nov 26, 2017
    It's all the same to me weather a alarm goes off or not and the alarm a extra add on either way but you want to actually talk about spamming so

    Spamming is pretty much attacking the same player over and over sending a small amount of troops at a time from their city's and or a city

    How do we actually stop spamming
    The only thing I can think of is to put a limit on how many times you can attack a player and it would still have to be a big amount nothing under 3times a hr per city would even be possible due to early game island fighting and mid game island farming most players end up with well over 20 city's so your still looking at 60pluss attacks a hr plus a whole lot of mad people sounds to me like the best option would be to redirect this to changing the attack alarm it's self but then how do you do that without players using that to purposely shut your added on alarm off
  11. Baudin Toolan

    Baudin Toolan Staff Member

    Mar 22, 2010
    Guys please keep this thread on the subject of spam attacking and possible solutions to the problem's that arise from spam attacking. Talking about who is better than who or what the GPC should be/shouldn't be doing just buries the actual discussion and the resulting suggestions that I can take to the devs.
    Rachel.L and Kal Gordon like this.
  12. FutbolTango

    FutbolTango Banned Banned

    Mar 29, 2017
    1) You know Baudin part of the problem is that we are heavily censored in these forums. We should be able to discuss and make our points with degree of liberty. Discussions, even heated ones, is what keeps progress.

    2) Let me summarize. I hope that you do not delete and censor this post.

    2.A) It is relevant the degree of experience among players. It is impossible to have an agreement about a tactic when one player has 150 cities and another player has 40 cities in a world, or when one player is hiding behind a huge coalition (7) and another player is battling with only the support of a few players. The point is not to belittle Kyle. It is to make him aware and others that having an agreement on this is unrealistic.

    What is a "problem" for one group is not a problem for another group. This is very important for the developers to understand.

    2.B) Our discussions, are not happening in a vacuum. These are not theoretical discussions. They are happening out of real battles and wars where large groups of players have been defeated against all odds by smaller groups of players. This has caused real animosity and bias against valid tactics in the praxis of Grepolis warfare. I regret that you do not want that we discuss this, but this is the real issue drawing these discussions.

    Some players, like my friend Kal, want to get rid of something that they have not learn to cope. The defeat of the seven coalition alliance would not have been possible is the current features would have been altered.

    There was a huge amount of planning and thinking behind those plans. Having the ability to divide your army in small numbers adds huge complexity to the game which many players are trying to limit. It takes the beauty and attraction to the game.

    2.C) Whether, the developers want it or not, they are making a reference to a war game. History shows us how warfare can be conducted. I do regret that you are deleting the historical references as people can not only be more informed about human affairs but also about the complexity that Grepolis currently offers.

    History is clear in showing us time after time that the biggest or more numerous army do not always win. In fact, the highest level of skill and art in warfare is not the action of massing forces and destroying smaller armies. It is the complete opposite.

    The defeating of bigger of more numerous and armies is the highest measure of skill. Hence the greatest general and commanders in history use the equivalent tactics when defeating bigger armies.

    Marching straight on against an opposing army is simply a really caricature of warfare.

    2.D) I do hope that the developers take the general approach that the Supreme Courts here in North America (Canada and USA) follow when dealing with complex and ambiguous cases.

    The general guideline is not to limit or put restraints on the behaviour of people and protect the freedom of the individual. People should be able to divide their armies as they fit and should be able to send as many attacks as they see fit.

    The opponent should be able to figure out counterinsurgency techniques, which they are possible if people would think carefully about the situation.

    I can tell you that personally. I do hate "spamming", but I did manage to defeated it and actually came ahead after three days of constant attacks by 40+ players. The opposing alliance simply stopped and learn their lesson the hard way.

    Perhaps developers can develop mechanisms where the defenders can manage their inboxes better and have more options to organize their reports and their alarms. Though, to be honest, I wish you would get rid of alarms and email notifications. I can see that you are not going this way, so please protect our right to be creative and resourceful when dealing with bigger armies and huge numbers of players bunching together against smaller groups.

    However, players and developers should be able to understand that decoys, fake attacks, and deception and the jamming of communications among the enemy is at the heart of warfare and they should not limit these options.
  13. Rachel.L

    Rachel.L Phrourach

    Apr 26, 2016
    for three months, this thread has had vigorous discussion (and disagreement) about spam
    there were solutions and controversy and NO NAME CALLING
    then a few days ago this topic was derailed by a few ppl who felt they had to bring propaganda and grudges against players, mods, and inno into this thread
    most players are trying to come up with ideas to fix a problem, if we agree one exists
    i applaud BT for erasing all the off topic garbage and am happy he is doing his job

    for those trying to figure out the true purpose of this thread, the questions are (in brief):
    what is spam?
    multiple attacks? multiple nuisance attacks? enough attacks to lock someone out of the system?

    should anything be done about any or all forms of it?
    is there a difference between spies and attacks? minimum sends vs. send and recall? one player vs alliance? what if one player is an alliance?

    what should be done?
    before you say get rid of the alarm as a cure all, even if inno did that, most (approved) 3rd party scripts have an alarm so removing it from the game does not remove it
    a variety of suggestions have been made in this including nothing, making a cool down period, changing the timing of the alarm, slider, redoing morale as a tie-in and more

    new IDEAS are always a good thing
    dadofwildthang and Kal Gordon like this.
  14. FutbolTango

    FutbolTango Banned Banned

    Mar 29, 2017
    Dear Rachel,
    Your thoughts are appreciated.
    The question is why after three months of discussing vigorously we have not seen any real progress?

    I have watched this thread closely. The issue why it really has not moved forward is because you are discussing without context and there is quite a bit of censorship and you are naively discussing that people are having this discussions without an agenda.

    To go the crux of an issue requires heated and extreme discussion.
    It requires context and why has become an issue.
    Acute and uncomfortable and pointed arguments is the only way that moves a community forward.

    It requires the understanding that there is an impossibility of agreement on this issue as the "issue" or "problem" is "socially constructed".

    This is the contribution that I am trying to make to this discussion. There is no "spam".

    There is "spam" because your mind wants to see it as "spam" and your mind wants to see it as a "problem".

    The action of small attacks is the logical reaction to counter a superior enemy in numbers.

    You would see less "spam" if you not have these mega alliances and tight groups that jump and gang on smaller groups or players, and them make peace deals not to attack to each other. You are looking at the cosmetic representation of a deeper problem of asymmetric power and imbalances among players. This is the REAL issue in the game.

    When you look at the behaviour of other people, you have to look it from the shoes of the other people. You have to assume that YOU would do the same if you were in their shoes.

    I have explained to you guys that I have been considered a "spammer" by my enemies. They hated me for it because I was taking cities from them. As the message that got deleted stated: "Futboltango is unrelenting... We are losing troops and Battle Points and being made a fool of as we continue to defend them."

    So here you have it. You have a "spammer" explaining to you why I am doing my behaviour. It was the only way that I could take cities from a larger pool of active players. My leaders made a pact to not attack alliances and then refused to help in making plans to attack other players, so I was in my own with another player trying to take a cities from them.

    What do you want me to do? To sit and sim.....?

    The small number attacks was the only way that I could distract them and then move their troops around. Of course you are going to be pissed if you are losing cities to two or three guys and you have 15+ active players defending the cities.

    In addition, I explaining to you the logic behind. I get the tactics from following actual generals that engage in guerrilla tactics like Washington or used decoys like Alexander the Great, Napoleon or the generals that orchestrated the attacks of D-Day.

    In summary, you have a "spammer" explaining to you and the community why he did it. I am explaining to you the reasons and the logic behind it.
    I am explaining that sending multiple attacks has a "real tactical" objective. It is not like I would send the attacks for the sake of sending them or clogging their mailboxes, though sometimes jamming communications would help with the CS landing. The attacks were carefully thought and planned. Most players could not understand it, so they would lose cities. However, some were very intelligent and I could not take a city from them. MightKiller is one of them. He/She found ways to beat me and I never could take a city from him. Thus, there is a way to counterattack this practice. You guys just have to go and think how to do it instead of coming here and try to eliminate it.

    I am playing in another world with Erik, Kronnos, and other guys. This was my original alliance. Do I engage in "spamming" with those guys?

    No, I dont because I have the superior position there.This is the beauty of Grepolis. You can play different world with different alliances and strategies. Experiement and and keep enjoying the game.
  15. Kal Gordon

    Kal Gordon Phrourach

    Nov 2, 2016
    Given that the vast majority of your post directed at me is off-topic and antagonistic, I'm not going to waste my time replying to it (especially as it will likely get deleted). If you want to boast and attempt to intimidate people, do it somewhere else. (You have my Skype address.)

    I have noticed one key flaw in your argument. You continually refer to guerrilla warfare and it's importance in war. Guerrilla warfare is a good tactic. However it's not actually the same as spam. As you said, guerrilla warfare is about long-term attrition and avoiding unfavourable battles. The closest applications of this in-game are fake revolts (moving the enemy's defence to a few cities by hitting them properly, then attacking elsewhere once the defence is tied up), attacking known unguarded offensive cities, fast revolt attacks to "safe" cities (usually with fliers), or attacking when you know the enemy is offline (this being the part that the alarm counters). You hit weak spots, cause damage, and are more likely to take cities.

    In this game, spam involves sending large quantities of minimum-sized attacks at many cities, regardless of how well-defended they are, and not caring if the attack dies. (Send-and-recall spam is even worse, as there is zero physical damage, just constant irritation.) Spam attacks usually die for negative BP ratios, and the physical damage is negligible. You aren't going to win through attrition, as the unit losses are higher for the spammer. In real life, that would be like splitting your army into groups of 10 men, each armed with water pistols and a stepladder, and sending each one of them to attempt to take a fortified camp. You won't achieve notable damage to any of the targets, and you'll lose the vast majority of your army.

    The only real similarity is that both tactics are irritating to the defender. Guerrilla warfare because it's a successful tactic, and spam because it's sad that the attacker has nothing better to do than attempt to ruin other people's fun. I'd much rather fight teams employing guerrilla warfare than spam, because in guerrilla warfare the attacker actually has to think about what he is doing.
    iMrCornetto and sreyas24 like this.
  16. Rachel.L

    Rachel.L Phrourach

    Apr 26, 2016
    @FutbolTango, I have previously refused to address your books on off topic nonsense
    frankly i stopped reading after 5 lines b/c it isn't relevant
    let me address the ONE point that you made that is about THIS thread, lack of progress
    we have not moved forward because inno does not care to do anything
    that is the ONLY reason there is no progress
    if you read any IC post, they continue to take these ideas to inno without a response
    additionally, staff on this forum have addressed this
    your personal play style IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ANY OF US no matter how long winded you are
    give an opinion or idea that matters to the game, not rl, and do it briefly without insult, or you will continue to be censored RIGHTLY
    dadofwildthang likes this.
  17. FutbolTango

    FutbolTango Banned Banned

    Mar 29, 2017
    Dear Kal,
    1) You want to see the posts as antagonistic to you because you want to see it that way. This is your problem not my problem.

    2) Guerrilla warfare is the logical and optimal response to an asymmetrical military and political forces in conflict. You will see more often "spam" when this conditions appear.

    3) You are reasoning and arguing from your position and experience which is expected. I am reasoning and arguing from my experience, which is that what you called "spamming" worked in taking cities from an opponent that consisted from more numerous and active players.

    You might want to see that the main reason of sending multiple small attacks is just to annoy people. This is not the case. There are a lot of tactical advantages that are gained from this seemingly random patterns of attack.

    “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

    ― Sun tzu, The Art of War

    A reader might glance over this and be tempted to remark, “Well, that sounds easy.” It most assuredly is not.

    When in a conflict against fellow human beings, the opponent is a fellow human; being a fellow man, he is familiar with the patterns that accompany readiness to attack, signs of inactivity, and indications of proximity or lack thereof. These are signs that armies and other large organizations give off without conscious thought or effort. While not every leader or strategist is well versed with the subtleties that accompany them, they are all familiar with the bold strokes that accompany an an operation, as one example. These are things that are hard to conceal, yet easy to detect.

    Thus, something more is required. This is the role of deception.

    Unable to simply show the enemy nothing, the strategist instead shows his opponent something that the opponent wishes to see and wishes to believe. Having shown something, but having shown this something in a way that creates a false impression, the enemy is seduced into deceiving himself.

    In a nutshel, when you guys see it as "spam", then it means that the opponent has completely duped you because he/she has concealed his/her real plan.

    This is why it works. I am glad that developers have done nothing, as Rachel says, because they are not supposed anything if they understand the reasons and objectives of spamming.

    I do not "spam" if i do not have to and if I do not need to.
  18. Kal Gordon

    Kal Gordon Phrourach

    Nov 2, 2016
    It's not that subjective in this case. Your first reply to me started off by insulting my playing skill, and went on to include a lot of "facts" that you know I disagree with. You've repeatedly insulted my in-game abilities and commitment to the game, in an attempt to get me to kowtow to your point of view. That's antagonistic no matter how you slice it.

    Spam is very different to guerrilla warfare, as I explained. I note that you completely avoid that point, because it undoes the vast majority of your argument in favour of spam.

    I'm working from the experiences of a number of players from different backgrounds. Revolt, conquest, newer players, veterans, etc. The few people I've come across who are actively in favour of spam are those who brag about having driven players out of the game with it (which tells us all we need to know about their role in the community).

    The vast majority of spam is for the exact purpose of annoying the recipients, and almost all spammers admit (or even brag about) this. The only tactical advantage of spam is making players quit or spend significantly less time on the game because they don't want to have to deal with the toxic players perpetrating the spam.

    As for the rest of your post:
    • The actual representation of guerrilla warfare in this game that I explained above is the same as what you have quoted. Nowhere do any of the examples or quotations you have used say anything about constantly sacrificing troops in hopeless attacks designed to do no more than irritate the opposition.
    • They don't conceal the real plan: the vast majority of the time, the real plan is to just irritate the targets.
    • You completely missed the point of what Rachel said. The developers are not ignoring spam in particular: they are ignoring the vast majority of recent community requests (and a number of older ones), regardless of how easy/difficult they are to introduce, or how much or how little controversy they generate.
    It is never necessary to spam. If you can't win without spamming, you don't deserve to win. Ruining the game for other players is not going to endear you to anyone in the long term, and no-one will respect victories earned that way.
  19. Itbered

    Itbered Hekatontarch

    Nov 26, 2017
    Lol Kal your just as bad as futbol you can't even come up with a decent idea on what to change your just giving into futbol who is a complete nub I've beat him a few times now

    The rest of You guys need to get the point that their are multiple ways of spamming the only reason any of you are crying though is because of a alarm that you have to download or change your in game setting's stop using the add on truthfully the only reason someone even spamming is because they know it will annoy you your giving into them just as Kal is to futbol put 500-1000 birms or a few hundred dogs behind your wall and enjoy the BP

    You guys aren't really complaining about spamming your complaining about the alarm if you was really complaining about spamming there would be stuff about stonehail spamming and spell spamming from alliances I've seen a 15k city go to 5k in a single day now that real spamming that why I say your all noobs or nubs not a single one of you understand you just need a few hundred birms or a few hundred dlu behind a wall to win against the spamming you guys are talking about without losing a single troop let really dive into real spamming that really harmful to a player morale and chasing some people away
  20. Kal Gordon

    Kal Gordon Phrourach

    Nov 2, 2016
    I haven't got concrete ideas, and the ones I've discussed with others on other platforms have already been mentioned here and/or on the GPC forums (which is where we aim to take the solid ideas from this thread). As for giving in to Futbol, you obviously haven't been reading the posts properly.

    It's not just due to the alarm. Being spammed when you are online is nasty as well. I've never made the distinction or said that I only care about the alarm.
    That sort of support is difficult to spread across large numbers of cities (which is often the case with spam, especially the more severe instances), and even harder on conquest where you can't rely on walls and need to have defence available to move around for sieges.

    I hate spam when I am online and not receiving alarm notifications as much as anything. The reason I haven't complained about stonehail spamming and spell spamming is that it's not something I have seen as much (I've certainly rarely seen spell spamming, given that negative spells have a cooldown timer on them for any one city, and the negative spells aren't cheap enough to spam so far as I am aware). If that's something the majority of the community have an issue with, then I'd happily include that under the definition.

    Just because you've seen an instance of spell-spamming or stonehail spamming does not invalidate other players' experience of attack spamming. Calling someone a noob because they don't agree with you isn't going to aid discussion in any way.