Yingzi Xue

Crash Leclerc wrote: Yes Yingzi Xue looks like August will be a hot month ! I think SL has become such big megacity that our gouvernor Linden simply can`t follow what`s happening on the grid and doesn`t have the man power to enforce his own ToS... Put me in charge. I'll clean 'em right up... and I won't even need a staff under me. One objective person is all it takes. SL needs a person who will clean house, go visit sites around the grid, look at the scripts and make a determination. They won't do that though, they'll just put all the onus on you and if they get enough AR's or legal pressure they'll take action... maybe. The great ethical cleansing of 2014 happens August 1st.

Crash Leclerc wrote: There is a really grey area in banking policy about stock exchange markets in SL. Most of those markets were gone in 2007 when the banking policy has been published first, but there is one who could (for some reason)go around Banking Policy simply because they have clasified themselvs as (and i quote from their logo) : ,,The #1 Stock Market Simulation Game In SL``( i wont give the name of the company because i don`t want to advertise for them here). Based on my personal observations about the stock exchange market in question they have all atributes to qualify under the banking policy but as i said for some reason they have been ignored and they could operate without troubles since they qualified themselv as a simulation game. Recently there are 22.000 traders on their website and they have listed 50 companies who are operating in SL.Stock exchange is made in SL curency L$ and companies listed are paying dividents to share holders pretty regular. There is always rumours dramas around this becuase there is always suspicions about how things are handled in such market. Finally here is my question : The new Gaming Policy is going to catch up with Banking Policy and close down this particular business or they will continue to be clasified as SIMULATION GAME and not be touched by the Skill Gaming Policy either? Thank you and i hope will get an answer as less evasive as possible ! I know exactly what company you're talking about and I agree. If a game, by design, skirts around policies to make itself legit, then LL needs to take a look at the inner workings of said game. Much like "skill" gaming, such games have been thriving on skirting around policies or finding new workarounds so they pass muster... when it's obvious what they really are. I don't think LL will be back to answer your question. When August 1st rolls around, start ARing with the detailed explanation you gave, that'll at least get them to take a look at it. The parasitic "gaming" formula needs to be dealt with (as ToS and policies pertain, of course). Workarounds like 3rd party currencies and exchanges created to escape being considered pay-ins are blatantly obvious. I hope LL cracks the whip come August 1st. Enforce the ToS and policies, that's all I ask. If these games are allowed to exist without scrutiny then we all might as well be doing the same. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. The coming days are going to be interesting.

No, I don't know about the search vs traffic. I was just speculating. Bots receiving tips. lmao Now that's gambling. :matte-motes-big-grin-wink:

Phil Deakins wrote: Good ole scripted agents, yes Since that time I've used demo bots in the store - on sex beds and a sofa, for people to try them out with an avatar, or watch a couple on the animations, to find out if they want to buy or not. I also had castle characters, including a maiden locked in a tower, waving a handkerchief out of the window, looking for her prince to come and rescue her. Guys would sometimes try to chat her up lol. Others were castle guards that walked around both the castle and the sim. I still use an alt. She's not a bot though because she's in on a viewer and with her own monitor. I watch the store with her, while I do other stuff on the other monitor. In other words, she's manned She's a she because I created and paid for her (it cost $5 to create an alt back then) for the specific purpose of earning some money by poledancing. But I'd no idea how to go about it, so she's only ever been used functionally - testing anims and watching the store. *grin* Yes, our bots get IM'd multiple times a day. Gender in SL is meaningless to me. I don't even think about it. I have both male and female avatars, each serve a purpose of sorts. I recently rescued an old bot from deletion. I deleted her in 2010 and they restored her for me this year. She still had everything intact. LL does redeem itself once in awhile. And with that, I think I'm gonna head to bed. It's 4:50am. lol

Sorina Garrigus wrote: When it comes to games I would be the very first to object to say a rigged game that cheated people. I also think there should be laws about real casinos that offer free alchol with the intention to impair peoples judgement. But I do have to say investments are a form of gambling such as the stock market. But anyone that gambles on games of chance as a way to try to make money (other than say professional sportsmen who pay fees to enter contests) spending their money foolisherly. Anyone that chooses to play a game should do so like it was just another way of spending their entertainment dollar. Anyone that does otherwise I would suggest they use their entertainment dollar elswhere. Yes Its a shame that a lot of those classic SL skill games got pushed to the back burner. Perhaps they will make it to the front lines again with these polices. Honestly there are more than a few games I am not sure why LL allowed in the last few years based on their own polices. So many differing opinions on gambling alone... and that's just one subject that pertains to SL. If you start talking about sex, you open up a new can of worms. The only way to get a real idea how everyone feels is to put up a vote. In my state, a company wanted to come in and build a casino, but gambling wasn't allowed or hadn't been. They were able to get the issue on a ballot for a vote. People voted for the casino. Now we have one. BUT... none of it matters for SL because LL runs the show.

Phil Deakins wrote: Another little aside Do you know that for a certainty? It still had a ranking effect with the GSA, even though many people believed that it didn't. More than once I've described (in the forum) how LL incorporated traffic into the rankings, and it wouldn't surprise me if they've included it with the current engine - maybe even in the same way. A few days ago, I had a little discussion with someone about it, and I did just 2 searches. I know it's an incredibly small sample, but it did appear to me that traffic still has an effect in the rankings. It may not have, but, on that extremely tiny sample, it did look as though it has. I'm not 100% sure, but I know I get unique results every time when I use search, which don't appear to be weighted with traffic numbers at all... or if they are, they're interspersed with other search results. Maybe they're still using a pseudo traffic algorithm and it's just not public knowledge, or evident. It wouldn't surprise me. You can still get a top listing if you list your business in a unique way. One of my locations ranks in the top 10 consistently, but results might vary depending on what your business is.

Phil Deakins wrote: If it's a digression from Sorina's ramblings, it's very welcome Another reason I haven't come across those things is because I hardly ever go anywhere in SL. My feet are usually glued to one spot. I won't bore you with why, but it's true. An aside - about filling a sim I used to run traffic bots and I was very proud of the system I created for them. I've had many a good argument about traffic bots in the orginal forum I owned most of a mainland sim but 2 or 3 other people owned very small bits of it. My system was such that it would fill the sim almost to capacity with traffic bots, but it always left a few spaces for other people to arrive. I did need customers to be able to get in, of course. So, when an avatar arrived in the sim, one of mine logged out. When an avatar left the sim, one of mine logged in. But there were always several empty spots and the sim would never be full. Other land owners, and their guests, could always get in because mine logged out as people arrived. I'd developed the system over a number of weeks and the day came when it was finished. It worked perfectly, and it was a joy to watch it in operation. The very next day, LL announced that gaming traffic will be banned as of a certain date a few weeks hence. My pride and joy died at birth I'm the same way, I hardly ever leave my land. See, now that's responsible. I wouldn't mind if it were being done responsibly. I do everything I can to be a responsible citizen of SL, which means going out of my way to ensure my scripts have as little impact on a region as possible, being as efficient as possible... and respecting/sharing mainland with my neighbors. I've never had an issue where I received a complaint, because I care to do right by others. That's the crux of it, it's all I expect, common courtesy. Man that sucks that you had to let it go. My partner and I both use bots, one each for our separate businesses and then we share with our joint projects, in case one goes down there's a backup. Good ole scripted agents. hehe

Sorina Garrigus wrote: " The policy we announced is about Traffic, how that relates to Search, and how a deliberate attempt to falsely drive up the traffic score will no longer be allowed. We know from your comments that you want Search to be fair and relevant, and we want that too. Whether a landowner uses Bots or Camping Chairs, or Camping Chairs with Bots in them, the effect is the same - the traffic score for that parcel is inflated unfairly." Also giving money to alts and bots is not "creative", its giving money to alts and bots who most just cash out and never spend at your store. You're right, whether they're bots or alts or not, chances are they're there for one thing only, to earn money and leave. It's an empty way to generate traffic because it doesn't create a customer base at all, unless you host the very game they're there to play. If you are hosting that kind of game, you're paying more into it than what you get out of it. After the game "event" they leave and never return until the next time you pay in for more traffic. It's pointless in my opinion. You'd think a business owner would want to attract traffic that actually cares about what they're offering. You know who wins? The game creator, who gets paid regardless, while your customer base never materializes. lol

Sorina Garrigus wrote: Some of these traffic games do have a kind of buy in. And I am not clear how they will be looked at with these new policies. some imply they are skilled but really aren't that I am aware of. But for example the fishing games people buy worms and such to increase their chances (I believe thats how those work but could be wrong). But I don't think its a good idea to encourange LL too much to go on a censorship binge. SL was not meant for that. But this is a reason why LL needs to clairify things in this case have some examples. The problem is events are created to boost traffic as well and a legit game say like trivia game would do the same. I wish these traffic device creators would make more legit game related devices because they will pull actual people to an actual event rather than alts and bots. SL businesses would be smart to use such actual real people traffic devices as bots and alts don't spend that much money at their places anyway. And visitors won't want to come back if its lagged out with traffic bots. Traffic is such a non-issue, except to get people to your place and have them see it. 99.999% of those that arrive leave as soon as the fun ends. Live artist venues, for instance, tend to lose more money than they rake in because of the costs to get the artists to your club. When the artist leaves the groupies leave. It's the same thing. The off-chance that someone likes your place, landmarks it and wants to come back is pretty slim. Knowing this, is it worth it? Evidently it still is to some who think it'll create some sort of regular customer base. If it worked, I might support it a bit, but it doesn't. Traffic no longer counts for search and people only show up for the chance to earn cash doing little to nothing. As a business owner, I wouldn't want that kind of patron.

Sorina Garrigus wrote: So you are fully aware, skill games was only a small part of what I did. I was primarily about board and card games, pinball, arcade some virtual sports etc. I also have a real world game store. Some of the skill games helped fund some of the content I provided. But I actively promoted and helped game makers of every possible kind for years and years. Your against gambling but are you against freedom of choice? Its fine to not like a activity. I find porn disgusting and SL is filled with it. But I am not going to go out and attack it and demand others to adhere to my standards. Also if you think people that play or have "gambling" as you call it are low then you are also calling low churches that have charitiable bingo, every state and country that has a lottery, chess tournaments, buying raffle tickets, and of course grown adults choosing what they can do with their entertainment dollar. So if your going to talk out of your hind quarters try using the facts or attempt to take a moment to look at them because your high horse is clearly up to its kneck in quicksand. I'm kinda like Phil, I have an opinion bordering on hostility toward gambling. You make a good point about sex, but there's a difference... they aren't changing the policies for sex, they're changing the policies for skill gaming. While I agree with you 100% on the sex stuff and not liking it or agreeing with it, it is what it is. What you're seeing in this thread, from some of us, is a bunch of pent up rage being released for a variety of reasons, personal experiences or convictions about the last 7 years of gaming. Me personally, I can't stand people making money off of others in what I perceive to be skirting the boundaries of ethics. I'm not saying game operators are bad people, I just don't agree with making money that way. Being a highly ethical person, I think people should make money the normal way--hard work and personal investment (not money, talent and work). By the way, I wouldn't be a member of a church that uses bingo to make money. I think it's great you have offered more than just those types of games. I stopped by your place, I saw many of the true skill based games you have. Many are legit classic games of skill and strategy.

Phil Deakins wrote: Ah. Thank you for the explanation. They are things that I haven't come across, probably because I'm not into gambling/gaming/games like that The only reason I know they exist is because I've had personal experience, being denied access to land I own because of said games. At the risk of repeating myself, I do wish they would look at them and consider them when August 1st rolls around. Maybe they will, who knows. With that, I digress.

That was partly my fault Phil. I tend to make a generalization of a group of people hanging in an area to make money, either directly, or in a roundabout way, as camping, but I know that there are clear cut definitions as you just stated--and I shouldn't refer to it specifically as camping. Bad habit. hehe I am in total agreement with everything you said. And that type of attraction is harmless in my opinion.

Sorina Garrigus wrote: Yingzi Xue wrote: If LL were going to make it any clearer, they would've done so by now. We have four days left until the policy goes into effect. I think it's safe to say all four were meant to be together, considering the last statement that says games that don't require a pay in are not the focus of the skill gaming policy. If the four items were meant to be mutually exclusive, the policy would be contradicting itself. I wish I could disagree but your right they are not going to make things clearer so everyone has to move forward with a big rush job of a mess. There plenty of operators filling everything out, turning over all 2013 business records and associates over to LL, but no games are or game creators approved yet. This policy was something they clearly needed to do years ago until their had apparently was forced to make changes so operaters were even capable of operating within the law (gaming sims, restricted access etc). If they did this ages ago they could have had more time working out the wrinkles. They need at the very least an extended deadline "don't require a pay in are not the focus of the skill gaming policy" It defines in part that skill game is a game that "requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play" meaning optional pay in games/contests are included. If they said that, they are not being consistent. Games had as the skill game industry often described for years the wager TOS as "read our minds policies" based on what it said and how LL treated its own policy. They need to be clear and concise this time. I know what you're saying. I struggled for years whether to release a game concept or not, for fear it would be against some sort of policy or rejected altogether. Aside from the wagering policy, there wasn't much else made clear. I literally put off releasing a game for years because I didn't know what the boundaries were. Now I have a better idea and I'll probably be releasing non pay-to-play games at some point.

Phil Deakins wrote: I don't know what you mean by 'traffuc games' unless you mean gaming traffic, but camping is fine. Camping to inflate traffic figures on land that shows in search was banned years ago, and shouldn't exist at all, but camping itself is fine. Any game that attracts a large group of people for the sole purpose of generating traffic and supposed interest for a location. Such games still exist, some call themselves skill-based games, a thin line that keeps them from being called camping games. Since they're not pay-in (unless having to buy items to play them is considered pay-in), they're not considered a part of the skill gaming policy. How they generate revenue is the land owner pays the gaming unit, which then attracts people to the location to play the game. Said games are supposed to generate interest in a location, but gamers leave as soon as the game is over (as expected) to collect their "earnings" at an ATM. The negative impact of such games is mainland parcels fill up with gamers and you can't access your region. Anyway, I hashed this out earlier in the thread, I'm just repeating myself to answer your question. You mentioned leeching, I consider those types of games leeches as well, they just take a trip around the current policies to be allowed to exist. In my mind there's not much difference. The skill gaming policy is skirted by not being direct pay-in, so nothing will be done.

I feel the same way, Phil. I wish the skill gaming policy covered camping/traffic games, which are also reach-around leeches and region resource hogs. I guess I'll just accept this victory and hope LL gets rid of them at some point in the future.

If LL were going to make it any clearer, they would've done so by now. We have four days left until the policy goes into effect. I think it's safe to say all four were meant to be together, considering the last statement that says games that don't require a pay in are not the focus of the skill gaming policy. If the four items were meant to be mutually exclusive, the policy would be contradicting itself.

Good job on the tutorial. HUD's are an excellent way to make intuitive user interfaces and save on memory in your main script. Some of the other methods of input, like dialog menu or chat commands can use a lot of a script's memory. I love the ASCII art you added to your script picture. Nice touch. I used to do ANSI and ASCII art back in the day, did you do it yourself? You've inspired me to make one for my own scripts. *grin* Side note, you left the Hello Avatar line in state_entry() on the linked snapshot.

If you always assume the object being dropped was created by the person dropping it, you can use llGetObjectDetails and OBJECT_CREATOR to get the creator of the object. I used this successfully at one time for vendor gift cards. EDIT: Brain lapse, as Innula pointed out below, I recommended the wrong function. Somehow my mind got set on llGetObjectDetails, when I really meant llGetInventoryCreator. *slaps forehead*

My personal opinion, if you're going to build off of another existing product, interfacing with it, it's only right to approach the owner of said product with your concept. If they say no, then don't. To me, it comes down to being ethical about it and making sure you have the blessing of the creator of the product you're basing yours off of. If it feels wrong and you know it in your gut, it probably is. Let your conscience be your guide.

Durandir Darwin wrote: Sorry, this "chance part" was probably misunderstandable (i'm no native speaker of English). If i toss a coin, it's chance, if it lands on head or tails. If a topper/wink is scripted to give 70% multipliers of 2x for payment and 30% 10x (simplified), it's not chance, but deceiving players/manipulation. Same thing I was just trying to say. :matte-motes-smile:

Durandir Darwin wrote: "Two private sims is not uncommon. There are some out there that are 4 sims large. A couple years ago there were game sims 6 sims big. I think there is at least one that is 6 sims large still. I am not entirely sure why you were suprised at a two sim sized gaming place. You must not have visited too many I guess. Some residents for some reason want to think of skill games as problematic activities that have been hiding in the shadows." Skill games have not been hiding in the shadows, the truth is, that most games in SL now are based on chance rather than skill. The "material part" of skill demanded is certainly not to be found in games like Zyngo v8.5 or No Devils. Loads of games now even use toppers/winks or other elements, where the amount of the payment to the players is determined by pure chance. Spinning a wheel and getting 2x, 3x or 10x of your payment. Sorry, i may have to correct myself. Not "chance", as these additional elements are of course scripted to give a much higher probability od giving a 2x than a 10x. Any skill in that? No. Using a prefab table to skew chance in the operator's favor is still chance, just skewed chance.

Sorina Garrigus wrote: Also laws aside there is nothing wrong with "gambling" unto itself. If your neighbor goes out and buys a lottery ticket at a liquor store most people don't think OMG what an evil sinful person!!! Addition is an issue though but this is a problem in a lot of areas upto and including being addicted to Second Life which I been guilty of in the past and spent way too much time into it at times. I was going to address this. Your reply is perfect timing. Just recently in my state they legalized gambling by allowing a casino to be placed in the state capitol. I've been there, played a few slots. In 2004, I went on a motorcycle trip which took me through Niagara on the Canadian side, where I won $200. I went to Vegas in 2002 where I spent most of my time gambling. I won $400 there (then lost it all like an idiot). Personally, I find slot machines exhilerating. The lottery, at least in my state, pays for schools, etc. When I play the lottery, I know it's going to a somewhat worthy cause, if you trust other people to handle the money properly. There are regulations on gambling for a reason. If left unchecked, people will always take advantage. Even after August 1st, there are still no real restrictions on how a scripter should script a game, just that it needs to pass legal scrutiny and be approved by LL. Hopefully the knowledge that LL can look at your scripts at any time will keep scripters in check. How do you know really? Unless you're the scripter. This is the main difference between real-world and SL. No oversight. If I were LL, I'd be looking at the scripts of every game I receive for approval. I'd go over the code with a fine-toothed comb to make sure the gameplay is fair to the player. If they did that and gave it their stamp of approval, I'd be ok with that. One last observation about gambling. I think it's nothing more than a well-devised scam that preys on unrealistic expectations (the next big win) and addiction to the rush. Does that mean I won't go play a game now and then in real-life? No. It does mean that until I have a reasonable assurance that "skill" gaming in SL isn't a racket, I'll remain skeptical. Let's keep in mind, gambling in SL is prohibited. Unless a scripter can prove his product doesn't have some element of gambling (a pretty tall order), it should get the boot. By design the house always has the advantage. Any game that earns a steady income for the operator while the player has inconsistent or negative winnings, that's gambling to me. If a game has any chance at all (i.e. how what pops up next is determined is always chance), it falls under the wager policy. Chance could be a random number, but it could also be a randomized list. Even if you develop an algorithm to get around the number being random, it's still chance.

Sorina Garrigus wrote: Two private sims is not uncommon. There are some out there that are 4 sims large. A couple years ago there were game sims 6 sims big. I think there is at least one that is 6 sims large still. I am not entirely sure why you were suprised at a two sim sized gaming place. You must not have visited too many I guess. Some residents for some reason want to think of skill games as problematic activities that have been hiding in the shadows. Anyone else find out absurd LLs blog title was in relation to "Skill games coming soon to second life"? When they been within TOS and actively allowed in full for the last 7 years? That was one of the most bold face examples of BS that came out of LL for years. Basically they were saying hey we are finally actively allowing skill games we been actively allowing and even now is still in our TOS since 2007. They are only coming soon if LL somehow invented a time machine and was going back to get rid of games from the last 7 years. As far as I can say this is just their highly transparent way of saying that we never allowed skill games contrary to 7 years of history or their wagering TOS but are now allowing them under certain conditions. It all just smells something awful. http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Featured-News/Coming-Soon-Skill-Gaming-in-Second-Life/ba-p/2771080 In LL's defense, even back in 2007 the internet was still something fairly new. The powers that be didn't quite know how to deal with it. It's taken years for policies to develop. Look at Napster, MP3's, peer-to-peer, just to name a few. Even today we're seeing social media being a consideration for a job interview. The internet will continue to grow and change with the times. That said, LL dropped the ball in 2007 and should've laid out clear-cut rules which should've stayed in place and changed as needed along the way. Instead, they just let people have free reign to create games based solely on a hint of skill. The lack of clear direction from 2007-2014 has benefited those who were willing to take a chance. What hasn't been discussed is the impact it has had on scripters over the years. There are those of us who have sat back and watched, wanting to create our own games but always having the fear of having our hard work rejected, or worse, being banned for some feature you thought was ok. Sure, we could've made a game, made a profit on it and then found out later we were against policy. Then have to explain to your customers, well golly gee, we didn't foresee this happening (which would've been a lie given the lack of clarity). I didn't want to be in that situation. What we have now with the new skill gaming policy isn't the best, but at least it gives a clearer picture for an SL game developer.

Perrie Juran wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Yingzi Xue wrote: I stopped by one of the largest gaming operations I've ever seen, yesterday in SL. I couldn't believe the size of this place. It takes up two private regions. 72 Greed (payable Greedy) divided up into 3 locations of 24 30 Stomp the Fox 2 44 Money Vault 58 Bugz 44 4Play 44 Devil Hunt 44 No Devil 44 Reel Wild 58 Reel Wild Progressive 42 Wizard 58 Enchanted Not a gambling operation at all. People stop by for the wholesome environment and to test their skill. At least for another 10 days. Let me get this straight... you counted 538 games across 2 sims and went through the trouble of separating them into a list of their instances by name? That must have been quite an undertaking, just to be able to create a pointless forum post. Or perhaps you were just testing out your counting skills? ...Dres Your comment got me curious. I'd never been to one of these gambling gaming SIMs before. I don't know if this is the two SIM set up they were referring to but was the first one I found using search. The way it is organized would not be all that hard to count. There were about 80 Ava's across the two SIMs and judging from their actions I don't think they were Bots. Nope, this isn't the one, but it's typical of the gaming operator locations in SL. To call them anything other than casino's is an insult to intelligence. They look like casino's, sound like casino's, play like casino's and they operate like casino's. Some even call themselves casino's. To argue different is to fly in the face of common sense. People can argue skill vs chance all day long, but the truth is, if these games were primarily skill based, people would be getting rich on these games and they're not. It's rigged, so that game operators are guaranteed a profit. I don't think anyone can argue against the idea that if a game takes money and if they player loses money more than making money, despite any skill they may be using, that's pretty much gambling. Call it for what it is. And LL let it exist for 7 long years. If skill were such a factor, it wouldn't be a successful business, because the players would make more than the game operator could pay out. Thus, either skill is hampered by design or chance is a bigger factor than people want to admit.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Yingzi Xue wrote: I stopped by one of the largest gaming operations I've ever seen, yesterday in SL. I couldn't believe the size of this place. It takes up two private regions. 72 Greed (payable Greedy) divided up into 3 locations of 24 30 Stomp the Fox 2 44 Money Vault 58 Bugz 44 4Play 44 Devil Hunt 44 No Devil 44 Reel Wild 58 Reel Wild Progressive 42 Wizard 58 Enchanted Not a gambling operation at all. People stop by for the wholesome environment and to test their skill. At least for another 10 days. Let me get this straight... you counted 538 games across 2 sims and went through the trouble of separating them into a list of their instances by name? That must have been quite an undertaking, just to be able to create a pointless forum post. Or perhaps you were just testing out your counting skills? ...Dres Maybe you were too busy looking at your own avatar to understand the gist of the post. Let me elaborate since you seem distracted... Is all simulated gambling in Second Life is illegal? This policy is not designed to provide you with legal advice regarding the legality of specific gambling activities in your jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for legal advice, either. Rather, to ensure that Residents comply with generally applicable laws, which do not permit wagering on games of chance or sports betting, and to comply with the rules of credit card associations, Second Life's policy is to prohibit inworld gambling activities. The fact that LL hasn't enforced the existing policy on gambling and questionable games of skill means that it has gone unchecked. The fact that operators like the above can grow to epic proportions and actually make a profit (and most likely pay for their tier and then some), is reprehensible and proof positive that money is the main factor in said games. Until they're approved by LL as skill-based games, any argument for them is invalid. I stick by my assessment that these games are more gambling than skill based. As for counting the games, they were labeled with big bold signs, it took 5 minutes; something I was happy to do to prove a point, which you seemed to have missed while busy stroking your own ego.