Questions on Lore

[FoxFire]

Here's an interesting question and topic of discussion, that I would VERY much like a blue name (Developer or even Kate Paiz) to chime in on.

Where exactly does Turbine draw the line on what is permissible by lore and what isn't, to be included in LotRO?

Not only a) From a standpoint of actual content (story, characters, creatures, classes, skills) put into LotRO,

but b) From a standpoint of what tools and activities they make available to players.

And in that regard, does Turbine decide not to put in a tool or mechanic because they are concerned that some players may use it in a lore breaking or lore questionable way. (One would assume 'not necessarily' considering they put in the capacity for player music and players are permitted to play whatever contemporary ABC music they please - including The Jackson Five's "ABC" if they wanted ).

I'm assuming this is a fuzzy line based on game play needs, community interest, keeping players engaged, and all weighted against being as true to the absolute explicit lore as possible (whereas things that aren't necessarily explicitly stated they have a little wiggle room on for story, NPC, and world content, but have even more wiggle room as to giving players social and role playing tools they might like to have).

If anyone wants to speculate on it please do so, however if anyone has any official word on this from Turbine, I'd love to see it.

[Berephon]

I'll gladly hop in on this one.

We generally make every reasonable effort to adhere to the Spirit of the Lore (in other words, try to fit everything into the framework of the lore, world, etc as established in the LotR books). However, there are times when fun MMO gameplay requires taking some liberties. There are also times when something -- like the music system, which is intended to be used to accomplish something well within the lore -- can also be used in ways not intended.

Do we always succeed? Of course not, but I can say that so far we've done a mighty good job of it (probably better than any previous LotR game attempts, and I've played just about all of them.)

[Yula_the_Mighty]

And in that regard, does Turbine decide not to put in a tool or mechanic because they are concerned that some players may use it in a lore breaking or lore questionable way.

It is a little more that this. You find:

a) Things that are not done because Turbine concerned about how it would be used.
b) Things are done to prevent us from doing stuff.
c) Things are not done because Turbine is concerned about fighting between the customers.
d) Things are done to prevent or minimize fighting between the customers.

There are hundreds of these examples. You are used to seeing them. You never even think twice about the why. I will give a few examples:

1) The 25 seconds to log out. Turbine does not want players avoiding death via quick log. You can not move. All your toggles disable at the 20 second mark. You have survive 25 seconds of beating. It has the nice bonus of reducing the stress on the servers from lots of log outs and log ins. Eve Online does instant log outs - teleports your ship to a random location so you do not arrive to a beating.

2) Free players can not mail gold or post auctions. Done to suppress gold sellers activities.

3) No open world PvP. Some customers would not like this feature.

4) No PvP between freeps except for limited one on one spar. Done to provide some freep versus freep action without causing a big flame war.

5) PvP is restricted to faction versus faction in a specific PvP region.

6) No marriage. Some customers would not like this feature if it was done per the lore.

7) No Eagles mounts. Or any other flying mount.

I think these seven cover the a-d.

[Darzil]

I can say that so far we've done a mighty good job of it (probably better than any previous LotR game attempts, and I've played just about all of them.)

But does Thorin sit down and sing about gold ?

[FoxFire]

That's good to hear Berephon that you do your best to stick to the Lore as much as possible. That is something I, and many others, VERY much appreciate.

And I absolutely agree with your last statement that LoTRO does a great job at it, and better than others (although I've not played all LotR games, so my sample size is low). I've been very impressed with how well Turbine sticks to and integrates the lore.

This is particularly important when it comes to what you have NPCs doing. One would not expect you to (often) give them the freedom to do things that are questionable lore wise, let alone are flat out lore breaking. And nobody is going to fault you for keeping that aspect of the game-world as tight to written lore as you can.

I would just like to clarify that when Turbine puts in something for players to do with their characters that is interesting, fun, useful for role playing, and/or unique (such as play music), that it doesn't bother you when players do things with their characters that don't strictly adhere to lore. Nor does it concern you that some other players might not like to walk by and hear somebody strumming away a Tom Petty tune.

And that doesn't concern me either. (Though I've mentioned that purposeful violations of physics bothers me - such as standing with one's horse on top of a tent.)

Well I hope that this can be instructive for players who may not always like what other players do with the mechanics Turbine gives us for our characters to enjoy. Thanks.

[Berephon]

But does Thorin sit down and sing about gold ?

No, but he gripes at Gandalf about obtaining a burglar from the Shire.

[FoxFire]

Yula, my intention here is to not get into too many specifics, as this is a general discussion about how players may use what is given to them in lore appropriate, lore questionable, or even lore breaking ways.

One of your bullet points is not like the others, so I don't need to point it out. Some things are implemented for smooth, and non-exploitative game play, some things are designed as part of the type of game LotRO is supposed to be (primarily PvE), and some things are left out because they would be obvious, unavoidable, and obtrusive violations of explicitly addressed lore (eagle mounts).

The point I'm making, and was hoping to get a developer's view on (thanks again Berephon), is that they give players the tools to do the things that would enhance their experience and give them ways to socialize and role-play, even though some players may use them in ways that don't always adhere strictly to what is in Tolkien's writings, or may have been in Tolkien's mind.

And, that applies even IF some other players may strongly dislike someone playing a Lady Gaga tune on their lute, or putting a dress on their male toons (which makes me cringe, but doesn't aggravate me or get me up in arms at Turbine over, demanding they remove that ability.)

So, I would simply like to encourage Turbine to keep that in mind when deciding what social and role-playing tools they give players, regardless of whatever grumbling some might make who don't want other players to use those tools in ways they disagree with.

[Yula_the_Mighty]

The point I'm making, and was hoping to get a developer's view on (thanks again Berephon), is that they give players the tools to do the things that would enhance their experience and give them ways to socialize and role-play, even though some players may use them in ways that don't always adhere strictly to what is in Tolkien's writings, or may have been in Tolkien's mind.

Absolutely. Player Music - Music and song is a big part of the Tolkien IP. It is left up to us to decide how to use it. You can use it to enhance your experience via in lore usage for role playing. Or someone can use it to steam roll your role play. This is an example of a sand box feature.

Character names another such example of a sand box feature. We get to choose them. I can pick names like Mango for my Hobbit. Or Tantalus for my elf. Someone else can use the Iamgoingtokickyourtuss. Turbine could have forced us to use a put every name into a lore specific name filter.

In both these cases, Turbine had to decide how much enforcement they would allocate to controlling our use of these features. Turbine accepted the fussing and fighting costs on the forums for having these features and the support level.

Other cases like marriage - Turbine decided that the feature was not worth the cost of implementing after weighting the lore issues and the customer feedback on the various restrictions on which character could be married. IMHO - Marriage in game - results in forums posts that bring up - racial - sexual and political issues. All of which are not allowed on Turbine's forums.

[Celestrata]

No, but he gripes at Gandalf about obtaining a burglar from the Shire.

At least he didn't get "Good Morning"-ed by said burglar. Always a bright side.

[FoxFire]

Other cases like marriage - Turbine decided that the feature was not worth the cost of implementing after weighting the lore issues and the customer feedback on the various restrictions on which character could be married. IMHO - Marriage in game - results in forums posts that bring up - racial - sexual and political issues. All of which are not allowed on Turbine's forums.

Well Yula, I'd been trying to avoid that specific example (even though you and I both know that this discussion has a direct bearing on that issue).

I am hoping to ascertain what exactly is Turbine's design philosophy and policy in regard to including features that players may not always use in ways others find lore acceptable, even while most would use it in lore acceptable ways (such as naming, or player music).

And... whether Turbine is applying this policy evenly. In other words, not making decisions and weighing some player's dissatisfaction with open rule mechanics (let's say on 'marriage') more strongly than other players dissatisfaction with other open rule mechanics (such as naming, music playing, or non-armour clothing selection).

Sure music and names had a lot of meaning in Tolkien's works and it makes sense to have them in game, but so too did many other things (such as marriage).

So if Turbine is going to include the capacity for players to create music, choose their name, write their own biographies, wear cosmetic clothing, and not restrict them in ways that don't fit exactly with Tolkien's words (not that he intended his writings to be a complete detail of every possible thing in Middle-earth), then why would they exclude something as important to Tokien's works as marriage, simply because some players might use it in ways that could violate Lore?

And might I add that the things they HAVE given players free reign over, are things that most players are going to see or otherwise be directly exposed to. The one's they've left out are things that another player would need to jump through some hoops in order to start fretting over. Meanwhile every other player that wants such mechanics are forced to do without it, including those who want to fret over how others might use it.

As to your final statement, that is why such mechanics need to be left open ended for players to use as they choose. Once Turbine places unnecessary restrictions on a mechanic, in order to enforce lore (particularly lore that is simply assumed and not explicitly written), that is when things get heated in the forums. (Keep in mind I'm also an advocate for an official RP server, where I'd like basic RP rule enforcement - where players understand that they have to abide by a more strict rule set.)

I understand you'd like to explain Turbine here, but I don't think your argument stands up to scrutiny. IF, in fact, Turbine has made a design choice based even slightly on giving more weight to some players feelings about lore appropriate use of an open-ended mechanic than they have otherwise for other mechanics, then that is unfair, inappropriate, and HIGHLY suspect.

[Ozy1]

So, having read this extremely obtuse thread I have to ask...

Whats the point?

Is it to complain because there's no toggle that says "X is married to Y"? If so, please name a single mainstream MMO other than The Sims, or something, that has that mechanic.

I've played the following MMO's:

WOW
COH/COV
DDO
LOTRO

I don't think *any* of them have a specific entry, box or toggle that says "X is married to Y" other than the characters profile or description field. Heck, the "family tree" that Turbine has included in LOTRO is probably one of the most fleshed out 'game mechanic' type of inter-personal relationship aspects of any MMO I have seen.

So, again, what's the point of this thread? If you want to suggest to allow characters to be married, then say so. Otherwise, all you're doing is alluding to Turbine bashing for a decision you don't agree with, for whatever thing you believe they are making some excuse for.

If the last is what you're doing, be glad you're not on other MMO forums because you'd earn a suspension from the forums no matter how much you 'couch' said negativity towards the developers simply because they decided to not include some feature you feel is vital.

[oldbadgerbrock]

Do we always succeed? Of course not, but I can say that so far we've done a mighty good job of it

Agreed!

But does Thorin sit down and sing about gold ?

Of course not: Thorin is dead.

(One would assume 'not necessarily' considering they put in the capacity for player music and players are permitted to play whatever contemporary ABC music they please - including The Jackson Five's "ABC" if they wanted ).

The Jackson 5 brought the funk!

[FoxFire]

No Ozy, the point of this thread wasn't necessarily to inquire about a specific game mechanic or feature (although its answer has direct bearing on it).

Don't confuse all these follow-up posts with the original purpose of the thread.

The original and primary point of this thread was to determine just exactly what is Turbine's criteria for the implementation of various features based on Lore. (This was answered.)

Also whether or not they have any criteria for such decisions that revolves around whether some players may use a feature in a non-lore acceptable way. (The answer to this appears to be 'No'.)

The ultimate goal (without having to name any specific feature) being to find out if any 'special' criteria is used for some features that they do not apply to others. (This wasn't specifically answered, but then wasn't directly asked either. I would assume the answer is also 'No.' But if Turbine wants to correct me on that, please do.)

----------------

Now to delve deeper...

If it were the case that they were taking a special stance on one specific feature request, holding out against requests to implement it, because players might use it outside of perceived lore, one would want to know why.

Why would some features be okay, despite players using it in non-lore ways, while others are not (even while such features are more hidden away from general view than the others, and also less likely to be used in violation of lore)?

I was hoping to avoid, as best as possible, naming a specific mechanic so as not to bias the answers and because apparently that specific request (in-game marriage) is one that seems to get heated. Particularly concerning whether Turbine will even honor the suggestion that it be implemented, due to some players having a visceral objection that other players might use that 'largely hidden' feature outside of what they deem acceptable or lore-centric.

If you had been around prior to launch you would know that this feature actually WAS originally part of the game, but was removed prior to (or shortly after) the game went live. From what I understand, it was removed due to controversy (possibly existing, or demanded, restrictions) that although I was in game at the time, didn't weigh in on and didn't even know it was taking place, so I can't speak to the details.

So let's cut to the chase then I guess.

Though my original questions were answered, I would ultimately like to find out:

• IF Turbine has refused to put in (put back in rather) THIS particular feature, because some players, or Turbine themselves, do not want the removal of any racial or gender restrictions on it.
• And if so, is that based on players possibly breaking lore with it.
• And if that is the case then why THIS feature, while not restricting other features/mechanics that players have as much, if not more, potential to violate the lore with.
  
  • (Seen PeanutButter Jellyman running around lately, playing "Peanutbutter Jelly Time" on his lute?)
  
  

BTW, just FYI in regard to your list of MMOs, Turbine also makes one called Asheron's Call that does include player marriage that was quite extensively implemented in that game.

[BrianDavion]

ok, so why is marriage differnt from names and music.

well first of all, yes modern music is a minor lore violation, but we don't know what type of music existed in middle earth (we have lyrics, but no actual music, for the most part)

names are likewise a MMO feature, it's an identifying tag, not everyone who utlizes it roleplays and has too much intrest in it.


Ultimaly marriage is a purely roleplay application, and with some very strong statements from tolkien regarding it.

He has stated that elves only married humans a small number of times (and actually listed the times it has happened)
and didn't actually state but would have belived it self-evidance that homosexual marriages DIDN'T happen.

this isn't a case of "can be as accurate or not as you like" turbine would have to deliberatly code to allow for lore breaches, or code otherwise.

given the contriversial nature of it, turbine figured best just to leave it alone

[FoxFire]

That controversy exists only for those who want to make it a controversy in their own minds, and that's not something Turbine need concern itself with.

Nothing you've indicated Brian is in any way relevant to the decision by Turbine to continue forth or not with a feature they originally started with, and removing any racial or gender restrictions on players who use it.

In fact, I think your post actually makes the case for them doing so.

You want Turbine to make assumptions about what Tolkien would have personally approved of for a massively multi-player online role-playing game in the 21st century based on his works? For all they know he would have adamantly objected to its very existence, let alone most of the way it's been implemented.

The point is... We have many things in game that players can use in whatever fashion they like, none of which were 'deliberately coded' to include lore based restrictions.

• Players can make any name they want that isn't a known character, or racist, deeming, or obscene
• They can play whatever rock-n-roll tune they like
• Males can wear women's clothing,
• A dwarf can adopt an elf who can adopt a hobbit who can adopt a man
• We have free reign over our biographies where we can makeup whatever outrageous or lore breaking heroic story we want
• And even Turbine themselves have put things into the game which are in no way lore-centric but are there to enhance player enjoyment (snowmen? painted horses? a haunted cellar? paintings with eyes that move? non-wizards blowing intricate smoke dragons?).

No... I'm sorry Brian but your reasoning doesn't pass muster, and if it's Turbine's then they need to re-examine it.

[NamelessZombie]

He has stated that elves only married humans a small number of times (and actually listed the times it has happened)
and didn't actually state but would have belived it self-evidance that homosexual marriages DIDN'T happen.

this isn't a case of "can be as accurate or not as you like" turbine would have to deliberatly code to allow for lore breaches, or code otherwise.

given the contriversial nature of it, turbine figured best just to leave it alone

Well said, Brian

That controversy exists only for those who want to make it a controversy in their own minds, and that's not something Turbine need concern itself with.

Thats a rather insulting way to look at someone's personal belief system... more so when talking about THIS subject. This is a very important, much debated, and quiet frankly STILL up in the air subject for a lot of people. Turbine did the right thing and took the high ground. They said, by their actions
"We are not going to force our Het players to view player homosexual relationships. Likewise, we are not going to force our Homosexual players to view player het relationships."

How in the name of all things fair is THAT a bad thing?

It keeps from insulting the majority of each group, without hurting ANYONES playing experience. How can you have a problem with that?

[FoxFire]

Thats a rather insulting way to look at someone's personal belief system... more so when talking about THIS subject. This is a very important, much debated, and quiet frankly STILL up in the air subject for a lot of people. Turbine did the right thing and took the high ground.

Let's not kid ourselves here. LotRO is NOT the real world. It is a fantasy role playing game in a virtual world. Turbine has no business weighing in on whatever social controversies are occurring in the real world.

You are making the case that Turbine HAS, in fact, weighed in on that.

Where-in they do not put lore based, or other unwarranted restrictions on ANY of the tools they provide to players (such as those previously mentioned), they are, in this one case, explicitly refusing to put in a tool for the players (that was previously in the game), because certain players demand that there be hard-coded restrictions placed on it regarding race and gender. (And unlike other tools, this is one that such players never need to see to get irate over, unless they actively check players biographies, and then the race and gender of a listed spouse).

That is a wrong headed policy. Turbine should not be deciding what they should or should not put in the game because some players might disapprove of how other players use it.

If that is their fundamental reasoning (or even just a small part of their reasoning) for leaving out this mechanic, THEN they are absolutely weighing in ON the side of those who want to restrict what others can do (be it either on lore grounds or someone's real world beliefs).

That is NOT a neutral position.

By saying "we can't allow people to make their own choices on how to use a marriage tool in game, therefore we won't allow anyone to use that tool", they are making a positive statement about who's overriding needs are being met. Not the majority of players who don't mind how other players use it, but the needs of those who'd rather go without the tool period rather than live and game with the knowledge that some players have used it to form unions they personally disapprove of.

That is very much like in the real world where a small hand-full of school districts, given public school rules that say when you permit extra-curricular clubs to meet on school grounds after school, you must also permit gay-straight student alliance clubs to meet after school, have tried to circumvent those rules by taking away the ability for ANY extra-curricular clubs to meet on school grounds. I say 'tried', because generally such attempts have been seen as the attempts to discriminate that they are, and been beaten back.

Turbine is, in essence, being those school districts. "We, or some of our players, don't want other players to be engaging in interracial or same-gender marriages in game, so therefore NOBODY gets to utilize a tool that we originally coded for and had in place."

And like those school districts which had existing extra-curricular after-school clubs, so too did LotRO have marriage. And like those schools, rather than be inclusive to all clubs, including those some people disliked, they took away the ability for any club to meet, Turbine has taken away the ability for anyone to get married. Satisfying ONLY those who would rather see NO clubs, or NO marriage, rather than let people be.

So therefore, I implore Turbine to re-examine their policy for including social and role-playing tools (as outlined by Berephon), to be sure that it is being evenly applied to all such tools, and all decisions on whether or not to include a tool, without exception.

And just remember, we ARE supposed to be the Free Peoples of Middle-earth.

[NamelessZombie]

Let's not kid ourselves here. LotRO is NOT the real world. It is a fantasy role playing game in a virtual world. Turbine has no business weighing in on whatever social controversies are occurring in the real world.

You are making the case that Turbine HAS, in fact, weighed in on that.

Where-in they do not put lore based, or other unwarranted restrictions on ANY of the tools they provide to players (such as those previously mentioned), they are, in this one case, explicitly refusing to put in a tool for the players (that was previously in the game), because certain players demand that there be hard-coded restrictions placed on it regarding race and gender. (And unlike other tools, this is one that such players never need to see to get irate over, unless they actively check players biographies, and then the race and gender of a listed spouse).

That is a wrong headed policy. Turbine should not be deciding what they should or should not put in the game because some players might disapprove of how other players use it.

If that is their fundamental reasoning (or even just a small part of their reasoning) for leaving out this mechanic, THEN they are absolutely weighing in ON the side of those who want to restrict what others can do (be it either on lore grounds or someone's real world beliefs).

That is NOT a neutral position.

By saying "we can't allow people to make their own choices on how to use a marriage tool in game, therefore we won't allow anyone to use that tool", they are making a positive statement about who's overriding needs are being met. Not the majority of players who don't mind how other players use it, but the needs of those who'd rather go without the tool period rather than live and game with the knowledge that some players have used it to form unions they personally disapprove of.

That is very much like in the real world where a small hand-full of school districts, given public school rules that say when you permit extra-curricular clubs to meet on school grounds after school, you must also permit gay-straight student alliance clubs to meet after school, have tried to circumvent those rules by taking away the ability for ANY extra-curricular clubs to meet on school grounds. I say 'tried', because generally such attempts have been seen as the attempts to discriminate that they are, and been beaten back.

Turbine is, in essence, being those school districts. "We, or some of our players, don't want other players to be engaging in interracial or same-gender marriages in game, so therefore NOBODY gets to utilize a tool that we originally coded for and had in place."

And like those school districts which had existing extra-curricular after-school clubs, so too did LotRO have marriage. And like those schools, rather than be inclusive to all clubs, including those some people disliked, they took away the ability for any club to meet, Turbine has taken away the ability for anyone to get married. Satisfying ONLY those who would rather see NO clubs, or NO marriage, rather than let people be.

So therefore, I implore Turbine to re-examine their policy for including social and role-playing tools (as outlined by Berephon), to be sure that it is being evenly applied to all such tools, and all decisions on whether or not to include a tool, without exception.

And just remember, we ARE supposed to be the Free Peoples of Middle-earth.

No, just no. Your entire argument is flawed because YOU are trying to pin an intention on Turbine that their actions are not backing up. In short, if turbine was being as anti-gay as you LIKE to claim, straight marriage would be in and gay marriage would be out.

All their ACTIONS have said is "This is a topic with NO winners, so we are not going to be involved."

Nothing will keep you from doing what many every other couple does, and "staging" a wedding at location X with your friends and those willing to show up. You dont need turbine to give you a special command for it.


Further more, since you said "Let's not kid ourselves here", lets not. LoTRO is a GAME, not a political platform to shove X agenda down people's throats. The ONLY reason someone would NEED some "code" to say x and x are married... is to shove it down people's throats.

Turbine I am sure spent a DANG long time on this before taking it out of the game pre-live. This is not Turbine hating gays, or banning gays, or heck in any way shape or form treating gays differently. They did the ONLY thing that would be fair, without offending a lot more people.




We ARE free.. we are free not to be slaves of Sauron and the elves, we are Free to kill evil, and we are free to ride houses and goats.

[FoxFire]

No, just no. Your entire argument is flawed because YOU are trying to pin an intention on Turbine that their actions are not backing up. In short, if turbine was being as anti-gay as you LIKE to claim, straight marriage would be in and gay marriage would be out.

All their ACTIONS have said is "This is a topic with NO winners, so we are not going to be involved."

Nothing will keep you from doing what many every other couple does, and "staging" a wedding at location X with your friends and those willing to show up. You dont need turbine to give you a special command for it.


Further more, since you said "Let's not kid ourselves here", lets not. LoTRO is a GAME, not a political platform to shove X agenda down people's throats. The ONLY reason someone would NEED some "code" to say x and x are married... is to shove it down people's throats.

Turbine I am sure spent a DANG long time on this before taking it out of the game pre-live. This is not Turbine hating gays, or banning gays, or heck in any way shape or form treating gays differently. They did the ONLY thing that would be fair, without offending a lot more people.


We ARE free.. we are free not to be slaves of Sauron and the elves, we are Free to kill evil, and we are free to ride houses and goats.

I'm not making any such claim about Turbine being 'anti-gay'. I don't believe that they are.

But Turbine HAS gotten involved, as I clearly spelled out in my previous post. Rather than leaving in a mechanic and letting players use it as they see fit, they have removed it specifically to satisfy those players who do NOT want other players to use it as they like.

In fact, I think the evidence is quite clear who is MOST satisfied with Turbine's actions. Reading through past threads on this topic, it is quite evident that those who adamantly oppose marriage being open without race or gender restriction, are particularly pleased with Turbine's decision to remove it altogether.

As a matter of fact, those forum posters who seem the most pleased with the decision tend to be focused on the same-gender aspect of having open rules, more so than the interracial aspect.

There is absolutely no doubt that Turbine's policy unduly, unnecessarily, and inappropriately favors those who strongly object to the marriage mechanic having no gender or race restrictions.

The only agenda being satisfied here, is the agenda of those who want to prevent something they object to, at any cost. There is NO agenda being advanced by giving players a tool and letting THEM choose how to use it.

By-the-way Nameless, it may come as a surprise to you, but I personally have no interest in having a same-gender marriage in LotRO. Don't be so quick to make such an assumption about someone who is advocating for an even handed application of rules when it comes to social and role-playing tools in the game.

Turbine, listen to those who approve of your decision here.

It ought to be clear who's external agenda is being imposed on your game when you decide not to include a tool. And that is not something you should be weighing in your decisions.

No agendas need be advanced. You have a set of criteria for what restrictions or openness you place on role-playing tools. If you intentionally LEAVE OUT a tool (that was considered and even in place) because there are some who insist you make a special exception to your standard rules of what freedom you give players with those tools, then you are actively satisfying that agenda. Giving players a tool, that follows your standard rules, makes NO statement and advances NO agenda.

[Celestrata]

There is a reason that we don't allow political or religious topics to be discussed here on the boards, and this thread is very much revealing that reasoning. These topics frequently do not turn out well and lead to arguments.

Thank you everyone for the discussion, but I'm going to close the thread here to prevent this from going any further.