|
Hello, all!
It's become quite apparent that many of you are not reading the first post carefully.
Failure to do so in the future will be met with swift punishment. And as always, remember to be civil.
Thanks,
Empyrean. Time stamp: 03:59 KST. |
On May 09 2011 06:47 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:43 HolyArrow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:40 FuTon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:33 GeeseHoward wrote:
I can provide screen shots of my conversation with Chill. At no point did he ask me to stop or imply he didn't want to receive those messages. I'm going to quote wikipedia on the subject, "It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing." Thus it's commonly accepted for a action to become harassment, a party has to ask the other party in some form to stop.
I would like to point out section 3 of your ten commandments which states, "... If you believe a certain ban was a mistake, you can contact a Mod through PM or in our IRC channel, but please be respectful about it. Do not take things into your own hands by posting "Ban?" or telling users they will be banned. You PM Moderators to let them know about specific posts or threads, but let them handle it after that."
Two things, everyone that contact Chill about the ban was in the right according to the rules as long as they were being respectful. If they choose to violate the rules that was once again, their action. Not Greg Fields.
Last, the Idra Banned for 90 Days creates a double stander. Where it implied in the rules that such threads should not be create since it seems to be TL staff would prefer to deal with such matters in private.
Thus I humbly request you do not ban Greg "IdrA" Fields for 90 days. Since his tweet did not tell people to harass it clearly states, "wont be streaming for 2 days as i have been banned from tl for insulting cruncher, everyone pm Chill if this upsets you". Which is clearly in the rules that you are allow to, "If you believe a certain ban was a mistake, you can contact a Mod through PM..." I do not see any rule that was broken to increase IdrA's ban to 90 days.
I would also like to request that moderate actions on the Team Liquid forums be base solely on items that happen on the forums. Actions that happen on other outlets should be not be dealt with on the Team Liquid forums.
Thank you. Idra told TL staffs that he did it on purpose. Proof: On May 09 2011 06:15 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:04 eNtitY~ wrote:
This is a really stupid move, it's not like he told people to mass spam Chill and harass him about why. He just said he was banned and if they had a problem to PM Chill... The staff needs to lighten up a bit here because what he did really shouldn't be that big of a deal. All TL admins are doing is taking away from the community because now no one gets to benefit from the week of analysis he was going to do. Considering ~18k people watch it the first day there was a lot of interest there.
Overboard IMO. TL Staff talked about it with Idra. He said he did it on purpose to annoy Chill. We are not taking anything from you. If Idra doesn't want to stream, it's his own decision. We don't have a power button to switch his computer or stream off. Sure, now we know that IdrA intended to annoy Chill. However, I make the point that the nature of the annoyance - namely, the PMs arguing against IdrA's ban - fall perfectly within the rules of the site, as another poster cited. If the people PMing Chill do it in a stupid/trollworthy way, the blame falls upon them, not IdrA, since PMing to protest a ban that one thought was unjust is perfectly within the rules of the site. This kind of creates a strange situation, where we have intent (IdrA's intent to annoy) versus being within the rules (PMing to talk about bans people felt were wrong). I think it would be safe to assume that Chill was being annoyed and PMed IdrA (or anybody on TL, really) asking what the heck he was doing. IdrA at that point just said "Hey, I'm annoying you. No, I don't regret it". Trolling the moderators is grounds for a ban. It doesn't matter if "it was his PM army, not IdrA" that did the actual act of sending PMs. It's that IdrA admitted he was doing it that matters.
troll forum mod = ban
troll forum member = ...
trolled forum member teases troll = ban
banned forum member trolls forum mod = more ban
troll = ...
(while in other arguments) mod specifically states they've banned people before for harassment outside of the forum or for other reasons not related to TL forum.
explain the logic behind this, please.
|
On May 09 2011 06:11 Asparagus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 05:53 HolyArrow wrote:
I kind of feel like, although IdrA is clearly the one that explicitly broke the rules on TL, CrunCher deserves some blame as well. This feels like one of those situations where one guy kind of dances around the rules to consciously troll another person and generally contribute to the bad blood, with perfect knowledge that the guy he's trolling has a tendency to break rules and insult others. Then, bam, IdrA gets banned when he reacts to CrunCher, while CrunCher walks away scot-free.
Now, with that said, consider all the times IdrA has been banned with the justification that "he's not stupid, he knew what he was saying/doing". For example, during the WeRRa scandal, IdrA posted something like "Oh, that's too bad. Seeing the WeRRa tag was a good way to know you were getting all-inned". People could have easily given him the benefit of doubt that he meant that literally, but many went on to accuse him of hiding inappropriate sexual innuendos in that statement, since "IdrA's not dumb, he knew what he was implying".
Another example would be right now, when mods are saying that even though IdrA didn't explicitly say on his twitter, "Hey guys, I got banned, PM and harass the shit out of Chill to get revenge for me!", his actual twitter post implied exactly that, since IdrA isn't stupid; he knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish.
Now let's look at CrunCher. He's not stupid either - he knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he was messing around on IdrA's stream. He knew it would generate controversy, and he knew it would piss off IdrA. Essentially, he was consciously trolling. Why do we always assume the worst for IdrA, and not CrunCher, who we all know doesn't exactly have the best relationship with IdrA? Even though CrunCher didn't explicitly break any rules, just as we assumed IdrA "isn't dumb, and knew what he was doing" as part of the justification (note that I don't say that it's the ENTIRE justification - obviously, part of the punishment is motivated on how IdrA isn't willing to apologize and shows no regret after he was asked directly if he'd change his etiquette) for a good deal of his bans, why don't we assume that CrunCher "isn't dumb, and knew what he was doing" (deliberately trolling)?
As far as I know, trolling is also punishable bad etiquette. If you hit IdrA with something as big as 90 days, it feels like CrunCher should get a bit of a punishment too, even if as a mere symbolic gesture. Mods, please read this. From Cruncher's side you don't stream snipe someone while your record with him previously stood at 2 wins and 20 losses just to learn and play with a better person, Cruncher does it specifically to piss IdrA off. He admits this in his stream constantly "ahaha nah guys It's fun to troll IdrA" This alone is considered harassment and/or trolling, and since you guys apparently punish people for actions outside of the forum, I don't see how Cruncher won't get any flack from this.
I would agree with this also.
|
On May 09 2011 06:48 Xacez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:47 Mailing wrote:
IdrA got banned for disrepecting another player on the forum. If Cruncher is allowed to disrespect other streamers, while being a featured streamer, that is bullshit.
But CrunCher doesn't post about it on the forum, IdrA does. There is the difference.
apparently you don't have to post about it on the forum to have it affect your standing in TL (idra's twitter)
|
United States7481 Posts
I am going to try to make this as clear as possible, keep in mind that i am not a mod so my word is not law.
trolling somebody on your stream does not affect your tl account because it happens off site (although depending on the type/severity of trolling it could affect featured status)
calling somebody a waste of life on tl does affect your tl account, because it takes place here.
idra told people via twitter (which is off site) to pm chill, so your initial thought might be that since it's off site it shouldn't affect his tl account, but by telling people to pm chill he brought actions tl website into his action, so it fell under this jurisdiction.
|
On May 09 2011 06:50 Asparagus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:48 Xacez wrote:On May 09 2011 06:47 Mailing wrote:
IdrA got banned for disrepecting another player on the forum. If Cruncher is allowed to disrespect other streamers, while being a featured streamer, that is bullshit.
But CrunCher doesn't post about it on the forum, IdrA does. There is the difference. apparently you don't have to post about it on the forum to have it affect your standing in TL (idra's twitter)
His twit had the effect of causing a TL mod to be attacked through PMs. When accosted, he admitted that this was what he intended. This is the reason for his ban, not his behavior on twitter.
|
People here still don't know the difference between forum rules and bannable offenses on forums, and things that happens outside the forums.
IdrA was banned because of what he did, here, in TL. Anything that he said in his stream is irrelevant.
|
On May 09 2011 06:45 GeeseHoward wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:40 FuTon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:33 GeeseHoward wrote:
I can provide screen shots of my conversation with Chill. At no point did he ask me to stop or imply he didn't want to receive those messages. I'm going to quote wikipedia on the subject, "It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing." Thus it's commonly accepted for a action to become harassment, a party has to ask the other party in some form to stop.
I would like to point out section 3 of your ten commandments which states, "... If you believe a certain ban was a mistake, you can contact a Mod through PM or in our IRC channel, but please be respectful about it. Do not take things into your own hands by posting "Ban?" or telling users they will be banned. You PM Moderators to let them know about specific posts or threads, but let them handle it after that."
Two things, everyone that contact Chill about the ban was in the right according to the rules as long as they were being respectful. If they choose to violate the rules that was once again, their action. Not Greg Fields.
Last, the Idra Banned for 90 Days creates a double stander. Where it implied in the rules that such threads should not be create since it seems to be TL staff would prefer to deal with such matters in private.
Thus I humbly request you do not ban Greg "IdrA" Fields for 90 days. Since his tweet did not tell people to harass it clearly states, "wont be streaming for 2 days as i have been banned from tl for insulting cruncher, everyone pm Chill if this upsets you". Which is clearly in the rules that you are allow to, "If you believe a certain ban was a mistake, you can contact a Mod through PM..." I do not see any rule that was broken to increase IdrA's ban to 90 days.
I would also like to request that moderate actions on the Team Liquid forums be base solely on items that happen on the forums. Actions that happen on other outlets should be not be dealt with on the Team Liquid forums.
Thank you. Idra told TL staffs that he did it on purpose. Proof: On May 09 2011 06:15 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:04 eNtitY~ wrote:
This is a really stupid move, it's not like he told people to mass spam Chill and harass him about why. He just said he was banned and if they had a problem to PM Chill... The staff needs to lighten up a bit here because what he did really shouldn't be that big of a deal. All TL admins are doing is taking away from the community because now no one gets to benefit from the week of analysis he was going to do. Considering ~18k people watch it the first day there was a lot of interest there.
Overboard IMO. TL Staff talked about it with Idra. He said he did it on purpose to annoy Chill. We are not taking anything from you. If Idra doesn't want to stream, it's his own decision. We don't have a power button to switch his computer or stream off. I have read that, but that unrelated to my post. I personally message Chill, because I did not agree with the banned and I followed the rules. It a decision of the individual. Thus if rules were violate and Chill was harass, that is the fault of the individual who made that decision, not Greg "IdrA" Fields.
I don't see how it's unrelated, it seems about as related as something could possibly be. His tweet didn't directly tell people to harass, but he meant it to harass, and since Idra did something to have Chill harassed, he is the one who gets punished. Since the PMs weren't harassment, but protesting a ban, which is standard procedure and allowed, the users who sent the PMs were not punished. But Idra, who wanted Chill to be harassed and attempted to make it happen, gets punished. It makes perfect sense to me.
|
On May 09 2011 06:50 Asparagus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:48 Xacez wrote:On May 09 2011 06:47 Mailing wrote:
IdrA got banned for disrepecting another player on the forum. If Cruncher is allowed to disrespect other streamers, while being a featured streamer, that is bullshit.
But CrunCher doesn't post about it on the forum, IdrA does. There is the difference. apparently you don't have to post about it on the forum to have it affect your standing in TL (idra's twitter)
Ok first off, there are two different bans here, and I replayed in response to the first one since that's the one made right on the forums.
The second one is not made from Twitter directly, it's made from the fact that IdrA encouraged his fans to PM chill about what they felt about his ban. Do you believe that IdrA meant this as a way to be nice to chill, or to harass him? Because I certainly see it as the second part. If you do that on a stream, you will get banned. Root.Destiny got banned for that (telling people on his steam to spam TL), but he apologized and they removed the ban.
|
I never check TL to see if IdrA is streaming, I have a Google Chrome add-on called E-mail Checker Plus and I'm subscribed to Justin.tv on my e-mail. If you don't like some of the 'spam' e-mail you're receiving you can easily opt out of getting them. IdrA doesn't stream frequently as much as others, so I'm sure you won't get a lot of spam 'following' him on Justin.tv. So when one of the people I'm following go on, I get a little notification that pops out from my toolbar saying who's streaming right now, very convenient.
As for the whole IdrA situation, obviously IdrA meant to harass Chill with his fans by posting that statement on Twitter. He also petulantly refused to stream for 2 days because of the first 2 day ban thus inciting his fans even more. It was an immature approach of IdrA's in my opinion. He should've just chilled and realized that he really had no evidence that Cruncher was cheating. It's a very messy situation. BUT as a fan of IdrA myself, I do find it frustrating that he's not streaming as his new commentary+streaming approach was very interesting and short-lived (since he promised to commentate for a week as a result of a bet). The 2-day ban cut that segment short, and who knows what the 90 day ban will do to him. I think the best situation is to first give IdrA the 90 day ban, then reduce it later on before the 90 days are up. Maybe the mods already planned it like this, I don't know.
|
On May 09 2011 06:50 Antoine wrote:
I am going to try to make this as clear as possible, keep in mind that i am not a mod so my word is not law.
trolling somebody on your stream does not affect your tl account because it happens off site (although depending on the type/severity of trolling it could affect featured status)
calling somebody a waste of life on tl does affect your tl account, because it takes place here.
idra told people via twitter (which is off site) to pm chill, so your initial thought might be that since it's off site it shouldn't affect his tl account, but by telling people to pm chill he brought actions tl website into his action, so it fell under this jurisdiction.
Would you kindly post the conversation please?
Because further speculation will result in more theorycraft which is in general bad for squashing arguments.
If he said something like "I knew people would send death threats" it's totally different than "I knew he'd be annoyed with a full inbox"
Because of how vague the information is at the moment it's no different than blaming a rappers song for a school shooting.
|
Honestly, IdrA shouldn't get mad at someone like Cruncher sniping his stream. When Cruncher does that, it means that IdrA gets a chance to practice against someone very good as opposed to low grandmaster/high master players. He might complain that Cruncher's strategies are abusive, uncalled for, etc, but if Cruncher's play is very hard for IdrA to beat, then he should be glad to get to practice against Cruncher on ladder if he really wants to improve.
|
On May 09 2011 06:50 Antoine wrote:
I am going to try to make this as clear as possible, keep in mind that i am not a mod so my word is not law.
trolling somebody on your stream does not affect your tl account because it happens off site (although depending on the type/severity of trolling it could affect featured status)
calling somebody a waste of life on tl does affect your tl account, because it takes place here.
idra told people via twitter (which is off site) to pm chill, so your initial thought might be that since it's off site it shouldn't affect his tl account, but by telling people to pm chill he brought actions tl website into his action, so it fell under this jurisdiction.
Saying that
A. idras twitter response resulted
B. Chill being spammed (on tl)
is NO different from saying
A. cruncher trolling idra constantly on jtv resulted in
B. idra flaming cruncher on tl.
|
United States7481 Posts
On May 09 2011 06:54 Asparagus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:50 Antoine wrote:
I am going to try to make this as clear as possible, keep in mind that i am not a mod so my word is not law.
trolling somebody on your stream does not affect your tl account because it happens off site (although depending on the type/severity of trolling it could affect featured status)
calling somebody a waste of life on tl does affect your tl account, because it takes place here.
idra told people via twitter (which is off site) to pm chill, so your initial thought might be that since it's off site it shouldn't affect his tl account, but by telling people to pm chill he brought actions tl website into his action, so it fell under this jurisdiction. Would you kindly post the conversation please? Because further speculation will result in more theorycraft which is in general bad for squashing arguments. If he said something like "I knew people would send death threats" it's totally different than "I knew he'd be annoyed with a full inbox" Because of how vague the information is at the moment it's no different than blaming a rappers song for a school shooting.
i wasn't privy to the conversation but hot_bid wouldn't lie about this
On May 09 2011 06:55 Mailing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:50 Antoine wrote:
I am going to try to make this as clear as possible, keep in mind that i am not a mod so my word is not law.
trolling somebody on your stream does not affect your tl account because it happens off site (although depending on the type/severity of trolling it could affect featured status)
calling somebody a waste of life on tl does affect your tl account, because it takes place here.
idra told people via twitter (which is off site) to pm chill, so your initial thought might be that since it's off site it shouldn't affect his tl account, but by telling people to pm chill he brought actions tl website into his action, so it fell under this jurisdiction. Saying that A. idras twitter response resulted B. Chill being spammed (on tl) is NO different from saying A. cruncher trolling idra constantly on jtv resulted in B. idra flaming cruncher on tl.
that's not true, the only outlet for people to pm chill is on tl. idra has plenty of other outlets to flame cruncher, one being his stream.
|
|
|
On May 09 2011 06:57 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:55 Mailing wrote:On May 09 2011 06:50 Antoine wrote:
I am going to try to make this as clear as possible, keep in mind that i am not a mod so my word is not law.
trolling somebody on your stream does not affect your tl account because it happens off site (although depending on the type/severity of trolling it could affect featured status)
calling somebody a waste of life on tl does affect your tl account, because it takes place here.
idra told people via twitter (which is off site) to pm chill, so your initial thought might be that since it's off site it shouldn't affect his tl account, but by telling people to pm chill he brought actions tl website into his action, so it fell under this jurisdiction. Saying that A. idras twitter response resulted B. Chill being spammed (on tl) is NO different from saying A. cruncher trolling idra constantly on jtv resulted in B. idra flaming cruncher on tl. it is different, idra could just have flamed cruncher on jtv or his stream.
Sure, but IdrA's fans could have actually PMed Chill with an attempt at an intelligent argument against IdrA's ban, rather than the stupid troll-spam that actually ensued. It's not really about what could have happened, it's about looking at the real causes and effects of actions.
|
Whatever. I can see there is no point arguing, Cruncher will get away with trolling while being featured. I see how it works.
|
And to think PMing IdrA and asking to change his post or re-word it would have solved much of this, or decisively banned him on the spot instead of drawing out this stupid ass fiasco as much as it did.
example: (DAYS AGO)
mod: please change your post or reword it, (iirc mods did this for cruncher)
IdrA: no, fuck off
*idra banned for 90 days*
sounds a lot better than what's happening now.
|
On May 09 2011 06:55 Mailing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:50 Antoine wrote:
I am going to try to make this as clear as possible, keep in mind that i am not a mod so my word is not law.
trolling somebody on your stream does not affect your tl account because it happens off site (although depending on the type/severity of trolling it could affect featured status)
calling somebody a waste of life on tl does affect your tl account, because it takes place here.
idra told people via twitter (which is off site) to pm chill, so your initial thought might be that since it's off site it shouldn't affect his tl account, but by telling people to pm chill he brought actions tl website into his action, so it fell under this jurisdiction. Saying that A. idras twitter response resulted B. Chill being spammed (on tl) is NO different from saying A. cruncher trolling idra constantly on jtv resulted in B. idra flaming cruncher on tl.
Completely wrong, you couldn't be more wrong, it's not possible. IdrA made action happen on TL, Cruncher kept his insults etc out of TL.
|
On May 09 2011 06:55 Mailing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:50 Antoine wrote:
I am going to try to make this as clear as possible, keep in mind that i am not a mod so my word is not law.
trolling somebody on your stream does not affect your tl account because it happens off site (although depending on the type/severity of trolling it could affect featured status)
calling somebody a waste of life on tl does affect your tl account, because it takes place here.
idra told people via twitter (which is off site) to pm chill, so your initial thought might be that since it's off site it shouldn't affect his tl account, but by telling people to pm chill he brought actions tl website into his action, so it fell under this jurisdiction. Saying that A. idras twitter response resulted B. Chill being spammed (on tl) is NO different from saying A. cruncher trolling idra constantly on jtv resulted in B. idra flaming cruncher on tl.
This is why they asked Idra whether he intended his fans to annoy Chill. He said he did. He said he has no regrets, and that he would do it again. This is why he was banned. Cruncher, on the other hand, did not force Idra to flame on TL. There's a number of ways Idra could've dealt with Cruncher stream sniping him, most of which do not involve calling him a "waste of life" on TL.
|
On May 09 2011 06:49 Asparagus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:47 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 09 2011 06:43 HolyArrow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:40 FuTon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:33 GeeseHoward wrote:
I can provide screen shots of my conversation with Chill. At no point did he ask me to stop or imply he didn't want to receive those messages. I'm going to quote wikipedia on the subject, "It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing." Thus it's commonly accepted for a action to become harassment, a party has to ask the other party in some form to stop.
I would like to point out section 3 of your ten commandments which states, "... If you believe a certain ban was a mistake, you can contact a Mod through PM or in our IRC channel, but please be respectful about it. Do not take things into your own hands by posting "Ban?" or telling users they will be banned. You PM Moderators to let them know about specific posts or threads, but let them handle it after that."
Two things, everyone that contact Chill about the ban was in the right according to the rules as long as they were being respectful. If they choose to violate the rules that was once again, their action. Not Greg Fields.
Last, the Idra Banned for 90 Days creates a double stander. Where it implied in the rules that such threads should not be create since it seems to be TL staff would prefer to deal with such matters in private.
Thus I humbly request you do not ban Greg "IdrA" Fields for 90 days. Since his tweet did not tell people to harass it clearly states, "wont be streaming for 2 days as i have been banned from tl for insulting cruncher, everyone pm Chill if this upsets you". Which is clearly in the rules that you are allow to, "If you believe a certain ban was a mistake, you can contact a Mod through PM..." I do not see any rule that was broken to increase IdrA's ban to 90 days.
I would also like to request that moderate actions on the Team Liquid forums be base solely on items that happen on the forums. Actions that happen on other outlets should be not be dealt with on the Team Liquid forums.
Thank you. Idra told TL staffs that he did it on purpose. Proof: On May 09 2011 06:15 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:04 eNtitY~ wrote:
This is a really stupid move, it's not like he told people to mass spam Chill and harass him about why. He just said he was banned and if they had a problem to PM Chill... The staff needs to lighten up a bit here because what he did really shouldn't be that big of a deal. All TL admins are doing is taking away from the community because now no one gets to benefit from the week of analysis he was going to do. Considering ~18k people watch it the first day there was a lot of interest there.
Overboard IMO. TL Staff talked about it with Idra. He said he did it on purpose to annoy Chill. We are not taking anything from you. If Idra doesn't want to stream, it's his own decision. We don't have a power button to switch his computer or stream off. Sure, now we know that IdrA intended to annoy Chill. However, I make the point that the nature of the annoyance - namely, the PMs arguing against IdrA's ban - fall perfectly within the rules of the site, as another poster cited. If the people PMing Chill do it in a stupid/trollworthy way, the blame falls upon them, not IdrA, since PMing to protest a ban that one thought was unjust is perfectly within the rules of the site. This kind of creates a strange situation, where we have intent (IdrA's intent to annoy) versus being within the rules (PMing to talk about bans people felt were wrong). I think it would be safe to assume that Chill was being annoyed and PMed IdrA (or anybody on TL, really) asking what the heck he was doing. IdrA at that point just said "Hey, I'm annoying you. No, I don't regret it". Trolling the moderators is grounds for a ban. It doesn't matter if "it was his PM army, not IdrA" that did the actual act of sending PMs. It's that IdrA admitted he was doing it that matters. troll forum mod = ban troll forum member = ... trolled forum member teases troll = ban banned forum member trolls forum mod = more ban troll = ... (while in other arguments) mod specifically states they've banned people before for harassment outside of the forum or for other reasons not related to TL forum. explain the logic behind this, please.
Troll = Ban
And that's about it.
And yes, while they have banned people for things outside of TL, that is their jurisdiction alone and varies on a case by case basis. However, you cannot claim that someone should be banned because of something that happens outside of TL, because that's completely up to the moderators, rather than a "set in stone" rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
