I like this idea because it's an attempt to find a simple and direct measure of success (views after 1 month). I can imagine people disagreeing with this measure though, thinking that someone's videos are much better and deserve more views. I measured the quality of videos by how I feel about the video, which was of course influenced by some factors that the current rules are trying to quantify (number of tricks, video length, etc.) and more (novelty, aesthetics, etc.). This is the most direct measure of success, the impression made on a trusted judge. I imagine that a group of trusted judges could do something similar these days too. Things like video duration and number of tricks were a recommendation from the judge (me), not a hard rule, clubs knew they could deviate from the recommendation when it makes sense. btw this is the 1000th reply to this topic lol, do I get a prize? No?

Yeah, a bunch of people would be mad, and another bunch would be happy, that's the political nature of club paints. Opinions depend mostly on club membership, friendships, values and concerns. TFP members wanted the paint of course, at some point their forum topic even said that's the club's mission. Some others disagreed on who deserves the paint. And yet another group of people was bothered by problems the paint (or even the idea of it) caused. For TFP getting Phoenix was a dream come true, for some it was a symbol of injustice and neglect, and for some it was a reason for many fights that spoiled the friendly atmosphere of the parkour community (which is either bad or good, depending on how much they love the drama). As most people probably know, I'm in the "don't want the paint's issues" camp. When FnF got Phoenix too, I chose not to reject it because I knew some of my club members will enjoy it, and that it will make some people relax and feel that justice has been restored. But it came at a cost that my club and I wouldn't have to pay if Phoenix simply didn't exist. By the way @Adab, this is an example of how the existence of the paint affects even people who personally reject it. Rejecting the paint for my whole club was a bad option, even though they knew when joining the club what the leaders thought about the paint. And I sure as hell wouldn't leave the club or split it or harm it in any other way just to stay away from the paint. When you tell people that they can just choose to stay away from the paint, you neglect people's friendships and dedication to a club, and the difficulty of leaving it and starting a new club or joining one.

I agree 99%. When a rule says "be member of only 1 club", it is not clear to people that the intention of this rule is only about double club support and not about everything else people think of as club membership. Also, this way you don't allow them to receive credit in the club's forum topic for their participation in an equal way to other players in the club. The only 1% of disagreement I have is about the complication of deciding which club to receive support from. I think it'd be better if people didn't have to worry about it, and instead had a limit to the amount of support per time that a member of multiple clubs gets. Clubs will likely vary in activity, and it will suck for players who maybe dedicate twice the time, effort and supplies on playing in 2 clubs to only receive half the reward they deserve, or even less if they happen to be registered to receive support from the currently less active club. I suggest at least letting players receive a maximum of 2 "support packages" per month, or 3 packages per 2 months, something like that, I don't know the current upload rates and value of a single support package for one video, so I don't know what a reasonable limit would be.

The fight was about which club is better, and by the time F&F got the paint there was nothing I could do to stop the fight. I got the "job" before it had a name. I kept taking more responsibilities, starting from being a forum mod and running the parkour forum (and making the club rules), to managing club support, to organizing contests (I came up with the idea of the Parkour Survival contest, organized the first contest, and partly the 2nd contest. I was asked/offered to help organizing more contests, but I refused). For lack of an official name for my position, people called it however they wanted, it started from "parkour forum mod", but over time "parkour admin" got more popular. You too!

When I was the parkour admin, only the community manager decided about the Official status. If it was up to me, Phoenix wouldn't have existed in the first place. Besides, if I asked to remove Phoenix back then, people (probably including the community manager) would think I'm just being a TFP hater (because of the fight between the clubs at the time).

Hi! Good to see you ? and yeah a lot changed since then. FnF closed because the leaders wanted to leave, and without someone willing to take leadership and able to uphold our high standards, we decided it's better to close the club. Those were big shoes to fill, because in FnF the leaders came up with the tricks, and our standard was to include only creative tricks that have never been done before by anyone, and occasionally a few that had a special twist that made them interesting and new enough. (I'm not sure how well this standard was kept by our last leader, but I'm still impressed by what he managed to do without the old leaders, being a great parkourist is one thing, inventing tricks is a whole different skill.) I'll reply to more of what you wrote when I have the time ?

I think that option 1 is better.

No, it's not about deserving. I'm not upset with anyone getting the paint, I'm sorry for what it costs them. It's about people giving up some of their preferences and satisfaction in order to pursue the paint, and taking on pressure from the deadlines. We can't eliminate it, but we can reduce it significantly, rather than continuing to contribute to it. I've seen over and over how the paint has always been a huge trigger for these things, and it escalates existing conflicts, draws more people into them, makes them much worse and creates long term problems between some of the people involved. If you remove that, it won't eliminate all the problems, but it sure will prevent some big ones. I love this part for 2 reasons. First of all, I like your honesty and that you didn't leave this important bit of information out of the discussion, understanding each other's motivations is very useful. Second, I find it funny that this is the impression you got, you'll see why when I answer your question: I did exactly that! Except my club was much bigger than 5-10 people (see our members list). I'm the leader of the parkour club FnF (Fight & Flight), which is now closed, but was active for 4 years of great success. We didn't care about the paint, we didn't care when someone else got it, and we got plenty of recognition without it. In fact, we had so much recognition that people protested in Tanki's vlog comments and livestream chats, saying FnF is the best and should get Phoenix. We stuck to our values, and had the honor of being chosen by the community rather than by one person that decides who becomes Official, that's a greater honor than any Official club ever had. And then we actually became Official and got the Phoenix paint, which we never used in our videos. So I had (and still have) plenty of recognition from those who were around back then to see my contribution to the parkour community (which includes things outside of FnF too, and fun fact, I was the first parkour admin). So I have no reason to be jealous of anyone else having the paint, I only want to take it away because I see how much damage it kept doing to the community. I'm all for giving parkourists as many good things as possible, but the paint is more of a curse in disguise.

If playing a game feels like a job to you, you're doing it wrong. (Unless you're actually getting paid real money.) Which brings me to one reason to remove the paint, it makes people feel like making club videos is a job. Gotta keep up with the required upload rate, gotta keep making videos even when you don't feel like it, gotta give up any desires of what you want your videos to be like if those desires contradict some requirements (like you can't make videos that take too long to produce, so bye bye to the more time-consuming tricks or to videos beyond a certain duration or amount of tricks). I've seen many people experience this feeling. The other good reason, since you asked for 2, is the one you quoted in your previous message and said that "there is simply no valid reason" lol. Like it or not, the paint has always been a cause of rivalry, hostility, fights, jealousy, and disagreements about who deserves it and who doesn't. Parkour is not eSports, there is no one clear definition of a winner that everyone can agree on.

I expected such a reaction, of course people want to stand out and are motivated to get the paint, if this wasn't the case then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that the paint becomes people's goal/motivation is the source of many of the reasons I mentioned in favor of removing the paint. Clubs were doing just fine before there was a paint to motivate them, there are enough sources of motivation for parkour clubs anyway, and I think it'd be good for players to focus on those better motivations.

Yes! I thought for a long time that removing the Official status and paints is a good idea. No more distraction, no disagreements about who's Official and about requirements, no competitive rivalry, no suspicion of corruption, and yeah no paint diggers. Remember when TFP and FnF (and their fans) started arguing about who's better? If I recall correctly, it started when TFP got Phoenix and some players said that FnF is more deserving of a paint than TFP. The first thing Phoenix paint did to the parkour community was create lots of fights and conflicts between people and clubs, and it kept doing this pretty consistently since then. I know, I wasn't clear about what I meant by generosity. I was thinking about not asking the clubs for much in return, like not asking them to keep a certain pace, it certainly doesn't hurt to support slower clubs too, so be kind to them, don't give them a choice between "grind/change for support" and "no grind/change no support". (Sure, a video every 12 weeks can feel easy to some clubs, but every club is unique, some might have less time to play, or want to make longer videos or more time consuming tricks.) I guess you're right, I can't read your mind and can't know how much you really care. When it comes to conversations, sometimes it's good to know how to express this caring and not give people the wrong/opposite impression. I believe that you have good intentions, but sometimes it's just really hard. Oh I didn't know that they moved to another locale. It was LPS, here. Many people strongly hold opposing opinions about the paints (who should have it, when, for how long), and no matter who will get the paint many people will be unhappy about it. For example, some people think TFP should have Phoenix for historical reasons (or for other reasons), others think there's no good reason to let TFP keep it. And many people have a problem with parkour admins who make their own club Official, they see it as corruption. It seems that there is no option that will be accepted by the community when it comes to giving someone Phoenix.

Support yes, paints absolutely not. Most clubs that ever existed, assumed they'll probably never get a paint, or didn't even care about it. If someone parkours a lot, he probably likes parkour, even if he also wants a paint. Remember when players who didn't love parkour tried to get paints? It was viewed as a bad motivation, they were called "paint diggers" and they were not wanted, because they weren't dedicated enough. In my experience with FnF applicants, paint diggers always quit, and those who like parkour gladly stick around even if they don't get the paint (we had many such "helpers"). No one in their right mind spends a whole year or more doing something they don't like for such a small reward. If they really do, please please PLEASE for the love of God don't make them keep doing it. And if they don't, don't treat them like paint diggers. As @emrakul said, paints were always a problem. In fact, the idea of parkour paints was a problem even before the Phoenix paint existed, because it put pressure on people to do what some thought would get them a paint, at the expense of what they really wanted to do. It was more distracting than motivating. At this point, paints are also too political, have lost their value and meaning, and if I understand correctly, now you've also taken away the paint from the one club that got it before all this mess. Parkour paints are an epic fail. Almost half the clubs closed recently, and one of them publicly stated that the administration (you) pushed them to quit. People don't want a cheap prize to motivate them to play, they want support and freedom to do things their way. In response to players saying they feel rushed, you call the activity requirements generous. Instead of respecting their desire to take their time and release videos when they feel ready, and without an unwanted grind, you reply to them with arguments that basically invalidate their feelings. I can relate to their frustration, there were times when I wanted to quit too because the management neglected my club's needs and values and mistreated us. The parkour community, or what's left of it, is telling you how they feel. Those feelings are real, and they matter, don't ignore them, don't neglect them. By the way, about an earlier message of yours: This is another example of how you completely miss the feelings people communicate to you. Sure, you could point out a logical flaw in the words I used, but you could also take into account that many of the jokes in the parody (that you've read the whole thing) are also explanations for why those rules are problematic and why people feel bad about them. So yeah, free the paint diggers, free clubs from pressure, be generous with support, listen to people's feelings, cookies *-*

I like when people speak honestly and openly, and I always appreciate being told the truth. If people always kept their criticism to themselves, how would I learn? Yes I might disagree with what you'll say, but I wouldn't call that discussion irrelevant, it's on the topic of parkour rules. Also, I think it'd be more pleasant for everyone if you were more open about your thoughts, more of the "I'm here for you, let's hear each other out" type, instead of keeping the discussion somewhat one-sided and being the "I heard you, I insist and won't explain myself, I'm a professional, here's a formal statement instead" type. Trust me, it feels good to be understood and not have to use the voice of authority, and to have people feel that you are on their side and appreciate your effort and thank you for it.

lol if you don't know the applicant by name, what stops them from applying with a fake name? And what stops other people who know the applicant by name from using that name? And if the helper's name is like a password for identification, does that mean players whose nickname is their real name can't apply to be helpers because their "password" is revealed? When a friend of mine applied to be a helper but didn't want to reveal the name, the admin said that it's just for the convenience of knowing how to call you instead of using the nickname (on Skype), and it was ok to skip that question. I'll take your silence as "I couldn't come up with any" ?

What were the issues, and how could rules solve them? I just looked at the old club support topic and found this post which explains part of the reason why I kept the rules to a minimum: In other words, I judged things by how well they do at their goal. I didn't need to make rules like "make the video at least 1 minute long" because a bad 30 seconds video wouldn't get anyone a reward simply because the video is bad. And a good 30 seconds video that shows something special that a lot of time and effort went into it, would be recognized and rewarded. Here's a good 30 seconds video for example btw, as you can see in the comments, people couldn't care less about the video duration ? And yes I did give a definition of what creativity means, and I could have written it as a rule or a scoring formula, but that would only make things worse for 2 reasons: it could end up forcing low score on amazing videos (and vice versa), and it could divert people's focus to creativity because it's "mandatory" and sacrifice their own special way of making their videos great and worthy of support. I guess I should add that sometimes I was delayed or limited by the community manager (or other people who limited him too), I couldn't always give things as soon as I wanted, and I always wished I could give more spectators. People were still happy, because things were improving, and they knew I'm doing everything I can to help them. Read the old posts about club support, they're full of gratitude, you won't find in my time any of the complaints that you are getting. You have the power to give much more than I could, and yet people have complaints about how that goes, doesn't that mean there's a problem now that didn't exist back then? Don't bother picking on small flaws, give me the big issues, the problems that were in my control, not technicalities.

Thank you! ? It was hard at first but I'm doing much better now I talked about the past because @Adab said that it would've been better if the current rules would have existed back then. Before posting anything on the forum, I wrote to @williew about how the players of this time might be getting what they want from (some of) the new rules. And the part about people's ability to influence the rules, that's just advice in case people want to change things. I'm not trying to decide for the current players what they want, but it sure seems like a bunch of players want to change things.

I kept the rules to a minimum back then and it was perfect. People did their thing, had fun, got club support as soon as it seemed right, and Official status was just the game's way of saying "you're doing great, you've contributed so much to the community and we appreciate you ". Everything was simple and good, at least outside the minds of people who overcomplicated things (like those who pressured people to make commentated videos like ToT to get a paint). By the way, dear club leaders and members, I want you to know that when the rules are crossing a line, you can stand up for what matters to you. The way I saw it as a club leader, the rule makers write their vision on paper, but we're the ones deciding what actually happens. When they wrote that players can't be members in more than one club, they put some other value above my desire to play with my friends and do what I want with them, so my friends and I just ignored the rule, and the admins did nothing about it. When the rules said Official clubs can't have club members that were banned in the past, I said I'd rather reject the Official status than abandon a friend, and despite keeping the rule, the admins did not enforce it. When people told me to make commentated videos like ToT to get a paint, I stuck to my values and said that I'd rather make the videos I want than give it up just for a paint. If you feel like the way the Official status is set up right now makes it lose it's value, or pushes you to do something you'd rather not, like creating lots of short or low effort videos to reach the top level of club support faster (which is required to become Official), you can do what I would have done: Reject the Official status and stick to playing the game in a way that doesn't take the fun and satisfaction out of it. Don't apply for Official status, and publicly state why you don't do it. Don't rush to make 30 short videos, and say that the requirements for support force you to choose between getting more supplies/spectators and making the videos you want to make. Some of the rules and requirements are ridiculous, in fact so ridiculous that I was able to write a parody about them before they were published (not that reading the parody made any difference in the administration's choice about the rules), maybe I'll post it here later, for now here's a little taste:

That's the spirit! Burn it down! lol Seriously though, can't deny that it would be satisfying for me as someone who always viewed the whole Official thing as a distraction and a problem. Maybe let TFP have it because it basically became part of their identity at this point (think of it as them having the paint for historical reasons rather than for current circumstances if you like), but everyone else - even if they don't feel this way now - could really benefit from not being manipulated by this paint.

I think it would be nice to have clubs chosen by the community to become Official, by subjective judgment, like having Official and supported clubs announce when they think some club should become Official, and when all (or almost?) of those clubs agree then the status is awarded. I feel like being chosen by the community is the most pleasant and rewarding way to become Official (because then you know it is because the community thinks you deserve it, and not because you met some requirements), and the best way to make the paint feel valuable again (because the community will not disagree with any choice of making a club Official, and surely not everyone will let clubs get it easily). But if you do something like that, the process should take into account that beef/rivalry between clubs might mean there won't be a unanimous agreement sometimes. I guess you could play with the idea and have clubs vote just to see what the results would be like now. One thing I don't like about this idea is that it might cause some clubs to be offended by someone's choice not to vote for them, or to vote for someone else before them. The vote could be anonymous of course, but somehow I have a feeling that people will end up telling about their votes anyway. (I'm not actually expecting this to happen, just throwing around ideas lol...)

I also suggest having a week (or a few weeks, whatever seems right to you) to let the members of all clubs have the Official club paint of their choice just so they get to experience it if that's something they really wanted, this way they might feel less bad about the removal of this status (and even get to put out a video with these paints). Think about it as a goodbye party for the Official status lol.

I don't think that's the whole issue, but it's certainly a big issue. I suggest an equally simple solution: Remove the Official status completely. There are so many problems with the Official status (list in the spoiler), and very little advantage, especially nowadays when this status has lost it's meaning and value to many people. (Also, many people, including myself, never valued it at all in the first place.)

Wow this got blown out of proportion fast! I especially didn't expect a discussion about the meaning of the word 'pay' lol. To clarify my message: I started my message with the most important thing, and it was no sugar coating: I really mean it, from what I can see on the forum (and my chats with a club leader), you improved the rules and the community is doing (and feeling) better thanks to those changes. What I said is sad to see, is not certain rules, but the view (maybe I should have said: mindset) that led to the creation of problematic rules in the first place. Take a look at the statement that led to my previous post (this time with more context): Stripping some of the details, we get: "The videos could be better, and we're paying clubs for their videos, so they should satisfy our new preference (or else no support for the video)." Now you agree that it's better to not have this rule, but the fact that someone (whoever created this rule) had such a mindset shows that the original purpose of club support was neglected (resulting in doing the opposite of supporting clubs in their struggles). I'm not saying that the person who made this rule is necessarily always looking at clubs like they're paid workers that should satisfy every desire of the rule makers, I imagine it can be easy to slip up and make this mistake with good intentions, not realizing the impact this rule may have, and thinking that this is a favor to tell clubs how to make their videos look better easily. However, there was a time when an unkind, perfectionist and bureaucratic mindsets governed the parkour rules, and the damage stuck around long after the people who put these rules into place (I spoke to one of the rule makers back then, he held the opinion that parkour should be treated as strictly as eSports). And it's also possible to get tempted to encourage clubs to improve, using methods that have (maybe unforeseen) harmful side effects. That's why when I saw your post I decided to highlight the importance of staying true to the values I mentioned. Now that I think about it, I have a suggestion to make: before changing rules, ask clubs for their input, and ask follow up questions after the rule was active for a while to get a better idea of what impact it had on the clubs. Comments about the rest of the discussion following my post: I've seen complaints about certain rules, and comparisons to what it was like when I was in charge. First of all I agree that things were going well, and there was no need back then for rules that exist now. But after I left, it wasn't easy to find someone who felt ready to take over my responsibilities, let alone someone that had as much support from the community as I did. Then came the need to make some unpopular and unpleasant decisions (like make a certain club Official when opinions were divided about who deserves it more, or to deny/revoke support for certain clubs), and with them came rules to justify such decisions and make them feel less personal. If the club support manager made his own club Official, or his friend's club, it's very easy to call it corruption, but when there's a rule that states measurable conditions for becoming Official, then a club support manager can make his own (or any other) club Official without getting as much heat from the community about it, all the while being able to answer questions like "why this club but not that club?". (I realize that there were still problems with the conditions allegedly changing to match a certain club's performance, but let's not get into it now.) Unfortunately, the chosen solution to make the parkour community feel fair and to protect the people working to help this community, had some side effects: 1. The rules changed the meaning of being Official. Instead of being a prize for a long term, big and special contribution to the community, it became something like "this club is doing well for a long time", and then it became "this club is active, records with spectator, and meets a few other such criteria", all of this while also being viewed by many players as "this club had connections to a parkour club manager". 2. The rigidity of the rules (although sometimes softened by the parkour club manager's choice to delay unpleasant choices) placed a burden on the supported clubs to work harder to meet certain requirements even if it came at the cost of not enjoying it as much or burning out, and yes, a feeling of having a job to complete (to avoid a loss that to some might mean being unable to keep doing as much parkour as they want, and to not let down friends that need this support). Yeah that's only half of the story, but that's the half that matters now, that's why some rules are kept, and it's not easy to find an alternative. Moreover, circumstances have changed, if we went by the old standards for becoming Official then it may no longer be possible for any club to become official because there are no more big special contributions left to make: ToT was the first big success of it's kind and inspired many others including TFP who were the first long term parkour club in the EN community and contributed to the growth of this community, and FnF raised the creativity in parkour. For other clubs to become Official, the meaning of being Official had to be changed, and the question of "what is the right meaning of becoming Official?" is perhaps something that should be discussed publicly. So while there are problems with today's rules, I don't think that just going back to how things were in my time is going to work well, it will only replace some problems with others. I think it'd be good to aim for a middle ground where parkour clubs get as much freedom as possible while still allowing the club support manager to stop supporting clubs that no longer make use of this support, without having to suffer from the community's reaction, and without raising doubts about whether the decision was fair. For example, I suggest that clubs will be able to extend their access to spectator accounts (up to a reasonable limit) if they provide proof that they are in the middle of working on a video or if they said ahead of time that they expect a drop in activity (especially because there are times when everyone is suddenly busy preparing for exams, or the leader has to be inactive for a while). That way parkour clubs will know that when times are harder Tanki has their back and will let them take the time they need, so that soon enough they will be able to return to normal without burning out. (And if it isn't the case already, I'd say remove the time limit on supplies, when a club uploads a video it gets supplies, and when it doesn't it gets no supplies, fair and simple enough, right?)

@Adab, it's always good to see you making improvements for the parkour community, but there's one thing that is sad to see, and I don't know how much of it is coming from you or from the people whose requirements you have to keep in mind, but here it is: It's sad that being in a parkour club became viewed as a job. Originally, all clubs made videos for one reason only: fun! The club paint was a gift of genuine gratitude for a club's contribution to the game, and club support came from empathic people who saw the struggles of running a successful club (some good clubs were slowed down or demotivated by the need to fund their parkour). It wasn't payment, it was kindness. (I know because I was there.) I believe that despite the motivation of clubs to achieve official status or at least receive support, fun is still the main reason players do parkour and make videos, and I hope that the Tanki helpers and employees see it this way too, and will keep the rules and support system focused on these values: help parkour clubs have fun and contribute to the community without having to struggle for it, and reward them when you're grateful rather than for living up to perfectionist standards. I get it, it'd be really nice if the best clubs put in some work to make their videos more perfect in certain aspects, or to make more videos, but I'd be grateful to have such great clubs in the game even without these last improvements, and I wouldn't want to burden them with requirements that make it feel like making videos is a job. (Remember, they don't make videos because you pay them!)

This is how it was originally, until someone decided against it, probably to avoid the work related to adding a new paint. (I'm guessing based on the reason it was hard for me to get a Parkour Survival prize paint into the game: Tanki's management was against it because it takes some work, so I ended up reusing an old holiday paint and renamed it to "Sky".) I'm sure many people (myself included) would love to have this back, it was more personal this way and also a better fit for the club's videos (remember how FnF refused to use Phoenix in their videos). The "golden medal" analogy isn't perfect, mainly because it was never about competition with other clubs. It was more like an award, given to teams for their contribution and excellence. You don't need to lose your award in order for someone else to also win an award. Also, awards don't expire, but of course Tanki's situation requires some form of expiration, so here's my suggestion: A club gets to choose their unique official paint. (Or at least to participate in the paint choice: request certain details like "white with silver lines", and review the textures that are being considered.) The paint is a unique and permanent award for those who earned it, but not permanent for the club as a whole: Members of an official club get the paint. After the club loses it's official status, new members will no longer get the paint, but old members who already got the paint will keep it. (The need to remove paints from clubs comes from the fact that new members of a club that got worse over time don't deserve the paint. But if you are one of the old members who earned the paint, you don't un-earn it.) When a member leaves the club, the leader decides if he gets to keep the paint or not. (The goal with this is to avoid "paint diggers" from joining a club just for the paint and then leaving without making a contribution worthy of this award. And to let new members have a club paint in videos without worrying about whether or not they will deserve to keep it.) When a club closes, the paint stays only with the ex-members of this club. (The closed club may reopen in the future, and no one wants their unique paint to lose value by sharing it with other clubs.) Also, great job @Adab! I'm happy to see you taking this seriously, making an effort to understand the community, and making real progress towards solving the problems.

Years ago, before FnF was official, a community manager (Cedric or Nives) asked me what it means to become official. I said something like this: It's like a golden medal for a team that made a big and special contribution to the parkour community. Nowadays the official status means something like "uploads frequently, has 8+ tricks per video, and meets a few other criteria". I don't judge the official clubs, I point out that the management gradually changed the meaning of the official status by shifting the focus to technicalities and away from what the community values most, which upsets many people. There was a time when people flooded livestream chats like it's a protest, saying FnF should be made official. It was definitely not because of the upload rate. Does that make FnF (which the community supported like no other club in history, and became official) not good enough, or are the current criteria misleading? By the way: if you reward clubs for compromising content quality, something is wrong. But that's exactly what strict upload rates make: rushed videos, which are less satisfying to make and to watch. And that's not the only problematic rule, but I've said enough.