Constitutional Review

[Bozo 72]

12 hours ago, Demon17 said:

Debt free

$10M in cash and off AFL lifeline

Out of Gambling

65000+ members

Senior coaching support (note c.f Saints for example) and outcomes.

Premiership

Ongoing Top 4 window potential

Central Australia indigenous relationships

Female President.

This is a 'status quo' I like, compared to what I was watching since 1968.

Much like the result of this years tiresome back slapping and self congratulation over last years success as if that somehow indicates or gaurantees subsequent Premierships?

I have news for you...We failed BADLY this season despite attempts by many at creating a narrative that suggests all is rosey.

Second on the ladder at the conclusion of the home and away season for sure but then straight set finals losses is hardly something to be proud of. We didn't even look close for the second half of the year.

If you don't have what it takes when it matters everything else is just [censored].

The details matter whether they regard the constitution, the list depth, appropriate fitness,  or faith in an game plan that lacks subtlety and is egregiously flawed tactically. Why did they persist so? Where was the creativity and gall required to address the obvious flaw in the plan?

I remain unconvinced that we deserve to win again or indeed that we will anytime soon.

 

 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,289]

Anyone willing to have a stab at the results? I'm keen to hear guesses for both

TOTAL # of Votes

FOR %

My guess

TOTAL 9411 votes

FOR 83%

[Mach5 4,482]

12 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

You give them too much credit for the work of others.

Edited October 25, 2022 by Mach5

[WalkingCivilWar 32,016]

45 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Anyone willing to have a stab at the results? I'm keen to hear guesses for both

TOTAL # of Votes

FOR %

My guess

TOTAL 9411 votes

FOR 83%

I’ll go-

TOTAL: 15,455 votes
FOR: 77%

[WalkingCivilWar 32,016]

5 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

You give them too much credit for the work of others.

They ALL contributed to the success. 

[Cyclops 434]

3 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

Dr G normally love your work. But this is not your finest. I'll tell you a cautionary tale. I got my email address hacked a couple of years ago. The hackers used my email address to send out automated emails to 30,000 plus addresses every hour all over the world. This lead to my email address being registered on international registries as a spam address and being permanently blocked. That leads to it being rejected everywhere and everyone of those emails that goes out generates a detailed anti spam warning back to your email system. It literally means you're getting up to 100,000 email rejection notices per day. And it's impossible to stop. It goes on for weeks. This jammed our work email system and caused it to shut down so the entire business lost it's emails for some days. I was forced to quarantine and shutdown my email address. Have a think about how many places you use your email address. All had to be scraped and started again. I can't begin to tell you how many hours were lost over many many days for me and our whole business. Plus it damaged our corporate and personal credibility with people getting hundreds of these emails. They don't care it's from a hacker not you. You might think that's hilarious but I can assure you my business and I didn't. 

We've just seen the devastating impact of hackers getting hold of people's information at Optus and Medibank. It's turning into 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars of damages. Both these companies had excellent cyber security. This joker has got front page publicity in national newspapers about getting all our personal data and how unhappy a lot of members are about it. What cyber security do you think he has to stop the scenario above from happening especially as he has made himself a target with his publicity.  I have contacted them twice asking for their details so I can contact them and to find out what cyber security steps they are taking to protect our data. I have not had the basic courtesy of a reply on either topic. I am extremely concerned about this. 

Don't be fooled by this bloke and his faceless group. They might claim Democracy, transparency and accountability but they practice the opposite. They won't even tell you who they are, how many of them there are or their details so we can contact them. But they have litigated to get that information from all of us. If there were enough to be relevant they would have said so. I'd be very confident it's just a couple of people he's drummed up. A couple probably called Fido and Daffy.  

This is not an election. It's not a campaign with a couple of policies, it's a Constitution with hundreds of paragraphs and he wants to change them all. Do we get hundreds and hundreds of emails from all members voicing their opinions about what they want or don't want on each paragraph of his new Constitution. I could have done that. So could have other people I know who submitted suggestions that didn't make it. How do you go about doing this practically. You are never going to get everyone agreeing to the same thing. I accepted the process the Board set up with a Committee of experienced qualified people. We all got the opportunity to respond to changes that were sent through to us. If this gets stopped whats next. I don't agree with virtually all his amendments. Some I strongly disagree with. So what negotiations are going to go on. How do we ever move forward. I find most of the proposed amendments important and necessary.  

When you go on to his email which is supposed to be about responding to the Constitution you find content referring to Bartlett's legal actions as some sort of blight on the Board members he is suing. In my opinion that is a dirty political smear campaign which has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution but everything to do with his naked ambition to get elected after he's been rejected twice.

I urge people to get out there and send in their Proxy's to vote Yes. And to be clear I've got no ambitions to get on the Board. I have had no contact with anyone on the Board or the Admin about this process other than sending in my suggestion. My only agenda is having the Club in a position to do it's best work. I believe a stable Board is essential for that and this bloke is actively working to do the opposite. I'm appalled he's got my private details and won't tell me who his group is or what he's doing to protect my details. This bloke and group need to be kept as far away from our Club as we can get him.  

Thanks for your input ITA and you made some very strong points. I too have had problems with cyber security and it is not fun and extremely disturbing.  I was behind you until I found you overstating each point you made. In fact I believe you have made your protest all about you.

If Mr Lawrence or "this joker" as you call him  has "all your data" then I suggest you close your bank accounts.

"A lot of members are unhappy" ..how many have you counted?.

I couldn' t for the life of me see the want to change "hundred of paragraphs" by Deemocracy.

Every person has right to litigate and win. I am also sure it would be unwise to stretch the judgement as awarded. I don't  see that Mr Lawrence would be that unwise not to destroy the data.

I understand you may be upset but to call Mr Lawrence's supporters Fido and Daffy is just rude and unnecessary.

To say Mr Lawrence has been rejected twice with 40% and 27% of votes in the elections is just mathmatically incorrect and I would say that you might also be trying to say that Mr Lawrence is vindictive because of this. A slur on "this bloke" who is unknown to you.

I agree with you that "this bloke is actively working" but obviously not in the direction that you approve of.

I was gratified to read that you have no ambition to be on the Board. It is a pity that you need to condemn a person who may be interested.

As I have said I am sorry that you have been cybersneaked but don't  let it define you or your opinion of others.

 

 

 

[Its Time for Another 4,054]

2 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

This entire post is extremely well-written and makes a lot sense. The only negative is that you posted it only one hour ago. The deadline for nominating a proxy was 5pm today. Considering the No vote needs to make up only 25% of all votes in order to “win” this would’ve been absolutely invaluable had you posted it before the deadline. 

Oh well. Maybe it will be useful to any people attending the meeting. 

[WalkingCivilWar 32,016]

To those who emailed Peter Lawrence and haven’t received a reply, check this out…

 

Note he replied within 17 minutes of receiving my email. And why would that be? I’m glad I asked. That’d be because I informed him of the typos in his printed material. That’s enough to get anyone’s immediate attention. 😂

[Its Time for Another 4,054]

47 minutes ago, Cyclops said:

Thanks for your input ITA and you made some very strong points. I too have had problems with cyber security and it is not fun and extremely disturbing.  I was behind you until I found you overstating each point you made. In fact I believe you have made your protest all about you.

If Mr Lawrence or "this joker" as you call him  has "all your data" then I suggest you close your bank accounts.

"A lot of members are unhappy" ..how many have you counted?.

I couldn' t for the life of me see the want to change "hundred of paragraphs" by Deemocracy.

Every person has right to litigate and win. I am also sure it would be unwise to stretch the judgement as awarded. I don't  see that Mr Lawrence would be that unwise not to destroy the data.

I understand you may be upset but to call Mr Lawrence's supporters Fido and Daffy is just rude and unnecessary.

To say Mr Lawrence has been rejected twice with 40% and 27% of votes in the elections is just mathmatically incorrect and I would say that you might also be trying to say that Mr Lawrence is vindictive because of this. A slur on "this bloke" who is unknown to you.

I agree with you that "this bloke is actively working" but obviously not in the direction that you approve of.

I was gratified to read that you have no ambition to be on the Board. It is a pity that you need to condemn a person who may be interested.

As I have said I am sorry that you have been cybersneaked but don't  let it define you or your opinion of others.

 

 

 

Ok. Some responses to your comments just for clarification. 
I call him a joker because he pretends to say he is about democracy transparency and accountability but is joking. His email was faceless as are all the other people in his group. I emailed him to discuss. He did not respond and obviously isn't interested in discussing. 
I call him that bloke because his email doesn't use his name or anyone else's. 
One of the articles in the press advised the club had told them at that point they had received over 350 complaints. Have a read of this OP for a lot more. Everyone I have spoken to unanimously are furious he could get their details for this purpose and they are at risk. 
He wants to change the entire Constitution to the one he wants. Every single word. 
He has stretched the purpose from the Constitution to include dirty smearing electioneering. 
Deleting data doesn't destroy it. You have to do much more. I very much doubt he knows how to do this. 
Fido is the name of a dog and Daffy a duck. I was ironically implying his dog and duck are the other members of his group. I wasn't disparaging any humans. 
I'm sorry but I don't understand your point about the election. He stood for election and lost twice. 
I'm afraid I don't agree with your philosophy that just because someone stands for election they shouldn't be condemned if you think what they are doing is damaging not helping. 
Yes my post was about my cautionary tale of what happened to me. It is an important warning to 66,000 people who's data he has taken and has potentially exposed. And he has failed to reply to tell me or anyone what he's done to protect it. That does define him. It doesn't define me. 

[Cyclops 434]

3 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

Ok. Some responses to your comments just for clarification. 
I call him a joker because he pretends to say he is about democracy transparency and accountability but is joking. His email was faceless as are all the other people in his group. I emailed him to discuss. He did not respond and obviously isn't interested in discussing. 
I call him that bloke because his email doesn't use his name or anyone else's. 
One of the articles in the press advised the club had told them at that point they had received over 350 complaints. Have a read of this OP for a lot more. Everyone I have spoken to unanimously are furious he could get their details for this purpose and they are at risk. 
He wants to change the entire Constitution to the one he wants. Every single word. 
He has stretched the purpose from the Constitution to include dirty smearing electioneering. 
Deleting data doesn't destroy it. You have to do much more. I very much doubt he knows how to do this. 
Fido is the name of a dog and Daffy a duck. I was ironically implying his dog and duck are the other members of his group. I wasn't disparaging any humans. 
I'm sorry but I don't understand your point about the election. He stood for election and lost twice. 
I'm afraid I don't agree with your philosophy that just because someone stands for election they shouldn't be condemned if you think what they are doing is damaging not helping. 
Yes my post was about my cautionary tale of what happened to me. It is an important warning to 66,000 people who's data he has taken and has potentially exposed. And he has failed to reply to tell me or anyone what he's done to protect it. That does define him. It doesn't define me. 

Sorry my good fellow. All I can read is excuses for your poor behaviour. 

[old dee 22,918]

What a joke personal information is these days! It is not as though we can avoid giving it out. IMO all these large organisations have failed us terribly. So far I am not affected but it is only a matter of time. It makes reading this thread seem funny oh our emails address etc have been given to someone else. At least this guy bares us no  ill will. Well I don't think he does. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by old dee

[mauriesy 6,810]

14 minutes ago, old dee said:

What a joke personal information is these days! It is not as though we can avoid giving it out. IMO all these large organisations have failed us terribly. So far I am not affect but it is only a matter of time. It makes reading this thread seem funny oh our emails address etc have been given to someone else. At least this guy bares us no  ill will. Well I don't think he does. 

Well, it was also governments, not just companies, that made rules about data and data retention.

To buy a mobile phone until recently you needed the standard two items of ID. You still need a driver's licence. This is government mandated, so your data is everywhere.

Organisations like health insurers then need to keep data for 7 years. I get emails from Medibank about their data breach, but haven't been a customer for four years. If I'm not a customer, why do they still need my data? Again, it's government mandated.

On the flip side, I bought a new phone the other day, and of course it's a "new device". You can't easily remove your old device from some databases like MyGovID. It's hard to do online and easier to ring them (but get a callback to save waiting hours in a queue).

So be careful what you wish for when you complain about "security".

[Dante 2,562]

18 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

Dr G normally love your work. But this is not your finest. I'll tell you a cautionary tale. I got my email address hacked a couple of years ago. The hackers used my email address to send out automated emails to 30,000 plus addresses every hour all over the world. This lead to my email address being registered on international registries as a spam address and being permanently blocked. That leads to it being rejected everywhere and everyone of those emails that goes out generates a detailed anti spam warning back to your email system. It literally means you're getting up to 100,000 email rejection notices per day. And it's impossible to stop. It goes on for weeks. This jammed our work email system and caused it to shut down so the entire business lost it's emails for some days. I was forced to quarantine and shutdown my email address. Have a think about how many places you use your email address. All had to be scraped and started again. I can't begin to tell you how many hours were lost over many many days for me and our whole business. Plus it damaged our corporate and personal credibility with people getting hundreds of these emails. They don't care it's from a hacker not you. You might think that's hilarious but I can assure you my business and I didn't. 

We've just seen the devastating impact of hackers getting hold of people's information at Optus and Medibank. It's turning into 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars of damages. Both these companies had excellent cyber security. This joker has got front page publicity in national newspapers about getting all our personal data and how unhappy a lot of members are about it. What cyber security do you think he has to stop the scenario above from happening especially as he has made himself a target with his publicity.  I have contacted them twice asking for their details so I can contact them and to find out what cyber security steps they are taking to protect our data. I have not had the basic courtesy of a reply on either topic. I am extremely concerned about this. 

Don't be fooled by this bloke and his faceless group. They might claim Democracy, transparency and accountability but they practice the opposite. They won't even tell you who they are, how many of them there are or their details so we can contact them. But they have litigated to get that information from all of us. If there were enough to be relevant they would have said so. I'd be very confident it's just a couple of people he's drummed up. A couple probably called Fido and Daffy.  

This is not an election. It's not a campaign with a couple of policies, it's a Constitution with hundreds of paragraphs and he wants to change them all. Do we get hundreds and hundreds of emails from all members voicing their opinions about what they want or don't want on each paragraph of his new Constitution. I could have done that. So could have other people I know who submitted suggestions that didn't make it. How do you go about doing this practically. You are never going to get everyone agreeing to the same thing. I accepted the process the Board set up with a Committee of experienced qualified people. We all got the opportunity to respond to changes that were sent through to us. If this gets stopped whats next. I don't agree with virtually all his amendments. Some I strongly disagree with. So what negotiations are going to go on. How do we ever move forward. I find most of the proposed amendments important and necessary.  

When you go on to his email which is supposed to be about responding to the Constitution you find content referring to Bartlett's legal actions as some sort of blight on the Board members he is suing. In my opinion that is a dirty political smear campaign which has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution but everything to do with his naked ambition to get elected after he's been rejected twice.

I urge people to get out there and send in their Proxy's to vote Yes. And to be clear I've got no ambitions to get on the Board. I have had no contact with anyone on the Board or the Admin about this process other than sending in my suggestion. My only agenda is having the Club in a position to do it's best work. I believe a stable Board is essential for that and this bloke is actively working to do the opposite. I'm appalled he's got my private details and won't tell me who his group is or what he's doing to protect my details. This bloke and group need to be kept as far away from our Club as we can get him.  

You sound like someone with an agenda, how are we to know that you are not a member of the current Board putting forward your view? Maybe your email address has been hacked again and this is not really you?

I know Peter Lawrence and he is passionate in his support of the MFC and a big contributor to the finances of the club.

BTW, if the MFC get hacked you could be in trouble again.

    

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,472]

Putting aside any opinion about the actions of Peter Lawrence and Deemocracy, this is my justification of voting yes to the constitutional changes:

 - as pointed out earlier, this is not a vote between two constitutional models, this is a vote between the model put forward by the current board after several months of consultation between stakeholders (ie members) and the status quo.  The current constitution is outdated and is not relevant or appropriate, as it does not take into account contemporary practices of operation - the club has evolved, the constitution needs to be changed to catch up.

- the main reason for the change of the constitution is to allow for digital voting by members - at the moment the current constitution does not allow for it, and it costs the club tens of thousands in postal votes to our members.  Allowing digital votes will save the club a significant amount of money.  The club is a not for profit organisation, so if any expenditure can be saved, I'm all for it, not to mention making the voting system equitable and accessible.

- One of Peter Lawrence's grievances is his objection to the need for a nominee to the board to have 20 nominators instead of 2 - if it was a local suburban club I would say he's got a point.  However, it's not, it's a multi million dollar operation with 66,000 members, and needs a board with board members committed to the role.  If a member who wants to nominate can't find 20 people to support their nomination, then is the board of the football club really for them?

- Another bugbear of his is ensuring the board is made up of 33% female representation.  Some comments I've seen on social media about this is they don't want to support a "boy's club" mentality.  My argument to that is, has the current constitution prevented eligible and high quality board members in the past?  Did Kate Roffey get on the board because of a quota? No, she didn't.  If a board member, male or female, is passionate about the club, they would be able to state their case on merit.  The club is one of the most progressive clubs in the league - we pioneered AFLW, we have instilled inclusive measures, we were one of the first to have an Indigenous Reconciliation Plan, we have Ruby Demons and other supporter groups representing diverse members.  This has occurred through having representative board members acting on merit.  I don't want to see a situation where someone who is a high calibre candidate missing out on being on the board because of a quota.

- many of the inclusions he wants added are not necessarily constitutional inclusions, more ones that belong on a mission or vision statement.  And they're there already.  Not worth voting no over.

In short, get the constitutional changes that are desperately needed done now, because a no vote will not get in Peter Lawrence's proposals, it will merely delay the process and cost the club a hell of a lot of money.

[Its Time for Another 4,054]

30 minutes ago, Dante said:

You sound like someone with an agenda, how are we to know that you are not a member of the current Board putting forward your view? Maybe your email address has been hacked again and this is not really you?

I know Peter Lawrence and he is passionate in his support of the MFC and a big contributor to the finances of the club.

BTW, if the MFC get hacked you could be in trouble again.

    

Mate have a read of my earlier posts. I made it clear I am totally unconnected to the Board. My only agenda is I am a passionate Demons supporter who sees Lawrence's actions as being very damaging and not a positive for the Club at all. Being a big contributor to the finances of the Club thankfully unlike other Clubs doesn't give you an entitlement to a seat on the Board although that might explain his actions. 

I'd be a lot more confident a professional organisation has better cyber security than an individual who is part of a faceless group who take our information but won't share their own and won't explain what cyber security they have when asked. 

So are you one of the faceless deemocracy group? If there is more than one member. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by Its Time for Another

[Nasher 33,067]

19 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

Dr G normally love your work. But this is not your finest. I'll tell you a cautionary tale. I got my email address hacked a couple of years ago. The hackers used my email address to send out automated emails to 30,000 plus addresses every hour all over the world. This lead to my email address being registered on international registries as a spam address and being permanently blocked. That leads to it being rejected everywhere and everyone of those emails that goes out generates a detailed anti spam warning back to your email system. It literally means you're getting up to 100,000 email rejection notices per day. And it's impossible to stop. It goes on for weeks. This jammed our work email system and caused it to shut down so the entire business lost it's emails for some days. I was forced to quarantine and shutdown my email address. Have a think about how many places you use your email address. All had to be scraped and started again. I can't begin to tell you how many hours were lost over many many days for me and our whole business. Plus it damaged our corporate and personal credibility with people getting hundreds of these emails. They don't care it's from a hacker not you. You might think that's hilarious but I can assure you my business and I didn't. 

We've just seen the devastating impact of hackers getting hold of people's information at Optus and Medibank. It's turning into 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars of damages. Both these companies had excellent cyber security. This joker has got front page publicity in national newspapers about getting all our personal data and how unhappy a lot of members are about it. What cyber security do you think he has to stop the scenario above from happening especially as he has made himself a target with his publicity.  I have contacted them twice asking for their details so I can contact them and to find out what cyber security steps they are taking to protect our data. I have not had the basic courtesy of a reply on either topic. I am extremely concerned about this. 

How does having your email address equate to an increase risk of having your email hacked? Rhetorical question; it doesn't. It equates to an increased risk of receiving some emails - that's it. Your email address is everywhere. You used it to register your Demonland account. As an admin, I could click on your profile right now, see it, and email you. 

It's completely ridiculous to compare this to the Optus and Medibank breaches. He doesn't have all your personal data. He has your name, your address (which he already had, incidentally), and now your email address. The Optus and Medibank breaches gave enough personal data that in the wrong hands, could result in mass identity theft. That's not a plausible concern here.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

21 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Your email address is everywhere. You used it to register your Demonland account. As an admin, I could click on your profile right now, see it, and email you.

For me, the difference is where I choose to supply my email address.

I chose to supply my email address, including which one, to Demonland when signing up - I did not choose to supply my email address to 'Deemocracy'.

Demonland has a really clear privacy policy where it even outlines how it protects and stores user data - 'Deemocracy' have provided no such information and everything I've seen from them relating to technology has looked pretty shonky tbh.

If 'Deemocracy' actually lived up to their 'transparency' mantra then perhaps they would have supplied the obviously concerned members with the information regarding how they plan to use, store and then destroy the data.

[Dante 2,562]

31 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

Mate have a read of my earlier posts. I made it clear I am totally unconnected to the Board. My only agenda is I am a passionate Demons supporter who sees Lawrence's actions as being very damaging and not a positive for the Club at all. Being a big contributor to the finances of the Club thankfully unlike other Clubs doesn't give you an entitlement to a seat on the Board although that might explain his actions. 

I'd be a lot more confident a professional organisation has better cyber security than an individual who is part of a faceless group who take our information but won't share their own and won't explain what cyber security they have when asked. 

So are you one of the faceless deemocracy group? If there is more than one member. 

 

What do you mean by that remark?

No, I'm not and I've read some of this thread but far from all of it.  I went into bat for Peter when he was running for a board, but he was unsuccessful and that's as far as my involvement went. I was unhappy the way the board went about the elections, and it's certainly a closed shop.

Some of the members of the board have been there for a long time, they have to accept the bad as well as the good years, there were reasons we were bad, and they have to wear that.

I don't normally get involved in club politics and I'm not going to get involved in this.

And Lord Nev, do you want to get involved in the Face Palm saga again? You are on ignore and I can take that off and we can start again, if you want.

 

[rpfc 27,486]

59 minutes ago, Nasher said:

 As an admin, I could click on your profile right now, see it, and email you. 

Yeah but will you?!

 

[Its Time for Another 4,054]

12 minutes ago, Dante said:

 

What do you mean by that remark?

 

That he might think he's entitled to a seat on the Board because he is a financial contributor and that makes his opinions more valid than everyone elses. 

[drysdale demon 4,167]

15 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

That he might think he's entitled to a seat on the Board because he is a financial contributor and that makes his opinions more valid than everyone elses. 

Exactly my thoughts as well, we don't need liniment sniffers on the board ever again

[Supermercado 2,617]

Tuning in tonight in the hope of some verbal biff. After all those years of AGMs when we were rubbish and nobody went off their nut I'm hoping this is the night.

[Dante 2,562]

25 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

That he might think he's entitled to a seat on the Board because he is a financial contributor and that makes his opinions more valid than everyone elses. 

Ok then, so that's just your opinion, no basis of fact at all.

Carry on.

[Dante 2,562]

11 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

Exactly my thoughts as well, we don't need liniment sniffers on the board ever again

Would it surprise you that some of the current members of the board are also financial backers of the club, does that make them liniment sniffers as well?

[Tim 2,822]

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

How does having your email address equate to an increase risk of having your email hacked? Rhetorical question; it doesn't. It equates to an increased risk of receiving some emails - that's it. Your email address is everywhere. You used it to register your Demonland account. As an admin, I could click on your profile right now, see it, and email you. 

It's completely ridiculous to compare this to the Optus and Medibank breaches. He doesn't have all your personal data. He has your name, your address (which he already had, incidentally), and now your email address. The Optus and Medibank breaches gave enough personal data that in the wrong hands, could result in mass identity theft. That's not a plausible concern here.

Nasher, there seem to be a lot of posters on here who must either sleep with the lights on, or have another agenda aimed at painting Lawrence as badly as possible.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Tim