Why is atheist Ireland/Michael Nugent given free advertising space on boards.ie?

Penn

ken wrote: »

If Greenpeace signed up and started posting in the animals and pets forum about meetings,fundraisers and seminars without first getting a rep account the mods their would ban them immediately and they'd be told to contact hello@boards or told to go away by Gordan in prison.

But it's not Atheist Ireland, it's Michael Nugent. A personal account. And he checked with the mods in advance if it was okay to post what he posted. And he doesn't solely use the account to only post about meetings, fundraisers and seminars.

It's not the same thing.

Wibbs

ejmaztec wrote: »

I've noticed quite a few charitable organisations pleading against their banning in the Prison Forum, and haven't noticed any where the permanent siteban has been reversed. It makes me wonder what the difference in the tolerance level is.

That's my issue. NOT that Michael is posting about AI on the A&A forum, but where is the line and "up to the local mods/each forum is different" is a bit vague.

Once it's not commercial? OK but then that would bugger up Doctor Dooms forums if implemented which would be a bad thing for the community over there. So is it OK if we let commercial entities give advice over on the watches forum? Charities? Well if what ejmaztec has noted in the prison forum is the case that's confusing again(haven't searched so..). Lobby groups like Michaels? Ones we like are OK, but others not so much?

It's clear Michael's input in A&A is well received by the locals and adds to the place. The thing is if he had posted in a similar way on one of the forums I mod or any number of other forums on Boards, chances are high he would have been warned, even banned for "soapboxing" or somesuch, long before he got the chance to be an asset.

"Promotion is NOT our focus here, discussion is." Now within that I've defo no issue with interested parties helping out the community as DD and others have described, but like I said where is the line? Fcuk hardline rules and all that shíte, however if you have one really obvious example of rules being ignored and in other forums they're rigidly adhered to then people will wonder. If nothing else accusations of proactive bias will come into it. Again "all forums are different" is too pat an answer and leads to threads like this and confusion for mods and users elsewhere which we can all do without.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Okay, fair enough, but here’s what I think you should consider to avoid such confusion in the future. Don’t start threads that fuse together “Atheist Ireland/Michael Nugent” as if it is the same thing. Don’t discuss “Atheist Ireland/Michael Nugent” as if it is the same thing. I think a lot of your issues with my posts flow from this way of looking at things.

Granted. Though perhaps you could explain where "Michael Nugent" the individual ends and where "Michael Nugent" of Atheist Ireland ends because it is not clear as you are clearly speaking the majority of the time as an official rep of Atheist Ireland.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Now, with regard to the point we were discussing, if you are talking about Atheist Ireland, here are some of our policies as per our recent AGM, that are not directly confined to victims of religious oppression.

I don't doubt that you are a well-intentioned and decent man who is doing what they see as right for the betterment of others. Even in this thread you have responded with admirable dignity under the circumstances. This shouldn't entitle you to preferential treatment though, but as I've said the issue is not with you. I shouldn't have personalised the discussion and genuinely apologise.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

It's "Atheist Ireland". It will obviously be more involved in issues relating to "Atheism" in "Ireland".

Unless it's the Islams persecuting Christians abroad...because of religion

To me the Uighur Muslims persecuted for decades because of their religion by the atheistic Communist Party of China are just as important as others elsewhere persecuted due to religion. But this is all beside the point.

Wibbs

Penn wrote: »

But it's not Atheist Ireland, it's Michael Nugent. A personal account. And he checked with the mods in advance if it was okay to post what he posted. And he doesn't solely use the account to only post about meetings, fundraisers and seminars.

It's not the same thing.

Ah c'mon P, that's just a tad disingenuous. Actually no I'm being unfair to you, actually it's better described as a tad inaccurate. All of the 30 odd threads Michael started are about AI. The vast proportion that I've read of his posts are concerning AI or in reply to questions about AI. Obviously AI and A&A are gonna have damn near complete crossover(plus it's Michaels "thing" and he's a well seasoned and committed campaigner(which is all too rare and to be admired)), but still.

The personal account part? I've warned/banned watchmakers and people working for watch companies and none of their usernames were Citizen or Rolex.

Checked with the mods? TBH given the calibre of the mods in A&A I have to say that bit I'd agree with, but at the same time I'd wonder if they were too quick to relax the rules given how many threads concerning the org were started? If Mr Patek Philippe or Mr Sinn signed up to the watches forum me and Bedlam would be headbutting the approve button so fast we'd be concussed so I get that...

Penn

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah c'mon P, that's just a tad disingenuous. Actually no I'm being unfair to you, actually it's better described as a tad inaccurate. All of the 30 odd threads Michael started are about AI. The vast proportion that I've read of his posts are concerning AI or in reply to questions about AI. Obviously AI and A&A are gonna have damn near complete crossover, but still.

The personal account part? I've warned/banned watchmakers and people working for watch companies and none of their usernames were Citizen or Rolex.

Checked with the mods? TBH given the calibre of the mods in A&A I have to say that bit I'd agree with, but at the same time I'd wonder if they were too quick to relax the rules given how many threads concerning the org were started? If Mr Patek Philippe or Mr Sinn signed up to the watches forum me and Bedlam would be headbutting the approve button so fast we'd be concussed so I get that...

I agree that obviously, Michael Nugent and Atheist Ireland sort of go hand-in-hand, but at the same time, it's not a huge step that the head of Atheism Ireland would find himself on the atheist section of Ireland's biggest discussion board. I'd say even if he wasn't part of AI, he'd probably be a forum regular anyway (probably with a more random username).

As for what you'd do in the Watches forum, obviously I can't comment in that. That would be your call. But if you allowed it under certain conditions (poster still has to engage in discussion etc), I'd have a hard time arguing against you. You're the mod and you know what's best for the forum. Different forums and different mods do things different ways.

I don't think watches are a fair comparison because then you enter the realm of sales, commercialism, competing companies etc. What Michael Nugent posts tend to be about meetings or campaigns AI are involved in.

P. Breathnach

From three separate posts in this thread:

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Brown Bomber, this is looking awfully like you're trying to silence someone whos opinion you don't like....

Doctor DooM wrote: »

... I note every regular user except for you seems to be saying that....

Doctor DooM wrote: »

You see this is why you're never going to have many fans on Boards....

Any comment necessary?

Oryx

BB, can I just ask, for the sake of clarity, what your attitude to this Nugent chap and his lobby group is? Because I am following this thread with interest and I would like to know if there is any bias on your part that is at play here.

For the most part I think you make s good argument, however this is a unique case in a unique forum. If the forum runs well, if it is busy with active, regular posters, then do you not think that the mods are working well and may be making the correct call in this case?

Brown Bomber

Oryx wrote: »

BB, can I just ask, for the sake of clarity, what your attitude to this Nugent chap and his lobby group is? Because I am following this thread with interest and I would like to know if there is any bias on your part that is at play here.

I respect Michael from my brief exchanges with him. I consider him a gentleman. As for AI I have no beef with them, though would have some minor disagreements with them.

Oryx wrote: »

For the most part I think you make s good argument, however this is a unique case in a unique forum. If the forum runs well, if it is busy with active, regular posters, then do you not think that the mods are working well and may be making the correct call in this case?

Well would the forum be any less well run, busy or active if he wasn't permitted to promote his org to the same extent?

Can Mr Nugent be involved in the same discussions without trying to flog tickets or urging people to canvas for his preferred politicians? I don't see why not.

If his sole purpose isn't in fact self-promotion but discussion, like every other genuine user then surely forbidding the self-promotion (as is the case with practically everyone else) would have no detrimental effect on the forum but would have the obvious added bonus of being seen to act fairly and equally to all users and not picking favourites because of what they stand for. Guy in the Hindu forum "no, you can't do that!". Guy in the atheist forum "Sure, go right ahead".

Sacksian

Are the mods and users of A&A happy to have Michael Nugent posting in the forum?

If so, I don't see what the problem is.

Does this mean that posting information/advertising topics in another/any forum is therefore okay? Well, check with the mods first. If they okay it and the users subsequently complain (and I *think* this happened in the music production forum a while back), then the judgement can be revisited.

Lots of feedback threads have concluded that such discretion should not be removed.

Michael Nugent

Here are some random thoughts about moderation in general.

I was involved years ago with Local Ireland, an early attempt to create an online community for Irish people. In retrospect, I think one of its problems was that it was structured too much from the top down.

Ultimately, if a community is to thrive, it will do so based on the interaction of the members of the community. The moderators should be trying to help the community to work together, not imposing unneeded restrictions.

Not allowing free commercial advertising is a reasonable rule. Not allowing spamming is a reasonable rule. Not allowing illegal postings is a reasonable rule. Any rule that helps ensure the forum works well technically is a reasonable.

But in applying rules within any community, there will be grey areas. As a general proposition, I think that moderators of each forum should have discretion to deal with these grey areas.

It’s not necessary or desirable for each forum to have exactly the same rules for grey areas. We can see in real life many examples of rules being applied inflexibly, with no good outcome. Common sense should be more important than ‘them’s the rules’.

I think the spirit of enabling an online community to police itself is the best starting point. Ultimately, if the moderators are either allowing, or not allowing, things to happen that the community does not like, then a properly functioning community will let them know.

Here are some random thoughts about the specific issue of my posts.

I post personally on A&A. Atheist Ireland does not.

As I’ve said from the start, I am happy to go along with whatever rules the moderators decide.

I don’t merely announce Atheist Ireland activities, although I do that. If I have time, I will check what the proportion of my posts are on different topics. However, regardless of the detail of that, the following is the case.

Most of the announcements that I make about Atheist Ireland are about information that is of not only interest, but of benefit to A&A members. It is often detailed information about how atheists are discriminated against and what we can do to reverse that. The fact that it comes from Atheist Ireland is secondary to the content of the information.

There is a more symbiotic relationship between the A&A forum than simply me announcing Atheist Ireland activities. Often I am looking for feedback, and Atheist Ireland has changed the focus of its campaigns (such as the census information campaign) specifically on the basis of discussions on A&A.

A lot of my posts on A&A are in the same vein as some of the posts on this thread. Somebody posts inaccurate comments about Atheist Ireland, and I correct them. Or else they ask questions about Atheist Ireland, and I answer them. A discussion ensues. To be honest, I often spend more time on that than I would like to, because it keeps me from doing other things, but I think it is a priority to be open and transparent and interact with people who our activities are relevant to.

As I said, I have always been and am happy to go along with whatever rules the moderators decide.

ejmaztec

Sacksian wrote: »

Are the mods and users of A&A happy to have Michael Nugent posting in the forum?

If so, I don't see what the problem is.

Does this mean that posting information/advertising topics in another/any forum is therefore okay? Well, check with the mods first. If they okay it and the users subsequently complain (and I *think* this happened in the music production forum a while back), then the judgement can be revisited.

Lots of feedback threads have concluded that such discretion should not be removed.

Whilst the mods might have a say, it's clear in the Prison Forum that users don't get the opportunity to be happy about a charitable organisation posting anywhere because the charity-poster gets an outright permaban, and never gets let off the hook. Because the particular post also gets deleted no-one knows it was there, so can never give an opinion.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I respect Michael from my brief exchanges with him. I consider him a gentleman. As for AI I have no beef with them, though would have some minor disagreements with them.

Thanks for that.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Guy in the Hindu forum "no, you can't do that!". Guy in the atheist forum "Sure, go right ahead".

Or here is another way of looking at it:

Guy in the Hindu forum: "Check with the mods. If you disagree with them, here is how to appeal it."
Guy in the atheist forum: "Check with the mods. If you disagree with them, here is how to appeal it."

Wibbs

Great post M and I agree with so much of it. However...

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I post personally on A&A. Atheist Ireland does not.

Yes Michael, but c'mon lets not split hairs here, your threads are all about Atheist Ireland and your posts are mostly in response to it(naturally considering your take and the audience involved) and you are the obvious to a passerby the rep of that entity. For good or ill you are, or have become Atheist Ireland. It is your bag, your thing and that's cool, but to suggest you post as "personally" is a tad rich. I don't see you posting very often on the countless other forums hereabouts. Actually looking into your history I don't see a single post that isn't connected to your "thing" in some way, so let's dismiss that as an argument?

Most of the announcements that I make about Atheist Ireland are about information that is of not only interest, but of benefit to A&A members. It is often detailed information about how atheists are discriminated against and what we can do to reverse that. The fact that it comes from Atheist Ireland is secondary to the content of the information.

Agreed, but your soapboxing for the cause and again so many other forums have had similar people to yourself that were nuked from orbit because they broke the "soapboxing/self promoting" rule long before they became the asset to a forum you have become. Looking back on various forums I've modded/mod I can think of a fair few examples of this and I've seen similar in other forums. Like I said where is the line? And the "oh it's up to the local mods/forums differ" is pretty weak tea to be going on with. Grand for massaging egos in defence of your position but hardly an argument and defo not a solution as I see it.

IE

Penn wrote:

I don't think watches are a fair comparison because then you enter the realm of sales, commercialism, competing companies etc. What Michael Nugent posts tend to be about meetings or campaigns AI are involved in.

OK but the "sales, commercialism, competing companies etc" are involved with some of Doctor Doom's forums and the promoters involved and as he correctly pointed out if they were censured the forums he references would be the poorer. Again where is the line here?

Michael Nugent

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I said where is the line?

Well, the short answer is (or at least in my opinion should be) that each community should determine it, and the moderators should help that process to happen and police it on behalf of the community.

Wibbs

Good answer though handily it does suit you and your position. OK then M, I reckon we in the Watches forum should largely ignore the Boards office, ethos and rules and let some commercial guys and gals in, cos you know we reckon it would benefit the forum(as per Doctor Doom's examples). I reckon we should let all sorts of lobby groups, maybe even some commercial groups into the Ladies Lounge cos we reckon it would benefit the forum(as per your example). So long as we're all in agreement as local mods. Cool beans, we'll have a confab and start on Monday.

Yea I can see that happening. Not. And with bloody good reason. As has been said from a long way back this site is a discussion site, not a notice board for clearly vested interests(even if I agree with your angle and I do. How long would this thread be if it was Catholic bishops for christ involved? Snowball in an imagined hell scenario I suspect). Or maybe it is for some cases? OK then, but I ask again where is the line the rest of us should draw as users and mods?

Morag

Brownbomber you still haven't answered my question which was, did you pm the mods of the forum about this issue?


Also there are other forums on the site were advertising of events is permitted if it seen to be of benefit to the forum/community.

Like the BlanchLibrary account which posts about events in the Dublin15 forum
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=214524

It is up to the mods and I think you are being awkward about it tbh.


Wibbs it's always been the case that those who take part in the site, who generate content, who contribute to the communities have been
granted more lee way then those who don't and only sign up to exploit the site. Membership has it's privileges and mods have discretion.

Michael Nugent

Wibbs wrote: »

Good answer though handily it does suit you and your position.

Whether or not it suits my position is irrelevant to whether or not it is a good answer.

My position is that I am happy to go along with whatever rules the moderators decide. And obviously the moderators are restricted by whatever the owners of the site decide. My opinion on how they should best do that is that the owners of the site should allow the moderators the discretion to help the community within each forum to police the grey areas.

In principle, if the watches forum community wanted to discuss things with commercial people, there is no inherent reason why that would be a bad thing, and in principle, if they did want that, and boards didn't supply it, and some other forum did, they could go there.

Personally, as I've said before, I think not allowing free commercial advertising is a reasonable rule, not allowing spamming is a reasonable rule, not allowing illegal postings is a reasonable rule, and any rule that helps ensure the forum works well technically is a reasonable rule.

But in applying rules within any community, there will always be grey areas. And approaching those grey areas with flexibility is generally a better way for communities to thrive, which I assume is the ultimate object.

I don't see any reason why the Catholic Bishops shouldn't post in the Christianity forum, if the community there wanted them to. What would the reason against that be?

Wibbs wrote: »

OK then, but I ask again where is the line the rest of us should draw as users and mods?

I'm not sure what you are asking me here. Is it a list of how I think specific situations should be addressed?

Michael Nugent

Morag wrote: »

It is up to the mods and I think you are being awkward about it tbh.

This conversation reminds me of the quote attributed to Garret Fitzgerald:

"I can see that it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Brown Bomber

My opinion on this is way past the point of redundant at this stage so I'll bow out after this unless somebody should ask me a question. This particular case has no fix-all solution imo.

On the one hand Mr Nugent is an eloquent and affable individual who as an individual is certainly an asset to A&A and his posts, though promotional in nature are genuinely informative, if agenda-driven. This agenda, at least in part would dovetail in with the worldviews of the A&A mods and the bulk of the posters there, so the promotion of the agenda on boards.ie's dime never really raised any eyebrows. If boards.ie was simply A&A.ie I don't believe there would be an issue, provided rival atheist groups were provided equal opportunities on the pulpit.

On the other hand there is doing the right thing. All the arguments that advocate for Michael to be given unique VIP treatment, that no other political lobbyist on the site enjoys have been extremely poor - "amateur podcasters", "moderator discretion" etc. There is simply no valid reason for atheist Ireland being permitted to lobby while like/similar nobodies are repeatedly "prisoned". At it's most basic level there is no difference between Atheist ireland recruiting/promoting etc in A&A and a radical Wahabbi fringe group called Shariah Ireland recruiting/promoting in Islam. Ahmed from Shariah Ireland would be banned faster than Nicholas Cage can rob cars though.

The situation is what it is though. Michael, as he's said, requested permission before advertising, he has done no wrong. It would be a little unfair to just pull the rug from under his feet after he has added to the forum in some ways. Going forward, does this set a precedent? That's an extra complication.

Perhaps the best way to move forward is to acknowledge some mistakes were made along the way and to try and avoid them in the future while maintaining the current situation in Michael's case?

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Agreed, but your soapboxing for the cause and again so many other forums have had similar people to yourself that were nuked from orbit because they broke the "soapboxing/self promoting" rule long before they became the asset to a forum you have become. Looking back on various forums I've modded/mod I can think of a fair few examples of this and I've seen similar in other forums. Like I said where is the line? And the "oh it's up to the local mods/forums differ" is pretty weak tea to be going on with. Grand for massaging egos in defence of your position but hardly an argument and defo not a solution as I see it.

An Atheist organisation posting in A&A is hardly soapboxing Wibbs? Soapboxing would be disruptive over a period of time, I don't think this qualifies but I amn't familiar with the forum.

It's a not for profit organisation so not really shilling or for commercial purposes. I'm trying to think of a valid comparison but Christianity has different creeds so one can't be favoured over another, this case isn't quite the same, Islam has different faiths as well.

No doubt I'll get told Atheism has different strands to nullify my point!

We've a general thread for rallies, marches, calls to action, petitions etc. in politics, we don't treat any group preferentially but again, that's different again.

Morag

This is not setting a precedent, it's just an example of how things work, how things seem to have always worked.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2765803&postcount=2

In other words he acts much like a polite guest, rather than putting his feet up on the table and telling us to put the kettle on. This is why we like him. He can stay.

There has always been wiggle room, mod discretion for when the content being posted is to the benefit to the community, when it's sparks good discussion.

I get that it is not as cut and dried as some may like but it's like being a 'regular' anywhere, members in good standing always get treated differently then blow ins, it's part of what makes any place a community. Again membership has it's privileges.

Brown Bomber

Morag wrote: »

Brownbomber you still haven't answered my question which was, did you pm the mods of the forum about this issue?

Apologies. The answer is I haven't.

Morag wrote: »

Also there are other forums on the site were advertising of events is permitted if it seen to be of benefit to the forum/community.

Like the BlanchLibrary account which posts about events in the Dublin15 forum
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=214524

It is up to the mods and I think you are being awkward about it tbh.

That is interesting but an unfair comparison IMO books vs politicised atheism. Personally I find it charming that a library employee is making an effort to involve their local community through boards. The new world benifitting the old world.

I respect your opinion, but let's take this example: the mods in politics decide that White Supremacist and former Klansman David Duke should be allowed to promote his organisation/website/books through boards, and proceeds to publish tons of racist and anti-semitic crap. Now what if the only justification given is "mods discretion"? Should we accept it? I don't think so.

Doctor DooM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is interesting but an unfair comparison IMO

I respect your opinion, but let's take this example: the mods in politics decide that White Supremacist and former Klansman David Duke should be allowed to promote his organisation/website/books through boards, and proceeds to publish tons of racist and anti-semitic crap. Now what if the only justification given is "mods discretion"? Should we accept it? I don't think so.

Once again, you're shifting goal posts here. Comparing Nugent's posts to a racist and anti semitic is outrageous tbh.

You don't get to complain about unfair comparisons then do that.

Brown Bomber

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Once again, you're shifting goal posts here. Comparing Nugent's posts to a racist and anti semitic is outrageous tbh.

You don't get to complain about unfair comparisons then do that.

It was never intended as a comparison just to raise the issue of perspectivism as it is apt here.

Morag

Well the blanch library account posts about ticketed events in the Drioacht so there is a more commercial aspect to those then to that of Mr Nugent.

As for KKK postings those would breach the site rules on a few counts and would not be acceptable. Are you really trying to equate Mr Nugent's posts with hate speech?
I find it hard to believe you are that naive so I am left to conclude you are being disingenuous.

Doctor DooM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It was never intended as a comparison just to raise the issue of perspectivism as it is apt here.

Oh, you mean like this post, detailing where your point would have negative effects on boards when looked at from a site wide perspective, where I used actual real examples, instead of using ridiculous anti semitic comparisons?

Doctor DooM wrote: »

As was I.

I'll let the comedy charity lads know that can't promote that anywhere next year so, to make sure your rules are enforced. Bigger picture.



They provoke discussion from the regular posters. I'm not bothered to go examining all his previous posts, sorry, I'm just an actual regular user of the forum and I enjoy his contribution. Bigger picture than what he gets out of it, do the posters get something out of it?

I note every regular user except for you seems to be saying that.



It's not for you or me to decide: if the mods decide it enhances the forum- which I believe they do- then IMO he should stay. Bigger picture.

As pointed out to you, yes, in one forum I mod there are people exclusively posting about tournaments they are running, all over Europe.

If they do something I am not comfy with, I stop them (and have done).

It would be the end of a busy forum to stop this from happening.

I don't care if your focus is just political- that's goal shifting. It matters to more things than your own hobby horse. Bigger picture.

Morag

KKK lobby groups seek to take away and limit the human rights of a section of people,
AI lobby group seek to remove limits to the human rights of a section of people,
I don't get how they are comparable.

Brown Bomber

Morag wrote: »

Well the blanch library account posts about ticketed events in the Drioacht so there is a more commercial aspect to those then to that of Mr Nugent.

I'll have to take your word for it. As it stands they cross a red line if the rules are consistently applied. Moreso if they have a personal interest in the ticket sales and not simply promoting culture.

Morag wrote: »

As for KKK postings those would breach the site rules on a few counts and would not be acceptable. Are you really trying to equate Mr Nugent's posts with hate speech?
I find it hard to believe you are that naive so I am left to conclude you are being disingenuous.

I'm afraid you'll have to make your mind up because you are contradicting yourself. Is it "up to the mods" or not? If the ultimate deciding factor is "mods" discretion then it's promote away Michael Nugent...and David Duke (in the hypothethical situation.)

Morag

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm afraid you'll have to make your mind up because you are contradicting yourself. Is it "up to the mods" or not? If the ultimate deciding factor is "mods" discretion then it's promote away Michael Nugent...and David Duke (in the hypothethical situation.)

I reject your premise, there is no point in trying engage on the the argument above it's fallacious.

You seem to be failing to grasp the concept that there is leeway given to mods in terms of how the rules are applied, that for some cases the rules have some give but they while they may be flexible they do not break.

While oversight is important, and we should be able to question where we think the site rules are being over looked, or ignored and have situations reviewed, it seems you weren't aware that what you have seen as an erroneous situation is well with in the operating standards and procedures for the site.

If Mr Nugent had failed to contact the mods of the forum about his contributions then things would be different, if Mr Nugent had of been issued warnings about his contributions and persisted contrary to mod instruction then things would be very different.

As things stand the mods it would seem took all factors into consideration and as far as I can see took a decision for the good of the forum, considering the site rules, Mr Nugent's good standing with in the community and have not stepped beyond their remit.

It's being able to make that sort of judgement calls which is why people get asked to become mods in the first place.