text:
Amid mREIT Headaches, This Company Is Confident
Mohsin is a member of The Motley Fool Blog Network -- entries represent the personal opinion of the blogger and are not formally edited.
Investment Strategy
Overall MBS prepayment speeds have declined during the month of November. However, prepayment speeds on higher coupon securities have increased, which are causing headaches for Annaly Capital (NYSE: NLY). Compared to American Capital Agency (NASDAQ: AGNC) and Armour Residential (NYSE: ARR), Annaly Capital own securities with higher coupons. Among the three REITs, Annaly also has the highest prepayment speed for its MBS portfolio. Annaly was also forced to cut its dividend for the fourth quarter, while American Capital maintained its quarterly dividend. These are the reasons why I am more confident about the future of American Capital and Armour Residential. Therefore, I am bullish on AGNC and ARR. I have a neutral rating for Annaly Capital.
Mortgage Market Update
Overall prepayments speeds declined during the month of November. However, speeds on higher coupon securities increased during the month for both, 30-year and 15-year fixed rate agency securities. The prepayment speeds on 30-year MBS decreased on average 8% month over month to 29.9% CPR. FN and FH 15-year speeds were at 22.6% and 24.5% CPR, respectively. While the corresponding 30-year MBS have prepayment speeds of 29.6% and 30.3% CPR, respectively.
Annaly Capital
Despite the fact that the Federal Open Market Committee of the Fed chose to increase Treasury purchases to replace Operation Twist instead of increased MBS purchases, Annaly Capital Management is facing tremendous pressure as far as its net interest margin is concerned. Annaly stands to be the largest Agency-only mortgage REIT in the US, with a market cap of $13.9 Billion. Securities other than Agency MBS are allowed to be included in the company's portfolio as long as they don't exceed 25% of the total assets. Looking at the situation, the company's management proposed the acquisition of the remaining portion of CreXus Investment (CXS). However, the management of CreXus does not seem to be in any hurry to evaluate the proposal made by Annaly Capital.
Prepayment Headaches for NLY
The weighted average coupon on the holdings of Annaly Capital at the end of the third quarter decreased from 4.55% to 4.10% at the end of the same quarter of the prior year. However, the weighted average purchase price increased to 103.7% from 102.3% a year ago, exposing the company to more amortization costs. The company reported an average prepayment speed of 20% at the end of the third quarter of the current year.
In comparison both, American Capital Agency and Armour Residential have lower average coupons on their holdings. At the end of this year's third quarter, AGNC reported 3.86% average coupon, up from 2.81% a quarter ago. Armour Residential reported an average coupon of 3.54% on its Agency securities at the end of this year's third quarter. The weighted average expected CPRs for American Capital and Armour Residential are 12% and 13%, respectively. Since both have lower coupon securities compared to Annaly Capital, both face favorable prepayment speeds on their MBS portfolios.
Annaly has recently announced a dividend cut. The quarterly dividend was cut from its previous $0.5 per distribution to $0.45 for the fourth quarter. Though the magnitude of the cut was lower than what analyst were expecting, it does reflect the fact that the company's operating income is facing increased downwards pressure.
The mortgage REITs are currently trading at a 7% discount on average to their estimated fourth quarter book values and yielding 13.2%. Agency-only mortgage REITs are trading at a 7% discount to their hybrid peers which is why they provide better relative value. While hybrid REITs have an edge as they can invest across the entire mortgage universe, Agency-only REITs offer better value given their valuation discount. Among Agency-only, American Capital Agency remains my top pick along with Armour Residential. The following table summarizes the valuations of some of the mortgage REITs mentioned in the report.
I continue to favor hybrid mortgage REITs. However, among Agency-only mortgage REITs, the ones with prepay protected portfolios will have more stable cash flows from lower reinvestment needs. AGNC, ARR, Apollo Residential (AMTG), Invesco Mortgage (IVR), American Capital Mortgage (MTGE) and Two Harbors (TWO) have the lowest and most stable prepays in the sector.
SmartEquity has no positions in the stocks mentioned above. The Motley Fool owns shares of Annaly Capital Management. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Is this post wrong? Click here. Think you can do better? Join us and write your own!


text:
Shop LMTD fabrics!
Satin LMTD and Poly Crepe de Chine LMTD available while supplies last!
I'm an inner city high school teacher who draws, colors, and sews to relax (or when procrastinating).
Receive our weekly email with news about contests, giveaways and prodution releases.
Email Address
No Thanks
© 2008-2014 Spoonflower Inc

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Is there anything Kate Middleton CAN'T do? The stunning pregger looked adorable attending the snowy Swiss wedding of her friend Mark Tomlinson, who married Olympic equestrian Laura Bechtolsheimer yesterday.
Her thick cream coat was accentuated with brown fur trim and beneath it she wore a Max Mara we have seen before. She also wore heels and, according to People, was walking very carefully in them while also clutching her "baby bump," a pose that is becoming more familiar to us all.
Since the pregnant Duchess of Cambridge revealed her pregnancy, she has been mostly not seen (largely because the poor woman was so sick), but now that she is back in the public eye, she has been seen more with that familiar pregnant lady stance -- hands on belly. In her case, though, it's for a different reason.
Here is the thing: It is Kate's body. Shocking, I know, since half of England seems to think they own her. But it is. It is her body, her family, and HER baby "bump." Actually, I hate that term. Why do we obsess so much over baby "bumps"?
I know as a pregger myself, I was very protective of my growing baby. It was an intimate and quiet time with my husband and with myself. My growing body was my own to marvel at and stare at in the mirror. At 20 weeks, I thought I was HUGE and then it just kept on growing.
Every woman who is pregnant thinks she is the first and she has every right to marvel, stare, and gawk at her own ability to grow. But we don't. Unless it is our belly (or our wife's), we need to understand it is really none of our business.
Middleton is already protecting her rounded belly from the paparazzi's prying eyes. She is already walking gingerly in heels and doing her best to safeguard her pregnancy. She is already acting like a mom, even (dare I say it) acting the way Princess Diana, her husband's mother, acted with her children.
It is sweet. It makes her human and vulnerable. Now I just wish everyone would leave her alone until the baby is born. And then after, too. But who am I kidding? The whole world wants to see this baby.
Do you think Kate is going to make a good mom?
Image via Splash
Yes she will
How can anyone who used to be a frequent public drunk and was always flashing her crotch be a "good mother" ? Or someone so stupid even after all that never began underwear ? How can someone dumb enough to AGAIN go without panties in Canada , who then had her butt and front exposed during an Official visit be a good mother ? Mind-blowing stupid behavior. She's too immature to know how to conduct herself, I pity the child. After all that she went on to full nude photos in France, as if long range lenses are not used ? as if she HAD to go buck-naked outdoors after becoming world famous ? A woman who got a college degree, only to let it gather dust while she chased a man endlessly for 9 years and was called "the mattress" by the press ? and a door mat to William >? A woman with no idenity of her own ? Who is she ? She's a professional uterus, period - she's a moron. Shame on William for not choosing a woman of character.


text:
What to Call a Griefer?
It used to be that the term griefer had a very specific meaning in virtual worlds: it meant someone who deliberately did something for the pleasure in knowing it caused others pain.
What does it mean nowadays, though?
Well, nowadays, griefing can mean a range of things:
- Deliberately causing others pain for the pleasure in knowing this (Mulligan & Patrovsky's definition).
- Deliberately doing something pleasurable which you know will cause others pain (e.g. ganking)
- Deliberately doing something pleasurable which causes others pain (Foo & Koivisto's definition)
- Deliberately causing others pain but not feeling there's anything wrong in it (e.g. scamming)
- Deliberately causing others pain but believing they OKed it (e.g. winning at PvP).
- Unthinkingly causing others pain through selfishness (what Foo & Koivisto call greed play).
- Accidentally causing others pain through error or incompetence (e.g. Leeeeroy).
- Unknowingly doing something someone else doesn't like (e.g. outbidding them in an auction).
- Lots more...
So much has the term griefer lost its potency that people will now talk instead about specific kinds of griefing, such as training or ninja looting or kill stealing. However, the reason the word griefer got used in the first place is because it's really handy. If we can't use it any more for what it used to mean, we need a replacement.
Comments on What to Call a Griefer?:
Keep the term, just be more careful when using it to avoid diluting it's meaning.
Personally, I'd stick with the first definition. To me, defining someone as a griefer or any particular action as griefing requires that the primary motivation is to cause pain to others. The problem is that this is quite hard to validate, and in many cases would require the griefer to acknowledge it himself, because nobody else knows what the griefer was thinking at the time.
Posted Oct 23, 2007 6:11:22 AM | link
My observation (which admittedly is limited to very few virtual worlds), is that griefing still means to deliberately cause others pain for the sheer pleasure of it.
The other forms of griefing you've listed all seem to have an element of personal gain. I can't think of a form of griefing that doesn't have such an element of gain, which has obtained a name of it's own.
Incidentally, I don't think of the last two you listed as griefing. In my view, any form of griefing has to include the intent or willingness to hurt others. Mere stupidity doesn't count, nor does the willingness to pay more than others in an auction, as far as I am concerned (now if people deliberately out-bid others just so they don't get what they want, that'd be griefing).
To summarize: any form of griefing should include the intent or willingness to cause pain to others, and pure griefing should cause no other gain than the pleasure of doing so.
Posted Oct 23, 2007 7:30:07 AM | link
We have to keep in mind that juveniles have been misapplying terms since the dawn of time. Your last two "definitions" are definitely examples of this. Just because juveniles misapply the term doesn't mean we should change the definition of the word, let alone abandon it in favor a something new.
Posted Oct 23, 2007 7:59:08 AM | link
I cannot agree with the last two, too. If somebody hit me with a prim that flied over the sim after mistyping the position of it, applying accidentaly (or while testing a script)too much force, if somebody bump me because of lag... that is not griefing. It is "Ops! Sorrrry." - "No problem." situation.
Also, the term "pain" that appears in some definitions is somewhat problematic. Avatars don't feel the pain. It is mostly annoyance that is caused by griefing. And deliberately acting to make the environment or an avatar disfunctional (partly or completely).
Some months ago the three of us had some fun that can be easily described as griefing. Only difference was, we were not in the mood to annoy people. We were just behaving "violent" knowing that nobody will get hurt. We all knew that if any of our "victims" tell us to go away we would appologize and leave him/her to do own business. Was that a case of griefing? Are prank jokes griefing?
Posted Oct 23, 2007 8:22:50 AM | link
For my part, I haven't noticed any such broadening in usage that would require a new term. In my mind (which may admittedly be far from the status quo at this point), griefing can only really be defined by the first 3.5 items (the fourth one is debatable).
I guess this is what happens when you stop playing WoW-- the culture gets away from you :-(
Posted Oct 23, 2007 10:09:01 AM | link
Why not use more descriptive terms from Real Life, like "jerks," "bullies," "thugs" and "muggers"?
Actually, I really like "bully," even though it only suits a fraction of possible griefing behaviour (high-level avatars turning noobs into fine red mist, plutarchs bidding for auction items their class can't use...)(is plutarch a word?)
I think you want a label for observed behaviour, and you're going to run into trouble when you're trying to include motivation in the definition. The common-law definition of "griefer" includes malevolent intent, but how does an observer accurately detect intent from a single event? It costs nothing to say "oups, my bad. LOL!", either as an genuine apology or as an attempt to deflect vengeance. Heck, sometimes people don't talk at all either because they did it out of ignorance, or they can't be bothered to gloat to victims, or because they don't speak the local language (whether it be Russian, English, or Orcish).
Posted Oct 23, 2007 10:15:30 AM | link
unwesen>any form of griefing should include the intent or willingness to cause pain to others, and pure griefing should cause no other gain than the pleasure of doing so.
That's how I see it, but I've seen those last two examples myself. People have complained on guild chat of having been griefed, and in their minds it means that they felt annoyance (grief) at someone for having done something. Whether that thing was done deliberately to cause grief or not was immaterial to them - merely having been caused some inconvenience was enough.
Posted Oct 23, 2007 10:53:36 AM | link
I have to admit that for a while (wayyyyy back, a couple years ago), I thought the term meant a whiner, the victim who complains a lot. It made sense on my RP server of WoW where there was plenty of whining.
But now it seems the core idea is someone who's causing others some degree of pain/irritation. Where you set the dial for how much is and isn't griefing is pretty subjective.
Posted Oct 23, 2007 10:58:41 AM | link
Dandelion Kimban>the term "pain" that appears in some definitions is somewhat problematic. Avatars don't feel the pain.
Yes, it's a player thing, not an avatar thing. The player feels the hit emotionally; the avatar is just the conduit through which the griefer reaches the player.
>Are prank jokes griefing?
I don't know how you feel about them, but I consider them to be so.
Posted Oct 23, 2007 10:58:43 AM | link
Moses>I think you want a label for observed behaviour, and you're going to run into trouble when you're trying to include motivation in the definition.
You are if people try to disguise it, yes. However, if someone goes out of their way to gank you and then laughs at you and tells you you're a loser and tries to worsen your distress, they pretty well admitted it.
>The common-law definition of "griefer" includes malevolent intent, but how does an observer accurately detect intent from a single event?
Some acts of griefing may not be detected because the perpetrator managed to talk their way out of it, but most that are detected will be genuine examples. It's hard to see how someone could pretend to be a griefer but not actually be one.
Posted Oct 23, 2007 11:04:02 AM | link
Hi Richard,
All these problems seem to result from a social/cultural definition of griefing that depends on some value system beyond that of the game. Why not give the term a more objective, system definition?
Of the options you offer, "greed play" perhaps seems closest to that, in that it emphasizes the degree to which self interests become more important than group interests, without assigning more or less value to either individual or group play. When these two conflict within a game, "grief" becomes a label commonly directed from the group toward the individual -- usually for no other reason than it's easier for the group to achieve its goals if the individual quits "griefing."
My own experience is that play in which players gain pleasure solely from causing pain among others is very rare and short-lived, particularly in comparison with the number of times a player is accused of "griefing" because that player simply prevents other players from doing something they want to do. This "something they want to do" may be perfectly kosher within the rules of the game but (more commonly in my experience) it is some distorted version of "house-rules" within the rules of the game which favor group (eg,"social", warm and fuzzy, pve-ish) play rather than individual (eg, antagonistic, greedy, pvp-ish) play.
Using this sort of definition, we can then begin to 1) look for instances in which groups "grief" individuals (ostracize, deny information, blackball, etc), and 2) inspect the consequences of "grief" (greed) play on the system itself (rather than simply on the "victims" of the griefing).
Posted Oct 23, 2007 11:44:31 AM | link
We need to separate several different concepts here, that currently fall under the umbrella of griefing, such as "criminal versus non-criminal." Crashing the Second Life grid intentionally could be considered a crime (denial-of-service); however, using things like push weapons are simply annoying. We also need to better distinguish between pranks; if I go up to a friend I know well and pull a prank, it could be very different than pranking a stranger. Far too much falls under the single umbrella these days, and you're right, it is time for several terms. How about we look towards the griefers own dictionary to see what they call these things?
I've heard the term "gridcrash" to describe taking down the Second Life grid. Of course, the term "lulz" is more universal for a more Borat-esque prank level. Another term is particle-spam. Sorry to be so Second Life centric, but it is what I'm most familiar with; I think if we come up with more generic terms, it would be a good start in addition to those provided above.
Posted Oct 23, 2007 11:56:38 AM | link
I think what you're seeing here is that the negative meaning of griefing is so firmly established that many players try to describe other behaviors they want to discourage as "griefing" in order to criticize those behaviors more effectively. But we don't have to accept that extension, only to see it for what it is.
Posted Oct 23, 2007 12:18:42 PM | link
I will have to agree with Timothy on this one. We are finding ourselves at a point where divergence between strict 'terms of art' and the vernacular is becoming abundantly clear.
while I agree with Richard that the definition of griefing ought to include malicious intent, we find that the more common rubric these behaviors would fall into is defined almost solely by intent.
"jerk, bully, thug, etc" all stem largely from intent to harm and don't include any notion of differing social considerations (PvP server, PvE server) and norms (red = dead, whether you want to consider that a norm or not is up to you).
we may not end up at a satisfactory answer to this question, as out definition of griefer will diverge sharply from the more broad usage of th word.
Posted Oct 23, 2007 1:15:51 PM | link
I see problems with "pain" that go beyond the fact that avatars don't really experience it.
First, causing pain isn't really the point of griefing from what I've seen. Causing frustration, anger, and drama, yes, but pain is a stretch. In fact, though I may get crucified for this, it seems like there is frequently an element of "play" to a lot of griefing -- e.g. releasing an angry dragon in the middle of a RP wedding in UO, or using a fountain of Mario characters (rather than something more offensive) to harass land owners in Second Life. (Obviously, some attacks are less "play" oriented and darker.)
How about:
Griefing: harassing other players and/or users of a virtual space outside of the designed user experience and/or game mechanic, thereby diminishing other players' and/or users' experience.
Second, it seems critical that the definition focus on activity contrary to the world/game mechanic, and not the intent of the user or the pain caused, because in some worlds and games (e.g. Eve Online, early PvP in Ultima, etc.) deliberately causing pain (or at least massive frustration) really is the whole point. Not only can a game legitimately be designed that way, it seems that at its core, all PvP (from Monopoly to Eve Online) involves an element of taking joy from others' pain. I never considered my red character a griefer on Ultima in early 1999 -- he played by the rules they set up, it's just that his "Class" was murderer. (For those not familiar, the game-mechanic penalty for that in UO was that he was freely attackable by any player at any time. I still think early UO's Red/Blue/Gray morality system was the very best mechanic I have ever seen for PvP.)
Posted Oct 23, 2007 1:20:47 PM | link
"Anybody who costs you more money than they give you."
Posted Oct 23, 2007 2:39:56 PM | link
""Anybody who costs you more money than they give you.""
damn those pets and children. :)
Posted Oct 23, 2007 2:45:04 PM | link
I'd go with the definition as play for which the motivation is to cause others pain. This definition has a practical application in MMOG design, as you can distinguish play that is pure griefing from play where causing suffering is not the main motivation. In the latter case, if the designer changes the in game rewards for a behavior, the rate of the behavior will change. In the case of pure griefing, the motivation is internal, so no "in game" reward changes will affect it.
To my mind, it's the lack of effective incentives or disincentives that make pure griefing such a pain for people running VWs. You can only deal with it by blanket reduction of the ways in which players can interact. Or by expensive GM monitoring.
I'd say if you were playing Monopoly in order to inflict pain on the other players, you were a grief player. Where is the pain in losing a fair game?
Posted Oct 23, 2007 4:22:12 PM | link
Interesting. Benjamin said: "Griefing: harassing other players... outside of the designed user experience and/or game mechanic..."
In my experience, most griefing takes place *within* the experience/mechanic. Ninja looting, corpse camping, etc. are all well within the parameters of the game.
That which takes place from the outside is some kind of "hacking." Which, of course, can cause grief...
Posted Oct 23, 2007 4:35:13 PM | link
No time to read other people's comments, alas, but isn't this a situation where what you want is an adjective to modify "griefer" to preserve the original meaning? Perhaps "intentional griefer" or "malicious griefer"?
Posted Oct 23, 2007 4:44:12 PM | link
dmyers>My own experience is that play in which players gain pleasure solely from causing pain among others is very rare and short-lived
Oh, very few of them would gain pleasure solely from grief play, yes. However, should the opportunity present itself, a griefer would generally take it.
>particularly in comparison with the number of times a player is accused of "griefing" because that player simply prevents other players from doing something they want to do.
Interestingly, the selfishness argument works the other way round here. *I* want to do something and *YOU* stopped me, therefore *YOU* are a griefer - irrespective of your motives or your awareness of me. It assumes the accuser to be at the centre of the universe and objectifies the other players - just like in greed play.
>look for instances in which groups "grief" individuals (ostracize, deny information, blackball, etc)
This is an interesting point. Can groups grief? Or can only individuals grief?
Posted Oct 23, 2007 4:51:35 PM | link
Tim>the negative meaning of griefing is so firmly established that many players try to describe other behaviors they want to discourage as "griefing" in order to criticize those behaviors more effectively.
This does have the effect of diluting the original meaning, though. If you widen the definition of "obese" to include "slightly overweight" (so as to shock people into exercising rather than be labelled "obese"), what happens after a while is that they regard "obese" to mean the same thing as "slightly overweight", rather than the other way round.
>But we don't have to accept that extension, only to see it for what it is.
Except if it falls into common usage, we do have to accept it. That, for example, is why we no longer get to call virtual worlds MUDs.
Posted Oct 23, 2007 5:11:24 PM | link
Benjamin Duranske>causing pain isn't really the point of griefing from what I've seen. Causing frustration, anger, and drama, yes, but pain is a stretch.
Provoking any negative emotional response will usually do, yes. The recurrent griefer has a need to demonstrate superiority over others, and any sign of anguish is evidence of success. Pain would probably be the optimum result, although I can envisage there being griefers who wouldn't want to go quite that far.
>Griefing: harassing other players and/or users of a virtual space outside of the designed user experience and/or game mechanic, thereby diminishing other players' and/or users' experience.
Hmm, except that it could happen within the virtual space, and even within the designed user experience.
Harassment is one of the four types of grief that Foo and Koivisto identify (the others are power imposition, scamming and greed play). I have issues with their definition of what is or isn't griefer behaviour (they decouple enjoyment from the effect on the victim), but they do have examples of "griefing" that are non-harassing. Ninja-looting, for example, they call greed play.
Posted Oct 23, 2007 5:22:02 PM | link
Richard -
Ninja looting, corpse camping, etc. are all well within the parameters of the game.
In Eve-Online the analogs to the above might be at least considered the domain of "pirates" and while pirates may be disliked by many if not most players, their role seems accepted as part of the texture (as well as the dynamic) of this game world. Those who don't like this sort of darker world self-select out. To echo a couple of writers above, I think the culture of the game world has to be a factor in measuring conduct (and also intent).
Posted Oct 23, 2007 8:10:09 PM | link
Provoking any negative emotional response will usually do, yes. The recurrent griefer has a need to demonstrate superiority over others, and any sign of anguish is evidence of success. Pain would probably be the optimum result, although I can envisage there being griefers who wouldn't want to go quite that far.
This seems to be in conflict with the idea that pranks are grief. Furthermore, at least one third of the playerbase has a need to demonstrate superiority over others... What can be observed as so called "griefing" is a matter of playstyle-superiority demonstration (pvp vs non-pvp, roleplayers vs non-roleplayers etc) or odd humour (cheating newbies).
"Griefer" should be viewed as popular term that is somewhat wishy-washy... Rather unsatisfactory, imo.
Posted Oct 24, 2007 4:48:53 AM | link
Just to elaborate: that would be "teaching the clueless a lesson" or "telling them what their place is". That can be done in many ways and on many levels. Many MMO players do however object to this as they aren't participating in a world, they are talking a stroll in the park (Disney World) and expect others to play nice with them. Non-world players will view world-players as "griefers", hence the dilution of the term.
Virtual worlds are generally emotional under-performers. So in order to evoke a response you have to cross the borders, that combined to with the more uniformed/anonymous situation leads to odd behaviour. I'm sure many players of MUDs have experienced that they as newbies have been "taught lessons", ganking, humiliating teasing, followed up with twinking and friendlieness. Push down, pull up, welcome, embrace. Is that "griefing"? It is quite common for MUDs to require that you invest, undergo a ritual where you struggle, in order to prove your being worthy of becoming a full member. Are the designers per definition griefers, then? Some kinds of "grief" is quite functional.
MMOs are somewhat less personal, of course.
If the term "griefer" is diluted that's just a result of the term being a fuzzy populist term, lacking the power to explain what happens in virtual worlds, in the first place. Nyahnyah...
Posted Oct 24, 2007 5:07:04 AM | link
"This is an interesting point. Can groups grief? Or can only individuals grief?"
If you're willing to accept something as small as a duo or trio as a group then I would say yes, groups can grief.
Posted Oct 24, 2007 11:57:24 AM | link
What I'd consider as "griefing" is only the first one: "Deliberately causing others pain for the pleasure in knowing this" - with the proviso that it's usually causing some kind of emotional distress, rather than actual pain.
If it's done for some gain, rather than the emotional effect on the victim, I wouldn't count it as griefing. (Although, sometimes the two overlap).
I also wouldn't count it as griefing if it's consensual - within socially agreed upon "rules of the game". The problem is that there are some things that the software will permit, but which violate social norms. (The social norms are typically not completely expressible in a way that a computer program can enforce). So, for example, the members of a BDSM club don't count as griefers if their activities are consensual, even if pain is involved.
Posted Oct 24, 2007 12:11:46 PM | link
when things get too articulate, becomes more useful to move from binary distinctions (griefing vs. not griefing) to spectra (degree of griefing) or typologies (types of griefing). think the movement from friend yes/no --> type of relationship in social networking tools.
Posted Oct 24, 2007 1:23:37 PM | link
According to some Prokofy^Wpeople, griefing is disagreeing with them.
Posted Oct 24, 2007 1:35:39 PM | link
Nate>Ninja looting, corpse camping, etc. are all well within the parameters of the game.
So being within the parameters of the game is a contributing factor in deciding whether something is griefing or not?
In MUD2, we had/have permadeath. You get killed in a fight, you're GONE. This is within the parameters of the game, and people do expect it to happen. That doesn't mean they like it, though.
If someone ninja-loots because they need what they looted, that's different to someone who ninja-loots something useless to them because they know you desperately want it and they know how mad you'll be that they took it and they get a kick out of that.
Posted Oct 24, 2007 3:45:03 PM | link
Rich Bryant>According to some Prokofy^Wpeople, griefing is disagreeing with them.
Is it griefing to insult someone publicly in a forum where they can't reply because they were banned?
Posted Oct 24, 2007 3:48:57 PM | link
at least one third of the playerbase has a need to demonstrate superiority over others... What can be observed as so called "griefing" is a matter of playstyle-superiority demonstration
Not every demonstration of superiority is griefing. Far away from that. But, one thing that is (maybe not common, but) very spread among griefers is gaining superiority by different observation of the whole system. E.g. griefer vs. highly immersive rezident, the one that takes its avatar very seriously and has a strong connection with it. caging, orbiting, bumping with attached genitals... all can be more than annoying to the player but the griefer will say "It's only a game. It is not a rape. Avatar is just a pile of pixels." But the griefer gets its pleasure becouse the player takes it seriously.
Posted Oct 24, 2007 6:53:22 PM | link
((it says that blockquote tag is allowed))
the previous post has Ola Fosheim Grøstad quote
Posted Oct 24, 2007 6:54:33 PM | link
"Is it griefing to insult someone publicly in a forum where they can't reply because they were banned?"
I don't know - ask Prokofy. Since everyone who gets attacked at Second Thoughts has been banned for one arbitrary "threat" or another, I'm not losing much sleep over Rich Bryant's comment.
Bringing this back around to the topic, and responding to Richard Bartle's earlier point, I'm starting to wonder if the definitions at the top of the post are so subjective as to be valueless anyway.
Basically, your "ninja looting" is my "roleplaying a thief." My "harassment" is your "advertising." It's pretty tough to define this by the victim's perception and have it result in anything remotely fair.
My old-school UO murderer was undoubtedly considered a griefer by some of his victims, but some murderers considered the ad hoc vigilante groups griefers themselves.
And yeah, I play monopoly to win. Winning involves beating everyone else. You do that by taking all their money. Tell me it's not painful to land on boardwalk with a hotel.
PvP *is* griefing under these definitions. I kill you and take your stuff, I am, by definition, causing you pain.
But that's okay, because you're trying to do the same thing. A NFL player who sacks the quarterback isn't griefing, but he is definitely causing pain (frankly, a lot more pain than finding goatse on your lawn).
There has to be a component to this that examines whether or not the action is part of the game/world mechanic and contemplated user experience.
Posted Oct 24, 2007 7:34:14 PM | link
One important moment in this is
"But that's okay, because you're trying to do the same thing."
Posted Oct 24, 2007 8:33:54 PM | link
Benjamin Duranske>your "ninja looting" is my "roleplaying a thief." My "harassment" is your "advertising."
This is indeed a problem when you define things in terms of what people do rather than why they do it (and why they say they do it - "I was only role-playing" is a traditional defence used by griefers to try deny responsibilities for their actions").
The original definition - doing something purely for the pleasure of knowing others won't like it - doesn't have this problem, as it incorporates motivation. However, that does mean it's a lot harder to identify, because only the person who does it truly knows why they were doing it (and many of them don't like to admit it, even to themselves).
Posted Oct 25, 2007 1:36:30 AM | link
I would've thought that an intrinsic problem with 'role-play' is defining what constitutes 'play' and what goes beyond that and becomes 'grief'. We can justify most things in real life by saying "I didn't mean it" or "that's not what I meant". In face-to-face encounters wecan often see the lie, if there is one. Online we're left to guess a person's motivation, unless they're being blatant.
Having been on the receiving end of harrassment from a much more powerful player on WoW, I've come to accept that 'griefing', like powerplay, is just another consequence of the hobby. Unless those running the world are actively involved in supressing the perpetrators there's little we can do. But then formal supression is a type of censorship and that would, undoubtedly, be a whole new cause for concern.
Posted Oct 25, 2007 4:48:21 AM | link
I think you have your chronology all topsy turvy.
Many gamers and/or virtual world inhabitants were familiar with camping, spwn camping, looting, TKing etc. well before the term griefing became the much banded around term it is today. I also think you need define the demographics that use the term 'griefing' in the senses you defined above and name virtual worlds associated with those demographics.
If you are talking about Second Life, sure. I think WoW and some others can be lumped in there too. But you can't make these sweeping assumptions which may strike a chord with TNers but aren't true across all platforms.
Posted Oct 25, 2007 6:26:04 AM | link
dandellion: Not every demonstration of superiority is griefing.
Well, but when people label others as griefers they do it not out of psychological insight, but as moral judgment. The term "griefer" assumes that people form clear goals and follow them. Well, people are more fuzzy than that. They go with their hazy feelings...
Hence, anyone who shows themselves superior to me in a way which interferes with my playstyle in a way I feel is unnecessary or tactless would be perceived as griefers. BUT, players do have good reasons to diss other people's playstyles because they often interfere with each other. That's just social dynamics. "Play my game or get off my turf, you bastard/sissy/newbie...".
The griefer notion is too simplistic. It might apply to some rare cases of people who are very angry at something in their own life, or who have serious mental disorders and thus lack empathy. I think that is rather uncommon. (Though you might see thousands in a game with millions of players.)
But, one thing that is (maybe not common, but) very spread among griefers is gaining superiority by different observation of the whole system.
Yes, PKs are often like this. They play the virtual world as if it is a contest between Quake players. Others feel they are griefers. These players refuse to give in to the idea that other people actually value taking the fictional world as a viable reality (immersion). They are out-of-the-world and the-world-norms-amounts-to-nothing players. They view characters as game pieces.
Then you have the majority of the players which also are out-of-the-world, but adhere to the the-world-norms-should-follow-what-is-real. They view characters as proxies for their real self.
I personally find both groups equally annoying. They both bring death to the playground, the immersion and the fictional world.
They are MY griefers, because they cannot understand immersion and they bring the real into my fictional world. They attack my immersion. I hate that. And I am their griefer because I refuse to sacrifice a single inch of my character for their pointless little reality-based game that has no artistic merits.
In my view, if they participate in a role-playing universe they do indeed involve themselves in my role-playing experience. If my character doesn't like them it might very well cause them grief or confusion. I somehow fail to see that this is my responsibility however, as going against that would destroy my immersion.
PKs probably feel the same way. Hiding in the bushes and jumping at someone's throat is not as fun if you have to ask them first if they think it is OK. (The more polite ones ask if it was OK, after they attack though... Somewhat pathetic. :-D)
The power of virtual worlds is that you get to do stuff you cannot do in the real world. Unfortunately, most players haven't realised that. They expect to stand in queue at Disney World. I avoid such worlds... They are death to creativity.
Designers have a responsibility to separate playstyles. Otherwise the designers become the griefers.
Posted Oct 25, 2007 7:21:28 AM | link
Richard Bartle> "The original definition - doing something purely for the pleasure of knowing others won't like it - doesn't have this problem, as it incorporates motivation."
I'm not making myself clear. This definition seems problematic for the very reason that "the pleasure of knowing others won't like it" strikes me as an entirely valid reason why one might do certain things in a PvP context.
The definition seems fine for free-form worlds, but in the context of PvP games, it just doesn't work. It makes too many very enjoyable things (from trash-talking when playing Madden football, to killing an opponent in a particularly spectacular way in classic UO, to loading up on armies in Risk to make your sweep across the world complete, devastating, and demoralizing) just as wrong as showing up in a game just to call somebody racist names. There's a difference and I think the definition has got to acknowledge that.
I put a house on my property in Monopoly so that you to lose more money when you land there. That betters my position and worsens yours, which helps me win (the goal we all seem to be okay with) but you cannot tell me that it's anywhere near as fun to have your opponent's little hat land on Boardwalk-with-a-hotel if you're playing a computer that doesn't care when it sees the dreaded dice roll come up.
That's undeniably a big part of the reason that a lot of people like PvP more than playing the computer controlled opponents. It's partly for the better competition, but it is undeniably also partly to beat somebody who actually cares, and potentially be beat by someone who views the emotional stakes as higher as well.
I'm certain that there are studies that back this up -- anybody have a reference?
Posted Oct 25, 2007 2:43:01 PM | link
That's undeniably a big part of the reason that a lot of people like PvP more than playing the computer controlled opponents. It's partly for the better competition, but it is undeniably also partly to beat somebody who actually cares, and potentially be beat by someone who views the emotional stakes as higher as well.
I often suspect that I am completely out of touch with many aspects of modern culture, but I can't see the above as any more justifiable than any other negative aspects of human behaviour such as greed and prejudice.
I have seen interviews with international quality swimmers, people who invest their whole lives into their sport, who have finished "only" 7th in the final and yet in the post-race interview indicated how excited they were because they'd just set a new personal best time.
For me, this is what competition provides: a driver and/or tool to seek the best in ourselves, not a source of fellow human beings to feel superior about.
I feel there are activities with great meaning and impact, where "winning" is everything - war is probably the most obvious example. But sport is on one level essentially meaningless - if our objective if to get a person to the end of a pool as fast as possible, then for heaven sakes give them a jet-ski. :-) What gives sport its meaning is only, IMHO, the drive for personal excellence, and the work and dedication that entails. I feel much the same way about the game-like MMO's. Having a lvl-60 nightelf is essentially meaningless, outside of what ever dedication you applied in getting to that point, together with the fun (hopefully at least) you had along the way. Because its only how you play the game that matters, the idea that one derives *additional* satisfaction from the discomfort of the 'losers' is, too me, a rather nasty one, and we don't need to excuse it from the charge of griefing.
If the counterargument to this is "well, sure people suck, but what can you do about that?", I agree that my preaching is not going to change anything. But I still think its appropriate to identify bad behaviour as such, even if the behaviour is inevitable.
Posted Oct 26, 2007 12:41:16 AM | link
I want to reitterate what Susan said above about whether the action is consentual or not.
I have been in many online games where good friends are playing together, and they essentially grief each other for fun, and both the griefer and the griefee find it amusing. Like accidentally killing your own team mate in a shooter game with Friendly Fire, and replying with "Oops", and actually using quotes to express the sarcasm or incincerity. Then it becomes this fun game where you are always watching your back because now you know one of your own team is out for revenge.
Ah and I want to also bring up the Ninja Looting example someone else mentioned. I used to really enjoy being a Rogue in WoW. Sneaking into places all stealthy, then wait for other players to come around and distract the monsters while I looted the chests. Griefing? Maybe. Role playing? Most definitely.
Posted Oct 26, 2007 4:59:40 AM | link
If we both have fun, that isn't griefing.
Posted Oct 26, 2007 5:19:59 AM | link
What about goons in Eve? It would be fair to say that a large number of us - I would suggest a majority - harbour an intense and long-lasting grudge against Bob for the treatment we received at their hands when we started out in the game. This and other similar treatment by D2, LV, -V-, the AoF etc changed the goonswarm from a standard, newbie, "e-honour"-abiding alliance into the vengeful, scamming scum that we are today.
We want to grief Bob's players out of the game. The perfect scenario would be to remove everything that they have built up in the game, to destroy all of their achievements, to ensure that they are remembered in the game primarily as those who lost, and then to drive them from the gameworld itself. We have stated this often enough, and perhaps people don't realise how serious many of us are about these goals, and our willingness to continue to pursue individuals after the conflict in order to ensure it.
Here is a video on the subject, released in the last couple of days.
Posted Oct 26, 2007 5:26:53 AM | link
Since the a tags displayed in the preview, but don't function, here is that link in full: http://youtube.com/watch?v=c4diQEwrjv8
Posted Oct 26, 2007 5:29:28 AM | link
Griefing (v) causing pain or discomfort to another sentient being for the sole purpose of obtaining pleasure. See human (n).
Posted Oct 26, 2007 7:53:18 AM | link
Dandellion has it right here, "If we both have fun, that isn't griefing." So where the definition is problematic for me is where we've both agreed that the outcome could hurt a little for one of us, but where that increases the net "fun" available for both. In the long run, we agree that we'll both have more fun if we participate in something where inflicting some pain on each other is a possible outcome. That defines a lot of PvP (particularly with looting).
Even if the negotiation mechanic is hidden (e.g. we both affirmatively choose to play on a PvP server) there is a tacit agreement to increase the net fun by running the risk of some additional emotional pain. That has got to be seen as different than a player *unilaterally* inflicting pain for the joy of it.
Posted Oct 26, 2007 11:23:20 AM | link
Cunzy1 1>Many gamers and/or virtual world inhabitants were familiar with camping, spwn camping, looting, TKing etc. well before the term griefing became the much banded around term it is today.
Yes, these are all examples of behaviour that broke social norms. The point is, so was "griefing" until it got expanded to cover these additional areas.
>If you are talking about Second Life, sure. I think WoW and some others can be lumped in there too. But you can't make these sweeping assumptions which may strike a chord with TNers but aren't true across all platforms.
What I was saying is that the term has acquired a wider meaning than it once had. I actually only need that to be true in one well-played virtual world in order to make my point. That said, yes, it would be interesting to know whether the same kind of shift has occurred in the cultures of other virtual worlds.
Posted Oct 26, 2007 11:45:44 AM | link
From back in my MUD days, "griefing" has required a sustained and/or systematic disruption of the spirit of gameplay mostly for the pleasure derived from such disruption.
That is, it's hard for me to think of a single action that, in and of itself, should properly be "griefing." For example, drive-by ganking a lower level as you travel may be a crappy thing to do, but doesn't rise to the level of griefing. On the other hand, patrolling a hunting ground ganking all lower levels attempting to hunt the ground mostly for the purpose of disrupting the gameplay is clearly griefing.
Posted Oct 26, 2007 12:36:41 PM | link
Dude, #5 and #8 aren't griefing, although they are settings in which griefing happens: Generally they are when the rules were violated or 'gamed' in order for the winning or bidding to take place.
Merely winning isn't griefing.
Posted Oct 27, 2007 12:33:31 AM | link
Griefing is a meme. I believe that 'meme' is a word that is ridiculously overused in SL and yet I think that it fits perfectly in this case. Griefing was created and has evolved through social interaction, both in terms of how to be a griefer and of how others identify a griefer.
Trying to come up with a theoretical definition for griefing is a dauntless (and perhaps impossible) task. A meme like griefing can be defined only in practical terms. That is why even in FL, while we do have laws that are formally defined, the application of those laws is left to jury systems with juries made of peers. BTW, I loved it when I saw 'The "Anshe plus two rule": What Anshe and two randomly selected Dreamland residents consider "ugly" must be changed. No arguing, no complaint, no drama.' [the covenant of the Forgotten Legends sim]
My 2 cents on what is the best practical definition of griefing? In a world that is collaborative, griefing is being non-collaborative. Now, can someone just define what 'collaborative' means?
Posted Oct 27, 2007 12:22:59 PM | link
An interesting viewpoint for analyzing griefing might be W.D. Hamilton's categorization of social interactions into four types, depending on whether actor and recipient gain or lose.
mutualism: actor and receiver both gain
altruism: actor loses, receiver gains
selfishness: actor gains, receiver loses
spite: actor loses, receiver loses
Griefers would be engaging either in selfishness (if they gain a material benefit) or spite (if they gain no material benefit and waste time that could have been spent gaining material benefit).
Two caveats:
1. Hamilton's categories refer to reproductive outcomes, not general competitive outcomes.
2. Spite has been difficult to prove in animal examples as it is often uncertain whether the actor may receive a delayed or indirect benefit.
Posted Oct 28, 2007 12:54:39 AM | link
"Now, can someone just define what 'collaborative' means?"
" bring me fame, money, power, sex "; that's very collaborative. Fight me for your own interest/pleasure , and you'll become a griefer.In SL AND in " FL ".
Posted Oct 28, 2007 12:56:09 AM | link
Just some random thoughts:
If you exlpoit a system to interrupt someone else's good time "Because you can," you might be a griefer.
Exploiting a system doesn't necessarily take a lot of technical proficiency.
For me it's like pr0n, I know it when I see it.
Posted Oct 28, 2007 8:50:33 PM | link
Greg>spite: actor loses, receiver loses
But even in spite, the actor must believe they're getting something back, otherwise they wouldn't do it. At some level, they must feel slightly better for what they've done.
Posted Oct 29, 2007 3:53:35 AM | link
@ fasdf...
I believe that is also griefing, but I am not sure...
Posted Oct 29, 2007 12:28:18 PM | link
My personal observations of in-game griefing lead me to define it as "Deliberately causing others frustration to elicit a negative reaction." Without a reaction from a griefing victim, the griefer has failed, and will usually move on to a more productive target.
Let me illustrate with some examples of my WoW gameplay. A node in WoW is a harvestable resource that can be used or sold. As a miner I have an expectation of harvesting say one node every four minutes. Nodes are often "guarded" by mobs that have to be killed before harvesting.
Example A: I am standing near a node, fighting a mob in preperation for harvesting, when another player rides up and harvests the node. On the server WoW Tich this is bad-behavior, but doesn't rise to the level of griefing. I put him on my do not group with list and think nothing more about it.
Example B: I am standing near a node, fighting a mob in preparation for harvesting, when a player with the name r_u_mad_now rides up and harvests the node, and emotes laughter. His name and emote indicates his intention to grief. In example B I put the player on my griefer list and actively look for him to disrupt his gameplay.
Example C. I am sitting in a zone protected by friendly guards. A mage opens up a portal, then proceeds to gank me and goes through his own portal before the guards get to him. I lost one minute of time. I actually thought this was pretty funny as I had not thought of that "exploit" before.
Example D. I am sitting in a zone protected by friendly guards. A paladin engages me in combat, knowing that if I respond the guards will attack both of us. Being killed by a guard entails a monetary penalty. So I do not respond to the paladin's attack and he uses his class's mechanics to escape retribution from the guards. I lose one minute of time, and return to my previous location to "buff up". He then repeats the attack. The first attack was annoying but in my mind did not rise to the level of griefing. However by attacking me twice, with the unspoken threat to continue attacking me, it did rise to griefing.
I believe when discussing griefing we should use as a metric "Time Lost". In an early EQ raid a LeeeeRoy moment cost me 1 hour of time, and the raid as a whole over 50 man hours of time. So although the term griefing would cover this example plus Example B and D, they are not equally as serious. So that we could call the current example Griefing(50H), Example B Griefing (4M) and example D Griefing (1M.C) the C standing for cycle, in that I could take action to break the cycle, by logging off, waiting to rez, etc.
My personal observation is that accepted behavior on one server may not be accepted on another server, and that this needs to be referenced when discussing griefing.
Posted Oct 29, 2007 12:42:25 PM | link
I do think the word has lost meaning to the general public to the point it will be used to mean no more than a description of someone who caused someone else grief.
From the point of view of game design I think the term can still be used to talk about the potential actions that cause players grief. Each individual game will have to establish just what level of grief and what kinds of grief their playerbase will have to deal with.
For example someone playing DAOC can step out into the RVR world and get killed in seconds. They may feel grief, the person who killed them would be the griefer. From a design pov it can be established that is an acceptable level of grief, and/or they may want to find ways to help the griefed person avoid being griefed.
Posted Oct 30, 2007 9:22:56 AM | link
My suggestion is to replace "deliberately" with "unfairly".
Then the qualifiers and conditions really take care of themselves.
Too ambiguous?
One other: I don't think a single instance of causing grief makes a person a griefer any more than one white lie makes one a liar.
Griefer implies a pattern of behavior, to me
From a game design standpoint, it's more useful to address it as a pattern of behavior. Whether it's 1 jerk being a jerk 100 times, or 100 players being jerks 1 time each, you still have to deal with it.
Posted Nov 1, 2007 6:19:58 AM | link
Incidentally, I don't think motive has anything to do with it.
A gold farmer hogging all the spawns, despite his motivation being to feed his kids, is as much a griefer as a spoiled kid hogging all the spawns just to piss you off because he's bored.
A player basically doing the very same thing because he needs the coppers to buy a shiny new sword, however, is rarely labeled "griefer".
There's a sense of fairness at work.
Posted Nov 1, 2007 6:34:26 AM | link
My last at-bat.
Did I just miss the point entirely here, and "suggestions?" was a request for a new term to take the place of the more narrow original definition of "griefer"?
If so, I don't think one's necessary, as we already and always have had plenty of words to describe people like that.
Gregg Henry's dialog in Slither consists almost entirely of them.
Posted Nov 1, 2007 6:44:29 AM | link
Frankly I find the definitions used to be "offensively broad". For emotional hypochondriacs like Prokofy Neva, everything they disapprove of is griefing merely because they feel they have an inherent right to not be offended, and that mere offense causes pain.
No, griefing has a much narrower definition: engaging in gameplay which crashes or otherwise seriously degrades server or client performance such as to prevent or seriously inhibit the game experience of others, and to do so purely "for the lulz".
Being upset over how others play the game makes 90 % of gameplay "griefing". Hell, by your definition, any idiot who cant calculate a P/E or understand an NAV that bids down my company's stock is 'griefing' me...
Posted Nov 1, 2007 11:06:08 AM | link
My rough definition of griefing is "in-game behavior intended to disrupt other players from playing the game as designed by its developers."
The key components are intentionality and the following of the designer's gameplay rules. If you foul up someone else's game unintentionally, you're not griefing. And if you cause someone else's game to be more difficult, you're not necessarily griefing -- maybe you're just a good competitor. It's only griefing if causing someone else's game to become harder occurs outside the rules of play as envisioned by the game's designer, because at that point you've bounced outside of "the game"; you've broken the magic circle.
In a larger sense (and I differ from Jeff here in that I do think motivation matters), I see griefing as an aspect of what I call the Manipulator player type, which is my version of Richard's Killer type expanded to be as potentially positive as his other three player types. I see a griefer as a Manipulator gone bad. Instead of enhancing the gameplay of others through the artistic manipulation of the world (meaning objects and people and systems) according to the designer's rules of play, the griefer steps outside the gameworld to manipulate it according to his own designs.
One of my little projects is what might be called the Redemption of the Killer. I'm basically trying to think of gameplay designs that will offer positive outlets for Manipulator behaviors. The theory (and that's all it is so far) is that griefers grief in part because games are explicitly designed to exclude them, but unfortunately that also means eliminating possibilities for supportive Manipulator gameplay. Without such positive outlets, they go rogue.
So I'm looking for things they can do in a game that they enjoy and that make the game better for other players. Some ideas so far include offering tools (I consider this player type the consummate tool-user) that allow objects to be constructed with very high levels of craftsmanship (for introverted Manipulators), and political systems that reward the responsible manipulation of public opinion as a deliberate aspect of gameplay (for the more social Manipulators).
Of course a game designed in this way won't "cure" griefing, however it's defined. Regardless of motivation, some people are just jerks. A game offering features that appeal to the positive aspects of Manipulators might wind up attracting more than its share of negative Manipulators (i.e., griefers).
The thing is, would the good outweigh the bad?
I don't know. But it seems to me that this might be an experiment worth trying.
Posted Nov 1, 2007 2:00:32 PM | link
Griefing is easy to define with words.
Griefing is the use of one's rights, be they natural or virtual (code, et al), to adversely affect the rights of others.
Whether one gains pleasure from the act is immaterial.
As far as comments...
"Richard Bartle says:
Rich Bryant>According to some Prokofy^Wpeople, griefing is disagreeing with them.
Is it griefing to insult someone publicly in a forum where they can't reply because they were banned?"
If that statement is an 'insult' rather than 'true', well - it could be considered griefing. However, if we fit the definition I gave - it could be if you consider the reputation involved. However, since the subject doesn't care too much for the reputation of others, its the Wild Wild West. Grab a sixgun.
Intlibber - please define 'emotional hypochondriac'. I have a feeling you are being redundant.
Posted Nov 1, 2007 2:41:47 PM | link
One problem with defining words based on what you think the word should describe is that everyone has their own opinion about that. This leads to instances where the meaning is not conveyed and the word loses effectiveness.
In the end people will just tend to trend towards a literal interpretation. Especially when talking about a word like "griefer" which has a very obvious literal meaning. (Someone who causes grief)
If you really want to convey additional meaning then you are going to need additional modifiers. For example a malicious griefer, an accidental griefer, a pious griefer, etc. Or you will have to establish a set meaning for a specific setting. For example a design team could decide that Griefers are only people that cause grief for other players to an undesireable level.
Posted Nov 2, 2007 10:51:23 AM | link
replying to Richard: "But even in spite, the actor must believe they're getting something back, otherwise they wouldn't do it."
This is also what's intriguing about the concept of spite in biology. The usual situation in nature (and I would suggest MMORPGs) is that everyone is competing against everyone else, with the exception of local mutuality and a little altruism amongst kin (game analogy: guilds). We expect actors to harm others for selfish benefit, even if the harm is simply getting ahead on points. In cases of spite however, an actor harms others for no obvious benefit to himself. My feeling is that this distinction, rather than the actor's conscious intention, gets at what people have in mind when they talk about griefers.
That said, the concept of spite is controversial in biology, because in many suggested examples the actor can be shown either to have gained indirect or delayed advantage, ie the apparent spite advantaged the actor either by benefiting a friendly/related third party or attenuating competition for the actor at a later point in time.
There's a good (biology) paper on this at http://www.lasi.group.shef.ac.uk/pdf/fwrannzoolfenn2001.pdf . I'm not sure whether biology is applicable to player actions in MMORPGs but it's interesting to ponder.
Posted Nov 2, 2007 7:18:41 PM | link
Perhaps the concept should be something like
Griefing is an act that may or may not be 'legal' bullying that impacts another players enjoyment that exists outside the existed social compact of the games community.
For instance:
Cheating? Not really griefing. Its just plain cheating.
Cheating disadvantaging another player? Thats griefing AND cheating.
Cheating disadvantaging another player in a way that the whole community does? Its cheating, but its not griefing, because its accepted by the community.
Pulling a corporate heist in EVE online? Its not cheating and its not griefing, because the commuity accepts it as part of the course of the game.
Pulling a bitter corporate takeover for lulz in Second life in a legal manner? Its not cheating but it is griefing, because its considered bad form.
Pulling a bitter corporate takeover for lulz in second life using an exploit. Its cheating and its griefing because its bad form, and anyway you might just get taken to court for it.
Pulling a bitter corporate takeover due to a commercial debate legally? Its not griefing because its part of the hustle and bustle of business.
Newbie killing in empire(EVE) using suicide alts in eve? Its not REALLY cheating, because the mechanics allow it, but it is griefing because the community considers it bad form
Newbie killing in empire(EVE) with a war declaration. Its not cheating and its considered part of the game so its not really griefing.
Newbie killing in empire(EVE) using a standings 'sploit. Its cheating and its griefing. Nobody including CCP is down with this.
Sorry about the repetition there, but I just wanted to isolate three key points of griefing and try and make them interact
1) Is it "EULA" legal?
2) Is it community accepted?
3) Is it bullying?
Posted Nov 5, 2007 4:46:51 PM | link
Hmm. Looking back on that. I'm not making my argument particularly well. Basically what I'm getting at is that "Griefing" doesn't invoke EULA type conecpts of 'legal' play. You can cheat, you can be an asshole, but if the game accepts it as par for the course, its not really griefing. What makes it griefing is the condemnation of the community, ie the social compact of the community. IF your an asshole, and IF the community thinks your being an asshole, then your a griefer.
Posted Nov 5, 2007 4:58:41 PM | link
"...the concept of spite is controversial in biology..."
Not when it's about primates. One cannot dissociate the psychology from biology.
"In cases of spite however, an actor harms others for no obvious benefit to himself."
Except for : feeling better ; wich is the main goal/obvious benefit of playing games. The " normal " human behavior ; except for saints, is in our nature to to do " bad things " , " wrongdoings ", from time to time. It fulfills a need.
Posted Nov 6, 2007 4:38:59 AM | link
The term "griefer" is pretty clear in it's definition. It's someone who is carrying out an activity for the primary purpose of creating "grief".
That implies willingness to impose emotional distress on the part of the griefer and an ability to feel this grief on the part of the recipient.
The first 3 definitions all apply, the rest do not.
Just because 90% of the people who call me in tech support refer to a PC as a "hard drive" does not make the PC a hard drive. It makes them ignorant of the meaning of the words they are using. One day "hard drive" may indeed by an appropriate term for a PC base unit, due to mass perception of the meaning (see "decimate" for a contemporary example), but not just yet.
The same applies to griefer. It's not exactly sufficiently in the public domain yet for the meaning of it to have drained away entirely. Presuming you can make the etymological leap between the abstract noun grief and the verb "griefer".
As for why people do it, that's easy.
Posted Nov 7, 2007 9:43:41 AM | link
"The term "griefer" is pretty clear in it's definition"
should read:
"The term "griefer" is pretty clear in its definition"
Sorry about that.
Posted Nov 7, 2007 9:45:11 AM | link
"The term "griefer" is pretty clear in it's definition. It's someone who is carrying out an activity for the primary purpose of creating "grief".
That implies willingness to impose emotional distress on the part of the griefer and an ability to feel this grief on the part of the recipient."
The problem with that is you don't always know the purpose the person is acting. This makes the population of people defined as griefer very poorly defined.
It is also a relatively meaningless distinction to the person who is suffering grief which is the primary concern from a design perspective.
Posted Nov 7, 2007 12:45:09 PM | link
If you're just looking for a term that describes disruptive players (ones whose behaviour results in conflict rather than facilitation) then I'm afraid you'd need to define it relative to all the other modes of play.
Certainly using the griefer tag is inappropriate as it immediately lumps in the incompetent with the malevolent, which is useless from a design perspective since both groups respond to very different carrots.
Posted Nov 8, 2007 1:54:40 AM | link
I am not "looking" for a term for anything. I am talking about the term griefer and how it will be used and why. I don't even think it is an issue of how "should" the term be used, but how it will be used.
There are also a lot more people that fall into that group then the malevolent and the incompetent.
From a design perspective if you use carrots, or really disincentives, to mold behavior they are likely to be the same, not different let alone completely different.
And you are still trying to define something you have no chance of ever knowing. Generally speaking if something can be done in a game it will be done and it doesn't really matter that much if the griefer says oops or haha after they grief someone.
Posted Nov 8, 2007 9:35:45 AM | link
My definition: A griefer views any interaction with other players as a zero-sum transaction. The griefer obtains pleasure from destroying the pleasure of the other players, and interacts with other players in a way to maximize unpleasant outcomes for those players (frustration, wasted time, feelings of helplessness). Furthermore, the griefer does this without any pre-existing relationship with the other player, which differentiates it from actions taken in anger, for revenge, etc.
The simplest definition of a griefer: Someone who enjoys making little kids cry.
Posted Nov 12, 2007 11:11:53 PM | link
I would consider that among the definitions you gave, only definitions 1, 2 and 6 are definitely, without a doubt, griefing. 3 is not griefing so long as you aren't aware that you're causing harm. 4 is usually griefing, but it can be okay if you're 'playing Robin Hood' and only scamming the scammers. 5 is not griefing so long as the other person actually did okay it. 7 is not griefing unless you are aware of your own incompetence and of the fact that you will cause harm to superior players by playing on their team. 8, again, is only griefing if you know the other person doesn't like it and if you aren't stealing anything (so outbidding them at an auction wouldn't count, unless you did it solely to prevent them from getting whatever it was you were bidding on).
Posted Nov 26, 2007 11:25:25 AM | link
Nike Dunks
Replica coach handbags
Nike Air Jordans
Jordan Shoes
Posted Mar 22, 2008 4:37:49 PM | link
Nike Dunks
Replica coach handbags
Nike Air Jordans
Jordan Shoes
Posted Mar 22, 2008 4:39:02 PM | link


text:
"Much of my success can be attributed to my dedication and hard work. I push myself to be the best, from acting to staying in my best shape possible. I'm committed to living a healthy and productive life and helping the people around me do the same. But even for me, finding trusted sports nutrition products was confusing, so I combined what I learned and what I was taking, and teamed up with leading experts to develop Marked. This line is a game changer with amazing formulas people can trust."
- Mark Wahlberg
Availability: Usually Ships Within 24-48 Hours
Marked Nutrition - Protein Bar Chocolate Peanut Butter - 2.8 oz. (80 g)
Marked Nutrition Chocolate Peanut Butter Whey Protein Bar provides on-the-go-nutrition with 25 grams of quality protein. Enjoy any time of the day for an extra burst of protein or energy. Makes a great in-between-meals snack. Mark recommends always keeping an extra in your gym bag - for energy in a pinch.
Marked products were specifically designed to work as part of this program, which is flexible, incredibly easy to follow and provides real results. Simply follow the step-by-step instructions of this daily use guide to maximize the results of your workout efforts.
Marked provides a comprehensive line of performance nutrition products for anyone who wants to achieve their health and fitness goals. Full details on how to incorporate Marked products into your workout routine and nutrition plan are available in the training area.
The Marked line of sport nutrition products was designed by leading GNC scientists and wellness experts in partnership with Mark Wahlberg. The products are free of banned substances and are based on cutting edge nutritional science and the highest quality ingredients to deliver optimal performance and results.
Marked - Science-Based Performance Nutrition
"These game-changing products will give you the boost you need to get into the best shape possible."
- Mark Wahlberg
Giving Back
A portion of all sales of Marked products will be donated to the Mark Wahlberg Youth Foundation, whose mission is to improve the quality of life of inner-city youth.
Contains: Milk, Peanuts, Soybeans and Wheat.
Manufactured in a plant that processes peanut, tree nut, soy, wheat, milk and egg products.
Ingredients: Proprietary Protein Blend (Soy Isolate, Whey Isolate, Whey Concentrate, Milk Protein Concentrate, and Wheat Isolate), Maltitol, Palm Kernel Oil and Palm Oils, Sorbitol, Vegetable Glycerin, Peanuts, Cocoa Powder (Processed with Alkali), Sugar, Water, Gelatin, Chicory Root Extract, Chocolate Liquor, Cocoa Butter, Maltodextrin, Vegetable Monoglycerides, Natural Flavor, Soy Lecithin, Salt, Caramel Color, Potassium Sorbate (as a preservative), Citric Acid, Beta Carotene, Vitamin A Palmitate, Tapioca Starch, Sorbitan Tristearate, Sucralose, Tetrasodium Pyrophosphate, Locust Bean Gum, Xanthan Gum, and Gum Arabic.
Contains: Milk, Peanuts, Soybeans and Wheat.Manufactured in a plant that processes peanut, tree nut, soy, wheat, milk and egg products.
We've added your item to the Wish List. You can view your list any time from your MyLucky account page. A Wish List is useful to keep track of items you are interested in buying in the future. Once you purchase the items, they come off your list.
Sorry, we were unable to add your item at this time.
Your Wish List request is currently being processed.
Item Code: 34567
We've added your item to the Regimen. You can view your list any time from your MyLucky account page. A Regimen is useful to keep track of items you you purchase frequently (or take as part of a "regimen"). Unlike a Wish List, items you add to your Regimen are not removed from the list after you purchase them.
Your Regimen request is currently being processed.
Item Code:


text:
Beavers and Aspen: looking to the future
This paper, which is from the proceedings of the 2nd Aspen Conference, was based on a presentation given by Dan Puplett at this conference in October 2008.
In Spring 2008 the Scottish Government granted a licence for a trial reintroduction of European beavers (Castor fiber) in mid-Argyll. The key project partners are the Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) and the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland (RZSS). The trial site, Knapdale Forest, is managed by Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) will carry out independent monitoring. Along with many others, Trees for Life (TFL) believes this project to be a very positive step in the enhancement of our natural heritage; the beaver is a keystone species in both wetland and woodland ecosystems, and has a beneficial influence on biodiversity (Gaywood et al 2008).
It is well known that aspen (Populus tremula) supports a wide variety of species, and that it is favoured by a number of herbivores, including red deer (Cervus elaphus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) (Cosgrove et al 2005). It is also clear that beavers favour aspen where it is available. In the past, questions have been raised about the possible impacts beavers might have on aspen in Scotland.
In the 2001 Aspen Conference Dave Batty of SNH addressed this issue in his presentation Beavers: Aspen Heaven or Hell? (Batty 2002) and concluded that beavers could prove to be hugely beneficial for aspen, acting as a flagship species: raising awareness of the threat aspen faces from deer and livestock, and acting as a catalyst for aspen restoration. A summary of measures for reducing any potential aspen / beaver conflicts is listed below (Batty 2002):
- Protect those trees that would be best left undisturbed - a variety of simple methods are available.
- Avoid reintroducing beavers to an area if associated aspen biodiversity is deemed to be particularly vulnerable.
- Ensure that there is a range of aspen trees of different sizes and ages in area.
- Increase the quality and quantity of the aspen resource along with other riparian woodland, benefiting aspen and associated organisms, including beavers.
Batty suggested that the latter measure would be the preferred solution in most cases. TFL has been working on this principle from the early days of our project. We concur that aspen enthusiasts (who should perhaps be called 'tremulophiles?!') can rest assured that if we so choose, we could have aspen and beavers in an ecologically healthy landscape. The purpose of this paper is to give a brief update on some opportunities surrounding beavers and aspen, and also to present some of the work TFL has been undertaking towards enhancing aspen and riparian woodland, in line with the strategy outlined above.
Update and funding opportunities
An encouraging development has been the production of SNH's Species Action Framework (SNH, 2007). The Framework targets 32 key species for priority action between 2007-2012. One of the species is the European beaver, and the Framework states: "The beaver is a charismatic species which would serve to raise wider biodiversity issues such as riparian woodland management, aspen restoration, wetland biodiversity and dead wood habitat."
This is encouraging as it highlights how the possibility of beaver reintroduction is already raising the profile of aspen conservation at a policy level, and indicates the influence of ideas discussed at the previous conference. Furthermore, if the trial is successful there could perhaps be funding available in the future for aspen restoration, linking it to beaver reintroduction.
Aspen and beaver interactions
The beaver trial will include a robust monitoring programme which will answer many of our questions about the role of beavers in today's landscape (Scottish Beaver Trial 2008). While more detail on known beaver / aspen interactions is provided in Batty (2002), it is worth briefly noting here that while beavers can undoubtedly have a major impact on aspen, this tree can still thrive in the presence of this mammal. For example, at the Danish beaver release site at Klosterheden, there are large old aspen adjacent to the riverbanks that are intact, as well as coppiced shoots that have not been browsed (D. Batty, pers. comm.). On a visit to the beaver reintroduction site near Brasov, Romania, the project worker informed me that beavers had not had a dramatic impact on the riparian aspen in the locality (M. Scurto, pers. comm.). While these are only two of many cases in Europe, they illustrate the potential for the co-existence of beavers and an expanded aspen population in Scotland.
Trees for Life's riparian aspen work
TFL has been carrying out aspen restoration work in a number of areas since 1991. One of the locations we have been focussing on is Loch Beinn a Mheadhoin in Glen Affric NNR, which is managed by FCS. The loch already has many of the features of suitable beaver habitat. While there are no official plans for beaver releases in Glen Affric at any point, from TFL's perspective it is worth further enhancing the habitat in case such a decision is ever taken in the future.
There are currently 62 aspen stands in Glen Affric, and we have carried out further aspen enhancement work in a variety of locations within the glen. These have mainly involved planting in small stock-fenced exclosures, as well as protecting ramets of existing stands with small fences or tree guards. A total of 957 trees have been planted in the immediate vicinity of the loch, and some of these are already producing ramets.
FCS has been controlling deer numbers to the point where there is good regeneration of a number of tree species in parts of the glen, but young aspen can still be vulnerable, even in the presence of lower deer densities. The dimensions of the stock-fenced exclosures we erect are usually around 3m x 6m. Having stock-height fences dramatically reduces the threat to woodland grouse, and while deer are physically capable of jumping into these exclosures, they tend to be reluctant to enter such a confined space. It is rare for deer to get in and when it has happened it has probably been due to the netting being too low. Anecdotal reports suggest that there is a risk of deer becoming entangled in the netting if they do attempt to jump in, and although we have not encountered this problem, it should not be ignored; where practical, regular inspections of the fences should be made. We have erected 38 small fences around the loch over a seven-year period, and only one has shown signs of deer entry and damage to trees.
Growth rates are quite variable, with some of the trees that were planted in 2001 having reached only 50cm, while others are over 3 metres tall and are producing ramets. A variety of factors possibly come into play here, including the clone, individual site conditions and perhaps the presence of mycorrhizal fungi.
Glen Moriston and Dundreggan aspen
Glen Moriston holds more aspen than Glen Affric, with a substantial amount beside the River Moriston. TFL recently took ownership of the 4,000 hectare Dundreggan Estate in Glen Moriston. A small part of the estate is immediately adjacent to the River Moriston, and part of our management plan is to create a large riparian aspen zone, including 9,000 aspen trees mixed with willow (Salix spp) and other species, beside the river. We have an agreement in principle for this to be a joint project with FCS, who manage the adjacent land (more information).
Thoughts on strategy
The current trial beaver reintroduction will end in 2014 (provided there is no reason to use the exit strategy), and if a licence for a further reintroduction were granted, it would be a considerable time before there were substantial numbers of beavers in Scotland. Therefore we have a reasonable amount of time in which to significantly expand the aspen population (D. Batty, pers. comm.).
Even if beavers do not return, an increase in riparian woodland, with an aspen component, would be beneficial in its own right. While it is obviously important to take into consideration any valuable non-woodland riparian habitats, in the vast majority of cases there is nothing to lose and much to be gained by an increase in riparian aspen planting.
Clearly it is wise to take a strategic approach to make best use of resources. While we are working on riparian aspen planting it would be a good idea for the various organisations involved in aspen restoration to develop a coordinated strategy. This could involve identifying locations of aspen biodiversity hotspots and priority areas for planting at a landscape level. There will be an important role for the use of BEETLE (Biological and Environmental Evaluation Tools for Landscape Ecology) software in this process (Watts et al, 2007).
While work of this kind has already been carried out by individual organisations in specific geographical areas, there would be huge advantages in pooling information. Similarly, it is also strongly recommended that we develop a coordinated approach to aspen surveying. TFL has a substantial database of aspen stands in our 'Target Area', just north of the Great Glen, and others with an interest in aspen also have extensive records for specific areas. FCS already has a database containing some of Scotland's aspen stands, and it is possible that this could be used as a central database into which we could feed our existing data.
The collation of such information would not only be a valuable resource in future decisions about beavers, but will also be necessary for most aspects of managing aspen and its associated biodiversity in Scotland.
Dan Puplett
I am grateful to the following for their helpful responses to my inquiries in relation to aspen and beavers: Dave Batty (SNH), Martin Gaywood (SNH), Derek Gow, Jari Kouki, Roy Dennis, Simon Jones (SWT), Iain Valentine (RZSS), David Hetherington, Marius Scurto (Brasov Wildlife Unit). Thanks to Forestry Commission Scotland and various private landowners for continued cooperation and partnership. All opinions expressed are those of Trees for Life.
Batty, D. 2002. Beavers: Aspen heaven or hell? In: Cosgrove, P., and Amphlett, A. (eds) The Biodiversity and Management of Aspen Woodlands: Proceedings of a one-day conference held in Kingussie, Scotland, 25th May 2001, pp 41-44. The Cairngorms Biodiversity Action Plan, Grantown-on-Spey, UK.
Cosgrove, P., Amphlett, A., Elliott, A., Ellis, C., Emmett, E., Prescott, T. and Featherstone, A.W. 2005. Aspen - Britain's missing link with the boreal forest. British Wildlife 17 (2), 107-115.
Gaywood, M, Batty, D. and Galbraith, C. 2008. Reintroducing the European Beaver in Britain. British Wildlife 19 (6) 381-391.
Scottish Beaver Trial website: http://www.scottishbeavers.org.uk
Scottish Natural Heritage. 2007. A Five Year Species Action Framework: Making a difference for Scotland's Species. Scottish Natural Heritage Publications: Battleby.
Watts, K., Ray, D., Quine, C.P., Humphrey, J.W. and Griffiths, M., 2007. Evaluating Biodiversity in Fragmented Landscapes: Applications of Landscape Ecology Tools. Forestry Commission Information Note 85. Forestry Commission: Edinburgh.
Return to Missing Species of the Caledonian Forest -> Beaver.
Pages about European Beaver on this site
- Restoring Missing Species: The Beaver
- European Beaver - species profile
- Beaver - species missing from the Caledonian Forest
- Mythology and folklore of the beaver
- Riparian Woodlands
- Beavers: Aspen heaven or hell?
- Beavers and Aspen: looking to the future
- Beavers are Back! Caledonia Wild! Summer 2009
- Beaver trial a milestone for Scottish biodiversity Press release 29th May 2009
- Beavers to return to Scotland at last! Caledonia Wild! Summer 2008
- Press release: trial reintroduction of beavers (29th May 2008)
- Scottish executive says no to beavers Caledonia Wild! Winter 2005
- Trees for Life calls for approval of a trial reintroduction of the European beaver 1 March 2005
- Beaver reintroduction decision delayed Caledonia Wild! Spring 2003
- Response from Trees for Life to the public consultation (1998) about beaver reintroduction to Scotland
- Beaver news Caledonia Wild! Winter 2000-01
- Reintroduction of the European Beaver (Castor fiber) into Scotland
External links to pages about European Beaver in the UK
- The Scottish Beaver Trial
- The Scottish Wildlife Trust's Beaver Campaign
- Scottish Executive approves a trial reintroduction of beavers (25th May 2008)
- Beavers believed to be on loose (18 April 2008)
- 6 Beavers released into an enclosed lake at Lower Mill Estate in the Cotswold Water Park, October 2005
- Beavers released into an enclosure at Aigas, Scotland, April 2006
- New Scottish Environment Minister, Michael Russell, calls for SNH to draw up new beaver reintroduction plans (Sunday Herald, June 2007)
The Trees for Life Aspen Project
- Aspen Project home page
- The Aspen Project - a short video clip about our aspen project (7.5 mb)
- The Trees for Life Aspen Project
Paper by Alan Watson Featherstone published in 'The Biodiversity and Management of Aspen Woodlands' - proceedings of a one-day conference held in Kingussie, Scotland, on 25th May 2001
- Aspen Regeneration at Dundreggan
- Aspen Project Update from our Winter 2009-10 magazine
- Aspen Project Update from our Summer 2008 magazine
- Aspen Project Update from our Summer 2007 magazine
- Aspen Project Update from our Spring 2006 magazine
- Aspen aflutter with new energy! from our Summer 2005 magazine
- Trembling in the Glens from our Winter 2003-04 magazine


text:
Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics
Associate Professor, Dominick P. Purpura Department of Neuroscience
Muriel and Harold Block Faculty Scholar in Mental Illness, Department of Pediatrics
I am interested in how the human brain processes and integrates sensory inputs to impact perception and behavior, and the role of attention therein. My work involves characterizing these processes in healthy adults, charting their developmental course over childhood, and translating these findings to understand the neurobiology of developmental disorders, with an emphasis on autism. Non-invasive high-density recordings of the electrical activity of the brain, intracranial recordings in patients, psychophysics, and magnetic resonance imaging are my primary tools of investigation. I have funding for my research from NIMH, NSF, and private foundations.
I also direct the Human Clinical Phenotyping Core, of the Einstein IDDRC. The core includes a staff of clinical neuropsychologists and a database manager, and serves to recruit and characterize participants for Einstein studies. The core maintains a large database of potential research participants. This is composed largely of children, including those with a diagnosis of dyslexia, autism, and RETT syndrome, as well as healthy controls. See the core webpage for more information: http://www.einstein.yu.edu/centers/iddrc/iddrc.aspx?id=30133&ekmensel=15074e5e_4332_4335_btnlinkHumanee.
Review Articles, commentaries, and chapters:
Material in this section is provided by individual faculty members who are solely responsible for its accuracy and content.
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Jack and Pearl Resnick Campus
1300 Morris Park Avenue
Van Etten, Room 1C-3C
Bronx, NY 10461
Tel: 718.862.1823
Fax: 718.862.1807
NPR's All Things Considered interviews Dr. Sophie Molholm about her research that uses EEG to demonstrate children with autism take longer to integrate incoming visual and auditory information than typically developing children.
ScientificAmerican.com features a recent study by Dr. Sophie Molholm which provides evidence that children with autism spectrum disorders are slower to integrate input that requires multiple senses to process than typically developing children.


text:
Logo / Identity Guide
Recommendations for sustainable specification and purchasing
Recommendations for Sustainable Specification and Purchasing
Institutional Marketing recommends purchasing paper stock that has several of the following attributes:
1. Domestically manufactured paper for bulk white stock
2. a. Paper certified from sustainable forests. Look for FSC (Forest Stewardship
Council) or SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative). OR/AND --
b. Paper containing a postconsumer fiber content with a minimum of 10%.
Additional environmental attributes to look for:
- Emissions-free renewable energy used in manufacturing of the paper or carbon neutral paper
- Elemental chlorine-free (ECF) or process chlorine-free
- Uncoated papers (coated papers yield much less recyclable fiber)
- Alternative fiber paper
- Carbon neutral paper
- Paper from mills that have received third party certifications such as Green-e, Green Seal
- Aqueous coating instead of varnish and vegetable-based or low VOC inks
Use local printers with FSC or SFI certification.
Use the Re-Nourish calculator to help calculate best use of a sheet size:
Page last modified June 14, 2013


text:
Can one of the most famous cats in the world help out a local shelter? The Tree House Humane Society hopes megastar "Grumpy Cat" can do just that.
Millions of people have come to know a few very special cats who have become internet sensations--like Keyboard Cat, for example.
Then, there are two popular specials needs cats that have captured the attention of cat lovers around the world: Lil Bub and Grumpy Cat. Lil Bub's owners say he suffers from dwarfism and is a polydactyl cat, meaning she has extra toes. The owners of Grumpy Cat, whose real name is Tardar Sauce, say the feline likely also has dwarfism.
The Tree House Humane Society in Chicago is a no-kill cat shelter that also specializes in caring for cats with special needs. They are preparing to open up a new state-of-the-art shelter next summer.
Jenny Schlueter, the director of development for the shelter went to a cat internet video festival where she met cat celebrities like Grumpy Cat and Keyboard cat. There, she got an idea and approached the cats and their owners with a proposal.
"We're building this new shelter, we want to help more cats like this and it would be really wonderful if you would join with us to kind of promote this campaign and to help more cats like Grumpy Cat and Lil' Bub and they both agreed that they want to be involved," Schlueter says.
So now the details are in the works to create public service announcement to help cats just like Grumpy and Lil Bub.
"We're really, really excited to join forces with them to help more cats," she adds.
For more information on the Tree House Human Society, visit their website: TreeHouseAnimals.org.
Follow @fox32news
205 N. Michigan AvenueGround FloorChicago, IL 60601Station Operator: (312) 565-5532Newsroom: (312)565-5533


text:
Hotel Boheda Palace -
Udaipur, India Hotels & Resorts
Welcome to Hotel Boheda Palace, your home away from home! The hotel Boheda Palace is a Heritage-style property situated conveniently in the centre of the Old City of Udaipur, tucked away in a quiet street yet within walking distance of all major s...
Starting at 1,850 Per Night
Anandha Inn
Pondicherry, India Hotels & Resorts
City-centric, this 4 Star hotel is close to the Beach and Sri Aurobindo Ashram. There are 70 centrally air-conditioned rooms and suites to choose from. ...
$71 Per Night
Hotel Mass - Tg
Pondicherry, India Hotels & Resorts
This 3 star hotel with 112 centrally air-conditioned rooms is centrally located in the Maraimalai Adigal Salai area. The Nanda, a multi-cuisine restaurant ...
$74 Per Night
Lotus Comfort Hotel - Tg
Pondicherry, India Hotels & Resorts
This three storey hotel with 2 Star status is located close to the beach and in the S.V. Patel Salai Road. There are 22 superior rooms with contemporary ...
$47 Per Night
Hotel Atithi - Tg
Pondicherry, India Hotels & Resorts
Strategically located close to the commercial area and near to the Old Ajantha Theatre Complex, this 4Star hotel maintains 60 rooms. A scrumptious fare ...
$87 Per Night
Calve A Welcom Heritage Hotel
Pondicherry, India Hotels & Resorts
Calve is a rich blend of traditional Tamil and French colonial heritage architecture located in the heritage street of Pondicherry. Guests can come and ...
$77 Per Night
Lotus Suite Rooms Service Apartment
Pondicherry, India Hotels & Resorts
City-centric, this service apartment with contemporary decor is located 5 minutes from the beautiful beach area in the Ganapathi Nagar. There are four ...
Hotel Jayaram
Pondicherry, India Hotels & Resorts
The Jayaram Hotel is one of the best budget hotels located at Pondicherry and also is situated at a convenient location. The nearest airport and the nearest ...
$34 Per Night
Lotus Bay View - Tg
Pondicherry, India Hotels & Resorts
Amidst a tranquil ambiance, this beautiful property is a stones throw away from the Beach Road. There are 17 well-maintained rooms with balconies that ...
$71 Per Night
Executive Inn - Tg
Pondicherry, India Hotels & Resorts
Centrally located, this boutique hotel with budget room tariff is equidistant from famous locations such as Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Seashore, and Pondicherrys ...
$40 Per Night
Bike Tour
Mumbai, India Bike Tours
Royal safari India offers you a selection of vehicles at best rates. We design our bike tours to capture thrills and challenges! We'll provide you with the best support services in the industry...
Hot Air Balloon Safari
Noida, India Ballooning
SkyWaltz Balloon Safari not only offers you the opportunity to see India and its spectacular forts, hidden palaces, breathtaking terrain and traditional local villages from a very unique perspective but also the chance to meet the friendly people....
Starting at $250 Per Person
Budget Hotel In Mumbai
Mumbai, India Bike Tours
Hotel Sapphire Residency is near mumbai airport close to NSE Ground walking distance for multiplux 5 Minuts drive for mall...
Starting at $30 Per Night
Terai Arc Landscape Adventures
Gurgaon, India Eco Tours
Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) the lowlands along the Himalaya mountain range in India & Nepal. The TAL is home to many endangered mammals including the Bengal tiger (of which it has one of the world's highest densities)& the Indian rhinoceros,...
Starting at $100 Per Night
Village Tour
Mumbai, India Eco Tours
Calling all adventure tourists who would like to try something new, isn't it time we gave up playing virtual Farmville behind a computer screen and play it in reality instead ? Come & enjoy simplicity & adventures of village life....
Affordable Rates from 1,900 Per Night
Best Safari Packages At The Earth Safari Pvt. Ltd.
Dehli, India Wildlife & Safari Tours
The earth safari is one of the leading luxury wildlife safari providers in India as well as Africa with a bunch of highly experienced staff. That can help you in seeing the entire natural world that you would have wished for....
Volunteers stay Pondicherry India
Pondicherry, India Volunteer Vacations
Almond Shades is a Serene Villa situated 9 Km from Pondichery. It is situated away from the hectic noise and air pollution of the City .It provides a peaceful atmosphere with dense trees,Coconut groove,greenery & a swimming pool ....
Starting at 500 Per Night/Pers
Yoga Teacher Training in Goa, INDIA
Goa, India Yoga
Oceanic Yoga is a certified Yoga school and its Yoga Teacher Training programs are approved by Yoga Alliance USA which is an internationally recognized organization....
Yoga Teacher Training
Rishikesh, India Yoga
Yoga is an intimate part of Indian culture and traditional life style. Sanskriti Vedic Retreat Rishikesh shall be conducting an immersive 4 week yoga teachers training course from 4th August 2014 to 30th August 2014. Our Yoga Teacher Training C...
Tour Operator India - Down Town Travels
New Delhi, India Scenic Flight Tours
Down Town Travels is the leading travel company in Delhi that offers ultimate honeymoon packages to enjoy holidays with fun and excitement. DTT also plan domestic and International tour packages just for you to make your journey memorable....
|Link Code