A debate has recently re-erupted in the forums, and I thought it worth thinking about. Thanks to Chocobo for raising the issue, and alert readers for pointing it out to me. At issue is whether or not some players can be banned from local tournaments for being “too good”. Its said that it isnt just that theyre too good (though youll notice that no one is complaining about visiting scrubs who want to contribute to the pot), but rather that theyre too good because they have an unfair advantage. “What advantage could be unfair in SF?”, you might ask. The main claim is that by getting to practice against the excellent competition in NYC, the visiting player has insurmountable advantages, which make him “impossible” to beat. While many object to this idea for various reasons, I think a lot of players are inclined to be sympathetic. This is because even if they dont live in VA/MD (the scene of the hypothetical crime), it helps them feel better about their own shortcomings. Though I cant hope to address all the variously relevant points that have spun off, Ill try to explain why I think banning these players would be a mistake.

The stance taken by advocates of banning (lets call them G. Young and J. Van Pelt- no, thats too obvious, how about Greg Y. and Joe V.?) seem to be caught uncomfortably between two incompatible claims.

Claim 1: Arturos local competition (China Town Fair arcade, in NYC) gives him an “unfair” advantage, making it “impossible” to beat him (side note: feel free to read the fancy word “unfair” as one better known to the SF community: “cheap”. Thats exactly what the complainants mean here, whether they know it or not, and it will help shed some light on their motivations). It does this presumably by giving him a chance to play against top competition, which improves his game. Exposure to high level competition is such a great benefit that players lucky enough to have it should actually be banned from leveraging their skills against the defenseless masses elsewhere. Theres really nothing that can be done about it- exposure to high level comp is THAT valuable- its THAT much of a potent weapon.

Claim 2: Exposure to high level comp (re: Arturo) is such a terrible burden on us that we should take steps to ban it. High level comp is not only not making us any better, its destroying the scene! Its not only not valuable, it has a negative value.

The combination of claim 1 and 2 is a pretty obvious stinker, and most of the objections seem to smell that, even if they dont always hit the nail on the head. You cant have it both ways. So what exactly is going on here? What is the role of high-level comp?

The banning-advocates seem to (mistakenly) regard good comp as something handed down from on high- its like striking oil or something- some places have it, some just dont, and there taint nuttin can be done bout it! (Lets call this the “natural resource” theory of competition). This is provably false even for people with less knowledge of SF history than either Choc or Overdrive have. Lets review some examples:

Exhibit A: NYC used to be spelled W-E-A-K. Both NYC and the surrounding areas were routinely schooled by visiting players. Yes, CTF was still there, with as much (and even more) comp at times. But the players were weak. Merely having a player base does not guarantee anything. Chicago would be another notable example- for many years, despite having large followings, Chicago players were scrubs.

At some point, things changed for NYC. Perhaps due to the influence of Eddie Lee + co., and now its home to the best MVC2 player in the world. Areas that succeed have something in common: A core group (usually very small- 1-3 players at most) of dynamic, inventive players driven to win. Areas that have solid player bases but still suck have something in common too: bad attitudes. Due to the illicit influence of local champs (or just loudmouths), they decide apparently legitimate tactics are “cheap”. Whats behind this? Ive talked explicitly about this before- its laziness. These losers would rather just ban some tactic, even if its poorly defined and artificial, than learn to deal with it. Is this reminding you of anything? In this case, were talking about banning a player, but for exactly the same reasons. Hes not doing anything illicit- not breaking any rules- but beating him (it) just seems too hard! This is despite the fact that in the vast majority of cases, leaving nasty tactics in and dealing with them makes the game richer, deeper, and better overall.

Why didnt Justin Wong just follow your lead, and complain that he didnt have the benefit of playing Valle or Duc when he set out to face the CA players? After all, his achievement, according to your inane reckoning, should have qualified as “impossible” (remember, its “impossible” to beat Arturo according to the banners because no one from VA has ever done it! Top-notch reasoning at its finest…). After all, he didnt get to practice against the established greatest players- he had to practice against people who perhaps werent as good as they were, and he still beat them! Its… its… a total mystery! Sorry guys, it can be done, and is, all the time, even by people from (gasp!) VA. Which brings us to…

Exhibit B: The most terrifyingly obvious disproof of your view of comp comes from your own backyard: the oldschool VA beach players, Kris Grytebyst, Omar DeLoney+ co. They had wins and impressive showings at a number of national events, not to mention dominating the NYC comp. Omar is still thought to be one of the best A2 players of all time. Tell me again how VA is doomed forever to suck. Tell me again how its “impossible” to improve, or to get better in relative isolation. They did all this before the advent of DC practice modes, and before the internet spoonfed you world-class tactics. Remind me again- whats your excuse?

Exhibit C: Do we even need to mention the handful of “diamonds in the rough” like Hsien Chang, who seemed to get great out of nowhere? Coming from Texas, Hsien played virtually no one, went to California for a tourney on a whim, and teched his way to victory over the best players in the country. But that’s impossible!

So to return to the banners claim: Arturos ability to play at the CTF is “unfair” (cheap!), because it gives him advantages that are “impossible” for VA/MD players to overcome. However, in the above weve seen clear counterexamples to these claims. You can get that good without great comp, and it is possible to play far beyond the level of your local competition.

Does any of this guarantee that VA/MD greatness is just around the corner? Hardly. Especially given the apparently prevailing attitudes. What it does show is that what you regard as “unfair advantages” are nothing more than someone elses hard work, paying off. Believing that good comp is just a matter of having a “lucky address” is like most other complaints about something being unfair or “cheap”: its sheer laziness, and ignores the facts of history entirely. Good comp is created. It surrounds serious players, and generates more when sparked. The only thing making a VA victory “impossible” is stubbornness, and laziness. If youre unwilling to change your ways, to learn, to adapt, then yes, you can lose forever. But at least be honest enough to admit that your being unwilling to pay attention to why youve lost is not the same thing as your competition having an “unfair” advantage. It isnt “unfair” if youre doing it to yourself.

If you dont like the equation of “Banning Arturo” and “Being a pussy”, maybe you should try and explain what you think “being a pussy” is, because as I understand the term, its a pretty fair description of you. A pussy is someone who shies away from something they should be dealing with, simply because they find it stressful. A streetfighter tournament should test streetfighter skills, one would think. The fact that you want your local tournaments to do something else seems to be shying away from the obvious purpose simply because youd rather not put in the work required. Now of course, this is your right (just as it would be your right to have a no-throwing tourney, a no-Cable tourney, a no-one-who-can-beat-me tourney, etc.), but given the fact that youre clearly a serious player (relative to your ordinary man-on-the-street), it also makes you, yes, a pussy. At least as far as SF is concerned. There are worse things to be. Relax.

Here, banning-advocates will want to wave the noble flag of “wanting to test local SF skills”- “wanting to encourage local comp”. The obvious question is “Encourage local comp to do what?” Become losers? Strive for insular, local mediocrity? Ive never heard of any serious players that were hopelessly discouraged by losing tournaments. Quite the contrary- a lot of great players have been inspired precisely by getting seriously dominated at some point. That sense of anger and indignation is often a major motivator.

Second, I dont see how the Game Time situation is substantially different from any burgeoning local scene, virtually ALL of which feature some local player that annihilates everyone else regularly. This doesnt seem to crush local competition- again, quite the opposite. So your only complaint here is the highly arbitrary claim that Arturos “not local”. Arent you the same guys complaining that in your local scene, no one is local? That everyone lives 100 miles apart and rarely gets to play in large groups? “Local” is a pretty obviously gerrymandered, mostly empty term- state lines are arbitrary, and youre not even limiting yourself to one state! Your also gonna throw in MD, and shucks, while were at it, a few other stragglers from non-VA/MD states are welcome too! “Locality” is a total red-herring, as far as this debate is concerned.

The main complaint remains that Arturo has the “unfair” advantage of more serious comp, which was debunked above. Stop taking the fact that no one has yet beaten him and dressing it up as if it proved something other than your own weakness. For something to be unfair, it should make winning incredibly easy, or unreproducably hard. Arturos tactics and advantages are neither. Theyd clearly enrich your local games (just like the tactics you happily steal from the internet do), if youd pay enough attention to notice and implement them, instead of just focusing on the fact that you lost and leaving it at that.

Seriously- enough broad generalizations and analogies already- What is it, precisely, that Arturo is doing that makes him “unbeatable”? Is he doing something magical? Ill guess he isnt. Break it down. Think about it, rather than just getting frustrated. If you bother to spell it out (something glaringly absent from this entire discussion as yet), youll be forced to admit that its nothing magical- nothing you couldnt do yourself with a little effort.

The analogy between little-league kids facing a major leaguer is pretty ridiculous. Youre taking it upon yourselves to look even more pathetic than you really are, simply to avoid having to try any harder. The analogy is weak to begin with, but Arturo clearly lacks any of the innate physical advantages an adult would have over a child. What he does have is experience, execution, etc. All of these things are clearly within your grasp, should you try- these days more than ever before. Places all over the country have bootstrapped their way out of being a complete backwaters (including VA!!)- you dont need the millions a winning major league team would require- its just a little effort. Im not putting laziness itself on trial here, but its obviously not something you should try and accommodate in a damned competition! “Were competing, sure, but- hey!- not to the point where we actually want to TRY!”. No you say, thats not it! Its because were facing “unfair”, “impossible” disadvantages! Right. The same ones people all over the country have overcome, and continue to overcome (the relative strength of both the Pacific Northwest players and Hawaiian MVC2 players being only the most recent examples).

And finally, the greatest mistake of them all: “I aint a-enterin if I dont think I can win!”. … A moment of silence to let the stupidity resonate, please. WTF is this? Talk about completely missing the point. I actually hear people talking about the entrance fee as if it were some kind of investment, rather than the (incredibly low, relatively speaking) cost of pursuing their hobby. I have no response to anyone stupid enough to view SF tournaments primarily as money-making opportunities. Playing SF primarily as a way of making money is idiotic. And no, I dont mean it would be “dishonorable” to do that- I just mean its idiotic. You could make more money dancing for nickels down on the docks. Any job would pay a lot better than your typical expectation from anything but the biggest SF tournies. Arturo putting in 10 hours roundtrip on the BUS is not exactly “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous”, and youre accusing him of being in it just “for the money”?! The best players in the world are usually breaking even at best, and would probably do better (from a financial point of view) working the hours of the tournament delivering pizzas. The fact that a non-local boy is leaving with the cash is also irrelevant. Youre obviously not concerned with some non-existent effect on the local economy, and one person is going to leave with the first place pot regardless. Being upset that theyre “not from round here” is your own empty prejudice, not a serious “issue”.

SF is not about the money (at least not yet, though B5 had some pretty tasty payoffs). You enter tournaments because youre a player. Because you love the game. Youve already invested countless hours (and quarters) into this game, honing your skills, mastering its fine points. For you to then sit there and hedge on another 10$ is almost unbelievably silly. “Sure, Ive invested hundreds, even thousands of hours improving my game, but 10$ to really see whats what? Gee- I dunno…” Apart from entering tournaments being the logical next step of your efforts to date, if you insist on being a calculating little toad, its still a good investment. Take 10$ worth of casual play. Contrast that with the worst case scenario of entering the tournament and going out in 2. A smart, observant player will learn more at a tournament than they can in countless hours of casual play, especially when they have the benefit of having the match on tape. Entering a tournament is the fastest way to know yourself as a player, because you get an honest showing of your strengths and weaknesses. And if youre awake, youll learn more in two serious tournament matches than you could ever get out of 10$ of casual play.

You can get 10x more out of playing briefly against a really good player (if youre observant) than you can by playing mediocre comp forever. Your own stagnant scene proves it: A lot of you have probably been playing each other longer than Arturos been playing period. And yet youre still sucking, and hes wailing on you. Your prior investment in the hobby thus far easily justifies a further outlay, especially when you consider the reported experience of virtually everyone whos ever been. They all love it, cant wait to get back, to touch the fire that burns only in honest competition. You also have a chance to get seeded in future tournaments, even if you dont place top 3. You can also prove something without winning. All this, and youre not a big, sloppy wuss. Cheap at half the price.

To return to the beginning, let me try and get you out of your little contradiction (the “Arturo has an unfair advantage of access to good comp!” and “we shouldnt have to put up with facing good comp!” dichotomy): Rather than banning him (thereby announcing and insuring the continued weakness of your scene), have you considered that what you (as serious players) should really want is MORE exposure to Arturo? It sounds to me like hes coming down pretty regularly already- certainly enough to give you adequate chance to figure him out- but even if its really very little, that can still go a long way if you pay attention. I know it, because thats exactly how I learned to play A2. I almost literally never played in the arcade, but come tournament time, Id enter, and watch the best players I could. I came to understand a few things, and I became a competitive A2 player (top 10 in national tournies) with almost literally zero non-tourney play, and probably 1/100th of the experience a lot of the other entrants had.

So here then are a few solutions to your problem (which most other local tournies would view as a blessing): Ask, or even require, that the tourney winner hang around for exhibition/casual play matches following the tourney, or prior to the next tourney. Even make a percentage of the prize payable in local tokens, so that hell be particularly inclined to do so. While I dont necessarily accept that you have a problem in the first place, any time youre intentionally structuring tournaments to lower the level of competition, youre taking a step in the wrong direction- one that any serious player should be ashamed of.

Just thought I’d add some notes in case anyone reads this, since Seth (as well as most anyone who said anything about the topic in the past) misunderstood a few things.

Claim 1: As for this, no one can deny there’s a huge difference between having an arcade full of great competition and only having a Dreamcast and a couple friends to play against. I doubt I’m the only person who thinks (rightfully) that I could be one of the best players too if I had the same competition.

Claim 2: Seth is basically saying it’s stupid of me to think that high level comp is not making people any better and that it’s harmful to us. It does sound ridiculous. But in this case, it was pretty much true. Arturo would come down for one purpose only- to take our prize money and leave. He played virtually no non-tournament games. You can learn a few things from watching him play and getting the occasional 2-game beating from him, but it’ll never be enough to get up to his level.

The “exhibits” show examples of large groups of people who play all the time managing to increase their skill level. Doesn’t really apply to VA, with people spread out hundreds of miles apart.

I would also like to re-state what my original idea was: Since Arturo was coming to take our prize money for dozens of tournaments over many months, I merely suggested the idea that maybe we should have one tournament with no Arturo in it. I pointed out the benefits of having prize money available to the local players (who contributed it), and the benefits of having accurate rankings in the end instead of “who ran into Arturo last” rankings. When I asked about this, the majority said “we don’t like that idea” and that should have been the end of it, but then the non-reading retards on SRK started up a flame war about “you idiot, you want to ban skill just so you can win?” and all that nonsense.

The “SF pussy” stuff just seems like nonsense, as all I wanted was to suggest an idea.

As for the “local” definition, I never did emphasize the word “local” that much. Seth is absolutely right that the definition of local can mean anything you want it to, really. What I did emphasize is wanting to have a competition among players of equal opportunities. To use yet another analogy, it’s like having a skiing competition between someone who lives in Denver and someone who lives in Houston. What’s wrong with the lower level people wanting to compete, just once, without having a pro take everything over?

As for not trying- call it laziness or whatever you want. But it would mean virtually dedicating my entire life to get up to the skill level of the best in NYC, or moving to an area within driving distance of NYC. I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to drive hundreds of miles every day I have free to visit NYC (or the other groups of VA players). Once he understood where I was coming from, even Arturo agreed with everything I had to say… that his advantages were too much and that we can’t learn but so much from playing against him 2 games a month. The only thing he disagreed with is that he said if I want to be a serious SF player, I should be willing to travel anywhere or do anything to get the best comp in order to win.

“And finally, the greatest mistake of them all: “I aint a-enterin if I dont think I can win!”. … A moment of silence to let the stupidity resonate, please. WTF is this?” I’d like to know WTF that is too. I never said anything like that. I have never decided not to enter a tournament just because I think I wouldn’t finish in 1st place. That sure as hell isn’t the same as what did happen, which was being tired of tournaments with the fun sucked out of them… no bragging rights (“I own you! I faced Arturo in the finals instead of the semifinals like you! Loser!” doesn’t really work), no prize money, you get to play fewer competitive matches (every Arturo game was basically an auto-loss)… so I began to not go to every single tournament.

“have you considered that what you (as serious players) should really want is MORE exposure to Arturo?” Of course. So it was disappointing when he would go outside and just chat with people and never play a single non-tournament game, and never keep playing after the tournament. I would have loved to play him more and actually learn something.

Isn’t a tournament supposed to be about competition? When Arturo came, it wasn’t about competition. What does he need to play against VA and MD for? It was all about the prize money… we provided no competition for him back then. So I don’t know what’s supposed to be wrong with simply suggesting that maybe people would want more competition among equals.



I respect that chocobo so much man. Hold it down. And people wonder why I was “hating” on J wong trying to get money to go to the Atlanta. For what…he isnt gonna pay you back, he isnt gonna chill and get some extra games in to show ya a lil something…

Just beat ya down and leave…BUT thats the young generation way of rolling now…


Dealing with competition means dealing with people, and the first mistake is to tell people they can’t have something, in this case winning regionally. That’s why I say the suggestion doesn’t benefit local competition, things like morale are more important than you give credit for. IIRC people pay in japan to play and can’t even win money back, hell in sports people pay just to watch! Someone taking ppls money is not a main concern, it’s selling the event to players as a good time, which you can’t do if the underlying premise is ‘you can’t win cause you don’t live in x or y place, but come hang out anyway’.

If you want a great example, check out 3s discussions from last year. The reality is that half the things we discussed (who would be good, how popular it was) never mattered, all people wanted was the chance to play, and they felt they were denied it.

People are never going to stand for someone telling them they can’t do something, regardless of whether it’s right or not. It’s unfortunate that GT is a non-issue now, i would have liked to discuss increasing local competition, but with some diplomatic and more creative solutions, instead of just playing hardball.

fuck all of this shit about players getting banned, it’s ridiculous man if player is good, then so be it, that player deserves to win. That is what competition is for after all.

we got some dude in the uk who is on fire with the 3s ranking battles (goes by the name of hkc), but there ain’t no one complaining that he is too good, because if they did, then they would get dissed.:rolleyes:

I think this whole argument got out of hand. I don’t see any reason why a person running thier own tourney can’t make their own rules.

If the tournament organizer lives in the area, he should certainly have a more intimate knowledge of what’s what there.

That being said, I know for a fact that some organizers(even ol skool sf2 tourneys in Cali) banned any non-locals. Why? Somehow everyone’s missed the point. Organizers would ban non-locals because the tourneys were to encourage locals. So, banning a player, in the organizers judgement, would be for the good of the community. He would ban non-locals so as to ensure that the winnings go towards encouraging their own player. It’s not as selfish as some make it sound. I think it’s perfectly fine to have some tourneys JUST for locals. Then maybe once every 3 tourneys have an open tourney where visitors could attend. That helps both and can encourage both.

Banning sounds bad but…those are the times. Think about it with an open mind and you can understand the wisdom of doing so as well.

Anyway, for those just tuning in, I generally shot the idea down before but honestly never intended to see this argument get this far. Nutz.

Both sides are pretty obvious and justifiable I think.


dammit apoc, u stole my post…good thing I read every fucking post…
I remember playing DocBoms Sim in cvs1, and being like “FUCK! I can’t jump!”…3 months later i ran that shit, and I beat
JOSH P whenever he came to the arcade after going to SVGL and sucking off Nelson. then I didn’t play for like 4 months or somethin, left cali, came back, played JOSH P!!!..first time I played him in a while(by now he’s like gettin top 8 at svgl-aka cvs1 domination zone), beat his rog with Ryu…wth…that’s impossible in a number of ways right.
games are mad simple in the end…it comes down to Pussy or Hard-ass imo.
But don’t get me wrong, i still throw shit away in sf, I ain’t amazin’ or anything, and i still get scared and stop thinking during a match cause i didn’t have the balls to see something through to the end.

but beating Art aint impossible, my K-raiden ownz him, hehe.

as far as being scared during the match or hating other people in your tournie who come to take the platter, that’s not really that bad at all…not bad enough to write 8 paragraphs on it.
shit, atleast you’re hating, not wasting allllll that time on the game…like apoc said, each side is even.

But I still love JOSH P!!!..i bet no body has thought of him in like a year…come back JOSH!!!nelson!!!lol mad memorys

They ‘can’, but it doesn’t mean it’s the best rule, which is the point here. Directors need a certain level of control to shape their events the way they want, but lets not get into the ‘it’s my show i can do what i want’ business, when that happens the players ultimately do what they want, which is to not show, and it just becomes a whole mess for everyone.


I agree with that, but it’s not about what is going on right now, it’s about the best way to get the scene to where it needs to be , which often times isn’t something obvious, especially when there may be fustration/emotion/relationshups attached, leading us to make hasty choices.

One thing i noticed that i don’t think i mentioned before, is that the payout and structure of those tournaments were modeled after national tournaments which ARE designed to get players to travel and take the money. So if you look at the situation, we model our tournaments after nationals, then complain when people do what they would do at a national (come take the money). Kind of silly don’t you think??

Even if you ban players, the tournament is still designed to attract the best players to come, take the money, and give as little back as possible. So we in fact created the very problem the director wants to solve. Thats why i say the best fix is to not generate the problem in the first place.

Even if Art was coming for the cash, can you blame him? There was income, just sitting right there for the taking. Who WOULDN’T take some free money? Plus comp is comp is comp.

However, the tourny runner has the right to ban whatever. It’s basically a challenge. IE, “I challenge you to play by these rules and win.”

You accept the rules before you play. If a rule is “No Art”, then you accept no Art before you play. It just means Art doesn’t have to burn gas money that week. No big deal right, since apparently the comp’s no match for him.

Still though, it speaks poorly to ban a player for being too good. Period. Are you saying that, if I were the best SvC player in the world, the Cannon’s could justifiably ban me so that I didn’t take their prize money? Negative. That wouldn’t fly under any justifiable means.


All this banning leads to one thing:

NY>Maryland/Virginia in SF.

Slave: Obviously you can’t blame Arturo… hell I’ve done the same thing, I’ve gone to scrub tournaments just to take the money. (And I would have understood if it they wanted me to stop if I did it 10 times in a row, too.) I have absolutely no problem with his actions.

As for “comp is comp”, that’s not really true. A 5 year old mashing buttons is not competition for you, you can win with minimal effort. And at the time, it was like that for Arturo compared to us.

“if I were the best SvC player in the world, the Cannon’s could justifiably ban me so that I didn’t take their prize money?” That’s totally different. Evolution is supposed to be a tournament for anyone from anywhere in the world. And just pointing it out one more time… I was never in charge of a tournament and no one ever got banned… it was always a group effort and I was only suggesting an idea to the group.

Alphastorm: Not really, since NY was better for years before this, and continue to be better despite no banning ever taking place.

I meant that type of mentality impedes your growth. You can only get as good as your competition. Some of the MD/VA players chose not to play outsiders and that explains NY>MD/VA. That could just be one factor that is keeping them behind.

Who chose not to play outsiders?

I’m from Maryland.

ultra defensive mode activated

Also, I understand amigo. Just, well, you get were everyone else is coming from too. It’d be like not allowing the guy who plays running back on the football team at high school to play in your back yard game with high school friends cause he’s “pro” and “too good”.

What’s 5 bucks mean to you anyways? :slight_smile:


In every community there will be players who choose not to play outsiders. They won’t goto tournaments or play against someone from out of town etc… It just sounds like there are more of these players in your area than NY. If it’s not true then I apologize.

Theres a ridiculously easy solution for this. I cant believe nobody thought of it.

Just take out the prize money!!!

People can subscribe for free, everyone pays their own tokens and the winner gets just recognition(maybe a box of beer if you want to charge some money from the players).

Arturo wont lose money to travel. You guys dont need the money to play(I mean, the game and the nice competition should be enough) and you can have fun in a challenging tourney.

Japanese plays for no money all the time, its good

Removing prize money is one solution, however IMO it is drastic (banning the prizes instead of the player), money gives something of value to every player, and is the simplest way to get people excited. even if they can’t win maybe they can come up with something new to get them top 3 and some cash.

Also Japan’s scene has many more differences than just playing for money, we shouldn’t assume that copying one aspect is the answer. You should ask the japan players at evo if they are playing for money or not =P.

A case of beer won’t cover his travel costs.

Nah, tourneys without money are ok too. People still play for pride…never discount pride.

I heard a funny story on Sanford winning a tourney that had no prize money and him getting really angry about it.

Sanford: (doesnt know tourney is free) Lemme in, Im going to win anyway.
Tourney organizers: Er OK…
Sanford wins tourney…begins cursing people out when told that he didnt win any money.

As for banning Arturo because you werent good enough…I really think thats weak. Art is a really nice guy, chances are if you asked him he wouldn’t have refused to play more games and help out…unless he was a real dick back then I guess.

Thats exactly what I meant.