The mystery of ATLANTIS
•
by scrabman
While the question of our chosen alliances remains a going concern on a daily basis, our recent incursion into Mexico has once again brought to a head the passions about ATLANTIS. Though it may be simpler and far more politically palatable to jump on the “Dump ATLANTIS” bandwagon at every perceived sleight, it is incumbent upon those who seek highest elected office in the nation, to approach the weaknesses and strengths of the alliance with a diplomatic effort that does not necessarily include the use of sledgehammer.
So lets unravel the mystery.
The United States has been a member of ATLANTIS for quite some time now, and maintains several relatively costly MPPs that are due to expire in between 12 and 24 days. The question that continues to pop up is "what other options are out there?"
First let me assure you that there are many options available. Like every other nation allied or not, we are no more tied to this alliance (excepting the duration of existing MPPs) than any other nation in eRepublik. It is important to clarify that statement, we are not compelled to be in ATLANTIS, our nation, through its leadership, has chosen to be in ATLANTIS. We can voluntarily leave and pursue any alliances we choose.
Some of the options would include isolationism, neutrality, migration to an existing alliance or establishing a new alliance.
I will state, for the record that my preference is continuation with a reformed and re-chartered ATLANTIS. The key is that my preference is the perspective of a single citizen, just like yours. So rather than take a sledgehammer approach, I will, instead share my thought process in relationship to ATLANTIS.
ATLANTIS
WEAKNESSES
Enforcement – As with the court system of which, as many of you know, I am well versed in, alliances and treaty agreements have no enforcement mechanism by which any nation is contractually bound to fulfill its obligations. As the clearest recent example, while we have admittedly breached the notification rule in pressing the war with Mexico, the reality is that there is no enforcement mechanism by which the our aggrieved allies can enforce the consequences. If we so choose, we can disregard any damages with impunity. We have seen this occur with other countries that are part of our alliance in the past and we will likely see this occur in the future.
Scrutiny – Americans, in general, balk (sometimes rightfully so) at risking the element of surprise in military strategy for the benefit of the national security of other countries, even allies. Therefore the voluntary scrutiny of a notification period, regardless of the mutual value that might be derived, or the duration, generally meets with fair criticism when we are planning any type of expansion.
Diversity of purpose – At this time there is a general lack of common purpose and goals for ATLANTIS other than serving as a deterrent to our primary antagonist, PEACE. Since there is not a common purpose or goal that we are pressing - as some nations are ardent expansionists, some are clearly pacifistic or neutral, and some, like the eUSA, are versatile in their approach – any move, or even inactivity or non-responsiveness, are viewed with almost a default sense of suspicion as to motivation.
STRENGTHS
Effectiveness – It would be challenging to dispute the fact that ATLANTIS has served its role well as a deterrent (not necessarily a barrier) to PEACE. Though not specifically quantifiable, it is extremely likely that PEACE nations are forced by virtue of the very existence of ATLANTIS to account for our possible responses to their expansion. Additionally, the nations of ATLANTIS were instrumental in the liberation and recognition of the nation of Israel, which we, as a nation, celebrated (rightfully so) just a few short days ago.
Reputation – This has more to do with America’s relationship to the member nations of ATLANTIS, and less so ATLANTIS’ relationship internationally. As I have already discussed, the lack of consequences for breaching the terms of the alliance force us as a nation to choose whether to honor our commitments or not to honor our commitments, and the world is watching as we do so. The recent dispute over the consequences of non-notification of the other member nations regarding the invasion of Mexico is a case in point. ATLANTIS provides a public opportunity to identify ourselves as a nation which honors our commitments, which will certainly impact, in a qualitative manner, any future alliances we may choose to form.
I want to make myself clear on this matter, though it will likely not be well received by some. If we as a nation choose not to abide by the consequences, that our nation agreed to, within the by-laws of ATLANTIS, then we are choosing not to honor our commitments, regardless of their enforceability. As an example, if I make very specific campaign promises that are contingent upon my election as your next President, and then I am elected president and fail to honor those commitments, it was though no fault of yours that I failed to honor them, it would have been my choice not to honor those commitments; the likely consequence would be my removal from office or my opportunity for an additional term in office. Regardless, it would be highly likely that my reputation would take a hit that could very likely prevent future elective office.
I keep my commitments. America keeps its commitments, even when they are difficult or seem unfair in light of the actions of others…the message will remain constant:
America can be trusted to keep their commitments. America is an honorable nation.
I know that frustrates many, but the reality is that, in a game where there are very few methods of enforcement, alliances are formed around trust and the, sometimes unilateral, honoring of commitments.
Honor is unilateral, not transactional.
We cannot wait for others to honor their commitments prior to choosing to honor ours.
While a great deal of time, effort and resources have been invested in ATLANTIS, that is not my primary reason for supporting our continuation with a reformed and re-chartered ATLANTIS. It is because I believe that the weaknesses can be addressed and corrected and the strengths of the alliance are more than compensatory for the infrequent disputes that take place. We will never ask for permission to exercise our right to expand, but short term notification for our allies welfare is a very modest price for the continued trust and support internationally.
Vote scrabman/PrincessMedyPi on March 5th, 2009
The last article in this series was:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/a-federal-budget-achieving-your-priorities-744432/1/all
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Very Good...It makes me want to vote for you.
Failure to notify ATLANTIS and possibly costing the USA both it's honor and 100's of gold, is grounds for impeachment. the nations of ATLANTIS don't really like each other. After all wasn't it Poles, ATLANTIS members who TO'd Mexico? Uncle Sam should pay the fine out of his own pocket
Looking great Scrab! This is the kind of stuff I love to see. This is policy the United States should be fully behind.
Hmmm. Quite nuanced.
Scrab, isn't the penalty something like 1,400 gold? I understand about honoring commitments, but...
The penalty is out of proportion to the infraction.
This is a perfect time to negotiate for leniency.
If we chose to pay, we need to ensure that we deduct any payments owed to us by other nations who have had infractions.
It's also a good time to rewrite the charter. Nobody wants to abide by the rules in the charter, so it's a bad charter.
The penalty is only 100 gold to all other member nations. That would be 700 gold. We would also receive 100 gold for each previous penalty from other nations if ATLANTIS decides to fully penalize all violations in ATLANTIS history.
I am mostly sensing that this violation is going to slide and all future violations will be strictly enforced.
As our Secretary of State, Inwegen, has said. It looks like ATLANTIS will let the penalty slide one more time. If not then I would be looking at either forcing them to levy the fine on the other countries who violated the provision or offsetting our payment by those that we should have received if we remit it (i.e. we don't pay anything to Spain or Romania since they would owe us 100 gold as well).
If such a thing is a deal breaker then I suppose we are done with ATLANTIS. However, if you check a book out of the library or rent a movie and you lose the book or the movie you have to pay for it per the agreement you made. That's how an alliance works and if we say that the agreement is worthless it doesn't make us very good allies despite what Spain or Romania may have done.
We shall see what happens.
You're the President, scrabman. That's all there is to it.
I agree with your analysis, scrabman. If our alliance is to be strong, we need to treat it like a international contract, which if broken has penalties. ATLANTIS faces basically the same problem modern UN faces. The least of which the nations could do would be to lay down trade embargoes.
I agree that we need to decide where we are really in this alliance and its rules, or whether we are going to do our own thing.
Thanks for the article, wonderful as usual.
The Brits should go join the European Social Alliance and leave war and international politics to the heavy-hitters. America needs to stop pussy-footing around and act like the player it can be. Every time we show weakness in the face of our triumphs, it only encourages PEACE to continue their aggression.
"We cannot wait for others to honor their commitments prior to choosing to honor ours."
I'm sorry, but no.
I refuse to have my nation punished for reasons that are based entirely in prejudice and hypocrisy. I cannot and will not support a candidate who agrees that the eUS should pack its balls into ATLANTIS' purse.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/my-response-to-atlantis-demands-745001/1/20
Hari,
The point isn't that we should subsume our decision making capabilities into ATLANTIS; I believe that Scrabman, if I may be so bold, is trying to say that we should only make commitments that we are willing to keep. If we don't believe that this notification process is right, then we should work to eliminate it.
The point is to have a real international alliance of which the member states would respect the rules. If we don't wish to be a member of such a alliance, then we should get out. I suspect that this is your opinion, and you should definitely vote that way.
hideousmonkeyman got it right.
A major point Scrab is making here is that we should only be a member of something that we agree with and are willing to support and make better. Once we support it we can't get pissed off and leave when we are the ones that screwed up. We need to honor what we signed and ratified.
Excellent points! I hope other nations in ATLANTIS feel the same and we can work to rebuild and strengthen our ties. It only strengthens our country to be a member of ATLANTIS.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/androids-free-announcements-744516/1/20
Tremaine, Sweden feels the same.
I am the one who wrote the latest changes of the Atlantis Treaty and that was a quickfix in order to save gold (with the previous Treaty all members had to MPP with each other - when V1 came so came a gold cost to sign MPP.)
I have said many times that we should re work the Treaty but it's a time consuming process and we need help like the input from Inwegen and others to do it.
I believe Atlantis can withstand tougher tests than this, this is frankly nothing.
I agree with what you are saying here Scrab. It is important that we, as a nation, have honor and integrity at all times. If we sink to the levels that some other nations have, then we are no better than them. And it effects whether our allies, and all potential allies, will trust us or not in the future. True that this is only a game, but even in game America stands for a lot and I am proud to support her.
Great article Scrab! You and MedyPi have my vote.
"We need to honor what we signed and ratified."
Not a dime 'till Romania and Spain pay the fine.
If we are not going to honor our agreements then why are we worthy of being in an alliance with any other nation? We can't have it both ways. If we are going to weaken the alliance by saying "well they did it too" and refuse to take any sort of sanction then we may as well get out rather than be a petulant child who is further eroding the organization.
The more that I see this attitude from our citizenry the more it is clear to me that the only alternative we may have is to leave ATLANTIS and either form or find an alliance that we can actually honor our agreements with. We can't be mavericks and team players at the same time. It doesn't work that way unless we're going lead some sort of "Coalition of the Willing" where the prime directive is that we get to do whatever we want while bossing the lesser nations in the Coalition around. That seems to be what people are asking for ATM.
This will require action within the short term. The situation has come to a head.
I'm not supporting any sort of policy where eAmerica should back out of deals or refuse to answer for transgressions.
However, there is no motivation behind these demands other than prejudice against the eAmerican people. The pure hypocrisy that these claims are steeped in, coupled with the offensive manner in which we have faced unprecedented scrutiny from our so-called "allies" has forced me to refuse to accept these demands on principle alone.
ATLATNIS' actions in the past few days have done nothing more than expose the very nature of the alliance as nothing more than a loose network of protection dominated by the demands and ideals of power players such as eRomania. This is not a case of eAmericans being pushy, arrogant "mavericks" demanding appeasement. This is a case of eAmericans being told to step back into line by people who we once thought were interested in what was good for us as well as them.
ATLANTIS is fine with us so long as we keep our ambitions out of their way.
There is no prejudice against eAmericans... We can't blame the past governments of ATLANTIS member nations for their failure to impose the treaty violation fine on those violators. We can only live in the present and be held to the will of the current governments of ATLANTIS member states.
It would be nice if Romania and Spain were held accountable for previous infractions, but I think it will be very difficult to impose a fine when (I believe) it was waived by past ATLANTIS votes.
Hm. Multipost.
"There is no prejudice against eAmericans... "
Then you tell me why no one bats an eye when eRomania ramapges across the east, while the eUS faces a staggering amount of criticism from its "allies" the moment we take a step outside of our borders.
"We can't blame the past governments of ATLANTIS member nations for their failure to impose the treaty violation fine on those violators."
Maybe not, but we can surely learn from it. The lesson? The europeans get a pass. the eAmericans have to pay.
"We can only live in the present and be held to the will of the current governments of ATLANTIS member states."
I am beholden to nobody's will but my own. ATLANTIS should not dictate our actions. If they do, then it is time for us to leave.
"It would be fair if Romania and Spain were held accountable for previous infractions"
Fixed.
"but I think it will be very difficult to impose a fine when (I believe) it was waived by past ATLANTIS votes."
Then we are dealt a great injustice if the votes do not turn in our favor.
"The lesson? The europeans get a pass. the eAmericans have to pay."
No, the lesson learned is that no one gets a free pass from here on out. We have to pay the price for failing to follow through. We are held at the mercy of the current governments of ATLANTIS, not the bad precedent set by previous government.
"I am beholden to nobody's will but my own. ATLANTIS should not dictate our actions. If they do, then it is time for us to leave."
ATLANTIS in no way dictates the will of our nation. The notification procedure is nothing more but a notification, they cannot stop or fight against us once we notify.
"Then we are dealt a great injustice if the votes do not turn in our favor."
Future justice will come from what you call 'injustice'. If we have to be the example for the overall better future of ATLANTIS then so be it.
"No, the lesson learned is that no one gets a free pass from here on out. We have to pay the price for failing to follow through."
So why, exactly, are we the example? Why is it that I seem to see a very large, distinct divide between the nations that ATLANTIS gives free reign and the ones that it keeps its eye on?
Why can ww not simply write this off as the last in a line of poorly enforced policies, and work to better enforce them in the future? Why is my nation left holding the check while others are given a free pass for no other reason than the fact that we're eAmericans?
"We are held at the mercy"
I disagree. ATLANTIS' threat is the expulsion of from alliance if we do not accept their hypocrisy and their criticism.
Maybe I just don't see why that's a threat anymore.
we*
We are not being specifically targeted. The current governments of the member states of ATLANTIS are choosing to strictly enforce the rules of the treaty we all signed onto.
They're only choosing to strictly enforce it when we're the subjects in question.
I demand to know why we are being made an example of.
@Inwegen: "There is no prejudice against eAmericans... " You seen like an intelligent guy, but wow... you're either not reading the forums and media comments, or you're in denial.
Two of the three Mexican heroes are citizens of our Atlantis "allies". Traveling overseas and fighting against us seems like a lot of effort to go to express their pique over our violation of a technical rule that has never been enforced in the past.
@Scrabman: I like your calm and reasoned discourse. And I am in favor of adhering to one's obligations. But the penalty proposed here is disproportionate to the wrong done, and being selectively imposed. Spain and Romania did the same thing, no problem. Now that the evil Imperialist has done it, bring the hammer down. It's like a traffic cop stopping two motorists for speeding, letting them off with a warning, then shooting a third speeder in the head just to prove that now were being serious about enforcing the law.
I can't support any presidential candidate who wishes to bankrupt the US by paying this disproportionate, selectively enforced rule.
@one eye: You're right. "Honor" aside, we simply can't afford this. We just raised taxes massively to support a stronger defense. If we pay this fine, these taxes won't go to defense-- for the next several months, they will go to ameliorating the hurt feelings of our "allies".
If Atlantis insists on payment, I say we get out.
"Two of the three Mexican heroes are citizens of our Atlantis "allies"."
Question: Why are we not taking our "allies" to task for shit like this?
I know other contries have broken the rules just as we have and they never payed. So at the very least I wouldnt pay them. I honestly think its funn that they think they need notification about a war that doesn even share regional borders with them. This is one of the only games where alliances have to act a a whole 100% of the time. Why cant a member of an alliance act against neutral countries. I realize people want to say Mexico is part of PEACE but they havent actually provided them anything other than blocking our southern expansion. Thats a great tactic to take from PEACE's side. All they need to do is ally or controll all of our border regions and then there given 2 days prior notification to any attack we're going to make. It may be against our current terms but those terms are flawed and broken. If we pay anything I would only do under the pretense of writing the terms of the alliance.
Hari and Jon,
I have access to something you can't see. That is the ATLANTIS forums.
We are not being targeted just because we are the eUSA. The current governments of ATLANTIS member nations are taking violations much more seriously this term. I can't speak to specific examples due to security issues. These don't come with a monetary fine like the one proposed for this violation, but any slip ups by any member states are being taken very seriously by ATLANTIS as a whole.
Thank you for ending in such a non-diplomatic way after we had been very civil.
Just for the record. I felt the same way you did a couple months ago when Romania took over Russia. I had the same mindset and the same poor attitude. I changed and learned the ATLANTIS treaty front to back. I got my hands so involved with foreign affairs and made sure my opinion was heard by those that needed to hear it. Now, I am Secretary of State. Keep up the work. No matter how much I disagree with you, I still want to hear opinions on foreign matters.
I wouldn't call it un-civil. Merely a way to express the frustration that ATLANTIS' actions have inspired.
It seems to me you're far too tied to the alliance to ever see it in the wrong. That bowing down to, and accepting, this blatant hypocrisy and selective punishment is something that the eUS must simply do. That taking the money out of MY, yes, MY pockets is acceptable because ATLANTIS decided they were going to come down hard on the eUS while allowing other nations to slide.
Face it. ATLANTIS is not a unifying collective. It is at it's best a sloppy network of loosely organized alliances held together mostly out of the fear that leaving the security blanket it provides will leave a nation ripe for invasion from other alliances such as PEACE.
If ATLANTIS wants to make the effort to stengthen the ties between allies, to actively enforce the rulings it has set down for its members, then fine. But making an example out of a single nation when two other members have been forgiven for the same offense is by far one of the most divisive actions that the alliance as a whole can take. The massive amounts of criticism aimed at one of the members of the alliance, in comparison to the apparent free reign that other members are given, only acts to exponentially increase this sense of division.
Screw it, USA doesn't need ATLANTIS.
Just a heads up
PEACE was created by a coalition of smaller nations to counteract the mega aliance of ATLANTIS
this would usually be the part where i go PEACE AT HOME PEACE IN THE WORLD
but not today :3
@Inwegen:
I'm sure that as a politician you are privy to information that we random citizens are not.
Diplomats may say in official channels that it's just a coincidence that this treaty is finally being enforced for the first time against the US, but based on what I've read foreign citizens write in forums and comments, I have to say I have my doubts.
You obviously have much more knowledge about the charter than I do. Does it address in any way our "allies" who fought against us in Mexico?
Also, I still don't see addressed the massive, crippling debt this will pile on the eUS. And this, for violating a provision that seems more technical than substantive, and which even many foreign Atlantis members think is flawed and needs to be re-written.
Inwegen, I am impressed that you are making this argument based on morality. But you may (or may not) want to consider the domestic political impact of this.
I don't think any eUS political candidate who publicly proposes paying this (I know I sound like a broken record) disproportionate, selectively enforced fine has a chance of being elected or re-elected. You've been here a lot longer than I have, and probably have a better sense of the electorate, but I just don't think people will put up with paying 20% of their income for the next several months in order to mollify the bureaucrats of ATLANTIS. 800-14000 gold is a LOT of money.
Perhaps if ATLANTIS's charter is harming the actions of its member states, it is time to change the charter.
@Jon - "You obviously have much more knowledge about the charter than I do. Does it address in any way our "allies" who fought against us in Mexico?"
Kind of like how our Conservative Party Vice Presidential candidate is fighting against America rather than for it?
http://eusforum.com/index.php/topic,1337.0.html
Respects...
I am in favor of paying the fine, straight up paying the fine on the grounds romania and spain pay their fines. The united states, if it is to pay the gold, would set up a legitamcy to ATLANTIS that quite frankly, it doesnt have. If however, we pay our fine, and in an alloted time period the other nations do not pay theirs, it is time to leave ATLANTIS.
Already i disagree with the fact that many of nations that are in ATLANTIS are in ATLANTIS. If we are going to put ourselfs on the line we should have nations that will watch our backs, not scream for our heads when we make a mistake. If this treaty is keeping the eamerica back in ANY way whatsoever, we also need to relook and change the charter.
The fine will be no more than 700 gold for the millionth time!!!! People: stop saying 14000G! Learn how to read a story problem, then do math!. 100 gold fine to each member nation. 100*7=700 Ok got that out of my system.
And, to address the fighting against an ally question:
ATLANTIS Treaty Article VI §2a states:
"No member nation is allowed to aid against another member nation. If they do not wish to support the war, the only option they have is to remain neutral in the matter."
Those that fought against us did so on their own accord from the knowledge I have. There was no government sanctioned movement of armed forces by any of our allies that I have seen or heard of. This means the member nation cannot be punished for the actions of its citizens.
Can we not punish these nations for not maintaing control over their citizenry then? Maybe we should levy some fines of our own.
This seems like an easy out for ATLANTIS nations to fight against their allies without "fighting" against their allies.
Yes, but if anything, the volume of its citizens that engaged in such activities goes to show how much resentment there is in the ATLANTIS populance to eAmerica. How many of the people here supporting ATLANTIS go over and help attack a member nation? Probably none. Yet the nations that need and want ATLANTIS the most have sent the most mercenary troops against us. I suggest that this treaty was rushed, and some of the members that are now in it, shouldnt be.
I dont think it would be practical or sane to punish them for their citizens being mercenarys. Alot of their citizens attacked us de facto. Ok. Not supported by their government most likely, but it shouldnt be just the governments of ATLANTIS nations that support us. It should be the people large scale too.
Thanks, all for continuing to add to the debate. I think it's helpful, and I respect even those who I disagree with.
I have an argument to make about the size of the penalty (even if it's "just" 800 gold) and how I don't believe the punishment fits the crime, but I'm tired, and I'm the 1st SGT of my USNG platoon, and I still need to update our member's status for my CO. If this is still going on tomorrow, I'll post yet again. 😉
But in short, I'd be okay with a Bart Simpson style apology, "I'm sorry, we won't do it again"; the US, Romania, and Spain kick a nominal fine (say 100 gold each) to the Human Fund or whatever, then we re-write the notice provision to something we all can live with. And then, in the future, everyone who violates the treaty gets maximum penalties, or kicked out, or whatever.
I have to leave to do my USNG work right now, but I've enjoyed the give and take.
Let's keep talking.
"Can we not punish these nations for not maintaing control over their citizenry then?"
What you are suggesting is some sort of combination of an in game International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. At this point in time I don't see any way that a nation could enforce any sort of control over their people. This would be like punishing the US when William Shafer went to help the Russians set up their military. I just don't think it is going to be very easy to enforce or monitor.
Gentlemen, please. You're both right, in your own way.
What we've come across is a fundamental problem of RL international law — namely, how are treaties supposed to come into force, and how can violators be punished for breaking them? I'm oddly thrilled when RL political theory problems find analogues in eRepublik (but this is because I'm an RL political theorist).
Time for legal words. Scrabman/Inwegen's view is that of a "pacta sunt servanda" stand in defending the value of international agreements for their owns sake. Hari (and others) have a more pragmatic sense of "clausula rebus sic stantibus" enforceability in that agreements can be rendered invalid when the fundamental circumstances relating to the original agreement have changed. Both forms of legal reasoning have their merits. Go to wikipedia if you're curious what I'm talking about.
In any event, I'm full-on rebus sic stantibus here. Promises must be kept, but if other parties to the treaty have no intention of keeping theirs, we're released from our obligations.
"What you are suggesting is some sort of combination of an in game International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. At this point in time I don't see any way that a nation could enforce any sort of control over their people. This would be like punishing the US when William Shafer went to help the Russians set up their military. I just don't think it is going to be very easy to enforce or monitor."
In all honesty, I don't believe the game has any mechanics for effective enforsement. However, it does highlight the very apparent anti-eUS sentiment held by our "allies", and the lack of unity in this "alliance".
Lol. The RL ICJ and ICC haven't got any mechanics for effective enforcement.
@Citizen Dru ... thanks for pointing that out. I figured there was some classification for the two sides of the argument as they just seemed so classic.
Actually, my opinion on this matter is that we pay no gold until we decide to do so. That means that we follow the same appeal process that Romania and Spain apparently used when asking for waiver of their transgressions. If we cannot get a full waiver then we need to bargain for a reduction in the cost or some sort of offset so that we're not paying 700 gold and perhaps not paying more than 100-200 gold if any at all.
Of course, during the process of appeal for waiver if we are dissatisfied with tenor of the conversation with our allies or we feel that it is no longer in our best interests to be in ATLANTIS then it is our time to leave. I would not want to remain in an organization where we are no better than it's least honorable members and I would not want to remain in an organization that causes such upheaval to the citizenry of the eUSA.
However, as my campaign manager Inwegen has told me, there are a lot of things that I don't know about how ATLANTIS works. While the Executive has to make the best decision for his people if I get into ATLANTIS and find that there is no reasonable way for me to explain the reasons for remaining in ATLANTIS without breaking some rule then it's also time to get out. If our people can see no value in the alliance and continually show hostility toward our allies then perhaps it is time to leave.
These are all things that must be given due consideration.
So, to review. Scrabman says: 1) don't pay the fine till we've negotiated; 2) pay the negotiated fine only if we see ourselves being able to seriously try to live up to the alliance; and 3) if we can't live up to or live with the alliance then it's time to leave it.
Lol @ citizen dru