What?

A ZiTT on WHT?

SWR has finally gone over the deep end.

What's a ZiTT on WHT?


What’s a ZiTT, you ask? Well, that would be “Zero Instigation Tenet Time.”

In short; if someone posts something that may be construed as insulting another member, country, ideology, etc. that member’s post will be removed and he’ll have earned himself a short (24 hour) holiday.

The next ZiTT would give him three days to reflect.

ZiTT again, and it’s two weeks to get caught up on those projects that have been set aside in favor of fishing.


That being said; we would value community input on this idea before making it so.


So, please; discuss the ZiTT. :)

So basically this an "advanced" banning system? Will this apply more then "harassing" anothers' nationally, another etc. Like advertising etc.?

Basically, it's more like an "advanced discussion encouragement system."

Meaning; discuss the post, not the poster.

Feedback on this move would be greatly appreciated :) I am sure there are a few who will complain about being ZiTTed, but in the long run, I see it as benefitting the community.

The idea is not bad, but I can see it leading to some confusion, a number of slightly unfair ZiTTs and thus some unneeded aggravation. IMO the "Be polite" general rule is enough. Too many rules and regulations can create confusion, even for the mods.

I mean... "You Sir are a troll" will have to become "Your posts are a perfect example of trolling", "You are a spammer" -> "That post constitutes spam." etc. :)

There are some types of characterisations (liar, thief, fraud etc.) that a disgruntled customer is highly likely to be using (sometimes rightfully so). Should they be temporarily banned?

I can understand that mods are using common sense when deciding on issues, but sometimes common sense is not that common between individuals. Jailing the innocent is supposedly thought to be worse than not jailing a criminal.

An internal policy change of being stricter when it comes to impolite posts would be welcome. Intense policing and severe punishing of all types of characterisations (if that's what the ZiTT implementation means) is not a very good idea IMO.

Then again, I have no idea of the internal workings of the WHT moderating system.

Conclusion: I'm not against the ZiTT, I'm worried about the implementation.

Originally posted by ldcdc
. . ."You Sir are a troll" will have to become "Your posts are a perfect example of trolling", "You are a spammer" -> "That post constitutes spam." etc. . . . "You Sir are a troll" would become, nothing. Simply reporting the post and letting a CL deal with it. If it became, "Your posts are a perfect example of trolling," would be a direct insult to the poster and a ZiTT.

Same thing with your spammer example. Except they don't last long around these parts anywho.

ZiTT is an extension of the Be Polite rule. Or, moreso, a tool of Be Polite.

To me, ZiTT is akin to Intentionally Rude and Disruptive; without the Intentional thing. And, maybe even missing the Disruptive quality.

What it is, is something that will, hopefully, stem off an Intentionally Rude and Disruptive post.

Someone posts, "Have you put any thought at all into what you're saying?" That's a ZiTT.

But, the ZiTT, elicits an Intentionally Rude and Disruptive post from the member referenced.

However, if we pop the ZiTT, the Intentionally Rude and Distruptive doesn't happen.


Conclusion: We have concerns as well. That's why we threw it out here first. :)

Bad move IMO. If someone breaks a rule (in a moderator's opinion) then what's wrong with issuing them with a warning point, and when their warning points accumulate to more than 30, they're banned for a period?

Seems to me that the above system works, and I think it's very harsh to give out instant 1 or 3 day bans, on one instance.

WHT is nailed down so damn tight now, that it's almost rediculous. IMO there's no need to take banning to micro extremes. It will get to the case when we can't breathe here, and there needs to be some levity as the definition of "rude" is very grey, especially in some heated discussion.

So basically if a mod thinks you're being "rude", wammo, you're banned for 1 or 3 days instantly. :eek:

Fair crack of the whip hey mods? Can't you come up with any other real improvements that will beenfit us, other than implementing an instant 1 or 3 day banning system.

INET should look hard at this, and see how this will essentially suck all the air out of WHT.

ok ok, maybe I'm being a tad melodramatic, but look at this from our side of the fence - you're asking if we'd like an instant banning system implemented. Of course we don't. :)

Aussie Bob basically said whatever I wanted to. Bad move, bad. What's wrong with the warning points system?

"You Sir are a troll!" was said by a mod. That's why I used it as as example, for even mods might find this change a bit... unnatural. :)

After your explanation Dennis, my vote is "No". I live in an ex communist country and freedom of speech, so hardly won relatively recently, even with all its downsides, is something I really value.

I do put a lot of thought in writing my posts and try to obey the rules and be fair towards all fellow members, but this new rule would make posting something, anything, a really painstaking process. A minor, rare, unintentional an potentially harmless mistake can have a what is (IMO) an unnecessary unpleasant effect.

I will, of course, do my best to comply if the majority votes "Yes, long live the ZiTT!", but if you ask me, too much of a good thing can be really bad.

We must remember that people make mistakes or get carried away. He who does not speak never makes mistakes. Should that be the order of the day?

A perfect world or a perfect forum is an utopia. People come here to enjoy the community and a big part of that enjoyment is the free flow of ideas, the freedom of speach ultimately. Put very serious barriers to letting people express their thoughts and feelings and there's a good chance of them "emigrating" to places where professionals discuss hosting... if you know what I mean. :)

Sure, a smaller forum built around the ZiTT idea can easily exist, but I don't think everyone (cough ... iNET) wants WHT to be that small community. :)

Personally I'm glad you asked the members about this before making it a reality.

EDIT: I agree with AussieBob, obviously. :)

This change has the potential of hurting WHT.

WHT is nailed down so damn tight now, that it's almost rediculous.Lucky you Bob that WHT is not a person and the ZiTT is not yet in place. :) Seriously though, I agree. WHT is tight enough.

Dennis or Jan, may I ask why the ZiTT was thought as necessary?

Originally posted by ldcdc
Dennis or Jan, may I ask why the ZiTT was thought as necessary?
Basically Dan, there are a few who seem to take pleasure? at trolling certain members/providers/issues. ZiTT will only affect a small minority, and hopefully with this thread, we will never need to use it. Forwarned is forarmed :angel:

Aussie Bob pretty much hit the nail on the head; I couldn’t have said it better :)

I have two questions though;

1) Is the current warning system not working?

2) Will the “ZiTT” system work alongside the previous method of delivering points / bans?

Originally posted by imitech
I have two questions though;

1) Is the current warning system not working?

2) Will the “ZiTT” system work alongside the previous method of delivering points / bans?
1) Yes to a certain extent, but we have been too wimpy in some cases
2) It will work in conjunction with the current system.

I'm only disappointed in the name. I mean, Zitt? He coulda came up with a better pun than that.

Regardless, I support this policy, as it will probably result in the banning of a few members who i dislike :) .

The name Zitt sounds quite good :)

I think it's a good idea, a instant shock of 24hr posting withdrawl will make people think a little more. In many instances a few warning points don't make much difference to a person's behaviour, if we look at a few people who have been warned for being jerked you'll often see several warnings recorded in the last six month. Once they get a warning they don't care unless it reaches 30.

We occassionally give people three days off at the moment for being [insert-choice-of-word] which works well, in other less severe cases, as anon-e-mouse says, we're often a little too wimpy (based on the repition of rudeness after a mere warning) .

Originally posted by MattF
Once they get a warning they don't care unless it reaches 30.
And then they spam the desk with "I never did anything wrong" "he/she is to blame" "you all hate me" "Well he said this so I said that" and yadda yadda. Clearly warnings don't work for some, so a lightening bolt (ZiTT) for a bit might :)

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
WHT is nailed down so damn tight now, that it's almost rediculous. IMO there's no need to take banning to micro extremes.

Once again Aussie Bob has said it best.

Just how many rules does our community need? Everything seems to be working perfectly now - why complicate it?

The 'rudeness' is often entertaining and if nothing else it stimulates discussions. If iNet's business model is to get pageviews, as I suspect it is, killing interesting discussions will not help that.

If I have to sit and ruminate over whether every word I wish to post is 'vanilla' enough not to offend anyone in the slightest you won't find many posts from me.

Locking WHT down like an 1800's country schoolhouse will accomplish nothing other than killing the community.

Just my opinion. I'm very sorry if I have offended: Australians, people who like vanilla, rural dwellers, or old-fashioned schoolteachers. ;)

Everything seems to be working perfectly now - why complicate it?


There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes to keep it running, we receive hundreds of tickets a day and have to deal with dozens of warnings and bannings. The Zitt is merely an enforcement of our current rules, for such a community our rules are relatively compact, the Zitt is about enforcing some basic equiette (sp?)/common-sense in respect to rudeness and disruption.

We're not locking anything down so to speak, just enforcing some health rules so that everyone can participate without being insulted or attacked.

Zitt will not affect 99.99% of members.

"You Sir are a troll" would become, nothing. Simply reporting the post and letting a CL deal with it. If it became, "Your posts are a perfect example of trolling," would be a direct insult to the poster and a ZiTT.

You're going to ban people for saying something like "your posts are a perfect example of trolling"?

I'm more inclined to agree with Rob on this one. If you've got a problem with certain abusive users, ban them and be done with it. But if you want to get into banning people for examples like the above, you guys are really going a bit far IMHO.

(Whoops...he said 'you guys are going a bit far'...ZITT for direct insult)

But if you want to get into banning people for examples like the above, you guys are really going a bit far IMHO. I can only agree.

the Zitt is about enforcing some basic equiette (sp?)/common-sense in respect to rudeness and disruption. But judging by SWF's examples, pretty much every single critique would be a ZiTT infringement and result in banning. That would rule out even mildly heated debates, which spice up this forum from time to time.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that some members are prone to be trolls, but the mods tend to know who they are so they should take take of them, not everyone.

I don't know how the WHT moderating system works, but the mods could discuss and vote 24 or 72 hours banning of certain members, to teach them a lesson of manners. Leaving such banning to each moderator's will is not a good thing IMO, for each mod might have sympathies and antipathies, which make him/her biased.

Originally posted by ldcdc


But judging by SWF's examples...



That's a ZITT for you for referring to Dennis as a flash file! :D

Someone bring out a 55 gallon drum of Clearasil! :rofl: We will have more ZiTTs then when I was a teenager!

Dan & Bob said it best. There's not a single point to implementing something as this. A message board (that is what WHT is, right?!) is a place for people to discuss their beliefs, ideas ... etc. As with common nature, arguments will occur, insults will be thrown. There are posts that will need to be deleted, however this should be done on a reactive basis, not a proactive basis. I can only say one thing about this ZiTT -- I hope it get's popped before it ever shows up on here.


In short; if someone posts something that may be construed as insulting another member, country, ideology, etc. that member’s post will be removed and he’ll have earned himself a short (24 hour) holiday.
There's females on this board too. :)

Wow, yeah! Mega-superduper-ZiTT for insulting ALL the female members of the forum! :rofl:

Originally posted by Andrew
You're going to ban people for saying something like "your posts are a perfect example of trolling"?

I'm more inclined to agree with Rob on this one. If you've got a problem with certain abusive users, ban them and be done with it. But if you want to get into banning people for examples like the above, you guys are really going a bit far IMHO.

(Whoops...he said 'you guys are going a bit far'...ZITT for direct insult)

Couldn't agree more.

This system is intended to be a supplement to the point system? How can it supplement what the point system should already be doing? If the point system isn't working, fix the point system.

IMHO, this policy is wrong and ridiculous.

Sirius

Wow, lots of great opinions here.

I'll just add that giving somebody at 24 hour or 72 hour vacation isn't likely to change their behavior. It operates under the same premise parents use to give kids a "time out." If you give somebody time to think about something, I don't really believe they'll come back and think or behave any differently. A troll is a troll...some people just like being that way. And there is bad blood between some members that ideas like this won't fix.

Maybe open a new thread asking for suggestions on dealing with trolls. :)

Originally posted by inogenius
There's females on this board too. :)

Actually, SWR used proper English. The English language doesn't have a "neuter" pronoun. Until one is invented, the masculine form is the proper default. If someone doesn't like this, he may complain to whatever authorities regulate the language. Or, rephrase things with liberal usage of the word "one", for example, "If one doesn't like this, one may complain..."

(btw, that should be, "There are females...")

And then they spam the desk with "I never did anything wrong" "he/she is to blame" "you all hate me" "Well he said this so I said that" and yadda yadda.

But when I got "popped", well, the other guy had it coming...
:gone:

Originally posted by CTG
Wow, lots of great opinions here. . . Yes there are.

Thanks to everyone for their comments so far. Keep them coming!

As I understand it; the concern from those that have concerns, revolve around being dinged with something they did not intentionally mean to insult someone with when posting and/or would not agree what they have posted would warrant a "time out" to get their attention.

My question to those then is; would having points via the present warning system (however few or many) have the same effect on you?

Would you still feel that the "heavy handed moderation of WHT" is too much?

Not that I am in the habit of calling people names on here (I'm sure I never have), but some people deserve to be called names (up to a point) and freedom of speech (excluding death threats, racism, innappropriate language, etc) seems to be the way to go. If someone is offended by a name they are called, let them report it to a mod or CL and then it can be dealt with appropriately.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
Thanks to everyone for their comments so far. Keep them coming!
And I would like to thank the mods for running this past the community too. :)
My question to those then is; would having points via the present warning system (however few or many) have the same effect on you?
I feel that the current system of warning someone with a point violation, and an email informing them of their rules violation, is adequate, and does the job. Of course we're not talking about serious offences here. Serious rule violations would result in instant banning, be that for 30 days or for ever.
Would you still feel that the "heavy handed moderation of WHT" is too much?
I think it's something that needs to be watched. It's fine to have all these rules, and coming up with new ways of banning members instantly for infractions, but we need to remember that a forum is an exchange between differing personalities, and that is not always a clean exchange. :eek3:

:)

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue

My question to those then is; would having points via the present warning system (however few or many) have the same effect on you?

Would you still feel that the "heavy handed moderation of WHT" is too much?

Yes... that's what the point system is for. Anytime I have stepped too far over the edge, I've been pointed back in the right direction (:wavey: SWR!).

I think there are times when the moderation is very heavy handed, but for the most part, I think it works the way it should.

Keep the point system as your enforcement tool.... drop this ZITS stuff.

Sirius

Honastly I dont see the point of discussing this... Most of the time things that are discussed dont matter anyways since the mods get their heads stuck on one idea and it dont change. I feel wht is getting tighter and tighter.. I think this ZiTT business will just increase the work the mods do and cause a decline in quality of wht more then it already has declined.

Honestly, if we didn't want to discuss it, we wouldn't have this thread.

But, after talking about it internally, we decided we had better ask members about it first. Because, although I consider staff members first, we're not really affected by these things. Except from an administrative standpoint.

Judging by the members that have voiced an opinion, it appears that they don't agree with this ZiTT thing.

Hey! We're always working on ways to help the forum flow. We have new ideas tossed about a lot.

Okay. So, not all ideas are good ideas. :eek2:

Thanks again for all the comments.

Let me give my 2 cents as the administrator of my own forum.

Being heavy handed never works.

Now let me clarify that.

For this clarification, lets use inogenius..

Lets say inogenius sees a thread about abortion and is offended on religious or moral grounds. He is a well known member of the forums and other members are going to give what he posts serious thought. However.. lets say he insults purple people while doing that in some remote way.

Under the ZiTT policy he will be "banned" for 24 hours. This will only make people take sides on his banning and divide the community.

Under the current enforcement he would be given X amount of warning points. This way he gets the message that he did something wrong and it is quietly handled without any involvement from anyone.

--------------

Next up is accountability..

This forum is about business and many business deals are made on this forum. This means that banning a competitior could prove profitable to keep them from getting a contract. Who is to say what constitutes a ZiTT offense? Who will play judge and jury?

Do you trust anon-e-mouse or SoftWareRevue to decide if something you posted is offensive to a tribe in the remote regions of Africa?

--------------

Bottom line here is leave the system the way it is. It is a good system that works well. If you need to be stricter, assign more warning points.

ZiTT gets the thumbs down from me.

Originally posted by thelinuxguy
Honastly I dont see the point of discussing this... Most of the time things that are discussed dont matter anyways since the mods get their heads stuck on one idea and it dont change.
I dunno about that. The mods seem to ge genuine in looking for feedback. I think we should take this for what it is. :)
I feel wht is getting tighter and tighter..
Yeah, I kinda agree with that, but WHT is not the small forum it was. WHT has grown lots in the last year or 2, and with that massive growth comes challenges for the mods etc. They walk a fine line, and considering they don't get paid . . . :)
I think this ZiTT business will just increase the work the mods do . . .
Not sure about that. I don't think it would take any longer to issue a 24 hour ban, than it would to issue penalty points etc. TheProhacker would have the whole thing automated, so it would be fairly quick.
. . . and cause a decline in quality of wht more then it already has declined.
We hear that every now and then, but noone has offered any proof of such, and it's just a personal observation/opinion - not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

The thing is, the longer we participate on WHT, our perception of WHT changes. I remember when I first came here, I thought the place was HUUUUUGE, and yet now it feels so small. Did WHT change, or did my perception of WHT change? Both. :)

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
Not sure about that. I don't think it would take any longer to issue a 24 hour ban, than it would to issue penalty points etc. TheProhacker would have the whole thing automated, so it would be fairly quick.
Actually it would be a tad more work as they will still have to contact us after 1 day/three days to be reinstated. But we don't anticipate too many :)

Saying we are getting tougher is quite loose in this respect. The "be polite" rule has always been in place. The default warning is 15 points and ninety days, do it twice and you are out for up to 90 days. Isn't three days better than (up to) ninety? Or one day and it is over, rather than having 15 points hanging in the system for 90 days?

Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
Actually it would be a tad more work as they will still have to contact us after 1 day/three days to be reinstated.
Oops. I just figured TheProhacker would have had that all automated, including the reactivation of the disabled account. :cool:

We've been trying to get it for ages. :bawling:

Proslacker:smash:

I think you guys are just running out of ideas. This is the equivalent of getting a 30 point warning for 3 days. Don't you think thats pushing it a little too much? Even a lot too much?

You know, if somebody is really being 'intentionally disruptive/rude' which was the reason given by Dennis to implement this, you could just give him a warning with more points.

And if he/she keeps doing it, the points will accumulate pretty fast, even if he/she gets a little amount of points at a time.

So, IMHO this is really just redundant. If you think people are not getting the message and shrug off the points they get, just give more warnings.

The first problem with the "ZiTT" thing is that the choice of acronym was poor (really poor). The second thing is...Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
[B]What's a ZiTT on WHT?


What’s a ZiTT, you ask? Well, that would be “Zero Instigation Tenet Time.”
Well that explains it. I know what a tenet is (though it wouldn't surprise me if 95% of the members don't), however I'm unsure of how that works into explaining what this is all about. Maybe I'm just being daft, but I don't think the average member would understand "Zero Instigation Tenet Time" -thus you'd have to explain it over and over again. At least if you gave me a "ZiTT" you'd have to tell me what the heck a ZiTT was, and if you told me, "Ohhhh it stands for Zero Instigation Tenet Time!" -I still wouldn't have a clue about what you were talking about.

So that covers the name, but ignoring that, it seems that there are subtle language rules that will (and will not) earn members ZiTTs (I still can't stand that term). The example...
"You Sir are a troll" would become, nothing. Simply reporting the post and letting a CL deal with it. If it became, "Your posts are a perfect example of trolling," would be a direct insult to the poster and a ZiTT.
Simply wouldn't be understood by a good number of the members IMHO. I'd bet that the majority of the members feel that "Your posts are a perfect example of trolling" would be considered less offensive than "You Sir are a troll."

Subtle language rules are often confusing and misunderstood by native speakers, good luck with the international crowd. It should be fun trying to explain to people...

Member Posts: Your posts are a perfect example of trolling.
Mod: You have gotten a ZiTT.
Member: What's a ZiTT?
Mod: Zero Instigation Tenet Time.
Member: Ohhh, Zero Instigation Tenet Time -of course.
Mod: You should have said, "You Sir are a troll."

I disagree with the system as I go this warning about 2 weeks ago and instead of serving a 72 hours ( 3 day ban) which started at 4:30 AM in the morning I ended up serving a 90 hour ban. If your going to work this system you need to work on the timing. My ban should have ended at 5 AM CST instead of 12 AM EST.

Originally posted by BigBison
If someone doesn't like this, he may complain to whatever authorities regulate the language. Or, rephrase things with liberal usage of the word "one", for example, "If one doesn't like this, one may complain..."



THere is always he/she

Originally posted by BigBison
If someone doesn't like this, he/she may complain to whatever authorities regulate the language.

I dunno. I feel it to be heartless and too automated.

Heartless and automated are great if you are building a Ford, but WHT is a Chevy. Damn, hope I do not get a Zit for that. :)

Mods have a tough job, no doubt. Need more to lessen the burden, as for more. I am sure the kids like Uby and Frank would be more than willing to help you all define *the perfect forum*. Or, ignore the BS, focus on the abuse, attract Mods as needed.

iNET is a commercial gig.... a couple guys sit around eating well and getting large. That makes it a little tougher to attract quality Mods for free at the benefit of a commercial company. But the best solution is a "Zitt"?

"Happy Shiny People"? Yikes. This is Web Hosting Talk. Not "coddle the kiddies talk". If the goal is to coddle the kiddies in to web hosts...OY.

I would be against the idea.
I have been called names on the forum. Just today I was called a "simpleton". Considering the source it is laughable.

People get upset and say things in real life they may or may not mean, but it is real life. I don't see how a forum should differ.

The be polite rule can easily be implemented to take care of those who cross the line.

I agree with Blue. This may be easier on the Moderators it may seem for "newcomers" to WHT be "unfriendly and over-moderatored". Just my two-cents. But it is a great idea; I'm just not for it.

I am curious will there be a link and/or button where a person can easily flag down a "ZiTT in progress"? (heh). If it was convenient, I think this might be a good idea...

I am curious will there be a link and/or button where a person can easily flag down a "ZiTT in progress"? (heh). If it was convenient, I think this might be a good idea...I think the "Report this post to a Community Liaison" link associated to each post is just as good (bottom right side of each post). All users are encouraged to use it when they notice a post that fails to follow the rules in some way.

Originally posted by ldcdc
I think the "Report this post to a Community Liaison" link associated to each post is just as good (bottom right side of each post). All users are encouraged to use it when they notice a post that fails to follow the rules in some way.

I can't count how many times a day I use this. Maybe a moderator can help me out. :stickout:

I dislike fishing, for the record.

Common now, trolling on WHT is a timeless tradition :D

(For the record, I think the "ZiTT" is a *bad* idea)

I think it's would be a terrible idea, bob pretty much summed it up for me.

Thanks bob:)

Mods- I am just curious on what is the update on this? Is it probably/probably not going to be implented into WHT?

. . . probably not

Alright. :) I have also noticed it disappeared from your signature.

Wow, all I can say is wow.

WHT used to be quite fine without having to worry about all the "little things", creating a rule for every time someone wants to wipe their tail end. Now, it seems it's gone the other way, to an extremity that can only result in bad bad things, and people jumping ship left and right.

I can see the reasoning for "warnings", but until these are figured out, then adding something new seems to be a very not good idea. It seems to me that how much to "warn" someone seems to be all about interpretation, instead of simply setting a default point value for this or that. Not to mention the fact that individuals get "warning" points when none should be issued at all.

Interpretation is a good thing, and it's a VERY bad thing on the same respect. If something like this is implemented, then, again, I could see numerous problems with it, especially with interpretation. Just because ONE person takes something some way does NOT mean that it's how the original author intended it. An example:

A couple of years back, I received "warning points" for pointing out an untrue statement in an advertisement, very nicely even. The statement was something like "most people don't need more than 128k/s for our servers". As someone who manages numerous servers for numerous individuals, I pointed out that this was incorrect. The person then took it up with the mods, and I got a "warning" for it. Did anyone contact me and say "hey, what's going on here, what did you mean by this?" ? No, it was assumed that the specific post was intended in a negative fashion, when it wasn't, and I received a number of warning points for this.

Appeal? Sure, I tried, but when it comes down to it, the mods are right, they won't change their minds for any reason, no matter whether or not they read something into the post that wasn't specifically stated.

I hate to say it, but I can see this going the same way. Admittedly, flaming and trolling is problematic, but I can't see how this would solve anything.

I think this is good, but ZiTT should only be step #2, I think a warning should still be first. Some people might say something that someone thinks is rude but it came out wrong etc. I think as a first step a warning point and email about the warning should be noted, then after that if it happens again a ZiTT would be great, and make them think about their words.

Would a zitt in any way be disputable, would it need to only go to one CL for the zitt, or need two to agree, etc?

Overall its nota bad idea, if not implemented with any malice by a CL(please don't take that wrong) or misunderstanding.

I think the ZiTT idea got 86ed off the WHT bus, so that's something I wouldn't worry about.