Registered: Jul 2013
Location:
Posts: 11

USCA Petition (new Team USA selection process)

If you, like me, are opposed to the USCA's new format for nationals, and the handing over of authority to the HP Staff, please take a look at our petition directed to the USCA board. GLCA, GNCC, and MoPac have co-sponsored this petition, and could really use the support. Make your voice heard.

http://www.change.org/petitions/uni...f-championships

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2009
Location:
Posts: 99

I would love to make my voice heard!

This petition is absolute rubish. A Board of Directors of any organization hires their staff for the purpose of making decisions and running operations. They do not have the time and means to second guess every decision big or small, nor do they want to. They let the employees they hired DO THEIR JOBS. If the BoD didn't believe their staff to be capable of doing said job, the staff wouldn't be there would they?

Just because a bunch of people are mad about their chances of going to World's with a newly formed team in its first year together, the organization as a whole has to deal with all this garbage?

Asking the USCA BoD's to take a giant leap backwards by having to oversee every decision made by their staff is pure craziness and definitely not a solution to that. And don't think you can get away with only having them oversee the "big decisions" because there will always be controversy over what is big and small after that. Maybe, we should fire all the staff and jack up USCA dues by 5000% to make all the Board of Directors full-time paid positions. Then we would have what everyone petitioning is asking for. I hope everyone reading this reads the sarcasm in that last part.

When are people going to admit to themselves that we are falling behind, and the only way to get ahead is to make an adjustment to the current way of doing things. Honestly, the "new format" for nationals is hardly new. It's just a precautionary step that in my opinion doesn't go far enough to ensure medals at international events. In the last thread about this "new format" I made my thoughts clear, but let me re-iterate: If you aren't doing everything in your power to train, compete, and win in this sport you have no reason to complain about things and expect someone else make your life easier. Work harder and prove yourself. That's all it takes to assure a spot at Worlds. Do your other dreams happen in their first year? Maybe this one takes more time than that as well. If you are not willing to commit to that level, accept it and move on as someone who curls for the pure enjoyment of the game. You can still play down and challenge the elite teams to keep them honest, but you would be much more at peace with the USCA decisions you don't have to worry about.

But if you are still worried about this "new format" then maybe a more productive petition would have been for the HPP staff to repeal their decision to change it, and not for the USCA to have to take a giant step backwards in the way they govern and make decisions.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2013
Location:
Posts: 11

Thanks for the response, Kyle! There is obviously a great deal of passion and a wide range of opinions on the subject, based on the 200+ posts in the other thread.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 440

"...an adjustment to the current way of doing things" has been done numerous times over recent years, with no change in results. Maybe that's not actually the solution.

I will make only a couple of points.

1) The core reason many people are up in arms about this is that this kind of system is, at its heart, un-American. It's not even close to a level playing field. Teams and players with the most money have the best chance of becoming team USA, since they are the ones who can afford to gamble that money entering cashspiels to win the points needed to become team USA.

2) I'd like to hear more about the supposed legal action that has been threatened against some who support this petition. It has been claimed that such people may be held legally responsible if the USCA were to break up. Kinda curious what basis there is for that....and since when did anybody deserve legal threats for supporting a grassroots petition? This IS still the United States of America, yes? Land of the free, home of the brave, where you can speak your mind without fear of retribution?

Kinda sad to see how money has infected the sport and is slowly corrupting it, just as it does to virtually everything it touches. In the end, how much will be sacrificed simply for international medals? Is it worth it....REALLY worth it in the long run? Don't think anyone can answer that right now.

And just in case anyone is curious, I have not signed the petition because I don't think it's worded quite the right way. No consequences are given if what the petition demands doesn't happen. It simply says "We want this", and not "We want this, or that will happen".

No wonder the "response" posted by Jim Pleasants was little more than "Yeah, we hear you and you all are very cute, but nothing will change. Toodles!!" There's no reason for them to accede, because what will happen? Exactly.

-Sean Murray
Pot stirrer extraordinaire

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2013
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1

I'm new to the sport of curling and possibly not qualified to say much on the subject. But i do know this: If my daughter was doing poorly in math class, the first step should be to get her a tutor, not change the format of the tests.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2012
Location:
Posts: 20

It seems really bizarre that whoever devised this hare-brained scheme has so much confidence that the teams that get the most "points" will best represent the U.S. at Worlds, but they seem to have so little confidence that these teams can win Nationals. Last I checked, Nationals were full round-robins followed by a page playoff system. Surely, no team will win this event unless they are one of top teams in the country. The problem isn't the event. The problem is that we do not have enough curlers to generate the high level of competition required to consistently compete at the highest level. The USCA needs to focus more on growing the sport in the long-term and less on the next World Championship or Olympics.

I think that it is rather clear that the overwhelming majority of U.S. curlers think this idea is idiotic. It is the responsibility of the Board of Directors to represent us, kill this ridiculous idea, and, perhaps, replace those responsible for it - or, at the very least, send a clear message that the USCA represents all curlers not just those in the HP program.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 440

Here's the sad truth, like it or not: Since becoming an Olympic sport, USA curling is now essentially a business. The money talks just like investor money talks to a corporation, and since the money comes from the USOC (investors), they do the talking and the USCA (corporation) does the dancing. This is the dance they've been commanded to swing: Medals NOW. At any cost. I sure as hell am not saying that's right, but that's what we've got.

Absolutely agree with the point about not having enough curlers period to develop a natural depth of talent the likes of which Canada has, though it would take decades to even approach the same kind of depth. It goes without saying that the USOC is not willing to wait decades for that to happen. They believe throwing money at the problem will fix it....we will see.

Many players cannot afford the track to worlds that now exists, and that will reduce the player pool. Will sacrificing the future to save the present be successful? We'll know a little bit in less than a year....we'll know a lot more in about ten.

Here's the billion dollar question: What will happen if the US men do not qualify for the Olympics, perhaps in addition to falling flat at worlds again?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

The USCA is failing at growing the "middle" of the game, and that is what will cause us to fail.

The strategy of trying to get US teams to do well in the Olympics to generate grass roots membership is, fundamentally, reasonable...there could be some additional efforts made to build clubs, and support those who need support...but my understanding is that it's being worked on.

The goals of the "HPP", to identify, train, fund, and push those teams that show consistent success, in the hopes of making them even better, is also reasonable. I take some issue with the entry criteria (I would prefer it if the formula for getting "in" was 100% performance based, and not involve judgementals as it appears to now).

However, where we are currently lacking is the efforts to assist players and teams from making the step up from Wednesday Night Club Curlers and occasionally successful rec bonspielers *to* that competitive "I'm not just entering national trials for the hell of it, I might just win a few games" level.

We're steadily closing off opportunities to teams to get that High Caliber experience, unless you're financially able to leave the country.

That is what is killing us right now.

Fix that, and we might just succeed. But nothing is guaranteed. Hell, the "Dream Team" got a Bronze once in basketball...stuff happens.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2012
Location:
Posts: 20

I don't think we need to be defeatist about this. The USCA will respond to pressure. Look at what happened to the governance proposals. There are a lot of good people on the Board, and some of them are strongly against this. Whether or not you agree with every word in the petition, it will send a strong signal if enough people sign it.

The USCA does get a lot of USOC money, but it also gets a lot of money from each of us. I know that I could easily persuade my club to stop sending dues to the USCA. I believe in the organization, and that is not what I want to do, but they can only ignore the grassroots so much before people begin to say enough is enough. The fact is that the USOC needs curling much more than they will admit (look at the television ratings). It should not be a foregone conclusion that USCA leaders will choose USOC money over the desires of its curling constituents.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

I read Mr. Pleasant's response to the petition and heard, "You foolish people on the Board and those who signed the petition grow up! Let the 'professionals' handle every decision touching on HP programs and who wears USA at world level. And, besides, we have no choice.. We must march to the tune USOC orders us to do. You are just window dressing... rubber stamps. Shut up!"

And now he threatens litigation? The plot thickens.

Well.... after sleeping on this for a couple of nights, if the Board does not toss Mr. Pleasants, it is time for a nuclear option.

Fine! Mr. Pleasants, have your "professional" organization, but, have one openly run by and for professionals. Create a US Professional Curlers Association yourself! You can be its founder!! Your HP staff can exclude stick players, those with a beer belly, those with grey hair, those with good jobs away from curling, those from left field who haven't paid their dues to your professional staff since their teen years, X-team to worlds and Y-team to Olympics no matter their on-ice performance at nationals. Discriminate and cherry pick as much as you want .... exactly like the Professional Golfers Association. Then, YOU can take all the USOC money ....if you can get it. Clubs and their grassroots aren't getting much of any money or things from USCA anyway now so no huge loss for us except for the rock sets program. A US curling professional association is already what you have now with the USCA as of this summer. But, the name of your organization must include the word "professional " now.

Another nuclear option... Maybe the USWCA could have a rock program and I can send my USCA dues money to them instead. USWCA takes over "USCA" and Mr. Pleasants and the HP staff become the USPCA because that is what they are now.


Alice

Last edited by Alice on 07-17-13 at 07:55PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 2

Along the line of grassroots and seemingly poor decision making by the USCA, I don't see many people taking them to task for Men's and Women's Club Nationals. US Nationals is definitely an issue. However, Club Nationals would seem to highlight an issue with the Organization where they are essentially taxing a population of curlers and applying the funds into other areas where decision-making is less than ideal.

In 2013 they probably took in about $25,000 in registration fees from Men's and Women's teams across the country and word is, they may have paid about $2,000 in rental fees to Exmoor. Add to this that they stopped the $400/team stipend for the 20 participating teams. Now, there will be some other expenses as well. But, it still doesn't change that there's a huge disparity between the intake and the output for that event. So, why not charge less than the $360/team entry OR reinstitute the stipend? They are charging maybe 70-80+ teams full bonspiel price to host 20 teams. Arena Nationals generated nearly $13,000 in registration and they are paying about 20% of that figure for the rental.

At the same time, they started giving out cash prizes to teams that place at US Nationals and word is that they may lose thousands (or tens of thousands) on the new glossy format US Curling News that doesn't get covered by advertising revenue.

Now, profit is profit and it goes into the same pot as the losses. But, for many less-than-elite curlers, Club Nationals (and maybe Arena Nationals) is like US Nationals. Why 'tax' this particular population to essentially offset decisions that may be clearly making losses.

I'm with many people here. I hate to see the US do poorly in World events. But, I'm on the fence as to whether US medals hurt or help grow the sport across the country. I think I lean to the side that simple exposure of the sport helps it grow. But a small group of people have made this deal with the USOC and they are stuck now. They took the money, got a HP director that definitely had an up and down record prior to getting here in Scotland and they've (the Men at least) have gotten worse since instituting the HPP. Jr's (M/W) have finished 5/10th and 7/7th in the last 2 years. One could argue, 'give it time' or 'the rest of the world got better' of course.

Regardless, there have been complaints in other sports that took USOC money and lost their grassroots when the focus turned elite. We can hope that it doesn't happen here. One of the best ways to keep that in perspective is to let all the board members at least voice their opinions as a check and balance to the very small executive committee. I'm not advocating the pitchforks. But, I'm not surprised either that some astute people are asking how they, or their clubs, are benefiting by being USCA members after this decision came out.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2009
Location:
Posts: 99

As much as I respect everyone's right to have an opinion, the majority on here are completely missing a major point...

The petition does nothing to address or solve the "new format for nationals". The main point in the petition asks the USCA to change the way they govern themselves and make decisions. That is why the petition is asinine. I still think if someone really wants the format of nationals changed back this petition is not even close to getting headway in that step. Even if the petition was recognized AND the USCA Board of Directors decided to take back power from the HPP staff, they would still have to vote the decision down. And that is where you still have no control over this.

I don't want to impede on the HPP staff trying to do their jobs, but a petition only relating to the format change and signed by the actual athletes that play down towards Worlds seems like a much more logical step then what was taken. Asking the USCA BoD's to take away the power of the HPP staff to do their jobs and in a sense start to babysit them instead just seems off the mark. And if the BoD's believe they hired competent individuals to begin with, then why would they want to vote against a decision the HPP staff makes?

I'm not on here to stir the pot, and I'm not on here to try and badger or argue anyone into believing that their opinion is wrong. I am simply trying to understand why anyone thinks that this petition is the right step towards anything changing? Whether the format for nationals is changed or not, this petition is asking the USCA BoD's to devote so much more time and expense into management of the staff, which I believe is unnecessary.

As bevybean said: If someone is doing poorly at something you get them help, and not change the format (paraphrased). I'm not pushing that the format change will do any wondrous things for USA Curling, I just think everyone is going about this the wrong way.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 2

@yougen. Not trying to debate.

All of the US curling Regions have at least one representative on the Board of Directors...and most regions have more. Most of our everyday club curlers have little to no chance of getting in the ear of a few high-up people at the USCA. However, we can find a way to have active communication as a group through the Board Members. That is the system, yes? By cutting out the Board Members from the process, the Exec's seem to be saying they don't need to hear from the membership on this issue (which may or may not be legitimate) and it sets a precedent for further actions like that on potentially different fronts.

This petition, or most other communications, have little chance to change anything on format side right now. The financial relationship between the USOC and the USCA are sort of like earplugs to those few people. What this petition does, as well as previous communictations to the USCA from other regions that independently formally voted/voiced opinions on this matter, is to show the USCA that we care and why. And, that we want our Region's Representatives to be heard as a matter of process. It also gives the heads at the USCA a chance to respond if communications like this gain some steam. I haven't read Pleasant's response yet, but it sounds like the response shows what he thinks of dues paying everyday members of the USCA voicing their opinion and that alone is extremely important.

As a secondary point, the petition give us a chance to say that the fundamental process of everyone having a chance to playdown for a major competition is a fundamental piece of the fabric that makes up our sport and that the people that sign believe that. However, in the comments section, people who sign are free to modify their opinions a bit and that is spectacular.

I would suggest that all people here try to contact their USCA Regional Representative either independently or as a club to get their view on the governance issue which is at the heart of the matter. They should be able to tell you if they think being cut out of the process is important or not in their opinion.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

quote:

---

When are people going to admit to themselves that we are falling behind, and the only way to get ahead is to make an adjustment to the current way of doing things. Honestly, the "new format" for nationals is hardly new. It's just a precautionary step that in my opinion doesn't go far enough to ensure medals at international events. In the last thread about this "new format" I made my thoughts clear, but let me re-iterate: If you aren't doing everything in your power to train, compete, and win in this sport you have no reason to complain about things and expect someone else make your life easier. Work harder and prove yourself. That's all it takes to assure a spot at Worlds. Do your other dreams happen in their first year? Maybe this one takes more time than that as well. If you are not willing to commit to that level, accept it and move on as someone who curls for the pure enjoyment of the game. You can still play down and challenge the elite teams to keep them honest, but you would be much more at peace with the USCA decisions you don't have to worry about.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2012
Location:
Posts: 20

I agree with youngen's analysis but disagree 100% with his conclusions. This is about governance. After all, most of us who read this list and 99% of the curler's in our clubs will never compete at the Nationals. The problem is that the Board should have never ceded so much power to the HPP in the first place, and this decision demonstrates unequivocally that they have terrible judgment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by youngen


I don't want to impede on the HPP staff trying to do their jobs, but a petition only relating to the format change and signed by the actual athletes that play down towards Worlds seems like a much more logical step then what was taken. Asking the USCA BoD's to take away the power of the HPP staff to do their jobs and in a sense start to babysit them instead just seems off the mark. And if the BoD's believe they hired competent individuals to begin with, then why would they want to vote against a decision the HPP staff makes?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2009
Location:
Posts: 99

To AlanMacNeill,
I guess I have been under the impression that the format change to nationals was never intended to judgmentally take away someones ability to "prove it on the ice" as you say. The teams that are funded aren't scared of the Wednesday night heroes. At one point they were in that place themselves and through time they earned their funding. And none of them are saying they think they are above proving their worth on the ice. I think that is why the HPP staff thought this proposal would work. When I first read it, I thought it wouldn't actually change the outcome of a nationals one bit, even though the possibility existed. I believe the entire point of the format change was to scare tactic all those Wednesday night heroes into realizing if they want to have the dream of going to Worlds they need to "prove it on the ice" throughout the year and not over the course of a weekend and one week. Personally I don't think it was the most effective way to motivate that group, but I do agree with the intent because every bit of higher competition by anyone in our country deepens our strength of field a little at a time.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2009
Location:
Posts: 99

Spiroth,
I am all for the USCA supporting grassroots. In fact, isn't that why the HPP was created and given the decision making power they were? So the USCA could focus on other things like grassroots, while trusting the HPP to do its job without micromanagement? I can understand and back that fundamental idea. Whether that tactic is working or not is an argument I would not however want to take up.

I do agree with you that this is about governance. The USCA has seen the need for changes in that area for a while. They spent a lot of time thinking of a better way of doing things. Even though I supported their last proposal for governance change, I respect that people were uncomfortable with not understanding it fully and hence caused the USCA to withdraw it from the table the last go around. I guess the point I have been trying to make all along is that taking a step backwards in governance changes doesn't seem like the right direction. If we already know how well that doesn't work from past experience, why go back? Is it simply because none of us have a clear cut idea how to move forward instead? I'll admit that I don't. But that doesn't mean I want to go back to previous ways of doing things. That is the only reason I have so wholeheartedly voiced my opinion. -and maybe the desire for some friendly debate doesn't deter me either

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

There is a significant difference between:

- Changing the parameters of the High Performance Program, who gets what stipends, access to coaching, and etc...this should, rightly, be within the purview of the HPP folks

and

- Changing the format of our NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS in such a way that it reduces grassroots participation, changes the entire point of the event, and alters our process of choosing our National Champions. This should NOT, I repeat NOT, be within the purview of folks who have a vested interest in making sure their hand picked athletes succeed and others do not get the chance to prove themselves.

IF you cannot see the difference between those items, then, well, it makes me very happy that I'm well past my sell by date as an elite curler...at least until the HPP Program folks declare that they should have rights over the Seniors program as well.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 61

To be honest....I'm a bit on the fence about the matter of selecting a team to go to world's once in the HPP. However, I am not really on the fence about is 'access' to the HPP.

Since the USOC has taken over 'our' website...I can't find all the press releases. However, I believe that Pete Fenson is still in the HPP after coming in 5th at nationals and our national champion does not have access to the $ for 'proving it on the ice'.

Yes Pete's team finished 1st and 2nd in nats in '11 and '12. But this is the same team that finished 10th (of 12) at world's in 2011. And Brady's team smoked them 8-1 in the RR game. I think 'proving it on the ice' has to count for something. So, far, the USOC is telling the USCA that it does not, really.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002

Finishing Top 2 has been the criteria for HPP Funding. This year, I believe all of the Trials teams get funding, which is why Fenson is still being funded.

__________________
CurlingZone
Everything...Curling!

Please click on our sponsors' banners periodically, as visiting their sites helps keep CurlingZone.com Free!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 61

Gerry, it would be great if I could find the document. I just seem to remember that perhaps all the teams do get 'some' funding....but, that didn't mean that Team Clark is a HPP team and gets that share. Will keep looking.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 61

Also, I think this discussion about world's representation is bringing up useful discussions about not only governance...but, the role of the USCA in our curling lives as well.

As a member of MoPac, I can say that our region has sent over $20,000 to the USCA in registration fees for M's/W's Club Nationals and Mixed Nats over the past 2 years. As stated before, the intake for these tournaments vs how much the spend is really disproportionate. The fees are don't match the costs of the events that the participants are playing towards and essentially become a 'fundraiser' for the USCA. Because the take $360 we are only able to charge a minimal fee on top to make it still affordable for our members. We have charged $180 per year. Because of our costs for arena ice rental for 22 teams 2 years ago and a 3 sheet club for 24 teams this past year...it leaves NO profit for MoPac. In fact we have about $10/person to invest back into the event for ammenities.

If you add to that, our membership dues of approximately $25,000 per year...we're looking at giving the USCA $70,000. In that time, our region has made about $6,000 perhaps b/f our costs. I think it would be unnatural to not ask what the benefits of USCA membership are at this point. We as a Regional Board wrestle with this all the time...what do we/can we do for our general members/member clubs?

To take the Club Nationals as an example....our Region essentially 'breaks even' over this event and the USCA seems to make a $20,000 profit. They could break even on the event if they charged $50-$75 per team (instead of $360) and we could charge an entirely reasonable bonspiel fee and make a $4-5,000 profit that directly stays in house for helping our members/clubs.

Right now, the benefits as I see them are:
1. access to play in National events (affects about 10%+ of our membership)
2. a glossy newsletter
3. access through the USCA to the WCF for a building loan if we can approach dedicated ice.
4. Training docs and maybe some pamphlets?
....I'm just speaking of the hard tangibles here and I'm having a hard time thinking of much more. Please feel free to add to this.

They did send instructors our way in the summer of 2011 for a clinic...which was a nice benefit. However, we had to rent the ice...which runs upwards of $375/hr. Some of which we made back on registration fees. But, we have clubs in our region that are really struggling...and we have no real way to help them in house.

These are just facts here..only natural to ask questions about the cost/benefit analysis. I'm not advocating leaving the USCA...but, the money we give out annually vs what we get gets seemingly harder to justify. I don't know how the other regions are getting by financially....no, idea if we are the only region that is asking ourselves this question.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 440

Two more points to make:

1) One major bug I've had with this thing from the very beginning is that the athletes pushing it, by and large, are the same ones who will directly benefit from it. "Conflict of interest" doesn't even begin to describe it.

2) I repeatedly hear talk of clubs withdrawing from the USCA. I wonder what would actually happen if a whole lot of clubs went ahead and did that? Would it get anyone's attention?

Just spitballing.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2013
Location:
Posts: 11

Sean -

A lot of clubs talk about leaving the USCA, and in fact, our region did have a club leave the USCA this year. I know you suggested some sort of action against the USCA, because you're right - the petition really is just a "we want", not a "we want, or else".

I think the threat of leaving the USCA rings empty, because, at least for us, I know there would be no consensus among the majority of the clubs in the region to leave - and definitely in forming a coalition of three regions that's never going to be a real threat. I do, however, think that the only thing the USCA will respond is to a direct financial threat. I haven't figured out exactly what form that would take, but that's obviously the number one thing the board seems to care about.

Also, leaving the USCA ultimately eliminates the opposition to the way the USCA is conducting business.

The really good news is that clubs are asking questions. I have had clubs asking me what the benefits are of belonging to the USCA, requesting meeting minutes (which, unfortunately aren't on the website), and pulling/analyzing the USCA financials. These are emails that I've never received, so at least maybe people are paying attention.

The only true change will come from within. Until the average curler starts joining USCA committees, and challenging some of these director seats, nothing is going to change. If people really want change, then they will elect different regional/national directors.

Brian

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 61

Hey Sean,

Out of curiosity, can you elaborate on the 'athletes..pushing it'? It seems AFTER the USOC/USCA made the decision to change the format, the athletes were polled on the best method to work with the point system.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged