NBSI and the grey problem

In Eve-Online there are player groups called "corporations" which roughly correspond to "guilds" in other MMOGs.  Corporations may band together forming alliances that can number thousands of players and control large amounts of territory (in space opera terms - swaths of planetary systems).  The bread and butter of these alliances is the territory they control: territory forms the first rung of the economic system that makes the game possible (or enjoyable) for its members.  From territory comes the minerals to fuel factories to build ships to fight wars.  Something like that.

Members within an alliance are marked by varying colors.  Green means that fellow is a corporation member, blue he's part of the alliance, etc.   Degrees of separation, even among buddies.   Red, in several flavors, distinguishes shades of bad guy.

The problem is with the grey.

Blue and green are friends.  One always shoots red - not much ambiguity there.  Grey are the neutral actors (belonging to a corp with whom your corp/alliance is not hostile or friendly towards).  What does it mean to be a neutral, isn't it something like Switzerland, non?  Who would attack the Swiss?

One of the trickiest "herding cats problem" in running alliances is making sure everyone is on the same page about the rules of engagement. Go to any alliance forum and ask what the current rules are and you will hear a number of answers.  Folks get confused about what they should do with the grey, and in the absense of knowing what they should do, they do what they think is right, which can be all over the board.  Inconsistency is a hobgoblin to both sides of the grey divide:  the good grey don't like going into areas where they are uncertain about who is on the same page and alliances don't like greys getting into some areas since some greys may turn out to be bad apples.

To make the problem worse, some alliances may vary their policy towards the grey over time and circumstance.  For example, when tensions are high an alliance may enter "lock down" mode and its policy becomes one of shooting the grey first and ask questions later.  During more peaceful times, the policy may be changed to "be nice" to encourage trade (fn1).  It gets worse.  Some of the very large alliances may have different policies for the different regions it controls.  Talk about a headache if you are one of the few players (e.g. traders) who might travel great distances.

Nuanced policies are possible and those tend to be about guessing shades of grey.   For example, the policy could be "grey that are more likely to be  an "alt" (alternative character) spy should be nuked otherwise let them go."  A quick scan of a character's corporation history and bio (in-game available information) might raise suspicions about whether a particular grey pilot is *more likely* to be up to no good (extended stay in newbie corps, known pirate corps in their past etc).  However, as you can imagine, the more sophisticated the process is the less likely it will be consistently applied across a large alliance.  I would guess that most of the policies coming from large successful alliance HQs aren't intended to be nuanced, it is just that the folks on the ground tend to rationalize 'em that way, to make them more workable, or so they think.  Wiggle room leads to wiggling: X looks like a valid trader with trade goods, let him through.

There is a term often used, "NBSI."   NBSI stands for "Not Blue Shoot It."  Alliances often use this as policy.  The nice thing about this simple acronym is that it is easy to remember and hard to misinterpret (err wiggle).  Shoot everyone who is not blue is a simple idea though it lacks subtlety.

At this point I could cite a few yarns  (except for the growing length of this post).  For example, many players want to be sympathetic with the grey folk, the diligent folk (including alts) who run around and make the economy work.  I could also tell you stories about when grey slipped past guarded gates with a nod to cause great mischief later on.

Another problem with grey is that it is an alliance/corp centric perspective, it is a first-person measure.  You are neutral to me now.  I may be, however, enemies to your friend, and that can lead to a more complicated relationship. Typically relationships are managed in Eve using its standing system:   "+10, -10, blue, red = positive standings mean friends, they appear blue on your overview and you don’t shoot them. Negative standings appear red: shoot it" (from Mark Wallace).

In the player alliance system (vs. relations with NPC corporations/factions), the standings are set by corp/alliance leadership.  Individuals can embellish these scores for their own use - e.g. I really don't like X! 

The problem for the leadership is then how to apply a simple measure, say "9.0", to stand-in for what could be a complicated set of relationships between an alliance and say another corporation: in general I may trust you as a 9.0 but we do have this one matter where I trust you a lot less, etc.

In the end the standing system is a short-hand, and as with all short-hand, the narrative behind it is important.  The problem with the narrative, however, is that it can overwhelm individuals (corp/alliance leadership).  I would guess that in the end most are pretty happy with the short-hand and simple rules and are willing to skip the detail.  Besides, if you try to be too nuanced, you just end up confusing an already disordered membership:

I'm setting you to an 8.0 and NBSI is in effect.

Aren't the shades of grey great?

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

fn1.   Update: As mentioned by Elle Pollack in comment, NRDS or "Not Red Don't Shoot"

Comments

[Nelson]

1.

Only uncivilized societies have a policy of killing strangers.

When I played Eve my alliance had a proud policy of being friendly to neutrals, even way out in our relatively dangerous part of 0.0 space. It led to the occasional tense diplomatic situation as someone acting suspiciously was held down with NOS and warp jammers until they explained themselves. But it also allowed useful neutral traders and friendly tourists. In general it was worth the trouble, both for the principle of hospitality and the practicality of being a friendly space for people.

That being said, nothing can catch a good fast interceptor pilot running small goods across 0.0. I used to fly a lot of implants around strange space owned by NBSI alliances. Have docking rights, will trade.

2.

Ah... it's these sorts of things which makes EVE really appeal to me. Hopefully it (or a game like it) will still be around when I eventually decide to retire and actually have the time to dedicate to it.

[Amarilla]

3.

"Only uncivilized societies have a policy of killing strangers."

Only the uncivilized-in your terms- societies survive / benefit the freedom.

[Elle Pollack]

4.

There's the opposite of NBSI which is NRDS: Not Red, Don't Shoot.

Flashing red means an outlaw (your in-game rank torwards CONCORD, the space police, is below a certian level) but he may be a buddy to you if you're another outlaw.

Then there's one PVP corp I've hung with a coupple times (they run classes in combat) where in 0.0 they may shoot anyone and everyone - no one is blue.

[Erillion]

5.

As even a most humble small "grey" ship can carry a cyno generator and bring in a HUGE invasion fleet of capital ships, most 0.0 space alliances operate according to the NBSI principle. One just cannot risk to overlook a stranger. Eliminating him is the task of regional patrols that react to enemy raiding parties. Not allowing him to pass into your territory in the first place is the task of border checkpoints (perma camped chokepoints between 0.0 lawless space and low security empire space).

On the other hand, I like to be the blockade runner (cloaked interceptor or cov ops ship). Doing trade in 0.0 space is fun.

[thoreau]

6.

Nelson said, 'Only uncivilized societies have a policy of killing strangers.'

What about groups of people working a checkpoint in some conflict area?

7.

Only the uncivilized-in your terms- societies survive / benefit the freedom.

Is this meant to be funny? It reads like a statement from a military character from the Sci-Fi dept. of central casting.

If it isn't, please provide examples - I would be very interested in the scholarship regarding societies that perish because they fail to implement a "policy of killing strangers."

[Verne Joyce]

8.

As part of a NBSI alliance I can state unequivocally that it is much easier to set your 'friends' to a blue and shoot everyone and anyone else. It is a lot less management overhead. This also a game of resources and the scarcity there of. I would not want anyone attempting to infringe upon my resources regardless of their red or neutral standing. I our alliance we have gone as far to shoot allies that are infringing upon those resources.

[Jonathan Mcarthur]

9.

As also part of a 0.0 Alliance, "Fatal Alliance", that anyone that not red is an enemy, that mean kills. In reality, neutral and reds are prime targets for roaming gangs to pick them off.

Allies, are there to help us control and handle territory. And we help each others out to let each of us survive. Someone who isn't helping us, that isn't in fleet ops, or isn't on Alliance Ops, shouldn't be allowed to rat, explore, or fiddle around with our economy or resources. It makes known that if your not welcome, don't come.

But there are alliances like CVA and IAC are NRDS but really, that take to much time, and to much resources to manage who in your space and what there doing.

Also, farmers or isk farmers. Thoses neutrals that rat and harvest in 23/7 for isk, then sell it on ebay. That's another reason to kill neutrals, that they could be possibly isk farmers or isk sellers.

In simple, it easier and it's fun to kill people, so another day that goes by, more kills for me and my alliance, good day.

[Moses]

10.

" please provide examples - I would be very interested in the scholarship regarding societies that perish because they fail to implement a "policy of killing strangers." "

The examples IRL should be obvious, but just in case you overlooked them, here's some small examples:
- a village during a pandemic
- a nation during war
- a local chamber of commerce contacted by a megacorporation
- a crime syndicate under police scrutiny

These are all simple examples of communities or cultures under a specific, hostile stress. Any EVE player can tell you 0.0 space is stressful. Erillion mentioned above the danger of allowing an innocent-looking grey terrorist past your gate camper airport security, who would detonate a improvised cyno device, causing a Warp of mass destruction.

If you need further or more specific examples, pickup a history book: American frontier era or Europe's middle ages would be dandy. PvP virtual worlds are the wild wild west, which I think is part of their appeal.

[Jim Miles]

11.

I love Eve articles/stories like this.

[Daniel Speed]

12.

What's with all the "Trespassers will be shot" signs around here?

[Devin]

13.

It's pretty significant to the understanding of this post that EVE has large areas of "high-security" space wherein only special, legally-sanctioned and paid for wars are in effect (and few 0.0 alliances seek to engage in those wars) as well as much "low-security" but (NPC) Empire-claimed space where rules of engagement are typically relaxed in a friendly direction (Some corps in my alliance prohibit killing neutrals in lowsec. Mine doesn't, but we generally only go after them if we're on the hunt, and we usually have better things to do than hunt in lowsec). To put this in perspective, imagine that there are cities, and no one shoots strangers there. There are large areas of wilderness, and it's dangerous but rarely fully interdicted. And then there are clan strongholds, and a few of those (IAC's, CVA's, some others) are open to strangers, but most alliances, if they catch you on their land (or rather, in their space) will shoot you.

[Dirt McGirt]

14.

The problem with allowing neutrals free passage in your space is the big 0.0 alliances are constantly at war, and if they're not currently in a war then they're preparing for war, or recovering from war, or they're fortifying their space in anticipation of an invasion, or they just look like good targets to some pirate corp. 0.0 alliance life almost inevitably means constant war and the minor trade benefits from letting in neutrals is massively overshadowed by the security risk it presents. Let in a neutral and all of a sudden that super-duper secret POS where you're building Motherships has been scouted and knocked into reinforced by the "neutral" alt's cynoed in dread fleet. Or your super-duper important mining op is spotted and suddenly your dumbass mining carriers are up in flames.

For any alliance that has aspirations of holding and gaining space, anything other than NBSI is a serious hindrance. If you want to make friends, do it through diplomacy, not through some sort of bizarro-hippie lovefest policy that's more likely to leave you and your alliance-mates plotting revenge from Empire.

[WrathofOprah]

15.

RSF shoots greys. Your grey? Don't need to be in our space. Pew Pew.

-The Mittani sends his Regards

[Amarilla]

16.

says:

"Only the uncivilized-in your terms- societies survive / benefit the freedom.
Is this meant to be funny? It reads like a statement from a military character from the Sci-Fi dept. of central casting.

If it isn't, please provide examples - I would be very interested in the scholarship regarding societies that perish because they fail to implement a "policy of killing strangers."

Dear Nelson , mom told me to tell you : she cannot explain the light to a blind , nor the sound to a def. She only wishes you to be able - prolly after you'll reach 12 - btw, i'm 12 - to understand : there's no such a thing in the whole Universe , like " neutral ". Or " zero ", for the same matter : it always counts very much where you actually put that " zero " . This is why you need to be at least 12y.o., before even think talking about ....pretty much anything. Except dolls, ofcourse.

[dmx]

17.

One of the more interesting aspects of this , and a source of no end of headaches for alliance managers, is 'standing synchronisation'.

Lets say a group of alliances , A B & C is laying siege to an area belonging to D. A is the prime agressor, and has invited its buddies B & C along to help out.

B & C however come from different regions of space and have no relationship are thus neutral. So the siege starts, and suddenly A witnesses B & C attacking each other. Blues shooting blues. Who does A side with, if at all?

To avoid this scenario, 'standings sharing' agreements are often made across large political blocks.

For instance, in the 'south', theres 2 real hegemons in loose coalition. the "Red Swarm Federation", consisting of Red Alliance (russian alliance), Goonswarm (Something Awful goons and friends), Tau Ceti Alliance (French alliance). Then theres whats loosely been called "IAAAC" , The Interstelllar Alcohol conglomerate, and Against All Authorities (Former Red alliance with some ex D2 and others) . There are also some smaller groups, such as Knights of the South, Pandemic Legion (Pirate group with strong sympathies to the anti-BOB 'cause', includes Black Omega Security, who mentored the early Goonfleet.) and others.

These groups are loosely allied and LARGELY share standings. However sometimes there are standings conflicts, but generally these are worked out in advance, as the overwhelming theme with these groups is repelling and defeating the Imperial ambitions of the "Band of Brothers" and its 'pet' alliances.

The North is much more confusing. The North used to largely be under the dominion of the "Dusk to dawn (D2)" alliance, however D2 where shredded by the combined assault of the Mercenary Coalition under contract of the Band of Brothers. Since then however much of the north has regrouped and reclaimed much of its space, but the lines of "BOB vs ANTI-BOB" are not so clear. Obviously most of the non 'MC/BOB & Pets' are opposed to BOB's imperial ambitions for eve, but often find themselves at conflict with each other. This does seem to of cleared up a little of late, but its still a far more complicated landscape than the south.

The Fountain/Delve/Querious region is strongly held by Band of Brothers & Pets as it has been for years, although some progress in the south has been made by IAAAC towards evicting the 'BOB pet' Firmus Ixion from Querious.

The "Drone regions" are a balkanised mess, and dont seem to play a large role in the politics of the game. The area is largely BOB hostile, but inter factional rivalrys tend to keep it largely out of the picture. That and the fact its the polar oposite side of the galaxy to Fountain/Querious/Delve.

Eve politics are really interesting, and its aaaalll about standings.

[dmx]

18.

Also regarding being 'civilised';-

Some corps have been able to make a go of "NRDS" (notably Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate, the Goon/IAC/D2-murdered Interstellar Starbase Syndicate, and the everyone-murdered "Big Blue"), but with the exception of IAC ( who oft revert to NBSI in times of danger) and the Role player Corps (Who tend to have bit of a 'switzerland' status in the game) most of the NRDS corps have been murdered by neighbors for aiding and abbetting hostile forces.

The Goons & IAC murdered ISS , because the ISS where discovered to be in leagues with the (now murdered) enemy Lotka Voltera corp. When the ISS responded to IAC's provokation with an attempted invasion (bad move), the IAC brought the Goons and AAA in who essentially leveled ISS's regions with fire and forcibly disbanded them. D2 then killed them in the North for similar reasons.

It DOES seem to be working ok for the Role player corps but thats largely because they are seen as either not relevant to 'the great war', or are loosely allied and are large enough to roll with the punches (CVA, the Amarrian-Nationalist roleplayers and its opponents the Ushra-Khan Minmitarian liberation fighters)

[dmx]

19.

Oh yeah. I know people tend to enjoy stories of Eves politics and power games;-

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=527

Its a great narrative thats *mostly* correct, about the "Goonfleet Intelligence Agency" and its spy games.

[nate_combs]

20.

In light of dmx's comments, here is the latest Eve-Online political map. The archive is here.

[Andrew Crystall]

21.

"Goon intel" is a standing joke - they have "recruits" from every other alliance in there, and at least two of their *directors* are agents. The good intel agencies don't advertise. They don't need to. (I know something about this, yes)

Most of the alliances allied with BoB are there not because they want to be, but because the goons said "you're with BoB and we're shooting you". MC, for example. Be clear - the Goons started this war, not BoB (I have no use for BoB. I have less for the goons. When I played Eve, I shot both).

As for ISS being "in league" with LV, the truth of the matter is that the goons knew there were lots of devs in ISS and destroyed it from spite. It was a neutral, public service so it couldn't be allowed to exist.

Their actions show why they are bad for a MMO.

[dmx]

22.

Careful with that tinfoil hat there fella.

ISS where renting from LV , and where an income source for LV. Any war in eve is economic, and between renting off LV and attempting to evict IAC (who may of started it), pretty much marked them as fair targets. Regardless, the fall of ISS happened well before the Goon/ISS spat, so your chronology is more than a little out of whack. Anyway, Jacob Majestic (GIA's ISS director who cleared out the hangar and offlined the pos's) would of pointed out the dev's had there been any.

I'll ignore the childish claim about being bad for MMO's. W-Hat play Second life, not EVE-O.

And I have no idea about your director claim. Sounds fanciful as most of the same guys have been playing together in various MMOs for the last ten years, and all of them date to the first days of goonfleet which makes it highly improbable. Regardless I'd say every Alliance has spies in every other alliance. BUT... This isnt CAOD, so yeah, less propaganda dude.

[The Lark]

23.

"BUT... This isnt CAOD, so yeah, less propaganda dude."

Says the guy using "BoB Pet" every chance he gets.

[Elle Pollack]

24.

I'm a bit out of the loop; ASCN/AXE bit the dust? And as for Mercanary Colition, you guys are talking as if they're allied to anyone but the highest bidder. (Hence, *Mercenary*.)

Sometime I've really got to reactivate my EVE membership.

[dmx]

25.

"""Says the guy using "BoB Pet" every chance he gets."""

Whay? Thats the term BOB uses? I wasn't aware it was an insult, and if so, then I do apologize.

[dmx]

26.

"""
I'm a bit out of the loop; ASCN/AXE bit the dust? And as for Mercanary Colition, you guys are talking as if they're allied to anyone but the highest bidder. (Hence, *Mercenary*.)
"""

Yeah. ASCN pretty much had the shit kicked out of it by Band of Brothers(BOB) and collapsed , after Cyvok's titan got whacked. I think AXE went empire a bit, and I'm not sure where they fit in now, but I think they jumped ship onto the BOB side of the fence..

I think MC's neutrality has pretty much loosened up as a concept after they took D2's space and became a space holding alliance on the BOB/friends side of the great war. That said, if/when the Great War ends, I assume MC might decide to try and rebuild its neutral stance again. Of course they might be getting paid for all this, but the sheer scale and timespan of the MC operation (one of the games largest supercap fleets, and maybe 6 months of straight out war on the North & South coalitions) one doubts anyone in the game can afford to pay for that. At least in Isk.

[Carebear]

27.

ISS has not disbanded. They are now pets bathing in the glorious holy light that is Band of Brothers

[Deaell Portt]

28.

ISS are not murder. We still alive and kicking. WE change, we adapt to the new situation. Look at influence map :-). ISS pilot never dies, he just goes back to hell to regroup!

[Nelson]

29.

I'm glad my comment "Only uncivilized societies have a policy of killing strangers" caused some discussion. Most of the replies can be summarized as "yes, but 0.0 is uncivilized so we kill strangers". Exactly.

My alliance had a goal of trying to build a civilized society in 0.0. And it mostly worked. We had good defensible space, we were small enough to be a bit under the radar but big enough to support several hundred pilots, and we had good diplomats with long standing friendships across the universe. It was a fun way to be for more than a year. Eventually BoB rolled over us as they rolled over half the universe. But we didn't die because we showed strangers some hospitality; we died because a military force 20x bigger than us decided one day to kill us.

It's fine to play dread space pirate and kill everything that moves other than the few people you have an uneasy survival pact with. But it's also an interesting challenge to do more with the game, to build stable structures that are based on something more than the power of guns.

Eve Online allows more than just fighting, even in 0.0. ISS was remarkably successful for a long time. There are plenty of trading alliances. Even BoB is more than a military organization. They're powerful because they have a fearsome war machine. But they're successful because they efficiently administer a feudal empire. BoB is as much about taxes and slave industrial corporations as it is about guns.

[dmx]

30.

Fair enough. I'll note that you can't kill anyone perma in the game, and if an alliance doesn't consent to die it really wont die.

Yep. ISS has returned. I don't think its back to its old glory, partly because the political land scape in eve just won't tolerate 'neutral' entities anymore. At least for now.

Its pretty much with us or against us, out here.

[dmx]

31.

"Only uncivilized societies have a policy of killing strangers"

If Socratese taught us anything, its that an epic troll can be one of the best stimulus for an insightful dialogue possible :)

[John]

32.

Well, so 0.0 reminds you of Wales between 1200 and 1400 AD?

If you own the castle, you don't shoot the guy who looks like a local farmer and goes 'arr', but you do shoot the guy who goes 'hello old chap' and holds a crossbow. Civilised doesn't need to mean friendly, I think that's your mistake.

[The Grog]

33.

I swear, Eve has the GREATEST stories to tell. Somebody should write a book about the history of the server and all the famous stuff that happened. I'd buy it.

[Santiago Fahahrri]

34.

I am "grey" most of the time. I fly with a small team of deep 0.0 explorers who are independent of any alliance.

Different regions in Eve have developed unique cultures. The differences go down to the level of the language spoken in the local system, the hour most pilots are awake, and the politics in regards to neutrals.

It has been my honor to experience these differences.

I would encourage more 0.0 alliances to give "grey" pilots at least a second glance before assuming we are hostile. You are missing out on some of Eve's most interesting stories.

[nate_combs]

35.

Santiago Fahahrri >

I'm sure the alliances are not as clear-cut and well structured as might seem when described to a general/outside audience (e.g. the current series here). To my experience how they work is scruffier and more complicated once one digs below the surface.

For various alliance/0.0 game reasons, a character of mine spent several months hauling gear through a range of hostile backwater space. Enjoyable experience - even if a little stressful - for reasons of the cultural detail-work you mention. There is interesting and unique stuff going on back there. Hard to get to. Thus I applaud those who explore.

Write up what you find and post 'em here ;-)

[Santiago Fahahrri]

36.

Nate Combs >

My apologies for the delay in response. I misplaced this url. A pilot in our group shared this site with me last time (my first visit and I'm facinated) and it was late enough into the evening that I failed to save the site.

I will try to share some of the more interesting experiences we enounter as "greys" from time to time here.

On of the more beneficial (for us) and quirky situations we find is the presence of pilots I think of as being "friendly NBSI pilots". These pilots, which we've enountered in almost every 0.0 region we've travelled, will take the time to warn non-threatening grey pilots about the dangers of travelling through their space.

These good samaratins (again my point of view, I'm sure others would differ) will often go to trouble to warn you that "my alliance shoots neutrals, and they are talking about hunting you all down in alliance chat" or "I don't care if you fly through here, but my mates want to kill you". I've even been warned about upcoming gate camps by pilots who are members of alliances with NBSI policies while we are "the greys".

It seems that while these pilots understand and accept the NBSI policy of their alliance, they do not neccessarily support it 100%. Maybe they just like the idea of friendly and independent visitors passing through from time to time.

Whatever the motivation, it is a recurring phenomenon and certainly one of the scruffier and non-compliant behaviors we've seen from officially-NBSI pilots. It's like the police officer who decides to let you off with a warning even though you were clearly speeding.

If you read this and have ever offered "a little friendly advice" to grey travellers, you have my thanks.

Santiago

[dmx]

37.

Last time I tried to warn a player about our NBSI policy he tried to report me to CCP for griefing :(
(CCP politely told him to go away, I believe). I was even polite about it!

I just kill on sight now, alas.

[Santiago Fahahrri]

38.

dmx >

It's really more of a "it's the thought that counts" gesture than a real help most of the time. To explore deep 0.0 space as a neutral, and survive, a pilot MUST be aware of the NBSI policies of the locals.

In general, it's safest to assume locals will try to kill on sight until or unless it's proven otherwise.

It still makes me smile when someone tries to be nice.

Santiago

[nate_combs]

39.

>Santiago

Yep, its really nice when things quiet down and gestures can be worked out. The countering pressure comes from when things are implemented strictly. So for example, when I logged in recently I saw this warning glaring at me (one among many), reminding me:

"There is NO such thing as a "hunting pass" - your standings are king, ignore all bio's, prosecute with extreme prejudice!"

I am not exactly sure what a hunting pass is, as I don't ever recall having been approached by someone claiming to have one. But I would guess it is someone who claims via some character affiliation or in-game political connection to be allowed free passage.

[Santiago Fahahrri]

40.

I have heard of "hunting passes". Essentially an alliance will grant temporary access to their 0.0 space for a fee. The last group who offered us this kind of deal had a price tag of 250 million isk per month.

In exchange for the isk our corp would have recieved friendly status, access to the belts for ratting or mining, and docking access at an outpost.

We declined the deal and have never paid for access to space (other than to CCP, of course).

[EmperorJason]

41.

Aye.
Though for the alliances and corps I and my friends have been in, they are called "Renter Corps".

The whole "hunting pass" thing is treated like renting out an apartment :P

[nate_combs]

42.

Here is my question about the renters, the dislocated. Suggested here is that there may be close to 10K players who have been displaced by the BoB wars. If one combines this with the numbers of non-displaced but renting non territory owners - one might imagine (and imagination it is just now) an underclass perspective emerging. Question. Would this translate into action and what sort?