Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Charles E Thul <cthul@****.COM>
Subject: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 19:27:59 -0600
Has anyone ever thought about alternate movement rules for drones
in Combat situations? The rules in the Rigger2 are intended to provide a
"...mapless system for resolving vehicle combat..." (p. 41). However, if
the drones are roving through a building or other envirnoment which
provides restricted movement it is important to know where exactly they
are on a map. Also, it seems very unlikely that a drone could sustain a
movement rate of 80mpt (60 mph) inside a building regardless how good a
rigger is. As well, how far does a drone move on each action the Rigger
has?
Another thing to consider is that if a drone (or Rigger using
senor targeted weapons) needs to perform a sensor test to "lock" onto a
target (a complex action, R2 p. 58), then use another complex action to
shoot, then must use still another complex action to accelerate they
become extremely combat ineffective. A Rigger will use three actions in a
combat turn to shoot one target, while the samuri can engage up to six
separate targets (and move without wasting an action to do so!!!).
Drones should be an integral part of a runner team. They can
provide huge amounts of information, and (thanks to SR3) are an almost
invulnerable killing machine. It just seems that something as
technologically advanced as a drone should be more effective in that type
of envirnoment. I mean compared to a Sentry gun drones are nothing, they
can mark any target in their field of view, engage single or multiple
targets, and don't "waste" actions by making a sensor test every time
they wish to shoot something.
I've come up with something I think works, but I'm looking for
opinions if anyone else has encountered/dealt with this problem.

Thanks

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 2
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 23:43:31 -0600
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 19:27:59 -0600 Charles E Thul <cthul@****.COM> writes:
<SNIP>
> Another thing to consider is that if a drone (or Rigger using
>senor targeted weapons) needs to perform a sensor test to "lock" onto
>a target (a complex action, R2 p. 58), then use another complex action
>to shoot, then must use still another complex action to accelerate
>they become extremely combat ineffective. A Rigger will use three
>actions in a combat turn to shoot one target, while the samuri can
>engage up to six separate targets (and move without wasting an action
>to do so!!!).
<SNIP>
> I've come up with something I think works, but I'm looking for
>opinions if anyone else has encountered/dealt with this problem.
>
>Thanks

Okay, first, I make acceleration constant throughout a turn. That
means the all the vehicles in SR (in my game) have one acceleration value
and they can apply up to that value whem acceleration. If you're a
rigger pushing the gas petal flat against the floor in the same vehicle
does not make you go faster than if you are not a rigger.
Second, if you accelerate/maneuver while doing something else, this
incurs a penalty for doing two things at once in addition to penalties
for the speed you are presently going. I don't know if this is canon or
just my game.
Third, firing a weapon takes the same type of action as for any other
weapon of the same the firing mode. IOW, firing a semi-automatic weapon
takes a simple action, etc. I believe this is a house rule,
unfortunately. If you really want to make riggers impressive buggers,
make firing a RC weapon require half normal actions...
Fourth, you only need to make the Sensor test once until you lose track
of the target. AFAIK, this is canon.
Fifth, you can let the drone handle the Sensor test or the Gunnery test
while you handle the other. This, btw, is NOT canon. :) If you try to
do both, then you incur a penalty for doing two things at once.

Is that better?

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 3
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:40:38 +0100
According to Charles E Thul, at 19:27 on 2 Dec 98, the word on
the street was...

> Has anyone ever thought about alternate movement rules for drones
> in Combat situations? The rules in the Rigger2 are intended to provide a
> "...mapless system for resolving vehicle combat..." (p. 41). However, if
> the drones are roving through a building or other envirnoment which
> provides restricted movement it is important to know where exactly they
> are on a map. Also, it seems very unlikely that a drone could sustain a
> movement rate of 80mpt (60 mph) inside a building regardless how good a
> rigger is. As well, how far does a drone move on each action the Rigger
> has?

It moves its current speed in meters per turn. So, to find how far it goes
on the rigger's actions, divide the drone's current speed by the number of
actions the rigger gets, and move it that distance every action. As for
getting up to 80 m/turn, that's simple: the acceleration takes care of
that. If there is enough space to go up to 80 (or whatever) without
crashing against a wall, sure you can do it. Better hope there is also
enough space to brake again before the drone hits a wall...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If I had green hair, I'd dye it.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 4
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 11:33:45 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 12:40 PM 12/3/98 +0100, Gurth wrote:
>> Has anyone ever thought about alternate movement rules for
drones
>> in Combat situations? The rules in the Rigger2 are intended to
provide a
>> "...mapless system for resolving vehicle combat..." (p. 41).
However, if
>> the drones are roving through a building or other envirnoment which
>> provides restricted movement it is important to know where exactly
they
>> are on a map. Also, it seems very unlikely that a drone could
sustain a
>> movement rate of 80mpt (60 mph) inside a building regardless how
good a
>> rigger is. As well, how far does a drone move on each action the
Rigger
>> has?
>
>It moves its current speed in meters per turn. So, to find how far it
goes
>on the rigger's actions, divide the drone's current speed by the
number of
>actions the rigger gets, and move it that distance every action. As
for
>getting up to 80 m/turn, that's simple: the acceleration takes care
of
>that. If there is enough space to go up to 80 (or whatever) without
>crashing against a wall, sure you can do it. Better hope there is
also
>enough space to brake again before the drone hits a wall...

Alright, how about turns at speed then? Say instead of crashing into
the wall, a rigger piloting a vector thrust UAV wants to do an
Immelmann Turn, and come back down the hall for a second pass at
shooting the security guards.

Because the Vehicle Combat Rules have been abstracted down to the
level where they can resolve vehicle to vehicle combat without maps,
things such as turning, swerving, and general positioning have been
totally subsolved into the mechanics of the Maneuver Score. However,
when the target isn't another vehicle or drone, but instead, a set of
security guards standing in a hall, things get sticky. What would the
Maneuver Score of a security guard be anyway?

I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Thul on this one; there should be
a set of rules for drone combat that are compatible with the
person-to-person combat system. There are some existing rules that
should probably be incorporated into the system, such as the T# mod
for trying to attack something moving at higher speeds. However,
several mechanics would need to be worked out such as turning, and the
effect of melee combat on drones (like say a troll kicking a crawler
drone on it's side and knocking it off it's tracks, or someone taking
a swing with a baseball bat at a flying drone as it whizzes by).


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNma9SaPbvUVI86rNAQFrmAP9GWakO445KqhNxzNjSZ5+B4wkKR3lyVrq
XtqXwaPb3HBf5xyf12UvZKG8s247BYNcJHZQnJi4LSNSeNV9msNZ6SgfPhqxmkYh
ARjYPutntJxSzoWBZs/yKcgj1PGGdblDYmHFv0CUcSvcPZC5ox8NIuzV3vmmn7q+
4nm5TmSYH2U=
=PkkL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:54:52 +0100
According to Paul Gettle, at 11:33 on 3 Dec 98, the word on
the street was...

> Alright, how about turns at speed then? Say instead of crashing into
> the wall, a rigger piloting a vector thrust UAV wants to do an
> Immelmann Turn, and come back down the hall for a second pass at
> shooting the security guards.

Yep, that's certainly missing in the vehicle rules as far as I'm aware,
but IMO any reasonable GM can improvise such a thing. A wheeled vehicle
cannot turn in place (with a few exceptions, the AMX-10RC springs to
mind), and neither can fixed-wing, non-VTOL aircraft, so all you need to
do is estimate whether its turning radius is small enough for it to turn
in the hallway or room. In most cases, I'd say the answer is "no," even
when moving at very low speed. You'll have to take the turn in a couple of
movements rather than in one.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If I had green hair, I'd dye it.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 6
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 17:04:43 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 08:54 PM 12/3/98 +0100, Gurth wrote:
>> Alright, how about turns at speed then? Say instead of crashing
into
>> the wall, a rigger piloting a vector thrust UAV wants to do an
>> Immelmann Turn, and come back down the hall for a second pass at
>> shooting the security guards.
>
>Yep, that's certainly missing in the vehicle rules as far as I'm
aware,
>but IMO any reasonable GM can improvise such a thing.

However, if the GM has to improvise a system each time a rigger wants
to use his drones against human instead of vehicular targets, then
players might become reluctant to use riggers and drones in that
fashion. Having to improvise a system out each time bogs down the
game, strongly discouraging players from using drones on runs. Also,
if the GM is winging it every time drones are involved in regular
combat, there's no guarantee of consistancy from fight to fight,
hampering the player from learning how to efectively use drones. This
is why I'd like to see a workable system put down on paper.

>A wheeled vehicle cannot turn in place

As for the turning radius of wheeled vehicles, have you ever heard of
a maneuver called a "bootleggers' turn?" It's a controlled skid that
swings a vehicle around so that it's pointing the opposite direction.


>and neither can fixed-wing, non-VTOL aircraft,

Actually, the turn that I mentioned in my post above, the Immelmann,
is something any aircraft, fixed wing or not, should be able to
perform (it was originally developed on a fixed wing craft, after
all). An Immelmann is a climbing half loop followed by a roll to
properly orient the craft upright. As long as the air drone has enough
space above it when it starts an Immelmann (and the drone can always
dive for the carpet before starting the turn), it can reverse
direction with very little horizontal clearance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNmcK6aPbvUVI86rNAQH97wQAn0qN8Trz0bwJkWW72BejFoFolTrSA/6k
BhRHNTGA6u2et5jlWhHshx1d4Br4tiXB6q0s4zk9Ee+TbE1tH636WK26snkJqC8Y
HSGPnoxN2yHP5w6RBRlSJC+eolisjsG9vVVud2Uc4xOYqyFmUN4Fw7WvH7Abtzui
c8OmEJJJ950=
=pcC/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 7
From: Micheal Feeney <Starrngr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 18:13:13 EST
In a message dated 98-12-03 17:05:02 EST, you write:

> However, if the GM has to improvise a system each time a rigger wants
> to use his drones against human instead of vehicular targets, then
> players might become reluctant to use riggers and drones in that
> fashion. Having to improvise a system out each time bogs down the
> game, strongly discouraging players from using drones on runs. Also,
> if the GM is winging it every time drones are involved in regular
> combat, there's no guarantee of consistancy from fight to fight,
> hampering the player from learning how to efectively use drones. This
> is why I'd like to see a workable system put down on paper.
>

I feel that there is already enough system in place to take care of this. A
drone has a handeling rating right? This represents how easy the drone is to
control and could be construed as how tight a turning radius any vehicle has.

Ergo, when a rigger needs to make a tight turn with a drone who is moving more
than 1/3rd its max speed, he makes a handling check. TN is 2 plus modifers
for terrain (in such a case, tight terrain would be something like a narrow
hallway... 5 ft wide tops.) PLUS the body rating of the drone (Because
clearly larger drones would need more space to turn around).Additonal
successes have no effect. This sort of check could also be used if the rigger
wants to pull some stunt to elude pursuers... only in this case its a
contested check, and any additonal successes just mean the move "looks" cooler
(if there were cameras filming the incident). If the other side gets more
successes theiy have the option of 1) positioning themselves in such a way as
to prefent the stunt, or 2) following them through the stunt with an advantage
to their MR roll in the next turn.

Simple, and abstract enough to fit the general feel of SR, no?

--
Starrngr -- Now with WEBPAGE:
Ranger HQ
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/starrngr/index.htm">;
HTTP://hometown.aol.com/starrngr/index.htm</A>;

"You wear a Hawaiian shirt and bring your music on a RUN? No wonder they call
you Howling Mad..." -- Rabid the Pysad.
Message no. 8
From: Bob Tockley <zzdeden@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:05:32 +1100
>Because the Vehicle Combat Rules have been abstracted down to the
>level where they can resolve vehicle to vehicle combat without maps,
>things such as turning, swerving, and general positioning have been
>totally subsolved into the mechanics of the Maneuver Score. However,
>when the target isn't another vehicle or drone, but instead, a set of
>security guards standing in a hall, things get sticky. What would the
>Maneuver Score of a security guard be anyway?

The Maneuver Score for any person (and I suppose for a critter) is equal
to his Quickness.

>I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Thul on this one; there should be
>a set of rules for drone combat that are compatible with the
>person-to-person combat system. There are some existing rules that
>should probably be incorporated into the system, such as the T# mod
>for trying to attack something moving at higher speeds. However,
>several mechanics would need to be worked out such as turning, and the
>effect of melee combat on drones (like say a troll kicking a crawler
>drone on it's side and knocking it off it's tracks, or someone taking
>a swing with a baseball bat at a flying drone as it whizzes by).

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly with you on this one. No offence to whoever
wrote the R2 rules, but they're needlessly complex, easily forgettable, and
almost useless when used to resolve anything that's close quarters and/or
specific. I suppose, that's what you get with having a simplified (is it
really?) vehicle combat system, though...
Maybe, instead of the maneuver score, vehicles/drones in close quarters
should be given a minimum turning arc (based on Handling and current speed
perhaps). Every time the vehicle travels the minimum distance, the rigger
can adjust its heading by say 30 degrees or so. Obviously, certain vehicle
types would be exempt to the minimum turning distance (seems a little silly
for a rotordrone to be travelling 5 meters down the corridoor just to turn
around now doesn't it?), and that the Rigger could try more extreme
maneuvers (sharper turns, loops, etc) with a difficulty-modified Driving Test.
Anyway, it's just an idea... if you want to flesh out rules for it go
right ahead...

[>]ARKHAM
"I used to think that the mind was the most fascinating part of a
human being - until I realized what was telling me that..."
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 12:03:34 +0100
According to Paul Gettle, at 17:04 on 3 Dec 98, the word on
the street was...

> However, if the GM has to improvise a system each time a rigger wants
> to use his drones against human instead of vehicular targets, then
> players might become reluctant to use riggers and drones in that
> fashion. Having to improvise a system out each time bogs down the
> game, strongly discouraging players from using drones on runs.

It seems to me that you improvise once, and then reach back to that the
next time.

> >A wheeled vehicle cannot turn in place
>
> As for the turning radius of wheeled vehicles, have you ever heard of
> a maneuver called a "bootleggers' turn?" It's a controlled skid that
> swings a vehicle around so that it's pointing the opposite direction.

I don't think I've heard of the name, but I know what you mean. Anyway, it
can only be done at speed, not with a (near-)stationary vehicle.

> As long as the air drone has enough space above it when it starts an
> Immelmann (and the drone can always dive for the carpet before starting
> the turn), it can reverse direction with very little horizontal
> clearance.

That's not the same as turning in place. Okay, it doesn't need much
horizontal space, but the drone does need height above it to perform the
maneuver.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If I had green hair, I'd dye it.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 08:48:01 EST
In a message dated 12/4/1998 6:07:29 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.NL writes:

>
> > As for the turning radius of wheeled vehicles, have you ever heard of
> > a maneuver called a "bootleggers' turn?" It's a controlled skid that
> > swings a vehicle around so that it's pointing the opposite direction.
>
> I don't think I've heard of the name, but I know what you mean. Anyway, it
> can only be done at speed, not with a (near-)stationary vehicle.

Actually Gurth, you CAN perform this with a "(near-)stationary" vehicle. I've
even done it in mine before (bad situation in a parking lot), and considering
how bad my car is (NO COMMENTS!!!), that should go to say that Adrenaline and
Fear can go a long way towards the speed/reaction of an UNRigged driver
(people say I'm nuts as it is, I woulnd't need cyberpsychosis to make it any
worse ;).

-K
Message no. 11
From: Tony Rabiola <rabiola@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:33:40 -0600
>Because the Vehicle Combat Rules have been abstracted down to the
>level where they can resolve vehicle to vehicle combat without maps,
>things such as turning, swerving, and general positioning have been
>totally subsolved into the mechanics of the Maneuver Score. However,
>when the target isn't another vehicle or drone, but instead, a set of
>security guards standing in a hall, things get sticky. What would the
>Maneuver Score of a security guard be anyway?
>
>I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Thul on this one; there should be
>a set of rules for drone combat that are compatible with the
>person-to-person combat system. There are some existing rules that
>should probably be incorporated into the system, such as the T# mod
>for trying to attack something moving at higher speeds. However,
>several mechanics would need to be worked out such as turning, and
the
>effect of melee combat on drones (like say a troll kicking a crawler
>drone on it's side and knocking it off it's tracks, or someone taking
>a swing with a baseball bat at a flying drone as it whizzes by).
>


Along with this, how about a quick and dirty method of vehicle tests
when you don't need all the detail work?

Tony Rabiola
rabiola@**.netcom.com
Fourth and Sixth World Adept
(still working on the Fifth)
Proud owner BABY #972
Message no. 12
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:05:03 -0700
For the mere cost of a Thaum, Tony Rabiola wrote:
/
/ Along with this, how about a quick and dirty method of vehicle tests
/ when you don't need all the detail work?

Someone made a set of vehicle rules for SR based on the RPG James Bond
007, which has the quickest vehicle rules I've ever seen.

The drivers bid against eachother. The driver who wins initiative for
the turn bids first by choosing a base TN for the position test. The
second driver has the option of increasing the TN. If he does then the
first driver has the option of increasing the TN again. And so on,
until both drivers pass on the bid.

If the driver who won initiative has vehicle weapons he can fire at the
current range, or wait until after the position test.

Both drivers make driving tests vs the final Bid target number.
Success are compared. The one with the most successes can choose to
close range the range with the other vehicle, or increase the range.
Each success may be used to increase or decrease the range by one level
(close to medium, extreme to long, etc). If a driver can decrease the
range below Close, he may choose to ram the other vehicle. Use common
sense (a volkswagon bug won't be able to outmaneuver an F-16 in the
open plains).

Note, either driver may decline to make a position test if they feel the
Bid TN is too high. If both drivers decline to make the position test
their respective range does not change.

If one of the drivers failed the position test they make a crash test
vs a TN equal to the Bid TN minus their vehicle's handling, plus
environmental modifiers, minus vehicle sensors, plus opposing vehicle
ECM (modified by the vehicles ECCM), minus control rig rating, etc.
The speed at which the vehicle crashes is equal to the vehicles top
speed times the Bid TN divided by 10 (Crash Speed = Top Speed * (Bid TN
/ 10), not to exceed the vehicle's top speed x1.5.

If the driver who won initiative didn't attack previous to the position
test, he may do so now. At this point you'll have to use the combat
rules per Shadowrun.

If the driver who lost initiative is still around, he may attack.

Move on to the next turn.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 13
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Drones in Close Quarters
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:15:21 -0500
David Buehrer wrote:
> Someone made a set of vehicle rules for SR based on the RPG James Bond
> 007, which has the quickest vehicle rules I've ever seen.
>
It looks good until:

> If one of the drivers failed the position test they make a crash test
> vs a TN equal to the Bid TN minus their vehicle's handling, plus
>
This is bad - handling is normally used as the base TN for stuff, so
low handling = good, high handling = bad. You'll either have to
rework the handling rules or just add the handling instead.

James Ojaste

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Drones in Close Quarters, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!