Bladeforums.

questions, comments , film clips and pictures on guns and weapons and HEST.

Moderator: Hitoru

Bladeforums.

Postby RYP » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:08 am

Seems Kevin's panties are in a wad. He keeps locking threads in which one of his flamers starts things and then pretending like he doesn't know what anyone is talking about. Here is my statement and I will leave it at that. His position that a forum has no responsibilities is simply wrong. His assertion that he doesn't know who his flamers are is even more suspect. But you aren't going to win a game on another man's crap table.

But here is an excellent article about the responsibility of forum owners. (The Flag has been around in various forms since the mid 90-'s)

The Internet Journalist
Web privacy, false light and defamation laws

Don Burleson


Burleson is co-author of Web Stalkers: Protect yourself from Internet Criminals & Psychopaths, $19.95 by Rampant TechPress.

The current state of internet privacy and defamation laws

False light, invasion of privacy and defamation

Sure-fire ways to wind-up in court

Note: This is a literature review prepared by a non-lawyer and this research may not be construed as legal advice. If you are seeking legal advice of qualified attorneys, consult your local Bar Association, not my web pages.

Internet law and personal liability

The DMCA was designed to protect web hosting services and ISP's and not web authors. In this article, a retired judge Fadeley notes that offering DMCA protection to bloggers and web authors is a serious loophole in the DMCA, and that new legislation is required to make bloggers and "cyber bullies" responsible for damage to people. See Time for DMCA reform for details.

The laws also vary by State and Nation, and South Carolina has strict laws against invasion of privacy. In the publication "THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY vs. THE FIRST AMENDMENT" (1978), author Alice Marie Beard notes that in many States it appears to be illegal to intrude upon someone's seclusion or solitude, to publicly disclose embarrassing private facts about someone; or to generate publicity that places the someone in a "false light" in the public eye: (see Renwick, 310 N.C. at 322, 312 S.E.2d at 411)

Four areas of the right to privacy are recognized:

(1) intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs;

(2) public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff;

(3) publicity that places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye, and

(4) appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness.

Now, a lot has changed since 1978, but much it it moves in the direction of making people responsible for what they publish, even if they are grossly unprepared to be a journalist. In this great essay title "Here Come the Judges (and Lawyers)", Dan Gillmor notes that old Aunt Sara's catty blog is now subject to U.S. Libel laws:

Online journalists are no less required to follow the law than anyone else. A blogger who commits libel may have to face the consequences.

After the public fiasco from a Yahoo forum member publishing libelous information about his employer, Gillmor notes that companies can now demand to find the real identities of defamatory bloggers:

So far, bloggers may have avoided the legal chopping block, though threats against bloggers abound. Commenters on Internet forums have had more trouble. In particular, some companies have been especially assertive in financial forums, demanding from Internet service providers the identities of people who have made allegedly defamatory postings.

Tortuous Interference in Cyberspace

Many states have laws prohibiting people from publishing statements that unlawfully interfere with a person's right to conduct business. In the United States, tortuous interference claims are made when someone publishes statements designed to interfere with another normal course of business.

United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall, 322 N.C. 643, 661, 370 S.E.2d 375, 387 (1988).

Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in dismissing their claim for tortious interference with a contractual relationship. The elements of the tort of interference with contract are:

(1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third person that confers upon plaintiff a contractual right against a third person;

(2) the defendant knows of the contract;

(3) the defendant intentionally induces the third person not to perform the contract;

(4) the defendant acts without justification; and

(5) the defendant's conduct causes actual pecuniary harm to plaintiff.

For example, the North Carolina Supreme Court has held that tortious interference with prospective economic advantage occurs when a party interferes with the freedom of contract and “not in the legitimate exercise of defendant's own right, but with design to injure the plaintiff . . ." (see Owens v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Hickory, N.C., Inc., 330 N.C. 666, 680, 412 S.E.2d 636, 644 (1992)).

Tortuous Interference on the Web

To prevail in a tortious interference claim (or "tortuous interference", both are acceptable spellings), you need to show that the publication induces a person not to fulfill a business relationship. While the First Amendment protects opinions, we must remember that the standard is very different for tortuous interference than it is for libel.

To prevail in a Tortuous Interference claim you must prove that a person:

- Knows about your business relationship

- Interferes with your relationship

- and that they are unjustified in doing so

For a simple example of "unjustified", a business competitor would be unjustified in conducting a "smear" campaign against a business competitor, which results in advertisers withdrawing from existing contracts for fear of bad publicity.

On the web, it suggests that statements below, while not libelous per se, may be actionable as tortuous interference, especially if the publisher induces the public to interfere with the business relationship:

"I cannot believe that people actually pays Waldo's Widgets money"


"I feel sorry for anyone unfortunate enough to use Waldo's Widgets services"


"Waldo's Widgets products are shoddy and poorly made"


"I wonder if their clients know what serial offenders Waldo's Widgets are?"


"Amy Author's article is wrong, it's a fact, not my opinion"


"The owner of Waldo's Widgets is a fraud"

Civil Conspiracies and Cyberlaw

The US department of Justice defines a conspiracy such that it appears to clearly apply to internet publishing:

A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons to accomplish some unlawful purpose, or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means.

DOJ also notes that civil conspiracy may apply to a "variety of conduct" that might harm or inhibit the free actions of a third party:

The words "injure," "oppress", "threaten," or "intimidate," as used in the conspiracy statute, are not to be interpreted in any technical sense, but may cover a variety of conduct intended to harm, frighten, or inhibit the free action of other persons.

Anytime that people conspire to defame or interfere with another person or business entity, Civil Conspiracy laws come into play. Click here for a listing of some Federal laws protecting against Civil conspiracies.

Chambers v. Stern, 347 Ark. 395, 64 S.W.3d 737, (2002); Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 345 Ark. 430, 47 S.W.3d 866, (2001); Mason v. Funderburk, 247 Ark. 521, 446 S.W.2d 543 (1969).

To prove a civil conspiracy, a plaintiff must show that two or more persons have combined to accomplish a purpose that is unlawful or oppressive or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself unlawful, oppressive or immoral, but by unlawful, oppressive or immoral means, to the injury of another.

Chambers v. Stern, supra; Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra.

A civil conspiracy is not actionable in and of itself, but a recovery may be had for damages caused by acts committed pursuant to the conspiracy. Chambers v. Stern, supra; Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra. A civil conspiracy is an intentional tort which requires a specific intent to accomplish the contemplated wrong.

Tortuous Interference cases are sometimes tied to Civil conspiracy laws because Federal Statutes have strong prohibitions against any groups who conspire to injure the reputation of an individual or business. This is especially true on the web where a single publication has a worldwide reach.

USA Cases on Cyber defamation law

Click here to read the landmark (Zeran v. Diamond Broadcasting) case where the US courts removed liability for third-party providers of message boards and forums:

Congress made a policy choice, however, not to deter harmful online speech through the separate route of imposing tort liability on companies that serve as intermediaries for other parties' potentially injurious messages.

Congress, however, has chosen for policy reasons to immunize from liability for defamatory or obscene speech "providers and users of interactive computer services" when the defamatory or obscene material is "provided" by someone else.

However, Zeran speaks only to an instant case where the forum provider was not actively involved in the defamatory publications.

Anti-SLAPP laws and cyberlibel

SLAPP is for "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation", a legal doctrine that allows freedom of speech on important public issues.

In the Harvard publication SLAPP and Black Hole of Internet we see a reference to (New York Times v. Sullivan) where the Supreme Court restricted the rights of public officials to sure for libel:

Simply put, if a reporter or editor has no reason to doubt a source, there's no liability for libel even if the source says something wildly libelous such as Blumenthal "has a spousal abuse past that has been effectively covered up."

However, the anti-SLAPP laws do not give free rein to internet publishers covering public issues:

The court limited the right of recovery to public officials who could prove actual malice (i.e., that the newspaper knew the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth).

We see that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) has also been used (unsuccessfully) as a defense against libel, but the courts have ruled that forum owners cannot be absolved if they participate in the defamation:

Sabbato v. Hardy, Case No. 2000CA00136 (Ohio Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2000). The court determined that Hardy was not automatically entitled to immunity under Section 230 of the CDA because the complaint alleged that Hardy had personally participated in creating the defamatory comments.

What about jurisdiction for web-based defamation?

When it comes to hurling hurtful statements (whether they are true or false, in some cases it does not matter), we see that the laws are very different in different lands.

The shifting Burden of Proof

In Canada, the UK and Australia, libel laws are biased in-favor of the injured partyand it is up to the libeler to prove that their statements are true. This is the exact opposite of USA libel law where the defamed party must prove that the statement is false.

Under the current legal regime, you can be sued for anything you say about another person that damages their reputation.

If sued, the onus is on you to prove the truth of your statements; the fact that you genuinely believed them to be true is not good enough. Even truth is not an absolute defence --- if the court finds you told the truth but your intent was malicious, you might lose anyway.

Canadian libel law is so draconian that people come from all over the world to file libel suits in Ontario.

International Cyber Libel Laws

Canadian courts have ruled that the Internet is a "Broadcast medium" subject to the same rules of libel as traditional broadcast media such as TV and radio. This ruling has far-reaching impact for cyber libel. This Canadian Cyberlibel site notes that people harmed by a libel must file a claim within six-weeks of publication, and those who discover a libelous web page after six weeks has no cause-of-action for a libel claim (see Weiss v. Sawyer) in Canadian courts.

English courts have been coming-down hard on anonymous libelers, as noted inTotalise v. Motley Fool:

"I have no hesitation in finding that the balance weighs heavily in favour of granting the relief sought.

To find otherwise would be to give the clearest indication to those who wish to defame that they can do so with impunity behind the screen of anonymity made possible by the use of websites on the internet."

On appeal, Lord Justice Aldous noted that the defamed party should be completely reimbursed for the costs of finding the identity of the anonymous defamer:

I consider that there is considerable force in Mr Moloney's argument that those who operate websites containing discussion boards do so at their own risk.

If it transpires that those boards are used for defamatory purposes by individuals hiding behind the cloak of anonymity then in justice a claimant seeking to establish the identity of the individuals making such defamatory contents ought to be entitled to their costs.

In Australia, it appears that defamation and libel laws are so strict that they can become criminal offenses:

In South Australia, Victoria and the Northern Territory under common law any libel of sufficient seriousness can lead to criminal proceedings.

In Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland the legal code provides for a misdemeanour (where there is no knowledge of the falsity of the statement) or a more serious penalty where the publisher knows that the defamation is false. Criminal defamation in the ACT involves malice and knowledge of falsity.

In the USA, several states have proposed bills extending the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is being extended by several States to foil anonymous publishers on the web.

Both bills would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of technologies that "conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication".

Crossing jurisdictions

The laws vary so widely that you can commit a felony just by viewing web sites that are illegal in your country (e.g. kiddie porn), while the web site owner is perfectly within the laws of their country.

But what about someone in Canada who publishes a blog about a person in South Carolina? Like the answer to most questions, it depends. Jurisdictions (States, Nations) vary widely, but some suggest this polestar for blogging safety:

You are bound by the rules in the place where the defamed person reside, not where you published the offending statement.

For details on how US State courts assume jurisdiction against residents of other countries, click here:

In other words, a blogger in Norway could be hailed into the jurisdiction of U. S. Courts for false light invasion of privacy, even if the blog was acceptable in Norway.

What about citing anonymous publications?

In Gillmor's comments on Nymox v. Yahoo, we see that the judge noted that anonymous posters do not gain the right to defame others, just because they do not reveal their true identity:

But pre serving the value of anonymity, and robust speech, is vital. The judge, striking an appropriate balance, said there’s no right to defame and damage others under a cloak of anonymity.

Note: This is a literature review prepared by a non-lawyer and this research may not be construed as legal advice. If you are seeking legal advice of qualified attorneys, consult your local Bar Association, not my web pages.
User avatar
RYP
Ownerus Websiteus Authorus
 
Posts: 27721
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:42 am

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby rockspyder » Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:35 am

I jumped over here, hope you don't mind. I have been on Bladeforums since '98, but I took about a 5 year hiatus because I got fed up with some of the things that go on over there. I kinda think ya got a bit of a raw deal, but IMO, it hasn't been only from Bladeforums. I'll be buying more DPx stuff (I'm looking forward to the next installment of the fixed HEST), but I am officially turned off of Lionsteel. Whatever the reason, and no matter how minor it is, the knives should not have made it out of the factory with the blade tip issue, IMHO. I think it just made matters worse that it took so long for them to make it out, but that seems to happen every time ANY company puts out a new knife. Or it certainly seems to have happened a lot of times since '98 when I started really paying attention.
rockspyder
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:27 am

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby sdg » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:01 am

It was a mother fucking show over there, that's for sure! I showed up a little late to the party, but as far as I can see, it went from a troll lobbing hand grenades to RYP dropping a fucking atomic bomb! It certainly wasn't my style and obviously very misunderstood, but it did the trick (with plenty of collateral damage).

Did he accept the knife?

I've been trying to wrap my head around all that went down for the past couple days and wasn't positive where I stood. I was in the middle of a PM to RYP when I wandered back to the gear forum and read RYP's "info" post here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=52656.

Good info. I'm back on board.

Tell Gianni to hurry the hell up. I'm ready to start beating on my knife.
-Steve
sdg
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:57 am
Location: CA Central Coast

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby RYP » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:05 am

We proto a knife before committing to production. I had a HEST mockup in Somalia, a HEST Folder in Burma. So you can't complain about real world testing. But it is a hand made knife using CNC components. That means they are tuned, held worked and adjusted. It means that throughout the life of the knife you are going to feel it break in, get smooth and wear in. At some point you might need new washers, a screw, a clip etc. We are here for you on that. The knife sitting higher was a decision made at the factory, separate from the proto and unique to certain knives. The misprint on the MR DP knives was made and then corrected. Good luck catching something like this in a mass production factory.

My point is that the fixed blade is infinitely simpler to make and obviously has no moving parts other than the brass screws. When you get into folders you have to balance a find delicate movement with heavy durable actions. I think we hit the sweet spot between $500 high end folders and 100 dollar machine made knives. But the customers will decide that.
User avatar
RYP
Ownerus Websiteus Authorus
 
Posts: 27721
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:42 am

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby RYP » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:12 am

"Did he accept the knife?"

Yes he did, and if he wants to throw it in the trash that is his perogative. Ren and I are fine. Reflexred and I are fine. We all do dumb things. We all need that space to make it right. Hopefully people realize that I always offer two options. Despite the shrieking and moaning over at BF. Both parties with whom I had disagreements are fine with my actions, understand my point of view and are satisfied with the result.

The UDT SEAL fellow who keeps screaming like he is being ass raped by an elephant is simply is playing games. He has never contacted me and prefers to keep his knife while howling that we won't refund his money. We are pretty steadfast and boring over here. We offer a no bullshit, money back guarantee. You don't have to make up excuses or act hurt to get your money back. If we didn't get your hard won dough on this product, I am pretty sure there is something on the drawing boards that will get your attention. Best I can explain it is that people can see a square deal when they see one. That's why we still have a waiting list despite all the hysteria you see on BF.
User avatar
RYP
Ownerus Websiteus Authorus
 
Posts: 27721
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:42 am

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby rockspyder » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:21 am

RYP wrote:We proto a knife before committing to production. I had a HEST mockup in Somalia, a HEST Folder in Burma. So you can't complain about real world testing. But it is a hand made knife using CNC components. That means they are tuned, held worked and adjusted. It means that throughout the life of the knife you are going to feel it break in, get smooth and wear in. At some point you might need new washers, a screw, a clip etc. We are here for you on that. The knife sitting higher was a decision made at the factory, separate from the proto and unique to certain knives. The misprint on the MR DP knives was made and then corrected. Good luck catching something like this in a mass production factory.

My point is that the fixed blade is infinitely simpler to make and obviously has no moving parts other than the brass screws. When you get into folders you have to balance a find delicate movement with heavy durable actions. I think we hit the sweet spot between $500 high end folders and 100 dollar machine made knives. But the customers will decide that.


Oh, I understand the simplicity of a fixed vs. folder. Which is why I'd much prefer the fixed HEST over any folder. And look forward to getting another when you come out with a new one. But with regard to the bolded print in the quote above, am I understanding you to say that Lionsteel decided at the factory to have the tip of the knife "stand proud" when folded, intentionally, despite it being different from the prototype?
rockspyder
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:27 am

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby RYP » Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:36 am

I think it was a combination of the blade, pin and adjustment. But like I said it can be solved by the pin being thinner (it is actually beefed up) the blade having a polish point where it hits the pin or just saying fuck it and now worrying about it. So we worried about it and it is going to be exactly right
User avatar
RYP
Ownerus Websiteus Authorus
 
Posts: 27721
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:42 am

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby rockspyder » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:22 pm

RYP wrote:I think it was a combination of the blade, pin and adjustment. But like I said it can be solved by the pin being thinner (it is actually beefed up) the blade having a polish point where it hits the pin or just saying fuck it and now worrying about it. So we worried about it and it is going to be exactly right


If it were my knife (I'll admit, even thought it was done economically, it is still a little rich for my blood), I would have just ground the blade where it hit the pin and been done with it.
rockspyder
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:27 am

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby Alphahunter » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:52 pm

I was online when it all went down at BF. I miss your input over there. I'm glad to be here. I'm also glad you were able to work it out with the ones that threw the first stone.
Be well and keep up the good work.
Alpha
User avatar
Alphahunter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:11 am

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby DarthChicken » Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:38 pm

Subforum has officially been closed. Here is the quote from Kevin.... Just more drama
While it was fun while it lasted, the DPx forum is now closed. I have to shake my head at this entire situation, but it really does seem like a case of no good deed going unpunished.

We did not solicit DPx gear coming on board, though we were more than happy to extend a hand and welcome them into our community. Robert Young Pelton (RYP) was afforded every opportunity to market his product(s) and reap the benefits of what BladeForums.com (BFC) offers.

Past that, BFC and RYP / DPx Gear had zero commercial intersection. We had nothing to do with his business, and he had nothing to do with ours. He was allowed free reign to interact with the BFC customer base, post screeds, tell tales, offer opinions, hawk merchandise and in general do whatever he felt like.

For whatever reason, he encountered problems. I cannot speak for the motivations of his customer base, both real or potential. It may have been missed delivery dates, expected or otherwise. It may have been problems with products in hand. It may have been RYP's attitude. It could have been any one of several dozen reasons. People will argue on the internet, over anything. How this is best handled is up for debate.

RYP saw this as our fault. He apparently holds me (& by extenstion, BladeForums.com) responsible for the problems he encountered, and from what I can tell I believe he thinks we're part of some sort of criminal conspiracy against him. I've received a fair number of contradictory & rambling emails to that effect from him; I'm honestly mystified by how someone could reach such a conclusion, but like the saying goes....no good deed goes unpunished.

I wish Pelton & his associates the best of luck elsewhere. He's going to need it.
DarthChicken
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby rockspyder » Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:26 pm

I dunno, you think you're going to need the luck, Mr. Pelton?
rockspyder
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:27 am

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby RYP » Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:55 pm

The thing I don't get is

Kevin uses traffic on Bladeforums to sell knives on One Stop Knives. He is well known dealer and has an investment in the success of DPx Gear

I simply asked to remove the vandals from his site and keep it focused on discussion of knives. The two people I regulated are fine. He doesn't agree with my methods but I am sure most people don't like to get a hair cut with a chainsaw. Our rule is you don't come after our customers. Your opinion is sacrosanct but stalking is a no no.

A forum owner is responsible for the content published on it. He disagrees. He is wrong. So once again we asked him nicely to remove the posts that take away from people's enjoyment and edification. You can see here that we enjoy a good barfight on a Friday night but we clean up the broken glass and blood, shake hands and go home.

You have to cull the herd. We allow one village idiot here.

There is no such thing as an anonymous post. The Internet 2.0 simply does not allow it anymore. Saying that we defend the right of Flaggers to engage in free opinion and discourse. Not because of their relationship with each other but because of their employers, stalkers, creditors, ex wives or who knows who. But the point is sometimes you have to protect your forum members from things they posted in the heat of an argument. I asked Kevin to remove the stupid statements made by complete strangers about a disagreement that had been patched up a long time ago. He prefers to lock forums so they are frozen.

In any case the cumulative effect is to damage business usually by the direct effect of immortalizing an knowingly negative action and the resultant pile on. This also has legal precedent. He doesn't pay me for legal advice but I can ask politely for him to rethink the ratio of corn to turd on his site. No one should feel intimidated because of pack mentality. I took a shot at setting a standard and because he controls the content, I failed. here I control the content and we will not tolerate trolls, clumsy insults or stalking. I have already vaporized attempts at vandalism within second and will continue. Everybody should feel welcome and if they are abused of their opinion, it should be based on facts and respect.

In any case my discussions with other manufacturers and dealers have enlightened me on the complete lack of interest they have in spending time on certain forums. If not moderated properly they can turn into bully pulpits, hot air vendors and attract scab pickers drowning out the kind of well intentioned people who invest time in reviews, well thought out comments or expert opinion. So if he doesn't get it we will just start our own forum.

Over the next few days you will some changes here and some new faces.
User avatar
RYP
Ownerus Websiteus Authorus
 
Posts: 27721
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:42 am

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby fordfreak » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:02 pm

I'm surprised at some of the stuff Kevin said. This is crazy how fast this got out of hand. I know RYP is not gonna need any luck. He has a great product platform.
fordfreak
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:35 pm
Location: Southern CA

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby coldharvest » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:06 pm

RYP wrote:You have to cull the herd. We allow one village idiot here.

....and the position is hotly contested.
I know the law. And I have spent my entire life in its flagrant disregard.
User avatar
coldharvest
Abdul Rahman
 
Posts: 25677
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:36 am
Location: Island of Misfit Toys

Re: Bladeforums.

Postby Chimborazo » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:49 pm

coldharvest wrote:
RYP wrote:You have to cull the herd. We allow one village idiot here.

....and the position is hotly contested.


I'm trying, but milkman is one tough competitor.
"The terrain is just too wiley coyote for me to risk it. Slam into arch, rope breaks, in the distance as I plummet 'meep meep'" -Caliban
User avatar
Chimborazo
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: Bahrain

Next

Return to Guns, Knives, Gear, Tech and ....STUFF!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests