That was unecessary, Huzurdaddi... let's hope taco doesn't take the bait.

Jimminy Xmas, did QSI kill your dog or something?

Whats with the personal attacks on me? Bash away at MoO3 all you want, just reel it in before you start getting personal.

Weather I post scores or not is kinda irrelivant don't you think?

Anyway, I'm loving your revisionist history of MoO3's development. I'm also loving how personally you seem to take this, I'd bother to flame you back, but my guess is that you're already good to go without any help.

Certainly there are differentiators in GalCiv as well, and its not worth arguing over cosmetics like being able to play as a nonhuman (which is kinda irrelivant, but it matters to some). There is a fundamental difference in the approach to planets and thus colonization in MoO3 too. Not all planets are suited for all races, and some races are more tolerant than others, and thus can colonize more planets. Again that is more depth than the GalCiv model, which I have nothing against, its a game design decision, but there is more depth in the MoO3 system than the GalCiv system (again, not a knock on GalCiv, just a difference).


How is that more depth? It just means you destroy the ones you cannot colonize rather than taking them. That's cosmetics, not more actual strategy.


The devs even admitted they had to balance the races. The devs even admitted to the lack of variation. There is no argument to my point there FROM THE GAME'S OWN DEVS!!! I think I'll take their word and my observations over yours thank you. Perhaps you can tell me how picking a different race in moo actually affects your chance of losing in Moo (you can't lose, the ai wont attack even an undefended planet) Diffeent races have different planet types. That isn't depth. That's just fluff, not real depth. Depth should be judged as depth of game play, not depth of bells and whistles. And in that regard, it's all Galciv (admittedly much of that is due to Moo's ai problems)And reality, What race is going to let another share the same system with it? Get real. That's not depth at all. In fact it's less strategic depth because you aren't even competing for the same planets!!!

And don't you just love the depth of an ai that declares war on you 10 times but never attacks? Oh that's depth baby.
Can't get more shallow than that can you.? And I for one am not willing (nor should I have to) risk a player mod to correct that.
______


The last comment about the lack of direction... within QSI is laughable. Yes there was a major shake up in the MoO3 team, there was a major pruning of features, there were internal issues wiht QSI and IG. But from reading what you've said I don't think you've actually followed the facts, it looks much more like you are parroting the usual line from the MoO3 haters, there's enough information on the MoO3 forums to counter or explain what happened.

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!! NICE SPIN WTF would you call it 4 friggin years in the making roughly 3.3 years in poof wham bam shake up time. Major scrapping of several key parts that were there (the devs even admittid this!!! and they admitted that no one really took "The lead" They also admitted that over the time span, they sufferred from a lack of direction as MP, then HI, and finally IG came into the picture. That's See it all in the post mortem on gamespy. Everything I said was ADMITTED TO ON THE PART OF THE DEVS.!!!!! That line came from Rantz's own post mortem interview you goon!!!! It's not even original to me. So I suggest if you don't like it, Tell the dev he's full of it regarding his own project!!!!!, not me.
And please note: No where did I say this was totally the fault of the devs. It's not easy having essentially 3 different bosses in that short of time. Anything's going to suffer from "lack of direction" in that situation now isn't it?
Then 2 weeks before ship, a major unchecked revision of the ai that gets released without a test whatsoever? Would you do that? I sure as heck wouldn't. If I did and it flubbed, I'd expect to lose my job. YET YOU DON'T THINK A MAJOR "SHAKEUP, and INTERNAL PROBLEMS" Your words, 3 YEARS INTO A PROJECT INDICATES A LACK OF DIRECTION? A LACK OF LEADERSHIP? BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! oooOOOOOWWWWEEEEEEE BWAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH!!!! Oh my that's rich.

And quite frankly. Tell me, what part of what I said didn't happen. Was there a shakeup? Yes. Was there major trimming on a project that was becoming unworkable? Yes. Was their a major shakeup of the ai just two weeks before ship (going totally untested). And this from the same devs that got on the forum and said "we will not ship untill it's ready and tested" Yes. Should a reasonable person conclude lack of vision and/or leadership. Yes they should. And quite frankly your hater charge is what's laughable not my post. Again if you don't like it. I suggest you go tell the development team what you think "really happened" and that what they don't know what went on on their own project. :)))

Hater: anyone who says anything about moo, whether true or not that Uburtaco doesn't like. By your definition here, I'm a hater. By any senseible one, however, I am not.


I am on record over on the moo boards (different sn) and here as saying I'm going to give moo a chance and recommending others do the same. I am also on record as to what I think are its shortfalls as it sits. And quite frankly, there is no excuse for how it sits at the moment. No way should that have gone out like that. No way. And as it sits is the only way it can be judged right now, not by what we think it can be with a patch. That doesn't make me a hater. That makes me a realist. I'm wating for the patch will give it another chance then, but not untill then. How's that make me a hater? It doesn't. Your use of the term shows you have no argument and that you indeed are the hater.


So quite frankly, clean up your attitude, look at the devs own interview. There's links to it in other threads, and why don't you bother looking at some of my other posts before you flame.

Unlike the Moo forum's you're used to, this one is much more civilized. Your behavior fits in better over there quite frankly. Try that junk with me again and you won't get the time of day.

I so laugh at those who think they have to defend the sanctity of a video game against those who have a differing opinion!!!.

Me. I think both will stand or fall on their own merits. And I will decide on each on their own merits.

Right now untill patch, Moo doesn't pass.

Want to defend something? Try volunteering at your local 2nd harvest food bank and defend someone just being able to eat. It might change your disposition.

Oh and ps Ubertaco: I'm a hater but not 20 posts up in this thread I said given the criteria the original poster stated he wanted, he should buy Moo. But I also suggested it might not be an either or choice since Moo can be had so cheaply (far less than the 50 bux retail) in fact, you can get em both for about that.

But I'm a moo hater because I just recommended it to someone. Yup. Get a clue.

If you guys are taking a strategy game personally, it's time to format your hard drives.

From a consumer point of view, which is more or less the bottom line as far as the producers/distributors are concerned, moo3 is a tremendous flop. There are multiple explanations as to why this is. I personally feel that Quicksilver did a fairly good job with what they had, but I have owned GalCiv and Moo3 each for about two weeks, and have received 10x the support for GalCiv than I have for Moo3. Now, if the code patch for Moo3 is revolutionarily awesome, that could be worth the wait. However, I don't have a very optimistic feeling. So my 'feature comparison' would be that GalCiv has much better support than Moo3 does, which, given the resources of the larger developer, is absurd, and attests to how good stardock is, even if they have a small audience. Does anyone have comparison sales figures, by chance?

Games are meant to be played, anyway, not argued over, so I apologize for wasting your time.

~SDC~

Flame? ME??!?!??

From the last 2 posts directed at me I'd say I'm the one getting flamed, not even MoO3.

Sheesh more civilized? Well maybe in general but from the last two replies to me I'd say it's time you all looked in the mirror, not me.

Perhaps my willingness to defend the flawed product that MoO3 is right now stems from my optimism that it will be better with the patch. I've never said that MoO3 is perfect as it is, I've agreed that the current state of the AI makes it mostly unplayable, well unchallenging at least. However, the agruements over depth have begun to go abit out of context from the original intent. There is no arguing over the depth of the AIs right now. The depth has to do with the game mechanics *outside* of the AI. In the end (as I've said before) GalCiv is the more enjoyable game becuse MoO3 cannot challange the player (well some mods make it better, but you want to ignore those).

Once the MoO3 patch is out who knows how things will shake out though... Personally I'm hopeful that MoO3 will become better than GalCiv, and not because I dislike GalCiv, but rather because if it does become more enjoyable than GalCiv I win twice, I have two games I can thouroughly enjoy.

Finally...

"Hater: anyone who says anything about moo, whether true or not that Uburtaco doesn't like. By your definition here, I'm a hater. By any senseible one, however, I am not. "

If you read what I wrote carefully you will see that I did not call you a hater, I said that you were parroting the standard line from the haters. Now you can take that to mean I called you a parrot if you want, but I did not call you a hater.

In truth I am disapointed with you, and Huzurdaddi, you both chose the easy way, you got personal, you attacked me (don't worry I don't care, not like I havn't been around the net enough). Any argument you could have made would have been much stronger if you kept to the point rather than attempting to start some MoO flame fest.

I posted this:

#4 by Citizen PontiusBruinPilot - 5/5/2003 10:25:54 PM

I really would recommed Moo3 over Galciv right now if multiplayer is most important. But go look at Gamespy and some of the multiplayer. Moo3 people online worldwide. five.

TBS is just too long and complicated unless you have a few regular dedicated friends to play with to do multiplayer.

Single player is no comparison. It's all Galciv. Moo3battles are realtime but it's not like you have all that much control and amount to a bunch of dots shooting at each other. Galciv is essentially civ combat.
Moo3 is a bit more complicated, in other aspects of the game but it really isn't in working condition right now (the ai won't even attack planets even if you leave them undefended) and wont be untill patched.

What you should do is pick up moo3 while it's getting stinkola reviews for 20 bux at amazon (after rebate) and pick up this one too it's 30 or something like that. Total between the two barely over what Moo3 was issued at 50 bux. That's two for the price of one essentially. Then if the patch works, fine you have moo. If it doesn't, you have Galciv. Moo3's price will climb again I think if the patch works making you choose one or the other.



And this:
#7 by Citizen PontiusBruinPilot - 5/6/2003 2:54:43 AM

Oh fleabit, I suspect it's a moo fanboi off their boards, but unlike their fanboi's I'm not going to be disrespectful just because he's trolling. I answered his question the best I can. If those features are truly important, he should indeed hope that Moo's patch will fix it (because whether trolling or not, he picked features galciv doesn't have) Besides, at the cheap price it's going for, he can indeed afford both now.
But personally, like I said. Unless you have a dedicated core group of friends and a lan to play with, Multiplayer in a tbs game is a heck of a hassle to deal with.

Let me repeat this little part.

I answered his question the best I can. If those features are truly important, he should indeed hope that Moo's patch will fix it (because whether trolling or not, he picked features galciv doesn't have) Besides, at the cheap price it's going for, he can indeed afford both now.

Yes. I just recommended to someone that posted what they liked (twice mind you in this very thread) to buy moo cheap now and wait for a patch because the features he said he wanted Galciv just doesn't have.


BUT I'M A MOO HATER. So much for your accusations uberburrito. You're full of it.

Again, I never called you a MoO hater...

Your zeal to defend yourself from what you claim is a baseless accusation (that was never made anyway), maybe shows some thing else though...

If you read what I wrote carefully you will see that I did not call you a hater, I said that you were parroting the standard line from the haters. Now you can take that to mean I called you a parrot if you want, but I did not call you a hater.


Bwahahahahhahaha.... Nice try. Let me turn it around for you hypothetically. "In General, most of the people that like Galciv are smarter than those that like Moo3. Those that argue for Moo3 generally use tard arguments."

Then after you object I can post.

Oh no I didn't call you or those that like moo dumb.

Yours is the same, type of argument. Thinly disguised so it can be backed off of if you get called on it But it's the same type of argument nonetheless. Too bad. You got called on it. You were trying to imply I was a hater. It's still an ad-hominem attack, and thus invalid, (and proven in my case not to be true) regardless of how you try to frame it.

Fine, thnk what you want...

I was refering to a specific statement you made that was worded very similarly to the standard hater line...

I even said you were parroting it, not simply that it was a MoO hater statement. Bah, this is pointless, if you must know I don't think you are MoO hater.

All I can say now though is you really ought to look in the mirror. I made no personal attacks on you or anyone else in this thread, and what do I get? I get cursed at, and I get called a MoO fanboi, a tard, I get flamed. Well if that's your argument style so be it. Some other time try sticking to the merits of your argument rather than going after someone personally, it'll make you look like less of an a$$.

In truth I am disapointed with you, and Huzurdaddi, you both chose the easy way, you got personal, you attacked me (don't worry I don't care, not like I havn't been around the net enough). Any argument you could have made would have been much stronger if you kept to the point rather than attempting to start some MoO flame fest.



BS. You are the one that started with the ad-hominem. attacks and the flaming.

You came on, name called, made several allegations and I proved them all false. Nothing more, nothing less. I gave far less than I got. Like I said. Read the post mortem from two of the devs themselves over on gamespy The words I used are loose quotes from them and my conclusions drawn from it. You may not agree with that. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion. But for you to come on here and tell me I haven't played the game and that I don't know what happened is poppycock.

I read what the devs said. So unless you can show me where they were lying, (and I don't think they'd lie in the negative direction on their own product) then what I said about lack of leadership, lack of vision (again not all their fault) stands. It's merely the same thing they pretty much told us in the article.

How arrogant. To think I actually care whether you are disappointed in me.
And the fact that you are trying to group me in with someone else shows you have no answers for me personally.
What a joke.

All I can say now though is you really ought to look in the mirror. I made no personal attacks on you or anyone else in this thread, and what do I get? I get cursed at, and I get called a MoO fanboi, a tard, I get flamed. Well if that's your argument style so be it. Some other time try sticking to the merits of your argument rather than going after someone personally, it'll make you look like less of an a$$.


I never cursed at you at all. Yet another unfounded accusation. Oh well. Time to go do something far more enjoyable.

Look on the bright side. At least you're not censored. My favorite MOO3 thread of all time was...

==============================
Post #1:


==============================
Post #2:


==============================
Post #3:


==============================
Post #4:



==============================
Post #5:


==============================
Post #6:


==============================
Post #7:


==============================

Doh, forum ate the code, let's try again LOL

==============================
Post #1:

[snip: no criticism of game or mods allowed. -S]
==============================
Post #2:

[snip: reply to above. -S]
==============================
Post #3:

[snip: reply to above. -S]
==============================
Post #4:

[snip: reply to reply to above. -S]

==============================
Post #5:

[snip: reply to reply to reply to above. -S]
==============================
Post #6:

[snip and ban and gone. -S]
==============================
Post #7:

[snip: reply*100 to above. -S]
==============================

"BS. You are the one that started with the ad-hominem. attacks and the flaming. "

Uh, It's YOU who is attacking HIM. Go ahead and show me where he made a personal attack on you.

Why the hell are you attacking him anyway? Hes discussing the pros and cons of two games, not insulting your mother.

"Look on the bright side. At least you're not censored. My favorite MOO3 thread of all time was"

LOL Za H!

ubertaco,

So what does it taste like up there? Yum... Oh rantz you shit tastes so good. Yum. Oh yeah... more ... please.

Please leave, ubertaco. I have no time for someone who attempts to swindle people out of their hard earned cash. Moo3 is garbage. Pure and simple. Even worse it's garbage made by people who have an attitude, which is ... uhm .. shocking.

I would love to support the turn based game game segment. I wish there were more quality products like GalCiv to buy.

#40 by Citizen David Ballantyne - 5/6/2003 7:07:22 PM

"BS. You are the one that started with the ad-hominem. attacks and the flaming. "

Uh, It's YOU who is attacking HIM. Go ahead and show me where he made a personal attack on you.

Why the hell are you attacking him anyway? Hes discussing the pros and cons of two games, not insulting your mother
_________


You are mistaken. You made the allegation (offering nothing to back it up) Nevertheless, I shall prove you are mistaken.

Review post 19 this thread (mine) where I discuss depth, of the two games answering no one in particular and mentioning no one in particular.

Thirdly, Examine post 21 ubetaco. in response to my 19 calling what I posted "Misinformation" and where he attempts to portray me as a hater. That's two ad-hominem attacks right there. That isn't discussing the game anymore, that's a personal attack. He started it, not me. So as you can see. It is not me attacking him. He attacked me and I proved him full of it. He attempted to back off and I didn't let him. He made the statements. He made the charges, He either backs them up or gets exposed. He got exposed. I backed mine up. I attacked no one. Later, he accused me of cursing him out which is also not true.
He, cursed at me. I never responded in kind. Perhaps the other guy cursed him out. I do not know. I didn't read the other guy's posts. I'm not that other guy either. And I'm not responsible for the things the other guy said. Perhaps he felt ganged up on and that's why he did it. I don't know. And quite frankly, I don't care. But all I did was prove the allegations against me false. That's not attacking. Nor is proving yours false attacking you. As soon as he more or less accused me of "misinformation" falsely, that's ad-hominem and that is going to be responded to. Harshly. Not with cursing or name calling, but cold hard facts and reason. Perhaps I want overboard. But nothing I said was false and nothing I said was a curse and I don't like the implication that it was.

Oh and P.S.

You who haven't talked to me at all this thread start with a curse at me your first message. Now you, have indeed cursed at me also. And quite frankly I did nothing to you and will not respond in kind. You have a nice evening.

But nevertheless, you are mistaken. I may have gone overboard in your opinion, but nonetheless, it was he that attacked me, not the reverse.

And it is now you, that have attacked me, not the reverse.
Good day to you.

Moderator Hat On..

Guys, if you want to debate strategy games, that's fine. But please don't make it personal. Attack the message, not the messenger.

Thanks.

Die message!!!

"Now you, have indeed cursed at me also."

No, I cursed while talking to you, that is not the same as cursing at you.

"Thirdly, Examine post 21 ubetaco. in response to my 19 calling what I posted "Misinformation" and where he attempts to portray me as a hater. That's two ad-hominem attacks right there."

I wouldn't count either of those as ad-homsinems. The infomation you were giving was wrong, hence misinformation. And he did not call you a hater, he said one of your comments looked a lot like a hater comment i.e that your strategy has no effeft on the game.

"Later, he accused me of cursing him out which is also not true."

No? In #28 you call him both a hater and a goon. In #32 You say he is full of it. #34 we won't count since it's hypothetical... In #36 you call him arrogant. Also, in #7 you call the first poster a fanboi just for asked about galciv.

"But nothing I said was false and nothing I said was a curse and I don't like the implication that it was."

Actually, quite a bit of your Moo3 info was false, I'll go through it all if you really want me to...And if you don't like the implication that you curse you should probably curse less.

Dear Huzurdaddi,

Please keep your homosexual poo fantasies about Moo3’s art director to yourself. Your are welcome to indulge them privately, but I would rather not hear about them here.

Thankyou.

Fact is, MOO3 is gonna take more than a patch to make it playable. The problems are so deeply rooted and the lack of legitimate functionality so profound that nothing short of an overhaul (and does anyone have confidence that the people who put MOO3 out have any competence to perform such an overhaul?) will help.

Gross problems:
* AI sucks
* interface depth makes trivial tasks ponderous
* combat broken (incl. PD broken, AI cheating, lack of minimap laughable, direct fire weapons useless, etc)
* tech tree so abstract and absurd that it becomes uninteresting, unwieldy, unmanageable
* colonies so difficult to manage that only abstractions that render the game uninteresting (viceroys, dev plans) can cope
* despite attempts to abstract micromanagement, micromanagement necessary to make game interesting
* ridiculous UI issues - esp. in ship building, fleet building, build queues, diplomacy, senate, and not even mentioning all the problems with the colony view
* lag time at end of combat absurd
* choosable options, while many, are not the things i'd want (automate fleet builds, end combat quickly, auto-finish combat)
* multiplayer laughable - even worse than Civ3:PTW, which nearly deserves a Darwin award as an accomplishment

All in all, the problem is that the game is so poorly done on so many levels, levels so deeply wrought into the thing (and I say this as a software engineer) that it'd almost be better to sink the ship and build a new one from scratch, both in terms of time-to-code and in feasibility-of-repair.

If I were QS, I would quit on it, write the game off, and try and regain some face elsewhere. Any time they spend on this is like trying to weld patches onto the Andrea Doria.

~SDC~

The only way to really decide is to try both games. Every one has a preference, even people that own, and like both games.

If you have to decide based on forum comments, then the two biggest differences are these:

MOO3 - as stated above, a vast game of building your empire to custom design and build huge armadas of ships with which to annihilate the aliens. (whoever they may be) Also, MOO3 uses `star lanes' to move around the galaxy. These are `paths' that must be followed between stars, creating strategic `choke points'. MOO3 planetary system is more complex in its design and ongoing development. GalCiv - you can go anywhere, and every where in between the star systems, plus you can build `Star Bases' anywhere, and upgrade them, a really cool strategic feature. Both ways have pros and cons. MOO3 has more techs, and researches different catagories at the same time, always giving you some kind of new upgrade, but less strategy to the research operation. GalCiv is the traditional approach of selecting one tech at a time to research, and needing to decide which tech is going to take you where you want to go next, strategically.

GalCiv - this will give you the most human like challenge of strategy. The different races really have the cooler personalities, between the two games. You will love the `evil' Drengin. They are hilarious, except on higher difficulty when they will kick your butt. Each race has it's own theme music that plays when you talk to them in the diplomacy screen. Each race has different ways they will try to win. Don't worry about only being able to play humans. You can customize your race. GalCiv is more like MOO2 in its approach, especially with the tech tree.

I wouldn't count either of those as ad-homsinems. The infomation you were giving was wrong, hence misinformation. And he did not call you a hater, he said one of your comments looked a lot like a hater comment i.e that your strategy has no effeft on the game.


Yet another baseless allegation.
http://www.gamespy.com/gdc2003/moo3/
for those that would like to read it themselves and make up their own minds. Tis a good read.

toward the bottom of page 1.

"There was a weird ramp up cycle - almost a stutter start and stop about where we could go with the project as they tried to figure out what they wanted to do and when," Hoseley said.

This caused major pre-production problems in that no one took ownership of the project, he said. "In pre-production, you should have a lead designer, lead programmer, lead artist and project manager all joined at the hip and on the same page at that point. We never had a formal pre-production process."


Top of page 2.

Nelson said that one person needed to be in charge of the design vision, but no one ever took that lead. He came into the picture as producer as the design segment was being completed and the coders were beginning to work. "We had a 400-500 page design document and for the next nine months, artists were doing art and coders were doing code, but the design was still being created," he said. "At the point we were three-quarters done, we just ripped out all the stuff that didn't work or wasn't done and cut back to bare bones."

Hoseley said that programmers spent months on code that ended up being jettisoned.

I stated lack of leadership, lack of vision. Now tell
me. Where is the misinformation on my part there? From that same article, two of the devs said the same thing.

Tell me where the devs said they didn't have to rip out lines of code eh? Oh tell me oh wise one where the misinformation is? Better yet, why don't you and the first guy that accused me of the same go tell the devs that gave that article they don't have a clue about their own project and YOU KNOW MORE THAN THEM WHAT HAPPENNED. Oh I'd just love to see that one.

Swissssssh!!!! Jordan cans it. You may now go home stockton and Malone.


Now as to your strategy having no effect on the outcome of the game. Tell me oh wise one how can you lose when the ai won't attack even an undefended planet other than senate loss which nearly everyone turns off quickly anyway.?

Kobe spin move swissssh Lakers win....Better luck next time Spurs.


I wouldn't count either of those as ad-homsinems. The infomation you were giving was wrong, hence misinformation. And he did not call you a hater, he said one of your comments looked a lot like a hater comment i.e that your strategy has no effeft on the game.


And the above looks a lot like something a tard would say. But I'm not calling you a tard, so that isn't an ad-hominem. You see the ridiculousness of that portion of your argument. If you can't see his, and this above as ad-hominem what is?
_____

No? In #28 you call him both a hater and a goon. In #32 You say he is full of it. #34 we won't count since it's hypothetical... In #36 you call him arrogant.

And last I checked, 21 comes before 28. P.s. Arrogant isn't name calling. Look it up in the dictionary. And for someone I don't even know to think I care whether he or she is disappointed in me is the height of arrogance.

OOOOOOOHHHHHHHH DEVESTATION!!!!!! DA BOMB!!!! That's right junior, he started with the ad-hominem attacks not me. But thanks for playing. We have some parting gifts for you in the back now.

Too easy. Too darn easy. Game. Set. Match.


Thus yet again, your allegations are baseless. I've proven the devs said what I claimed and thus, it isn't misinformation. Oh I'm sure you'll respond with yet another one, but I won't be around to answer that one. I've already proven two of yours and his baseless and thus people will pretty much think anything else out of you is also baseless. Now you have a nice life. I for one will waste no more of my time with the likes of you.

Sad too. I happen to like Moo3. I happen to want the patch to work. It has tons of promis. But that's all it is right now promise. There is no excuse for the state of the game at realease though. Yet, I agree also with the devs that given what the devs said in that article, all in all given the situation, it's not too bad a job. It could have been far worse. Yet I'm a hater for saying the same thing the devs did. Oh and I started it because I responded in post 28 exactly the way I was treated in 21 uh huh. Oh joy. LMAO

Tsk tsk. Where oh WHERE have I seen this type of thread before? No time limit folks, put your thinking caps on. Phone lines are open so call (or text) your answers to
1 800 iam bored.
And kids, be sure to check with your parents first!