Davies out for HC violation

BoiseBYU wrote:

Dcr36 wrote:

If the tweets are accurate let me summarize the data.

#2. The HC office is still investigating the information and yet they have determined an action. Good one HC office.

#3. We have a BYU Athlete who has "broken the honor code" and although not "dismissed" from BYU, has been dismissed from the team. Ya, thats consistent implementation or is that execution (pun intended) of Honor.

You're either misunderstanding or misconstruing #2. If we're reading the same tweets, Brandon Davies isn't so much "still under investigation" as much as he is "status to be determined." It sounds like they need more time to make a decision, not to investigate what happened.



#3 means nothing. If you served a mission: did a kid ever get demoted to Junior, but not sent home? Same thing. Harsher in practice here, obviously, but still the same concept.

MOre time to make a decision.......hmmm..... about what? Whether he stays in school and whether getting kicked off the bball team is sufficient punishment to help him change his ways? My points (in 2 and 3), exactly.

Oh, and by the way, good job HC office to drag out this public display of judgment.



I got news for some of you who are afraid to criticize the HC office: they arent the angels in heaven and its not criticizing The Brethren.

YOu do know that it was Carrie Jenkins of BYU who issued the release confirming the dismissal after the Daily Herald asked for information/details. This was NOT the HC deciding to willy nilly tell the world what's up today. I have no problem criticizing where criticizing is due, but let's keep it grounded in fact not assumption

Oh, Sister I-love-to-take-arrows-for-BYU-for-my-whole-career. DOnt get me started on her.

Hang around long enough around BYU and eyes get opened.

Couldn't have waited for the Final Edict, huh? I guess I cant blame them for that policy. Thats not the one that i question the most. So I can concede that.

dmcougar wrote:
Oh, and by the way, good job HC office to drag out this public display of judgment.

I don't care why you have such vitrol for the HC office. However, your attack is unfounded. From the article in the OP:

The school responded to a Daily Herald inquiry Tuesday afternoon and the school issued a press release through the athletic department around 6 p.m.

http://www.heraldextra.com/sports/college/byu/basketball/article_4ee6567c-4468-11e0-b844-001cc4c002e0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Press release from the athletic dept. If you choose to beleive that the HC office forced the athletic dept to issue the release, I can't argue that. It is your opinion. However it is not based in reported fact.

dmcougar wrote:

Isola wrote:
Wow...just wow. Not so much at Davies, but at so-called BYU fans.



It is a bummer for Davies and for the team, but I am not ready to write off the season just yet. This team was made to run, and a post up center isn't super important in that sort of offense. They're definitely helpful, but not essential. Magnusson, Anderson and Rogers are going to have to step up and play more minutes, but I still like BYU's chances at a 1 or 2 seed and a deep run into the tourney.



As for many of the comments here, what Brigham Young University are you a fan of? BYU stands for something. BYU students are given a serious tuition discount to represent the school and the church the best way they can. This is doubly true for athletes. They get a free-ride and top notch facilities in exchange for representing the school well. They represent the school in a much more prominent way, and therefore may be dealt with a little stricter than the typical student.



I, for one, appreciate that with the stakes so high, that BYU still stuck to their principles. There are bigger things than basketball and the NCAA tournament. That is what the schools stands for and they just made it clear. It sounds like Davies made a mistake and I hope he can get it worked out and come back, this year or next, but I am happy that BYU still stands for what it did when I attended. That is why I went there and why I hope my kids can go there.



Also, the ESPN report said "The school said in the release that since the violation just occurred, decisions on Davies' future with the team and in school are still undetermined." It sounds like there is a sliver of hope he may return. And even if not, the ESPN article illustrates why BYU has athletics. The side bar in the article summarizes the honor code, showing the world what the school stands for.

I agree.



However, Isola, a regular student can violate the honor code, be put on probation, etc. and their standing not be affected in any shape or form.



A student athlete, however, sticks their little toe across the line and they're suspended from the team. Seems to me, if you're still able to attend the school you should still be able to play for the team. Why the difference?

Well said Gunk. Beginning of story for me.

Isola: I agree.



Gunk: I've got nephews who play(ed) for BYU and another being recruited. Don't fool yourself, these kids KNOW they have a target on their back ... because they are representatives of the school. The analogy could go like this: the athletes are like unto missionaries. There are things a missionary can't do without getting disciplined that non-missionaries can do. There are things that will lead to much stronger church discipline for a missionary than for the rest of us. Where much is given, much is expected. BYU demands more of its athletes because they represent the school and the church. It is sad.



But with that being said, the most important thing is for support Davies. I hope that he works out whatever went wrong and continues on with his life and finds great success, and growth ... whether or not it is on the BYU basketball team. And if it is on the team, I'll cheer a little louder for that young man who overcame!!!

This talk of having a different standard based upon the profile of the individual is ridiculous. A standard is a standard is a standard. You enforce it equally or it is arbitrary, and God's law is not arbitrary. If the HC is arbitrary, that makes it a poor standard. Plain and simple.

Isola wrote:

Isola wrote:
Wow...just wow. Not so much at Davies, but at so-called BYU fans.



It is a bummer for Davies and for the team, but I am not ready to write off the season just yet. This team was made to run, and a post up center isn't super important in that sort of offense. They're definitely helpful, but not essential. Magnusson, Anderson and Rogers are going to have to step up and play more minutes, but I still like BYU's chances at a 1 or 2 seed and a deep run into the tourney.



As for many of the comments here, what Brigham Young University are you a fan of? BYU stands for something. BYU students are given a serious tuition discount to represent the school and the church the best way they can. This is doubly true for athletes. They get a free-ride and top notch facilities in exchange for representing the school well. They represent the school in a much more prominent way, and therefore may be dealt with a little stricter than the typical student.



I, for one, appreciate that with the stakes so high, that BYU still stuck to their principles. There are bigger things than basketball and the NCAA tournament. That is what the schools stands for and they just made it clear. It sounds like Davies made a mistake and I hope he can get it worked out and come back, this year or next, but I am happy that BYU still stands for what it did when I attended. That is why I went there and why I hope my kids can go there.



Also, the ESPN report said "The school said in the release that since the violation just occurred, decisions on Davies' future with the team and in school are still undetermined." It sounds like there is a sliver of hope he may return. And even if not, the ESPN article illustrates why BYU has athletics. The side bar in the article summarizes the honor code, showing the world what the school stands for.

I agree.



However, Isola, a regular student can violate the honor code, be put on probation, etc. and their standing not be affected in any shape or form.



A student athlete, however, sticks their little toe across the line and they're suspended from the team. Seems to me, if you're still able to attend the school you should still be able to play for the team. Why the difference?

I think the difference is that when I was a student I wasn't on national television in a jersey that had my name on back and "Brigham Young" on the front. The average student represents the University in a passive manner, while the athletes represent the school in a very active and public manner.



Or in another way, if you or I had knocked up our girl friend or got cited for underage drinking while at BYU, it would not have ended up on the front page of ESPN. High profile activities translate to high profile consequences.

Maybe. Situations like this actually make BYU look bad. We come across as heavy handed, unmerciful, backward, and to a degree, depending on the audience, we appear unforgiving. If national opinion were the motivating factor any PR professional, including myself, would tell BYU they're handling it wrong.



This has more to do with making an example of high-profile athletes for current and future BYU students then it does for positioning BYU as a beacon of Christian values to the rest of the world. How many sinners did Christ accept and associate with after all? BYU uses situations like this to set the tone and instill fear of recourse among its student body. Believe me, a whole shock has gone through the student body. They've all been reminded of consequences. The Michelle Peraltas rejoice.

BYU doesn't have another player that can be a down-low scoring presence to replace Davies, so Coach Rose will probably look to Rogers and Collinsworth to help plug some of the holes in the offense. But even though Rogers is 6'8" (same height as Hartsock BTW), he is too thin to guard post players one-on-one, so I'm guessing we are going to see a lot more zone. My guess is Hartsock/Rogers will play inside with Hartsock/Rogers and Abouo/Collinsworth on the wings, and Jimmer and Jackson up top.

For those of you who are demanding that the refs call every foul in the game and yet, at the same time, are demanding that the HC not call a foul on Davies, where is the consistency within this paradigm?



How many of us know what action that Davies took to get him kicked off? How egregious was this action? Was it a simple one time action or was it multiple actions? If it was multiple actions, had he been warned just one time or many times?



Did the HC purposefully make this public or was it the consequences of Davies' action cause it to be public? If the consequences of his actions caused him to be booted off the team, how can something like this be kept private?



I know a man who was ex'ed for immoral acts and very few in the ward knew about it. He was on the outside looking in for over two years, but when he was rebaptized, very few in the ward still knew that he had been ex'ed. About twenty people attended the baptism and five of those attending never knew he had been ex'ed. He just wanted them to attend.



Then there was the newly called bishop who got ex'ed due to immorality and when he was released, in spite of what ever actions the SP took to minimize the consequences, the whole ward knew what had happened. It became very apparent what had happened when his wife abruptly left, taking the kids, and moving back to her parents' place.



The way some of you people talk, you would probably want the Church of let the bishop remain bishop for a while so it wouldn't be embarrassing to the man and then you would probably try to convince the wife to "stand with her man," a many who had been boinking several women in the ward.



People, Brandon Davies fouled out of the school because of his actions and, to paraphrase Stephen R. Covey, "you have the freedom to choose the consequences of your action, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS."

Lawboy wrote:
This talk of having a different standard based upon the profile of the individual is ridiculous. A standard is a standard is a standard. You enforce it equally or it is arbitrary, and God's law is not arbitrary. If the HC is arbitrary, that makes it a poor standard. Plain and simple.

Exactly.



Yes, i know they are student athletes. Yes, I know they are ambassadors for the school, etc. But so was I while doing my internships, so was why will working at my summer jobs, so was I while walking down the street. The rules may be the same, but consequences are not equal.

Gunk wrote:

This talk of having a different standard based upon the profile of the individual is ridiculous. A standard is a standard is a standard. You enforce it equally or it is arbitrary, and God's law is not arbitrary. If the HC is arbitrary, that makes it a poor standard. Plain and simple.

Exactly.



Yes, i know they are student athletes. Yes, I know they are ambassadors for the school, etc. But so was I while doing my internships, so was why will working at my summer jobs, so was I while walking down the street. The rules may be the same, but consequences are not equal.

Agreed. Not defending the player or the HC.



Not even the molliest mormon girl lives the HC in full. (I should know, I married her... :) ;) :) )



But, as a player, you are upholding your end of the scholarship deal, and at BYU, there are volumes more that you are enforced to uphold.



I wonder why there is even an HC office, and committee. I think things should be up to the bishop/ecclesiastical leader and the student. If the Bishop/EL thinks that the University should be advised of something, he can do it then.



Is this not the way things are done? I didn't attend the Y so I don't know the process.

urroner wrote:
For those of you who are demanding that the refs call every foul in the game and yet, at the same time, are demanding that the HC not call a foul on Davies, where is the consistency within this paradigm?



How many of us know what action that Davies took to get him kicked off? How egregious was this action? Was it a simple one time action or was it multiple actions? If it was multiple actions, had he been warned just one time or many times?



Did the HC purposefully make this public or was it the consequences of Davies' action cause it to be public? If the consequences of his actions caused him to be booted off the team, how can something like this be kept private?



I know a man who was ex'ed for immoral acts and very few in the ward knew about it. He was on the outside looking in for over two years, but when he was rebaptized, very few in the ward still knew that he had been ex'ed. About twenty people attended the baptism and five of those attending never knew he had been ex'ed. He just wanted them to attend.



Then there was the newly called bishop who got ex'ed due to immorality and when he was released, in spite of what ever actions the SP took to minimize the consequences, the whole ward knew what had happened. It became very apparent what had happened when his wife abruptly left, taking the kids, and moving back to her parents' place.



The way some of you people talk, you would probably want the Church of let the bishop remain bishop for a while so it wouldn't be embarrassing to the man and then you would probably try to convince the wife to "stand with her man," a many who had been boinking several women in the ward.



People, Brandon Davies fouled out of the school because of his actions and, to paraphrase Stephen R. Covey, "you have the freedom to choose the consequences of your action, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS."

It would have been made public the moment he wouldn't show up for practice or to play against UNM. Better to control the communication of an event then let others control the communication. The Church still doesn't understand this.



Urroner, I'm not saying do away with the HC or it's a bad thing or BYU should let this one slide. I'm saying it isn't a perfect system and the system needs some tweaks.



Davies messed up. He should and has to pay the consequences. Doesn't mean though the system has its flaws. Don't confuse the two. It's just times like these where those of us that have seen the flaws of the HC office speak up.



And, Urroner, there's a difference between the HC Office and a Bishop/SP.

urroner wrote:
For those of you who are demanding that the refs call every foul in the game and yet, at the same time, are demanding that the HC not call a foul on Davies, where is the consistency within this paradigm?



How many of us know what action that Davies took to get him kicked off? How egregious was this action? Was it a simple one time action or was it multiple actions? If it was multiple actions, had he been warned just one time or many times?



Did the HC purposefully make this public or was it the consequences of Davies' action cause it to be public? If the consequences of his actions caused him to be booted off the team, how can something like this be kept private?



I know a man who was ex'ed for immoral acts and very few in the ward knew about it. He was on the outside looking in for over two years, but when he was rebaptized, very few in the ward still knew that he had been ex'ed. About twenty people attended the baptism and five of those attending never knew he had been ex'ed. He just wanted them to attend.



Then there was the newly called bishop who got ex'ed due to immorality and when he was released, in spite of what ever actions the SP took to minimize the consequences, the whole ward knew what had happened. It became very apparent what had happened when his wife abruptly left, taking the kids, and moving back to her parents' place.



The way some of you people talk, you would probably want the Church of let the bishop remain bishop for a while so it wouldn't be embarrassing to the man and then you would probably try to convince the wife to "stand with her man," a many who had been boinking several women in the ward.



People, Brandon Davies fouled out of the school because of his actions and, to paraphrase Stephen R. Covey, "you have the freedom to choose the consequences of your action, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS."

Agreed.

HoosierCougar wrote:

Oh, and by the way, good job HC office to drag out this public display of judgment.

I don't care why you have such vitrol for the HC office. However, your attack is unfounded. From the article in the OP:

The school responded to a Daily Herald inquiry Tuesday afternoon and the school issued a press release through the athletic department around 6 p.m.

http://www.heraldextra.com/sports/college/byu/basketball/article_4ee6567c-4468-11e0-b844-001cc4c002e0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Press release from the athletic dept. If you choose to beleive that the HC office forced the athletic dept to issue the release, I can't argue that. It is your opinion. However it is not based in reported fact.

LOL. I love that people are getting offended by the press release. I guess they should've just said "no comment" from here on out as the team plays/practices without Davies for the rest of the season and act like nothing happened?



I still don't see how BYU is the villain here. Everything that has happened to date are consequences Brandon knew were on the table before he signed his NLOI and before he ever put on a BYU uni. Yeah, the consequences suck, but Brandon knew what they were (a) when he chose to come here, and (b) when he chose to bring the Honor Code office into the equation through his conduct. If Brandon does what he is supposed to do, nothing else matters. It's not as if he had no clue things like this happen at BYU--he did grow up in Provo.

Gunk wrote:
Maybe. Situations like this actually make BYU look bad. We come across as heavy handed, unmerciful, backward, and to a degree, depending on the audience, we appear unforgiving. If national opinion were the motivating factor any PR professional, including myself, would tell BYU they're handling it wrong.



This has more to do with making an example of high-profile athletes for current and future BYU students then it does for positioning BYU as a beacon of Christian values to the rest of the world. How many sinners did Christ accept and associate with after all? BYU uses situations like this to set the tone and instill fear of recourse among its student body. Believe me, a whole shock has gone through the student body. They've all been reminded of consequences. The Michelle Peraltas rejoice.

So Gunk, was did Brandon do to get himself kicked off the team? If he was out there poking some girl and BYU just looked the other day and everybody found out about that, what do you think the national opinion would be then? Wouldn't it probably be "Well, BYU is just like the schools from the SEC who protect the good athletes and look the other way when the jocks do something immoral that should have worse consequences for anybody else."



Do you know why Brandon Davies was handed his walking papers or are you making several unfounded assumptions in coming to your conclusion of why it is bad for BYU to observed the HC?



Christ told everybody to forgive, I absolutely believe that, but nowhere in the scriptures have I ever seen the phrase "forgive and forget" nor anything like that. Forgiving somebody does not mean that we should immediately start trusting that person or trying to do everything to protect that person from any and all consequences of his or her actions.



As far as your parting shot about all the the Michelle Peraltas rejoicing, suppose BYU decides to be more like the other universities, wouldn't all the Gary Gilmores out there rejoice also? Who gives a damn if Michelle rejoices or not. She doesn't have anything to do with this, so why did you bring it up and besides, you have no idea what she thinks about this or even she even thinks about it.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

Lawboy wrote:
This talk of having a different standard based upon the profile of the individual is ridiculous. A standard is a standard is a standard. You enforce it equally or it is arbitrary, and God's law is not arbitrary. If the HC is arbitrary, that makes it a poor standard. Plain and simple.

Exactly.



Yes, i know they are student athletes. Yes, I know they are ambassadors for the school, etc. But so was I while doing my internships, so was why will working at my summer jobs, so was I while walking down the street. The rules may be the same, but consequences are not equal.

Agreed. Not defending the player or the HC.



Not even the molliest mormon girl lives the HC in full. (I should know, I married her... :) ;) :) )



But, as a player, you are upholding your end of the scholarship deal, and at BYU, there are volumes more that you are enforced to uphold.



I wonder why there is even an HC office, and committee. I think things should be up to the bishop/ecclesiastical leader and the student. If the Bishop/EL thinks that the University should be advised of something, he can do it then.



Is this not the way things are done? I didn't attend the Y so I don't know the process.

Yes, Blue that's supposed to be how it's done. Unfortunately, though, it's all dependent on the personal opinion and views of the violator's Bishop, which I'm sure we can all agree on vary dramatically. I've known Bishops at BYU that wouldn't report anything to the HC because they wanted the student to stay at BYU where it was a good environment for them. I've also known Bishops you felt strongly that if a student broke the HC then that student's spot should be made available for a Peter Priesthood or Molly Mormon (can't have any imperfect people at BYU) that is willing to live the HC.



It's like the security guards at the MTC making sure missionaries, who are adults and are at the MTC of their own free will, aren't breaking any of the rules...

Gunk wrote:
As it's set up now, the HC breeds underground, secretive behavior.

So does Mormonism generally. And catholicism. And everything else that teaches that some things are to be avoided.

Gunk wrote:
Maybe. Situations like this actually make BYU look bad. We come across as heavy handed, unmerciful, backward, and to a degree, depending on the audience, we appear unforgiving. If national opinion were the motivating factor any PR professional, including myself, would tell BYU they're handling it wrong.



This has more to do with making an example of high-profile athletes for current and future BYU students then it does for positioning BYU as a beacon of Christian values to the rest of the world. How many sinners did Christ accept and associate with after all? BYU uses situations like this to set the tone and instill fear of recourse among its student body. Believe me, a whole shock has gone through the student body. They've all been reminded of consequences. The Michelle Peraltas rejoice.

How it is perceived is entirely up to each person. Some groups won't be pleased so long as the school has any sort of Honor Code. But others, such as myself, while terribly disappointed at the loss of a very valuable player during such a promising year, but on the other hand I am very pleased that the school is sticking to their principles.



Compare that to the NCAA's handling of Cam Newton, where a blind eye because a National Championship run was at stake. Sure, they will crack down on lesser programs for the most minor infractions, because they take their student althetes and amature status very seriously....unless they are making a title run.

dmcougar wrote:
If the tweets are accurate let me summarize the data.



#1. We have a BYU Athlete who is academically elligible. Fine, we can rule that out.

#2. The HC office is still investigating the information and yet they have determined an action. Good one HC office.

#3. We have a BYU Athlete who has "broken the honor code" and although not "dismissed" from BYU, has been dismissed from the team. Ya, thats consistent implementation or is that execution (pun intended) of Honor.



And that my noble, honorable, believers is called the basis of my doubting the HC office, run by imperfect folks. Or at least an indictment of the system. NOt so much the code, but the system that administers that code.



My only caveat is that Brandon's action were so egregious or so likely to become public that action had to be implemented swiftly and without whatever "2nd chances" that many students have been granted.

Nice logical analysis based on tweets. Amazing. :roll:

urroner wrote:

Maybe. Situations like this actually make BYU look bad. We come across as heavy handed, unmerciful, backward, and to a degree, depending on the audience, we appear unforgiving. If national opinion were the motivating factor any PR professional, including myself, would tell BYU they're handling it wrong.



This has more to do with making an example of high-profile athletes for current and future BYU students then it does for positioning BYU as a beacon of Christian values to the rest of the world. How many sinners did Christ accept and associate with after all? BYU uses situations like this to set the tone and instill fear of recourse among its student body. Believe me, a whole shock has gone through the student body. They've all been reminded of consequences. The Michelle Peraltas rejoice.

So Gunk, was did Brandon do to get himself kicked off the team? If he was out there poking some girl and BYU just looked the other day and everybody found out about that, what do you think the national opinion would be then? Wouldn't it probably be "Well, BYU is just like the schools from the SEC who protect the good athletes and look the other way when the jocks do something immoral that should have worse consequences for anybody else."



Do you know why Brandon Davies was handed his walking papers or are you making several unfounded assumptions in coming to your conclusion of why it is bad for BYU to observed the HC?



Christ told everybody to forgive, I absolutely believe that, but nowhere in the scriptures have I ever seen the phrase "forgive and forget" nor anything like that. Forgiving somebody does not mean that we should immediately start trusting that person or trying to do everything to protect that person from any and all consequences of his or her actions.



As far as your parting shot about all the the Michelle Peraltas rejoicing, suppose BYU decides to be more like the other universities, wouldn't all the Gary Gilmores out there rejoice also? Who gives a damn if Michelle rejoices or not. She doesn't have anything to do with this, so why did you bring it up and besides, you have no idea what she thinks about this or even she even thinks about it.

Urroner, I have no idea what Davies did nor have I speculated as much. I have merely given my opinion on the discrepancies between students and student-athletes and the HC and the motivating factors for BYU's public handling of the situation.



For the record, I am a fan of the HC. I just feel it needs to be enforced differently. And regardless of how it's currently enforced, Davies agreed to abide by it and he didn't. I'm not refuting that nor am I saying he be given a hall pass because he's an athlete. I'm a man of high integrity that believes in doing the right thing, regardless of what others think.



I doubt the SEC could care less if their athletes are poking women as long as it isn't illegal. We don't know what Davies did. Let's assume it wasn't anything illegal, in which case national opinion wouldn't suffer. Besides, the Church does not care what the nation thinks when it comes to the HC.



My point is, Urroner, is that BYU athletes endure harsher consequences to HC violations than students. There is no sweeping under the rug going on here. Quite the opposite.



As a former seminary teacher, I am well aware that no where in the scriptures does it say Forgive and Forget. No such thing as "free agency" either.



I'm just saying the consequences should be the same across the board for all students, and right now they are not. Had I made such a mistake at BYU no one would have known about it. Not even my parents. I could have gone on as a regular student. Davies, however, gets kicked off the team and his dirty laundry aired out in public. Consequences are not the same.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

I've said this so many times in the last few years: BYU should have an honor code, but it should only be involved in appropriate things related to the student's relationship with the university itself and not regarding their worthiness in the church.

In other words, it should be just like any other institution of higher learning. This is a tired argument. The HC isn't a secret. It involves no more than average righteous Mormon living (no unmarried sex, no drugs, no alcohol, no weed, etc...). Is that really so hard?

I don't think it's about "being so hard", it's about it being appropriate. I don't think it is. As for our honor code being like every other institution's of higher learning, I addressed that in the rest of my note that you didn't quote. I don't think BYU needs an over the top, inappropriate honor code/system to be unique. It's unique in plenty of other major ways already.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

honor is good. the way its administered in terms of punishment is ridiculous. yes, it ultimately is davies' fault, he knew what he agree dto and then then didn't follow it, but its a high standard and everybody makes mistakes. it should be there to help them not freakin destroy them.

You're right. Let young people do things without any consequences. That will help us restore sanity to our civilization. :whistle:

You can't avoid the consequences of your decisions. But BYU tries to dole out those consequences themselves (playing the role of God) rather than trust the system God already set in order from the foundation of the world. I hope they change that some day.