dworkin wrote:

> This is a fantasy game with the elements and features of classic high 
> fantasy. This means there should be no reaction drive spaceships, 
> firearms, robots or any of the the other tropes of SF.
>
Hi William,

There are grey areas though.  You and I have both incorporated aspects 
similar to D&Ds SpellJammer into DQ, and those would be considered 
unacceptably tech-y by some and acceptable by others.

Yes, I think there is a difference between an "aether vessel" and a 
reaction drive starship, though it is largely in presentation than 
effect.  Robots and Golems are pretty much analogous -- again 
presentation is a big deal.  Guns too can be a grey area, though again 
there is a major difference between a musketeer period, inaccurate, 
single shot wheel-lock pistol and a laser pistol or energy rifle.  That 
said, presentation is once again of import -- a "wand" of "bolt of 
whitefire" might be OK, put a pistol grip and a trigger on it and now 
it's a laser pistol and undesirable.

Actually, at the expense of flogging a dead horse -- presentation often 
matters more than "actual" construction or tech.  Several GMs hated 
Axis' flying surfboard despite it being completey magical and low tech. 
 The wood floated 'cos it was made from "hovering elm" from the 
enchanted forest -- and straight out of the official DQ module of the 
same name -- it flew because Mortimer enchanted it for him with a ritual 
of instilling flight, and he steered it by way of a fairly simple 
sail... but, it _looked_ like a flying wind-surfer and that annoyed some 
GMs.  (Oddly, I think a similar item appears in the rather 
SpellJammer-like Disney film Treasure Planet).

> You may be a hot SF game GM and we are not stopping you from running 
> such games but please keep DQ in it's own genre.
>
Part of the problem with DQ's tech level has been so little "official" 
information on genre and tech.  Various GMs have played it as anything 
from dark ages to musketeer/buccaneer period -- though again, Star Trek 
does appear to be right out. (Except for that adventure I ended up in 
abroad the U.S.S. Essex).  :-)

>  Is a gentle reminder of the 10 commandments needed again for new GMs. 
> Please keep tech in your other games. Please.
>
It might be worth noting that the unofficial GMs guide has a editor  
note on the 10 commandments that says essentially that they were once 
relevant, now not so much -- and, at least in part, I tend to agree. 
 They were as written rather over the top and in some cases poorly 
thought out.  (e.g. time runs at same rate on all planes -- 
unnecessarily restrictive on GMs since the intent was to prevent giving 
away copious training time and was covered by the "don't give away too 
much training time" rule).

The tech rule could also be argued to work against SpellJammers too -- 
are they post-Renaissance tech?  But wouldn't affect cannons -- medieval 
tech, or wheel-locks -- certainly not post-Ren.

Another approach might be to put some positive information together on 
the standard flavour/genre of DQ.  "Classic High Fantasy" means 
different thing to different people and some more description would be 
good.  So little of the world's culture is easily available to a new GM 
or to a player that it is easy to make mistakes -- we see PCs with no 
idea where there race comes from in Alusia, or silly "joke" names that 
only disturb suspension of disbelief for other players.

If we do want some form of commandments -- hard and fast binding rules 
-- then let's at least think out what we want rather than ressurecting 
some rules that had uneven support amongst the GMs.

That said, a Rifts cross-over sounds like a bad plan.  Slightly less bad 
if PCs travel to another plane and encounter it there are the GM has a 
plan for limiting contamination -- but even then the one thing that will 
be contaminated is the PC's memories and ideas... I didn't much like the 
aforementioned "Star Trek" adventure for that reason.

Last point though, am I right in reading the start of your rant to 
suggest that the GM has permitted a PC lizard (non-standard race PC) 
with laser pistol?  WTF??  I know we no longer have a membership (GM) 
tribunal, but don't new PCs get seen by another GM?  Or can I now start 
letting people create Titan PCs?  :-)

Regards,
Martin

-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> >  Is a gentle reminder of the 10 commandments needed again for new GMs.
> > Please keep tech in your other games. Please.
> >
> It might be worth noting that the unofficial GMs guide has a editor
> note on the 10 commandments that says essentially that they were once
> relevant, now not so much -- and, at least in part, I tend to agree.
>  They were as written rather over the top and in some cases poorly
> thought out.  (e.g. time runs at same rate on all planes --
> unnecessarily restrictive on GMs since the intent was to prevent giving
> away copious training time and was covered by the "don't give away too
> much training time" rule).
>
> If we do want some form of commandments -- hard and fast binding rules
> -- then let's at least think out what we want rather than ressurecting
> some rules that had uneven support amongst the GMs.

I don't think we need hard, binding rules but guidelines are certainly a
good way to indicate the appropriate boundaries. Then if you are going to
break one of the guidlines you at least are aware of why they are there and
can avoid the problems they cause.


THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Note from the editor: The Ten Commandments may have been a good idea at one
stage during the evolution of the DQ Guild and DQ role-playing, - but
nowadays they seem a little dated. More importantly are not what was written
but the intentions behind them. The idea I think was and still is - that GM'
s will be responsible to other GMs within the game and DQ Guild. - Jono Bean


1. Experience shall be awarded according to the described in the document
entitled Experience Point Awards.'

Personally I have always thought this document encouraged too much EP to be
given out but it does seem to at least help to guide people to a standard
method of awarding EP.

2.	Thou shalt observe the Laws of Shaping, which are:
.	Law of Balance. The only shaped items that may be without flaws are those
of minor nature, for example, amulets, +5 +1 swords, etc. Flaws cannot be
removed without also removing the useful abilities.
.	The more powerful the magic, the worse will be the flaws. The difference
between the powers and the flaws will represent the value (see commandment
3).
.	Law of Non-indestructibility. No shaped item is indestructible --- there
will always be a way to
.	destroy it. If any part of a shaped item is broken the magic is lost.
.	No item will work always under all circumstances. This is not a flaw ---
just a hole.

I tend to think this is a damn good rule to keep people aware of. Item
writing is not a simple case of writing up something that sounds cool and
GM's need to be aware that in a multi-GM universe care needs to be taken
with items.

3.	The absolute maximum value of any shaping is 50,000sp.

The term absolute seems a little over the top but I don't think this rule
has been broken much ans so seems ok.

4.	The maximum net treasure that will be allowed per adventure is dependent
on the experience level:
.	1000sp for low level
.	2000sp for medium
.	3000sp for high level.
This is per session (approximately 4 hours of play time).

Does anyone pay attention to this? I had forgotton it was there.

5.	The Guild will lend money to a member to buy back items in the treasure
split if the adventurer has insufficient funds. Earlier debts must be
settled before further debts may be incurred in another treasure split.
Note --- the Guild will lend only as much as is required.

Why this is a commandment I have no idea.

6.	Thou shalt avoid giving extra ranks or characteristics. If you must, then
the maximums shall be as follows: Characteristics 1, Weapons 8 weeks, Spells
1000ep.

As I have had just about all of these broken in regards to my characters it
is a little hypocritical for me to approve of the rule, but in general terms
it is a good guideline.

7.	Time on all planes effectively passes at the same rate.

Probably better to phrase it as try not to give out too much training time
for free. But the intention behind the rule is a good one.

8.	Items, if of a post-Renaissance technology, will either not work or decay
into uselessness. All non-technological items must be converted into DQ
terms so as not to destroy the flavour of the game.

Damn skippy. I am 100% behind this rule. The conversion into DQ terms is an
important one and regardless of what tech something comes from it should
always be in DQ flavour.

9.	Thou shalt turn away characters if they will unbalance a party (reason
should prevail however).

I dfon't really think we have the numbers to enforce this anymore and it is
pretty much done anyway by the players themselves.

10.	Thou shalt always adjudicate for the enjoyment of the majority. Think
about this when rewarding individuals. Adventuring with superman is boring!

A good guideline.


In general the rules seem ok, although they could use tidying up a little.

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> Part of the problem with DQ's tech level has been so little "official"
> information on genre and tech.  Various GMs have played it as anything
> from dark ages to musketeer/buccaneer period -- though again, Star Trek
> does appear to be right out. (Except for that adventure I ended up in
> abroad the U.S.S. Essex).  :-)

I personaly see little difficulty. Magic follows very differet rules to
Ultra-tech even when the effects are the same. An Aether vessel requires a
special person a mage to run as opposed to the trained engineers which make
the Essex go. This of course pre-supposes that it takes some special quality
to be a mage. Claiming all PCs can be mages is not sufficient argument to
claim all sientients can do so. PCs by their nature are special.
Equally, anyone with the correct parts can assemble and start a robot. To
make a golem you need to be a binder otherwise you just get a statue or
ragedy-ann doll.

> >  Is a gentle reminder of the 10 commandments needed again for new GMs.
> > Please keep tech in your other games. Please.
> >
> It might be worth noting that the unofficial GMs guide has a editor
> note on the 10 commandments that says essentially that they were once
> relevant, now not so much -- and, at least in part, I tend to agree.
>  They were as written rather over the top and in some cases poorly
> thought out.  (e.g. time runs at same rate on all planes --
> unnecessarily restrictive on GMs since the intent was to prevent giving
> away copious training time and was covered by the "don't give away too
> much training time" rule).

They are hardly restrictive, although they do presuppose some inteligence on
the part of the reader.

> The tech rule could also be argued to work against SpellJammers too --
> are they post-Renaissance tech?  But wouldn't affect cannons -- medieval
> tech, or wheel-locks -- certainly not post-Ren.

Nor is movable-type but they and gonnes are both absent because they are not
fantasy. Fantasy does not correspond to any earthly TL. It really is a state
of mind. And in a multi GM game I don't want the feel of the story disrupted
because some player has an energy rifle, a knowledge of the historical
dialetic or even a copy of A Brief History of Time in their backpacks.


> If we do want some form of commandments -- hard and fast binding rules
> -- then let's at least think out what we want rather than ressurecting
> some rules that had uneven support amongst the GMs.

Actually some hard and fast rules are a good idea. Sure people are going to
break them, it's not as if I have a legion of jackbooted thugs who will
break down doors and rough people up, sigh :-)
Something that GMs can look at and wonder if they're playing too fast and
loose will help. Of course they're going to evolve a reason why time
traveling sharks with laser beams on their heads is justified in their case
anyway. But brain cells will hopefully be firing.

> That said, a Rifts cross-over sounds like a bad plan.  Slightly less bad
> if PCs travel to another plane and encounter it there are the GM has a
> plan for limiting contamination -- but even then the one thing that will
> be contaminated is the PC's memories and ideas... I didn't much like the
> aforementioned "Star Trek" adventure for that reason.

What I have to say on x-overs is largely unprintable. Even AD&D is
incompatable with DQ without major reworking, often so major that all you're
left with is the artwork.

> Last point though, am I right in reading the start of your rant to
> suggest that the GM has permitted a PC lizard (non-standard race PC)
> with laser pistol?  WTF??  I know we no longer have a membership (GM)
> tribunal, but don't new PCs get seen by another GM?  Or can I now start
> letting people create Titan PCs?  :-)

No Martin, no titans. Please. Getting the chacter seen by another GM only
means you need the agreement of two fools. Actually the PC only has the
laser pistol skill but it rather begs the existence of such weapons. I like
the idea of character tribunals. What's the point of the character
generation rules if someone has two friends (who are GMs) who will allow any
sort of abomination. I have a personal hatred of the 'substitute wierdness
for characterisation' thang. So that may be colouring my perceptions. The
fact that we could of replaced the player with a potted plant is another.
The character cannot interact with any NPC and is way too wierd even for
most of the PCs.  It is a roleplaying game after all. Tricky enough to try
and relate to sicko elves and pervert hobbits without worring about scaly
egg-layers.

William


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> > Last point though, am I right in reading the start of your rant to
> > suggest that the GM has permitted a PC lizard (non-standard race PC)
> > with laser pistol?  WTF??  I know we no longer have a membership (GM)
> > tribunal, but don't new PCs get seen by another GM?  Or can I now start
> > letting people create Titan PCs?  :-)
> 
> No Martin, no titans. Please. Getting the chacter seen by another GM only
> means you need the agreement of two fools. Actually the PC only has the
> laser pistol skill but it rather begs the existence of such 
> weapons. I like
> the idea of character tribunals. What's the point of the character
> generation rules if someone has two friends (who are GMs) who 
> will allow any sort of abomination.

When did we lose the Character Tribunal?

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

>When did we lose the Character Tribunal?

I don't know - when do you remember last putting it down?

I'd personally put it at four years since I last heard about it, but I
ignored it for years before that.

Andrew


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

dworkin wrote:

>>The tech rule could also be argued to work against SpellJammers too --
>>are they post-Renaissance tech?  But wouldn't affect cannons -- medieval
>>tech, or wheel-locks -- certainly not post-Ren.
>>
>Nor is movable-type but they and gonnes are both absent because they are not
>fantasy.
>
Well, maybe not in your fantasy...  :-)

Seriously though, printed books do exist in DQ, and are shown in the 
pricelist at 25% the cost of a handwritten volumns -- I guess it begs 
the question of movable type vs. woodcut and the like, but I'm not sure 
why you'd see typesetting as definitely outside a fantasy genre -- 
especially given the level of literacy usually seen in DQ (even outside 
of PCs).

> Fantasy does not correspond to any earthly TL. It really is a state
>of mind.
>
Yes, although "high fantasy" has connections in most people's minds with 
a kind-of pseudo medieval-ish europe or england.  The exact tech level 
is hard to pick and can most be infered from available weapons, armour 
and the like: there's improved plate, it's not dark ages then, ditto 
rapiers suggest a 16th C equivalent at least -- also the fairly 
cosmopolitan culture and larger cities suggest a later analogous-period.

> And in a multi GM game I don't want the feel of the story disrupted
>because some player has an energy rifle, a knowledge of the historical
>dialetic or even a copy of A Brief History of Time in their backpacks.
>
No Energy Rifles, check.  No Dialectic?  Err... you don't want PCs to 
discuss and reason by dialogue, or by systematic exchange of ideas?? 
 OK, I'm either missing the point or being whoosed.  No Brief History of 
Time, check -- well, it wouldn't matter -- Alusia just don't work the 
same way for a start, so it would be much the same as picking up a 
creation myth from another plane that recounts how all is mucous in the 
nose of the great god Zoo -- but flavour-wise I agree with you.

>Actually some hard and fast rules are a good idea. Sure people are going to
>break them, it's not as if I have a legion of jackbooted thugs who will
>break down doors and rough people up, sigh :-)
>
This is what you mean by fantasy then?  :-)

I was always happy for there to be a handful of hard and fast campaing 
rules -- like the EP one, as Mandos said, it might result in awards that 
are too high for some tastes, but at least they're consistent.  My 
issues with the 10 commandments was more a) the rather irritating mock 
biblical language and b) they didn't actually address the problem. 
 Mandos summed up the point of the "Laws of Shaping" very well -- and 
without introducing some pointless Flaws or Holes rule.

>What I have to say on x-overs is largely unprintable. Even AD&D is
>incompatable with DQ without major reworking, often so major that all you're
>left with is the artwork.
>
Oh, you mean an actual game system cross-over, not just background ideas 
and material?  Mmm...

>No Martin, no titans. Please.
>
Storm Giants?  Naga?  :-)

>The
>fact that we could of replaced the player with a potted plant is another.
>
Ah, well that is outside the scope of this discussion -- yep, had a few 
of them, in fact some where I think the potted plant would have actually 
contributed more to general party enjoyment just by being nice to look at...

>The character cannot interact with any NPC and is way too wierd even for
>most of the PCs.
>
That's annoying -- it pretty much screws the party dynamics up as well 
as the player.

>Tricky enough to try
>and relate to sicko elves and pervert hobbits without worring about scaly
>egg-layers.
>
We have had Suarime in the guild before, though they were never very 
popular, but I mean good grief, if we let in Orcs we can hardly balk at 
Lizards... they probably don't smell as bad.

-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

New suggested rules (for a new millenium)

1. EP should be awarded in a consistant manner and a GM should be able to
explain it all.

2. Powerful magic beyond investment and minor enchantments (+10%, +2 dice)
should be both obvious and have balancing flaws.

3. Magic is inherently unstable, unpredictable and dangerous. A magic item
will not work in precisly the same way everywhere/time. No device is truly
indestructable.

4. Thou shalt be err on the side of stingyness when designing awards.
Creative PCs will always get more anyway. It is easier to give a bonus at
the end than it is to dock loot.

5. Thou shalt err on the side of overconfidence when estimating how much
peril PCs can take. They are harder to kill than giant radioactive
cockroaches. Remember, they can always be resurected and probably will be.

6.Treat all organic abilities (extra stats, body parts, abilities) as magic
items which cannot be stolen or destroyed. While high fantasy includes it's
share of wierdos this isn't Xavier's School for Gifted Children.

7. Only indulge in time manipulation if your understanding is equal
to/exceeds Dr Hawking's. Seriously, question why this needs to be part of
your plot. What does it actually add to the game? And don't give out too
much free training time.

8. Non-genre items/concepts should not be part of the game. If you feel
absolutly that such a feature is required for your game translate it into DQ
terms. Try to keep existing concepts superior to whatever you introduce.

9. Question the need and validity for cross-overs. Then question them again.
Remind yourself that wierdness is no substitute for a good story and set of
interesting NPCs. Placing them on Mongo or Barsoom will not make them more
interesting. Finally ask yourself how this will add to the game in total.
Then do something else.

10. KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Do not multiply entities without need
(Occam's Razor). Why use a new race, monster or diety when the existing set
will do. Of course this can be less observed since the number of monsters is
pretty small. But if there is one already that will do the job, use it.
Players like the familiar.

William


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> >What I have to say on x-overs is largely unprintable. Even AD&D is
> >incompatable with DQ without major reworking, often so major that all
you're
> >left with is the artwork.
> >
> Oh, you mean an actual game system cross-over, not just background ideas
> and material?  Mmm..

The difference between bad-ass elves in mage-plate and going to the Many
Coloured Land. The difference between bringing down some 60' magic resistant
killing machine which looks like a big lizard and hunting down the Tarresque
on Faerun. The diference between being a GM and players with working brains
and playing CRPGs.

> >The
> >fact that we could of replaced the player with a potted plant is another.
> >
> Ah, well that is outside the scope of this discussion -- yep, had a few
> of them, in fact some where I think the potted plant would have actually
> contributed more to general party enjoyment just by being nice to look
at...

My point was that since the PC had no way of meaningfully interacting we may
of well of had the plant. He might be the greatest gamer ever. We are not
going to ever find out because his character has no point of reference with
any other.

> We have had Suarime in the guild before, though they were never very
> popular, but I mean good grief, if we let in Orcs we can hardly balk at
> Lizards... they probably don't smell as bad.

And this isn't a Saurime which I first assumed, when the player said no, I
said hang on. Orcs at least do have points of reference and are popular
fantasy bully boys. We don't need extra aliens. Wierdness does not make up
for characterisation.

William


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I thought I would try playing God as a counterpoint to William :-)

THE MANDOS TEN COMMANDMENTS

1. Experience shall be awarded according to that described in the document
entitled Experience Point Awards.' or by other appropriate means that gives
results similar to the aforementioned document.

2. Items shall be written with care and forethought. Wherever possible items
should be checked by another GM in order to spot problems prior to the item
entering the game. Note that powerful or useful items should have
appropriate flaws to ensure balance within the game as a whole.

3. The maximum value of any shaping should be 50,000sp. If an item is worth
more than 50,000sp then additional flaws or restrictions on use should be
considered.

4. Stats, abilities and other advantages given to characters should be dealt
with in a similar fashion to items but with the added note that they should
always be handled with more care and consideration. Many special abilities
can directly affect a players ability to play the character and this needs
to be taken into consideration. When in doubt consult with another GM.

5. Wherever possible please avoid timetravel on Allusia as it can pose
issues in a Multi GM campaign. Also avoid the potential for characters to
gain significant training time without considering the consequenses.

6. All items should be considered, written and designed with the DQ flavour
and in DQ terms. Items that are not written appropriatly may be rewritten by
other GM's causeing additional work for GM's and distress to players.

7. Teachable New Spells, Rituals, Talents and other oddities should be
checked and signed off by at least two other GM's as these can have a major
impact on the game.

8. A GM has the right to turn away players if they believe the integrity and
enjoyment of the game as a whole may suffer.

9. New GM's should always ensure they have an experianced GM with them on
their first few adventures. This individual should check all magic items
before they are dispensed and also be available to assist the GM with any
rule queries.

10.	Always adjudicate for the enjoyment of the majority. Think about this
when rewarding individuals. Adventuring with superman is boring!

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

dworkin wrote:

>And this isn't a Saurime which I first assumed, when the player said no, I
>said hang on. Orcs at least do have points of reference and are popular
>fantasy bully boys. We don't need extra aliens. Wierdness does not make up
>for characterisation.
>
There is a tendency for at least some GMs to give out character-warping 
abilities, and a demand from players for such abilities. Possible 
reasons for GMs to do this are that it makes players happy, the player 
will always remember that particular adventure ('the time I got 
laser-bolt eyes in Oz'), and the GM gets the ego-boost of making a 
difference to the game world. Possible reasons players want this is to 
differentiate their characters, and to have more power.

(Sometimes the players don't want it. I had a narrow escape from a 
character-warping item that got forced on me.  Fortunately it was so 
complicated that William's trans-dimensional elves got the chance to 
take it away before the writeup got completed. The writeup would 
probably have said it couldn't be taken away, but since it wasn't 
finished...)

I think this is OK in moderation, but it has got overdone. We start to 
get weirdness substituting for characterisation, and weirdness inflation 
- when the guy on your left is a giant acid slug, the guy on your right 
is a were-dragon and you already have a manticore's tail, what weirdness 
can the GM give you to make you stand out?

(In a related aside - I think there are also too many pacted PCs, and 
they seem to get very little disadvantage for the extra abilities they 
get. A pacted character should be almost totally devoted to whatever 
their power's goals are, not just yet-another-PC with a few extra 
wiz-bangs. GMs - start making the PCs pay for their pacts! Demand a 
human sacrifice or two...)


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> (In a related aside - I think there are also too many pacted PCs, and
> they seem to get very little disadvantage for the extra abilities they
> get. A pacted character should be almost totally devoted to whatever
> their power's goals are, not just yet-another-PC with a few extra
> wiz-bangs. GMs - start making the PCs pay for their pacts! Demand a
> human sacrifice or two...)

I have to say I disagree a little here.

There is certainly a lot of pacting that occoured in the past few years, but
all of the characters I have seen with Pacts have disadvantages that match
the upsides, and that goes for the light and dark chaps.

To those who are not pacted it might seem like a free lunch but there are
always considerations that have to be thought about, restrictions that have
to be dealt with. As in real life people work to mimimise these effects so
that they can easily deal with them and also so that other PC's do not have
to suffer because of them.

The effects therfore come out as simply strange ways of doing things or
slightly odd responses that people do not see but have a great effect on the
choices the pacted player can make.

Mandos
(A player of a pacted chappy)
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Mandos wrote:

>There is certainly a lot of pacting that occoured in the past few years, but
>all of the characters I have seen with Pacts have disadvantages that match
>the upsides, and that goes for the light and dark chaps.
>
And quite few PCs get very little out of it.

On the other hand, I think there is too much of it about -- and I tend 
to think that it should be something that only higher level PCs (however 
you define that) can aspire to -- afterall why would some 
god/power/demon make a yobbo newbie adventurer an Agent?  What do they 
get out of it?

-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --