VST3 - Shhh. It's happening again.

Another one joins the fray.

http://www.softube.se/index.php?p=news&id=154

perhaps when VST3 supports dockable toolbars 

Nugen Audio as well, for their excellent Stereopack plugs...

Too bad it doesn't list the details of why this is important or why the end user would want it. i.e. the benefits of VST3 as pertains to their plugins. As it is, all I see is "VST3 will add additional features"

So for someone who knows very little about VST3, I look at that page and say "ehh" and move on to something else.

Ehh...

From the page that was linked:

Key features

Support for external sidechain inputs

Improved CPU performance

Improved usage of the AI knob on Steinberg audio interfaces

The VST interface specification was updated to version 3.0 in 2008. Changes included

• Audio Inputs for VST Instruments

• Multiple MIDI inputs/outputs
• Optional SKI (Steinberg Kernel Interface) integration

The VST interface specification was updated to version 3.5 in February, 2011. Changes included, among others, Note Expression where "each individual note (event) in a polyphonic arrangement can contain extensive articulation information, which creates unparalleled flexibility and a much more natural feel of playing."

from teh wikipedias

speaking of the whole thing.. there is an article / interview with FX expansions MD

CM164 page 12

steinberg changed the past format , instead of building on 2.4.. = made dev times even longer

so whats the priority for end users... x64 versions... or vst 3?

I know I'd rather not be using bitbridge for ANYTHING

I take what people like him and Noel more as factual... after all they are working with this stuff and not just spec sheet reading.

I'm very much in favor of 64 bit then vst 3.0

will vst3 make my mixes automatically better or something?

Mooch4056


will vst3 make my mixes automatically better or something?

Only if you use Cubase.

Mooch4056


will vst3 make my mixes automatically better or something?

Not so sure. You're awesome as you are.
(or are you?)

Audio inputs for VST plugs would be GREAT.  Right now we only have 2 comp and one gate option for sidechaining in Sonar.  Also, comps that take a sidechain like my vocal rider from waves do not work off a sidechain in Sonar.   A VST3 implementation would would give plugs much more flexibility.   You could do all kinds of stuff with freely routable audio input into any plug. 

mechuniversal


Audio inputs for VST plugs would be GREAT.  Right now we only have 2 comp and one gate option for sidechaining in Sonar.  Also, comps that take a sidechain like my vocal rider from waves do not work off a sidechain in Sonar.   A VST3 implementation would would give plugs much more flexibility.   You could do all kinds of stuff with freely routable audio input into any plug. 

Hi all,sorry but if you sidechain the bus is the same or not?VST 3 is not a great improve for me...

Best

Roby

Its about time Cakewalk and SONAR start supporting VST3.
What are they waiting on...... VST4? 
I have plugins that are in VST3 format too. Why shouldn't I be able to use them in SONAR X1 too?

From now on I'll consider everyone demanding VST3

- a troll
- a Steinberg shill
- an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Pick at least one...

dreamkeeper


From now on I'll consider everyone demanding VST3

- a troll
- a Steinberg shill
- an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Pick at least one...

sure...
 
The idiot must be you...- an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Freddie H

dreamkeeper


From now on I'll consider everyone demanding VST3

- a troll
- a Steinberg shill
- an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Pick at least one...

sure...
 
The idiot must be you...- an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Ah, so sorry... wrong guess! Wanna try again?

Shhh...

Be nice to one another.

We will collectively rejoice if and when Cakewalk supports VST3 and we can use the VST3 sidechain standard therein. Vocal Rider for one. All others as well.

I am a voice crying in the wilderness.

dreamkeeper


From now on I'll consider everyone demanding VST3

- a troll
- a Steinberg shill
- an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Pick at least one...

That is not fair! I am an advocate of X1 and really enjoy using it, but this is a feature I would like to see (not demanding it, but I want to see it). I can respect and even accept Noel's explanation (in previous threads) that this is not as easy to integrate as one might think. However - your post seems very inaccurate, and borderline rude.
 
Waves Vocal Rider is a prime example. It is a popular plug-in, that requires VST3 for full functionality. The plug-in works "good" under the current spec, but needs VST3 in order to side-chain. Side-Chaining is where that plug-in changes from "good", to "exceptional" (of course, that is just my opinion ). This works perfectly well in Cubase (to be expected) and Studio One (maybe others as well), but will not work in Sonar because of the lack of VST 3 support.
 
Sure I want plug-in vendors to work on 64 bit support more than VST 3, but what is wrong with wanting Sonar to support VST3. I'm patient, and I will wait for that day - likely no matter how long it takes - but I will not tolerate being called a Troll or an "idiot that does not know what they are talking about" while I am waiting.
 

I'd prefer plugin providers to work on development of native x64 plugs rather than develop plugs for VST3.

I think CW however should consider VST3 support as some plugs require VST3 support to operate to their fullest.

Just in case anyone missed it (it has been explained umpteen times):

VST2 can side-chain very well, and could do so even before Sonar made it accessible. There are a ton of "old" plug-ins with side-chaining capabilities. Those few that don't work in Sonar, use proprietary techniques that most likely have nothing to do with the VST specs.

VST2 plug-ins can have as many audio inputs as the developer decides to implement. The VST3 side-chaining is part of the smoke-and-mirrors tactics of Steinberg - some may call it "marketing".

Also VST2 plug-ins can save CPU and stop processing if the developer decides to implement this. I've even tested this with Synthmaker - no problem at all.

Yes, multiple MIDI ports are new in VST3, and the same goes for dynamic changes to the in-/output configuration AFAIK. Though many developers have stated that this could've been achieved with some small additions to the spec in VST2 as well, without losing backward compatibility.

And that's the last time I've explained it...

dreamkeeper


Just in case anyone missed it (it has been explained umpteen times):

VST2 can side-chain very well, and could do so even before Sonar made it accessible. There are a ton of "old" plug-ins with side-chaining capabilities. Those few that don't work in Sonar, use proprietary techniques that most likely have nothing to do with the VST specs.

VST2 plug-ins can have as many audio inputs as the developer decides to implement. The VST3 side-chaining is part of the smoke-and-mirrors tactics of Steinberg - some may call it "marketing".

Also VST2 plug-ins can save CPU and stop processing if the developer decides to implement this. I've even tested this with Synthmaker - no problem at all.

Yes, multiple MIDI ports are new in VST3, and the same goes for dynamic changes to the in-/output configuration AFAIK. Though many developers have stated that this could've been achieved with some small additions to the spec in VST2 as well, without losing backward compatibility.

And that's the last time I've explained it...

Stop using logic and facts! You'll start a riot!

BEATZM1D10T

dreamkeeper


Just in case anyone missed it (it has been explained umpteen times):

VST2 can side-chain very well, and could do so even before Sonar made it accessible. There are a ton of "old" plug-ins with side-chaining capabilities. Those few that don't work in Sonar, use proprietary techniques that most likely have nothing to do with the VST specs.

VST2 plug-ins can have as many audio inputs as the developer decides to implement. The VST3 side-chaining is part of the smoke-and-mirrors tactics of Steinberg - some may call it "marketing".

Also VST2 plug-ins can save CPU and stop processing if the developer decides to implement this. I've even tested this with Synthmaker - no problem at all.

Yes, multiple MIDI ports are new in VST3, and the same goes for dynamic changes to the in-/output configuration AFAIK. Though many developers have stated that this could've been achieved with some small additions to the spec in VST2 as well, without losing backward compatibility.

And that's the last time I've explained it...

Stop using logic and facts! You'll start a riot!

Oops! Guilty as charged. Figured that no one would notice...

dreamkeeper


Just in case anyone missed it (it has been explained umpteen times):

VST2 can side-chain very well, and could do so even before Sonar made it accessible. There are a ton of "old" plug-ins with side-chaining capabilities. Those few that don't work in Sonar, use proprietary techniques that most likely have nothing to do with the VST specs.

VST2 plug-ins can have as many audio inputs as the developer decides to implement. The VST3 side-chaining is part of the smoke-and-mirrors tactics of Steinberg - some may call it "marketing".

Also VST2 plug-ins can save CPU and stop processing if the developer decides to implement this. I've even tested this with Synthmaker - no problem at all.

Yes, multiple MIDI ports are new in VST3, and the same goes for dynamic changes to the in-/output configuration AFAIK. Though many developers have stated that this could've been achieved with some small additions to the spec in VST2 as well, without losing backward compatibility.

And that's the last time I've explained it...

I am not going to argue these points at all - they make sense. But most of what you are saying is actually an argument for the Plug-In Vendors, not with us users.  It doesn't matter to us if the vendors "could have done it with VST 2", the fact remains - many of them are NOT staying with VST 2, they have moved on to VST 3, like it or not.
 
I don't believe any of us are demanding VST3 development from Plug-In Vendors, all we ask for is VST 3 support (without losing VST 2) in an up coming version of Sonar so we can use the latest round of plug-ins to their fullest potential. If that makes me a Troll or an Idiot as you suggested earlier, so be it

You don't understand. I'm not arguing for the vendors (if anything, then against those supporting VST3 only...) but against Steinberg's fishy marketing tactics. With the introduction of VST3 they wanted to get a headstart - after they realised that they screwed up with VST2 and are no more in control of it. Remember how long it took until they made the SDK available?

It's my firm belief that such tactics shouldn't be supported - as simple as that. If there are plug-in vendors who don't provide a proper VST2 version, then ask them to do so. Hope that's clearer now.

And btw: There's nothing wrong with asking. I chose my wording carefully - hence the term "demand".

I LOVE Cubase 6 !! VST3.5 support and Note Expression with Halion 4 !
Whooops, wrong forum. Sorry guys. ;)

I'm not the most intelligent person in the world, but...

All anti-Steinberg religious wars aside, it seems to me that if a significant number of plugin providers move to VST3, it may be in Cakewalk's (and our) best interest to implement support for VST 3. After all, Cakewalk can be influenced by the market.
 
We will see what happens.

mountaincruz


I'm not the most intelligent person in the world, but...

All anti-Steinberg religious wars aside, it seems to me that if a significant number of plugin providers move to VST3, it may be in Cakewalk's (and our) best interest to implement support for VST 3. After all, Cakewalk can be influenced by the market.
 
We will see what happens.

Seems to me to be a very reasonable point of view.

At some point CW will support VST 3. For me at present, I would much rather have the developers go to 64 bits  than VST 3. VST 3 can wait.

Freddie H


Its about time Cakewalk and SONAR start supporting VST3.
What are they waiting on...... VST4? 
I have plugins that are in VST3 format too. Why shouldn't I be able to use them in SONAR X1 too?

For some reason I thought VST3 format was backwards compatible with VST2? So you can't run a VST3 plugin in Sonar?


If things are moving in this direction, it would be nice for Cakewalk to support VST3.

For some reason I thought VST3 format was backwards compatible with VST2? So you can't run a VST3 plugin in Sonar? If things are moving in this direction, it would be nice for Cakewalk to support VST3.

 
I don't know about all VST3 plugins, but I think the problem is that there are "features" of the plug in that will not work.
 
For instance - "Waves Vocal Rider". It is VST3, and will open in Sonar, and even work. But the side-chaining feature of the plug in (that makes it special) is based on the VST3 spec, and it will not work in Sonar. So you end up with a half-funtioning plugin.

Also, and maybe not related to VST3, it would be nice if you could automate the bypass of effects in effects bins. I've always hated how using a plugin in Sonar always consumes CPU whether it needs to or not. Same with virtual instruments. I know it doesn't have to be this way, at least with plugins as this is possible in SAW Studios. Though, I do have to admit I don't know how well it works.

I don't know why it is so hard to just implement it in SONAR X1? What's wrong with OPTIONS?
I mean if you don't like it use VST2. For us that want to use VST3 aswell let us have the OPTION to use it...
Its out there already and its working....

Presonnus Studio One scans both VST2.4 and 3 plugins.

mudgel


Presonnus Studio One scans both VST2.4 and 3 plugins.

so do Cubase too...there are no problems with VST3 working together with other VST2.4 or even older VST backward...so I don't now what's the problem is? Just add support for it in SONAR. I mean 64 bit bit bridge technology are 1000 times more complicated then adding VST 3 support in SONAR X1. Takes a couple of lines of codes in SONAR X1 and then add the FREE VST3 Pack from Steinberg and then you are done...  

the problem could be that it'd be a nightmare to implement/integrate into the existing "mature" codebase, i'm sure they'd've done it otherwise

ok dreamkeeper - your second post brings up some good points i did not know about.  well, it's too bad developers are not making the most out of vst2.   but it seems the newer plugs are getting better.   (not like hardware where the best of today is often at best as good as the old stuff - mabye there's a few examples of hardware that is new and that is better today -like mabye that bax eq thing - but those are rare and usually the exception)

anyway, just saying that the new plugs are probably getting better quick, and it's probably best for us to be able to use them, even tho alot of it is marketing bs no doubt.  i donno, if it is a difficult implementation then mabye it can wait till they are able to do it right.  there's always hardware comps and gates for sidechain tricks if you get sick of the sonitis stuff or the v64 - the external insert is working nicely now so there's that.  I'd actually really like to see a few bugs taken out of the step sequencer b4 anything else.. 

"I would much rather have the developers go to 64 bits  than VST 3. VST 3 can wait."

Last I heard SONAR was 64 bits. It seems as if some people are suggesting that SONAR shouldn't include VST3 so that third party non Cakewalk plug in developers will ignore VST3 (which they aren't) and develop for 64 bit... (which they are).

That seems like some high quality transcendental excuse making.

best regards,
mike

A long time ago in a land far away there was a company called IBM.  IBM being the big and nasty competitor that it was thought that they would own the O/S that would run on the x86 platform.  So they hired a little company that had all but taken over the PC world with its version of DOS to do its development for them.  Well, not all of its development just the messaging architecture and multi-threading library.  The little company was known as Microsoft or MS for short.  In IBM’s infinite wisdom MS could not possibly compete against them they were to small and didn’t have the money to play in the real game.  Well sneaky MS went off and developed a cheap application to run on top of DOS that looked remarkably familiar from an architecture point of view.  They called is Windows 98.  IBM tried to rally its customer base and destroy little MS with marketing and more marketing and customer reviews and customer support, I mean from a ‘Crossing the Chasm’ perspective they had all of the adopters endorsing there O/S and Token Ring network and the whole package. 
In the mean time behind closed doors IBM chose to go to market late with their O/S 2 platform and figure out how to make Windows 98 run in a window within the O/S, along with trying to support Ethernet, Banyan Vines and Novell Netware (NETBIOS).  IBM chose to go to market late in order to support an archaic architecture charging customers to support their printers and peripheral equipment.  Meanwhile little MS was developing the future (perceived) easier API’s, Industry RPC standards (Microsoft Industry Standard), standard developer’s kits (very painful, but something is better than nothing) and a method in which to debug (sorta) the code.  All the stuff was um, errr free, yea that’s the ticket but you had to give them you left nut to get the stuff.
The key to pay attention to is that MS owned the architecture, could explain it and could do whatever it wanted to, making it very painful for the O/S 2 Big Blue think tank to stay ahead of them once it was in place.  In fact MS in it’s infinite wisdom started to negotiate with all the other vendors putting a little clause in every contract that said unless the technology that you are developing becomes a part of their application (now a full blown O/s) the royalties received would continue to go to the owner of the invention.
I am sorry for the diatribe here.  I am a big Cakewalk/SONAR/X1 fan and had the first version on the 3.5 inch floppy disk drive back in the day, however, generally speaking the company that owns the standard, owns the development kit, owns the tools in which to develop the code is usually in charge of the direction that the industry or technology takes.  So to my point it really disturbs me to see that Yamah/Steinburg/Cubase basically own the VST road map rather than an open standards body but to not pay attention to them is folly and arrogant at best.  Is it fair? Nope, will we the consumers suffer because of it? Yes I believe we will.  But the model is already in place and unless something new comes along that is widely accepted by a large population of vendors supplying VST plug-ins both the consumer of DAW platforms and DAW platform consumers of VST technologies (Everyone Except Steinberg) are basically passengers in this roller coaster ride.
I think on the heels of a Major release such as X1 it is impossible for the development team to even strategize how to adopt the VST3.5 let alone the VST3 technology into its platform.  Architecturally I believe they have changed fundamentally how the underlying code base is structured and once the application itself is solid they can more easily leverage other technologies.  However, a new product release always has to go through the sort of turmoil we are experiencing with X1.  This is, of course, just my opinion and I fully reserve the right to put my own foot in my mouth at times.

My favorite company (vengeance) are going VST3 now. Please add VST3 Support in X1C

VST3 its important but more important to me its support for ASIO Direct Monitoring, and I been waiting a long time and cakewalk do nothing...

VST3 its important but more important to me its support for ASIO Direct Monitoring, and I been waiting a long time and cakewalk do nothing...


goodluck with that my multiface supports it so I would love to see it but I don't see it happening anytime in the near future.

cyphersuit


My favorite company (vengeance) are going VST3 now. Please add VST3 Support in X1C

+ 100000000000000000000000 please!!!
 
 
The only thing that's bad in SONAR is that it doesn't support VST3 yet? Cakewalk that often are first with all new Technologies are last with VST3? 

It won't be in x1c. X1c is a maintenance release not a feature release. 

As much as everyone would like to think it's as simple as adding a few lines of code, unless you've worked in an environment regarding software development you really have no clue. 

Integrating someone else's engine into your code could be trivial or it could be a nightmare. Throw in double development for x86 and x64 versions and the effort just got much tougher. On top of properly QAing all the features and making sure you don't introduce any regressions into the already stable VST code.

The point is that it takes time and a lot of cycles and will eventually come, when project management decides that it will provide the most bang for it's buck. The best thing you could probably do to get the feature is to formally submit it as a feature request to Cakewalk with your personal use case. Nothing says "important" like visible metrics. That equals dollars, which gets it on the release road map.

Any way, carry on :)

dreamkeeper


From now on I'll consider everyone demanding VST3

- a troll
- a Steinberg shill
- an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Pick at least one...

Well I just bought Cubase after many years of being Sonar exclusive, in part because of VST3 support (the other main thing being no EUCON support in 64 bit).  Which category do I fit in?

You know that if they spent the last year implementing VST3 that it would almost be useless since the latest version is actually VST3.5? (And all those cool plugs you "need" actually use 3.5 and they don't work with 3).

So, you say, implement VST3.5 then! Ok, another year later and guess what? VST4.
Anyone see a pattern? Not to mention tons of "wasted" programming man hours?

<Comedy>
"I want these new pro-street 18"x10" wheels to fit on my car!".

"But sir, 5 stud wheels don't fit on 4 stud pattern".

"Agghhh! When will they make this car with five stud pattern!!! Arrrghhhh!!! Can't drive car without wheels!!! Arrgghhh!"

"Sir? Why don't you just get a similar design wheel in a four stud pattern? Hmm?"

"Damn you! I want five stud pattern wheels damn it!!! Arrrgghhhhh!!"
</Comedy>

dreamkeeper


From now on I'll consider everyone demanding VST3

- a troll
- a Steinberg shill
- an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Pick at least one...

VST3 is a legitimate feature request. Please refrain from referring to those who want it as idiots or shills. Be cool. Cool?

SP

I don't think it should be a question of "how much work it is" but rather
"Do we want to see our customers to see X1 as the best DAW on the market?" If so, VST3 support should be there.

PS: Thanks, Seth ;)

Well - I do not say VST3 is not a legitimate request. Not at all...

I do, however, see some small difficulties here. I really don't know ho much developers Cakewalk has, but I think it is safe to assume they do not have (and cannot afford), the hundreds (maybe even thousands) of developers a massive company like Microsoft has. I think is is really safe to assume the number is well below the hundred, or fifty (or even twenty?)...

I do think a big chunk of work at this moment is devoted to nail the bugs in X1, including the nice extra's coming together with X1c. Also - a big part is devoted to prepare the next version of X1 (there has money to be made to pay those same developers). So - a lot of work is done at this time by a (assuming) not too big crowd. Implementing VST 3 requires a complete rewrite of at least the interface (not the graphical interface, but the software interface). As this is connected to a LOT of parts in the program it is a huge task. The question is - does Cakewalk has the manpower, time and money (if they have to hire additional developers) to do a full implementation of VST3, while at the same time hunting bugs and preparing the next big version?  This is a question I cannot answer...

Do I think X1 will get VST3 in the long term? I think so..
Do I think X1 will get VST3 in a very short term? I have my doubts..

In the past Cakewalk commented that (just before x1 was released) earlier Steinberg implemented their VST revisions differently then their earlier released code for others. So... Cakewalk, early implementer, had a lot of angry clients cause loads of VST products did not work as expected. This time Cakewalk is smart and waits till VST3 has had some time to set.... so to speak. I'm quite sure X2 will have some of that.....

And I like they waited this one out.....

Milamber - I think you need to get the facts about IBM/Microsoft story right, before you start using it in public.
 
1 - IBM hired Microsoft to make IBM Dos and made the mistake not to make sure to get the exclusive rights to it hence the MS Dos that was always a version ahead of IBM dos.
 
2 -  As far as I remember, the first Windows I ever tried was version 1.1 which was extremely slow, and the first decent working windows was not until version 3, and when version 3.1 with network fuctions built in came to market it became a success.
 
3 - IBM and Microsoft then agreed to work on a new operating system together, but a long the way IBM wanted to go one way and MS another, so they ended the partnership and the result was IBM's OS2 and Microsoft's Windows NT.
 
You will have to dig up the details if you want them
 
Sorry for interrupting the normal program carry on  
 

Telecaster


Milamber - I think you need to get the facts about IBM/Microsoft story right, before you start using it in public.
 
1 - IBM hired Microsoft to make IBM Dos and made the mistake not to make sure to get the exclusive rights to it hence the MS Dos that was always a version ahead of IBM dos.
 
2 -  As far as I remember, the first Windows I ever tried was version 1.1 which was extremely slow, and the first decent working windows was not until version 3, and when version 3.1 with network fuctions built in came to market it became a success.
 
3 - IBM and Microsoft then agreed to work on a new operating system together, but a long the way IBM wanted to go one way and MS another, so they ended the partnership and the result was IBM's OS2 and Microsoft's Windows NT.
 
You will have to dig up the details if you want them
 
Sorry for interrupting the normal program carry on  
 

For all the smart suits at IBM they sure think like a box of rocks don't they.

For someone such as myself. I could care less about opinions on if VST3 is relevant or not. Everyone is different and we are all in different situations musically and production wise. For me, an avid Cakewalk user since Master Tracks Pro. Someone who has every version except X1. I would very much like to use my Motif Rack XS editor in an environment I am familiar with.

I keep asking myself this.......why should I have to learn and pay for another DAW (Cubase, Pre Sonus Studio One or FL Studio 10) just to use my Motif XS? Yeah I know Steinberg messed this up, but as I look on the horizon, this request will only increase in demand. This is the only reason I havent updated to X1 and probably wont. Agree or not

Im just being real....as I keep my fingers crossed

If you read post 47, you will realise that VST3 is coming rather sooner than later ;)

i just want to give my +1 for a VST3 feature.

Just 2 reasons for me. Fabfilter plug-ins and VE Pro.

cyphersuit


If you read post 47, you will realise that VST3 is coming rather sooner than later ;)

Sorry if this disappoints, you, but my comment in post $47 was not meant in any way as a hint about if and/ or when VST3 might make it into SONAR. Right now I have no knowledge of our plans for VST3, or if we even have plans for VST3. And that's not to say we do or don't either way.

My comment was simply to let some folks posting in this thread know that it is in fact OK to request such a feature and to keep things civil.

SP

Seth Perlstein [Cakewalk
]


My comment was simply to let some folks posting in this thread know that it is in fact OK to request such a feature and to keep things civil.

SP

Seth Perlstein - Born with a peacepipe in his hand.

A1MixMan

Seth Perlstein [Cakewalk
]


My comment was simply to let some folks posting in this thread know that it is in fact OK to request such a feature and to keep things civil.

SP

Seth Perlstein - Born with a peacepipe in his hand.

Actually, a katana is more like it. But part of my job here is to help keep things civil, so I gotta do what I gotta do.

SP

was not meant in any way as a hint about if and/ or when VST3 might make it into SONAR. Right now I have no knowledge of our plans for VST3, or if we even have plans for VST3. And that's not to say we do or don't either way.

 
Yes, I see.  But can you tell us what your definition of "is" is? 

Seth Perlstein [Cakewalk
]

A1MixMan

Seth Perlstein [Cakewalk
]


My comment was simply to let some folks posting in this thread know that it is in fact OK to request such a feature and to keep things civil.

SP

Seth Perlstein - Born with a peacepipe in his hand.

Actually, a katana is more like it. But part of my job here is to help keep things civil, so I gotta do what I gotta do.

SP

Are you allowed to come in on your days off and cause trouble? It would only be fair :)