 The official C.A.S. Army rifle, A bit of flavor from my group to yours! |
  |
 Dec 8 2003, 03:03 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 26-November 03 Member No.: 5,852  |
Remington Arms MA-7v_
Design features (all): Barrel reduction, bullpup configuration, weight reduction (8 levels). Design features (v1 - non-combat arms soldiers): Integral foregrip, integral shock pads. Design features (v2 - combat arms soldiers): As v1, with integral laser sight. Design features (v3 - special operations soldiers): As v1, with integral rangefinder, integral smartgun-2, and detachable sound suppressor. Modified assault rifle ranges: S (0 - 45 m), M (46 - 135 m), L (136 - 315 m), E (316 - 495 m). Concealability: 6 (v1), 5 (v2), 5 (or 3 with sound suppressor) (v3) Ammunition: 30 (clip) Modes: SA/BF Damage: 8M/11S Weight (unloaded): 4.50 (v1), 4.75 (v2), 4.85 (or 5.35 with sound suppressor) (v3) Availability: 6/36 hours (C.A.S.), 8/4 days (Noth America), 12/2 weeks (everywhere else) Cost: 1340 (v1), 1840 (v2), 4250 (v3) Street Index: 2 (C.A.S.), 3 (everywhere else) Legality: 2-G Recoil Compensation: 2 -------------------------------- What's my point? Well, for starters, everyone likes new toys to play with. Also, I like feedback. It usually makes it easier to slide things past the GM. :D To try and answer two obvious questions ahead of time, full auto is a waste of ammunition (in my and the U.S. military's opinion), and the loss in range is insignificant in light of the fact that the unaided human eye cannot discern a human-sized form at ranges beyond 300 meters (according to the U.S. military). |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 03:06 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 100 Joined: 26-November 03 From: San Marcos, CA Member No.: 5,855 |
You do know that Cannon Companion states that the Setyr-Aug CSL is the Cassie weapon?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 03:09 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 26-November 03 Member No.: 5,852 |
On what page? I just read the entry three times, and it's not there on page 23.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 04:35 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 334 Joined: 17-November 03 From: Texas Member No.: 5,828 |
My 2 :nuyen: ... bullpup config is unlikely to be used as a standard AR anywhere (from IRL perspective); because of it's inherent awkwardness bullpup rifles add roughly 20-25% to the training times to adaptation, because they are not "natural". Integral recoil compensation is likely, however. Then throw increased conceal and a folding stock to the SF models (to make them more like SMG's for urban clearing, etc) I'm not a believer in suppressors for AR's for soldiers, the only suppressors in use modernly are for SMG's, where their power isn't hampered as much by the sub-sonic rounds the suppressors require, and they benefit from the shorter configurations because the suppressors make up the difference on the fore end.
Can't think of anything else right now for a general issue AR. Remember, go cheap with the CAS. They have a LOT of boys to equip. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 04:54 AM
Post
#5
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Eh? I guess the Austrians, Australians, French, British, Chinese, and Singaporeans just plain disagree with you then.
Dunno if you knew this already, but I thought I might as well clarify. Suppressors do not require sub-sonic rounds. It is just that the supersonic bullet crack makes so much noise that a suppressor with them doesn't allow the shot to go unnoticed, but it may still hide the location of the shooter. Lots more stuff in this recent thread. Extra-short carbines aren't that much longer than SMGs. Stock extended, the Colt Commando (which even Colt calls a SMG, apparently) is 10cm longer than the MP5s with collapsible stocks. Special operations forces use sound suppressors on assault rifles IRL, I can't see why not in the Shadowrun CAS army, especially when the base weapon is so incredibly small -- the same size as a Predator without the silencer. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 8 2003, 06:24 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
There are a ridiculous amount of issues with this gun, but for starters, I'd like to point out that you just built a set of assault rifles no bigger than a modern day compact pistol.
Incidentally, the Predator is, in fact, less concealable than this thing. I think you need to rework your numbers and drop the flat out retarded CC gun creation rules. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 06:43 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 186 Joined: 30-January 03 From: Redlands, CA Member No.: 3,996 |
Ya, I used the Cannon Companion FCG for a while and thought it was the best thing in the world, then I used Spudmans FCG and learned the errors of my ways. Here is a list of problems with your rifle.
1.) Way to concealable for a rifle. 2.) Dump integral accessories. 3.) Dump the internal recoil comp. If you are going to have integral gear on it, I would have the integral stuff restricted to smartlinks, thats the only way to go with smart linked weapons. Laser sights are not all that good IMO, Id rather use a red dot sight, because they are cheaper and not restricted to a curtain range which laser sights are. And red dots can also be incorporated into scopes, so it makes them that much better. Now if you want to make it so you can kit the thing out like hell, make it so it has something like a RIS or SIRS. Which would add two side mounts, and an additional top space, I would restrict the side and additional top space specific accessories like laser sights, tac lights, and the like. And if you wanted to take it a bit further you could have the barrel pre threaded, making external barrel attachments cheaper. Leave the kitting to the mission profile. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 06:46 AM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
<snorts> You can make far more obscene -- or at the very least, equally obscene -- weapons with Spudman's system than you can with the Cannon Companion. The only thing you have to do is use common sense and self-restraint with both. In other words, just like with any other set of rules, it's the mentallity of the person using them and not the rules themselves. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 8 2003, 07:02 AM
Post
#9
|
|||||||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
I don't know about Cannon Companion, but the first thing the (ancient) Street Samurai Catalog says about the Steyr AUG-CSL is that it is "The assault rifle of the Confederated American States!"
Besides the fact that several militaries use bullpup rifles today, could you explain what you mean by "inherent awkwardness" and "not natural"? There are certainly advantages and disadvantges to using the bullpup configuration, but I don't think I'd use either of those expressions to describe their faults. Unless, that is, you're talking about someone who is left-handed using one, but even then, most bullpups can be configured for use by left-handers without tools. I also do not believe that it would generally take 20-25% more training time to teach someone to use such a rifle in comparison to a conventional rifle. In fact, I would bet that it takes less time to teach the average person to use a Steyr AUG than it does to use an M16A2.
I suppose you'd better tell that to the suppressor manufacturers, namely Knight's Armament, who makes the M4QD for SOPMOD rifle and the SR25QD for the MK11 MOD 0. You also might want to tell OPS, Inc., Advanced Armament, SWR, Gemtech, Sound Technology... Supersonic bullet or not, suppressors offer enough advantages to the soldier to make their use practical on assault rifles. Of course there's no need for every infantryman in a military to have one, but special forces troops and snipers most certainly can benefit from them, if for no other reason than to protect their hearing. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dec 8 2003, 07:06 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 186 Joined: 30-January 03 From: Redlands, CA Member No.: 3,996 |
Okay, should have been more specific with the reason I dislike the CC FCG. When designing a firearm I know that the ample use of logic and common sense makes very balanced and sense able firearm. I dislike that some weapons that you try to build that are based on RL weapons can't be made without bending the rules. And weapons come out way to expensive then they should be, I mean once I made a bare bone heavy pistol, in fact it was clone of an Ares Predator. And it can out 100-200Y more expensive, the way they have the formula to determine the costs is way jacked up.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 07:20 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Right. That's intentional, because the assumption is that you're not churning out mass-produced weapons, you're making prototypes that someone picked up or limited-production runs. If you want a mass-produced gun, you get the GM to bring the price back down.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 02:30 PM
Post
#12
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 637 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,528 |
Having used the G3A3 battle rifle, M16A1 mattel toy and L85 varmint gun on at least one occasion during my 15 month in the german army, I have to disagree with the bullpub not being "natural". It takes some getting used the fact that you are closer to the ejection port and action but the gun itself handles nicely (and the scope was nice). Took me a single magazin to start "liking" it (If they had just used real ammo instead on 5.56N) According to the brits training with the weapon takes no longer then with their L1A1 (FN-FAL variant) and those trained with the sights from day one even get used to the weapon faster than with the older battle rifle. And the "adaption" time (transfering from normal=>bullpub) is no issue in the military. They issue you your rifle and the normally don't change the type (general rearmament as an exception) [M16/US =>1960-, G3/BRD=>1950s-1998,AK/UdSSR=>1950s-...) Integral recoil compensation is actually unlikely on an assault rifle. Light rounds and a preference for bursts (Full auto is what an GPMG / SAW is for) reduced the necessity for that additonal complication - one should learn from the G11 crap. And gasvents have some nice side effects - read up on the AKMS. Folding stock will (sadly) be common since it is useful for mech/airborne. Hopefully a stable one (unlike the UZI) with a good shoulder fit (unlike the G3A4 crap) I don't see a "carabine" version given the common use of body armor (IE the 5/3 cammo suit) since loosing power is a bad thing even today (and special ammo drives the pricetag of training way up) A good flash suppressor should be part of the weapon and if a reduction in sound is available without lengthening the weapon and making it more complex, go for it. If only to protect your soldiers hearing. Smartgun depends on your market. If you are building the next AK/G3 than leave it out and supply customers who are willing to pay with some external link (or, if you supply U[CA]S forces, with a vastly overpriced/engineered version) If you are building the next XM29 OICW you are supplying the U[CA]S forces... Personally I'd like to see something different along this lines: Rifle configuration (7S damage) Magazin fed with 20-30 rnds SA only External mounting for a scope/laser system (Scope for field, laser for CQB) Alternate smartgun (If you have time to configure for CQB) A rugged, useable folding stock if such thing exists, Alternatively a bullpub design Melee hardening and heavy barrel Folding bipod Cased ammo (for the show effect) IRL a polygonal barrel with chroming IRL a dustcover for the ejection port IRL ambidexterity for safety, charging handle and ejection port What I don't want to see: More computing power than the "Eagle" Underbarrel grenade launchers Some flimsy "fay tech" that's falling apart if a human/ork uses it Let the sucker wight in at 5-6kg loaded. Soldiering isn't for wimps. Michael -- An MG is okay if it sounds like the cross between a steam hammer running amok and a high-speed saw cutting into concrete |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 8 2003, 04:13 PM
Post
#13
|
|||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Seeing as how the US military is currently moving towards making the standard issue weapon a carbine and phasing out full length ARs completely, I have to disagree on this. And the potential CQB-units will still want some weapon that isn't a meter long, and it had better not be an SMG (because those suck far more against body armor than carbines do).
The first bit is in no way taken into account by the rules -- and shouldn't be, either, since we can safely assume that any weapon that can mount a flash suppressor of some sort will. The second is impossible by canon rules, and you're stuck with the incredibly large Sound Suppressor. -2 Conceal is HUGE. Is the weapon you are describing meant to be the standard weapon for all grunts in a military? I'll reply to the msg as if this were the case.
For a house-ruled construct, full-size rifle cartridge would be fine. By canon it makes no sense, since a basic AR (8M) will penetrate better than the 7S rifle.
I don't see this happening. If only with a 3-round burst, someone is going to be whining for autofire capability for CQB.
This is mostly a personal touch thingie, I know, but if a military uses cased ammo, it is because of budget issues. But that doesn't really matter, moving on...
In an MG or Marksmans rifle variant, certainly, but I disagree on giving these to every grunt. But then the SGs have it, so whatever. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Dec 8 2003, 04:45 PM
Post
#14
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 637 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,528 |
Okay, a bit out of order. BTW yes, planned as a standard rifle
The US is today(and only the US!) SR is sixty years in the future. Sixty years ago the US was in the process of phasing in the SA only M1 Garand. Carabines have been critisised already for lack of range/accuracy. Most other nations prefer a full barrel length (and go with bullpubs if necessary i.e) It's the US "fixation" with the M16 (M4 can reuse parts) and the "soon we have the XM8/XM29 wonder weapons) that lead to such abarrations. Time will show and correct. Besides CQB with 123cm of weapon is doable as any german soldier who did Hammelburg can tell you ;-) And the ability to out-range the REFORGER "guest" with his toygun is worth quite a few beers.
Actually quite a few modern weapons have/had a lousy flash suppressor - like the "Kick Me I'm an ami" light aka M16 that had a muzzle flash bigger than an MG3! And if sound suppression is to big, well let's continue issuing earplugs.
Actually, a few nations (i.e. France, IIRC Israel) have a bipod with their issue rifle (FA MAS, Galil) since it aids when shooting prone without a cover to rest the barrel on. Like in a leaping assault. Heavy barrels are not that uncommon on some older battle rifles either since they improve ruggedness. Maybe it can be subsumed under "melee hardening" and be dropped.
Mostly a politico/macho problem again. Using a full sized cartridge burst/full auto are next to useless. Even a huge guy (190cm/110kg/semi-serious body builder back than) has problems controlling a battle rifle on FA. Full auto is for the pigman, the rest gives aimed fire (and SA IRL is faster than one thinks) Bursts are "in" since some ideot in the Pentagon told the genius level intellects on capitol hill that burst will increase the chance to hit => decrease the training necessary => reduce the costs of training. Sadly the other genius level intellects around the world bought the concept and forced their armys down than stupid road.
The rifle has a better range. And despite the "most battles take place within less than 150m" argument, there are quite a few situations when this is not true. Gamewise the 7S means a slighly lower chance in penetration (OTOH we don't allow APDS for pistols(too slow) or ARs(too small diameter)) but a higher basic damage (two sucesses less to a kill) Michael (Yes, basically I want a souped-up G3ZF) |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dec 8 2003, 05:26 PM
Post
#15
|
|||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Well you should've said that in the first place. ;) In that case, go with 9S base damage. That's more likely to represent the .308Wins/7.62NATOs of the 2060s than 7S. And none of my comments on size, mode, barrel or bipod matter. Of course, the marksman's rifle should probably be based on the assault rifle in use by the same military. Which isn't that big a problem, the 7S "Carbine" models of the modular weapon systems set a precedent, no reason why there couldn't also be a marksman's rifle version of any assault rifle that does 9S, has heavy barrel and a bipod, is SA only, etc.
That's not really a valid argument, since assault rifles were in the process of being invented sixty years ago. We might as well be seeing some concept of weapon in use by most militaries sixty years from now that doesn't really even exist yet, except on the drawing board at some research facility.
Quality of flash suppressors isn't something I'm willing to make rules for... But if you want there to be modifers to spotting someone firing some sucky rifle, go ahead. Sound suppression isn't going to be standard for grunts for certain, unless there is some new breakthrough in technology, but I think it would be moronic not to have that capability for special situations.
I know a few nations have them, that's why I mentioned the Sig SGs (the first ones that came to mind). I hadn't paid any attention to the fact that the FAMAS has one too, though. And I've yet to see a Galil in use in Israel, so it can't really be called an issue weapon... It seems they use M16s and M4s for just about everything (feel free to correct me).
No disagreement there, you're talking with a guy who used to use SA even in MOUT, and this is with a 7.62x39 assault rifle which doesn't have anywhere near as much recoil as a G3. I think we can agree that if the recoil is closer to that of a RL 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 AR, the weapon will certainly have autofire in some form. If the recoil is closer to a G3, but it's used for CQB as well, I think it would still have some form of autofire. As for the range issue... I dunno. The only development in military firearms that is easily followed by someone like me, without any good sources, is that which happens in the US, and there the general trend is towards shorter range with the primary weapon. I house rule armor penetration too, and by my rules it would make a lot of sense to design issue rifles for larger calibers. In fact, there are several of larger caliber than the 5.45/5.56 and derivatives. I just try to avoid using those rules as arguments since, as far as I know, I'm the only person on Dumpshock that uses anything similar. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Dec 8 2003, 06:03 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 611 Joined: 21-October 03 From: Yorkshire Toxic Zone Member No.: 5,752 |
I don't know if this is Spudmans (I think its actually one of Eleanor Holmes'), but do yourself and favour and check out the Shadowrun Supplementals (find a post by Adam and follow the link. I can't remember the url). In one of them are tweaks to the pricing system for the CC's firearms design costs. [EDIT: I mean the design cost system I think belongs to Ms Holmes, not the Shadowrun Supplemental. Cos that's run by someone else...] The thing with the weapons design in the CC is that its really for prototype or customized weapons. That's why its so expensive. If you want to make production models, that therefore are a more realistic price, check out the system in TSS. its done (I THINK) by working out the average price of the listed assault rifles, and then creating them by CC, and working out the average cost from there. Then work out the percentage difference and use that as a multiplier for your CC designed gun. I think some work out more expensive, some work out cheaper. I can't remember specifics because we don't design weapons that often in our game. But when we do, I break out that TSS issue and use that if its a production model. The players, obviously, have to use the CC rules because they're protoypes or heavily customised existing guns. Of course, if I'm using a prototype gun on the NPCs I also use the CC rules cos its not fair otherwise. But for introducing new weapon corps or guns to the market at large the TSS rules I've found are excellent. Free, unrequested plug for the [insert unnecessarily flamboyant positive superlative) Shadowrun Supplemental over. And check out the Seattle issue while you're there. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 8 2003, 07:15 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 186 Joined: 30-January 03 From: Redlands, CA Member No.: 3,996 |
I have all the Shadowrun Supplemental on my hard drive, great reading, cant wait until the new issue comes out <if ever>. I read that article, considered using it at one time, but I am so a customed with Spudmans FCG that I don't use anything else. Besides, I prefer the Spudmans FCG, has a lot more options.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2003, 11:57 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 26-November 03 Member No.: 5,852 |
Wow, those responses were so vitrolic that I almost hate to reply.
1) The Concealability of 5 does not make it pistol-sized. It makes it compact. Convenient for urban warfare, stowing in vehicles, etc. 2) The bullpup objection was well-addressed . . . thanks. 3) Integral recoil compensation? There is none. There is a foregrip and shock pads. Most bullpups have foregrips, and many assault rifles have pads. The fact that those accessories provide RC is gravy. 4) If you read carefully, you would see that the sound suppressor was on the v3, for Special Operations units. Their missions are a bit outside the norm. 5) Show me a flash suppressor in CC and I'll put one on v1 and v2. 6) Show me a "red dot" sight in CC and I'll put one on v2 instead of the laser sight. (Or, with regard to 5 and 6, cut me some slack for my desire to work within the existing official rules.) 7) The Street Samurai Catalog was dated circa 2050-2055, IIRC. The (ommitted) flavor text with my rifle lists its date of adoption as 2058. Not that it matters . . . 8 ) Make it weigh more because soldiering isn't for wimps? A lighter weapon means more stuff can be carried in addition to it. Hence the transition from the M-14 to the M-16. 9) In my personal opinion, a x4 or x4.5 modifier for final price would solve the cost in CC issue, but I'm a player so I don't make those (GM) decisions. 10) With regard to shorter range, smaller size, lighter weight, et cetera, I only attempted to mirror the existing trends in the world today. Yes, not all countries have followed those trends, but like it or not, the US is the world's armament pacesetter. In any event, I appreciate those of you who attempted some constructive criticism. Had I but known that the weapon creation rules in CC are so unpopular . . . 11) Chrome barrel on an assault rifle . . . :please: |
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2003, 12:03 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
It only matters how your GM views the weapon creation rules. :grinbig:
As for the rest, run with it -- it's a nice enough weapon and it covers all the basics. -Siege |
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2003, 01:17 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
You want to explain to me how a concealability of 5— a conceal factor shared almost exclusively by pistols— does not make this weapon absurdly small when all other assault rifles offered in the CC don't go above 2. And, more importantly, when no sane human being would assign a conceal of 5 to anything remotely rifle sized?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2003, 01:22 AM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 26-November 03 Member No.: 5,852 |
Base Conceal for an assault rifle, 3.
Bullpup, +2. Barrel reduction, +2. Foregrip, -1. Rangefinder, -1. Net 5. Straight from CC. Now, can you please explain why your tone is so rudely hostile? Are you so perfect that you can criticize other's creativity (and sanity) with no concern for how it reflects upon you? Do you know what the word 'constructive' means? Sadly, probably not. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2003, 01:28 AM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,047 Joined: 12-November 03 From: Perilously close to the Sioux Nation. Member No.: 5,818 |
I would, however, decrease the conceal. See your both right, you from a rules perspective, him from a more "real life" perspective.
But I don't understand his totally unnecessary flaming... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2003, 01:47 AM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Because in real life it's a stupid concept that is flameworthy. He's making the critical error of thinking that real life has any application whatsoever.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2003, 02:17 AM
Post
#24
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
SA? as in SA-80? Granted my experience with it might be one off, But the rate of fire with it was something along the lines of fire, clear jam. Fire again, clear jam. Also Not one person i've spoke to IRL be it weapons instructors or RMC's or even just plain army boys have given this weapon any credit. Put simply the've all said it's shit. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 9 2003, 02:20 AM
Post
#25
|
|||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I believe that he's using 'SA' as a short form of Semi-Automatic, as in the mode-of-fire. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th April 2025 - 11:10 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.