Marriage is a human institution recognized in law as sufficient to warrant special legal protections, privileges, and conditions. These special applications of law occur on publication of the marriage, not upon the ceremony or issuance of a license. On publication, the family is often treated as a unit with a single purpose, and the independent purposes of the family members are considered to be merged into that family purpose, even when obviously acting as legal individuals, there is an assumed unity in purpose. This is noted in criminal law by the rule that one spouse cannot be made to testify against the other. It is commonly noted in property law by special support for shared ownership in real property. It is noted in taxation by treating married couples differently than individuals. The family law tradition supported since feudal times is based on a man and a woman in relationship with a potential for parenting the next generation of people. In more recent times, recognizing the legal benefits of being married, there has been an effort to widen the definition of marriage to include other conflicts where people would merge their interests and act as a unity. This change in defining marriage is a social challenge, not a legal one. As people are the only party in interest, the challenge will not be resolved through changes in law. The law should change to serve the people as their wants and needs change. Destructive government is noted where the government takes sides and sides to solve unresolved citizen disagreements, supporting some citizens and overcoming the rest. On the positive side, the United States government only exists to support the people, not to rule over them. The granting of legal benefits to family units creates a legal complication if the marriage arrangement is later denied. Dissolution confuses joint authorities and responsibilities. It affects both property and any offspring of the marriage relationship. This is complicated by emotional suffering. The parties to the marriage have been in a trusting relationship that was entered into and likely practiced with the expectation of relatively permanent benefit. Dissolution or divorce defeats the expectation, leaving the parties with a sense of loss and potentials for property ownership, for social status, and for exercise of authority and responsibility as do any dependents. This creates an emotionally charged environment which can easily turn personally violent or become a challenge to public tranquility. The process of divorce or dissolution is very likely to be painful to the parties and support unreasonably hostile behaviors toward each other. The involvement of police authority is natural, with a court involvement providing the threat of interference to help the parties find nonviolent resolution of the challenges they face in the termination of their unity. The court rarely gets involved in their social challenges and then only indirectly. It is seen in issuing a protective order to keep physically at a distance, preventing one or both parties from attending the church where they worship together. The court is intimately involved in division of property interests and in protection of any minor children who are often brought forth as a focus for personal disagreements. The protection of legal authority is not simply required, it is a legal priority. The simple truth is that dissolution and divorce are not legal contests. In the end there are no winners, there is damage felt by all who are engaged. By tradition, since feudal times, the focus of the common law as do family matters has been on the creation of the next generation of common people. Their efforts would be the source of wealth and privilege of the children of the aristocracy. Children are the hue of human importance and the American revolution did not in any way change this as to legal focus. The only change was recognition of the sovereignty of different people, not the importance of children. There is also the recognition that children lack both personal and legal capacity. These are born helpless and will quickly die without adult support. Children take many years of attention, support, training and experience before they are even permitted to take part in adult society. Both the police and court authorities take notice of the needs of children and the family and stand ready as they are able to protect children as required and to support those who have responsibility to see to the next generation. There will always be challenges in this and it is especially sharp with children during their teenage years. They are both learning to behave as independent adults and are still legal minors who do not have adult authority or responsibility. While the maturation of young into adults is an ongoing effort, the legal shift is like flipping a light switch. By legal tradition, the switch is achieved at the age of majority. I might notice that there is also a social recognition of sorts, specifically witnessed in the Jewish community with a public ceremony, bar mitzvah for boys and bat mitzvah for girls, where that change to personal responsibility is recognized. To a certain extent, U.S. citizens receive a less definitive recognition at high school graduation through a commencement ceremony. It marks change of status, but not one based on gaining legal majority. There is no legal ceremony of passage, just the attainment of the age of majority. This shift to acceptance of responsibility is immediate and complete. The assumption is that the parents retain responsibility for the results of their actions at raising a child until the child attains that age, even though the teenager continues to learn and mature and that teenager has reached the capacity for independence by that age. That is the current system as supported in law. On death of a parent, the legal involvement is a combination of bankruptcy and dissolution. While the court involvement is not required, it is strongly indicated where the remaining wealth owned by the deceased parent is insufficient to cover the debts that have to be satisfied. The financially independent family with an older surviving spouse and one adult child is likely to pay off any further debts without court involvement, and the survivors decide between them what to do with the remaining property or wealth. A family that is unable to pay all its existing debts, or that has many surviving children who are jealous of one another, is likely to require legal support. The greater the number of unsatisfied parties to the estates action, the greater the need. The court's involvement is to provide a path for the nonviolent resolution of the estate and to assure that any remaining debts of the deceased are legally satisfied. The first principle of involvement is keeping the peace and seeing to domestic tranquility even if it has to be enforced. The second principle is to assure that obligations of the parents are not forced upon their children a matter of personal freedom. Every legal jurisdiction has a number of principles for it, the distribution of property of the deceased person, and even without a written will can proceed with division. If there is a will, it will be followed as closely as the legal rules allow. For the bankruptcy situation, the court will make division among creditors of that portion which is available for paying debts and will legally satisfy them with whatever portion can be provided. The court action closes any and all further collection actions as a matter of public policy and support for the next generation. The United States acting as a sovereign has increasingly involved itself in who is considered to be married and who is not. Granting special legal privileges to married persons will inevitably lead to attempts to garner those same benefits without addressing the original purpose. It is human, and it is accordingly appropriate. It is appropriate to test the margins, not necessarily appropriate to make decisions in one direction or another. In this area of challenge, we necessarily address areas of conflict, areas where there is a division in an issue. There is no potential for representing we the people until there is an agreement among us. One challenge is that our government units trying to act as sovereigns to direct the resolution of our differences has abandoned representation of we the people in favor of specially representing some people at the expense of others. This has been most notably recently with an attempt to define marriage as the result of declaring any unity or agreement to be a marriage. But akin to the recognition of rights of parents to direct their children that all people are required to honor. The ability of government to serve we the people is much in doubt as to such matters. And there is our peripheral matters that are not being addressed. Will we support wealthy senior pedophile who pays a poor family to authorize marriage to their 12-year-old boy? Such would be a potential to legalize what is now considered criminal behavior. It is not that we cannot answer such questions, but that we have not even taken a serious look at these matters. We commonly are called upon to take sides on these as a political issue. Where it comes to divorce and dissolution, we have the treatment of the parties to the action and separate address of their children. With teenagers, we have added the complication of their maturing independence. The courts sitting in equity on such matters are able to make judicial notice of the individual needs and to be reactive within the confines of teenagers continuing to be legal minors. The law is recognized as being inadequate to do a job of the courts. And so the judge is given the authority of equity. Should there be greater definition? Should there be a different treatment for teenage victims of parental division? We do not have specific answers. We can only speculate on whether answers to such questions are even possible. Yet, we are required to rely upon the very human variable capabilities of individual judges to determine a best course of action. It is unclear if courts have found a best direction for public interference in personal separation actions. As to the children of the family, we have the traditional and well tested approach of recognizing adult on gaining a specific age. This lights which approach to adulthood is certainly manageable and legally workable, even if it does challenge with holding parents responsible to the day their children do and reach that age and the next day putting responsibility upon the individual. Simplicity is not a service for we the people, even if it does have obvious and recognizable value to us. The question of the best service government can provide is still with us. 15 age students have some sliding scale of responsibility depending on their age and accomplishments. As with the Jewish ceremony, we recognize as human fact that teenagers accept their personal authority and responsibility progressively as they mature and this without any consideration for legal responsibility or authority. Can we achieve a better match so that the law directly supports the maturation of teenage citizens? Attorneys who do family law practice receive special orientation and engage in continuing professional sharing and training as part of that practice. It is recognized as a major requirement for competence in serving as advocates. Judges are elected and have encouragement or requirement for this special training and support only after they are already in service positions with responsibility for legal processes. Should there be some sort of preparation requirement for those who are elected before they have responsibility for addressing family matters? This is a well-known challenge for all law, but it is much greater for sitting on matters of equity than matters of law. The challenges of family law are human more than legal. They involve not only the limitations and potentials of people who come to have family law issues, but are inherent in the variability of people and the changes that people go through in living. In this, we have a balanced approach with judicial involvement and equity to seek best solutions to challenges citizens encounter. There will always be a question of whether we can find some better balance.


A lot of agents struggle with getting in front of people. They don't know how to reach out to contacts, leads, they don't know when to reach out to them. A lot of you guys are buying shared leads and when you get a shared lead, it's shared with eight other people. You don't know when to touch them, how often to touch them, you don't want to be, you feel bad for them. Did you pay for the lead? I'm going to give you my three day 12 point follow up system when you're working leads. This is literally, I want all my touches to be within 72 hours. Now I'm not saying I don't want to follow up the next week and the week after and keep trying or door knocking, but what I want to do is day number one, the very first day I want three calls, a text and an email, and I want to leave one voicemail.  Day number two, I want you to make two calls. You see a pattern, it goes three, two, one. Two calls, one text, one email, and I want you to leave a voicemail. Day number three, one call, one text, one email, and the one call, guess what? You probably already know by now, I want you to leave a voicemail. If you take all those, if you add all those up, three calls, a text and an email, that's five touches, day one. Day two, two calls, a text and an email, that's four touches. So you're up to nine total touches in the first four to eight hours. And then day number three, a call, a text and an email, there's three more. You're at 12 total touches in the first 72 hours of receiving a lead. You say, well, dude, why would you do that? You could say, hey, I'm used to calling someone one time or maybe emailing them one time. Well, that's probably not working, especially with shared leads because 80% of sales are made between the fifth and the 12th contact. Then why do we want to halfway do anything? If you know that 12 touches will get results 80% of the time, then do 12 touches. And also, I don't want to wait and I don't want to exhaust this out over weeks and weeks and weeks because the tendency is that when someone responds and they want information, generally they may not buy it from you, but they're going to buy it from someone. And even if it's an exclusive lead, the chances are that over half of those are thinking about it, responding to a phone call, maybe a commercial, maybe from direct mail, maybe online, maybe digitally, all various types of ways. So when you have the chance to exhaust that lead that you paid for that also requested you to reach out to them in 72 hours, less exhaust at all. Well, a big question you guys are going to have now is, hey, what do I say on the phone? When I leave a voicemail, what should I say? What's the script? When they give me an objection, how do I overcome that? When I doorknock, what's my pitch? When I text them, what do you think I should text them? When I email them, what should I send? The whole goal is to get in front of the prospect. That's it. So we've developed a full free lead training page at SecureAgeAdventure.com. So what you'll do is go to SecureAgeAdventure.com under the Leads tab. There's a page called How To Close Our Leads. On this page, we've built it out with PDFs with graphics of when to do what. When you do call, here's the script that you say. Here's when you pause. Do you say last name? Do you say company name? We answer all that on this free How To Close Our Leads page, free to the general public. This page, all the information, it could be sold for five grand because it works. But I'm not asking for any money. I'm giving it away for free, but you've got to go to SecureAgeAdventure.com to find out. You say, dude, why should I text? We give you stats on that. Dude, why should I email? When I do email, should I puke on them and give them a ton of information? No. I tell you exactly the steps to have success with any types of Leads. That's the biggest thing that agents struggle with is appointment setting, getting in front of people and actually working Leads successfully. We break it down.  I need you to go to our website, SecureAgeAdventure.com. When you get there, go to the How To Close Our Leads page. Under the Leads tab, we have some of the best exclusive real-time quality Leads on the planet. Under Leads, How To Close Our Leads, we give you so much free information that if you don't make a quarter of a million dollars over the next 12 months, it's your fault and it's no longer mine. So make sure you check that out. It's free and it teaches you how to close Leads. This is my three-day, 72-hour, 12-points-of-contact, 12-touch system on working Leads.


Welcome to ITU's headquarters for WSIS Forum 2019, where the key theme this year is using ICTs to deliver the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. And we are talking today about the role of new technologies to help alleviate the impact of disasters with Yuko Murayama, Vice President of the International Federation of Information Processing, IFIP. Yuko, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you. I'm delighted to be here to talk about what I'm most interested in. And you have been working on a solution to help better manage disasters, and that's after the tsunami in Japan of 2011, which cost the lives of many, many people. So tell us about your solution. Yes. Actually, at that time, I was working in that area for the university. And after the disaster, we tried and helped the disaster area. And what we found out, there was actually no information systems or tools you expect to help out the emergency response and rescue and shelter management, all that we needed in the first three months. So what happens is that in one shelter, which needs water, get a blanket. And another shelter, which needs a blanket, get water. So we needed some good coordinating system to what is required, what we should provide, and that sort of thing. And there was a system actually created in Sri Lanka at the Indusina tsunami several years ago back, but it wasn't quite used. What happened was all the system was described in English. But most helpers in the disaster area in Japan are Japanese local government officers. They don't quite use English for communication. So one has to translate. And one day I was asked to implement those information systems in three days, but it was almost possible. And some other industry people created this system, but it took one month. And this shelter is closed in three months, so it wasn't actually quite in use. So I found these information systems or tools to help the disaster management is really required. So we set up a domain committee in IFIP to look at this area of research and development. And you were here to present your work. Yes. What was the response to it? This year we had this workshop, and we had so many questions from mostly government people from different countries. And this year we are more looking at the people. And we found that one of the participants, the panelists, they use FinTech, blockchain technology for refugees to issue ID and accounts to get the insurance and all that. So we found that really ID could help in one way or another. So we tried to find out this sort of real requirements and the real use in this area. And this shows what happens here at WISIS Forum. It's all about collaboration and learning from each other and actually enhancing your solution through the contact you have with other people. Yes. It's important to attend for that reason, isn't it? Exactly. Disaster management and the use of the ID for disaster management is often categorized in this DG11, which is sustainable cities and communities. But actually at disaster, people will lose their normal life of living and all that. So it's a kind of human rights problem as well. So it's related to all the SDGs, not only SDG11. So I'm interested in this WISIS because you are talking about all the SDGs and disaster is really a problem involving so many all the SDGs. So I'm very excited to talking to people about in different aspects. Yuko Morayama, thank you very much. Thank you.


I thought of being an astronaut kind of like being a professional football player. Like little kids might dream of doing that, but come on, that's not really reality. And I put that in the same ballpark. I thought, that would be really awesome, but superheroes would do that. And I'm not a superhero. And we tell the candidates that come and they want to be astronauts and they always ask us and they say, should I go to this university? Should I major in this or that? Should I get this job? And we say you have to do what you're passionate about because otherwise you're never going to have enough energy to do all the hard work that it takes if you don't actually enjoy doing it.


My name's Kurt Bittner. I work at Scrum.org. I've got a couple of colleagues here who have been wearing the software in 30-day shirts. He probably have talked to them. What I thought would be interesting today is to talk about something that I don't see too many people talking about. So hopefully it's an interesting topic. And that is that there's actually two different, when people talk about scaling Agile, they actually need a couple of different things. And I find it's useful to tease those things out and treat them as if they're separate. Because they're actually, you take different approaches depending on these two different dimensions. And so when we talk about scaling Agile, we mean actually a couple of, specifically a couple of different things. One is that, and usually when people talk about scaling Agile, and you might have been in here listening to the talk about less earlier today. So things like less, and I'll talk a little bit about Nexus, which is Scrum.org's approach to scaling vertically. What that means is basically you're dealing with large complex products trying to coordinate multiple teams to deliver a single product to a set of customers. And so that's what I call vertical scaling, because you're dealing with more complexity. But there's another kind of scaling that we'll talk about in a moment. But in vertical scaling, some of the challenges are just trying to get a common definition of what that product is, trying to get everybody to agree, getting everybody to work off a common backlog in a way that allows them to do useful work, to share work across teams, to get adequate velocity and adequate productivity out of those teams. So that sometimes involves sharing a common code base. Usually if it's a single product, single code base, could be just trying to get that increment tested and delivered. So there's a bunch of challenges related to that that have particular solutions. But when people talk about scaling agile to an enterprise, there's certainly an aspect of vertical scaling. But not everybody in an enterprise is working on the same product. So there's some other things that you need to do to try to get consistency across that entire enterprise. So that's what I refer to as horizontal scaling. In other words, you're trying to get breadth across the organization. So you might have lots of agile teams, some of which organized working on a single product. And some of them are just working on something small and simple. And you need consistency between most teams as well. And so that horizontal scaling has some different concerns. And it's basically doing things like trying to build the agile skills across the whole organization. By the way, I'll share the slides. They're available on the conference site. You're free to take pictures as well if you like. But ensuring that everybody, when you talk about agile, when you talk about scrum, does everybody mean the same thing? Do you call it?  Do you answer three questions, or do you talk about the things that you're doing and the things you might need help on? There's no right answer to that, in a sense. It's what you agree on. But it ought to be consistent across the organization so that one person can maybe lead one scrum team and go join another scrum team and not have to go relearn everything. Expanding the agile culture into the business, into legal, into other parts of the organization so that they can effectively support the agile teams. Things like adapting funding and governance models so that they don't not just get in the way, but actually, in a lot of times, sabotage the agile team's work and then being able to form new teams quickly. So these concerns, in a sense, are the foundation. I think of these as foundational. You really can't scale vertically unless you can do these things horizontally. Now you can do it in pockets, and we'll talk a little bit about how that works. So I'm going to sort of tear these apart a little bit and talk about what kinds of things you can do to effectively horizontally scale and then talk about some different approaches for vertical scaling. So if you want to think about this in a kind of Venn diagram sense is that vertical scaling is a subset of horizontal scaling. It's got all the aspects of horizontal, but it's also got some extra additional things. And depending on what you're doing, vertical scaling may be more important. If you're building a big complex product, vertical scaling is really important. And if you're the only team in the organization or the only group of teams in the organization doing that, then you may encompass all the horizontal scaling within you. But generally speaking, most organizations have the mix of both. So normally, you probably can't read that quote. Normally I don't focus on the quotes, but I think this one's an interesting one. So this is a Buckminster Fuller quote. And he says that you can never change things by fighting reality. To change something, you build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. And in a sense, that's what we're talking about with horizontal scaling. We're trying to figure out a way, how can we make agile work in our organization, not by adapting agile to the way that our organization works today, but by creating a kind of little safe pocket for that agile to exist within the organization and then gradually expanding that. So the change in focus, it's worth talking about why organizations are adopting agile practices to begin with. And so there's been this shift that's going on from being very company-centric, being very focused on basically the hierarchy, how am I going to move up the organization, how do we get consistency and control and processes, to focusing on what do customers need and what do we need to do as an organization to serve those customers better. So it's a kind of moving from an inside out to an outside in perspective. And the reason why that's important is because a lot of organizations adopt agile practices to get a more customer-centric focus on their products. And so to do that, it really ships the way that the organization works. So John Cotter is a professor at Harvard and talks a lot about organizational change. This isn't unique to agile, but the observation that he's made in the broader business community is that the structures and the way that we manage traditionally are over a century old. And they date back to the late 1800s. So it's really, in a sense, how can we use 19th century management practices to essentially serve 21st century customers? We really can't do that. So the reason why people need to think and act differently is because, and Jess Humboldt had some great comments about this this morning, is that we really don't understand customers very well. We have a lot of theories about what might work. We actually need to build things, deliver it to them, measure the result, and then see whether are we building the right thing? Are we satisfying their concerns? So agile software delivery is a mechanism for doing that for digital products. And increasingly, it's being applied to other areas as well. So it can be applied to traditional product development. But I'll focus on the software piece. So one of the reasons why agile works better than traditional is that the traditional organization is hierarchical. So when you have this person here, if they want to talk to this person over here, or this team needs to talk to this team, you have to kind of go up the hierarchies and down to navigate that. You might have to get permission to make a change. You've got these well-defined areas of responsibility that you can't cross over. But everybody's got to work together to get something to a customer. In an agile model, it's really a network model. So you've got centers that deliver value to customers, and then people who, in a sense, orbit around that. So keep that in mind. You can think about the structure of the organization being more or less inverted. So the traditional organization, CEO at the top, down through line employees, and finally, you get customers. Line employees deal with customers. But in a more digital organization, you basically have customers everywhere. CEOs talk to customers. Customers support people talk to customers. People building product talk to customers. The products themselves are a major conduit for talking to customers. So to deal with this, we have to have a different kind of organizational structure, and that's where agile comes in. The problem is that we have organizational cultures that are really based around that 19th, early 20th century model. And Peter Drucker here says that culture eats strategy for breakfast, and we can modify that and say that culture eats agile for breakfast. So when you're thinking about adopting agile practices in an organization, you almost have to think about the organization being like an organism. And the agile practices coming in are treated as an invading antibody. And the organization's immune system, in a sense, unwittingly, often, just attacks that invading thing. It says, no, that's not the way we work. We work in this other way. So in a sense, the secret to horizontal scaling is to, for at least some part of the organization, suppress that immune system and allow agile to sort of take root. And I don't want to say that agile's an infection, but it's kind of like, it's a virus, certainly, and it changes the way that the company works. So the way that I've seen this work is that you've got this agile team and it's trying to do its work, and it's got its task boards, and it's got its plans, and it's doing its daily scrums, and it's really working well. But there's all sorts of things in the organization that are kind of trying to tear that apart. And it's just the way that the organization works. It's not an intentional attempt to sabotage. Sometimes it is, but often it's not intentional. But you've got things like, let's see if this will work here. If the organization has a project model, people tend to be spread across multiple projects simultaneously. Well, what does that do to an agile team? It basically causes the agile team to stop. If you've got a critical team member who's working on something and they're not doing something else, you're stuck until they get back. And so we've got to help that team deal with the resource sharing problem. If you've got project-based governance models, they might say, great, you're working in an agile way, let's see your milestones. And we're gonna have regular reviews and milestones. And you try to explain to them that we don't do that. And they might say, where's the project plan? We don't have a project plan. And so you have to have a way of sort of suspending that kind of stopping that immune reaction and saying, okay, there's a different way to governance, that's okay. And we're gonna work that way. You know, there might be initiatives that are focused primarily on cost reduction that might be manifest themselves in terms of we've got to keep everybody's utilization really high. Well, what happens when you, you know, if you read things like any of the lean flow kind of materials, you understand what happens when you have high utilization on a machine is that you queue up behind it. So if you've got mismatched rates of utilization, then you end up with queuing, which translates in people terms as waiting. Process standardization, you know, that sort of defeats self-organizing teams who wanna make decisions to improve the way that they work. That may not be the way that everybody else works. And so these various outside forces and there's lots of other ones that they cause the teams to slide backwards. So many, many times we'll see organizations where, you know, team will adopt scrum for a while and things are going great. And then things change a little bit. Somebody earlier today mentioned the effect of a leader, you know, leaves, moves, gets promoted, something else. That protective environment, you know, gets stripped away from the scrum team and all of a sudden they start sliding backwards. And two years after the initial adoption in introduction of scrum, they're back to doing something that's more looking like waterfall. Maybe it's water scrum fall or maybe it's not even that good. So these various forces pull teams off into sort of back into the old behaviors and we wanna try to prevent that. So, Ken Schwabers talked about this in the Sovereign 30 Days book where he talked about this concept called scrum studio which I don't know if that's the best name in the world but it's this idea that you wanna set up a kind of little sort of microclimate or a little environment in which the scrum team can work and it's sort of protected from the outside.  And so the cellular membrane protects that scrum environment, if you will, the team environment from the rest of the organization. It sort of suspends the rules for that. And the intent is that it supports these values of, you know, building commitment to each other, to working together in a better way, building trust in that team, having transparency with not only your fellow team members but the business and the product owner and really any kind of stakeholders and important thing is using inspection and adaption. So these various values within the environment are the things that shape the behaviors of the environment and the things like, you know, we've got to have high utilization, that gets suspended for these people. They're not measured on utilization. They're measured on, did you deliver customer value?  So in order to do that, this sort of management leadership has to kind of establish this sort of protective environment around these teams. And so there's not, you know, this, they said the studio concept is really a concept. It's not, there's not a process. There's not a bunch of roles. If you think about a role, the main role is management. It's got to provide this protective environment you could think about as, you know, providing air cover for the teams if you want to use a more military analogy. But the purpose of that is to nurture that innovation and also though to remove common impediments and provide common services to the team because each team doesn't need to invent, you know, reinvent continuous integration, for example. So if we think about this, there's a couple of different services that the traditional organization has to do to provide that supportive environment. And so one of them is basically, think about it as leadership services and, you know, things like acting as servant leaders for the agile teams. Instead of telling the teams what to do, you, you know, help ask them, is there anything I can do to help you become better at what you're doing? It may be areas like portfolio management and funding, providing a clean flow of work into the teams so that they don't have these sort of start and stop gaps. Or probably more importantly on funding is that, that you've got a small, a stream of relatively small chunks of work moving through the system instead of big, huge chunks of work that are, you know, year-sized. So that helps, you know, it's essentially feeding the teams with work, helping them develop skills, you know, basically providing a different kind of governance model that satisfies the needs of regulations and other kinds of internal controls, but doesn't subject them to the usual, you know, sort of monthly status review kind of thing because there are other better mechanisms for doing that. The second thing that ends up being important is providing some kind of engineering services to the team. So if you think about, you know, you're working on a scrum team, you're trying to get backlog items done, you're trying to deliver value out to customers. If you don't have a good continuous integration environment already set up, you're gonna, that's gonna stall you out and you're not going to be able to deliver value as quickly. So, you know, not every team has to figure that out separately. So having a common sort of CI environment or at least a common way of teams getting to that. If they wanna provide their own, if they wanna go use something in the cloud, you know, you circle CI or Travis or something else, you know, maybe that's an option for them, but not having to basically reinvent the wheel every time. API management and test, well, let me talk about API management first, is that there's lots of things, you know, there have been a number of talks today about the importance and sometimes not importance of APIs, but one of the things that APIs do is that it insulates you from the internals of what's inside that component or inside that service. But one of the things that becomes difficult over time is that if you, especially if you're using microservices, is that you end up with a lot of APIs and you don't know which ones, which ones are the right ones to use. If I need to talk to somebody about it, who owns it, you know, and so just having an API management strategy in place is one of the things that helps remove frictions for the teams. Even if they're just developing one product and you've got four or five teams, you end up having to have some kind of API management strategy and then some kind of test automation infrastructure, whether it's having a way to run automated API tests, I don't so much mean things like selenium and UI-based testing. Here I mean mostly, you know, driving it off test harnesses and being able to integrate that into the continuous integration infrastructure. So that's another set of services the organization can provide to this sort of studio or to this agile environment. And then the other piece is that it's really, so in theory, every team should be able to kind of decide how they're going to report out. But when you start getting multiple teams in the organization, it gets confusing for stakeholders if everybody's reporting in a different way. And so having, being able to come to some kind of agreement on how you're going to provide transparency into what's being worked on. And it might be, you know, if everybody's just using sticky notes on a task board and working that way, it might simply be that, you know, we're gonna essentially take periodic snapshots of that and post it on a, you know, in a Wiki page or something. It doesn't have to be incredibly complicated, but it does have to be consistent so that the stakeholders don't have to go to a bunch of different places to find out what the status is. And then there's a problem of shared services that basically surfaces. There's lots of different things that the team can't do for itself. In some organizations, this might be changing databases in other organizations that might be the actual pushing of things into production. And so having a way that basically supports the services that the Agile teams need that may potentially also be used by non-Agile teams, and doing that in such a way that it doesn't stall the Agile team out. So, you know, the worst thing that can happen here is, for example, I was working with an organization and the teams had just started using Scrum and that's great, and they're starting to make progress, and then they needed to basically create some new databases so that they could store information persistently. Well, that had to be done, you know, the organization had adopted Idle, so it had to be done through submitting a ticket, and the average queue time on getting a ticket responded to was 20 business days. Getting a test environment was 60 business days. So, the main goal for shared services is don't make the teams wait. Figure out a way that they can either self-service or that you basically have resources available, people available that can meet their needs when they need it so that they're not waiting. But anyway, the reason why I bring these things up is that these are things the organization has to do for the Agile teams in order to make them really effective. And so if you're talking to a leader in an organization and they really, for some reason, want to adopt these practices, then you have to say, well, then your commitment has to be, how are you going to answer these things? How are you going to support the teams? Because if you don't, these teams will fail, guaranteed. They'll end up finally just giving up because they run into so many roadblocks and so many different barriers that they simply can't be successful. So, one of the first things that you can do to help a team is to help them figure out, and here when I say team, I mean, including the business, why do you want to adopt something like Scrum? Is it because you're threatened by some sort of external commercial threat by competitors or are you in a relatively safe industry? Or you basically don't have a very good idea what customers need, so you need to do more exploration of different alternatives or it's totally predictable. We know exactly what they need. Is your bias towards efficiency, towards reducing cost, or is it towards innovating? And these things are sort of at opposite ends of the spectrum and what you find is that the closer you are to the edge on this kind of diagram, the more basically susceptible you are or the more attuned you are to using an agile approach. But if you say, let's say take your typical mainframe application, maybe it's relatively safe. You don't have like a general ledger or an MRP system. It's not the things that our customer are facing. You want predictability, the requirements are stable. You want a deliberate low cost. The decision-making tends to be more top-down and again, you want to reduce cost. So that's a bad choice. But if you're dealing with essentially some sort of digital initiative, it's almost always pegged on the outside of this where the management can't make decisions. They have to work bottom up. They're focused on growing revenue. They're threatening the market. They've got to explore because it's totally new functionality and innovation. So you can use this model to try to figure out why does agile tend to be used in sort of digital initiatives and why does it often struggle in a sort of back-office kind of application? And it's basically because the overall drivers behind it are more aligned with the back-office is basically doesn't really take advantage of agile. And agile isn't, the number of people today have said, working with agile processes is not about being efficient. It's not efficient. It's about inspecting and adapting because you have uncertainty about either what you're building or how you're building it or some other aspect of things. And that uncertainty, because of that, you need to have frequent feedback. And so that's a way to think about this. So another thing that can help agile teams is that they struggle sometimes with some of the technical excellence factors. And so this starts off with things like continuous integration, might be test automation, test harnesses. Sometimes it's architecture and refactoring. So not everybody has all the skills that they need. And so sometimes it helps to have somebody come into the team, become part of the team for a couple of sprints and help them deal with these things. And overall, then that effective is reducing technical debt. But if you've got a team that doesn't have the right skills, then you need to help them. And sometimes that means adding some other people to the team temporarily. So those are some of the examples, maybe helping them establish continuous integration environment. Not everybody does that. If somebody really wants to spend their free time investigating it, that's great, but oftentimes they're too busy. And so it never gets implemented because people don't have time. Or they don't get effective test automation because they don't have time. They need some help in getting over that. The other thing, and I'm sort of cherry picking a few different topics on this horizontal scaling to give you an idea how these things work, is that it's really important to connect people across teams so that they can share knowledge and experiences and learn from each other. And so the community of practice model or if you read a lot about Spotify, they've got tribes and these different kinds of guilds and things like that. But the community of practice model is a way for people to basically get together outside of their normal teaming environment and say, hey, I found this great CI tool and it's really helping me and I've got some things set up on it. If anybody else is interested, I'm happy to spend time and share it. Or it might be, Steve and I do something similar for our own community around different things. So we ran across a really interesting forecasting tool recently that helps include statistical probabilities in the forecast so you can get a better sense for not just what data are you potentially going to be able to ship this functionality, but what's your probability of shipping? It's like, well, we don't have a, our chances are slim to none based on, let's say the probability distribution. It's not zero, but it's, so sharing information across this community ends up being really an important way to grow people. It's sort of, you can grow people within the team by pairing and by doing other things, but this is across teams. And so this is one thing I've noticed that people struggle with, organizations struggle with, is that they'll get these pockets of good agile practices, but they don't really have an effective way to grow that and they can't really rotate people through teams, but communities provide a reasonable way for them to do that. If you take it to its extreme, you can do things like even having peer coaching and career development discussions within that. So, it sounds like an oxymoron, but it's not, there's this concept called Agile HR, which basically is more where you rely more upon peer networks to help do career advising instead of the traditional manager approach, which if you just have your own manager giving you career advice, that might be great for his or her personal experience, but if that's not the area that you're interested in, it doesn't help you very much. And so communities of practice can help people grow. So the communities could be things like developers, could be scrum masters, could be product owners, could be even business people. In organizations where we've seen the business start to really embrace fast delivery cycles and inspecting and adapting, then the business people get together and say, hey, how can we get better at getting customer feedback? And utilize maybe some of the concepts out of things like Lean Startup and Lean UX and other kinds of books that give you, basically it's not really a technical perspective on something like Scrum or Agile, it's a business perspective on it, using that faster delivery cycle to get better information about what customers really need. So, the typical horizontal scaling challenges that I've seen is that you can push teams too early. This is the classic case where a manager or a leader goes to a conference, maybe not like this because you're all practitioners, but they go to some business conference, they see Eric Reeves up talking about Lean Startup and goes, yeah, we gotta do Agile. And they come back and they try to push it down from the top and all of our teams are gonna be Agile, but they don't really fit that sort of Pentagon characteristics that I displayed earlier. And so, it falters because the teams don't really want to do Agile, it's being pushed on them. So ideally you want teams to self-organize around adopting Agile. And you also want really to get them to have some mastery of the engineering practices. So if you've got a team and they, let's say it's a mainframe team and they've not delivered working software in years, somebody else's job, that's gonna be new to them. They're gonna struggle with that a bit. So you have to figure out ways that you can support them to get past that. So pushing change on teams were not really changed and pushing change without investing in growing skills. So one of the anti-patterns and Scott sort of touched upon this in his talk earlier, that it's not sufficient to send one person in a team off to a two-day Scrum Master class and expect them to be a change agent for that whole team, right?  But if they've never done it before, they're gonna be learning too.  So having everybody have a baseline of understanding about what this means, what the commitments to each other mean, how to self-organize, these are all fairly complex things. They take a while to do. And so organizations who really want the results of getting fast delivery cycles and that feedback loop going, need to invest in building the skills of their people. And it's not just one person, don't put it all in the Scrum Master's head. Even if they were totally awesome, God-like in their capabilities, and they're still going to struggle with having the rest of the team hold along. And then the top down, and one of the things that I wrote this in my notebook a couple of days ago, and it struck me that a lot of organizations basically use a waterfall adoption practice to adopt Agile. They set forth the plan, they're gonna have milestones, they're gonna train a certain number of teams, they're gonna have regular reviews, and you say, wait a minute. If Agile is so great for delivering products, why can't we use it to do, to adapt it to our organization too?  And so it really has to, you know, we have to inspect and adapt and everything, not just product delivery, but our whole way of approaching change. So that scaling horizontally gave you some ideas, some of the practices. I love this quote, good judgment comes from experience, most of which comes from bad judgment, right? Resonate. So scaling vertically. What I'm gonna do here is talk about Nexus, which is our approach for scaling vertically, but if you were in the talk earlier with Baz, the less is very similar, there are other approaches very similar. So I'm just trying to give you an idea of the kinds of things that you need to do to scale vertically, not trying to give you the sales pitch on Nexus. But it's the thing I'm familiar with, so it's easier for me to talk about. So if you think about, the problem with scaling vertically is cross team dependencies. If everybody was working on independent stuff, then there's no problem.  I mean, you could use whatever measure of progress you want to use there. And, you know, it's gonna be nice and somewhat linear, but the problem is, is you add teams, you know, you go, okay, so this is going pretty well. Two teams doing pretty well. Three teams, not so bad. Oops, you know, added four and five teams. And productivity, you know, went down. And you notice this, is that actually we're, it's not that it's slowed down, it actually degraded. You know, we're getting less good than we were before. And it's because the teams are basically, to put it in a simple way, they're stepping on each other. They're getting in each other's way. They're delaying each other. They're people waiting on other people. Maybe somebody's rushing ahead and so I'm just gonna go, I'm gonna go work on this product backlog item. And I know that it's got a dependency here, but we'll sort that out later. And everything that they did on that was just waste. And so that's not very good. So another way of visualizing this is that you've got all these communication dependencies between teams and the more teams you add, you know, this goes up basically exponentially, right? So the communication complexity goes up exponentially. The teams only go up linearly. And so that's why productivity drops off. So there's one thing you can do though, before you assume that you have to scale vertically, is that there are ways of refactoring products so that you don't have to scale vertically. And so, you know, here's an example. Most products that I've looked at over a longer time than I would probably like to admit are really kind of complex messes of functionality that serve multiple people. You know, they've got a little bit for everybody built into it. And just think about something like Microsoft Word and what percentage of functionality of Word you use. But if you asked a bunch of other people, you might find they use a different percentage. And so one of the things that you can do is if you can use user experience modeling techniques like Personas to sort of identify, well, who are we serving and what are they doing? What value are they getting out of the application or the product and say, well, let's refactor that into separate products that are Persona specific. And if we do that, then maybe, you know, these two teams can work on this Persona. And that's a good thing because they start to develop empathy with the customer. They learn more about the users. They become more expert on that. So this kind of refactoring is a good thing.  And then you basically have, in a sense, feature teams. I've just organized the feature teams here around Personas. And then everybody operating off a common code base. You can eliminate a lot of the complexity without having to use the vertical scaling techniques that I'll talk about. So, you know, things like Nexus then, there's one product backlog for the whole product. One product owner for the whole product. There's a group sprint planning exercise where the group goes through and figures out what are we going to deliver in the next sprint? And then each team breaks that down and says, what does this mean to us individually? And that may have some back and forth. But generally speaking, you break that down. Each team then produces their own sprint backlogs and you have an overall sprint backlog for the entire product for the sprint. And then you go through the usual sprint cycle. You've got a daily scrum for the whole Nexus and then you've got a daily scrum for each team. And the daily scrum for the Nexus is basically an optional event. You know, if there's nothing to discuss, you go, hey, is there anything to discuss today? Nope, okay, we're good. Or it might be that, hey, you know, I've really got this problem with this thing that you're building and I'm not clear on how we're going to work together on that. Can we just get some people from your team and my team to work together on that and they resolve it? So it's really kind of a quick check-in on how the teams are going to work together that day. There's a thing called the Nexus integration team, which in many cases is just a virtual team of team members from the various scrum teams in the Nexus. And it's really there to just say, you know, if things really hit the fan and they're not working, do we have a way, do we have some people who are accountable for making sure that we get back on track? Because if we leave it open, if we just say, ah, you know, we're just going to collaborate between teams and kind of figure this out, that's not quite focused enough.  They're not the integration, the people who did integration for the Nexus. It's really more like it's a good analogy. It's like they're the community of firewardens where if there's a fire, they're going to get everybody out of the building or, you know, something analogous to that anyway. So then there's a sprint review for the entire product. The integrated increment, there's one thing that gets produced. You don't have a separate product for each team and then you've got a retrospective for the whole Nexus and then individually. And we happen to do it in three parts because you say, you know, what are our issues for the group? Then, you know, each team goes off and says, what are our issues individually? And sometimes you find out things there that have to be filtered back up to the group. And then, you know, the cycle repeats. So the reasons for doing this is that it's, you know, it's just scrum really with a couple of additional control points added. Not, you know, nothing really complicated. We're not trying to solve the portfolio problem. We're not trying to solve the HR problem. We're not trying to solve the, you know, system architect problem.  And, you know, the advantage is that if you're already filled in with your scrum, it's pretty easy to adopt and you don't have a lot of overhead. Doesn't cover, you know, Scott talked about a lot of great things this morning with dad doesn't cover those things. This is really just focused on vertical scaling, pure and simple. But, and I kind of talked about these already. I'll put through those. And so the biggest problem is, you know, too many cross-team dependencies. So, you know, if you can't do refinement on that backlog to break it down, to minimize the dependencies and then sequence them over the course of the sprints, you'll struggle. So that's one of the reasons why we have some of those events like sprint planning to do that. But refinement ends up being continuous. Inability to balance work across teams, you know, usually caused by lumpy skills, which is usually a symptom of component teams versus feature teams, but it may be due to some other things. Like there's a really, you know, you're doing Hadoop and there's only one person in the whole Nexus who really knows Hadoop and they're, you know, you can't really, you know, you need to basically maybe use pairing or some other technique to get more people. And then, you know, external dependencies or other kinds of limitations are always a problem. And that's really more back to the horizontal scaling difficulties.  But as you get more and more teams, the product owner can interact with all teams. And so they might have to delegate. They might have to bring in subject matter experts or have other people.  So we try to keep it relatively open. But, you know, so you can see the kind of things that you need to deal with vertical scaling, regardless whether you're using Nexus or less or some other framework. It's basically, you know, how do you break down the work? How do you have teams be able to self-organize to do that work and minimize cross-team dependencies while you're doing that? So, couple things. So, horizontal and vertical scaling are generally both important. Horizontal scaling ends up, you know, the irony is that most of the time when people talk about scaling, as I said earlier, they mean vertical scaling. And horizontal scaling actually ends up being more important to solve that cultural problem because it's going to be removing those impediments that are going to drag people back into the existing behaviors. So, you know, horizontal scaling you can think of as providing a nurturing environment for agile practices, making it less risky for team members to do what they need to do. And then vertical scaling is really dealing with it's kind of a workflow management across multiple teams, but keeping the aspect of self-organization so that you don't lose that benefit. So, vertical scaling usually builds on horizontal scaling. You sort of jump straight into vertical scaling, you'll end up having to solve a lot of the vertical, a lot of the horizontal scaling problems anyway. So, with that little plug there's nexus guides that available on scrum.org resources, nexus guide. But the main thing I want you to take away or hope that you take away is this difference between horizontal and vertical, how that might influence your strategies for adoption, what the leaders in your organization need to do, especially in horizontal scaling, to help the teams be more productive and to be aware of the fact that the rest of the organization, they're not intentionally trying to hurt scrum or hurt agile, but they don't really know better. And so, it's really up to leaders, and this is why leadership ends up being hugely important. It's up to the leaders to provide that safe environment and provide those various kinds of services in support of the teams that are adopting agile. But that, I think we're on time, but I'm around for questions if you have any questions. Otherwise, thank you, you have questions. Yeah, yeah, so I don't know if you heard the question, but basically, I'll summarize it, and you can tell me if I got it right. The teams are sort of gravitating toward kind of many waterfall approach where they do requirements analysis, design, implementation, test in a sprint, right? And so, the problem with that is really that the velocity of that team will be really low because they're sort of single-threading through that. And if different team members are able to work on different product backlog items all simultaneously and collaborate, you'll get much more work through, much more throughput through. The team will be more cohesive, it will be more effective. And so, you can almost answer the question in terms of, it's just not a very effective way to work. You get a little bit of benefit by having a smaller batch size and more frequent feedback, but you don't get very much feedback on very much functionality because of that. It's very constrained with that single-threading through analysis, design, implementation, test. And so, I would just say that your overall results would not be very, you would not get feedback on very much fast enough to really make a difference in terms of the overall end result. So, I would just maybe challenge the team to say, could we try working on a different dissident in a different way for a sprint and say, let's not do strict analysis design, but let's try to maybe interleave those activities more so that we can get basically more feedback on a bigger chunk of the product. Yeah. Yeah. Well, so the difference there is that sprint planning is really on the what to do and not so much the how to do it. The how to do it is going to be the team working day by day on, as they execute the sprint. So, you're not planning out every single day's worth of activity when you do sprint planning, you're really saying, what product backlog are we going to work on? And we're basically saying, that's what we're gonna work on and as we do the work, we're going to figure out how to balance the workout. So, that's the purpose of, in a sense, the daily scrum is to say, okay, what are we working on today? Do we need to work a different way to get this done? And so, you're planning how to do it in a much more interactive as needed basis. And so, that may be the other piece that was missing for them. Anyway, thank you very much. I hope this was useful.


Hello and welcome back to the craft box. My name is Brenton today. We are in episode nothing of the nothing nothing walkthrough We are doing the Sun school quest in Azteca today Which is turn up the Sun There's got freestyle told me you restore the star school obelisk in three points now We must try to restore the Sun school obelisk a group of ignoble Monkey stance came to three points while the Aztecas were still dwelled in the cenote and raided the city They pride the solar shards out of the Sun school obelisk now it will not awaken Go to their sheep in the salt meadow marsh speak to bones to give on their leader He must surrender the solar shards to you bring the solar shards back to me here And we will see if we can make the Sun come back up Okay So yeah last time probably about two or three weeks ago. I think it was we Completed the star school of a lisk and unlocked that and that is very important and we got a Spell called verulence I can't I don't actually know how to say it but it is This one here and yeah, it's pretty good, but today is even more important wrong quest might help if we're actually on the right one This one is by far far more important it gives sharpen blade potent trap and also the Primordial which all of those I'll be learning Primordial is the healing one and I'll be learning that because I'm hoping to get eventually on my on my death Solar shards on that matter wizard I have only a little to say to you true certain Monkistan stole these solar shards from your son obelisk But they did not do this on my order those who did this theft fell out of favor They have taken refuge in the glade of the poison dart frog in mine Grove Marsh Their leader is Clemente Moraga and no account villain I'm scoundrel defeat him and you will have yours If you should see some other gold or treasure piled about pay no heed it plays no part in your story Okay weird that he would put the hell with what the hell Please Weird with that he would even mention the gold and silver like what okay So yes, let us hit on over there TC's should be good nearly good Another faint would be nice Yeah, I've literally just finished recording the last walkthrough episode which went up earlier this morning So if you haven't checked that out and go do that now it should be already up It went up about an hour ago So you go and watch that if you haven't We defeated Baloch again, so spoiler there Baloch like 3.0 He comes back a lot and it's kind of annoying So you're going to see that and Yeah, we we did well We're actually nearly finished. Oh, it's this one.  We are going to be sneaky and put in some fire shields and tower shields Just because I think that might be good Last when I did this on my life, I struggled so much I don't know whether that is because I don't know how I didn't know how really to play as a life solo Or just because he does so many Damaging spells so yeah That should be enough. We are going to come back now. We've got a lot of dungeon wrinkle But it has a lot of damage he yeah, he's kind of kind of kind of annoying. It's really annoying in fact Okay, let's try again. He can't eat fruit, which is great So that is something that we don't need to worry about speaking of a fruit Take out some of those Okay, we I don't know if the minions can though, so be aware of that one We're gonna keep up one of those at all times. We will Paint the boss. I think I'm gonna go for a mass deonite Hopefully to get out the minions ASAP And then I'll focus on the boss because oh, okay, they can eat free the minions can eat free good to know Do Okey-dokey and What do we have next so we've got any fruit on us, which is not the best We will Take that off. I suppose they've only got 3000. Okay, that's not too bad Triple blade deonite should be fine. I'm thinking Hopefully we can get three blades I'm gonna keep up a Keep sacrifice already In hand at all times just in case because these guys actually crit a lot as well and obviously I have like no block Because I'm going purely pretty much damage. So I have like no block which is not a good So yeah I'm What's this? Okay I'm kind of worried that I'm gonna die We're already a half health under half health and we've literally done nothing Yep, we're just gonna gonna go with that. We're just gonna go full attacking hopefully for a deonite hoping for a deonite hoping for a deonite I'm actually kind of worried very very worried to be honest. I Don't think I'm gonna be able to do this first time I have to so The one thing that I really hate about these sort of bosses is that You have to do them by yourself and it's kind of like that does so much.  Here's no pips. Here's no pips. So we should be fine Don't need you. We are desperately looking for a something Which could be anything but a faint.  Okay, perfect. We're just gonna shoot why not?  I think he had a blade which is not good On my life that literally took me like five tries to do this So Yeah, that wasn't too bad 316 that is like whoo. I'm so dead That shield is really gonna save me now Hmm should we just go for it I mean if we create I Mean we're probably did anyway. So why not, you know Like he's probably gonna kill me. Yeah, here he goes. Oh he fizzles. He fizzles a lot as well, which is good Bye Okay, let's see how much this does if we create fingers crossed for a crit If everyone crosses their fingers now and likes this video, I'm gonna create and a few if I don't crit I know you didn't like the video. So that's unfortunate We didn't crit you didn't like the video.  I could have won this Unfortunate Okay, okay, that did like nothing, but we can see what that does to them over time Sacrifice no, but of course not. Oh, actually we can discard one of you. We don't need to Hopefully they discarded I don't know we'll find out next round Um, oh god, we did okay Well, I'll be back in Just a bit when I have kind of sorted this out a bit. Okay after a long time I am now back been almost an hour not gonna lie and we've crit both that's that we've done which is fantastic I decided that I might use my minion after many times of dying. She is a tanky we thing Hey, she doesn't generate much of a threat, but she like she clutched for like so long Those solar shards were our downfall. I should have listened to all those stories of cursing us taken gold You search the crates and find several pieces of hammered gold. These must be the solar shards So yeah, she she she survived pretty much the whole battle on 93 health and didn't die. I was still living at the end. She is fantastic Um, so yeah, I probably won't use her much anymore, but like it was handy for that battle I'm like, I'm not getting enough damage. So maybe I should like get a minion. Maybe who knows so I decided well We'll try this time third time lucky, you know, haha, and it worked. So yeah Yeah, this is my deck set up that I had I Scarecrowed instead of denided just so I could get their health back because that was so essential I was on 800 health when I scared and I correct to kill all the minions, which is fantastic So yeah, I summoned the minion as soon as I got it in hand and had the pips for it I got it in hand at the start of the at the start of the battle Run one and someone at round two. So yeah, it was good Those are the solar shards. I cannot imagine why someone took them were their words of the curse not clear enough No matter you must now restore them to the Sun school obelisk be at it now Okay, um, yes cancel. Um, so yeah, that wasn't too bad. Oh, yeah, once you've got a strategy and Yeah, you can really do it once you've got a strategy You need to kill the minions as soon as possible because they are so annoying They just spam meteor and fire dragon and it's really annoying. So try and get them out as soon as possible is my Opinion which I did so yeah The solar shards slip into place almost disappearing among the other the Sun school obelisk begins to get warm Almost hot you can feel the magic energy radiate from it Okay, that is Fantastic, we are going to collect some spells. I think we can already get we can sweet. So primordial potent and chopping blade 19 training points. We're learning them all baby Train it. Yes and train it. Yes. Okay, that was fantastic. I'm actually so happy. We have all of this. Oh my god. Yes Thank you. So the only reason why I have primordial is because I want radical Which is next up tier of primordial Um Because I'm hoping I will craft pics not pixie pigsy on my death and I'll have sata in the end So I can kind of like heal if I need to if I'm playing tank You have done it two of the three astral obelisks are now awakened. They're secret power restored Zaelian reed walker seeks a way to unlock the last the moon school obelisk She will summon you when she needs your assistance Outsider they work Moon is to be king. I must speak to you in the Zocalo I have discovered how to awaken the last of the astral school obelisks. Yeah, I'll be doing that sometime It's not really important, but we have finally got sharpen blade and potent trap Basically, you use it on a blade. So and it gives it plus 10% extra damage. So it will be plus 50 So I have a 50 a 40 and a 45. So pretty much fantastic 45 spirit and Put in trap is plus 10. So 80 feints is great So yeah, that is basically this video It took a long time that battle. So basically try more power strategy for that battle as soon as possible And you're probably not going to do it on your first try, but don't give up hope And yeah summon a minion if you have to Yeah, try and kill the minions as soon as possible though, definitely So yeah, anyway, thank you for watching next next video will probably be Another walkthrough video. So thank you for watching and to live a like and subscribe and if you've already subscribed Press the little bell so you know exactly when I post another video and remember craft outside the box


Remain first day of training here at Austria, how have you found it as a group? Lovely, the weather is not great at the minute but the scenery is really nice, it's good to be all together in a very good place. We've been working very hard today again but it's precision so it's normal and now it's good, it's going to be a good week. I was lucky enough to see both sessions, there certainly seemed to be a lot of hard work being put in, no easing your way in, it was a hard intense day for day one, first day of training. The first week was very hard and the second week, even in Austria now it's going on the same path, very hard but that's good because we need to really push ourselves to be ready for a good season. You mentioned about the surroundings with all respect to our training ground and Yorkshire and Bradford, obviously it's slightly different, obviously Yorkshire Dales we do have some great views ourselves but you know it's some really picturesque area here in the north of Austria that we're in at the moment. Yeah it's lovely, it's lovely to even just have a change wherever you go but it's a good one, it's a good pick. I love mountains personally so I'm very happy here. It's very green, it's lovely, just a shame for the interview there is no sunshine but it's a great place.