Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_061120.html

    Caught in the Web
    by Conrad Brunner
    Nov. 20, 2006


    Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When it became clear Danny Granger would fill the void at small forward created by Peja Stojakovic's departure, the Pacers had to take stock of that supremely important position.
    On the plus side of the ledger, Granger would provide much better individual defense, comparable if not superior rebounding, more athleticism and timely if not prolific scoring. On the minus side, well, there was simply no way Granger – or anybody else on the roster, for that matter – would be able to replace Stojakovic's 3-point threat.

    Or would he?

    While no one's quite ready to proclaim Granger the heir to the Pacers' long line of 3-point royalty extending from Billy Keller to Chuck Person to Reggie Miller to Chris Mullin to Sam Perkins to Stojakovic, the young forward has done his best to live up to the standard they set.

    Granger ranks just two spots behind Stojakovic at 16th in the NBA's 3-point percentage leaders at .447 (17 of 38). In the last seven games, he's gone 15-of-29 (.517).

    "It's something he's worked on," said Coach Rick Carlisle. "He made some last year and really we feel Danny and (Rawle) Marshall both have to develop into good, solid 3-point shooters for us just so we can space the floor and have room for Jermaine (O'Neal) and Al (Harrington) and (David) Harrison to work on the inside. I'm encouraging them to keep working on it. Same thing with Orien Greene, same thing with all our guys, Shawne Williams, Marquis (Daniels). But Danny and Rawle, in particular, we're counting on in the near future."

    Granger's emergence as a 3-point threat is by design. He posted a .392 career mark from the arc in college, so was disappointed in the .323 accuracy of his rookie year while adjusting to the 23-foot, 9-inch distance. So Granger went to work on his shot over the summer and the results are evident.

    "It's coming along," Granger said. "I think I'm getting more open looks with Al and J.O. and Jack (Stephen Jackson) posting up so much. It's coming along well. It's still a focus. I try to get up shots before and after every practice.

    "I just kind of have to pick and choose my spots. We have so many other offensive weapons on our team and I'm starting with them so I just have to pick and choose where I'll get my points in."

    There also was a bit of old-school pragmatism in the plan to become a more effective 3-point shooter. Knowing he would be at best a tertiary option with the starters, Granger knew he'd need to maximize the relatively few opportunities he would get to score.

    "Exactly," he said, laughing. "If I can only get three up if I make all three that's nine instead of six."

    Though Granger's shooting has been a pleasant revelation, it is not the most important gauge of his overall performance. His primary duties are to provide staunch perimeter defense, often against the opposition's top threat, while playing a major role both on the boards and in transition. Even without scoring a point, if Granger fulfills those duties he will have played a major role.

    Because of the smaller starting lineup, rebounding is particularly important for Granger, who averaged 4.9 as a rookie. He's currently at 4.6, a number that needs to improve.

    "He's doing some good things offensively and his shooting is coming around," Carlisle said. "Right now, with our rebounding situation we need him to step up for us and be a guy that can be a third rebounder with that first group. He has the experience. He played the four a lot in college, he played the four a lot last year. Defensively when it comes to rebounding we need him to think a little bit more like that when he's at the three."

    Though he captures a lot of attention when he fills up the box score, Granger, like Carlisle, does not gauge his performance by his point total. His most important responsibilities are the largely intangible aspects of the game.

    "Some nights I'm going to score a lot of points, some nights I'm not," Granger said. "If I can help the team by rebounding and my defensive intensity then I think it's a good game."



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EDDIE'S NOT-SO-EXCELLENT ADVENTURE
    Before landing a two-year contract with the Pacers in 2004 – the first guaranteed NBA money of his career – Eddie Gill had bounced around Greece, Italy, the IBL, ABA and D-League, a basketball journey rich with experience and hardship.

    It's likely he never experienced anything like the past few months in Russia.

    Gill signed a reported $600,000 contract to play for Dynamo St. Petersburg, a young but dynamic franchise that was began play in 2004 and enjoyed immediate success. In early October, however, on the verge of a new season, the franchise suddenly folded. As best I can determine from scouring various international Websites, it seems Dynamo was largely funded by a sponsorship from the city. But the city was urging Dynamo to merge with a cross-town franchise in order to consolidate resources. When Dynamo's management balked at the idea, the city pulled its funding.

    According to one of the reports, a major source of the enmity between the city and franchise was this: the KGB apparently owns a stake in all Russian sports teams with the name Dynamo, and the St. Petersburg city board was stocked with former Communist Party officials that apparently did not hold the former secret police agency in high regard.

    Because the franchise folded in October after NBA teams had opened camp, Gill had no shot at returning to the U.S., so he cast about for gigs in Europe. The good news is he landed with a team in Moscow.

    Dynamo Moscow.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PLAYER OF THE WEEK
    Granted, this wasn't one of those weeks where candidates were lining up, but one guy did emerge. After racking up 30 points off the bench against Boston and New Jersey, Marquis Daniels earned a promotion to the starting lineup Saturday in Milwaukee, replacing the slumping Stephen Jackson. The player acquired for Austin Croshere finally has started looking comfortable and therefore playing more aggressively in the Pacers' system, averaging 12.3 points, 4.0 rebounds and 3.0 steals in three games last week.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GAME OF THE WEEK
    After getting outscored by 50 points in the first 2½ games of the week (losing to Boston 114-88, New Jersey 100-91 and then trailing Milwaukee 50-35 at the half) the Pacers finally came to life and dominated the second half 67-50 to pull out a much-needed 102-100 victory over the Bucks despite the absence of leading scorer Al Harrington. In the process, the Pacers snapped a three-game losing streak.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    STAT OF THE WEEK
    That the Pacers would have three players in the NBA's top 20 in 3-point percentage is surprising enough. But consider the players: Darrell Armstrong is sixth (.560), Al Harrington ninth (.500) and Granger 16th (.447). Those players entered the season with career 3-point marks of .334 (Armstrong), .288 (Harrington) and .323 (Granger).



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    QUOTE OF THE WEEK
    Explaining reports of a heated discussion with Rick Carlisle, Larry Bird and Donnie Walsh in the visiting coach's office after the loss in Boston, Jermaine O'Neal had the last word: "It wasn't an argument. It was opinions stated about games and situations and that's what it was. Everybody's prideful. When you expect to win and you get beat the way we got beat, you're going to be a little more emotional. Our conversation maybe should've waited till (the next day), till things calmed down a little bit. But if you didn't have a person with passion, a person that cared, you'd be in trouble."
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist

    "It's something he's worked on," said Coach Rick Carlisle. "He made some last year and really we feel Danny and (Rawle) Marshall both have to develop into good, solid 3-point shooters for us just so we can space the floor and have room for Jermaine (O'Neal) and Al (Harrington) and (David) Harrison to work on the inside. I'm encouraging them to keep working on it. Same thing with Orien Greene, same thing with all our guys, Shawne Williams, Marquis (Daniels). But Danny and Rawle, in particular, we're counting on in the near future."
    Only part of this article that made me go

    This has been discussed numerous times, but let's re-open it in light of this article. Move Danny to SG and Jackson to SF. Each play better offense at those spots, and probably better defense as well. The problem is rebounding.

    Oh ye great basketball minds, discuss!
    It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist

      Danny has been much more of a perimiter player this season then he was last year, which has me torn on where he should play. I like him going to the basket, drawing fouls and being aggressive, but if he's really going to commit to that outside shot and continue to shoot it well, then by all means, that is something we definitley need. I'd like to see a lineup of Quis at point guard, Danny at shooting guard, Al at small forward, Jermaine at power forward and Jeff at Center. I've always advocated Jeff as more of a power forward, but I think this lineup could really work at times.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist

        Its good that he's a decent 3pt threat from beyond the arc....but I really prefer that Granger stay closer to the basket then hovering around the 3pt line. Although I don't mind if Granger is called upon to make a much needed 3pt shot or even one when he left wide open.....but I dont want a player with the all-around abilities and skills like Granger to fall in love with the 3pt shot.

        If we really need a 3pt specialist ( which we really do )....trade or acquire one before the deadline.....don't make Granger one.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist

          Okay, so, Danny has emerged as a more than solid outside shooter. Remind me again why we need Jackson? Ship him off, keep Quis as the starter, and let Danny continue to be a sold shooter AND give him the shot Jack would have had, letting him attack the basket some...

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist

            Originally posted by Just View Post
            Okay, so, Danny has emerged as a more than solid outside shooter. Remind me again why we need Jackson? Ship him off, keep Quis as the starter, and let Danny continue to be a sold shooter AND give him the shot Jack would have had, letting him attack the basket some...
            Unfortunately, we are really thin at the Guard position. Unless we are able to acquire a somewhat decent Guard in return......we still need a player like SJax as he's still a somewhat capable defender ( when he actually tries on defense ) and is still a decent scorer ( as long as TPTB figure out what role he should play on the team....hopefully as a 30+ minute bench player ).

            Also....until I see Granger take a more prominent role on the offense....right now...as a 3rd / 4th option ( since he's usually on the floor with Harrington, JONeal and even SJax ) while taking about 8 FGA a game.......I'm not convinced he's a shooter...yet. He maybe averaging a 45% FG percentage....but I think he has benefitted from playing in a lineup where he has primarily been a 4th ( but sometimes 3rd ) scoring option that most everyone ignores on the offense.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              Unfortunately, we are really thin at the Guard position. Unless we are able to acquire a somewhat decent Guard in return......we still need a player like SJax as he's still a somewhat capable defender ( when he actually tries on defense ) and is still a decent scorer ( as long as TPTB figure out what role he should play on the team....hopefully as a 30+ minute bench player ).

              Also....until I see Granger take a more prominent role on the offense....right now...as a 3rd / 4th option ( since he's usually on the floor with Harrington, JONeal and even SJax ) while taking about 8 FGA a game.......I'm not convinced he's a shooter...yet. He maybe averaging a 45% FG percentage....but I think he has benefitted from playing in a lineup where he has primarily been a 4th ( but sometimes 3rd ) scoring option that most everyone ignores on the offense.
              Let Quis start, and Marshall back him up. Boom! No need for Distraction Jackson.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist

                I am all for getting rid of Jackson.
                It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist

                  Our woeful start can't be squarely put on any single player.....all the starters, coaches and backup players have a "somewhat equal" share in the level of mediocrity displayed so far this season.

                  Although its easy to blame SJax for many of our woes in the past....I don't think that he has done anything significant ( or at least more then anyone else on the team ) this season ( so far ) to warrant being moved before anyone else.

                  But back to the topic at hand......I would hope that Granger sticks more with his mid-range jumper and plays closer to the rim where his athleticsm will serve him well. I only hope that he uses his improved 3pt shot when needed or when he is left wide open......I don't want him to fall in love with the 3pt shot ( much like other SFs have ).
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist

                    Danny has been way too passive on offense and if you look at his 3PA vs his 2PAs its not a "productive" ratio. You won't pressure the defense that way and you won't draw fouls. You also give up longer rebounds and as a long SF yourself you are limiting your own rebound opportunities lingering on the perimeter so much.

                    I'm all for him being a 40% 3ball guy that hits 4-10 every night, but I seriously doubt his shot is really at that level after the 32% we saw last season. So let's say it's more like 35%, well then he needs to cut down that ratio and get at least 2 inside looks for every outside shot.

                    Compare his shot selection to Jack, a guy people are ripping right here. Jack seeks out more attempts inside than out on most nights, and I mean in the paint attempts not just inside the arc.

                    Some of it is that Danny is still a bit intimidated on offense (or plays that way), and doesn't really have a go-to inside move, though based on last year he looked pretty comfortable in the low post. Naturally he tries to do other things at times, he just isn't all that great at them yet. This comes with every young player finding his way.

                    Once it clicks, once you make that effective move that you never really had before, then your game really takes a jump and that includes the confidence level.

                    One other issue is that the team has at times even run 3PA plays for him, and I especially don't like to see that, at least on nights when his attempts are already getting into the 5-6 range. He doesn't need encouragement to hang out beyond the arc.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Granger Becoming 3-Point Specialist

                      That was a good post Seth, I really agree with everything you said. I think Danny isn't actually intimitated to play more inside, I think its that he sees the need for someone to hit the outside shots right now more then someone to score inside. He sees the main scorers on this team are Al and Jermaine, both inside scorers. Jack has become more of an inside scorer so far this season too, and his shot has been off, so Danny is trying to be something he's not.

                      I think we need to pick up an outside shooting specialist, because that will help Danny's development loads.

                      Comment

                      Previous template Next
                      Working...
                      X