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

Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

    Okely, dokely. You're the admin and I'm just Ned Flanders. I find what I said earlier a whole lot more reasonable than what you've said, so I'll let you have the last word...unless JayRedd can end the thread with a joke. That would be cool.


    Anyway, are we are happy that rule #4 was revoked?

    Originally posted by Rules of Pacers Digest

    January 26, 2007: Rule #1 heavily revised to focus on demeaning/derogatory posts. (No Demeaning/Derogatory Posts)
    New Rule #2 (Infractions, Warnings, Appeals).
    What was Rule #4 (No Verbal Attacks on any Players, Coaches, Staff, Management, or Owners) removed.
    Rule for No Advertising "removed", but becomes part of new Rule #2 (Infractions, Warnings, Appeals).
    Rule (No Trolling) tweaked.
    (About the Administrators) tweaked.
    Fixed a handful of typos.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
      Okely, dokely. You're the admin and I'm just Ned Flanders. I find what I said earlier a whole lot more reasonable than what you've said, so I'll let you have the last word...unless JayRedd can end the thread with a joke. That would be cool.


      Anyway, are we are happy that rule #4 was revoked?
      What????

      I'm sorry you feel this way and normally I would never take a public stand like this but I feel in this case I have to.

      I have been an active poster on here since about 6 months into the beginning of this site. I have been an admin. for about a year and a half I think, I'm not real sure there.

      But I have never once in all of my time here ever used my admin. power "if there is such a thing" to end a discussion on a topic.

      What you just implied, either intentionally or not, is that you are not able to continue this discussion with me for fear that I will either now or in the future abuse my position and unfairly punish you.

      Sorry but that unfairly punishes me.

      I have not now nor would I ever abuse that privleage. I work at the discretion of our sites found, Mal, and if you think in any of my dealing with you on here are unfair please feel free to take it up with him.

      I thought we were just have a discussion about the Indiana Pacers, a subject which we both happen to care deeply about. As you can see from any of my posts I often take a contrairian point of view. See my thoughts about O'Neal and Walsh for example.

      However I do not stand above my posts holding the "Ban Hammer" to anyone who dares disagree with me. If I didn't want disagreement I would just write a blog and not bother to read replies.

      Hell, look at Will. I have known Will for years and respect the hell out of him both as a person and a poster. But we disagree on many subjects. Yet Will is one of the first people I seek out to read when I come online.

      I have always respected you as a poster as well. I enjoy your take on the team and I have zero problem that you disagree with my point of view here. Frankly I'll admit that I'm an opinionated blowhard so often times I understand why people disagree with me.

      I'm just very sad and dissapointed though that you feel this way.

      I will apologize in ending and say that I never meant you any offense and I hope that we can continue posting with each other in the future.


      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

        Geez, everybody's so testy. I think he's kidding Peck. Calmicus Downicus.

        Stephen Jackson. Consider the source. I'm glad JOB and I see eye to eye on this. In the whole scheme of things who cares. The Pacers won even if I didn't get to see my favorite player that night. I will start a new thread about something else.
        I'm in these bands
        The Humans
        Dr. Goldfoot
        The Bar Brawlers
        ME

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

          Could the disagreement in the film session been about Tinsley's lackluster play, and he said it was due to his injury, so JOB told him to stay home if it was that bad?

          I agree with Peck on this issue, probably more because I can't wait til the day Tinsley is no longer a Pacer, but there is a chance that there's a midline here.

          I 100% think that he didn't play because of the argument/disagreement and he was told to stay home because of it. You don't have a player from another team, no matter who it is, saying that he was suspended for no good reason. He could have had it slightly wrong, but he was told from someone about JOB's and Tinsley's fallout, so it's not like the story doesn't have legs.

          I wouldn't have that much of an issue about it if it concerned Rush. It concerns me because of Tinsley's past issues. He was given excuse after excuse after excuse to not play the games when he was either unhappy or the team was unhappy with him. ENOUGH BABYING HIM!!!! He said he was relieved to be treated like a man, jabbing at RC, so treat him like a man damnit.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

            Tinsley should've been "inactivated" after the Phoenix game. I'm fine with "inactivating" him for the rest of the year... or his career.

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              But I have never once in all of my time here ever used my admin. power "if there is such a thing" to end a discussion on a topic.
              It's not the admin power that has people concerned, Chancellor. It's the power of the dark side........
              PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                Okely, dokely. You're the admin and I'm just Ned Flanders. I find what I said earlier a whole lot more reasonable than what you've said, so I'll let you have the last word...unless JayRedd can end the thread with a joke. That would be cool.
                Ever hear the one about the gynecologist who looked up his old girlfriend?
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                  I would have to say there is nothing personal in all of this. Everyones attitude is just a product of frustration and lack of clarity on the direction of this franchise. Although no mano-e-mano negativity is needed, we all should be proud that we care about this team enough to be testy when the proverbial "poo" hits the fan. It is this which makes this site so great, pulls us together, and enables us all to define our own "Pacers Zen".
                  Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                    My earlier statement was nothing more than a final salute to you. We're cool.

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    What????

                    I'm sorry you feel this way and normally I would never take a public stand like this but I feel in this case I have to.

                    I'm just very sad and dissapointed though that you feel this way.

                    Every society has order and structure. In traditional societies in Africa and Asia, people are allowed to voice their opinions, sometimes for hours on end. But when the oldest man present speaks, everyone knows the discussion is over. Likewise, in our legislative processes, members are allowed to speak, but one person holds the gavel and when they bang it, the discussion is over.

                    Pacers Digest is also a place where people are free to voice their opinions pretty freely. There is no formal method of resolving any thread or discussion and so some of them go on a long while. One thing that helps is when people recognize that they've already said what they have to say and don't need to say it again. That's what I was doing. I could have just stopped participating in the thread, but I said what I said as a sort of tip of the hat to you. "I'm satisfied that my point of view is clearly stated already, so you can have the floor."

                    There are some insiders and some not-insiders in PD,as with any society. I don't have any problem with that at all. I'm perfectly comfortable with my role as the forum's Ned Flanders. I envision Pacers Digest as a four-years-long party at Hicks' house that I somehow got invited to. It doesn't bother me at all that UncleBuck is sitting in the comfortablest chair, or that Abel is holding the remote control, or that Kegboy is standing nearest to the tap. They were here first. As you say, you've been here a long time, too. I respect that, and as far as I'm concerned that means you deserve the last word. Also, you are an admin, and as far as I'm concerned that also means you deserve the last word.

                    I write pages and pages of stuff at my job and I always aim to be as clear as possible -- never intimating anything that can be stated clearly. If I had intended to imply that you were brandishing a "ban hammer" I would have called you a bully or something. I didn't and I have no reason to think that you are.

                    When I said you were an admin, it was because I wanted to make a personal statement about you (to distimnguish you from myself), and I didn't want to draw attention to your funny ears, so I just said that you are an admin. No malice intended at all. Really.


                    We now return to our regularly scheduled program.....
                    Last edited by Putnam; 01-18-2008, 03:03 PM.
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                      Look, if the team hadn't borrowed Shade's "Van Gundy" films there wouldn't have been a problem. Tins would not have gotten out of line for feeling inadequate.
                      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                        My earlier statement was nothing more than a final salute to you. We're cool.




                        Every society has order and structure. In traditional societies in Africa and Asia, people are allowed to voice their opinions, sometimes for hours on end. But when the oldest man present speaks, everyone knows the discussion is over. Likewise, in our legislative processes, members are allowed to speak, but one person holds the gavel and when they bang it, the discussion is over.

                        Pacers Digest is also a place where people are free to voice their opinions pretty freely. There is no formal method of resolving any thread or discussion and so some of them go on a long while. One thing that helps is when people recognize that they've already said what they have to say and don't need to say it again. That's what I was doing. I could have just stopped participating in the thread, but I said what I said as a sort of tip of the hat to you. "I'm satisfied that my point of view is clearly stated already, so you can have the floor."

                        There are some insiders and some not-insiders in PD,as with any society. I don't have any problem with that at all. I'm perfectly comfortable with my role as the forum's Ned Flanders. I envision Pacers Digest as a four-years-long party at Hicks' house that I somehow got invited to. It doesn't bother me at all that UncleBuck is sitting in the comfortablest chair, or that Abel is holding the remote control, or that Kegboy is standing nearest to the tap. They were here first. As you say, you've been here a long time, too. I respect that, and as far as I'm concerned that means you deserve the last word. Also, you are an admin, and as far as I'm concerned that also means you deserve the last word.

                        I write pages and pages of stuff at my job and I always aim to be as clear as possible -- never intimating anything that can be stated clearly. If I had intended to imply that you were brandishing a "ban hammer" I would have called you a bully or something. I didn't and I have no reason to think that you are.

                        When I said you were an admin, it was because I wanted to make a personal statement about you (to distimnguish you from myself), and I didn't want to draw attention to your funny ears, so I just said that you are an admin. No malice intended at all. Really.


                        We now return to our regularly scheduled program.....
                        Why I oughta ban....

                        Oops sorry power went to my head again.

                        We're cool, I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that I would not do that to anyone.

                        Sorry if I over reacted.

                        Obviously if you are the Ned Flanders that would make the loud fat obnoxious neighbor.

                        Doh!!!



                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                          I didn't make my point clear. If online sites knew Tins was out, then the Warriors knew he was out. Thus Jack as a member of the Warriors would know he was out, and why.

                          I still think everyone is making a big deal out of nothing, and I don't hold with lying. (as the Pacers have been accused of doing)
                          But you and I don't disagree that Jackson knew he was out and the REAL reason why. Where we differ is what we think his knowledge of the Pacers PR situation was at that time.

                          For all Jackson knew the Pacers had disclosed Tins being suspended with pay for an internal matter that has since been resolved. So as the elephant in the room he'd certainly mention it when talking about not playing against Tins.



                          Peck, as I understand it my continued existence here is meant to act as ongoing proof of just how much you keep your banning powers in check. Maybe I need I new avy with a scarlet A on it.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Maybe I need I new avy with a scarlet A on it.
                            As long as you don't go back to a series of elderly or ambigiously gendered women from the 1980s, feel free to do whatever you'd like.
                            Read my Pacers blog:
                            8points9seconds.com

                            Follow my twitter:

                            @8pts9secs

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                              Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                              Geez, everybody's so testy. I think he's kidding Peck. Calmicus Downicus.
                              I will not have my fwends widiculed by the common postery. Anybody else feel like a little giggul, when I mention my friend....Calmicus.....Downicus?
                              (snicker)
                              He has a wife you know. You know what she's called? She's called Incontinentia.

                              Incontinentia Buttocks!



                              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                              As long as you don't go back to a series of elderly or ambigiously gendered women from the 1980s, feel free to do whatever you'd like.
                              Well I did say "A" and not "P" or "N". But I'll admit that you just took Rue McClanahan off my list of options.
                              Now Janet Reno is more 90's. Elderly, check. Ambigiously gendered, check. Looks like a double dip to me.
                              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-18-2008, 04:23 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                Frankly I'll admit that I'm an opinionated blowhard so often times I understand why people disagree with me.

                                That's why I disagree with you! (Giggle, giggle, snort, snort, snort!)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X