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

Probably Kravitz' best article ever

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

  • Probably Kravitz' best article ever

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...sectionstories

    Right now, Indianapolis Colts defensive tackle Eric Foster isn't giving a moment's thought to the plight of NBA owners or NBA players. He has other worries, the result of an injury that left his shin pointing north and his foot gruesomely pointing to the southwest.

    Come Wednesday morning, though, I found myself thinking about Foster, an NFL player, and the continuing lockout of NBA players.

    While Foster has to worry about his career, whether he's going to come back next year or ever, an NBA player in his spot would be without concern. If Foster were an NBA player with a multiyear deal -- as most players are -- he would be set to make money for years to come.

    In the NFL, where careers are extinguished in the blink of an eye, contracts are not guaranteed beyond the signing bonus. In the NBA, where injuries are far less prevalent, contracts are fully guaranteed, to the point where the Indiana Pacers are only now getting out from under the millions they had to pay Jamaal Tinsley.

    The point being this:

    The players' union has to stop fighting over 2 percent or 3 percent of the basketball-related income and get back on the basketball court.

    I realize this is a lockout and not a strike, that this whole thing has been planned and perpetuated by owners who too often need to be saved from themselves. But the NBA business model is broken. Part of that is the fault of owners who need to increase the revenue sharing numbers and help out the likes of the Pacers and Sacramento Kings. But part of it is, times have changed, the economy has gone in the tank, and the players have to be willing to give back more to make their league work. We can argue all day about exactly how many teams are losing money and how much they're losing, but even Forbes magazine acknowledges that enough teams are struggling to make change necessary for the health of the league.

    If we are to believe Commissioner David Stern, the owners already have stopped fighting for rollbacks on contracts, have come off demands for a hard salary cap and no longer are interested in only partially guaranteeing some contracts.

    So it comes down to dividing the basketball revenue.

    That shouldn't be a reason to blow up part or all of the season.

    The risk for everybody is far too great. Even after one of the most compelling seasons in history, with so many likable superstars and mega-teams and built-in drama, the NBA maintains an increasingly tenuous hold on the American sporting consciousness. Take away part or all of this NBA season, and how many fans will come running back, especially in cities like Indianapolis?

    I have not heard this sentence uttered once in my presence:

    "Man, it's killing me the NBA season isn't going to start on time."

    Of course not. We've got the NFL. We've got the baseball playoffs. The college football season is in full swing. The NHL season begins today. (OK, that's just me.)

    In a good year, the NBA is a back-burner sport until late January.

    Go away now, and the damage will be significant.

    If the owners are serious about something close to a 50-50 split of basketball-related revenue, that must be a deal-maker.

    Consider this: The NFL union wanted a 50-50 split and settled for roughly 48 percent in a sport that is flourishing. NBA players were at 57 percent and are willing to move to 53 in a sport that is struggling.

    Ninety-nine percent of the time, I'm a players' guy. I'm a players' guy because I'm a union guy, and I'm all about improving the lot of the regular worker.

    There's no question, the owners have put themselves in this position. Nobody put a gun to anybody's head when it was time to make Rashard Lewis, now in Washington, the second-highest-paid player in the league at $22 million this season. There are plenty of dimwitted owners and general managers in this league who saddle their franchises with ridiculous player contracts. As an example, a lot of the Pacers' wounds in the past decade have been self-inflicted.

    But the players have had it so good for so long, it's time for them to get off the gravy train and make some significant concessions in the interest of the league's long-term financial viability. They're going to take a hit -- through last season they got 57 percent of the basketball-related income and haven't accepted anything less than 53 percent of the BRI in 28 years -- but these are unique and troubled times.

    Think about Eric Foster, and how his life would be different if he were an NBA player in the middle of a long-term deal. One terrible moment on a football field, and he's looking at the loss of millions of dollars.

    The distance between the league and the union doesn't seem all that great right now.

    It's time for the players to leave a few bucks on the table, and get back to work.
    'nuff said.
    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

  • #2
    Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

    Admittedly, I haven't been following the NBA lockout that closely, but if what Kravitz says is correct that the only thing the players are holding out for is a larger percentage of the revenue pie, I'd say they've had it pretty good thus far and need to give alittle.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever



      I have not heard this sentence uttered once in my presence:

      "Man, it's killing me the NBA season isn't going to start on time."
      Interesting then that Kravitz doesn't have much contact with the core fan base of the Indiana Pacers. While it may not be "killing" us, lots of us plainly care deeply about whether or not the season starts on time or not. We want to finally start enjoying the payoff for the purgatory that the Pacers and we as fans have been held in that will begin in earnest almost as soon as the lockout is settled.

      That said, the core is much smaller than it once was.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

        While Foster has to worry about his career, whether he's going to come back next year or ever, an NBA player in his spot would be without concern. If Foster were an NBA player with a multiyear deal -- as most players are -- he would be set to make money for years to come.
        This makes no sense. If Foster were an NBA player his contract would be guaranteed, sure, and if he worked at Google maybe he'd have stock options right now.

        It's time for the players to leave a few bucks on the table, and get back to work.
        Why is he not asking the owners to leave a few bucks on the table? They're all wealthy beyond nearly every NBA players wildest dreams.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
          Why is he not asking the owners to leave a few bucks on the table? They're all wealthy beyond nearly every NBA players wildest dreams.
          You can't leave something on the table when there is nothing there in the first place. Nba teams are bigger than their owners. I root for the Pacers because I grew up in Indiana and they represent our state. Our community benefits from having a team. If this was only about the owners making profits Indiana would no longer even have a team. You need to look at these teams as isolated business's instead of expecting the wealthy owners other ventures to subsidize the losses. We aren't talking about huge football profits here(at least not in Indiana), just solvency.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

            Anyone know what Eric Foster's signing bonus is? I'd like to know that before I would give any thought to Kravitz's take here. I know guys like Wayne and Mathis signed long term deals that were cap friendly and got a really nice signing bonus that would make their total compensation much more in line with the average NBA star of their caliber.

            I don't think you can blame the NBA players for having a guaranteed contract. The NFL union should blame themselves for not having guaranteed contracts, how in a sport so violent as the NFL do you not have have injury clauses to protect your players?
            But many NFL players have insurance to protect against career end injuries. But I think NFL contracts are a joke, they basically keep you from signing with another team who might offer you more money. Interesting that a team can part with a player for whatever reason, but a player can not do the same and sign with another team...

            I do believe the NBA contract is much too iron clad, but good on them for getting paid.
            Infact many people who work on contract have a guaranteed amount. So thats nothing new.
            Last edited by graphic-er; 10-10-2011, 09:56 PM.
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

              Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
              You need to look at these teams as isolated business's instead of expecting the wealthy owners other ventures to subsidize the losses. We aren't talking about huge football profits here(at least not in Indiana), just solvency.
              Okay, so we're taking it as fact that the Pacers are losing millions of dollars every year. This leads me to two things:

              First, the Pacers haven't operated a team worthy of being profitable for the last 6 years. Just being in the NBA shouldn't ensure that a team makes money every year, especially through a prolonged recession.

              Second, if the argument is that the Pacers weren't profitable even in the 90s when they were good, then that makes me question if Indiana is even a viable city for an NBA team. Either an owner needs to understand that he won't make money here and do it for the love of the game, or he needs to move the team.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

                Dear Mr Kravitz,

                Man, it's killing me the NBA season isn't going to start on time.

                Sincerely,

                QuickRelease

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

                  Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                  Dear Mr Kravitz,

                  Man, it's killing me the NBA season isn't going to start on time.

                  Sincerely,

                  QuickRelease
                  To be fair to Bob, since he gets all of his material from PD, he probably just thinks this is another voice in his head. So, technically, he's still correct.
                  You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    Either an owner needs to understand that he won't make money here and do it for the love of the game, or he needs to move the team.
                    Or the system needs to be changed so that it IS viable to operate teams outside of the largest markets.

                    The system shouldn't guarantee profits, but it shouldn't guarantee losses, either. A healthy sports league should represent all areas of the country, not just the most populated.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

                      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                      Either an owner needs to understand that he won't make money here and do it for the love of the game, or he needs to move the team.
                      Sounds kind of like the current job market. The China Pacers, the India Pacers, or maybe the Turkish Hens would be a good name.
                      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

                        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                        Okay, so we're taking it as fact that the Pacers are losing millions of dollars every year. This leads me to two things:

                        First, the Pacers haven't operated a team worthy of being profitable for the last 6 years. Just being in the NBA shouldn't ensure that a team makes money every year, especially through a prolonged recession.

                        Second, if the argument is that the Pacers weren't profitable even in the 90s when they were good, then that makes me question if Indiana is even a viable city for an NBA team. Either an owner needs to understand that he won't make money here and do it for the love of the game, or he needs to move the team.
                        I have a hard time agreeing with this message. The Pacers are probably the 7th to 10th most likely city to lose a team. Tell that to the 6 teams ahead of us that are losing money and need to move their team. What other cities can handle a team under this structure? Nashville, Las Vegas, St Louis, Kansas City? I mean of those, St Louis is the only one I see being more viable than the ones trying not to lose their teams. In order for THE LEAGUE to have 30 teams, they need to have 30 VIABLE teams. This is where sharing local TV revenues amongst the teams evens the playing field with at least covering operating costs. Why do localities need to subsidize so much for a league that is structurally wrong? Why does our federal government even allow this to happen? Losing money is not the problem. There are ebbs and flows to revenue streams, but to have cash cows like the Lakers and Celtics with $2B tv deals on their own and you compare that to the $20M tv deals in Sacramento, Milwaukee, etc... how does that make ANY sense when all of these teams are still selling the same "NBA" brand? It has nothign to do with plotting the rich and against the richer and vice versa. It is about having a structure that promotes all teams, not just two or five. It's about the sustainability of a league. Not just one city's team. It is about overcoming the obstacles to having teams spend money on a similar playing field. We are lucky to have a great owner. We are lucky to have great players. We are an NBA team just the same as the Knicks or Heat or Magic. What will happen when Dwight leaves the Magic? That franchise will be screwed. They did it to themselves, mind you, but how does the league let it even get to that?

                        The players have all the leverage in free agency. The owners should form a union to prevent players from getting paid more. Wait... but that ruins the "market" of free agency. I'm not pro-owner or pro-player. I'm in support of a basketball LEAGUE. Where all teams are part of a LEAGUE. A LEAGUE that is sutainable to promote competition where players are paid extremely well. There needs to be less of a reason for Donald Sterling to be sustainable by promoting losing. Why does that happen? Because he is the one that would rather be profitable than a winner. Why is that even a choice that teams have to make? It is the system that is wrong.
                        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

                          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                          This makes no sense. If Foster were an NBA player his contract would be guaranteed, sure, and if he worked at Google maybe he'd have stock options right now.
                          But that is just the point he is trying to make. That a majority of NFL contracts are not gtd. Therefore Foster's income as an NFL player may be over.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

                            Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                            This makes no sense. If Foster were an NBA player his contract would be guaranteed, sure, and if he worked at Google maybe he'd have stock options right now.
                            Aren't you the same guy who keeps saying you can't compare the NBA to the average Joe's job?


                            Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                            Why is he not asking the owners to leave a few bucks on the table? They're all wealthy beyond nearly every NBA players wildest dreams.
                            Losing 15mil per year isn't enough already? Geesh......
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Probably Kravitz' best article ever

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              Anyone know what Eric Foster's signing bonus is?
                              http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapo...s/eric-foster/

                              1.2 million for this year only. Apparently, no signing bonus. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if someone goes on IR, they get the rest of that years contract. Where Foster gets nailed is future earnings. There may just be none from the NFL.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X