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

If Ainge decides to blow Boston up, who (if anyone) do we want?

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

  • #61
    Re: If Ainge decides to blow Boston up, who (if anyone) do we want?

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    Yeah, but they have this Paul Chris guy who seems like he could be the answer.
    I'm sure Pro7 is referring to the possibility of CP3 not resigning with Clips, then they would lose both. But, I'm sure you knew that and you just forgot to green ur statement, right.
    Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: If Ainge decides to blow Boston up, who (if anyone) do we want?

      Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
      I'm sure Pro7 is referring to the possibility of CP3 not resigning with Clips, then they would lose both. But, I'm sure you knew that and you just forgot to green ur statement, right.
      This, and Bledsoe has the ability to be a dynamic player in a backcourt for years to come. There's no guarantee that KG gets them a title.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: If Ainge decides to blow Boston up, who (if anyone) do we want?

        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
        Sarcasm, dude. A few of my opinions have been wrong, but more times than not, I have been spot on and have backed such opinions up with history and facts.
        Basically I believe you lost all credibility when you said you wouldn't trade Collison for Westbrook.
        There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: If Ainge decides to blow Boston up, who (if anyone) do we want?

          Originally posted by croz24 View Post
          Sarcasm, dude. A few of my opinions have been wrong, but more times than not, I have been spot on and have backed such opinions up with history and facts.
          Please tell all of us what you have been spot on about.

          I still would not trade Granger for Lou Williams.
          Westbrook definitely would of been a good (actually great) pick at #11 (had he not shot up to #4 of course).
          Jason Thompson and Joe Alexander aren't close to the players you touted them to be.

          I could go on but I'd like for you to at least equal that amount with your spot on opinions. Please back them up with those facts you claim you have.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: If Ainge decides to blow Boston up, who (if anyone) do we want?

            Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
            I'm sure Pro7 is referring to the possibility of CP3 not resigning with Clips, then they would lose both. But, I'm sure you knew that and you just forgot to green ur statement, right.
            No, I did not forget the green in my statement, as I do not see Chris Paul leaving the Clippers as being very realistic.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: If Ainge decides to blow Boston up, who (if anyone) do we want?

              Originally posted by PR07 View Post
              This, and Bledsoe has the ability to be a dynamic player in a backcourt for years to come. There's no guarantee that KG gets them a title.
              No, but he gets them closer than they are now, which is right in the thick of things. You bring in a guy who is a veteran, a leader, and makes everyone around him better, and I think you roll with that over having a potentially dynamic sixth man for years to come (even though I think it's more likely that they will have to deal Bledsoe sooner rather than later).

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: If Ainge decides to blow Boston up, who (if anyone) do we want?

                Originally posted by Merz View Post
                Please tell all of us what you have been spot on about.

                I still would not trade Granger for Lou Williams.
                Westbrook definitely would of been a good (actually great) pick at #11 (had he not shot up to #4 of course).
                Jason Thompson and Joe Alexander aren't close to the players you touted them to be.

                I could go on but I'd like for you to at least equal that amount with your spot on opinions. Please back them up with those facts you claim you have.
                First, almost none of my Granger trades were one for one so any Lou Williams deal had to have included other pieces. Lou Williams is a damn good player btw. Paul George, Rajon Rondo, James Harden, Roy Hibbert, OJ Mayo, Monta Ellis, Evan Turner, Hansbrough, Rush, JOB, O'neal, Rose, etc. were all players I was amongst the first to tout or criticize on here. For any poor prediction on my part you'd care to list, I can name just as many and moreso where I was accurate. I was spot on in my assertion that the only way George could ever become the leader on this team, was without Granger. I wanted JO traded for maximum value 5 years before he finally was as it was clear the man was simply not a leader for this franchise.

                I still wouldn't touch Westbrook. There's a reason OKC has been having some internal issues with the team this season. "Point" guards like Westbrook who are that ball dominant, inefficient, and care only about their own numbers and being "the guy" are not the kind of players who win you titles. In fact, I can't name one who has. Thank God for Durant or OKC would routinely find themselves in the lottery with a guy like Westbrook leading the team.

                The Pacers philosophy of at least sustaining mediocrity and rebuilding on the fly has been successful only once since 1980 in terms of winning a title. In basketball, you have to be bad before you can be good (title winning good). The Pacers, and most on here, just don't understand that mindset, which is odd given the likely fact that the Colts would be in Los Angeles right now if not for being bad enough to draft Peyton Manning #1 overall. And now the Colts will most likely be a contender for the next decade because they were bad enough to draft Luck #1. Same applies to basketball and the kind of player generally found in the top 5 or so of the draft. The %s are clear that the likelihood of finding a Hall of Fame caliber player in the draft is FAR greater in the top 5 picks than anywhere else. I believe it's about 20-30% or so odds a player drafted here becomes such a player. While a Hall of Fame player doesn't guarantee you a title, it is a guarantee that you won't win a title without a Hall of Fame player.

                And the fact that you can't see Granger's clear flaws as a player, his lack of ball handling, lack of off ball movement, questionable shot taking and decision making, poor effort on defense prior to stretches last year, declining shooting ability, etc. isn't my problem. The man should have been traded a few years ago when we could have acquired assets that could have put us in a better position to win a title. Look around the league at what happens when NBA players are given the green light to shoot 16+ fga/game. They score points. Granger's production was the result of volume shooting on a poor team and the green light to play outside of the confines of any team offense we ran. Go figure that he struggled mightily last year when actually having to play with a solid supporting cast, because he doesn't have the basketball understanding to know where to be without the basketball in his hands.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: If Ainge decides to blow Boston up, who (if anyone) do we want?

                  Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                  First, almost none of my Granger trades were one for one so any Lou Williams deal had to have included other pieces. Lou Williams is a damn good player btw. Paul George, Rajon Rondo, James Harden, Roy Hibbert, OJ Mayo, Monta Ellis, Evan Turner, Hansbrough, Rush, JOB, O'neal, Rose, etc. were all players I was amongst the first to tout or criticize on here. For any poor prediction on my part you'd care to list, I can name just as many and moreso where I was accurate. I was spot on in my assertion that the only way George could ever become the leader on this team, was without Granger. I wanted JO traded for maximum value 5 years before he finally was as it was clear the man was simply not a leader for this franchise.

                  I still wouldn't touch Westbrook. There's a reason OKC has been having some internal issues with the team this season. "Point" guards like Westbrook who are that ball dominant, inefficient, and care only about their own numbers and being "the guy" are not the kind of players who win you titles. In fact, I can't name one who has. Thank God for Durant or OKC would routinely find themselves in the lottery with a guy like Westbrook leading the team.

                  The Pacers philosophy of at least sustaining mediocrity and rebuilding on the fly has been successful only once since 1980 in terms of winning a title. In basketball, you have to be bad before you can be good (title winning good). The Pacers, and most on here, just don't understand that mindset, which is odd given the likely fact that the Colts would be in Los Angeles right now if not for being bad enough to draft Peyton Manning #1 overall. And now the Colts will most likely be a contender for the next decade because they were bad enough to draft Luck #1. Same applies to basketball and the kind of player generally found in the top 5 or so of the draft. The %s are clear that the likelihood of finding a Hall of Fame caliber player in the draft is FAR greater in the top 5 picks than anywhere else. I believe it's about 20-30% or so odds a player drafted here becomes such a player. While a Hall of Fame player doesn't guarantee you a title, it is a guarantee that you won't win a title without a Hall of Fame player.

                  And the fact that you can't see Granger's clear flaws as a player, his lack of ball handling, lack of off ball movement, questionable shot taking and decision making, poor effort on defense prior to stretches last year, declining shooting ability, etc. isn't my problem. The man should have been traded a few years ago when we could have acquired assets that could have put us in a better position to win a title. Look around the league at what happens when NBA players are given the green light to shoot 16+ fga/game. They score points. Granger's production was the result of volume shooting on a poor team and the green light to play outside of the confines of any team offense we ran. Go figure that he struggled mightily last year when actually having to play with a solid supporting cast, because he doesn't have the basketball understanding to know where to be without the basketball in his hands.
                  LOL at not touching Westbrook because he is a "me guy" dude is a leader and one of the hardest workers in the league. He took less to stay in OKC the guy is a team first guy who just happens to have a very unique skill set. He could be my pg any day and I wouldn't change a thing about him. Every player has flaws Russ is so good at what he does putting pressure on the other team. I LOL at people who say he shoots too much when you have his skill I want him shooting at every chance he has.

                  I just have to lol if you really believe what you just typed.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: If Ainge decides to blow Boston up, who (if anyone) do we want?

                    I strongly believe that Granger's shooting ability hasn't declined, but the players that were helping him get higher percentage shots left the team, or had their knee's turn to stone.

                    You should go check out Paul Pierce's stats when JOB was his coach. He had 3 years of declining efficiency, taking tons of unassisted threes. I don't know if there were other factors but Doc fixed it in his first year.
                    "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: If Ainge decides to blow Boston up, who (if anyone) do we want?

                      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                      First, almost none of my Granger trades were one for one so any Lou Williams deal had to have included other pieces. Lou Williams is a damn good player btw. Paul George, Rajon Rondo, James Harden, Roy Hibbert, OJ Mayo, Monta Ellis, Evan Turner, Hansbrough, Rush, JOB, O'neal, Rose, etc. were all players I was amongst the first to tout or criticize on here. For any poor prediction on my part you'd care to list, I can name just as many and moreso where I was accurate. I was spot on in my assertion that the only way George could ever become the leader on this team, was without Granger. I wanted JO traded for maximum value 5 years before he finally was as it was clear the man was simply not a leader for this franchise.
                      Ok...where was this huge mob of people thinking any differently about the majority of those players? Your main platform on this forum has been your anti-Granger platform and you anti-Westbrook platform during the '08 draft (at least those were the ones that stuck out, because the others didn't really go against the majority). If there was a time you were the lone advocate for George, Harden, and Rondo...I guess I missed it. And you wanting O'Neal gone 5 years before he was traded is something no one here will ever know. He was traded in '08...you weren't a member here until '05 (unless you had a different name or had to re-register so some reason) which isn't quite 5 years (if you were on rats complaining about him, I would not have seen it as I wasn't there). I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

                      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                      I still wouldn't touch Westbrook. There's a reason OKC has been having some internal issues with the team this season. "Point" guards like Westbrook who are that ball dominant, inefficient, and care only about their own numbers and being "the guy" are not the kind of players who win you titles. In fact, I can't name one who has. Thank God for Durant or OKC would routinely find themselves in the lottery with a guy like Westbrook leading the team.
                      And how are those players, that you preferred over him, leading their teams? I haven't checked on BC Krasnye Krylia in a while, how is Joe doing? Is he still there?

                      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                      The Pacers philosophy of at least sustaining mediocrity and rebuilding on the fly has been successful only once since 1980 in terms of winning a title. In basketball, you have to be bad before you can be good (title winning good). The Pacers, and most on here, just don't understand that mindset, which is odd given the likely fact that the Colts would be in Los Angeles right now if not for being bad enough to draft Peyton Manning #1 overall. And now the Colts will most likely be a contender for the next decade because they were bad enough to draft Luck #1. Same applies to basketball and the kind of player generally found in the top 5 or so of the draft. The %s are clear that the likelihood of finding a Hall of Fame caliber player in the draft is FAR greater in the top 5 picks than anywhere else. I believe it's about 20-30% or so odds a player drafted here becomes such a player. While a Hall of Fame player doesn't guarantee you a title, it is a guarantee that you won't win a title without a Hall of Fame player.
                      Really, you're the only advocate for that type of rebuilding? Half the forum here was all about tanking when it was clear the team wasn't any good. You are kind of contradicting yourself though, considering you apparently were the only one pumping up George (10th) and Rondo (21st) you'd think you'd understand that talent can be found at any point of the draft. But yeah, we should of tanked in '09-'10...I really wish we had Favors instead of George. Just think we could have Favors and Lou Williams (the next Monta Ellis OMG!!!) instead of George and that bum Granger who does nothing but shoot 16 times a game. If only you were the GM. If the Pacers had tanked the past few years who would they have? Probably Tyreke Evans (who Bird apparently loved), Derrick Favors, hopefully not Westbrook (I mean ewwww amirite??).

                      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                      And the fact that you can't see Granger's clear flaws as a player, his lack of ball handling, lack of off ball movement, questionable shot taking and decision making, poor effort on defense prior to stretches last year, declining shooting ability, etc. isn't my problem. The man should have been traded a few years ago when we could have acquired assets that could have put us in a better position to win a title. Look around the league at what happens when NBA players are given the green light to shoot 16+ fga/game. They score points. Granger's production was the result of volume shooting on a poor team and the green light to play outside of the confines of any team offense we ran. Go figure that he struggled mightily last year when actually having to play with a solid supporting cast, because he doesn't have the basketball understanding to know where to be without the basketball in his hands.
                      I can see Granger's flaws, believe me. You're the one who is blind to flaws...other players flaws, non-Pacers flaws. The players you've wanted to deal Granger for are less flawed than Danny? Really?
                      Last edited by Merz; 02-04-2013, 03:53 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X