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

Week 1: @ Broncos

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

  • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    I swear, I'm going to be so heated if we waste all of that Lucas Oil energy on MNF by starting the game with those awful slow formations and plays.

    I hope they come out firing with 3 wides and a tight end, probably not Fleener and Richardson running or catching out of the backfield.
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

    Comment


    • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

      Brown 5.3ypc
      Ballard 4.8ypc
      Bradshaw 4.5ypc
      Richardson 2.9ypc

      If that doesn't convince you that Richardson is a bigger problem than the OL then nothing will. It isn't a coincidence that the OL looks decent or great when every other RB is on the field but terrible when Richardson is. It is a matter of making the most of what is given to you, and Richardson routinely does not do that while the other RBs do.

      Comment


      • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        The line doesn't suck. It simply could be better. But it doesn't suck.


        Because the majority of his runs afterwards are either met at the LOS or stuffed in the backfield
        But the line doesn't suck! They might not be able to open up any holes, and allow the defense in the backfield every play, but they don't suck.....
        Last edited by Since86; 09-09-2014, 09:59 AM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          I do agree with those who say that part of Richardson's problem is that he plays at the start of the game when the team is running those power running plays in those dreadfully predictable formations. Seriously, don't good offenses want to keep defenses guessing as much as possible? Those power run formations are about the most predictable thing in the NFL right now. Such a waste of offensive talent.
          Changing RB's would fix all those issues. I don't know how, but clearly the only issue that needs fixed is Trent.*


          *I give up being logical, so now I'm just going to throw things out and hope they stick just because I want to fit in.


          And the Pats need a new QB btw. Brady was pressured 23 times during Sunday's game, and we all know when the line can't do their job, it's time to change skill players.
          Last edited by Since86; 09-09-2014, 10:00 AM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

            Oh, and want to know why the OLine looked so much better in the second half? Because Denver stopped blitzing so much. Anytime they needed a defensive stop, they ratcheted up the pressure and hurried Luck.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post




              But the line doesn't suck! They might not be able to open up any holes, and allow the defense in the backfield every play, but they don't suck.....
              I already explained it to you, Cement Feet has absolutely no quicks at all so he can't hit the hole or burst outside. He's epically slow for an NFL running back. You guys might as well get used to hearing this because TRich is a bust, a failure, a whiff and will have to be replaced. To not recognize this you have to be homerific at this point.
              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


              • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

                I just don't see how 51 yards on 9 touches is bad production for a running back, but whatever floats your boat.


                Comment


                • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  I already explained it to you, Cement Feet has absolutely no quicks at all so he can't hit the hole or burst outside. He's epically slow for an NFL running back. You guys might as well get used to hearing this because TRich is a bust, a failure, a whiff and will have to be replaced. To not recognize this you have to be homerific at this point.
                  You've also explained how the OLine isn't really that bad. So I'll take being a homer, while you stay absolutely blind. When you have to try and convince people the Colts OLine isn't that bad, you've jumped a whale shark.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    But the line doesn't suck! They might not be able to open up any holes, and allow the defense in the backfield every play, but they don't suck.....
                    The line did suck, at pass protection. The amount of times Richardson got stuffed behind the line of scrimmage because a defender went unblock was not that often last season. If that was the problem, please explain how Brown was able to average 5.0 ypc while constantly being hit in the backfield and having no holes? Oh wait cause the problem wasn't because there was constantly defenders in the backfield and no holes. It was because Richardson wouldn't hit the hole that was there like Brown did.

                    Richardson has terrible running instincts. He is either slow to see the hole, or does the opposite of what he should be doing. More times than not when he was tackled for negative yards it was a result of a poor decision by Richardson. There are break downs from last year of plays that they would run for Brown and Richardson both, with almost identical blocking. On those plays Brown routinely made the right decision gained good yardage, while Richardson would do the opposite and end up getting tackled for little to no gain.


                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    I just don't see how 51 yards on 9 touches is bad production for a running back, but whatever floats your boat.
                    It isn't, but it isn't because he is a good runner. It is because he is a good receiver out of the backfield, which is a part of his game that we rarely seem to take advantage of even though it might be his most useful skill. For comparison though, Bradshaw got 85 yards on 8 touches.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      The line did suck, at pass protection. The amount of times Richardson got stuffed behind the line of scrimmage because a defender went unblock was not that often last season. If that was the problem, please explain how Brown was able to average 5.0 ypc while constantly being hit in the backfield and having no holes? Oh wait cause the problem wasn't because there was constantly defenders in the backfield and no holes. It was because Richardson wouldn't hit the hole that was there like Brown did.
                      Already explained this, citing multiple articles. Brown was used in different sets. For example, they ran out of shotgun more with DBrown. If the differences in how the Colts used Trent and how they used Donald aren't visible, and this summer's discussion didn't make things click, I doubt me saying it for the 11th time will.



                      The point, which apparently is being missed, is that one page ago Bball admits that the OLine let's defenders into the backfield, and then wants to say that the way to fix the run game is to change RBs. It would be like saying, Pacer guards can't stop the offense from getting into the lane, so the Pacers need to change their bigs, because their not blocking the shots.

                      When your line is a problem on the pass rush, and they're a problem in the running game, the most logical thing to do would be to fix the line.

                      If you admit that the OLine continually lets defenders into the backfield, probably not a good argument to make only a page later that the OLine is doing okay. The inconsistency in the argument paints the picture enough.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

                        This article link was posted a few weeks ago, but I'll go ahead and quote aspects of it.

                        All the stats in the world suggest that Richardson had a colossal train wreck of a season in 2013--2.9 yards per carry, only one run over 20 yards all year, just three touchdowns against two fumbles. Richardson even came in ranked 45th out of 47 running backs with 100 or more carries in Football Outsiders’ Defense-Adjusted Yards Above Replacement metric (-22.2%). For comparison’s sake, Richardson’s teammate Donald Brown came in 14th at +19.2%. Like many things in football, however, stats can be extraordinarily misleading. I went into my film study for this piece thinking that Richardson, coming from an Alabama offense that primarily utilized zone blocking on run plays, was uncomfortable when reading the "gap" running plays, such as power, ISO, wham, trap, and counter, that the Browns and Colts employed. That discomfort then presumably lead to the "tentativeness" and "lack of vision" that was so often reported around the football media circuit.


                        And then I watched the film.

                        After charting 69 total runs across five different games, a sample size that includes over a third of Richardson’s total runs in 2013, I came to a conclusion that went directly against every standardized number in the book – Trent Richardson is a beast. Out of those 61 runs, here is how they broke down by play type.
                        Gap runs – 44/61 (64%) (MY NOTE: Also known as "power running" plays. It's runs designed to stay inbetween the tackles. It's the Steelers way of running the ball.)
                        Zone runs – 17/61 (25%)
                        Toss plays – 6/69 (8%)
                        Draw plays – 2/69 (3%)
                        Even more surprising, out of 42 "bad runs" that went for three yards or less in those five games, only four of those bad results were directly the fault of Richardson himself. That means that a staggering 90% of Trent Richardson’s so-called bad plays were caused by the abysmal run blocking that Indianapolis and Cleveland put in front of him last season. There were times while watching Oniel Cousins and Samson Satele get defeated over and over where I was almost in disbelief with just how impossibly hard it was for Richardson to find a well-blocked lane. If Satele was not beaten, then surely Gosder Cherilus had blown a block, or Anthony Castonzo, or Hugh Thornton, or one of Indy’s many tight ends who could not seal an edge if their lives depended on it (I’m looking at you, Coby Fleener) had. In short, I would argue that Richardson got his 2.9 yards per carry in spite of the blocking in front of him. Had a lesser talent been behind that line, it could have been much, much worse.

                        And then comes the DBrown stuff.
                        One of the most popular arguments against Richardson that gets perpetuated almost daily is Donald Brown’s seemingly successful year behind the exact same offensive line. Brown’s 5.3 yards per carry average gets thrown around a lot, but that stat never really addresses the fact that Brown was almost exclusively used as a change of pace back. Brown’s numbers are inflated by several games of five carries or less that had huge average yards per carry totals. 21.7 YPC on three carries against Jacksonville, 8.3 YPC on three carries against San Francisco, and 7.6 YPC on five carries against Houston certainly look nice on the stat sheets, but Brown’s games with heavier workloads look entirely different. In the five games in which Brown had ten or more carries, he had a YPC average below 4.0 in three of them. In his 7.9 YPC effort against Kansas City on ten carries, 51 of his 79 rushing yards came on one run out of the shotgun against a dime package with six defensive backs on the field. Brown’s other nine carries averaged 3.1 yards. Meanwhile, Richardson totaled over 50 more carries than Brown despite being on the team for two fewer games. Richardson was the workhorse, and Brown his complementary back. When Brown was asked to handle bigger loads, his raw numbers suffered just as much as Richardson due to Indy’s terrible offensive line. Nobody in that backfield was safe. Nobody.
                        http://www.battleredblog.com/2014/7/...son-is-a-beast

                        And then you can follow the link to watch his video examples.
                        Last edited by Since86; 09-09-2014, 12:41 PM.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                          The point, which apparently is being missed, is that one page ago Bball admits that the OLine let's defenders into the backfield, and then wants to say that the way to fix the run game is to change RBs.

                          When your line is a problem on the pass rush, and they're a problem in the running game, the most logical thing to do would be to fix the line.

                          If you admit that the OLine continually lets defenders into the backfield, probably not a good argument to make only a page later that the OLine is doing okay. The inconsistency in the argument paints the picture enough.
                          I didn't say that. For the 3rd time... I said Cement Feet was too slow to hit a hole or cut outside. Or make a quick, proper decision for that matter.

                          So let's try this again: I do not think the line can't open a hole or cannot regularly keep defenders out of the backfield. They are simply not good enough for a back without NFL quickness or decision-making to succeed. If we had a great O-Line TRich would at best be serviceable. But a serviceable back would look good to great behind that same line.

                          I've consistently spoken to that theme. So, no, you are not correct in what you are saying I said or what you thought I said.

                          Now, we could always improve the line because we are far from great. But no line is going to allow Cement Feet to look great.
                          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


                          • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            I didn't say that. For the 3rd time... I said Cement Feet was too slow to hit a hole or cut outside. Or make a quick, proper decision for that matter.

                            So let's try this again: I do not think the line can't open a hole or cannot regularly keep defenders out of the backfield. They are simply not good enough for a back without NFL quickness or decision-making to succeed. If we had a great O-Line TRich would at best be serviceable. But a serviceable back would look good to great behind that same line.

                            I've consistently spoken to that theme. So, no, you are not correct in what you are saying I said or what you thought I said.

                            Now, we could always improve the line because we are far from great. But no line is going to allow Cement Feet to look great.
                            No, you said it, but tried to say it in a way that puts the blame on "cement feet" instead of the linemen allowing the backfield pentration. I'll quote you, so we don't have to rely on summaries.

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            TRich always gets an early decent run or two.... usually just the one decent run. That's how he averages 2.9 yards per carry.... Because the majority of his runs afterwards are either met at the LOS or stuffed in the backfield as he can't find the speed to make a quick move to hit a hole or get around a corner.
                            If you follow the link I just posted, you'll see about 5 videos show that the OLine is getting beat right at the snap. That has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with "cement feet."
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos



                              Damn you cement feet!!!! The OLine did a good job, you just took too long with your slowness!!!!
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Week 1: @ Broncos

                                His arguments are getting stupid, Since86, and the Cement Feet schtick is getting him close to blocked status. I'd just leave it alone, he hates TRich, nothing is going to change that.
                                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X