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

Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

    I got to agree about the turnover thing. Even about the Danny Granger part a bit. Decent read.

    It's amazing how much clarity the playoffs bring.

    You can play an entire 82-game schedule over a six-month span and not learn nearly as much about a team as you do by simply playing the same opponent over and over again in a two-week span.

    In this Knicks-Pacers series, with the Pacers leading 3-1 entering Thursday's game in New York, it's the Knicks who have exposed their ugliest side, leaving them open to thorough scrutiny. But it's not only the Knicks' warts that have been exposed so far.

    Here's what we've learned:


    Mike Woodson deserves credit/blame
    Here we thought the Knicks had finally settled on an identity. The team that averaged 103.9 points over its last 18 games in the regular season and went 16-2 was the true version of the Knicks. It was, after all, similar to the Knicks team that started the season, knocking down 3s at a remarkable pace, sharing the ball enough that both Carmelo Anthony and J.R. Smith could get their numbers without bogging down the offense and taking advantage of a smallish lineup that featured Melo at the power forward spot and a pair, any pair, of point guards on the floor at once.

    And for developing that, Woodson deserves plenty of praise. We weren't exactly sure how the oldest team in NBA history would be molded, but to be that regularly explosive was a genuine surprise.

    But then came the postseason, and suddenly the Woodson Knicks were as unreliable as the Woodson Hawks were. Despite the success in the regular season, the Knicks weren't trusting enough in their own offense to rely on it, instead going to their default mode that includes a lot more isolation of Anthony and Smith.

    And Woodson hasn't helped matters in this series. He has enabled the instability by making desperate and questionable lineup changes.

    He went big to match the Pacers in Game 4, putting Kenyon Martin in the starting lienup and tossing the idea of starting two point guards, which worked so well for the Knicks all season. And in choosing his point guards, he stuck with the player who hasn't made a shot since April 23 (Jason Kidd) for 16 minutes ahead of more stable Pablo Prigioni.

    When Woodson does go small, he doesn't fully commit to it, leaving shooters such as Chris Copeland and Steve Novak on the bench regularly. Isn't the idea of going small to make offense a priority? Well, apparently not for Woodson.

    The Pacers could use Danny Granger but don't miss him much
    The Pacers are one of those rare groups not defined by their leading scorer. Technically, Paul George would appear to be their best player, leading the team in scoring (18.3) and assists (5.0) in these playoffs. But the Pacers, unlike the Knicks, have remained true to their system, which includes plenty of post-ups for David West and Roy Hibbert, therefore limiting the pressure on George. That means he can have poor shooting nights -- and he has had plenty this postseason, shooting at just a 38.6 percent clip -- and Indy can still be effective.

    The primary reason for that is George's all-around game. In his worst shooting night of this series (4-of-17, including 2-of-12 from 3), George still offered up 8 rebounds, 8 assists and 5 steals. He followed that up in Game 4 with just six makes in 19 attempts, but added 14 rebounds, 7 assists, 2 steals and 2 blocks.

    You didn't get that kind of all-around production when Granger was the leading offensive presence last season and George was, as his own coach called him, an "afterthought offensively."

    FOLLOW THE NBA ON ESPN
    Stay up-to-date with the latest NBA news, stories and analysis. Follow the NBA on ESPN on Twitter, Facebook and Google+:

    Twitter » Facebook » Google+ »

    It was Granger's absence for most of this season that allowed George to mature into the player who can carry his team to three wins against the Knicks. And Lance Stephenson has essentially filled the role George played last playoffs: a defensive-minded player whose offensive production is a pleasant bonus.

    That doesn't mean the Pacers are better without Granger, though. Frank Vogel mixes and matches at times with players off his bench, and one thing that's missing is a consistent scoring threat on that second unit. Sam Young, D.J. Augustin or Gerald Green can be that person at times, but it would make life for Indiana a lot easier if it were Granger offering that consistent offensive relief.

    It's Amar'e or bust for the Knicks
    You see the look on the face of Anthony after he's forced into one difficult shot-clock-beating jumper after another? It's similar to the look Kevin Durant had throughout the fourth quarters of his second-round experience against the Grizzlies. For that matter, it was the same look we saw from LeBron James so often, before he tore off that Cleveland Cavaliers jersey for the final time.

    Against a regularly dominant defense such as that of the Pacers -- a team that can zero in on a scorer like Melo without opening up many opportunities for others -- Anthony's going to need the type of superstar help LeBron enlisted in Miami. Problem is, that's nearly impossible to accomplish given New York's payroll status and the practically immovable contract of Amar'e Stoudemire.

    For most of this season, and even in the series against Boston, we tended to ignore the future of the Knicks because their present success was so refreshing for the franchise. But one truism has been brought to light in this series: Any team that has J.R. Smith as its second-best player is going to have consistency issues.

    With the contracts of Anthony, Stoudemire and Tyson Chandler weighing them down, the Knicks have limited options when it comes to improving for next season. Even keeping Smith, who very likely will become a free agent this offseason, is no certainty.

    That leaves Stoudemire, once again, as the player the Knicks must rely on to take that next step into true contender status. It's not his talent that's the question. It's always his health. And that will leave Knicks fans with an uneasy feeling despite a second-round appearance for the first time in 13 years.

    Pacers' offense/turnovers eventually will be problematic
    For all the success the Pacers are experiencing in this series, there is one particularly troubling element that could come back to bite them, assuming their postseason continues against Miami.

    Indiana's turnovers, with George as the primary playmaker, can pile up in a hurry.

    In the first four games against the Knicks, the Pacers turned the ball over 16, 21, 17 and 12 times. The 21-turnover game was New York's only win, which included a 30-2 Knicks run.

    George is the primary culprit here, turning the ball over 21 times in the first four games, one more than his 20 assists for the series. He had his turnover problems early in the season, mostly because he tried to split defenders on pick-and-rolls too often. He had settled some, but, in this Knicks series, turnovers have become an issue again.

    Although New York hasn't capitalized that much, the next team George would face thrives off such mistakes. The Heat would turn more of those turnovers into fast-break opportunities. And even the dead-ball turnovers would be problematic because the Heat's offense is far more efficient than New York's right now.

    The Pacers might play differently against Miami, relying even more on post-ups of West and Hibbert against the smaller Heat. But George will be required to create against a swarming Heat defense. And a 0.95 assist-to-turnover to ratio isn't going to cut it.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

    Originally posted by DJVendetta View Post
    I got to agree about the turnover thing. Even about the Danny Granger part a bit. Decent read.
    I've been saying this all season long.....turnovers against Teams on our level ( say the Knicks or the Hawks ) can be overcome by our Defense and talent....but against Elite Level Teams that gobbles up those mistakes and capitalizes on them....it will kill us in the end.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

      I learned all of that before the playoffs.
      "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

        Originally posted by cgg View Post
        I learned all of that before the playoffs.
        Agreed, but at least someone from ESPN notices the obvious. It just seems the obvious is ignored by the media when it comes to us

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

          I disagree about not needing (as much) Granger part. With a healthy Granger, I think Indiana would absolutely bulldoze the Knicks and would either beat the Heat, or the the Heat would need 7 games and the last 20 seconds to beat the Pacers.

          The Pacers defense would be even more devastating with Granger, plus they'd have one more scorer, a scorer that doesn't turn the ball over ever. With a healthy Granger Indiana would be a juggernaut.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

            Originally posted by mattie View Post
            I disagree about not needing (as much) Granger part. With a healthy Granger, I think Indiana would absolutely bulldoze the Knicks and would either beat the Heat, or the the Heat would need 7 games and the last 20 seconds to beat the Pacers.

            The Pacers defense would be even more devastating with Granger, plus they'd have one more scorer, a scorer that doesn't turn the ball over ever. With a healthy Granger Indiana would be a juggernaut.
            Granger is yesterday. His replacement is already in place. Yes, he would be good coming off of the bench but would he be willing to do that? I think Danny Granger is done with the Pacers. If he every plays again, I think he will traded or just released.... PG is just a much better player at his position. Hasn't this playoff run proven that to you yet?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

              Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
              Granger is yesterday. His replacement is already in place. Yes, he would be good coming off of the bench but would he be willing to do that? I think Danny Granger is done with the Pacers. If he every plays again, I think he will traded or just released.... PG is just a much better player at his position. Hasn't this playoff run proven that to you yet?
              I'd feel like we ought to at least give Danny a chance to show what's left before we write him off. The chances are that if every other team feels the same way as you do about him, he'll actually be affordable. Why wouldn't you keep him? I don't think he's going to pout and screw up locker room chemistry if he has to come off the bench.
              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

              • #8
                Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

                Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
                Granger is yesterday. His replacement is already in place. Yes, he would be good coming off of the bench but would he be willing to do that? I think Danny Granger is done with the Pacers. If he every plays again, I think he will traded or just released.... PG is just a much better player at his position. Hasn't this playoff run proven that to you yet?
                Granger said he is willing to do whatever it takes to help his team. If Vogel asks him to contribute off the Bench I think Granger has proven he is mature enough to handle such a situation.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

                  Only the Wizards, Cavs, Bobcats and Bucks have a lower FG% than our Pacers and some of you don't want Granger back? ? ? ?

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

                    Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
                    Granger is yesterday. His replacement is already in place. Yes, he would be good coming off of the bench but would he be willing to do that? I think Danny Granger is done with the Pacers. If he every plays again, I think he will traded or just released.... PG is just a much better player at his position. Hasn't this playoff run proven that to you yet?
                    SMFH, and we give lebron so much crap for leaving cleveland. Granger gave us his best years, he couldve ran off to a contender, abd after one injury we're ready to cast him aside. Loyalty is a 2 way street. These kinda comments make me sick to my stomach. I hope granger is a pacer for the rest of his career
                    Impossible Is Nothing

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

                      Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
                      Granger is yesterday. His replacement is already in place. Yes, he would be good coming off of the bench but would he be willing to do that? I think Danny Granger is done with the Pacers. If he every plays again, I think he will traded or just released.... PG is just a much better player at his position. Hasn't this playoff run proven that to you yet?
                      PG isn't Granger's replacement. PG is the Pacers best wing. If Granger is healthy again, he'll be known as the Pacers second best wing, or he'll be known as their other starting wing.

                      Granger could also come off the bench too, which would be nice. Though that wouldn't make a lot of sense, because if Granger is healthy he'll be a much better player than Lance.

                      Speaking of "replacements." Lance is the guy that replaced Granger. Not PG.

                      Edit - One more thing - **** the Broncos and the Yankees. =)
                      Last edited by mattie; 05-18-2013, 05:02 AM.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

                        Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
                        Granger is yesterday. His replacement is already in place. Yes, he would be good coming off of the bench but would he be willing to do that? I think Danny Granger is done with the Pacers. If he every plays again, I think he will traded or just released.... PG is just a much better player at his position. Hasn't this playoff run proven that to you yet?
                        All this playoff run has shown me is that we need Danny's consistent scoring from the perimeter now more than ever. It's the one thing Paul struggles with, and Danny excels at. Perfect compliment to the team and to the jack of all trades all star in Paul.

                        The thought of Danny at even 80% with this team equates to a more balanced, versatile and potent team both offensively and defensively.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

                          I know I shouldn't be upset by this, but I hate the premise that: ''Anthony's going to need the type of superstar help LeBron enlisted in Miami.''
                          Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

                            Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
                            Granger is yesterday. His replacement is already in place. Yes, he would be good coming off of the bench but would he be willing to do that? I think Danny Granger is done with the Pacers. If he every plays again, I think he will traded or just released.... PG is just a much better player at his position. Hasn't this playoff run proven that to you yet?
                            Heaven forbid we have 2 really good wings. Would it mean the end of PG as we know him if Granger ever came back full strength and leads the team in scoring again? A lot of players have came back to full strength from worse. I can't even relate to your thought process.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Knicks and Pacers: What we've learned. (ESPN)

                              This was copy-pasted to insidehoops.com - LINK: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=300351

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X