Couch Cachers

4.8k · August 4, 2009

What would you do if you found out a very prominant cacher in your area was couch caching?

What if you have irrefutable proof?

Just curious.

And, no, I don't couch cache. ~LOL~

August 4, 2009

what do you mean by couch caching

38.2k · August 4, 2009

Besides losing respect for him, nothing.

4.8k · August 4, 2009

what do you mean by couch caching

Couch caching is recording finds without having ever visited (or at least found) the cache. The easiest way to discover a someone is couch caching is by the absence of a signature in logs in caches they claim to have found.

August 4, 2009

I don't even have a couch.

August 4, 2009

I do have >10 cats (I usually blame that on my daughter, though). It would take a long time to describe all of them.

One of my neighbors has more.

9.3k · August 4, 2009

Besides losing respect for him, nothing.

I'll side with Brian on this one :anitongue:

August 4, 2009

If someone signs thier name while they are in abstentia... :anitongue:

It's a game.

And with all games, some make up rules....

SOOOO...

Great! They have alot of finds, and they have to live with not really having found them.

For some..it's about the numbers (wether they really found it or not), for the rest of us, it's about the journey.

Count me in the "Its about the Journey" group.

~Jenni

3.4k · August 4, 2009

Besides losing respect for him, nothing.

I'll side with Brian on this one

Same here, I'd go so far as to not notice them in the most extreme way possible, by being actively ignorant and going about my own business.

If CO's want to expunge phony logs that's up to them.

Edited August 4, 2009 by DragonsWest

August 4, 2009

Great! They have alot of finds, and they have to live with not really having found them.

For some..it's about the numbers (wether they really found it or not),

...And what do they think that they're going to win if their find count is that much higher?

for the rest of us, it's about the journey.

Here Here!

3.3k · August 4, 2009

I guess I would remind myself that:

It isn't important what caches you search.

It isn't important the caches you hide.

What is important, is how you play the game.

I don't think I would get too worked up over it. Lose respect for sure. An email, maybe if the logs were on my caches. What would be the hurt to me? If none, no action really needed.

4k · August 4, 2009

I know of that in my area... I don't care. If that is how you have fun, so be it.

7.7k · August 4, 2009

What if you have irrefutable proof?

Depends on how irrefutable is your proof I guess. Even then, the most I would do is delete it from my cache if it was logged there. Otherwise, it's not worth raising my blood pressure for. I don't mean "live and let live", more like "oh yeah, that scumbag is at it again, at least he's not out stealing geocoins".

August 4, 2009

I wouldn't worry about it either.....I don't understand why they would do that either.

August 4, 2009

Just had a guy about 3 days ago claim some of mine that weren't signed....weren't even opened. What made me REALLY mad is that 2 of them were claimed FTF's. Needless to say, he is absent 3 smileys & 2 FTF's now. :anitongue:

August 4, 2009

What would you do if you found out a very prominant cacher in your area was couch caching?

What if you have irrefutable proof?

From the cache listing guidelines;

"The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

If its your cache, I'd say delete the online log, unless the 'finder' has stated convincingly why they couldn't sign the logbook...

Mike

4.8k · August 4, 2009

What would you do if you found out a very prominant cacher in your area was couch caching?

What if you have irrefutable proof?

From the cache listing guidelines;

"The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

If its your cache, I'd say delete the online log, unless the 'finder' has stated convincingly why they couldn't sign the logbook...

Mike

Oh, it's not my cache. I was asking a hypothetical question, for the most part.

August 4, 2009

Oh, it's not my cache. I was asking a hypothetical question, for the most part.

Gotcha. Here in Europe, it has become a HUGE problem for the owners of virtuals and earthcaches in particular, with armchair/couch cachers from certain countries (Germany especially and, oddly, Latvia) posting bogus finds ("sorry but I am forgetting my camera so have no picture") in multiple countries on the same day...some of them attempt to legitamise their virt/earth cache 'finds' by 'claiming' a nearby trad at the same time!

Sadly, this has lead to some excellent caches (such as Pompeii) being archived. :anitongue:

Mike

August 4, 2009

I would think that a sting of some sort would be in order here.

Wait! Never mind... that's crazy talk.

I would say ignore it, don't sweat it, and/or pass around surveillance photos at the next geo-bash. Mostly the first two though and really not at all the last.

IMO, that type of cheating at geocaching doesn't really hurt anyone (except if there are people who are emotionally invested in a different points system or those who search for a cache that isn't there based on a find log). Despite my snide comments, I sympathize with the frustration that you must feel when you find out that someone (especially someone respected locally) is logging caches without finding them; the best thing for sanity though would seem to just say "I can control how I play the game and can influence how others do by my attitude and example. However, I can't dictate anything to others and to do so could have negative consequences to a fairly precariously balanced hobby so better to move on and enjoy the places I visit and the fact that I'm sharing places I love with others."

As much as I can't help myself from teasing you bittsen for things like suggesting stings or other comments, I want you to know that I do appreciate your activity on the forums and also empathize with your frustration with people not participating in the game when you're working to do it right. Hope you can move beyond it and not have it mar your appreciation of the thousands who do play it right!

4.8k · August 4, 2009

I would think that a sting of some sort would be in order here.

Wait! Never mind... that's crazy talk.

I would say ignore it, don't sweat it, and/or pass around surveillance photos at the next geo-bash. Mostly the first two though and really not at all the last.

IMO, that type of cheating at geocaching doesn't really hurt anyone (except if there are people who are emotionally invested in a different points system or those who search for a cache that isn't there based on a find log). Despite my snide comments, I sympathize with the frustration that you must feel when you find out that someone (especially someone respected locally) is logging caches without finding them; the best thing for sanity though would seem to just say "I can control how I play the game and can influence how others do by my attitude and example. However, I can't dictate anything to others and to do so could have negative consequences to a fairly precariously balanced hobby so better to move on and enjoy the places I visit and the fact that I'm sharing places I love with others."

As much as I can't help myself from teasing you bittsen for things like suggesting stings or other comments, I want you to know that I do appreciate your activity on the forums and also empathize with your frustration with people not participating in the game when you're working to do it right. Hope you can move beyond it and not have it mar your appreciation of the thousands who do play it right!

Your humor in this post is not lost on me.

As I said previously, this has nothing to do with my caches. It's just "chatter" at the moment. My curiousity was piqued as to what others would do in this situation.

Personally, the temptation to out the person would be almost too tempting but I realize these days that some would consider me a lesser person, and somehow actually take pity upon the person who was busted. Human nature being as interesting, and illogical as it is.

I would add that my scenario indicated a "well known" person, not a "respected" one. In my hypothetical scenario, this person may have been caught cheating in other ways previously.

But it's all hypothetical. I am in no way connected to anyone (as far as I know) who has engaged in couch caching. To the best of my knowledge my cache logs coincide with the signatures on them.

August 4, 2009

Besides losing respect for him, nothing.

Yeah, I'm with Brian and Riffster on this one.

Oh, if this hypothetical person caught in a sting logged one of my caches, I'd delete the log.

Then, of course, carry on with the obligatory 'loss of respect' and 'nada' course of action.

then again, we could always take their couch...... :anitongue:

August 4, 2009

then again, we could always take their couch......

Don't forget to trade up or trade even for it. :laughing:

August 4, 2009

I wonder if I can fit a couch in a geocache..... I may need to get rid of one soon... Probably won't fit in a micro, huh?......

Couch caching sounds lame. I know people will skirt the system and cheat, I get that, but I have never understood those who go so far out of their way, to waste their time to cheat or whatever.... What gets me is that couch cachers, ones who have hundreds or thousands of finds, they actually had to sit on their couch and spend hours, if not days and weeks, searching for and logging fake finds on geocaching.com!!!!!

That's what amuses me and keeps me laughing.

3.1k · August 4, 2009

what do you mean by couch caching

Couch caching is recording finds without having ever visited (or at least found) the cache. The easiest way to discover a someone is couch caching is by the absence of a signature in logs in caches they claim to have found.

I would not consider that irrefutable. Maybe they found it as part of a team. Maybe they sign with their real name and use a screen name here. Maybe they logged the wrong cache (not a valid log but also not couch caching). Maybe they got involved in trading items and forgot to sign (some would consider that an invalid online find, but again, not couch caching).

August 4, 2009

what do you mean by couch caching

Couch caching is recording finds without having ever visited (or at least found) the cache. The easiest way to discover a someone is couch caching is by the absence of a signature in logs in caches they claim to have found.

I would not consider that irrefutable. Maybe they found it as part of a team. Maybe they sign with their real name and use a screen name here. Maybe they logged the wrong cache (not a valid log but also not couch caching). Maybe they got involved in trading items and forgot to sign (some would consider that an invalid online find, but again, not couch caching).

Sounds like the person does it on all their cache "finds", not just one here or two there.... But you're correct, gotta give them the benefit of the doubt. I guess, a person could confront them and see what happens...... That could be interesting.... :anitongue:

3.1k · August 4, 2009

what do you mean by couch caching

Couch caching is recording finds without having ever visited (or at least found) the cache. The easiest way to discover a someone is couch caching is by the absence of a signature in logs in caches they claim to have found.

I would not consider that irrefutable. Maybe they found it as part of a team. Maybe they sign with their real name and use a screen name here. Maybe they logged the wrong cache (not a valid log but also not couch caching). Maybe they got involved in trading items and forgot to sign (some would consider that an invalid online find, but again, not couch caching).

Sounds like the person does it on all their cache "finds", not just one here or two there.... But you're correct, gotta give them the benefit of the doubt. I guess, a person could confront them and see what happens...... That could be interesting....

True. But even then, maybe they just don't sign. I know many or most people would not call that a find. but it's a far lesser offense than couch caching.

Couch caching -- I think I do like that better than "armchair caching". It sounds more comfortable, and thus lazier, and thus more worthy of eyerolling. How about "sofa caching"? Less alliterative, but rolls off the tongue easier.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Dinoprophet

August 4, 2009

Instead of armchair or couch caching, what about LazyBoy Caching?.... That's even got the word lazy in the phrase!!!! LOL :anitongue:

August 4, 2009

I wonder if I can fit a couch in a geocache..... I may need to get rid of one soon... Probably won't fit in a micro, huh?......

Probably not, but I did once find a cache that was a couch, and had a micro log to sign (Gee, I found a Sofa on the way to a cache...). Is that close enough? :anitongue:

19k · August 4, 2009

pass around surveillance photos at the next geo-bash.

That really would be a bash, wouldn't it? Bash the geocacher. :anitongue:

20.7k · August 4, 2009

what do you mean by couch caching
Couch caching is recording finds without having ever visited (or at least found) the cache. The easiest way to discover a someone is couch caching is by the absence of a signature in logs in caches they claim to have found.
I would not consider that irrefutable. Maybe they found it as part of a team. Maybe they sign with their real name and use a screen name here. Maybe they logged the wrong cache (not a valid log but also not couch caching). Maybe they got involved in trading items and forgot to sign (some would consider that an invalid online find, but again, not couch caching).

Agreed.

If it were my cache, I'd likely send them a polite email asking for clarification. If it wasn't my cache, I'd do nothing. Heck, if it wasn't my cache, I wouldn't even notice the issue.

August 4, 2009

what do you mean by couch caching

Couch caching is recording finds without having ever visited (or at least found) the cache. The easiest way to discover a someone is couch caching is by the absence of a signature in logs in caches they claim to have found.

I would not consider that irrefutable. Maybe they found it as part of a team. Maybe they sign with their real name and use a screen name here. Maybe they logged the wrong cache (not a valid log but also not couch caching). Maybe they got involved in trading items and forgot to sign (some would consider that an invalid online find, but again, not couch caching).

Excellent points. Also if it's a cache with a small log roll they might have fit their sig in a blank space they noticed to help the log last as long as possible.

I don't think I'd ever notice this myself, but if I heard a rumor I might give it a look out of curiosity. Wouldn't do anything about it myself if it only involved other CO's caches.

Edited August 4, 2009 by rob3k

3.8k · August 4, 2009

What would you do if you found out a very prominant cacher in your area was couch caching?

What if you have irrefutable proof?

Just curious.

And, no, I don't couch cache. ~LOL~

If it happens to be on a cache I own that I just happen to audit I'd delete the log without hesitation and then move on. If it happens anywhere else, I could care less. I find it odd that you have liberal opinions on other realms of geocaching but you'd be worried about this.. presuming that you're actually worried about this that is.

August 4, 2009

So let me throw a twist into this, and living on the other side of town from Bittsen, I may or may not have heard some similar chatter, it depends how you interpret it. But more to the point, I have recently had to archive a few caches myself and just for giggles I grabbed one and decided to look at the log for fun.

My only reason for doing this was after running into a cache in the far Southeastern corner of Oregon that I thought there had been no visitors to after a couple months of being published. A number of people had signed the log but not logged online. This piqued my interest and wanted to see how many local cachers did this.

Here's the funny part - none. There were no unlogged signatures in the cache. But I did find one missing signature out of 85. It got me thinking - because of the local chatter, so I went out and checked a series of caches that still had the original logs in them that belonged to me. I found a pattern to signatures being missing for this one cacher.

Now, normally I'm a live and let live type of guy, but this is someone who has publicly complained in the past about their logs being deleted for no good reason - and shown a very nasty streak when confronted. I have valid and acceptable reason to delete the log, but don't know if I want to go through the angst of the debate through the process.

I'm trying to be delicate here: On the one hand, I don't care if someone wants to armchair virtuals in Europe. I don't care if you have more finds than me. I don't care if you want to cache with a lack of integrity and not go through the effort to truely find a cache, just drive by GZ and call it good. It's your choice. Just don't blast me if I decide to delete your log because you cannot prove you found the cache. And that is key, IF I decide to delete... As a CO, it is my choice.

On the other hand, it takes away from the game to allow people to log finds without actually finding them...

To be clear, I do feel there are times when a lack of signature is OK, but only after you OK it through the CO. I had a find where some pack rats carted off the cache (it was in an abandoned crypt - go figure) and I could see the log and signatures down the rat hole, but couldn't recover. Sent the CO and email giving the signatures to him and describing what I found. He thought it was funny and said no problem, log a find after the extra effort that went into telling him the cache had issues. But that is the exception, not the rule. Plus I went back after it was replaced and signed the log (it bacame a quick grab, I knew right where it should be)

Driving by or giving up a search before the cache is found and still logging a smiley is clearly out of bounds. Just as walking away because of high muggle activity isn't an excuse for logging a find either.

What would you do?

3.1k · August 4, 2009

So let me throw a twist into this,...

Good post. I agree with it all. It still doesn't mean this person didn't visit those caches, but it's more than enough reason to delete those online logs.

August 4, 2009

What would you do if you found out a very prominant cacher in your area was couch caching?

What if you have irrefutable proof?

Just curious.

And, no, I don't couch cache. ~LOL~

I find it odd that you have liberal opinions on other realms of geocaching but you'd be worried about this.. presuming that you're actually worried about this that is.

I always knew bittsen was one of those left-wing nut jobs stirring things up!! :anitongue: Liberal opinions? How do we draw the liberal/conservative lines in caching?

As far as couch caching, I say we hunt them down with pitchforks and torches. I bet they are the same people who look in the back of the Soduku books for the answers without even trying the puzzles.

I say when we can find these people, we bring them to justice, make them answer for their deeds, restrict the types of caches they can do to muliples with at least 5 stages; traditional caches that are 5/5; and only micros. We should also develop a website called "Bittsen's Law" that lists who and where these cachers live so we can keep track of them when they move into our area.

August 4, 2009

I'm trying to be delicate here: On the one hand, I don't care if someone wants to armchair virtuals in Europe. I don't care if you have more finds than me. I don't care if you want to cache with a lack of integrity and not go through the effort to truely find a cache, just drive by GZ and call it good. It's your choice. Just don't blast me if I decide to delete your log because you cannot prove you found the cache. And that is key, IF I decide to delete... As a CO, it is my choice.

Driving by or giving up a search before the cache is found and still logging a smiley is clearly out of bounds. Just as walking away because of high muggle activity isn't an excuse for logging a find either.

What would you do?

Oh, bother, not the "fine European tradition of logging virtuals they have not visted re-tread. :anibad:

As I posted back in '07 on the subject, I no-kidding got this email from an "armchair" or "couch" cacher -

"Hello Jeep Dog,

concerning virtual cache Buffalo Soldiers GC9117 I would like to confirm my solution as there is no reply from the cache owner. Since you have visited the cache in reality please let me know if I was correct.

Best regards," :blink: :blink:

Yeah, I wonder why that cacher did not get a reply from the CO, and thought that since I had "visited the cache in reality" I was more inclined to reply then the CO? :huh:

Fester, to answer your question, if I owned caches/virtuals that were being logged from afar without a visit, then in my opinion they are "bogus," which would then require what I think a responsible action of deleting the log, as suggested in the guidelines.

Then again, we are talking about a definitive trend. What about onesies and twosies? Well, the Grande Pubah Master himself logged a cache without signing the logbook , so who are we to judge?

3.8k · August 4, 2009

What would you do if you found out a very prominant cacher in your area was couch caching?

What if you have irrefutable proof?

Just curious.

And, no, I don't couch cache. ~LOL~

I find it odd that you have liberal opinions on other realms of geocaching but you'd be worried about this.. presuming that you're actually worried about this that is.

I always knew bittsen was one of those left-wing nut jobs stirring things up!! Liberal opinions? How do we draw the liberal/conservative lines in caching?

I did not write "Liberal". I wrote "liberal", with a small "L". There was nothing political about my statement in the slightest. Webster is your friend.

August 4, 2009

I did an armchair cache, for a virtual based on the North Pole, just for the fun of it. But it was specifially set up for long distance logging.

I would certainly be bent out of shape if I knew someone was bragging about a find count based on bogus finds, but I think that speaks more to me than it does about the counterfeit count.

I appreciate the live and let live folks on these forums - I might be like one of them one day :anibad:

August 4, 2009

I read a great quote a couple of weeks ago that has really stuck with me -

"How other people act is their own karma. How you react is yours."

Let them have their false logs if that makes them feel good, although I have no idea how or why it would. I'm just going to worry about my own finds and enjoy the wonderful journey that the "couch cacher" deprives themself of.

4.2k · August 4, 2009

If it were my cache, I'd likely send them a polite email asking for clarification. If it wasn't my cache, I'd do nothing. Heck, if it wasn't my cache, I wouldn't even notice the issue.

What this guy said, x10.

19k · August 4, 2009

If it were my cache, I'd likely send them a polite email asking for clarification. If it wasn't my cache, I'd do nothing. Heck, if it wasn't my cache, I wouldn't even notice the issue.

What this guy said, x10.

+1

August 4, 2009

I'm trying to be delicate here: On the one hand, I don't care if someone wants to armchair virtuals in Europe. I don't care if you have more finds than me. I don't care if you want to cache with a lack of integrity and not go through the effort to truely find a cache, just drive by GZ and call it good. It's your choice. Just don't blast me if I decide to delete your log because you cannot prove you found the cache. And that is key, IF I decide to delete... As a CO, it is my choice.

Driving by or giving up a search before the cache is found and still logging a smiley is clearly out of bounds. Just as walking away because of high muggle activity isn't an excuse for logging a find either.

What would you do?

Oh, bother, not the "fine European tradition of logging virtuals they have not visted re-tread.

LOL, but I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse, merely stating that if you do it, I just don't care. But reading your whole post, you do bring up a good point...

Not signing a log happens occasionally, but this is becoming repeatable pattern of behavior. That's the bothersome part.

With the example of The Grand Poobah, at least he has a picture of himself at GZ. More than I've seen in this case.

3.9k · August 4, 2009

Put me in the group that wouldn't care if it was on someone else's cache, but if it were my own cache I'd investigate and delete if I was satisfied it was bogus.

There's nothing to really get upset about if you're convinced someone else is logging bogus finds on someone else's cache. What's the point?

38.2k · August 4, 2009

Here's the funny part - none. There were no unlogged signatures in the cache. But I did find one missing signature out of 85. It got me thinking - because of the local chatter, so I went out and checked a series of caches that still had the original logs in them that belonged to me. I found a pattern to signatures being missing for this one cacher.

What would you do?

Somebody forgetting to sign the log once or twice is understandable. I would probably take the person's word for it and let it slide. A consistent pattern of not signing the logbooks means that (A) he's a fake, a phoney and a fraud, or (B ) he is not playing the same game the overwhelming majority us of are.

Either way I'd delete every one of his logs that wasn't accompanied by a signature.

Let them have their false logs if that makes them feel good, although I have no idea how or why it would. I'm just going to worry about my own finds and enjoy the wonderful journey that the "couch cacher" deprives themself of.

Logging phony finds is not the benign act When you log a find you are esentially telling the community that the cache is there. There are instances where the cache may actually be missing and your log could entice

other cachers to search for a missing cache and delay needed maintenance from the owner.

I recall picking one cache specifically because it had recent finds. I searched close to an hour and came up empty. Turned out the cache was missing and the recent finds were bogus. That was a waste of my time and gas thanks to somebody who lied about finding it so he could get his jollies.

Another time I had a cache that had a few DNFs. I was set to make a maint run when a find was logged. I was releived that I didn't have to make the trip. But after looking at the log again something seemed a bit fishy, so I decided to go out there anyway and sure enough there was a problem with the cache. I nearly put off maintenance because of the fake log and others would have wasted their time looking for the cache.

There are some practices in this sport that many of us see as silly, but are harmless. Logging phony finds isn't one of them.

Edited August 4, 2009 by briansnat

3.9k · August 4, 2009

What would you do?
Either way I'd delete every one of his logs that wasn't accompanied by a signature.

But what would you do if you knew it was going on with other people's caches, not your own?

6.5k · August 4, 2009

Besides losing respect for him, nothing.

I'll side with Brian on this one

Me three. I might make a stink about it in the local forums though. That way responsible cache owners can rush out and check their logs to verify the absence of a signature.

I wonder if I can fit a couch in a geocache..... I may need to get rid of one soon... Probably won't fit in a micro, huh?......

Probably not, but I did once find a cache that was a couch, and had a micro log to sign (Gee, I found a Sofa on the way to a cache...). Is that close enough?

I found one near an actual La Z Boy last weekend too.

2k · August 4, 2009

I'd add the offending cachers name to the book in my mind titled "Forward to Karma" and then forget the matter. Saves on the expense of antacids.

August 4, 2009

I'd add the offending cachers name to the book in my mind titled "Forward to Karma" and then forget the matter. Saves on the expense of antacids.

Good one, do you have a domain name for that email?

19k · August 4, 2009

Let them have their false logs if that makes them feel good, although I have no idea how or why it would. I'm just going to worry about my own finds and enjoy the wonderful journey that the "couch cacher" deprives themself of.

Logging phony finds is not the benign act When you log a find you are esentially telling the community that the cache is there. There are instances where the cache may actually be missing and your log could entice

other cachers to search for a missing cache and delay needed maintenance from the owner.

I understand that you are merely addressing the fact that phony logging is not a benign act, to which I agree, , but I need to point out that the only way the cache owner would know that the find was phony was if he/she had the physical log in their possession, which means that the cache was indeed not missing, right?

38.2k · August 5, 2009

Let them have their false logs if that makes them feel good, although I have no idea how or why it would. I'm just going to worry about my own finds and enjoy the wonderful journey that the "couch cacher" deprives themself of.

Logging phony finds is not the benign act When you log a find you are esentially telling the community that the cache is there. There are instances where the cache may actually be missing and your log could entice

other cachers to search for a missing cache and delay needed maintenance from the owner.

I understand that you are merely addressing the fact that phony logging is not a benign act, to which I agree, but I need to point out that the only way the cache owner would know that the find was phony was if he/she had the physical log in their possession, which means that the cache was indeed not missing, right?

It could be there but still in need of attention. In the instance I referred to it was a 2 star difficulty cache hidden among a rock outcrop. It had fallen from where I originally hid it to a spot that would make it nearly impossible to find, particularly for someone looking for a 2 star hide.

Edited August 5, 2009 by briansnat

Couch Cachers

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment