Multi Cache Credit Overhaul

September 10, 2009

I think it would be a great idea to give credit for the amount of stages found in a multi cache, but only until the final stage is found

For example, a multi came out today - 9 stages! But when I find it, my cache total will only increment by 1. For all that work! Needless to say, multis are not very popular. Why not award 9 cache finds?

Does this make sense to anyone?

Bean

7.3k · September 10, 2009

Multicaches are my favorites. I enjoy the unknown and a touch of uncertainty, with the slightly higher stakes in the lower odds of finishing. I'm prepared to DNF.

I'm not interested whether my find count increments. I like having a good time.

If you enjoy watching your find count increment, there are zillions and zillions of easy quick caches to suit you.

Go get 'em. Please don't try to make multicaches into a powertrail of traditional caches. Thanks.

3.2k · September 10, 2009

I think it would be a great idea to give credit for the amount of stages found in a multi cache, but only until the final stage is found

For example, a multi came out today - 9 stages! But when I find it, my cache total will only increment by 1. For all that work! Needless to say, multis are not very popular. Why not award 9 cache finds?

Does this make sense to anyone?

Bean

Several reasons why I would vote not:

The saturation rule does not apply to multi's. As such, the 9 stages may be 10 feet apart.

Generally the stages do not require, and often do not have a place for, signatures.

Stages of a multi are often virtual, and virtuals are no longer permitted.

There are others, however these alone would make it prohibitive.

22k · September 10, 2009

Does this make sense to anyone?

No. If each leg was worth a cache then each leg should be a cache. Follow me?

If you want to lead people around to a final location then that's the cache.

5.3k · September 10, 2009

If you're only interested in the "credit" for finding the cache, go visit all the nearby parking lots and fondle the lamp post covers.

September 10, 2009

The distance rule does apply to multis - I had one rejected as one stage was close to another cache

In addition, I am referring to signing the final stage only, not each individual stage.

The idea is to provide more of an incentive. Contrary to the cynical remarks of Stunod, I actually made an incredible 4 stage multi-hide (GC1WFX4) only to peter off once it was found a few times. Fondling lampposts was not part of my thinking -

If no one makes another attempt, I will have to dismantle and post each stage as a separate traditional cache

9.1k · September 10, 2009

OK, so you get nine smilies for a nine-stage multi. Four smilies for a four-stage multi.

Let's run with this.

Assume the most common hide: a traditional cache with a nice walk into the woods at a local park. That should be worth one smiley, right?

A guardrail cache should be worth .5 smilies. A lamp post cache should be worth .25 smilies (at least with the guardrail, you might need to walk fifteen feet up and down until you spot the cache).

If a three hour picnic event cache is worth one "attended" smiley, then a fifteen minute flash mob should be worth 1/12th of an "attended" smiley.

Are you good with all that? Then I'm good with your idea for multicaches.

Unless that's OK, then don't mess with the smiley. The smiley is the great equalizer. Each cache is worth one smiley, whether it's a cache and dash or a ten mile hike or a scuba cache or a five-star math puzzle. That is the beauty of the game, as the equalizing smiley makes it impossible for it to be "all about the numbers."

4k · September 10, 2009

Does this make sense to anyone?

Then what would make it a multi?

If you just want smileys pick random caches from other areas and start logging them. Few folks check the physical logs anyway. Or you can just hide your own cache and log it as many times as you want.

2.7k · September 10, 2009

The idea is to provide more of an incentive.

I like to find Multi's. I like to hide Multi's. Those of us who hide tough multi hour caching tours know that they don't get visited often. If the adventure isn't enough incentive for you, just ignore them. Please stop thinking of ways to "improve" them.

5.2k · September 10, 2009

Let me spell this out for you...

N... O...

4.7k · September 10, 2009

Does this make sense to anyone?

yes, it makes sense.

it is also a stunningly bad idea.

i measure my cache satisfaction by how much time a hunt or series of hunts provides me with entertainment, or gives me a sense of accomplishment.

when i look at my finds and number among them difficult or time-consuming caches, i stand just a little taller. if i spend an entire day on a long multi, i do not think "why don't i get more smilies for this?"

good caches are their own reward.

8k · September 10, 2009

Ah! The old smiley count equals credit fallacy. The purpose of the online found it log is to keep a record of which caches you have found and not to increment some score. Geocaching doesn't keep scores. Sure some people want to use the count of 'Found It', 'Attended', and 'Picture Taken' logs you have entered online as a score. They even have websites with so-called leader boards that show who has written the most logs. But as soon as you want the count to mean something more than how many logs you have written you will run in big trouble. Why is a simple 1/1 park and grab equal the same a difficult 4/4.5 or 5/5 cache? Why is a 5 stage multi equal the same as a traditional? Why does everyone on team get to count the find even though only one person on the team actually "found" the cache? Why do some cache owners allow you to log a find if you leave a replacement cache for one that was reported missing and others don't? Why do some events allow you to attended once for each "temporary" cache you find and others don't? Why do some multi owners allow you to log extra times for each stage in a multi and others don't? Why do some cache owners allow you to log an extra time for finding a bonus cache and others won't?

When you learn that the find count is not a score that can be used to compare two cacher and doesn't represent how much effort was put in to finding caches you will realize how silly this suggestion sounds. Hey, if you want to, keep track of the number of stages you found on your own and post this number in profile for all to see. Just don't confused the find count with any thing other than a count of the number of online logs.

1.2k · September 10, 2009

The distance rule does apply to multis - I had one rejected as one stage was close to another cache

Only in relation to other caches, the stages of your own cache can be as close as you want.

3.9k · September 10, 2009

Only in relation to other caches, the stages of your own cache can be as close as you want.

Correct. In theory you can have a 100-stage multi in the space of 1000 feet. 100 smileys for less than a quarter of a mile's walk. Don't try to tell me that someone wouldn't do it, either.

Edited September 10, 2009 by sTeamTraen

18.9k · September 10, 2009

Only in relation to other caches, the stages of your own cache can be as close as you want.

Correct. In theory you can have a 100-stage multi in the space of 1000 feet. 100 smileys for less than a quarter of a mile's walk. Don't try to tell me that someone wouldn't do it, either.

How true..........

Bad idea.

If we continue this line of thinking than a 4 star terrain should be worth more than a 2 and a difficulty 3 ought to be worth 3 times a 1 difficulty. So maybe a 100 stage multi across 1000 feet that is a difficulty 4 and terrain 3 should be worth 1200 smilies??

7.9k · September 11, 2009

Not to mention that some larger multis tend to shrink, grow back, and then shrink again with the condition of the intermediate stages. If I'm getting ten smilies for a ten-stage multi, would I loose three smilies if stages 5, 7, and 9 are taken out by the owner after my find? :anibad: Would I gain five more if they decided to make it fifteen stages sometime after I found it?

Let's keep it simple.

One logbook, one waypoint ID (GC###)=one find=one smilie.

1.4k · September 11, 2009

Does this make sense to anyone?

No

There are multi-caches with virtual stages...would you count them, too?

And what about Mystery caches that have multiple stages...should we add extra smiles for them, too?

While were at it...I want some extra smiles for all the puzzles I've solved before I went looking for a single stage Mystery cache!

NOT! :anibad:

If you don't like doing multi-caches for a single smile...put them on your ignore list.

1.7k · September 11, 2009

I actually made an incredible 4 stage multi-hide (GC1WFX4) only to peter off once it was found a few times....

If no one makes another attempt, I will have to dismantle and post each stage as a separate traditional cache

If it's as good as you say just let it be..

We were recently 26th to find (and last as it's soon to be archived) on a Multi which was set January 2005

Mark

3.2k · September 11, 2009

The distance rule does apply to multis - I had one rejected as one stage was close to another cache

In addition, I am referring to signing the final stage only, not each individual stage.

The idea is to provide more of an incentive. Contrary to the cynical remarks of Stunod, I actually made an incredible 4 stage multi-hide (GC1WFX4) only to peter off once it was found a few times. Fondling lampposts was not part of my thinking -

If no one makes another attempt, I will have to dismantle and post each stage as a separate traditional cache

Why?

10.1k · September 11, 2009

And, don't forget that we went to Kentucky, so we could color it in on our map! That's 504 miles from home! I deserved 504 smileys for that! Don't I? (Of course, we also colored in Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Ohio...) (Not to mention the trip to New Brunswick, so we could color in Canada...)

2.2k · September 13, 2009

For example, a multi came out today - 9 stages! But when I find it, my cache total will only increment by 1. For all that work! Needless to say, Why not award 9 cache finds?

Bean

Two comments:

If this is work to you, you're doing it wrong.

You can log the cache as many times as you want and collect smileys for each stage. Others will frown on the practice, but who cares? You deserve it, right?

9.2k · September 13, 2009

There are easy 3-stage multis that can be done in 10 minutes, and there are tough traditionals that can take the better part of a day.

4k · September 13, 2009

There are web sites where you can buy "free" poker money to pad your play money bankroll for online poker sites. Someone should start a similar site for smileys. I bet they'd make a good living.

1.2k · September 14, 2009

I think it would be a great idea to give credit for the amount of stages found in a multi cache, but only until the final stage is found

For example, a multi came out today - 9 stages! But when I find it, my cache total will only increment by 1. For all that work! Needless to say, multis are not very popular. Why not award 9 cache finds?

Does this make sense to anyone?

Bean

Yes, it does make sense from that point of view...

With that being said...I would prefer them to stay the way they are.

September 14, 2009

Hmmm....and if there was no credit for a cache as in no recorded numbers in brackets after your handle, you all would be caching just the same - right...sounds like you spend more time on the message board than caching as evidenced by 'harsh' replies to a simple innocent inquiry to multi caches. If sportmanship is the hallmark of caching, you people do not make the sport very attractive.

Boy you guys sure know how to bring down the hammer.

My apologies for asking a question.

FYI, I have my answer - I can offer multiple logs for credit - yippee!

Happy caching!

1.2k · September 14, 2009

Hmmm....and if there was no credit for a cache as in no recorded numbers in brackets after your handle, you all would be caching just the same - right...sounds like you spend more time on the message board than caching as evidenced by 'harsh' replies to a simple innocent inquiry to multi caches. If sportmanship is the hallmark of caching, you people do not make the sport very attractive.

Boy you guys sure know how to bring down the hammer.

My apologies for asking a question.

FYI, I have my answer - I can offer multiple logs for credit - yippee!

Happy caching!

Sure...it can be a tough crowd in the forums at times...but don't take anything personal...

FYI...there have actually been many threads about either getting rid of cache counts...or being able to hide them (as a personal option)...so, again, don't take anything too personal...

4.7k · September 14, 2009

If sportmanship is the hallmark of caching, you people do not make the sport very attractive.

Boy you guys sure know how to bring down the hammer.

perhaps you are confusing sportsmanship with liking your idea.

to my way of thinking, playing a game by its rules and not looking for ways to increase my personal advantage in the field or finding ways to get more credit for less effort is far more sporting.

mountain climbing: i wish to get "credit" for every hill i walk up, and more "points" for hard mountains.

soccer: may i please score every time i make a shot in addition to how many actual goals i make?

baseball: i wish to score every time i swing the bat.

fishing: i want more "points" for every hour i spend on the water. fish i do not like will not count toward my limit.

deer hunting: the season should last until i get my deer, however long that takes.

marathon running: the finish lines should be closer to the start, so i can do more of them in one day. all that work for only one race finish? what's up with that?

8k · September 15, 2009

Hmmm....and if there was no credit for a cache as in no recorded numbers in brackets after your handle, you all would be caching just the same - right...

I suppose I would. I do like to see my find count go up for each cache I find, but it is pretty far down there on the list of reasons I cache. Many people find multis now even though they only count one find. Perhaps if you got a smiley for each stage more people would find them but I suspect that the reasons they aren't more popular has to do with not knowing how long one might take or the concern that some stage may be missing and you will not be able to complete it.

I've seen caches where the owner allows you log multiple "Found It" logs for doing something extra, like finding a bonus cache or even entering a "Found It" for each stage of a multi. So it appears that some people do choose to view the find count as "points" and believe that awarding more "points" will get people to find their cache. I'd be OK with a system where each cache owner can assign a number of points to their cache. Just to make it easy, each cache is worth 0 to 1 point with fractional points allowed. By default caches are worth 1 point. Owners who wish could make their cache worth less than a whole point. Coyote Red has already he would like to have his caches worth zero points. I'd like to see how this would effect geocaching.

1.4k · September 15, 2009

FYI, I have my answer - I can offer multiple logs for credit - yippee!

Do that, and cachers like me will skip your cache. To me, 1 GCID = 1 Find. If you're offering multiple finds to those who hunt your cache, IMO it lessens the value my Find log...so I would skip it.

We have a Multi a few hours from here which is 7 very difficult stages which were too close together to be listed as individual Traditionals. The cache owner chose to list them as a multi and allow multiple Found logs to be submitted when the multi was completed. To each their own. Others have done it...I won't.

22k · September 15, 2009

A find should not be determined on terrain and difficulty levels.

5.2k · September 15, 2009

FYI, I have my answer - I can offer multiple logs for credit - yippee!

There's a 5-stage multi cache near me that does that. It says "Feel free to log an online find for each stage you found." Guess what? 37 geocachers have logged one find each. Not a single one took the hider up on the offer. It's just not cool. :laughing:

4.7k · September 15, 2009

FYI, I have my answer - I can offer multiple logs for credit - yippee!

There's a 5-stage multi cache near me that does that. It says "Feel free to log an online find for each stage you found." Guess what? 37 geocachers have logged one find each. Not a single one took the hider up on the offer. It's just not cool.

there use ta be a cache in carthage NY for which the hider offered a smilie for each of the finals you were able to find; it was a multi with a possibility of four separate finals and some elements of chance.

many people did log multiple on that.

not me; i didn't have to make that choice. i was only able to find one.

6.7k · September 15, 2009

Hmmm....and if there was no credit for a cache as in no recorded numbers in brackets after your handle, you all would be caching just the same - right...sounds like you spend more time on the message board than caching as evidenced by 'harsh' replies to a simple innocent inquiry to multi caches. If sportmanship is the hallmark of caching, you people do not make the sport very attractive.

Boy you guys sure know how to bring down the hammer.

My apologies for asking a question.

FYI, I have my answer - I can offer multiple logs for credit - yippee!

Happy caching!

Wow! Talk about sportsmanship. 'You all disagree with me so I am gonna pout.' Harsh would be if they all had said you were stupid for thinking it and no one did that. All they did was state their opinions explain their positions.

You can look at my find count if you want and make any assumptions you want but I'll tell you right out what it doesn't show. It doesn't show how many caches I have found. If you take away the count I will still find caches.

I think this pastime would improve if the find counts went away all together.

3.4k · September 15, 2009

If no one makes another attempt, I will have to dismantle and post each stage as a separate traditional cache

Well, I don't think the reason there aren't more attempts (and you really don''t know how many people have attempted it and just not posted the dreaded DNF) is not that it is a multi, but that ole 5-star difficulty.

September 15, 2009

I looked at your multi cache. I wouldn't look for it but not because its a multi. I wouldn't look for it because of the tone of the page. I'm not saying you are wrong to use that tone but when I read it, it seems that you posted the cache in the spirit of revenge. Your object appears to be to frustrate seekers and see how many dnfs you can gather on the cache. I look for caches to have fun so it doesn't make sense to look for a cache if the motive of the hider is to make me miserable. I don't do a lot of multis because I do most of my caches an hour or so from home. I hesitate to undertake a cache when I have no idea how far apart the stages are but I would ignore this one if it was my closest to home.

Team Taran

1.4k · September 15, 2009

If no one makes another attempt, I will have to dismantle and post each stage as a separate traditional cache

Well, I don't think the reason there aren't more attempts (and you really don''t know how many people have attempted it and just not posted the dreaded DNF) is not that it is a multi, but that ole 5-star difficulty.

I would tend to agree with DoubleBent on this one. I rarely attempt caches with more than a 4 Diff or 3 Terr...there are too many other caches in my area to spend excessive time on a 5 Diff, or risk injury/death on a 4 or 5 Terr.

I have a 3 Terr hide that averages less than 1 visit/month...and I'm fine with that, I realize that it's not for everyone.

18.9k · September 15, 2009

Hmmm....and if there was no credit for a cache as in no recorded numbers in brackets after your handle, you all would be caching just the same - right...sounds like you spend more time on the message board than caching ......

Actually - that is true in my case. However, my nearest unfound cache is about 25 miles from home in a direction I rarely travel and I have found about 80% of all 249 caches within 50 miles. Even if I had found them all, I would still likely spend a lot of time on the forums. Just not enough local targets to keep me out caching more often.

September 15, 2009

If sportmanship is the hallmark of caching, you people do not make the sport very attractive.

Boy you guys sure know how to bring down the hammer.

perhaps you are confusing sportsmanship with liking your idea.

to my way of thinking, playing a game by its rules and not looking for ways to increase my personal advantage in the field or finding ways to get more credit for less effort is far more sporting.

mountain climbing: i wish to get "credit" for every hill i walk up, and more "points" for hard mountains.

soccer: may i please score every time i make a shot in addition to how many actual goals i make?

baseball: i wish to score every time i swing the bat.

fishing: i want more "points" for every hour i spend on the water. fish i do not like will not count toward my limit.

deer hunting: the season should last until i get my deer, however long that takes.

marathon running: the finish lines should be closer to the start, so i can do more of them in one day. all that work for only one race finish? what's up with that?

September 15, 2009

My goodness! Here I am the guy making the hide and not the find!

I think you are confusing the idea.

The majority cache for numbers - especially the pros. Please say we are not that naive. So you must write notes for every cache you find then!

I submitted the 'suggestion' at the request of ground speak to the forum. I am thankful for a cacher who replied to me offline (I understand why he did). Conversation here takes an unfortunate cynical, negative tone.

I am very thankful I have an answer to my question - I since posted an extra credit cache and cachers (both seasoned and amatuer) are excited! IT IS A POSITIVE thing!

Yippee!

September 15, 2009

I looked at your multi cache. I wouldn't look for it but not because its a multi. I wouldn't look for it because of the tone of the page. I'm not saying you are wrong to use that tone but when I read it, it seems that you posted the cache in the spirit of revenge. Your object appears to be to frustrate seekers and see how many dnfs you can gather on the cache. I look for caches to have fun so it doesn't make sense to look for a cache if the motive of the hider is to make me miserable. I don't do a lot of multis because I do most of my caches an hour or so from home. I hesitate to undertake a cache when I have no idea how far apart the stages are but I would ignore this one if it was my closest to home.

Team Taran

Thank you for your advice! The community is here is pretty tight. There are about 10 really active cachers in the area and we all know each other.

But your comemnts have been noted - thanks.

September 15, 2009

FYI, I have my answer - I can offer multiple logs for credit - yippee!

Do that, and cachers like me will skip your cache. To me, 1 GCID = 1 Find. If you're offering multiple finds to those who hunt your cache, IMO it lessens the value my Find log...so I would skip it.

We have a Multi a few hours from here which is 7 very difficult stages which were too close together to be listed as individual Traditionals. The cache owner chose to list them as a multi and allow multiple Found logs to be submitted when the multi was completed. To each their own. Others have done it...I won't.

To each their own

1.4k · September 15, 2009

I since posted an extra credit cache and cachers (both seasoned and amatuer) are excited! IT IS A POSITIVE thing!

Well, there's one cache I can put on my Ignore list. Fortunately, it's so far from me that I probably would never get it anyway.

I dislike those 'Extra Credit' caches that offer additional smiles...1 GCID = 1 Find in my book.

Whatever makes you happy.

3.2k · September 15, 2009

My goodness! Here I am the guy making the hide and not the find!

I think you are confusing the idea.

The majority cache for numbers - especially the pros. Please say we are not that naive. So you must write notes for every cache you find then!

I submitted the 'suggestion' at the request of ground speak to the forum. I am thankful for a cacher who replied to me offline (I understand why he did). Conversation here takes an unfortunate cynical, negative tone.

I am very thankful I have an answer to my question - I since posted an extra credit cache and cachers (both seasoned and amatuer) are excited! IT IS A POSITIVE thing!

Yippee!

I still never got an answer from post #19 regarding the percieved need to dismantle the cache.

To recap;

You posted a suggestion on the forums to presumably find out if your suggestion was not only workable but acceptable to the majority of cachers.

All the initial responses, none of which were attacks on anything but the idea itself, were all solidly against the idea. As you got more resistive, posters become more insistent and offered further examples as well as how they would react to such a cache in their area.

You then find someone who has a position so weak that they won't even participate in the discussion, but sends you a PM allegedly supporting your position and, since it agrees with the outcome you desire, choose that as the direction you want to take.

Did I get this right?

My question then is, why did you bother creating the thread if you did not want an answer other than your own? The outcome was predictable for anyone that has even the slightest exposure to these forums.

This particular thread has been one of the most civil on the subject of gratuitous smileys in the forums.

18.9k · September 15, 2009

My goodness! Here I am the guy making the hide and not the find!

I think you are confusing the idea.

The majority cache for numbers - especially the pros. Please say we are not that naive. So you must write notes for every cache you find then!

I submitted the 'suggestion' at the request of ground speak to the forum. I am thankful for a cacher who replied to me offline (I understand why he did). Conversation here takes an unfortunate cynical, negative tone.

I am very thankful I have an answer to my question - I since posted an extra credit cache and cachers (both seasoned and amatuer) are excited! IT IS A POSITIVE thing!

Yippee!

How cheesy - any cacher can go and log any number of finds on any cache page out there - even thier own caches. Tell me how the "offer" has accomplished anything that did not already exist??

Most cachers I know can tell the difference between a find count and a find count on a unique number of caches.

You are really proving your own point to be wrong. If most cachers really are in it "for numbers" and would take up your multilogging offer - tell me exactly what those numbers mean?

8.9k · September 15, 2009

The majority cache for numbers - especially the pros.

If the initial premise is false, then the argument is false.

September 15, 2009

I'm really curious about the pro cachers you talk about. How can I get paid for caching? I'm considering retiring from my day job and I'd be delighted to find another source of income.

Team Taran

4.7k · September 15, 2009

Conversation here takes an unfortunate cynical, negative tone.

if anything, i find the assertion that there need be extra smilies or else a multicache isn't worth the trouble to be unfortunate, negative, and cynical.

finding the multi is its own reward, smilie or not.

while i do like my find count (which is, by the way, under-reported) and i do sometimes go to a lot of cheap easy caches for the heck of it, i am most satisfied by caches that are hidden with some care for the experience of the hunt.

if you are listing your career accomplishments at your job, perhaps you might pad your resume by listing every time you went to the supply closet for paperclips, and demand additional benefits based on sheer volume of activity, regardless of utility.

or maybe you reserve space on that page for things that matter.

it can be like that for caching, too.

i didn't get into it for the smilies, but rather for (at the risk of hitting the old cliché) the adventure: the aggregate package of planning an outing, navigating a route, and hunting a cache with all the attendant variations and possibilities is a dense and captivating experience.

if i did this just so i could award myself smilies, i'd pick something easier and cheaper. if you're in this so you can award yourself as many smilies as possible, you're not really playing the same game i am.

four years from now, when you look back on your geocaching accomplishments, will you still care about any of the caches you found, or will you just have a long list of meaningless smilies?

eventually, i hope, most of the smilie-hunters will grow tired of walmart parking lots and quit the game.

2.2k · September 15, 2009

The majority cache for numbers - especially the pros.

If by "pros" you mean those who cache for a long time, then I must say my experience has been quite different. My experience has been that the longer someone caches the less likely they are to care about numbers.

As for the original question, I think it has been well covered. Some caches are more effort than others but they all count for one smiley. If you find that a puzzle, multi or difficult Traditional is too much "work" to earn that smiley than put it on your Ignore list and never give it a second thought. There is no need to overhaul the system.

1.2k · September 15, 2009

The majority cache for numbers - especially the pros.

At what point does a cacher become "Pro" and what is the pay scale???

(I sure hope there isn't a Salary Cap)

By the way...I cache to have fun, be outside and have a great time with friends...the only number I care about if what time dinner is served back at the campsite!!!

September 15, 2009

All I have to add is that I would rather do a good multi, because I always get more than 1 smile along the way....

Multi Cache Credit Overhaul

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