Jump to content

Rules Rules Rules


ringbone
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

CR, where do you live?

 

South Carolina

 

Got a better solution, such as your education idea? Cool! Show us how to impliment it successfully and we can talk.

 

Most, if not all, offers to help gc.com have been rejected outright or fallen on deaf ears.

 

I'm done spinning my wheels. I'm taking action, now.

Link to comment

How about: "If enough people call for the rules to change, then this site will actually listen to the masses and change them?", rather than "If you don't like it, go away"....

 

Listening to your customers. What a concept! :o

 

I like it!

It's much better than the hackneyed "go away" bile.

Link to comment
If you don't like how this site is operated, go somewhere else.

How about: "If enough people call for the rules to change, then this site will actually listen to the masses and change them?", rather than "If you don't like it, go away"....

 

Listening to your customers. What a concept! :D

 

Hmmmm, what a concept. Try to rule by what the people want not by the mantra "my way or the highway".

Yeah, then it would be just like a democracy, just like America, where your vote counts, and the Electoral College is necess......wait a minute.... :o

Link to comment
If you don't like how this site is operated, go somewhere else.

How about: "If enough people call for the rules to change, then this site will actually listen to the masses and change them?", rather than "If you don't like it, go away"....

 

Listening to your customers. What a concept! :o

 

Hmmmm, what a concept. Try to rule by what the people want not by the mantra "my way or the highway".

The problem is that with almost any given rule, or lack of rule, someone will be unhappy. For example, let's say that the no vacation cache rule was abolished. There would be some happy people, but there would be a bunch that complained as well.

 

I agree that a business should listen to its customers. But although I know some of you will disagree with this, I think GC.com actually does pay attention. I think they listened to people voice concerns about various problems and made some rules in response to those. That is how it has always appeared to me.

 

Anyway, in the end, I suppose at some point it does turn into "my way or the highway" because no matter what the circumstances, not all will be happy, and those who are unhappy have to choose to live with it or not. At the same time, I am not saying that people should never complain, because I think well thought out debates about the rules can be interesting, helpful and enlightening. I suppose at some point if well thought out reasons against a rule were stated by a huge majority of people, it could make a difference. The thing with the rules being debated here is that I do not see that. I see a mix of opinions and so far, while I have read some good points against some of the rules, I for one still agree with the existence of them.

 

Edited because my English is horrible today.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment
How about: "If enough people call for the rules to change, then this site will actually listen to the masses and change them?", rather than "If you don't like it, go away"....

 

Listening to your customers. What a concept! :o

Good recent examples of this were the improvements to the clarity of the "no temporary caches" rule in November, setting a three-month presumption, several of the recent improvements in the pocket queries, and the clarification of the "vacation cache" rule to focus more on the geocacher's "maintainable distance" rather than the mere fact that he is on vacation. All of these examples resulted from community requests.

 

On the other hand, 500 people can holler "get rid of the statement about not putting knives in caches" or "caches in national parks should be allowed" and you are not likely to see it change. Things look different when you're on the receiving end of a phone call from a land manager.

Link to comment
If you don't like how this site is operated, go somewhere else.

How about: "If enough people call for the rules to change, then this site will actually listen to the masses and change them?", rather than "If you don't like it, go away"....

 

Listening to your customers. What a concept! :lol:

 

Hmmmm, what a concept. Try to rule by what the people want not by the mantra "my way or the highway".

You both misunderstood my statement.

 

This site accepts suggestions. They don't have to act on every one of them.

 

Lots of users requested a stats leaderboard. This site decided not to have a stats leaderboard, so another site (Keenpeople.com) came in offering a stats leaderboard.

 

Several users requested an off-topic forum. This site decided to not have one, so another site (Woodsters) came in offering an off-topic forum.

 

Several users requested that images be removed from sig lines. This site chose to remove images from sig lines.

 

Park Rangers asked that knives not be allowed in caches. This site chose to agree and added that to the guidelines.

 

Just because your suggestions aren't implemented doesn't mean This site isn't listening. This site doesn't have to answer to each and every request. If you don't agree with how This site operates, feel free to go somewhere else. Does that make it a bit clearer for you?

Link to comment
How about: "If enough people call for the rules to change, then this site will actually listen to the masses and change them?", rather than "If you don't like it, go away"....

 

Listening to your customers. What a concept!  :o

Good recent examples of this were the improvements to the clarity of the "no temporary caches" rule in November, setting a three-month presumption, several of the recent improvements in the pocket queries, and the clarification of the "vacation cache" rule to focus more on the geocacher's "maintainable distance" rather than the mere fact that he is on vacation. All of these examples resulted from community requests.

 

On the other hand, 500 people can holler "get rid of the statement about not putting knives in caches" or "caches in national parks should be allowed" and you are not likely to see it change. Things look different when you're on the receiving end of a phone call from a land manager.

 

If your bussness chooses to be the scape goat for the Land management offices. Well then OK. I very much agree with an earlier post that these people would have bent at some point or another just as they did with bike paths. (Huge thing here in Oregon)

 

All and all carleenp is correct this is a business and if they choose to run it the way they want to, more power to them. However I choose to pay the service and choose to voice my opinion.

 

What a wonderful way to change the subject Keystone, look at all of the other things they have done for the customers, besides what they are asking for. :lol:

 

Great mottos for the company coming from the forums tho:

 

GC.com like it or go away

 

-- To many to list --

Link to comment

What if a park places a cache on their grounds against the rules?

 

And as for the original problem, whats the solution? I'm still proposing CRM caches. Cache Rescue Mission. To pull caches that need to be pulled for whatever reason. Of course it then becomes a work around for a one time cache but every rule has a problem. Banning one time caches, created this problem. Banning vactaion caches made it more complex.

Link to comment
What a wonderful way to change the subject Keystone, look at all of the other things they have done for the customers, besides what they are asking for.

So far, I count 2 people in this thread that want the rules to change. That certainly doesn't appear to be a majority. Have you asked Jeremy how many requests it would take to change the rules to the way you want them? There were obviously enough requests to put the rules there in the first place, it wasn't just an arbitrary decision on his part.

Link to comment
don't know about you all but it does seem to me that all of this is very much about ownership and control. The history of it all helps one to see what the real intentions are, Check out the history from another perspective.

 

http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/

 

I read this site in entirety, and while I'm not a big fan of monopoly's of any fasion, it seems like all the other "alternatives" suck.

 

Geogamer.com went down because the guy couldnt handle it anymore, with a family and a job.

 

I guess Navicache is a lot less commercial, but if that were the only geocaching site, I wouldnt be geocaching, as the closest cache is 50 miles away, and I live in a decently big city with tons of trails, hikes, mountains, etc.

 

If something needs to be commercial to stay afloat, I don't really see the big deal. Everyone has to make a living somehow.

 

Also, I do not see that in any way there is a "pay to play" method of GC.com. I played this game for a while without paying my piddly 3.00 a month. The members only caches are pretty much nonexistent, so there is no drive to pay to find them. Everything works without paying. YOu can dowload .loc files, go on the message board, log your finds, etc. etc. The only reason I pay is for pocket queries, and it's worth every cent. I understand that a site of this magnitude takes some work to keep going. If someone wants to make money, or even get rich off of their hard work and my $3.00, thats great! I wish I would have thought of it first.

Link to comment

I think the problem lies in the application of the "my way or the highway" ideology. ringbone, CR, myself, and others I think see things as:

 

Why not allow everything that doesn't cause injury/abuse land privileges/etc. and when something new comes about you do your best to incorporate it into the whole. Treasure hunts, Virtuals, Stats, etc.

 

The argument of people not liking something, be it virtuals, hunting a completed treasure hunt, stats, caches requiring an entrance fee, has been used as a defense of their continued castigation or removal from this site. A more open system would include these things for those that are interested and for those that aren't interested, it wouldn't be anything they click on. A truly open system would then allow for the development by those people interested....things that no one is interested in would die natural deaths or stagnate in their current states and the opposite is also true.

 

Instead of reducing these things or removing them, a rating system is utilized in an open system where people who mark sneakers and flagpoles are rated lower by the masses and nobody goes to their spots and they stop marking sneakers (or they continue in oblivion because nobody is looking there anymore).

 

A system like this would keep the maximum number of people happy. As it is now, the current system keeps a majority happy. They are not the same thing.

Link to comment
Park Rangers asked that knives not be allowed in caches. This site chose to agree and added that to the guidelines.

Good to know one group is dictating the rules for the rest of us.

 

We keep letting governmental agencies rule our RASH we'll be in the same boat as some meat processing plants where one agency requires you to do something another forbids you to do.

Park rangers asked...

 

Where did I say anything about dictating?

Link to comment
How about: "If enough people call for the rules to change, then this site will actually listen to the masses and change them?", rather than "If you don't like it, go away"....

 

Listening to your customers. What a concept!  :lol:

Good recent examples of this were the improvements to the clarity of the "no temporary caches" rule in November, setting a three-month presumption, several of the recent improvements in the pocket queries, and the clarification of the "vacation cache" rule to focus more on the geocacher's "maintainable distance" rather than the mere fact that he is on vacation. All of these examples resulted from community requests.

 

On the other hand, 500 people can holler "get rid of the statement about not putting knives in caches" or "caches in national parks should be allowed" and you are not likely to see it change. Things look different when you're on the receiving end of a phone call from a land manager.

I have to agree with Keystone and Sax man on this. This site reads and considers all of the requests and then makes a decision. They do not have to change somthing, it is their site, Like it or Leave it. Both Keystone and Sax have pointed out examples of things this site did, and didn't do. Some things in the guidlines, as was pointed out, were added by land manager requests. They land managers never required it but if we want to have a good relationship with them, and be able to place caches on the land, we must be willing to work with them.

Link to comment
What a wonderful way to change the subject Keystone, look at all of the other things they have done for the customers, besides what they are asking for. :lol:

I posted specifically to note that both the "temporary cache" guidelines and the "vacation cache" guidelines changed in November, in a manner that is less restrictive to cache placements. Since both of those rules are complained of by the original poster, how is discussing the recent relaxation of those rules "changing the subject?" I'm just not following you with that one. Changes like these (there are others) are facts which run counter to much of what is being said in this topic about Geocaching.com and "the rules." Please don't dismiss them as being off-topic.

Link to comment
...So far, I count 2 people in this thread that want the rules to change....

Three Now.

 

The log book while a good idea should not make or break a cache listing. For 52 cents a cacher can add one later. Neither should a container or a lack of container. Is there anything wrong with taking advantage of a natural container?

 

Code word micro's while not what I'd put at the top of my list for fun, are not 'broken'.

 

Privacy is a valid concern, I don't want to have to disclose who I have maintaining a cache that GC.com thinks is outside my maintainable area. True I can lie about it and make up a Mr. and Mrs. Smith but why? It's enough that I said it was being done and I've backed up my intents in th sport of geocaching by forking over about a C note so far to GC.com and helped to start another geocaching related site.

 

Rules against specific items in caches should be changed to what's legal in your ara for minors to posses/purchase. It's also a given that any special rules by the landwner apply to a cache on their land. There is no need to spell out items individually. That's why we have local approvers.

 

One time caches have problems, but once placed present another problem so I don't mind the prohibition but there needs to be a solution to the problem of having a non listed cache out there.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Three Now.

 

The log book while a good idea should not make or break a cache listing. For 52 cents a cacher can add one later. Neither should a container or a lack of container. Is there anything wrong with taking advantage of a natural container?

 

Code word micro's while not what I'd put at the top of my list for fun, are not 'broken'.

 

Privacy is a valid concern, I don't want to have to disclose who I have maintaining a cache that GC.com thinks is outside my maintainable area. True I can lie about it and make up a Mr. and Mrs. Smith but why? It's enough that I said it was being done and I've backed up my intents in th sport of geocaching by forking over about a C note so far to GC.com and helped to start another geocaching related site.

 

Rules against specific items in caches should be changed to what's legal in your ara for minors to posses/purchase. It's also a given that any special rules by the landwner apply to a cache on their land. There is no need to spell out items individually. That's why we have local approvers.

 

One time caches have problems, but once placed present another problem so I don't mind the prohibition but there needs to be a solution to the problem of having a non listed cache out there.

 

While I don't really mind the rules, FINALLY, someone has stated their opinion in a "middle of the road" fasion, that actually appeals to me. So far, this is the only post that makes me think twice about all this. Thanks RK.

Edited by SBPhishy
Link to comment
I'm looking forward to survivor tonight. I can't imagine who's going to get voted off next. Hopefully not a babe in a bikini.

yeah did you notice how most of them either left or were voted off already

 

On Topic, Hey I personally like the rules and have no problem with them. I work with the local land managers on policy ideas for the Ironwood Forest National Monument. They are pretty strict, get us mad and you ain't gonna be able to come here agian (usually with regard to off roaders). We don't want the BLM and USDA-FS to ban geocaching now do we. If you don't like our rules, go here.

Link to comment

What is this? Trolls "R" Us?

 

Those who scream the loudest are not the only 'customers', though they seem to forget that over their own noise. There's been numerous attempts to get away from the 'restrictive' limitations on geocaching.com. From what I've seen it rarely ends up involving more than a few disgruntled folks.

 

Perhaps the guidelines are not as horrible or widely hated as some believe.

Link to comment

I have yet to hear a even an adequete argument for one time caches other than "It's against the rules" or "I dont like it" or "I, I, I, I, I," Like I stated before. If maintenence is the main issue of a one time cache whether it be vacation or otherwise, the maintenence factor is iliminated by the first person who finds it. Land managers, permission, etc have nothing to do with the issue. The basic common sense rules are followed just like everyone else.

Link to comment
I have yet to hear a even an adequete argument for one time caches other than "It's against the rules" or "I dont like it" or "I, I, I, I, I," Like I stated before.

You need to read your own thread much more closely.

 

The answer's already here, stated several times. You've even been given solutions, both for listing them on geocaching.com and elsewhere.

 

Why do you demand that there must be geocaching.com-listed one-time caches under your rules, besides 'I want it'?

Link to comment
If maintenence is the main issue of a one time cache whether it be vacation or otherwise, the maintenence factor is iliminated by the first person who finds it.

 

Land managers, permission, etc have nothing to do with the issue. The basic common sense rules are followed just like everyone else.

Dude - the MAINTAINENCE issue was about VACATION caches - NOT "one time" caches. That's been pointed out a few times and you keep ignoring that.

 

This applies to one time caches:

 

Caches have to be approved - onetime only caches provide a drain on the already busy approvers.

 

People go looking for a cache that's no longer there and tear up the environment.

 

As for the bit about landmanagers - they do have a concern if the temporary cache is placed somewhere that geocaches are NOT allowed.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment
...So far, I count 2 people in this thread that want the rules to change....

Three Now.

 

Four, RenegadeKnight.

 

People adore governance. Sure, it takes away freedom, but people only really pay lip service to the concept of freedom anyway--just look at the myriad government programs. Rules place what should be personal responsibility some place other than the individual, be they seat belt laws or geocaching rules.

Edited by cacheKidds
Link to comment

This applies to one time caches:

 

Caches have to be approved - onetime only caches provide a drain on the already busy approvers.

 

People go looking for a cache that's no longer there and tear up the environment.

1) More approvers? Even without treasure hunts added, it is clear that the current load of approvals is only going to continue to increase.

 

2) There is no more potential for someone to tear up the environment looking for a one-time cache than someone looking for a more permanent cache that they can not find. There are numerous treasure hunts created by users of this site which have turned out just fine. Anyone searching for a one-time cache will learn to check the website directly before going out for obvious reason and anyone finding it will learn to log it online as directly for obvious reason.

 

I believe ringbone's point about one-time caching still stands then if these are the only two reasons outside of "I don't want to" that are being applied to the lack of treasure hunts from this website. That does not mean that this will be added anytime soon to this website because "I don't want to" is still perfectly valid when it comes to Jeremy's domain.

 

I've thought about this a bit and unlike most commercial models, this website is a very ingenious system for keeping the "love it or leave it" attitude as a viable model. There are more finders than hiders by some multiplicative factor. The rules/decisions of this website are setup in a way that only hiders (and opinionated/contemplative finders) can be disgruntled with them. Those hiders may leave for personally greener pastures, but a certain percentage of the factorially greater finders will be satisfied here and replace them easily. Hiders that leave have almost no exposure to the general community (who as finders are here) and any new finders will most certainly come here first. Shut off from the general community they either return and cowtow to the rules, stop geocaching, or make do with the pitifully few hits from those in the community willing/knowing enough to stray from GC.com for finds.

 

Like it or leave it carries on. There are no variables in the equation that can be nudged a bit to destabilize the juggernaut. Even a "better" site for finders or disgruntled hiders won't survive, simply because there are not enough hiders wiling to leave (crosspost or pick up and move) to list there and at this point it is not in Jeremy's best interest to join a consortium of sites.

Link to comment
I have yet to hear a even an adequete argument for one time caches other than "It's against the rules" or "I dont like it" or "I, I, I, I, I," Like I stated before.

You need to read your own thread much more closely.

 

The answer's already here, stated several times. You've even been given solutions, both for listing them on geocaching.com and elsewhere.

 

Why do you demand that there must be geocaching.com-listed one-time caches under your rules, besides 'I want it'?

Dang, and I thought I was going to be the only one to notice that. Thanks, Yumitori, that was dead-on right!!!....but I doubt he's paying attention, or he wouldn't have even made that post to begin with. I'm going against my better judgement and committing one of my own pet peeves by repeating myself, but here goes: it appears as though the OP is ignoring all the points against his argument and his only responses are either re-worded repeats of what he thinks he deserves as a member of the site, or further lashing out against people who can contradict him with facts.

Link to comment

Moun10Bike approved We Chit You Not two years ago. We decided to hide We Chit You Not 2 and it didn't get approved by Co Admin. This is crazy to me.....

Then he decided to ban me again for saying chit. The guy has a lot of animosity to wards me and uses the word GUIDELINES to his advantage. He needs to realize the forums has nothing to do with caching. They are two totally different categories. Some of the members and admin should start to realize this.

 

I am being judged for what I say in the forums, but not on my geocaching actions.

 

Get a life :lol: and quit being so judge mental would ya? All in fun :o

 

D

Link to comment
Moun10Bike approved We Chit You Not two years ago. We decided to hide We Chit You Not 2 and it didn't get approved by Co Admin. This is crazy to me.....

Then he decided to ban me again for saying chit. The guy has a lot of animosity to wards me and uses the word GUIDELINES to his advantage. He needs to realize the forums has nothing to do with caching. They are two totally different categories. Some of the members and admin should start to realize this.

 

I am being judged for what I say in the forums, but not on my geocaching actions.

 

Get a life :lol: and quit being so judge mental would ya? All in fun :o

 

D

who could this be? :lol:

Link to comment
Moun10Bike approved We Chit You Not two years ago. We decided to hide We Chit You Not 2 and it didn't get approved by Co Admin. This is crazy to me.....

Then he decided to ban me again for saying chit. The guy has a lot of animosity to wards me and uses the word GUIDELINES to his advantage. He needs to realize the forums has nothing to do with caching. They are two totally different categories. Some of the members and admin should start to realize this.

 

I am being judged for what I say in the forums, but not on my geocaching actions.

 

Get a life :lol: and quit being so judge mental would ya? All in fun :o

 

D

Well at least they got rid of a player who doesn't look good in a bikini tonight.

 

Those two posts couldn't possibly be related, could they? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

Wow...I thought Duane had cleaned up his act? Dang, guess I was wrong about that, huh? :o:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
... The rules of this site have developed over time as a response to the concerns of both geocachers and land managers. If you don't like how this site is operated, go somewhere else.

This can't be quoted enough or said enough. I tried to say it here Go Away with several poorly written sentences. Thanks for those who can write like Brian, Mopar and Sax.

 

So again here we go "If you don't like how this site is operated, go somewhere else"

 

Edit: Forgot to include Sparky :lol:

Edited by Cache Viking
Link to comment
I have yet to hear a even an adequete argument for one time caches other than "It's against the rules" or "I dont like it" or "I, I, I, I, I," Like I stated before. If maintenence is the main issue of a one time cache whether it be vacation or otherwise, the maintenence factor is iliminated by the first person who finds it. Land managers, permission, etc have nothing to do with the issue. The basic common sense rules are followed just like everyone else.

From the Guidelines:

 

"Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) may not be approved. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there."

 

(emphasis mine)

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment
... The rules of this site have developed over time as a response to the concerns of both geocachers and land managers. If you don't like how this site is operated, go somewhere else.[/color]

This can't be quoted enough or said enough. I tried to say it here Go Away with several poorly written sentences. Thanks for those who can write like Brian, Mopar and Sax.

 

So again here we go "If you don't like how this site is operated, go somewhere else"

Well said. I won't get in to my long-winded "Rights vs. Priveleges" speech, but just summarize it and hope the OP is intelligent enough to get the meaning: You do not have a given right to be here, you have the privelege of being here. You do not have the right to demand that this game is played your way and your way only, you have the privelege to participate in this game by this game's rules. Jeremy has the right to run this sight as he sees fit, you have the privelege to use this sites resources, so long as you abide by Jeremy's rules. Jeremy has the right to ban you from this site, you have the privelege of going to another site to play if you don't like this one.

Link to comment
People adore governance. Sure, it takes away freedom, but people only really pay lip service to the concept of freedom anyway--just look at the myriad government programs. Rules place what should be personal responsibility some place other than the individual, be they seat belt laws or geocaching rules.

 

This is a ridiculious argument. I'm a liberterian at heart and I despise the constant assault on our freedoms that we see today. But GC.COM is a private enterprise. I choose to use their services and I choose to abide by their rules.

 

The great thing about this country is that I could start up my own geocaching website, or move my business to another one if I felt that the rules here were not to my liking. Nobody is forced to use Geocaching.com. You can post your caches anywhere. Navicache, alt.rec.geocaching, sci.geo.satellite.nav (where geocaching got its start) or on your own website. Geocaching.com is NOT geocaching. It just happens to be the most popular listing service for the sport. If you are not comfortable with their rules and guidelines you are free to use other services.

 

Lettterboxing has been around for over 100 years and got along quite well before web listings came along. There is no reason Geocaching can't be run on a similar model.

Link to comment
But GC.COM is a private enterprise. I choose to use their services and I choose to abide by their rules.

 

This is the part I don't understand. If GC.com wants to ban vacation caches, and one-time caches because THEY WANT TO, I dont really see the problem in that. They ARE a private enterprise and are completely entitled to anything they do. They are not "hindering" the game, because you can go to another caching site. I don't like some of the rules, but they don't bother me enough to find a way around them, that will make everyone happy. It's the same way with society. There are many rules that people don't like, but many of them are there because there are a lot of stupid people around. While the smart people may suffer slightly having to follow the rules for the stupid people, I would hope that they are intelligent enough to deal with them in a positive manner.

 

If GC.com wants to start charging me $5.00 for every set of cache coords they give me, thats okay. I will go to another site. They can do whatever they want, and I think they are doing a decent job as it is.

Link to comment
But GC.COM is a private enterprise. I choose to use their services and I choose to abide by their rules.

 

This is the part I don't understand. If GC.com wants to ban vacation caches, and one-time caches because THEY WANT TO, I dont really see the problem in that. They ARE a private enterprise and are completely entitled to anything they do. They are not "hindering" the game, because you can go to another caching site. I don't like some of the rules, but they don't bother me enough to find a way around them, that will make everyone happy. It's the same way with society. There are many rules that people don't like, but many of them are there because there are a lot of stupid people around. While the smart people may suffer slightly having to follow the rules for the stupid people, I would hope that they are intelligent enough to deal with them in a positive manner.

 

If GC.com wants to start charging me $5.00 for every set of cache coords they give me, thats okay. I will go to another site. They can do whatever they want, and I think they are doing a decent job as it is.

Well said

Link to comment
Let me continue to use RichardMoore's home state of Ohio as the example, in order to respond to your question, CR.  I am the cache approver responsible for the area where RichardMoore caches.  Within 100 miles of his home, if Richard wants to place a cache, he has to be mindful of the following:

 

1.

.

.

.

8.

I am glad the approvers are on top of things like this. I really wish a list like this was pinned somewhere in each regional forum or somesuch so folks could go look at it for themselves and therefore be informed. Although, I'm sure such a list could potentially be incredibly long for an entire region.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...