OFFICIAL POLL : FORCING CUSTOM LRS

[Slazenger]

I want to know what you think. Think it through thoroughly before voting. Once you vote, please post your feelings, why you voted the way you did, and your solution.

 

There are mixed feelings about this. It was poorly worded before, essentially giving T's a wide berth where they can do whatever they want.

 

I fixed it a couple days ago. With admin enforcement this could work fine. The abuse of it is like whenever we implement anything new. If admins take a proactive roll in enforcing this, I think it will work fine.

 

Whats happening is the limbo stage of a new rule implemented by Slaz about CT's having to surrender their choice in a custom LR situation.

 

In my opinion, If I am doing a good job managing the T's and am killing the freekillers, not hurting anyone else, the last thing I want is to surrender completely to 2 T's that either scrambled their way to survival or hid and waited for LR to happen. The whole purpose of !LR is the final showdown of skill; giving the t's an option each round to kill all the CT's at their discretion legally without being killed for rebelling is just flat out lame..

 

I understand your sentiment, but the vast majority of people like the new rule after they are explained the premises behind it.

 

For everyone's benefit, I will explain it here.

 

 

It states that CT's cannot refuse T's custom LRs.

 

The reason behind it:

 

 

1. The T's put up with 5 minutes of CT orders and killing, so the CTs can take a bit from the Ts.
   
2. The CTs lose their guns at the end of the round, so dying is not a disadvantage.
   
3. I removed rank back in October, so there is no longer any reason for the CTs to worry about losing their rank if a T kills them.
   
4. It provides a lot of laughs and surprises.
   
5. I've altered it to say that a T must clearly state their objectives and also put a restriction on "Mass killing the CTs" to allow more fun for all parties involved.
   

Things are in trial mode, and this seems to be pretty popular with the players for now!

 

 

This is the way it is currently worded:

 

If a T asks for a custom LR, CTs must perform it. The Terrorist must explicitly explain what he/she is going to do for the custom LR. Failure to perform what they explained will result in them becoming a rebel. T's may also not do custom LRs where mass/all CTs die instantly (lining them up, forcing them to stack.) A T may not start a custom LR if their LR partner is already doing an LR.

[Blade]

With admin enforcement its definitely possibly, but the admins would need to know exactly what to allow and what not to allow.

[Weeman]

lol 3 way tie now

[GreenRanger]

I don't mind custom LRs as long as they arent stupid and end up in mass killng of the CTs. I want it so it has to be a skill thing or a contest not "Stand on my spray and have a staring contest" and BOOM CT dead. Nor Last Reaction. Some Ts have been making us play Last Reaction. Fun game but its mass killing CTs.

 

Basicly CT can deny if it ends up the CT dying more than 50% of the time I Want it even. 50-50 chance not 51-49 or anything uneven

 

 

50 Fucking 50

 

(also making us do obstical is fine since i love doing it)

[Doovad]

Since I only play Ts, I think the rule is indeed fine. My only suggestion is that flat out mass killing and things that can easily lead to it, like lining up against a wall with the T waiting to shoot them all in the head, is a denyable request. If the CTs are able to defend themselves in a relatively fair manner from a rebeller, then I say it is fine.

 

Lining up against the wall is bad. Being able to contain them in the concrete near the pool wall is fine imo.

[xsniperx7 (FEESH)]

I think the idea of the t's, after being ordered by the ct's for the past 5 minutes, having their own chance of telling the ct's what to do is a fine idea. I do not think this is fine when the t ends up lining the cts up and shooting them. I strongly dislike it when someone is kicked for killing a t who is doing so. I say that with a custom LR the t must state a request that gives both the ct and the t an equal chance of winning. This is what the original intent of an LR was when it was created and it should stay this way. As a ct your goal in the game is to control the t's until the end of the round without them rebelling (if possible) and to finish the round with either all t's dead (from previous rebellions or by lr loss) or to run the timer out while still giving orders. If you allow the t's to line the ct's up and kill them then all the work prior to the lr is pointless and the ct's do not feel like they have "won" anything.

 

I say that you should keep the custom LR's but you should make a T state what they are going to do before they do it and it must give both the ct and the t an equal opportunity at winning.

[ricky2442]

1. The T's put up with 5 minutes of CT orders and killing, so the CTs can take a bit from the Ts.
   
2. The CTs lose their guns at the end of the round, so dying is not a disadvantage.
   
3. I removed rank back in October, so there is no longer any reason for the CTs to worry about losing their rank if a T kills them.
   
4. It provides a lot of laughs and surprises.
   
5. I've altered it to say that a T must clearly state their objectives and also put a restriction on "Mass killing the CTs" to allow more fun for all parties involved.
   

 

Although these are good points, I know that T's will just abuse this new rule. Normally people accept custom lr's anyway for laughs and surprises, it's mainly just the new people that think twice in my opinion. Also T's may of put up with the CT's for 5 minutes, but the CT's had the hardest job of keeping the rebelers in line.

 

I think that this should be removed. The whole point of jailbreak is to try to rebel when possible, Last Request has already ruined this, making it more fun or flexible will just dig the hole even deeper.

 

However, this is just my opinion.

[Slazenger]

I think the idea of the t's, after being ordered by the ct's for the past 5 minutes, having their own chance of telling the ct's what to do is a fine idea. I do not think this is fine when the t ends up lining the cts up and shooting them. I strongly dislike it when someone is kicked for killing a t who is doing so. I say that with a custom LR the t must state a request that gives both the ct and the t an equal chance of winning. This is what the original intent of an LR was when it was created and it should stay this way. As a ct your goal in the game is to control the t's until the end of the round without them rebelling (if possible) and to finish the round with either all t's dead (from previous rebellions or by lr loss) or to run the timer out while still giving orders. If you allow the t's to line the ct's up and kill them then all the work prior to the lr is pointless and the ct's do not feel like they have "won" anything.

 

I say that you should keep the custom LR's but you should make a T state what they are going to do before they do it and it must give both the ct and the t an equal opportunity at winning.

 

 

It is already in the MOTD that they must state what they will be doing, and if they fail to do so they are considered a rebel. It also states that they may not line up CTs, or they will be a rebel.

[LaMigra]

Custom LR's should be allowed but admins need to enforce it... I have seen some pretty funny custom lr's before

[Dan1]

Custom LR's should be allowed but admins need to enforce it... I have seen some pretty funny custom lr's before

 

this.

[Epic Vagina]

I voted yes time 100

 

I think that the T's should have unlimited choice as to what they are allowed to do with LR they deserve it they are the last standing of what is most likely a 30 person team. most of the time they only get up to a minute to do their Lr and all they want to do is mo down a bunch of Ct's. and after listening to them for the past 5 minutes i think they have the right because most of the time if it has come to LR within the last minute the round was not fun and it was spent crouching everywhere.

as for the Ct's having the hardest job its only hard for the Ct's if they make it hard by pissing of the T's and playing last reaction all the time. when i lead i try to play fun games so that they don't get bored.

[Awwik]

there were custom lrs before the rule was put into motd. i dont understand why it had to be changed. now its just a battle to try and fiqure out what is a rebel and a freekill and what not. it makes it ten times harder for admins now. good idea but it wont work, it should of just been left alone.

[Doobie]

Of course they should be enforced. Terrorists have to put up with all the ct's shit round after round so It won't hurt a CT to do something special for the one that made it through.

[motive]

I voted yes time 100

 

I think that the T's should have unlimited choice as to what they are allowed to do with LR they deserve it they are the last standing of what is most likely a 30 person team. most of the time they only get up to a minute to do their Lr and all they want to do is mo down a bunch of Ct's. and after listening to them for the past 5 minutes i think they have the right because most of the time if it has come to LR within the last minute the round was not fun and it was spent crouching everywhere.

as for the Ct's having the hardest job its only hard for the Ct's if they make it hard by pissing of the T's and playing last reaction all the time. when i lead i try to play fun games so that they don't get bored.

 

This.

[CubanCarlos]

In my opinion, we need to think up of things that are acceptable for a T to do. for example, i dont think it is very fair for a CT, when the custom LR is to stay on the Ts spray and the T just moves it somewhere. I have seen that happen and have had no real idea what to do about it. Another one i have seen, is a T makes all the CTs go onto the obstacle, then, the T goes all the way to the finish, presses the button, and the CTs die. All in all, i think it is a good and a fun rule, just needs to be put in a different way and have a little bit more restrictions on it.

[Lt. Awesome]

I think we should keep the custom LR because it's fun and often funny sometimes.

[like a boss]

IF CT's can deny the CUSTOM LR then they can have fun with it...there will be to many people worried about killing T's because their costom LR in witch can result in alot of freekilling or ct's standing like idiots wondering what to do....now some costom LR's are fine but no imposible shit where if they get it right they die....i think it needs to be like a CT rule for T's no mass killing nothing imposible and also make it fun not just costom lr? bam your dead thanks for not volontearing or volontearing...needs to be like openionated games

[Splizes]

If a T asks for a custom LR, CTs must perform it. The Terrorist must explicitly explain what he/she is going to do for the custom LR. Failure to perform what they explained will result in them becoming a rebel. T's may also not do custom LRs where mass/all CTs die instantly (lining them up, forcing them to stack.) A T may not start a custom LR if their LR partner is already doing an LR.

Well there are a few grammatical issues in this statement...

If a T request a custom LR, the CT(s) must preform it. However, the Terrorist must explicitly explain what they are going to do during their custom LR. Failure to preform this LR will result in them becoming a rebel. Also, Ts may not do a custom LR which results in the mass death of CTs, ie: lining them up, forcing them to stack, ect. A T may not start a custom LR if there is another LR in progress.

 

Questions regarding the original:

"A T may not start a custom LR if their LR partner is already doing an LR."

• Does this automatically render the T a rebel and therefore can be shot?
  
  
• Furthermore I don't think this should be a rule, it's not that difficult to have two concurrent LR's unless it is the same person O.O. Maybe it would sound better as "A T may not start a custom LR which would conflict with a currently progressing LR". Or something along those lines.
  
  

"The Terrorist must explicitly explain what he/she is going to do for the custom LR."

• The word explicit is a very odd choice for this because how in depth are you looking for like a step by step because if I was a T I would end up forgetting some part and I could theoretically be shot for it. Explicit implies totality and if I forgot to say something trivial like "I'm going to walk to big cage in 2 seconds" or something I could be shot. Also the word "for" in that sentence implies brevity and contradicts with explicit just to let you know...
  
  

"T's may also not do custom LRs where mass/all CTs die instantly (lining them up, forcing them to stack.)"

• Just a little nitpicking here but periods go after parenthesis...
  
  
• Define mass.
  
  
• Hypothetically if multiple people agreed to participate and they are all shot wouldn't that cause them to be killed?
  
  

Edited February 3, 2010 by Splizes

[Slazenger]

Well there are a few grammatical issues in this statement...

If a T request a custom LR, the CT(s) must preform it. However, the Terrorist must explicitly explain what they are going to do during their custom LR. Failure to preform this LR will result in them becoming a rebel. Also, Ts may not do a custom LR which results in the mass death of CTs, ie: lining them up, forcing them to stack, ect. A T may not start a custom LR if there is another LR in progress. Fixed. While we're on the grammar police thing, you forgot an "s" in requests. And you misspelled "perform".

 

Questions regarding the original:

"A T may not start a custom LR if their LR partner is already doing an LR."

• Does this automatically render the T a rebel and therefore can be shot?
  No, CTs/Admins inform them thay they must wait. If they don't want to wait, they'll rebel and you kill them.
  
  
• Furthermore I don't think this should be a rule, it's not that difficult to have two concurrent LR's unless it is the same person O.O. Maybe it would sound better as "A T may not start a custom LR which would conflict with a currently progressing LR". Or something along those lines.
  Fixed.
  
  

"The Terrorist must explicitly explain what he/she is going to do for the custom LR."

• The word explicit is a very odd choice for this because how in depth are you looking for like a step by step because if I was a T I would end up forgetting some part and I could theoretically be shot for it. Explicit implies totality and if I forgot to say something trivial like "I'm going to walk to big cage in 2 seconds" or something I could be shot. Also the word "for" in that sentence implies brevity and contradicts with explicit just to let you know...
  I hate to be negative, but here you are wrong. Explicitly stating something would mean that they must fully reveal or express their plans without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity. It means they must be concise and reveal all details of their plan. The preposition "for" has no implications of brevity in any circumstance. Let me know if you find a reputable source that indicates that it does.
  
  
  

"T's may also not do custom LRs where mass/all CTs die instantly (lining them up, forcing them to stack.)"

• Just a little nitpicking here but periods go after parenthesis...
  Fixed. I happened to write this up at three in the morning. >_>
  
  
• Define mass.
  As I say with everything else, we could go into great detail about everything. The MOTD doubled in length since I took over and things are still not explained. You know exactly what mass killing is. It's the same for the CTs as it is for the Ts.
  
  
• Hypothetically if multiple people agreed to participate and they are all shot wouldn't that cause them to be killed?
  If the T stated the rules of the game/activity they were doing and followed through on them, and CTs died...there is no issue. They are allowed to be killed, but not in a completely unfair manner. Games can be played that kill all CTs, but it cannot be instant or a surprise.
  
  

 

 

Hope that clears it up.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Slazenger

[mAngO1972]

i think as long as we can get admins to correctly enforce the rule it shouldnt be a problem.

as long as we dotn let terrorists unfairly mass kill all cts.

thats really the only thing im worried about.

[Splizes]

Hope that clears it up.

 

Just to let you know I am in no way trying to offend you or attack you personally nor your grammar at 3am. Which apparently mine isn't any better at 10pm lol...

 

On the topic of the "for" issue let me give you an example:

"What are you doing for the holidays?"

"I'm going to San Fransisco"

"What are you doing during the holidays?"

"I'm going to San Fransisco where I hope to go swimming on the beach and eat some sea food or some shit"

*Maybe thats just be but if someone asked me what I was doing during a vacation I would feel more obligated to answer the question with a little more detail....

or

"I did it for you"

"I did this on your behalf"

I know in English we use for a lot due to the law of brevity, let me be honest, the law of brevity is basically a new found link between animals that use vocal communication and humans stating that we use shorter words more often than others.

I personally think for is fine now that I think about it, but for to a foreign speaker (like "por/para" in Spanish) can be really confusing to a non-native. However I believe the word during is not so ambiguous by nature.

 

Please I'm just trying to be nitpicky here and trying probably on a little too much of a stretch to at least defend myself

[Slazenger]

I still disagree.

 

There's no law in the English language or implication even that for is to be used in such a way.

 

 

"What are you doing for break?"

 

"I'm planning on seeing my grandma, working at the store, and having a relaxing time."

 

 

 

"What are you doing during break?"

 

"Enjoying myself."

 

 

 

It's all based on interpretation. But I did change it to during as it sounds better in context. Thanks for the fun discussion Splizes. =D

[Splizes]

On the subject of nitpicking rules (here comes more ).

CTs not involved in LR cannot interfere or you will be subject to slay.

:love: Grammar police :love:

Any CT(s) who are not involved in a LR cannot interfere or you will be subject to a slay.

 

One question:

So as they are subject to a "slay" can only admins slay them if they do this. If so then a lot of Ts are rebels for killing the CT(s) that interfere.

CTs may give freedays, but they can be halted at any time if a CT decides to give orders.

No grammar police this time.

I have a question though.

Can any CT revoke the freeday even if the other lead is still alive and therefore become the lead CT?

There is to be no favoritism towards certain players nor is there to be "Anti-Favoritism" (singling out players -for revenge or other). This means you cannot target a player and give them a freeday (unless they were freekilled on LR) nor can you make only one person do an exercise day, for example. You may give freedays to freekilled Terrorists at your discretion though.

My only point here is...

"There is to be no favoritism towards certain players."

then is goes on to say:

"You may give freedays to freekilled Terrorists at your discretion though.":xd:

CTs may kill Ts if they are holding a gun willingly and do not drop it in a couple seconds following a warning. If the T aims a gun at a CT, you may kill them without a warning.

I have actually got in trouble because of the last part of this rule because I followed it and since the person in gun cell turned around and looked at me I shot him and proceeded to be slayed... Is there anyway you could emphasize that a little more?

If a CT is running in the path of a T in transit, the T may not knife them or else they will be considered a rebel unless the T was knifing before the CT was near. In that case, the CT is at fault for running through their knife purposely.

Now I could probably write a whole essay describing baiting and the fa****ry is causes but the part I'm going to concentrate on here is "knifing before the CT was near". My point being that if they only knife once at a baiter they are rebelling?

CTs cannot issue an order to a T that will result in a T becoming a rebel, nor can CTs order the Ts to rebel. But they can give permission for Ts to knife CTs in T designated areas, etc. If permission is given, the Ts who performed the killing are not to be shot.

I ran in to a problem yesterday with this as on a LR I told a T to kill me. However that directly goes against this rule yet I see people doing this all this time and no admin action is ever taken over it faithless and I came on the conclusion that the Ts are in control and you aren't necessarily giving any orders at that time. Clarification requested please.

CTs cannot enter designated areas assigned to Ts. T-designated areas are places where the T's have been ordered to go to. This does not include cells. An admin will slay them -- if you are a T and you knife them, you are considered to be a rebel unless you are given permission to knife the CT.

I guess this is the first time this registered in my mind but WTF "this does not include cells" I swear that is how 75%+ of the time Ts get guns...

CTs CAN shoot AFKs, even AFK admins,(because they're "not following orders") but must warn them and give them a couple seconds before killing.

Ok now here is my opinion over this I shoot people if they aren't out by the time limit and have gotten bitched at because they were "AFK" and came back. In my opinion this is a stupid rule because just as admins do not get special treatment neither should AFKs.

Ts may refuse to play opinionated games such as Why are you here? and Joke Day.

GRAMMAR POLICAR RAWRAWRAWRAWRAR

Ts may refuse to play opinionated games such as "Why are you here?", "Joke day", "American Idol", ect.

This just looks odd this the question mark after why are you here and then the joke day right after it just put some quotation marks around it and it'll look fine .

[Slazenger]

*sighs*

 

I'll admit, it's nice to have people question the MOTD. More people need to do it. What you must understand is the fact that there are at least half a dozen people who have added things to the MOTD at various times, each with their own line of thought. I have my access to the MOTD back now, so I'm happy to make changes. On that note...

 

On the subject of nitpicking rules (here comes more ).

 

:love: Grammar police :love:

Any CT(s) who are not involved in a LR cannot interfere or you will be subject to a slay.

 

One question:

So as they are subject to a "slay" can only admins slay them if they do this. If so then a lot of Ts are rebels for killing the CT(s) that interfere.

Added "The T may kill the interfering CT if they state that they are killing the interferer."

No grammar police this time.

I have a question though.

Can any CT revoke the freeday even if the other lead is still alive and therefore become the lead CT?

No. Lead CT is the only one.

My only point here is...

"There is to be no favoritism towards certain players."

then is goes on to say:

"You may give freedays to freekilled Terrorists at your discretion though.":xd:

 

Changed to: You may give freedays to freekilled Terrorists at your discretion only if they were freekilled on LR.

 

I have actually got in trouble because of the last part of this rule because I followed it and since the person in gun cell turned around and looked at me I shot him and proceeded to be slayed... Is there anyway you could emphasize that a little more?

 

I don't think it can be much clearer. If an admin slays you for that, let me know who.

 

Now I could probably write a whole essay describing baiting and the fa****ry is causes but the part I'm going to concentrate on here is "knifing before the CT was near". My point being that if they only knife once at a baiter they are rebelling?

 

Yes, they would be considered a rebel, even if the CT is running through a crowd. If they were not knifing prior to the CT's arrival, it is considered rebelling.

 

I ran in to a problem yesterday with this as on a LR I told a T to kill me. However that directly goes against this rule yet I see people doing this all this time and no admin action is ever taken over it faithless and I came on the conclusion that the Ts are in control and you aren't necessarily giving any orders at that time. Clarification requested please.

 

Technically, you should not be telling T's that at any time. It puts them in a position to rebel and not only does it go against this rule, it is also baiting (under the definition that baiting it doing something that increases the likelihood for T's to be killed ie. giving them a gun).

 

I guess this is the first time this registered in my mind but WTF "this does not include cells" I swear that is how 75%+ of the time Ts get guns...

 

It's how it has been for months, with no issues. As long as the CT is not baiting but trying to entice the T to knife them, it is perfectly legal for CTs to be in cells.

 

However, I did alter that rule and added something should have been in there.

 

"CTs cannot enter designated areas assigned to Ts. T-designated areas are places where the T's have been ordered to go to. This does not include cells. CTs may not camp in first cell either. An admin will slay CTs in any T-designated areas -- if you are a T and you knife them, you are considered to be a rebel unless you are given permission to knife the CT."

Ok now here is my opinion over this I shoot people if they aren't out by the time limit and have gotten bitched at because they were "AFK" and came back. In my opinion this is a stupid rule because just as admins do not get special treatment neither should AFKs.

 

You have come up with some definition of the rule that is not implied in any way. The rule states that you may kill AFKs that do come back from being AFK. I'll put in something that says "or if they miss the time limit given by CTs", but the idea is you warn an AFK, give them 3 seconds or a countdown, then kill.

 

GRAMMAR POLICAR RAWRAWRAWRAWRAR

Ts may refuse to play opinionated games such as "Why are you here?", "Joke day", "American Idol", ect.

This just looks odd this the question mark after why are you here and then the joke day right after it just put some quotation marks around it and it'll look fine .

 

Changed to: Ts may refuse to play opinionated games such as "Why are you here?", "Joke day", "American Idol", "Talent Show", etc.

 

 

Just for a bit of trivia, I'm going to show you how the MOTD has evolved since I became the jailbreak warden. It's a little scary how much longer it is, but people wanted it to be more concise.

 

 

The new MOTD is in the next post, due to post length restrictions.

 

Old MOTD (October 4th, 2009)

 

// These are SERVER-SPECIFIC RULES ONLY, NOT GENERAL PLAYER RULES

 

// Prefix each line with:

// "p: " for Player rules

// "a: " for Admin rules

 

p: <font color="lime">DISRESPECTING <u>ANYONE</u> = WARN THEN BAN</font>

p: <font color="green">PORN SPRAYS = WARN THEN BAN</font>

p: <font color="lime">RACISM OR EXCESS FOUL LANGUAGE = WARN THEN BAN</font>

p: <font color="green">FREEKILL = WARN THEN BAN</font>

p: <font color="lime">MIC SPAM OR MUSIC = WARN THEN BAN</font>

p: <font color="red">CTs give clear orders to the Ts or make them play games (EG: Simon says, races, gun toss)</font>

p: CTs may ONLY shoot Rebels (Red) Or blatant disobeyers

p: CTs can give text warnings, but not text commands

p: CTs CANNOT FREEKILL, do not kill a player just for the fun of it, they must have hostile intent

p: CTs may only be in vents and armory to kill rebels or escort disobeyers, freekill rules still apply

p: CTs if you DO freekill mistakenly, appologize or be subject to voteban or admin action

p: You may play without a mic, but a mic is required to give COMMANDS

p: <font color="red">Ts obey CT rules while trying to sneak away to kill them</font>

p: Ts if you do get freekilled use voteban, report to admin, or hellsgamers.com

p: Ts last alive can get a last request, type !LR

p: There is no freeday, CTs can give commands anytime

p: "Simon Says" means that anyone who doesn't do the command gets shot

p: "Evil Simon Says" means that, even if everyone does the command, the last T to do so gets shot anyway

p: CTs may kill Ts if they are holding a gun willingly and do not drop it in a couple seconds

p: CTs must warn Ts to drop their gun before killing, if their weapon is holstered

p: CTs cannot give rules regarding mic or chat usage

p: CTs cannot issue an order to a T that will result in a T becoming a rebel, nor can CTs order the Ts to rebel.

p: CTs cannot enter designated area assigned to Ts

p: NO EXCESSIVE CAMPING or causing trouble via any actions

p: Last CT alive may only kill all remaining T's after giving a warning first

p: CTs cannot gun plant, it is illegal

p: CTs not involved in LR cannot interfere or you will be subject to slay.

p: Cts are not to block the vents with items.

p: CTs CAN shoot AFKs (because they're "not following orders")

 

a: Admins are NOT above the rules, if you wish to observe use spectate

a: Do not use powers on admins, report them on forums. Except for slay.

a: Do not teleport or use command to gain an unfair advantage

a: Before banning freekillers, you must warn, switch teams, kick, etc

a: You may ban freekillers for a short time without a ban report. Do not abuse.

a: Habitual freekillers may be permanently banned, but only with a ban report

a: If a CT is camping armory, vents, infirmary they are subject to slay.

a: The entire T team can be subject to mute until orders are given.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Slazenger
Added the old MOTD and New MOTD for comparison.

[Slazenger]

New MOTD (February 3rd, 2010)

 

Thanks Hobbes for the png.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2010 by Slazenger