Griefers at the Engineers

I just called out someone saying they don't care about the consequences of their play on others, said I don't think that's a laudible attitude, everything else is a misunderstanding or extrapolation. I also apologised for getting on my high horse about it. Then Jason starts telling me how to raise my kids. I think you're missing what's happening here mate. Thing is (and I'm surprised they've forgotten this) I'm totally on their side, I think the game should be open only, and agree that the consequences for pressing open are that you might get killed by a better/more prepared player. That's not the issue and never was. I have never been that kind of white knight, you know this. FD needs to do something about the blatant harassment described in the OP though. I prefer seal clubbing to that kind of shenanigan.
You're gonna have to point out where I told you how to raise your kids because I missed that part
 
I agree with this and definitely reflected by my own life experience. Frankly everything I read about playing in Open confirms that it's not for me. I enjoy being mostly left alone. I enjoy moving at my own pace and am happy Solo mode provides that option, although what NPC are doing lurking in deep remote space, I don't know. Perhaps after I've been playing ED as long as some here I'll feel differently, for now I can't imagine why I'd want to harrass or be harassed by bored players while simply docking my ship.

Correct.

In my personal experience, people who assume the worst of other people... well, tend to be the worst people. Typically we assume that everyone functions the same way as we do, and quite often, end up being blatantly wrong. There are few universal truths about human behaviour, and one is that any sane person has the need to justify their own actions to themselves. In the case of selfish people, the typical justification is the "eat or be eaten" kind, an assumption that everyone else would behave the same way, given the chance.
 
Last edited:
I find it sad that the argument of ‘it’s just pixels, it’s just a game’ comes back so often in PvP threads because it’s obvious that the harm lies with losing progress and time, and it’s an easy counter-argument that lacks empathy. Although, yes, I agree CMDRs should know what they’re getting into with Open. Where I empathize is how these people probably simply hoped to have good encounters by going to Open which is reasonable, albeit sadly naïve. ‘Good’ which is in the eye of the beholder, but taking OP’s post, pad harassment is an encounter not many will agree to be good. I agree that humans are inherently, biologically selfish; we’re just elevated monkeys. Although, we're also good and I’d rather keep caring of the harm I can do to other’s time, so yes, in turn I will hope that my time be also respected, and I believe life has its own ways to give back. I also understand there’s a limit to how much you can ‘respect’ other’s time through different game styles, I was just disheartened by how little empathy some posts have.

Bullies often don’t know they’re bullies and it’s also not their intention. They tend to be driven to be perceived as competent, to process information quicker than others and get frustrated when others can’t keep up. To quote author Catherine Mattice Zundel: ‘It makes them nervous. They get anxious about their own ability to appear competent if they have alleged incompetence around them; they lash out.’ That said, our world cruelly needs to teach more about social and emotional intelligence.
Agreed. I call them "pixelmover" and liars at that. No one sane in its mind would be playing games if it's just about moving pixels, NO WAY. If that holds any truth you could call chessplayer "wood pusher" or poker player "card holder" and in all cases you would formally be right but so wrong at the same time.

It IS science. And very good science, at that. Only ideologues reject it as such.
Careful now, what is "IT" here? Remember what you are quoting. Do you really relate this statement to what I've wrote about Richard Dawkins? In which case I'd recommend some opinions about this guy from some more serious experts. He's usually considered the "Erich von Däniken" of Darwin's theory of evolution, but please tell me you know better. :geek:
 
Agreed. I call them "pixelmover" and liars at that. No one sane in its mind would be playing games if it's just about moving pixels, NO WAY. If that holds any truth you could call chessplayer "wood pusher" or poker player "card holder" and in all cases you would formally be right but so wrong at the same time.

LOL...
 
...
You are correct that selfishness is part of human nature, but by the same token we are also social creatures at our core and taking consideration for other people even when it conflicts with our own self-interest is entirely in our makeup as well. That's the whole basis for the concept of social contract.
No he is not correct. It's proven in various officially accepted studies that just a few month old children are usually helpful and in cases where no reward is to be expected. That proves strongly indicates that selfishness is not a native human ability but a result of early conditionings. Meanwhile selfishness has become mainstream and the norm (and the main reason IMO while our western civilizations have meanwhile more in common with cancer than with a sane organism). Selfishness as daily reality? Yes, of course. But as part of human nature this is patently wrong.

Here's a good read for starters, unfortunately in German (couldn't find some quick translation in a trice):
https://band1.dieweltdercommons.de/essays/friederike-habermann-wir-werden-nicht-als-egoisten-geboren/
 
Last edited:
No he is not correct. It's proven in various officially accepted studies that just a few month old children are usually helpful and in cases where no reward is to be expected. That proves strongly indicates that selfishness is not a native human ability but a result of early conditionings. Meanwhile selfishness has become mainstream and the norm. But selfishness being part of human nature is patently wrong.
Far more studies exist, and are accepted as well, that suggest the opposite. The counter studies that you cite are relatively new, and fewer, in comparison. But of course, that's the point I was making...that there is more to human nature than just selfishness and that selflessness IS a real thing. So you're agreeing with me...just taking a much stronger stance on in it than the full body of research supports.

That's the problem with trying to take a stance far to either side of the debate. People ARE selfish but they also ARE altruistic and selfless. Varying people have varying degrees of either trait. Some of it is biological, as there is an evolutionary reason for both traits. In fact, there are theories that suggest that even the fact that some people are more selfish than others is the result of evolution. For society to work, we need both types of people according to these researchers.

In short, you're making the same mistake that he is, but in the opposite direction of the equation. Of course, that's human nature as well....to find things to support one's own view while ignoring everything that counters it.
 
everything that supports my preconceived opinions is absolutely rock solid and everything that doesn't is bunk and I will call it "research" in air quotes and mock the idea of it existing at all
 
Yeh, solo was tacked on as a poor effort at placating those who pledged to the kickstarter on the basis that there would be an offline mode which was subsequently cancelled
I can't tell whether this is deliberately disingenuous or a genuine misunderstanding, but it's wrong either way.

  • On November 6th, 2012, solo online play was pitched as part of the original Kickstarter campaign:
    • "And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours..."

  • Shortly thereafter (the exact date is lost due to an update overwriting it) a clarifying FAQ entry was added, headed How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?:
    • "All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer."

  • On December 11th, 2012, this FAQ was updated to include the newly proposed single player offline mode:
    • "The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server."

  • On November 14th, 2014, the cancellation of offline mode was announced in Newsletter 49:
    • "A fully offline experience would be unacceptably limited and static compared to the dynamic, ever unfolding experience we are delivering."
(emphasis is mine)
Solo predated offline mode by more than a month, and had been part of the design for over two years when offline was cancelled. Solo was never "tacked on."
 
everything that supports my preconceived opinions is absolutely rock solid and everything that doesn't is bunk and I will call it "research" in air quotes and mock the idea of it existing at all
What was that? Not sure what you're insinuating, but I do respect science and scientists. Just not every next populist who pretends to be "scientific".
 
Last edited:

Arguendo

Volunteer Moderator
Are we there yet?
The topic has shifted, which is fine at this point. There are however a few things that aren't fine.
  • Long or short versions of "No u"
  • Discussing users and not their arguments
Stay away from those things (and all other forum rules ofcourse) and you won't have to sit on the sidelines and read this thread.
 
What was that? Not sure what you're insinuating, but I do respect science and scientists. Just not every next populist who pretends to be "scientific".
That's fine.

But argument from authority are irrelevant

Psychology is a science, whether you like it or not. The problem is, I never, not once, brought up psychology, so you this is all irrelevant anyway. I was talking about EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY, and if you think either Sagan or Dawkins have a problem with that, then you aren't as familiar with them as you thought you were.
 
Far more studies exist, and are accepted as well, that suggest the opposite. The counter studies that you cite are relatively new, and fewer, in comparison. But of course, that's the point I was making...that there is more to human nature than just selfishness and that selflessness IS a real thing. So you're agreeing with me...just taking a much stronger stance on in it than the full body of research supports.

That's the problem with trying to take a stance far to either side of the debate. People ARE selfish but they also ARE altruistic and selfless. Varying people have varying degrees of either trait. Some of it is biological, as there is an evolutionary reason for both traits. In fact, there are theories that suggest that even the fact that some people are more selfish than others is the result of evolution. For society to work, we need both types of people according to these researchers.

In short, you're making the same mistake that he is, but in the opposite direction of the equation. Of course, that's human nature as well....to find things to support one's own view while ignoring everything that counters it.
The problem with the studies he mentioned is the interpretation. The article he linked (note: not a study) is an interpretation of a series of studies that actually ignores the conclusion of most of them. It has a massive anti-capitalist ideological bent. Science has no political bias. It is fact, it is not, or we don't know. The article he linked is attempting to explain the results according to how it's seen through a particular 'lens'.

Philosophers have been arguing about whether people are inherently selfish since there has been such a thing as philosophers. In Plato's "Republic," Socrates has a discussion with his older brother Glaucon in which Glaucon insists that people's good behavior actually only exists for self-interest: People only do the right thing because they fear being punished if they get caught. If human actions were invisible to others, Glaucon says, even the most "just" man would act purely for himself and not care if he harmed anyone in the process.

It's the sort of argument that might have appealed to Thomas Hobbes, the 17th-century English philosopher famous for saying that the natural state of man's life would be "nasty, brutish and short." According to Hobbes, humans must form social contracts and governments to prevent their selfish, violent tendencies from taking over.

Not all philosophers have agreed with this dour point of view, however. Philosopher John Locke, for example, thought that humans were inherently tolerant and reasonable, though he acknowledged humanity's capacity for selfishness.

But philosophers are great at asking questions, not getting answers. So what does the science say? In fact, you're right in that people are quite willing to act for the good of the group, even if it's against their own interests, studies do show this. But paradoxically, social structures that attempt to give people incentives for good behavior can actually make people more selfish.

Take a classic example: In 2000, a study in the Journal of Legal Studies found that trying to punish bad behavior with a fine backfired spectacularly. The study took place at 10 day care centers in Haifa, Israel. First, researchers observed the centers for four weeks, tracking how many parents arrived late to pick up their children, inconveniencing the day care staff. Next, six of the centers introduced a fine for parents who arrived more than 10 minutes late. The four other centers served as a control, for comparison. (The fine was small but not insignificant, similar to what a parent might have to pay a babysitter for an hour.)

After the introduction of the fine, the rate of late pickups didn't drop. Instead, it nearly doubled. By introducing an incentive structure, the day cares apparently turned the after-school hours into a commodity, the researchers wrote. Parents who might have felt vaguely guilty for imposing on teachers' patience before the fine now felt that a late pickup was just something they could buy.

The Haifa day care study isn't the only one to find that trying to induce 'moral' behavior with material incentives can make people less considerate of others. In a 2008 review in the journal Science, Bowles examined 41 studies of incentives and moral behavior. He found that, in most cases, incentives and punishments undermined moral behavior.

For example, in one study, published in 2000 in the journal World Development, researchers asked people in rural Colombia to play a game in which they had to decide how much firewood to take from a forest, with the consideration that deforestation would result in poor water quality. This game was analogous to real life for the people of the village. In some cases, people played the games in small groups but couldn't communicate about their decisions with players outside their group. In other cases, they could communicate. In a third condition, the players couldn't communicate but were given rules specifying how much firewood they could gather.

When allowed to communicate, the people in the small groups set aside self-interest and gathered less firewood for themselves, preserving water quality in the forest for the larger group as a whole. Regulations, on the other hand, had a perverse result over time: People gradually began to gather more and more firewood for themselves, risking a fine but ultimately putting their self-interest first.

"People look for situational cues of 'acceptable behavior,'" Bowles said. "Literally dozens of experiments show that if you offer someone a money incentive to perform a task (even one that she would have happily done without pay), this will 'turn on' the 'What's in it for me?' way of thinking, often to such an extent that the person will perform less with the incentive than without."

All of this, as well as studies that show similar behaviour in other animal species, is indicative of selfishness being a perfectly natural survival mechanism. Let's face it, one good CME hits us and goodbye all the luxuries and conveniences of modern society. What allows us to be more 'altruistic' is just that, the convenience to do so. When Mazlow's heirarchy of needs is fulfilled, we have time and energy to spare to help others achieve their's, which is in and of itself as much an element of self-interest as it is caring for others, because the survival of the species is within our self-interest. But when the survival of the species is under threat, people will become more interested in survival of the self over others. Those who remain interested in the survival of others over themselves will be taken advantage of. When civilisation, and the conveniences that make rule by law possible, are out the window, then all that is left is 'might makes right'.

The thing most people keep doing here is conflating 'selfishness' with its negative connotations, as if selfishness is antithetical to virtue. But I guarantee you, something you are doing in your life is the product of that very selfishness inherent to all of us. I would bet every cent I earn for the rest of my life that this is the case in 100% of all living things.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the studies he mentioned is the interpretation. The article he linked (note: not a study) is an interpretation of a series of studies that actually ignores the conclusion of most of them. It has a massive anti-capitalist ideological bent. Science has no political bias. It is fact, it is not, or we don't know. The article he linked is attempting to explain the results according to how it's seen through a particular 'lens'.

Philosophers have been arguing about whether people are inherently selfish since there has been such a thing as philosophers. In Plato's "Republic," Socrates has a discussion with his older brother Glaucon in which Glaucon insists that people's good behavior actually only exists for self-interest: People only do the right thing because they fear being punished if they get caught. If human actions were invisible to others, Glaucon says, even the most "just" man would act purely for himself and not care if he harmed anyone in the process.

It's the sort of argument that might have appealed to Thomas Hobbes, the 17th-century English philosopher famous for saying that the natural state of man's life would be "nasty, brutish and short." According to Hobbes, humans must form social contracts and governments to prevent their selfish, violent tendencies from taking over.

Not all philosophers have agreed with this dour point of view, however. Philosopher John Locke, for example, thought that humans were inherently tolerant and reasonable, though he acknowledged humanity's capacity for selfishness.

But philosophers are great at asking questions, not getting answers. So what does the science say? In fact, you're right in that people are quite willing to act for the good of the group, even if it's against their own interests, studies do show this. But paradoxically, social structures that attempt to give people incentives for good behavior can actually make people more selfish.

Take a classic example: In 2000, a study in the Journal of Legal Studies found that trying to punish bad behavior with a fine backfired spectacularly. The study took place at 10 day care centers in Haifa, Israel. First, researchers observed the centers for four weeks, tracking how many parents arrived late to pick up their children, inconveniencing the day care staff. Next, six of the centers introduced a fine for parents who arrived more than 10 minutes late. The four other centers served as a control, for comparison. (The fine was small but not insignificant, similar to what a parent might have to pay a babysitter for an hour.)

After the introduction of the fine, the rate of late pickups didn't drop. Instead, it nearly doubled. By introducing an incentive structure, the day cares apparently turned the after-school hours into a commodity, the researchers wrote. Parents who might have felt vaguely guilty for imposing on teachers' patience before the fine now felt that a late pickup was just something they could buy.

The Haifa day care study isn't the only one to find that trying to induce 'moral' behavior with material incentives can make people less considerate of others. In a 2008 review in the journal Science, Bowles examined 41 studies of incentives and moral behavior. He found that, in most cases, incentives and punishments undermined moral behavior.

For example, in one study, published in 2000 in the journal World Development, researchers asked people in rural Colombia to play a game in which they had to decide how much firewood to take from a forest, with the consideration that deforestation would result in poor water quality. This game was analogous to real life for the people of the village. In some cases, people played the games in small groups but couldn't communicate about their decisions with players outside their group. In other cases, they could communicate. In a third condition, the players couldn't communicate but were given rules specifying how much firewood they could gather.

When allowed to communicate, the people in the small groups set aside self-interest and gathered less firewood for themselves, preserving water quality in the forest for the larger group as a whole. Regulations, on the other hand, had a perverse result over time: People gradually began to gather more and more firewood for themselves, risking a fine but ultimately putting their self-interest first.

"People look for situational cues of 'acceptable behavior,'" Bowles said. "Literally dozens of experiments show that if you offer someone a money incentive to perform a task (even one that she would have happily done without pay), this will 'turn on' the 'What's in it for me?' way of thinking, often to such an extent that the person will perform less with the incentive than without."

All of this, as well as studies that show similar behaviour in other animal species, is indicative of selfishness being a perfectly natural survival mechanism. Let's face it, one good CME hits us and goodbye all the luxuries and conveniences of modern society. What allows us to be more 'altruistic' is just that, the convenience to do so. When Mazlow's heirarchy of needs is fulfilled, we have time and energy to spare to help others achieve their's, which is in and of itself as much an element of self-interest as it is caring for others, because the survival of the species is within our self-interest. But when the survival of the species is under threat, people will become more interested in survival of the self over others. Those who remain interested in the survival of others over themselves will be taken advantage of. When civilisation, and the conveniences that make rule by law possible, are out the window, then all that is left is 'might makes right'.

The thing most people keep doing here is conflating 'selfishness' with its negative connotations, as if selfishness is antithetical to virtue. But I guarantee you, something you are doing in your life is the product of that very selfishness inherent to all of us. I would bet every cent I earn for the rest of my life that this is the case in 100% of all living things.
Ok, now replicate those studies :)
 
Ok, now replicate those studies :)
Why would I do that when it's already been done time and again?

I think a lot of people are misconstruing what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that humans are incapable of helping one another. That much is obviously untrue. I'm talking about our motivations for doing so. It's nice to think, for most people, that doing things for others for 'selfless' reasons is virtuous, but that's only because 'selfishness' has been socially stigmatised, so in order to get along with other people in a way that's within our best interests (ie not being ostracised for 'wrongthink'), we are, ironically, selfishly going along with the idea that selfishness is a bad thing, to look virtuous to those around us.

This is where the phrase 'virtue signalling' comes from. "Hey, look at me, I'm virtuous, not selfish at all!" The purpose, conscious or subconscious, is to raise your visibility and standing within the social contract itself.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the studies he mentioned is the interpretation. The article he linked (note: not a study) is an interpretation of a series of studies that actually ignores the conclusion of most of them. It has a massive anti-capitalist ideological bent. Science has no political bias. It is fact, it is not, or we don't know. The article he linked is attempting to explain the results according to how it's seen through a particular 'lens'.

Philosophers have been arguing about whether people are inherently selfish since there has been such a thing as philosophers. In Plato's "Republic," Socrates has a discussion with his older brother Glaucon in which Glaucon insists that people's good behavior actually only exists for self-interest: People only do the right thing because they fear being punished if they get caught. If human actions were invisible to others, Glaucon says, even the most "just" man would act purely for himself and not care if he harmed anyone in the process.

It's the sort of argument that might have appealed to Thomas Hobbes, the 17th-century English philosopher famous for saying that the natural state of man's life would be "nasty, brutish and short." According to Hobbes, humans must form social contracts and governments to prevent their selfish, violent tendencies from taking over.

Not all philosophers have agreed with this dour point of view, however. Philosopher John Locke, for example, thought that humans were inherently tolerant and reasonable, though he acknowledged humanity's capacity for selfishness.

But philosophers are great at asking questions, not getting answers. So what does the science say? In fact, you're right in that people are quite willing to act for the good of the group, even if it's against their own interests, studies do show this. But paradoxically, social structures that attempt to give people incentives for good behavior can actually make people more selfish.

Take a classic example: In 2000, a study in the Journal of Legal Studies found that trying to punish bad behavior with a fine backfired spectacularly. The study took place at 10 day care centers in Haifa, Israel. First, researchers observed the centers for four weeks, tracking how many parents arrived late to pick up their children, inconveniencing the day care staff. Next, six of the centers introduced a fine for parents who arrived more than 10 minutes late. The four other centers served as a control, for comparison. (The fine was small but not insignificant, similar to what a parent might have to pay a babysitter for an hour.)

After the introduction of the fine, the rate of late pickups didn't drop. Instead, it nearly doubled. By introducing an incentive structure, the day cares apparently turned the after-school hours into a commodity, the researchers wrote. Parents who might have felt vaguely guilty for imposing on teachers' patience before the fine now felt that a late pickup was just something they could buy.

The Haifa day care study isn't the only one to find that trying to induce 'moral' behavior with material incentives can make people less considerate of others. In a 2008 review in the journal Science, Bowles examined 41 studies of incentives and moral behavior. He found that, in most cases, incentives and punishments undermined moral behavior.

For example, in one study, published in 2000 in the journal World Development, researchers asked people in rural Colombia to play a game in which they had to decide how much firewood to take from a forest, with the consideration that deforestation would result in poor water quality. This game was analogous to real life for the people of the village. In some cases, people played the games in small groups but couldn't communicate about their decisions with players outside their group. In other cases, they could communicate. In a third condition, the players couldn't communicate but were given rules specifying how much firewood they could gather.

When allowed to communicate, the people in the small groups set aside self-interest and gathered less firewood for themselves, preserving water quality in the forest for the larger group as a whole. Regulations, on the other hand, had a perverse result over time: People gradually began to gather more and more firewood for themselves, risking a fine but ultimately putting their self-interest first.

"People look for situational cues of 'acceptable behavior,'" Bowles said. "Literally dozens of experiments show that if you offer someone a money incentive to perform a task (even one that she would have happily done without pay), this will 'turn on' the 'What's in it for me?' way of thinking, often to such an extent that the person will perform less with the incentive than without."

All of this, as well as studies that show similar behaviour in other animal species, is indicative of selfishness being a perfectly natural survival mechanism. Let's face it, one good CME hits us and goodbye all the luxuries and conveniences of modern society. What allows us to be more 'altruistic' is just that, the convenience to do so. When Mazlow's heirarchy of needs is fulfilled, we have time and energy to spare to help others achieve their's, which is in and of itself as much an element of self-interest as it is caring for others, because the survival of the species is within our self-interest. But when the survival of the species is under threat, people will become more interested in survival of the self over others. Those who remain interested in the survival of others over themselves will be taken advantage of. When civilisation, and the conveniences that make rule by law possible, are out the window, then all that is left is 'might makes right'.

The thing most people keep doing here is conflating 'selfishness' with its negative connotations, as if selfishness is antithetical to virtue. But I guarantee you, something you are doing in your life is the product of that very selfishness inherent to all of us. I would bet every cent I earn for the rest of my life that this is the case in 100% of all living things.
You might want to check out Loss Aversion studies as a better motivator for moderating a behavior. IMO, the primary source of angst with the whole PVE/PVP zeitgeist is loss aversion for both sides.

I've posted many times the problem isn't the players. It's the house that FDEV built.
 
You might want to check out Loss Aversion studies as a better motivator for moderating a behavior. IMO, the primary source of angst with the whole PVE/PVP zeitgeist is loss aversion for both sides.

I've posted many times the problem isn't the players. It's the house that FDEV built.
I know you have. And I know where you're getting that conclusion from. The problem is, you conclusion has not accounted for a wide range of variables. I've gone over them with you previously too, the most notable of which is choice, but you continue to ignore them, which is why I won't be having that conversation with you. You believe whatever you want to. You're going to anyway.
 
Why would I do that when it's already been done time and again?

I think a lot of people are misconstruing what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that humans are incapable of helping one another. That much is obviously untrue. I'm talking about our motivations for doing so. It's nice to think, for most people, that doing things for others for 'selfless' reasons is virtuous, but that's only because 'selfishness' has been socially stigmatised, so in order to get along with other people in a way that's within our best interests (ie not being ostracised for 'wrongthink'), we are, ironically, selfishly going along with the idea that selfishness is a bad thing, to look virtuous to those around us.

This is where the phrase 'virtue signalling' comes from. "Hey, look at me, I'm virtuous, not selfish at all!" The purpose, conscious or subconscious, is to raise your visibility and standing within the social contract itself.
Lots of studies in that field are not of very high quality and in fact are not reproducible at all.
 
I know you have. And I know where you're getting that conclusion from. The problem is, you conclusion has not accounted for a wide range of variables. I've gone over them with you previously too, the most notable of which is choice, but you continue to ignore them, which is why I won't be having that conversation with you. You believe whatever you want to. You're going to anyway.
Player variables? Player choice to play the game in one way or another? My knight took your pawn and you didn't like it because I feinted with my bishop? Maybe I hit the move timer with a certain glee that was inappropriate? C'mon. The rules are the rules. If players offend each other within the box, that's on the players. If the rules don't make sense, then the complaint is with the game designer, not the other players. This game, like all other mmos has evolving rules. Embrace it. Focus on the rules and not the players.
 
Top Bottom