What do you think about SG rules?
That's the reason why a lot of members only create private giveaways with SG tools.
Comment has been collapsed.
rule breakers get suspended. once they were suspended, they aren't breaking any more rules.
those that served suspensions were already dealt with by support, it's overzealous users that make-up custom rules to keep punishing and isolating them.
rules or unactivated and multiple wins are ok, imo. not too harsh and not too lenient, either.
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is that support deny the reroll ticket, which can be translated to you are supposed to send the game to those who broke the rule.
In my opinion, giveaway creator should have the right to judge if he/she want to give the game or not. There is the case where rule breaker keep breaking rule over and over again, rendering rules not affecting them much too. Or did I miss something here like multiple time rule breaker get permanent ban?
Comment has been collapsed.
You also don't have to break any rules at all to get suspended.
I wish this site was a democracy instead of a dictatorship.
Comment has been collapsed.
A benign dictatorship is probably still the best form of management we've discovered as a species.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except the only one we've ever really heard of is considered only a Legend.
King Arthur is the only one I've heard of who was truly benevolent to his people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Benign is not benevolent, wre've had plenty of examples through the years: Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, etc. Fidel Castro is a good modern example
Just because it works, doesn't mean it's a good thing-- it's simply the most effective government we've figured out so far. I mean, the entire system depends on the life of one person. It can only work for a generation or two.
Comment has been collapsed.
The best option for them to fully get back to bright side is to solve their non-activated wins and to contact creators or their multiple wins to... solve the problem.
This shouldn't be too much troublesome for accidental or unique infractions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry it's 8AM and I only slept about 3-4 hours. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sending a gift doesn't make you a rule breaker
I understand that. I didn't say so anywhere. I just said that you're supposed to send the game to them or you'll get that nasty not received thing (joke).
Because nobody here 'deserves' anything. Winners will always be random and lucky, you don't win games based on your suspension history, level, ratio or CV.
I disagree on this. Yes public giveaway are just like you said but in my opinion whitelist and blacklist system have its purposes.
if you encounter a rule breaker with a not activated win or two wins for the same game, from months ago, chances are, they were already suspended and don't break rules any more. Why the need to keep punishing them?
Because we do not know and there is no way to know if they've already been punished for breaking the rule, other than submit support ticket.
I don't know why people make so much drama with blacklist, CV, ratio or rule breakers
I think that's because no different human will have different thought, ideas, and believes.
banned permanently if they keep doing it
I actually just knew this.
so, it's pointless to ask for a re-roll, because you think, someone doesn't 'deserve' a game.
So basically you're suggesting that "request new winner" feature should be removed? Do I misinterpret your thought anywhere?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes I agree. But there is no way to know that except you submit reroll ticket as far as I know. Do you know how?
Comment has been collapsed.
that's the way i look at it too.. there maybe some rulebreaks that slip right thru, but really that is not a big deal imo. if they start to do any form of rulebreaking again and get reported, both would get noticed at the same time anyways and punished for both at that point in time. if they never do it again, then they already learned their lesson before they were even punished for it, and imo don't need the punishment unless they start it back up again.
for example.. i had one just a month ago that had 2 non-activations. one from 2012, and one from 2017. the 2017 one caused them to get punished for both.
there's always exceptions to how far back i'll go, or for that matter how recently too. most generally i ignore anything older then 3months old, and anything only 24-48hr old. (i've found most 1-2day old non-activations are from people who preemptively mark their wins received before they actually even got it)
Comment has been collapsed.
you are wrong actually. not sending a game does make you rulebreaker. there was even a case in the past when some knowc contributor wrote on forums he's not sending gift to rulebreakers and decides to get "not received" instead. because of that statement he got suspended for 5 days for creating Fake GA. So no, it does not only take a GA slot from you, but also if it's ruled as a Fake GA could mean same suspension as not activating win would give you.
Comment has been collapsed.
it really is not vague. you have to send game to winner (in case you didn't reroll or got denied reroll) within one week. It's in the rul;es. Thus if you do not do that you are breaking the rules. If you are breaking the rules you can be suspended. It's not needed imho to add "may be suspended" part, because it would mean we'd have to add it to each apret of FAQ/Guidelines where we talk about rules. If you do not add it somewhere someone could then interpret it as "ok, it's against the rules, but unlike other stuff it's not suspendable because it's not mentioned directly". Such form can be problematic or even exploitable. Set of rules and information that breaking any rules may lead to suspension, or just set of rules alone is much better because of how misinterpretation cannot be used as defense against suspension.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's really semantics. Should is commonly used in all kind of legal ruling, tos etc, because it semantically is not as hard as must which means an order and is agressive, while such documents should be written in assertive way. Thus it's ok to use things like cannot, should not, shall not (do you think Gandalf yelling YOU SHALL NOT PASS! was kindly asking Balrog to step aside? ;p) instead of aggressive must not ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
*send
And it's the same thing. yours just being written in person not used in law...
If you want to change the wording, you'd just replace should with must, but that's not how laws/rules are written.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think we should pull their toenails out with pliers and beat them with a baseball bat for the rest of their natural lives. Of course they should also be castrated/neutered so we don't have to tolerate their rule-breaking genetics being passed on to another generation.
Or I'm fine with things the way they are. I don't believe in perpetual punishment for a wrong.
I just don't stress shit like this. I report them and move on. Besides, the guy they sold/traded the key to has as much chance of playing the game as anyone else on this site (probably more so). shrug
Comment has been collapsed.
The current rules are fine. As far as Im concerned, once someone serves their ban, they have a clean slate with me and deserve their win just as much as anyone else.
Only thing I wish we could get, would be a tag only a giveaway creater can see, that lets them know if and when a winner was last banned so we can avoid spamming support for rerolls. I always feel bad when I send close to a dozen tickets and find out half of them already served a ban.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wish we had a single Steam Begging thread that allowed people to post their wishlist and what games they really want.
That way when there is a sale on I can make sure a game goes to whomever truly wants to play it instead of it just ending up as someone's +1.
So yes I think some changes should be made, and other rules need to be set in stone.
I'm sure the community could come up with better rules (and much better wording) than are currently listed in the "Guidelines" section.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can use SGTools with a custom rule that the game has to be on the user's wishlist (as of a certain date) in order to enter the GA.
Comment has been collapsed.
I could, but SGTools in the current incarnation is still a pain to use. And sometimes people add games to their wishlist they really don't want, except for a +1.
Comment has been collapsed.
Regarding +1 wishlists, you can also limit the amount of wishlisted games in SGTools.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh I already know that. It's kicked me out of some great giveaways.
I only wishlist games I really really want, and apparently people think I have too many wishlisted.
I only have 958 wishlisted. u.u
Comment has been collapsed.
Only 958? :D
Well then do wishlist GAs with maximum amount of 1000 or 2000 games so users like yourself would pass. While I understand that the SGTools configuration is a bit messy and could need more explanations, these two rules shouldn't be too difficult to use. ^^
Or if you still don't want to use SGTools, you could open a thread and request people to state that they have it on their wishlist and you check if manually afterwards.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, only 958. Not sure how many of them are valid as many have been removed from Steam
(The Amazing Spider-Man games for example)
I also had some PCs (ibuypower) on my Steam Wishlist at one point, plus the Steam Controller.
Just crazy shit to see if anyone would ever stumble upon it and actually buy the stuff for me.
This was a long time before I came back to SG, back when SteamOS Boxes were first coming out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just crazy shit to see if anyone would ever stumble upon it and actually buy the stuff for me.
Okay. I always looked at the wishlist just as a reminder of games I really and urgently want for myself (probably the follow function nowadays). Later on I started using it also for deal notifications/trading. But I've never expected anyone to buy me a game; neither earlier (maybe because I only got my first PC in 2000 when I was already 19 earning my own money and gaming was still a niche hobby) nor yet in Steam.
My wishlist number has always been below 100.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well you really never know who is looking at your profile or wishlist, so I figured "Why the hell not?, I can't be punished for it".
My first PC was 2003, and since I only had dialup it was used for mostly emulation, mp3s, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
I currently have 115 in my wishlist and I think it is far too big already but since overtime I removed several dozens(excluding what I got) I resigned myself to having that many.
So yeah yours is way too big, I can believe that you are the one in a thousand(likely more) that has it for legitimate reasons, that is you actually genuinely want to play every single one of them, but if I ever bothered to create a wishlist restricted giveaway you would be over it by several times otherwise I see no point in even having a restriction.
Comment has been collapsed.
I still have original PSX (PS1 or PSOne for you youngsters) games that see use and have not a single scratch on them.
I try to find games that are truly worth owning instead of just using them as a +1.
With the advent of Digital Distribution it's getting harder and harder to find true gems.
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting, for me it is the opposite. Over the years I started getting more and more access to games being released so could actually experience gems. I was playing Super Nintendo or Mega Drive(which I still have and play occasionally) with largely what came with them and a few popular ones of note when people over in the USA, Europe and Japan were playing PS2.
Not long before PS3 was released I played a lot of PS1 games due to a friend having it and was amazed there were good games to be played in the two digits. That quickly got upgraded to a PS2 since it was compatible and all. I first played a PS3 in 2009 IIRC. PC was even worse in that it must have been by the mid 2000s that I got over five games ever played.
So for me these days are amazing, now I actually get to play games without a decade delay.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm still at a semi decade delay, but only when it comes to consoles.
Never got to play a lot of Wii Games (I do own one though), don't have many PS3 exclusives other than Disgaea 3 and 4
Don't have many 360 Exclusives
Don't have an Xbox One, PS4, Wii U, or Switch.
I do own a 3DS, and a few interesting games I enjoy.
Comment has been collapsed.
funny, i did that and got suspended https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/zT5AN/ 😱
maybe if a lv10 creates that thread it will be ok? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
It's always been against the current site rules. It's the one rule I simply do not agree with.
If every single person created their own thread I could see it causing issues.
But if cg himself (herself?) created a thread titled "The Official SteamGifts Begging Thread", no one would be able to argue for or against it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is the thread is gonna be useless as Steam Wishlist does the same thing. If you want to give the game to stranger who want the game then simply create a thread in that game's Steam discussion. There is 0 usability of creating such thread other than creating chaos and spam the site with begging.
Comment has been collapsed.
"spam the site with begging"
I said a SINGLE thread created by the Admin of the site. No other threads would be created.
Give the game away in that discussion board? Many Discussion Boards require that you own the game before you can post.
Also, I want to give the games away to people from THIS site who truly want them, not to random strangers
I've never talked to.
Comment has been collapsed.
The term spam mean comments that eat site's bandwidth without providing any use to anyone. Sorry if I didn't use the correct word.
I didn't know mod can restrict who can post on their discussion board. Can you give me the link to one or two?
If you want to give the games away to people from this site who truly want them then simply create a thread (similar to this).
I don't think there will be that many people who want to do it that we will need specific thread just for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
If this were my website, I would have the SG Tools style "unactivated wins" buit right into the main funcionality of the site, and users could not enter any giveaways unless this check was not flagged on their account. If they did something dumb like sell or give the game key away, they'd just have to get it again somewhere else and activate it so they could pass the rule check and be able to enter any GA again.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd like it as well, but I'd also like to see it apply to "Unsent Games".
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, that what some sites are already doing.
But it would mean less drama and social interaction and activities on SG forums ?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know that it's all rule "breakers" that are the problem. A large part of why I say this is that I recently had a GA that had a rules question that needed clarification from support and was available on HB during that time... so what ended up happening is that a lot of folks that entered were (I assume) following the rules when they clicked "Enter" but while waiting on clarification / re-rolls, had gone out and got the bundle while it was still on sale. Can't really blame them; I would have done the same thing. But end result was that I had to request a bunch of rerolls bc most of the winners I was getting already had all or part of the bundle. I have seen other cases where people get VAC bans unjustly or for things unrelated to trading as well. My point is that for many "rules", there are exceptions that are honest too.
Anyway, I think a some of the problems today could be solved by giving us some more features when we create a giveaway (but you'd have to convince cg it's worth his time to implement). For example:
-
When creating a package GA, have an dropdown for selecting how much of the package a winner can own. Keep in mind DLCs cannot be detected by Steam API but that could be called out with a warning next to the dropdown. Then we could still have options like: winner can already own "None of the games", "Lowest CV game only", "Any but highest CV game", "Anything but not everything". Then in winner selection logic / reroll logic, factor in those rules.
-
It would also be cool if you had options like "no unactivated wins in x months" (where x is < 3) as a selectable option. I don't think that would be too unfair in that it wouldn't permanently exclude someone if they had a status applied unfairly or if they legitimately messed up then made an effort to follow the rules going forward, but at the same time it would exclude people that actively break the rules. You might say, "You can already do that though SG Tools". And you would be correct. But in the SG Tools route if someone got through / broke the rule after entering, then you have request a reroll which wastes your time and time for the mods.
That said, I am leery about suggesting to have similar options based on ratio because it then becomes a very fine line to balance between excluding newcomers and excluding exploiters/spammers/etc. Likewise, if you said 'must have x giveaway/CV', then spammers would just find whatever crap GA(s) they need to meet the minimum reqs and legit folks with low funds would be excluded.
I am a big fan of trying to think how a feature could back-fire before trying to add it. I like thinking e.g. what if I ever found myself or a close friend in that scenario? Is there a path forward where I / they can come back to the light / get back on the right path?
Comment has been collapsed.
I just don't do many low level GAs anymore, so I don't have to deal with rule breakers. Case in point, I ran 1 lvl1 today that had 3x rerolls. :/
I think the rules are fine, but the rule breakers are numerous.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think at this current point in time, the rules are fine as is.
Comment has been collapsed.
SG rules suck. Some are useless, some are obsolete. We need a detailed ruleset that even the most stupid intellectually challenged user can follow and even the most tyrannical slightly strict mod can enact without resorting to anything but the rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
Does multiple-time rule breaker get permanent ban? Can someone confirm? With official statement from cg or mod maybe.
Yes. Extensions are first used on top of the suspension for the infraction (so it is suspend for X days + extra for repeat). If the behaviour continues, then a perma is applied. It can be lifted if they correct the issue with their account (e.g. Activate their wins).
Permas are also applied if the user is caught with a high ratio of non-activated wins (even on first offence). There is no magic number since these are handled on a case by cases basis.
On my end, rerolls are mostly a simple matter and can be dealt with quickly. Always worth sending one if you come across a rule breaker, regardless of how old the infraction happens to be. Worse case is that we waste a minute confirming that they already served their punishment and denying the ticket.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd rather spare those minutes, so they accumulate and maybe tickets like this get an answer eventually…
Comment has been collapsed.
Does reroll automatically check that new winner is not either rule breaker or was a rule breaker but already suspended before? Do creator need to check the new winner again?
Comment has been collapsed.
Do creator need to check the new winner again?
Yes. Once a reroll has been granted/denied, that is the end of it on our end. If the new winner is a rulebreaker, you have to let us know.
It is worth noting that:
- If you come across a private profile, you should still send a reroll request. We can check for non-activation using the information the site provides us.
- If you submit a reroll request, it is best to list the infractions that you found within the ticket (and not just the types). It makes crosschecking a bit quicker on our end.
- Reroll requests are tied to the ticket, not the user. So if A wins 3 of your gibs, you would need to submit a reroll request for all 3 if he happens to be a rule breaker.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is all really good info. I knew most of it, except for the part about private profiles (never had a winner with one). This should all be documented (maybe it is, but I don't recall seeing it anywhere). Instead we have "why is my old [avatar] still in use by your site" and "How do I change the background color of my profile" near the top of the FAQ. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Does it mean, let's just say, worst case scenario possible, all entries are rule breaker, creator need to submit tickets equal to the amount of entries and support need to approve equal to that and delete the giveaway because no eligible winner? Is this correct?
Comment has been collapsed.
If I understand you correctly, you are asking if every time you reroll, you are given a new winner that is also a rule breaker and this continues till there are no more valid entrants left?
Then yes though this assumes that none of the entrants have been suspended for their infractions. This is unlikely to ever happen unless you went out of your way to recruit only rule breakers that have never been caught.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just can't help but think that the way it work is very inefficient. It doesn't need to be the worse case I mentioned.
For example, in 1 giveaway, there are 20 rule breaker out of 1000 entries (2%). If the luck isn't on your side the reroll process needed is 20 times (I assume reroll doesn't pick previous already rerolled winner, right?).
Comment has been collapsed.
You are more likely to get hit by lightening multiple times than to get 20 rerolls in a row with those stats. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen, but you probably want to avoid going outside if your luck is that bad.
I assume reroll doesn't pick previous already rerolled winner, right?
Yes. If the person is suspended, then they are discounted from the pool of entrants.
Comment has been collapsed.
"If you did something wrong once, you'll never be able to do something good"
Comment has been collapsed.
It could be changed, yes. Since if someone gets suspended for not activating a game or multi-win, and they can be rerolled without a question for the next 30 days after they served their suspension, I really do not understand why cannot we cut out the middleman and simply don't let them enter any giveaways that end in that time frame. Not only it would cut back support tickets by a few thousand monthly, but it would also serve as a much more obvious deterrent for anyone besides "oh, my bot won't be able to auto-enter everything for a few days, who cares".
Comment has been collapsed.
because it's up to GA Creator to decide whether they want to reroll or not. Let's say I am in ratio-based group and I create GA for a bundle game. Only 1 person enters it, I need this GA to fix my ratio, I then may decide that in this case I may prefer to send a key to recent rulebreaker rather than end up with 0 Entries GA ;)
Also automatic no-entering-for-30-days would basically mean 30 days suspension instead of 5 days suspension in most cases. Remember that most of users are either bots or just mindlessly entering public stuff, only minority of userbase ever goes to forums, so for the majority 30 day enter ban would basically be the same as 30 day suspension.
Comment has been collapsed.
I had a case like that where the winner was re-rolled for a single non activated game in the past 30 days. Had I known they already served suspension I would have sent the game. Every giveaway creator is different and maybe I wouldn't have minded if it was a "collector"/card farmer, but banning people from entering most giveaways for a month is way too much imo, especially if it's the first infraction.
Also, imagine all the forum drama if they were unable to enter giveaways without actually being suspended from the site.
I would like to see something like that on multi-wins now that entries are automatically removed upon winning. Those poor, poor bots.
Comment has been collapsed.
There should be a rule that if you create a discussion you have to include ga.
Comment has been collapsed.
SteamGifts rules are kinda vague
the faq/guidelines are kinda worded poorly and vague'ish, however the TOS is far clearer and leaves very little room for misinterpretation.
What do you think about SG rules?
we need to make beheading a thing again. that outta cause some discouragement from breaking the rules. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Turned out that 10 out of 12 winners are rule breaker. Even after I submit the reroll tickets, 2 out of 4 tickets approved still won by rule breaker.
I really tried public giveaways, several hundreds of them with many level 0, 1 and 2 but I had so much very wonderful winners and re-rolls that I transitioned most of my public giveaways to level 2 SGTools giveaways and I'm not looking back to those early days.
In over 2500+ level 2 SGTools giveaways I have had a handful of users that tried to crash the SGTools gate but did not succeed in winning something and I have had TWO (2) winners that actually won something but got re-rolled and suspended because of dishonestly winning games by fiddling with marked received. That's 2/2500+ ! ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Those statistics are rather positive but how much extra work was it for you just trying to give away some game in a "fair" way? :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Knowing that making SGTools trains and individual SGTools protected giveaways is basically the very same as making other trains and giveaways except for the last part where you copy/paste the invite-only giveaways links into the SGTools create giveaway field and set the wanted requirements.
I always check my winners be they public, SGTools giveaways or any other giveaways. For checking the public giveaways I use the SGTools activated and multiple win tabs that I have with SilentGuy's add links to SGTools script on the winners SG profile and for the SGTools giveaways I check the very same and also check on invalid entries at the main gate and in the individual cars.
Overall comparing to public giveaways, SGTools giveaways need only a little more time to make and to check the winners compared to public giveaways taking also into account that public giveaways have more re-rolls than SGTools giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sounds like it won't add a lot of time once you've figured out a good way to use the tools. I'll keep this in mind for when I feel I have some extra time to figure stuff out. For now I already spend more time managing givaways than I do actually playing games, although this is mostly due to other unrelated circumstances.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also concerning trains in general I don't personally mind to make them manually (I always do) but I do hear that there are also scripts out there on SG that auto-generate the giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
SGTools filters are super easy to set up:
- Create an invite only GA and copy its URL
- Go into SGTools, click the Giveaways menu and choose Manage giveaways. You may need to log into the site via Steam first.
- Paste the URL of the GA in the text area and click Create
- Select whatever rules you want to be enforced
- Click Update
Now just copy the URL of the filter, and link it in a post on this forum. If you think some users may be confused about how to enter such GAs, feel free to add a link to this short guide :-)
Comment has been collapsed.
There are plenty of ways to modify the rules and improve the site. Just head over to the Bugs & Suggestions forum, and you'll see many excellent ideas. Still, the rules could be worse and this site is still generally loads of fun even with imperfect rules. Just learn to live with the imperfections and propose constructive suggestions when ones cross your mind (though do search for previous similar proposals before posting).
Comment has been collapsed.
Little too lenient in a way when it comes to giveaway related rules. Someone who hasn't activated past wins on their own account should be suspended and only allowed back if they provide proof that they now have the games in their account. There's no excuse for multiple wins or re-gifting, so those users might as well be banned. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Those would be cases where the winner can't be re-rolled because everyone is a winner and there's simply no one else to pick as a winner instead, right? In those cases I think there should be some way to distinguish between the giveaways since not being able to reject the gift isn't the winner's fault. When I talk about multiple wins, I mean those users who win a game and then win the same one again week (or even month/year if it's one of those that SG won't recognize as owned) later and still decide to mark it as received and trade/sell it forward.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yet, because they won the same thing repeatedly, they would still be costing the site resources since people have to submit tickets to find out that they were already suspended.
The "fixing" your profile and correcting the mistake that that silly third-party sgtools encourages, is a good thing in my opinion, and a I've seen a handful of people correcting their infractions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi,
So, after I see some people created a lot of public giveaway for level 0, I think maybe I should give people who didn't giveaway many games some chance to win game too as those who don't have much to give doesn't necessarily don't deserve to win. (my actual reason why I don't really create low level giveaway in the past is in my experience, high level users are less likely to be rule breaker or troll, etc.).
Today I decide to create 12 giveaway for level 2, although not the best games in the world. Turned out that 10 out of 12 winners are rule breaker. Even after I submit the reroll tickets, 2 out of 4 tickets approved still won by rule breaker. While the were denied because they've already been suspended for breaking rule. (I think this should also be improved by adding suspended tag or something as there could be potentially 100s of the very same tickets support need to deny)
This is new to me and I don't see it written anywhere in FAQ or guideline. Yes, I could have ask the support but after I submit 10 tickets in just 1 minute I feel bad for them so, I decided to post here instead, moreover, I can see what you guys think about it.
Actually, in my opinion, SteamGifts rules are kinda vague, in a way. There is only one of each words "rule" and "must" found in FAQ. Instead, the words like "should" and "ask to" are used more often. Seems like cg don't want people to feel like there are limitations or restrictions on giving stuff to other people (might be just my over thinking). But the drawback is there would be more people who don't understand the rules exactly (like me in this case) therefore creating even more unnecessary (in my opinion) support tickets (it also discouraged me quite a bit and I might need to put more thought in the future when deciding to create public giveaway.)
So, what's you guys opinion. Let's share some thought to make SG better!
Note: The term "rule breaker" I use in this thread refer to whose who didn't activate won game on their account (yet) and/or won the same game more than once (and haven't fix it yet)
Cheap bundled train
Comment has been collapsed.