Jump to content
WinstonP

The YSDC Wiki - Editors wanted

Recommended Posts

Meyer

As a side-note, I left out all the RPG elements from the tomes I added (things such as sanity cost and time to read). I don't know if this is "the done thing", but I just felt that the pages should be more about the item themselves than the "game system".

 

Ahh...I think you answered my second question while I was still typing it!

 

Sounds like a good philosophy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Danial

The creature pages I've seen appear to be copy-and-pastes of Wikipedia pages, which is probably why there are no stats. As for new additions, I would personally leave the stats out, but I don't know what the official stand is on the matter. I just think that if you're on these forums, you'd already have a copy of the rulebook, and if it's a creature that's not in there, then you should probably just buy the Malleus Monstrorum :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yronimoswhateley

I've been inclined to leave the stats out, just to keep myself distanced from Chaosium's copyright, and to rely on Lovecraft's (presumably now public-domain) original descriptions as much as possible, but that's just been for my own part:  I don't know where the fine line is, either.

 

I've actually added a page where I've collected non-Occult rare books mentioned by Lovecraft and others (there were a few, with rather sinister-sounding names and descriptions, that revealed themselves to be rather fascinating books on writing in code) - I figure that these books will probably not turn up frequently enough to need their own individual pages.

 

I'm not sure whether to do the same with the non-Mythos (real-life) occult books, as these thematically have more in common with Mythos Tomes than they do with muggle books.  Should these each get their own pages?  Or, should I collect these together on an Occult rare book page, and just use redirects to point at that page?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meyer

Still keeping that philosophy in mind, I'm thinking it might not be a bad idea to include Sanity Loss and Study Time for Tomes.  But then, if you include those you might as well include Mythos Knowledge too.  And the danger of the slippery slope of just copying all the info in full.

 

Hmmm.....

 

But it would be nice to have a Wiki "Bookshelf" for scenario creators with Categories like Tomes:Yig, Tomes:Egypt, etc. which authors could peruse and see what they might want to include instead of making up their own, and being able to gauge the "power" of the Tomes against one another.

 

"Well now, let's see...Yig is involved, plus cobras and mummies.  What might Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell have in their library that could be of use?"

 

 

I did create a page for Formless Spawn and decided to add the Sanity Loss for encountering the creature, but not any other stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yronimoswhateley

I think the bookshelf categories sound like a great idea. 

 

I recently had an opportunity to check out the Trail of Cthulhu RPG, and something I noticed in that book that I really like is the way that mythos monsters and deities are given not just one description, but several conflicting descriptions, usually taken from Lovecraft's infamously deliberately self-contradictory stories, and the keeper is left to choose the one that suits the campaign, adventure, or any given unreliable narrator the best.  To paraphrase, "Leng?  It's a place in Central Asia... or in the Antarctic, or in the Dreamlands, or on another world... or all of the above (or none of the above!), or [insert Derleth's version here] or [insert Clark Ashton Smith's version here], you decide....."  It suggests the "Telephone Game" of oral traditions passed down from one insane cultist with a flimsy grasp on reality to another.  That's something I might start working into mythos elements when I get around to fleshing them out, two or more different versions of the tome/monster/deity/whatever, which can suggest different and (hopefully) surprising ways of using those "generic" old standard Mythos goodies in refreshing new ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meyer

I recently had an opportunity to check out the Trail of Cthulhu RPG, and something I noticed in that book that I really like is the way that mythos monsters and deities are given not just one description, but several conflicting descriptions, usually taken from Lovecraft's infamously deliberately self-contradictory stories, and the keeper is left to choose the one that suits the campaign, adventure, or any given unreliable narrator the best.  ....  That's something I might start working into mythos elements when I get around to fleshing them out, two or more different versions of the tome/monster/deity/whatever, which can suggest different and (hopefully) surprising ways of using those "generic" old standard Mythos goodies in refreshing new ways.

 

I agree that the Trail of Cthulhu descriptions are terrific and do a great job invoking the "Unknowable Cosmic Horror" atmosphere.

 

However, should Trail be blended into CoC in the Wiki descriptions?  Might get a bit confusing.  Maybe better to add something like a "for other options" or "for Trail of Cthulhu descriptions" follow this link?  Or at least put alternate descriptions under a separate heading on the page?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yronimoswhateley

That's what I was envisioning:  separate headings, presented as differing opinions/theories among scholars.

 

 

Edit to add:  I decided to put all the historical "real-world" occult books on the same page together, with redirects.  I'm pretty sure they'll be easy to break up later on if it comes down to it.

I've also moved the Miskatonic University Orne Library (with its lengthy and no doubt incomplete list of rare books) onto its own page, as it's outgrown the Miskatonic University page, and "Miskatonic University Library" redirects there too:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Tatterdemalion_King

I agree that the Trail of Cthulhu descriptions are terrific and do a great job invoking the "Unknowable Cosmic Horror" atmosphere.

 

However, should Trail be blended into CoC in the Wiki descriptions?  Might get a bit confusing.  Maybe better to add something like a "for other options" or "for Trail of Cthulhu descriptions" follow this link?  Or at least put alternate descriptions under a separate heading on the page?

 

Short answer: No, because then you're just reproducing book text on the wiki. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yronimoswhateley

Nobody needs to reproduce the ToC book text on the Wiki, and that's certainly not what I was getting at - what I'm thinking of can be achieved by describing the different ways Lovecraft handled specific elements, Derleth's "elemental" version of it, the unique ways that films might handle a similar idea, references to unusual takes to CoC scenarios, etc., summarized as if they were competing theories by different scholars. 

 

Consider, for example, the "Proposed Solutions" section of the Wikipedia article on the mysterious disappearance of the Mary Celeste crew (some people think it was the the result of foul play, others the work of natural phenomena...):  Wikpedia itself is full of similar examples.

 

What got me thinking of it was seeing the versions of Mythos elements used in many of the scenarios I've been adding to the Wiki, with some takes on things like certain monsters being somewhat eccentric. I enjoy seeing the offbeat versions of monsters and the way they keep you guessing, ToC plays nicely to that, and I think it's more in the spirit of what Lovecraft was aiming at than a well-defined, authoritative take on where a monster comes from and can do, what a "deity" really is, what a rarely-seen tome in the Dreamlands contains, and so on... I think this is implied in the Call of Cthulhu game books and probably in many of the wiki articles already (I haven't seen more than a few at the moment, I'll look over them in more detail when I'm ready to cross the Creatures/Monsters/Races/Deities entries bridge), but I'm visualizing something a little more explicit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Danial

I have a question RE supplement entries that I don't know where to ask about, so I'll just ask here as it seems to have become a general wiki post now :)

 

I've noticed on older supplement articles that the "Content" section is often a direct copy of the "Back Cover Text" section. Is there a reason for this? It seems redundant to me. To my thinking, a "Content" section should be more like the index of the book, laying out all the sections it contains. What's everyone's thinking on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meyer

Nobody needs to reproduce the ToC book text on the Wiki, and that's certainly not what I was getting at - what I'm thinking of can be achieved by describing the different ways Lovecraft handled specific elements, Derleth's "elemental" version of it, the unique ways that films might handle a similar idea, references to unusual takes to CoC scenarios, etc., summarized as if they were competing theories by different scholars. 

 

Ah...apologies for misunderstanding your intent.  Cool and intriguing ideas, to be sure.  But would it would over-burden or water-down an individual Wiki entry page if the idea was taken too far?

 

I guess I'm wondering what the main focus of a YSDC Wiki page should be.  Brief summary?  One part of a reference library?  Review?  Obviously, if Players read the whole text of any given page the mystery is potentially spoiled for everyone.  What about Keepers who also enjoy their time as Players but also want to use the YSDC Wiki? 

 

Please understand that these are genuine questions on my part and not meant to be contrarian.  I've only done the Mansions of Madness scenarios so far, and tried to be as thorough as time has allowed, but now wonder if I've included too much or too little in adding to the collective knowledge.

 

The scope and totality of the Wiki may have unhinged my mind....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JeffErwin

For me, when I'm looking at scenarios or literature, I want to know where (and when) it takes place, the villains of the piece, its connections to others stories and adventures, the writer, the publisher, and quirks that make it stand out, for good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leonardolad

I've noticed on older supplement articles that the "Content" section is often a direct copy of the "Back Cover Text" section. Is there a reason for this? It seems redundant to me. To my thinking, a "Content" section should be more like the index of the book, laying out all the sections it contains. What's everyone's thinking on this?

 

I agree. The way I see it, "Content" should contain the supplement index, and maybe a one sentence description of each section. The "Back Cover Text" heading is there for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dce

I have a question RE supplement entries that I don't know where to ask about, so I'll just ask here as it seems to have become a general wiki post now :)

 

I've noticed on older supplement articles that the "Content" section is often a direct copy of the "Back Cover Text" section. Is there a reason for this? It seems redundant to me. To my thinking, a "Content" section should be more like the index of the book, laying out all the sections it contains. What's everyone's thinking on this?

 

This is indeed the case ... particularly for most of the *newer* supplements. It stems from the fact that, in the absense of any other readily available information the "contents" section of the supplement Wiki pages has been derived/copied from the publisher's description of the book (usually on their web store or DriveThruRPG). For better or worse most publishers seem to list their product descriptions as verbatim copies of the back cover text of the book (at least where the book *has* a back cover, which some PDFs don't). Although interestingly sometimes they are not *exact* copies.

 

Really, though, I don't imagine anybody would object if you rewrote the contents sections to something else, as long as overall the wiki page still gives a good general overview (somewhere) of what the supplement is like and what material it contains. It's all down to how much effort you're willing to invest in overhauling the hundreds of supplement pages ... if you've got a plan, I'd say go for it.

 

 

Dean (from Adelaide)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yronimoswhateley

Ah...apologies for misunderstanding your intent.  Cool and intriguing ideas, to be sure.  But would it would over-burden or water-down an individual Wiki entry page if the idea was taken too far?

 

I guess I'm wondering what the main focus of a YSDC Wiki page should be.  Brief summary?  One part of a reference library?  Review?  Obviously, if Players read the whole text of any given page the mystery is potentially spoiled for everyone.  What about Keepers who also enjoy their time as Players but also want to use the YSDC Wiki? 

 

Please understand that these are genuine questions on my part and not meant to be contrarian.  I've only done the Mansions of Madness scenarios so far, and tried to be as thorough as time has allowed, but now wonder if I've included too much or too little in adding to the collective knowledge.

 

The scope and totality of the Wiki may have unhinged my mind....

 

No apology needed; they're good questions, and - I fear don't know the answers yet about whether it will be too much or where too far is.  It's an experiment, and one I've not tried yet, or fully worked out how to get started. 

 

I can say I think I know exactly what you mean about worrying about whether you've been including too much or too little, and about the scope and totality of the Wiki unhinging your mind - I feel exactly the same way.  I keep trying to remind myself that even an earnest step forward is a great help to everyone involved, and gives future writers a starting point to add more:  some of the pages I've worked on were started by other people, and included only page count, title, author, and a short blurb of text from Chaosium's catalog, but even that's a great help.  Yet, it's hard not to look around at all the "rabbit-holes" I could fall into and feel a sense of dread and terror at the thought of getting lost in them and never getting out, while wondering if trying to avoid them is a mistake!

 

For my part, I'll try to stick to a plan:  1.  I'll finish adding the scenario pages first with the amount of detail I've chosen to work with (that's an adventure in its own right, but at least it's been straight-forward so far), and 2. I'll worry about figuring out the monster pages and so on after I've done that, and try the experiment then, unless something that really catches my imagination comes up first. 

 

In any event, I might try the experiment later or even just sleep on, realize it doesn't feel right, and scrap the whole idea:  it wouldn't be the first time something that I imagined would be fun and easy to do revealed itself to be impractical or worse once I start trying to put it "on paper".  Until I cross that bridge, though, it's up in the air - if someone else finds it interesting and wants to blaze that trail before me, I'll be fascinated to hear about how it works out.

 

As for the "Content" section vs. the back cover:  I think I'd want to see both in an article describing the supplement, but I'd expect the back cover text to be a sales pitch, and the "Content" to describe what I'm actually getting:  "Content" is a more detailed and factual account of exactly what I'm getting, while the back cover text is (in theory) meant to suggest why I should be interested in getting the content.  For scenarios, it's somewhat like the way understood the Summary vs. Synopsis:

  • Summary:  "The crew of a mining spacecraft respond to a distress call, and soon learn that, in space, no one can hear you scream."
  • Synopsis:  "(spoilers!)  Sci-fi/horror scenario in the spirit of classic 'B' films of earlier decades like It: The Terror From Beyond Space and The Planet of the Vampires, in which the crew of a mining spacecraft respond to a distress call, find that the signal is coming from an alien space ship, and stumble upon a parasitic alien monster that finds its way into the bowels of the mining ship, where, like a slasher movie, it begins killing the crew off one at a time.  The characters must find the alien and destroy it, before it's too late."  (Different people will have different ideas about how much or how little information to include here, and I think that's alright.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Danial

Really, though, I don't imagine anybody would object if you rewrote the contents sections to something else, as long as overall the wiki page still gives a good general overview (somewhere) of what the supplement is like and what material it contains. It's all down to how much effort you're willing to invest in overhauling the hundreds of supplement pages ... if you've got a plan, I'd say go for it.

 

I have been editing the odd one I come across, but I'm worried that I might offend the originator of the page by altering their work.

 

EDIT: I just noticed your username and I think some of my edits might have been your pages :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yronimoswhateley

Thanks, DCE!  That sounds reasonable - if you have no other information, what else can you do but provide what you know, and hope some with better information clears it up?

 

Danial:  I can't speak for anyone else, but for my part, you can feel free to edit anything I've contributed, I won't be offended (or at least, I shouldn't be offended - if I do get offended at a sincere effort to help, that's definitely not your fault).  It's a wiki, content being edited comes with the territory :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dce

I have been editing the odd one I come across, but I'm worried that I might offend the originator of the page by altering their work.

 

EDIT: I just noticed your username and I think some of my edits might have been your pages :)

 

Chances are that if you've been updating pages for supplements you're editing stuff I originally created -- I think about 80% of those pages were made by me at some point over the past few years.

 

If you've got a logical reason for making a change (and it certainly sounds like you do), you should never feel worried about hurting the original wiki writer's feelings ... after all, the wiki is a living *collaborative* thing. If folks don't like people rewriting their material they probably shouldn't be playing; it comes with the territory :)

 

Keep up the good work guys,

 

 

Dean (from Adelaide)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meyer

For my part, I'll try to stick to a plan:  1.  I'll finish adding the scenario pages first with the amount of detail I've chosen to work with (that's an adventure in its own right, but at least it's been straight-forward so far), and 2. I'll worry about figuring out the monster pages and so on after I've done that, and try the experiment then, unless something that really catches my imagination comes up first. 

 

Good plan, and one I'll try to follow as well.  Your "Rabbit Hole" analogy is spot-on...For the Mansions supplement, I created "red-text to-be-completed-later" entries for some stuff that should probably be left as regular text with no potential future page link.  But also established "monsters" (or "races") that have no pages (yet).  Then the OCD kicks in and I think "might as well finish the whole thing now so nobody has to do a second pass-through".  Circles within Circles!

 

One thing that concerns me is too many readily accessible Spoilers.  I love summarizing things to an encyclopedia article-style length that can be useful to others.  However, with "instant information gratification" the seemingly default setting of our Brave New Internet World, I wonder...how much is too much?

 

In the old days, if an obtuse Player wanted to know more about an adventure from D&D or CoC, they'd have to find and buy a copy themselves before they could potentially spoil everyone's fun.  Now...it's just a click away.  The Cookie Jar Syndrome?  "Funny thing how tempting temptation can be..." even if there's a line of text stating FOR KEEPER'S EYES ONLY!  If someone knows they're playing Horror on the Orient Express, they're hopefully most likely to avoid looking for "spoilers" to have the most fun possible...but if they do a casual search and read things they Cannot Un-See, that could be a problem.

 

Personally, I enjoy reading through the scenario supplements just for the fun of imagining running them as Keeper (which I'm hoping to do very soon).  But I know that I could never in good faith be a Player in a scenario I've already read.  I've put my hand in the Cookie Jar already!

 

I'm hoping even more experienced Players and Keepers could chime in on this issue (and thanks to those who have done so already).

 

Should the goal of YSDC Wiki articles be very basic (Player-Centered) or fairly detailed (Keeper-Centered) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JeffErwin

Good plan, and one I'll try to follow as well.  Your "Rabbit Hole" analogy is spot-on...For the Mansions supplement, I created "red-text to-be-completed-later" entries for some stuff that should probably be left as regular text with no potential future page link.  But also established "monsters" (or "races") that have no pages (yet).  Then the OCD kicks in and I think "might as well finish the whole thing now so nobody has to do a second pass-through".  Circles within Circles!

 

One thing that concerns me is too many readily accessible Spoilers.  I love summarizing things to an encyclopedia article-style length that can be useful to others.  However, with "instant information gratification" the seemingly default setting of our Brave New Internet World, I wonder...how much is too much?

 

In the old days, if an obtuse Player wanted to know more about an adventure from D&D or CoC, they'd have to find and buy a copy themselves before they could potentially spoil everyone's fun.  Now...it's just a click away.  The Cookie Jar Syndrome?  "Funny thing how tempting temptation can be..." even if there's a line of text stating FOR KEEPER'S EYES ONLY!  If someone knows they're playing Horror on the Orient Express, they're hopefully most likely to avoid looking for "spoilers" to have the most fun possible...but if they do a casual search and read things they Cannot Un-See, that could be a problem.

 

Personally, I enjoy reading through the scenario supplements just for the fun of imagining running them as Keeper (which I'm hoping to do very soon).  But I know that I could never in good faith be a Player in a scenario I've already read.  I've put my hand in the Cookie Jar already!

 

I'm hoping even more experienced Players and Keepers could chime in on this issue (and thanks to those who have done so already).

 

Should the goal of YSDC Wiki articles be very basic (Player-Centered) or fairly detailed (Keeper-Centered) ?

 

This is indeed frustrating, but in most circumstances, it will be Keepers searching for useable adventures that have the most need of the wiki summaries. Of course, if one switches between being a Keeper and player, you don't have a lot of choice about occasional spoilers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leonardolad

Good plan, and one I'll try to follow as well.  Your "Rabbit Hole" analogy is spot-on...For the Mansions supplement, I created "red-text to-be-completed-later" entries for some stuff that should probably be left as regular text with no potential future page link.  But also established "monsters" (or "races") that have no pages (yet).  Then the OCD kicks in and I think "might as well finish the whole thing now so nobody has to do a second pass-through".  Circles within Circles!

 

One thing that concerns me is too many readily accessible Spoilers.  I love summarizing things to an encyclopedia article-style length that can be useful to others.  However, with "instant information gratification" the seemingly default setting of our Brave New Internet World, I wonder...how much is too much?

 

In the old days, if an obtuse Player wanted to know more about an adventure from D&D or CoC, they'd have to find and buy a copy themselves before they could potentially spoil everyone's fun.  Now...it's just a click away.  The Cookie Jar Syndrome?  "Funny thing how tempting temptation can be..." even if there's a line of text stating FOR KEEPER'S EYES ONLY!  If someone knows they're playing Horror on the Orient Express, they're hopefully most likely to avoid looking for "spoilers" to have the most fun possible...but if they do a casual search and read things they Cannot Un-See, that could be a problem.

 

Personally, I enjoy reading through the scenario supplements just for the fun of imagining running them as Keeper (which I'm hoping to do very soon).  But I know that I could never in good faith be a Player in a scenario I've already read.  I've put my hand in the Cookie Jar already!

 

I'm hoping even more experienced Players and Keepers could chime in on this issue (and thanks to those who have done so already).

 

Should the goal of YSDC Wiki articles be very basic (Player-Centered) or fairly detailed (Keeper-Centered) ?

I think the wiki should be Keeper-centered. At least the scenario category. A place where keepers can look for scenarios that fits his needs. Some kind of venue, some kind of creature, a specific deity, etc, and some description of the scenario so the keeper can decide if this is what he is looking for. We won't be able to stop an obtuse player from find what he wants. If not here, he will definitely find somewhere else, so... I don't think we should limit ourselves because of them. And of course, there will be some honest mistakes, but what more can we do apart from placing a huge, bold SPOILERS - KEEPERS EYES ONLY over the restricted area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dce

I think the wiki should be Keeper-centered. At least the scenario category. A place where keepers can look for scenarios that fits his needs. Some kind of venue, some kind of creature, a specific deity, etc, and some description of the scenario so the keeper can decide if this is what he is looking for. We won't be able to stop an obtuse player from find what he wants. If not here, he will definitely find somewhere else, so... I don't think we should limit ourselves because of them. And of course, there will be some honest mistakes, but what more can we do apart from placing a huge, bold SPOILERS - KEEPERS EYES ONLY over the restricted area?

 

Some versions of the MediaWiki software do, I believe, support a kind of "spoiler tag" ... which basically hides the text wrapped in the tag until someone clicks to reveal it. When I first started creating scenario write-ups for the CthulhuWiki I, too, was a bit bothered by the possibility of spoilers ruining people's future enjoyment of scenarios. I did try a few tests back then (in about 2012) to see if the version of sofrware used for our Wiki supported the "spoiler tag" ... I concluded it did not. Of course there have been numerous software upgrades since then ... so maybe it's worth someone looking at again? Or maybe it's an option Paul could enable through a Wiki software upgrade?

 

 

Dean (from Adelaide)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yronimoswhateley

I actually don't mind the spoilers too much. 

 

Of course, I can understand where folks are coming from when they don't want surprise endings and plot twists spoiled, as part of their personal enjoyment of a work of fiction, and I consider the "Spoiler" tag thing to be more for their benefit than anyone else's.

 

In this day and age, however, there's really nothing stopping a determined player from getting all the default goods on a scenario as-written pretty easily - it's not like most in-print scenarios aren't easy to find on the Internet, no doubt "for free" at all the usual suspect file sharing websites.  The "Spoiler" tags aren't going to stop them, and leaving spoilers out of the Wiki won't do much to slow them down, either.  I don't worry about them, though - if they're trying to "win" Call of Cthulhu, they're just not in the right spirit of things (as a player, I actually want to see awful things happen to my characters in ways that make for good stories, it's part of the fun, to me:  it's rewarding to see my evil characters end up in bad situations due to their personal weaknesses and character flaws, and it's equally rewarding for me to see good characters end up in bad situations out of a sense of duty or responsibility or their personal character flaws and weaknesses....)

 

On the other hand, I think that one measure of a good, well-written scenario today should be that it provides a canvas for Keepers to contribute their own ideas and modifications to, so that the same keeper could run the scenario multiple times and have different surprises in store every time.  Even something as simple as provisions for moving a scenario to different settings and eras, a variety of different plot hooks, multiple suggestions for filler material, multiple interpretations of the plot or background information, different options for different character types or play styles, and/or one or two (or more) alternative endings go a long way toward giving a keeper options for putting the sort of unique spin on a scenario that would keep even a jaded player (or keeper-turned-player) who has seen all these scenarios before something new every time.  In fact, in the hands of a Keeper who is happy to tinker with even the most straightforward, railroady scenarios a bit, there really aren't too many ways you can spoil a scenario too much. 

 

If nothing else, perhaps the scenario "Keeper's Notes" section could suggest any opportunities a keeper notices for customizing the scenario in these ways?  (Perhaps that's a project for another day.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leonardolad

As I'm reaching the end of my editing list, I'll add Cthulhu by Gaslight, Sacraments of Evil and the Delta Green Sourcebook as my future commitments.

 

I have to say that I'm a slow editor, so if anyone feels like doing them, just say the word.

 

Also, I'm finding editing quite addictive :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shimmin Beg

In certain moods, staying up far too late working patiently through edits is exactly the right drug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.