Thousands Sign Petition Demanding Removal of SimCity DRM

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Aeshi:

Desert Punk:

I cant believe so many people are so ignorant.

They said the exact same thing about Diablo 3. "Cant make it offline, too much relies on the server!"

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/02/26/diablo-iii-will-play-offline-on-ps3-and-ps4/

oops, that was a lie, just like Sim City.

I'm pretty sure they're basically rebuilding the entire game from the ground up for the PS3 version (especially since the PS3 has far less in common with a PC than say, a 360, does), or are you suggesting EA should spend god-knows how many millions/years to re-develop one feature?

Notice the PS4? Which is pretty much just a PC with different operating system.

And it really doesnt take years to build a server emulator for a PC to run alongside or under it, pirates did it for Diablo 3 in a few weeks, and they didnt build the thing in the first place.

EDIT: And for an added bonus, EA could use THIS to gain positive PR.
"We have listened to our dissatisfied customers and potential customers we have alienated and have decided to give the people what they are asking for."

If they released an offline version I wouldnt swoon over them, but I would buy it, and I know a number of others that would as well. Plus it is 35,000 customers (at last count) who wont be holding a grudge against them and will look more favorably on their next games.

I wonder if Maxis is in a position to sue EA for breach of contract on this...

-- Steve

TsunamiWombat:
What they're asking for is simply impossible, the Always On Element is built into the game at every level.

Buyer Beware.

There's a difference between impossibility and a lot of work.
It wouldn't be EASY to move all calculations to the client, but it's far from impossible.

schmulki:

Desert Punk:

Ilikemilkshake:
As much as I don't like the always-on DRM, I highly doubt it would even be possible to remove it at this point. It seems like they've made it so that it actually relies on their servers for calculations. I Don't see them completely redesigning how their game works.

However this petition is still important. If it can get a hundred thousand or maybe even more signatures, it dispels the myth that the people who are unhappy with this sort of thing are just a vocal minority. Perhaps it might kill this business model entirely. One can only hope.

TheComfyChair:
The problem is that the cities are stored on the server... This is like saying 'make an MMO work offline'.

It's not a case of removing a check in a launch program, it's a redevelopment of the game. So i don't think this is going to happen. It would be good if it did, but i doubt it will.

TsunamiWombat:
What they're asking for is simply impossible, the Always On Element is built into the game at every level.

Buyer Beware.

I cant believe so many people are so ignorant.

They said the exact same thing about Diablo 3. "Cant make it offline, too much relies on the server!"

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/02/26/diablo-iii-will-play-offline-on-ps3-and-ps4/

oops, that was a lie, just like Sim City.

And...once again, it took a complete redesign. So....yea.

The point is it was possible. How much work it actually took does not factor in to the claim.

kortin:
Holy fucking shit. Thousands of fucking idiots. Fucking SimCity5 is a multiplayer game. This is very clearly a case of CUSTOMER ENTITLEMENT. You bought a fucking multiplayer game, it's only your fucking fault that you didn't pay attention to that. It's not a fucking single player game fucking morons.

I agree. However, replace "multiplayer" with "EA" and it's even more correct.

"Holy fucking shit. Thousands of fucking idiots. Fucking SimCity5 is an EA game. This is very clearly a case of IGNORNACE. You bought a fucking EA game, it's only your fucking fault that you didn't pay attention to that. It's not a fucking company that cares about you."

At this point in time, if you buy a game made by EA, it's really hard to sympathize with you. It's victim-blaming in a way, but these people really need to break from this abusive relationship. They bought the game and gave EA exactly what they wanted; what leverage do the customers have now that they put out? None.

Stop with the petitions. Stop with the post-incident complaining. Stop hoping things will get better. It won't. Get out of this relationship as soon as you possibly can and warn others to never buy an EA game again. EA does not care about your feelings; it only cares that you gave them money for the game. You're used up and done.

EA ANNOUNCES SimCity WILL REQUIRE ALWAYS ONLINE CONNECTION!

"Oh, I don't like that but, I'mma gonna go ahead and buyyy it anyways. Maybe it'll be okay."

SIMCITY LAUNCH A DISASTER!

"Well you know, I bought this game but STILL, I'm pretty pissed that I still can't play it singleplayer!"

You buy a game that says it has an Always Online DRM and you decide it's a good idea to still get mad over it anyways. Don't buy the fucking game and THEN make the petition. Yeah, the DRM sucks balls but what were you expecting? For them to drop the DRM for the singleplayer over the course of a week?

TheComfyChair:
The problem is that the cities are stored on the server... This is like saying 'make an MMO work offline'.

It's not a case of removing a check in a launch program, it's a redevelopment of the game. So i don't think this is going to happen. It would be good if it did, but i doubt it will.

If the developers did their job properly then it would be a lot easier than you think to make it offline only, or even have the option to be offline while maintaining the ability to connect to servers.

I'm making assumptions here, but basically, the client and the server side of things will have different applications. The client will have to find what servers are available and connect dynamically. There will be more than 1 server, so it's not like this will be entirely hard coded. The server will then deal with all the server side stuff.

To make it offline only, EA could potentially include the server side of things with the game the player has, and then simply have the offline server mode connect to it.

As I said, I'm making assumptions here, but saying it is impossible is completely wrong, when in fact it probably wouldn't be that difficult to do.

Personally, I don't see why they didn't just include offline mode as standard. After all, it should be up to the player whether they play online or offline.

Absolutionis:

kortin:
Holy fucking shit. Thousands of fucking idiots. Fucking SimCity5 is a multiplayer game. This is very clearly a case of CUSTOMER ENTITLEMENT. You bought a fucking multiplayer game, it's only your fucking fault that you didn't pay attention to that. It's not a fucking single player game fucking morons.

I agree. However, replace "multiplayer" with "EA" and it's even more correct.

"Holy fucking shit. Thousands of fucking idiots. Fucking SimCity5 is an EA game. This is very clearly a case of IGNORNACE. You bought a fucking EA game, it's only your fucking fault that you didn't pay attention to that. It's not a fucking company that cares about you."

At this point in time, if you buy a game made by EA, it's really hard to sympathize with you. It's victim-blaming in a way, but these people really need to break from this abusive relationship. They bought the game and gave EA exactly what they wanted; what leverage do the customers have now that they put out? None.

Stop with the petitions. Stop with the post-incident complaining. Stop hoping things will get better. It won't. Get out of this relationship as soon as you possibly can and warn others to never buy an EA game again. EA does not care about your feelings; it only cares that you gave them money for the game. You're used up and done.

Wow, aggressive are you? People have a right to voice complaints or criticisms of the products they buy. This whole idea of "You bought it so don't complain!" is just spitting in the face of consumer rights. Stop that.

The problem is people keep buying this stuff. Petitions generally fail because companies already have the money of the petition signers, and it's already been shown it doesn't influance their next sale. That said I do hope people start putting their foot down, especially with the big "got to have it" franchises when it comes to DRM and Microtransactions.

I'll also say that in the long term if we start seeing more lulzsec like attacks that shut down entire networks, people should neither be shocked by the attacks, or the lack of sympathy. As time goes on and companies like EA ignore more reasonable, legal, petitions, I have a feeling things are going to get progressively worse as the petitions become larger, customer service becomes worse (in terms of refunds and such), and the activities of the companies grow more intense and intrusive.

Candidus:
You know what works? Not buying Simcity.

No matter how much you like SimC games, no matter how badly it tempts you.

No buts. Just fucking don't.

EA told you ahead of time that it had always on DRM. It was no secret. So, if you bought it and have since become super-mad due to circumstances so foreseeable that they couldn't possibly have been missed by anyone, I hope you're just mad at yourself. Because that's where the blame for this debacle belongs.

Don't weep on a petition after the fact. Just don't buy these games!

I have not bought EA games for a while now and that obviously didn't do diddly. ;-)

What probably works better is not to buy those games and make petitions and create awareness about the problem in general. Because if people just stop buying without saying why, EA will make up lots of excuses for it, like pirating is the source of the problem.

So whether people bought SimCity or not, if they are disatisfied with EAs policy they should make their voices heard. This is a perfectly fine way to do it.

Sight Unseen:

Legion:
Nonsense. Gamers are embracing not being able to play their game and the always-on DRM that causes it to happen.

I see what you did there.

OT: I signed this petition even though I didn't buy Sim City and will not buy any game that depends on Origin, because I agree strongly in the principle behind the petition and I want this shady practice to stop.

Small semantics issue: There's really nothing shady about always-online DRM. It's an extremely misguided practice, but there's nothing sinister going on behind the curtains.

want a single player game go buy sim city 4, it does not have origin either.

i guess it depends if their online can be mined out like the early ubisoft games were and cracked. if paying customers still cannot play their games, if its EAs servers or your own isp causing you not to play, while pirates are playing away, that is one thing, if noone can play that is another thing, and i guess fair all around if pirates nor customers can play.

all the issues ubisoft had with it and their paying customers caused them to backtrack off their system quickly, i suppose pirates helped also cracking their online drm in about 2 weeks.

i guess it also depends on the sheer overhead of theses systems, what is the cost of always on online drm? sure mmos do it, but they boost their income constantly by muicrotransactions or subscription fees. even single player game that are good eventually die out and buying interest decreases so you will have little residual income coming in to support those servers. and the big 100 thousand dollar question, how long will these servers be up? you game only works as long as they choose to keep those servers up? is that 5 years? 10 years? Ea has shown no remorse about pulling thepul on any number of online games in recent years, games deemed not worthy to support. how long till sim city 5 qualifies and you have nothing but a coaster for a cd, or several gig of useless data on your harddrive that will not run anymore.

Candidus:
You know what works? Not buying Simcity.

No matter how much you like SimC games, no matter how badly it tempts you.

No buts. Just fucking don't.

EA told you ahead of time that it had always on DRM. It was no secret. So, if you bought it and have since become super-mad due to circumstances so foreseeable that they couldn't possibly have been missed by anyone, I hope you're just mad at yourself. Because that's where the blame for this debacle belongs.

Don't weep on a petition after the fact. Just don't buy these games!

I mostly agree with you, I skipped the game because of it myself. But there are a lot of people who don't bother reading the back of the boxes, or maybe they can't read it (forgot glasses at home for example). And many people who play games don't follow gaming news. Point is, the always-online requirement is a BIG part of the game, and it should be a set-in-stone requirement for such things to be marked with more than a single, super-tiny little sentence in between all the other small text. Or, ideally, the DRM shouldn't be there at all.

kortin:
Holy fucking shit. Thousands of fucking idiots. Fucking SimCity5 is a multiplayer game. This is very clearly a case of CUSTOMER ENTITLEMENT. You bought a fucking multiplayer game, it's only your fucking fault that you didn't pay attention to that. It's not a fucking single player game fucking morons.

Critical thinking aint a strong suit is it? Considering you are calling members of these forums idiots and thus breaking the code of conduct...

Desert Punk:

kortin:
Holy fucking shit. Thousands of fucking idiots. Fucking SimCity5 is a multiplayer game. This is very clearly a case of CUSTOMER ENTITLEMENT. You bought a fucking multiplayer game, it's only your fucking fault that you didn't pay attention to that. It's not a fucking single player game fucking morons.

Critical thinking aint a strong suit is it? Considering you are calling members of these forums idiots and thus breaking the code of conduct...

I'm sorry, what? Does that have anything to do with anything? You bought the game, knowing full well there's no such thing as SimCity5 single player, you have no right to complain or bitch when the game is always online because it's a mulitplayer game.

I am absolutely terrified of the idea of something like this actually working. Imagine if a bunch of angry gamers could force a company to have to change its game. What you announced multiplayer? Nope, can't do that. I don't like this level, remove it from the game. You are in development of that game? Nope, can't make that. You aren't going to include character X that I like? Now you are! With how rock stupid most fans are to have game development works this would be an absolute disaster. Yeah it would let them fix some stupid develop decision, at the cost of unleashing a storm of stupid and poor petitions and would do far more harm then good.

kortin:

Desert Punk:

kortin:
Holy fucking shit. Thousands of fucking idiots. Fucking SimCity5 is a multiplayer game. This is very clearly a case of CUSTOMER ENTITLEMENT. You bought a fucking multiplayer game, it's only your fucking fault that you didn't pay attention to that. It's not a fucking single player game fucking morons.

Critical thinking aint a strong suit is it? Considering you are calling members of these forums idiots and thus breaking the code of conduct...

I'm sorry, what? Does that have anything to do with anything? You bought the game, knowing full well there's no such thing as SimCity5 single player, you have no right to complain or bitch when the game is always online because it's a mulitplayer game.

I didnt buy the game, I signed the petition because I will buy it if they fix it.

And just because you seem to be having a hard time understanding

Don't Be a Jerk
This rule trumps any other. Any loophole you think you've found in any other rule is covered by this one. If you make our forums a less pleasant place to be, we don't want you here and we have no problem revoking your account. Here are a couple of the things you should stay away from:
Flaming
Calling people names (or groups who may visit The Escapist), this includes calling others a troll

Thats from the code of conduct you agreed to when you signed up, try to pay attention.

Twilight_guy:
I am absolutely terrified of the idea of something like this actually working. Imagine if a bunch of angry gamers could force a company to have to change its game. What you announced multiplayer? Nope, can't do that. I don't like this level, remove it from the game. You are in development of that game? Nope, can't make that. You aren't going to include character X that I like? Now you are! With how rock stupid most fans are to have game development works this would be an absolute disaster. Yeah it would let them fix some stupid develop decision, at the cost of unleashing a storm of stupid and poor petitions and would do far more harm then good.

Er, who is forcing anyone to do anything?

All a petition does is put a bunch of peoples voices to one document so that EA can see in one place all the people who are dissatisfied with the decisions they made.

Its not like this is a white house petition trying to fuck with the company like that whitehouse website.

So how are consumers using their voice harmful again other than "Wahhh I dont like it!"

Desert Punk:

Twilight_guy:
I am absolutely terrified of the idea of something like this actually working. Imagine if a bunch of angry gamers could force a company to have to change its game. What you announced multiplayer? Nope, can't do that. I don't like this level, remove it from the game. You are in development of that game? Nope, can't make that. You aren't going to include character X that I like? Now you are! With how rock stupid most fans are to have game development works this would be an absolute disaster. Yeah it would let them fix some stupid develop decision, at the cost of unleashing a storm of stupid and poor petitions and would do far more harm then good.

Er, who is forcing anyone to do anything?

All a petition does is put a bunch of peoples voices to one document so that EA can see in one place all the people who are dissatisfied with the decisions they made.

Its not like this is a white house petition trying to fuck with the company like that whitehouse website.

So how are consumers using their voice harmful again other than "Wahhh I dont like it!"

I didn't say that it was, I'm saying that in a hypothetical situation in which the goal of said petition works, i.e. if enough angry people get together they can force anyone to do anything, it would be an utter disaster.

Twilight_guy:

Desert Punk:

Twilight_guy:
I am absolutely terrified of the idea of something like this actually working. Imagine if a bunch of angry gamers could force a company to have to change its game. What you announced multiplayer? Nope, can't do that. I don't like this level, remove it from the game. You are in development of that game? Nope, can't make that. You aren't going to include character X that I like? Now you are! With how rock stupid most fans are to have game development works this would be an absolute disaster. Yeah it would let them fix some stupid develop decision, at the cost of unleashing a storm of stupid and poor petitions and would do far more harm then good.

Er, who is forcing anyone to do anything?

All a petition does is put a bunch of peoples voices to one document so that EA can see in one place all the people who are dissatisfied with the decisions they made.

Its not like this is a white house petition trying to fuck with the company like that whitehouse website.

So how are consumers using their voice harmful again other than "Wahhh I dont like it!"

I didn't say that it was, I'm saying that in a hypothetical situation in which the goal of said petition works, i.e. if enough angry people get together they can force anyone to do anything, it would be an utter disaster.

Again, even if the petition succeeds in getting X number of names...nothing is forced. EA is presented with the petition and they can choose to shrug and toss it in the garbage if they want with no penalties at all.

If they choose to act on it, that is THEIR decision, nothing was forced.

kortin:
you have no right to complain or bitch

Actually I have every right to do just that when I find faults with something I have purchased. Nobody has to do anything (unless their actions are criminal of course) But I am well within my rights to complain about a product if I purchase it and find it lacking. This is how products are advanced, by consumers who purchase your product or service providing you with feedback on how said product or service can be improved. So not only do you not understand how consumer rights work, but you are actively stomping on the advancement of the products we buy. SHAME ON YOU! >:O

Devoneaux:

kortin:
you have no right to complain or bitch

Actually I have every right to do just that when I find faults with something I have purchased. Nobody has to do anything (unless their actions are criminal of course) But I am well within my rights to complain about a product if I purchase it and find it lacking. This is how products are advanced, by consumers who purchase your product or service provide you with feedback on how said product or service can be improved. So not only do you not understand how consumer rights work, but you are actively stomping on the advancement of the products we buy. SHAME ON YOU!

No, you have no right to complain when you buy something knowing full well that it has a certain feature. You aren't allowed to complain because you already told the company that you accept what they're doing and support it.

kortin:

Devoneaux:

kortin:
you have no right to complain or bitch

Actually I have every right to do just that when I find faults with something I have purchased. Nobody has to do anything (unless their actions are criminal of course) But I am well within my rights to complain about a product if I purchase it and find it lacking. This is how products are advanced, by consumers who purchase your product or service provide you with feedback on how said product or service can be improved. So not only do you not understand how consumer rights work, but you are actively stomping on the advancement of the products we buy. SHAME ON YOU!

No, you have no right to complain when you buy something knowing full well that it has a certain feature. You aren't allowed to complain because you already told the company that you accept what they're doing and support it.

The always on-line DLC is not the problem. The problem is that the service people paid for isn't working and advertised features are being cut out in an attempt to make it work, and that removing the DLC is seen as the best option for solving the problem. Get it?

Desert Punk:

Don't Be a Jerk
This rule trumps any other. Any loophole you think you've found in any other rule is covered by this one. If you make our forums a less pleasant place to be, we don't want you here and we have no problem revoking your account. Here are a couple of the things you should stay away from:
Flaming
Calling people names (or groups who may visit The Escapist), this includes calling others a troll

Thats from the code of conduct you agreed to when you signed up, try to pay attention.

Calling people "idiots" probably wouldn't even earn you a warning, much less a ban, since I've seen people say far worse things here and get away scot-free (and I think the mods twigged that in order to actually enforce that rule to any real extent they'd have to ban half the forum.)

kortin:

Desert Punk:
I didnt buy the game, I signed the petition because I will buy it if they fix it.

They won't fix it. It's a fucking multiplayer game. There's nothing to fix. Absofuckinglutely nothing to fix. It will always be always online forever, because it's not a fucking single player game and people like you need to get that through their thick skulls.

^this. It might not be an mmo. but its not single player anymore people. Its something inbetween. You dont have any idea how much data is being transfered to the servers. If its as much as i suspect then i fear only the most beastly of computers would ever be able to run it offline. You know what would happen then? Everyone else would still be pissed because one way or another. you wouldnt be able to play the game.

The download for the game was what.. less than 2 gigs of data. thats far too little imo. most games now are 10+ easy. That shows how much info isnt stored on your computer.

This isnt a single player game anymore. Once they sort their server problems and everything calms down. It will be fine. While the drm is a problem. Its more their lack of foresight and their server setup that is the real issue. they were not prepared. its as simple as that. they were idiots and didnt do stress tests. which leads to server overloads.

Desert Punk:

Ilikemilkshake:
As much as I don't like the always-on DRM, I highly doubt it would even be possible to remove it at this point. It seems like they've made it so that it actually relies on their servers for calculations. I Don't see them completely redesigning how their game works.

However this petition is still important. If it can get a hundred thousand or maybe even more signatures, it dispels the myth that the people who are unhappy with this sort of thing are just a vocal minority. Perhaps it might kill this business model entirely. One can only hope.

TheComfyChair:
The problem is that the cities are stored on the server... This is like saying 'make an MMO work offline'.

It's not a case of removing a check in a launch program, it's a redevelopment of the game. So i don't think this is going to happen. It would be good if it did, but i doubt it will.

TsunamiWombat:
What they're asking for is simply impossible, the Always On Element is built into the game at every level.

Buyer Beware.

I cant believe so many people are so ignorant.

They said the exact same thing about Diablo 3. "Cant make it offline, too much relies on the server!"

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/02/26/diablo-iii-will-play-offline-on-ps3-and-ps4/

oops, that was a lie, just like Sim City.

Uh, you do realise Diablo 3 is a different game right?
And you do realise that when they're porting it to an entirely new system that does give them the opportunity to change the way the game operates so that it doesn't need to be always online?

It's quite obvious the game relies on the server, or else they wouldn't be cutting back features like cheetah speed, leaderboards and achievements to increase server stability.

Devoneaux:
The always on-line DLC is not the problem. The problem is that it didn't work. And that removing it as seen as the best option for solving the problem. Get it?

It is impossible to remove the ALWAYS ONLINE FEATURE of SimCity5 BECAUSE it's a MULTIPLAYER GAME AND NOT A SINGLE PLAYER ONE. They designed the entire game around the bloody thing.

TsunamiWombat:
What they're asking for is simply impossible, the Always On Element is built into the game at every level.

Buyer Beware.

..and yet the game can be played offline for a certain amount of time. I think the server ties are overstated.

kortin:

Desert Punk:
I didnt buy the game, I signed the petition because I will buy it if they fix it.

They won't fix it. It's a fucking multiplayer game. There's nothing to fix. Absofuckinglutely nothing to fix. It will always be always online forever, because it's not a fucking single player game and people like you need to get that through their thick skulls.

Actually it does have a singleplayer mode (see links in the spoiler)


What the people are asking is not unreasonable, they want to be able to play the game like a simcity game where they can start it up, build a city, save it, back it up so they can try something stupid the next day, and then load the backup so they can keep building. That's how sim city games work, it's how they always have and there is no reason to change it to something that results in an amazon-bombing of the game (at time of this sentence there are 1,161 1 star reviews).

kortin:

Devoneaux:

kortin:
you have no right to complain or bitch

Actually I have every right to do just that when I find faults with something I have purchased. Nobody has to do anything (unless their actions are criminal of course) But I am well within my rights to complain about a product if I purchase it and find it lacking. This is how products are advanced, by consumers who purchase your product or service provide you with feedback on how said product or service can be improved. So not only do you not understand how consumer rights work, but you are actively stomping on the advancement of the products we buy. SHAME ON YOU!

No, you have no right to complain when you buy something knowing full well that it has a certain feature. You aren't allowed to complain because you already told the company that you accept what they're doing and support it.

He's perfectly permitted to "bitch". I see nothing in the forum code of conduct saying "you have no right to use these forums to complain about daft decision making on the part of a developer/publisher that has affected you and various others". Some people are annoyed that they bought a product and it didn't work - that seems perfectly reasonable to me. Others are likely to be pissed that they wish to enjoy a product, but are unable to on account of some fairly nonsensicle decision making on the part of the company charged with its manufacture.

The question is, who at the responsible company said "I've got a great idea - let us include a feature that ensures that only those who live in the few parts of the world with top rate internet connections can play reducing our sales market, will cost of a lot of money to maintain, will cause massive problems for the immediate period after release, garner bad press and damage our reputation". And who thought that it was a good idea?

kortin:

Devoneaux:
The always on-line DLC is not the problem. The problem is that it didn't work. And that removing it as seen as the best option for solving the problem. Get it?

It is impossible

No it's not. Difficult? Maybe, but that's EA's concern, not the consumer's. The ball's in their court now, we'll have to see what they do next (probably nothing).

Also, settle down.

Hahahaha, this won't work.

It's nice to see people are pissed off, though. Maybe those are 34,000 less people who will buy the next EA-backed shitstorm.

Devoneaux:

kortin:

Devoneaux:
The always on-line DLC is not the problem. The problem is that it didn't work. And that removing it as seen as the best option for solving the problem. Get it?

It is impossible

No it's not. Difficult? Maybe, but that's EA's concern, not the consumer's. The ball's in their court now, we'll have to see what they do next (probably nothing).

Also, settle down.

No, it's impossible. You cannot remove the always online feature for a completely multiplayer game. A game that is entirely and completely multiplayer. A game that lacks single player of any kind. The game was designed to be multiplayer and that means always online is required because there's no such thing as offline.

There's definitely a double standard as far as I've seen, when Blizzard did it with Diablo 3 thousands of people were actually DEFENDING them saying "it's always like this on launch day, don't worry things will get sorted".
But when EA do it then burn them down with fucking torches, eh?

Remember JimQ's boycotting episode? What did he say it is best to do in times like these again...buy the game, and THEN whine about it? But still buy the game, right? I honestly don't know whether that's going to work on EA.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.