Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 12:49:44 -
[121] - Quote
Well! Let us go to a more constructive part of the topic again c: There are still a few things I'd like to have confirmed:
Let's say we send in a logo, and it gets approved. Then we send in another logo to see if certain changes are allowed, and that second one gets rejected. Does the rejection mean the previous logo will still remain in place or will the logo be removed entirely? Yes, it might be a common sense question, but you know... c:
Are there some approved logos which can already be seen ingame from the re-upload? I like to know because there still has been no mention about the size of the Concord emblem in the corner and the effects of the watermark :c Especially the Concord logo would be important in order to keep it in mind when creating the logo.
CCP Darwin wrote:A blurry (not anti-aliased, but flat-out blurry) alpha risks banding or broad darkening of underlying color when applied to a ship in our color space. This means smoothing our edges is encouraged or could you work better with sharp edges to render it on your own? Because scaling down 512x512 sharp edges to 128x128 is going to smooth them automatically anyway so there is no problem, and creating an alpha layer for the edge after scaling down is the least problem.
There still has been no confirmation or denial of re-using and adapting NPC corporation logos given there have been changes made to what is allowed and what is not. Yes, no, maybe? :c
CCP Darwin wrote:The way that I'd explain that part of the guidelines to a designer is to say that alliance logos are better if they look graphic, which is to say that they have clean edges and a minimal color palette. Except you are not touching the problem of the subject, which is either confirming, denying or explaining the reason why existing logos on ships look the way they do: Viziam (corporation) and Viziam (on ship) Was the ship logo completely flat and you added the bump maps to make it look like having this 3D emboss? Or did you strip it flat and THEN add the Emboss effect and THEN tailored the shader and bumpmaps to it? These are CRUCIAL questions for any designer who wants to make the logo look good in the corporation window, and ingame.
I'm not going to waste my time creating a proper logo only to have the submission rejected by some reasons which could been answered with ease in here or the other topic or the devblog. But I would INSTANTLY work on a high-fidelity logo if we are allowed to have a 128x128 infocard window logo IN ADDITION to the 512x512 flat ship logo. Please CCP, consider this and make it happen :c
_________________
Done with questions! Now moving on to some opinion based thingamajigs! c:
CCP Darwin wrote:Yes, there are cases in our existing corp logo library where elements feel somewhat embossed, but they avoid broad color gradients, blurry alphas, and excessive color range. It's the majority (if not ALL) which use embossed effects in some way. While you are correct with them not using huge gradients (Some use soft gradients buried under other effects) and while you are correct with these logos not having an excessive colour range, I've seen a good number of logos with blurry alphas on some spots because those should feature some "highlights". Also, are you really calling people using emboss effects "novice designers" ? So, you mean the same "novice designers" which created all NPC corporation logos? The same "novice designers" which have used several layers of emboss-like effects and other filters to create amazing 3D-fonts for their Game / movie / album title without looking cheap?
CCP Darwin wrote:I'm sure there are some fantastic logos that would fly by approval that somehow use those types of effects, but if you have to ask, you probably shouldn't be using them. I can water paint an amazing looking logo, scan it, ONLY edit the edges to be smooth and straight... and I'm 100% sure it will be rejected because it has... "too much emboss and textures". And in the case of "fly by approval using those effects", please look at the second logo in the devblog. That is emboss + highlight effects + gradients + sharp contrast edges. Is this a good example because it would pass, or is it a bad example because it would fail? |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
459
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 13:05:17 -
[122] - Quote
Natya Mebelle wrote: Let's say we send in a logo, and it gets approved. Then we send in another logo to see if certain changes are allowed, and that second one gets rejected. Does the rejection mean the previous logo will still remain in place or will the logo be removed entirely? Yes, it might be a common sense question, but you know... c:
Actually, I think it's a fair question - is CCP maintaining some kind of versioning on these so that a new submission that's rejected doesn't automatically remove an old logo that was approved? Or is this a one and done kind of thing, where once you have one that's accepted, no new ones will be approved?
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1256
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 14:30:47 -
[123] - Quote
Guys, come on. I don't for even a moment think that CCP will reject iconic alliance logos like the bee or MMD. Hell, some of the best logos belong to now defunct alliances like Wildly Inappropriate.
WI.
I think everyone is freaking out over nothing. Resubmit your logos. Stop filling my tear cup.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Alexis Nightwish
154
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 18:47:31 -
[124] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Guys, come on. I don't for even a moment think that CCP will reject iconic alliance logos like the bee or MMD. Hell, some of the best logos belong to now defunct alliances like Wildly Inappropriate. WI.I think everyone is freaking out over nothing. Resubmit your logos. Stop filling my tear cup. No, everyone is justified because of bullshit like this.
What a load of hypocrisy that CCP won't allow this, but this and this are totally fine. Because they're "iconic"? Sounds like favoritism to me. Sounds like D20.
If CCP actually practiced what they preached:
Dev Blog wrote:When CCP speaks about giving players the power and acting as janitors of the game weGÇÖre not just spouting marketing lines. This acceptance of player agency is right at the core of EVEGÇÖs success over the last 11+ years. and gave the players agency to express themselves within the EVE universe, now, that would be iconic.
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
|
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 22:10:39 -
[125] - Quote
Maybe it is buried in all that reddit mess which I'm not willing to dig through, and it hasn't been mentioned in this topic... but...
Is it allowed for the person receiving the rejection to disclose the reason with us? Because:
Devblog wrote:- If the logo is rejected, a response will be given detailing the reasoning for rejection.
I would be very curious to know the reason c: |
Alexis Nightwish
154
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 22:23:32 -
[126] - Quote
Natya Mebelle wrote:Maybe it is buried in all that reddit mess which I'm not willing to dig through, and it hasn't been mentioned in this topic... but... Is it allowed for the person receiving the rejection to disclose the reason with us? Because: Devblog wrote:- If the logo is rejected, a response will be given detailing the reasoning for rejection.
I would be very curious to know the reason c:
Reddit OP wrote:Here's the exact quote:
"Your alliance logo submission has been rejected due to the nature of its content not confirming to the guidelines set out in the alliance logo submission process."
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
|
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 02:22:12 -
[127] - Quote
Thanks c:
... but colour me totally flabbergasted by the ambiguity. The least you could think is them saying WHAT EXACTLY was wrong with the image. |
Edohatrem Inur
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 15:25:19 -
[128] - Quote
Hi Falcon
First off, thanks for once again manning the fort while we all vent our collective spleens at you. I know its part of the job, but I get the impression that being a community manager must be a somewhat thankless task at times. SoGǪ. consider yourself thanked!
IGÇÖve read through the various odds and ends (the dev blogs the csm minutes etc), and hurf-blurfing aside, thereGÇÖs one point I really just canGÇÖt get my head round. In the CSM minutes you said:
Quote:GÇ£So players take a view of this that they own a logo and give game companies a perpetual right to use their logo. Nice in theory, but it isnGÇÖt practical. It still allows other players to sue each other or game companies if they use a logo in a way they donGÇÖt allow. It also doesnGÇÖt cover situations where multiple people have created a logo and no one person can give a valid license.GÇ¥ While the first point seems a bit dubious, as itGÇÖd be relatively trivial to force people to either simultaneously issue a general purpose license (creative commons non-commercial or some-such) or to grant ccp the rights to re-license it in whatever you manner they saw fit. What I really donGÇÖt get though is the 2nd point, or rather why it isnGÇÖt also a barrier to the current plan of creating a derivative work. (Because youGÇÖd still need to obtain permission to create it)
I appreciate youGÇÖve already said youGÇÖre not a lawyer, and that we should contact the legal department directly if we want to argue over semantics. As much fun as that might be, I think most people are just similarly struggling to grasp the rationale behind the decision rather than wanting to engage in petty one-upmanship.
All that said, at the end of the day its CCPGÇÖs bat and ball and itGÇÖs a bonus that you allow us to have our logos in your game under whatever terms you care to dictate. It would nevertheless be nice if someone from the legal department could be persuaded to make a post explaining the details of their thought process some more rather than making anyone whoGÇÖs interested contact them individually.
Moving away from the barrack-room lawyering; Earlier in this thread Lena Lazair made an excellent suggestion about allowing alliances to use the regular corp logo creator. This really is a great idea, and I hope it gets picked up by the dev team as I think itGÇÖd go a long way towards alleviating the issues of smaller alliances who currently have the choice of padding their numbers of having nothing.
Since iGÇÖm already here writing this horrific wall of spergGǪ I might aswell toss in a terrible suggestion of my own.
YouGÇÖve said that in an ideal world ccp would own the copyright on the Images outright, but since that went down so badly the current solution has been devised as a compromise. To my mind the basic problem people seemed to have with the idea of handing over the copyright is as much one of emotional ownership (having spent however long coming up with it) rather than being particularly interested in the technicalities of IP law.
GǪ. So could CCP just remove that from the equation?
How about allowing alliances to buy a daysGÇÖ worth of an artistGÇÖs time (paid for in plex), and CCP creating a logo for them out of whatever rough sketches / ideas they give you? IGÇÖm no artist, but IGÇÖm assuming a day would be long enough to come up with something and make a couple of small revisions (GǪbut they could always just buy another day if the alliance wants to faff about!). IGÇÖm also assuming that after the initial glut at launch, the demand would be low enough for it to serve as an amusing side project for your artists rather than a major distraction from their regular work GǪ. but if theyGÇÖre manically busy you could always just brief some sketch artist on the guidelines and farm the work out.
Along with the fringe benefit of some extra monetization, the main upshot from the companyGÇÖs point of view would be that there then couldnGÇÖt be any argument about who owned it, as it would be CCP's property by default. (As an act of largess the company could still give people permission to put it on their website / t-shirts etc without having to worry about it appearing in other games).
From the players perspective it would transform the proposition from GÇ£ccp wants to borg my stuffGÇ¥ to GÇ£ccp has taken my crappy ms-paint scribble and turned it into this awesome thingGÇ¥, which would be a great service to outfits without any perticularly artistic members. It would also have the benefit that by definition whatever was produced would fit the theme guidelines.
I'm sure thereGÇÖs plenty of people who for one reason or another would still rather use their own logo, so If you wanted to really go nuts you could do it as a 3 tiered system that ought to keep everyone reasonably happy GÇó Corp logo creator by default GÇóThe current plan with a watermark etc GÇóCCP makes you a logo for a fee (could also be open to smaller outfits, because money is money at the end of the day)
GǪ.. Although at this point IGÇÖm probably stretching a bad idea further than itGÇÖll go, so IGÇÖll shut the hell up now and go sperg at my corpmates instead. |
Snoop Dong
Oruze Cruise
18
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 09:14:31 -
[129] - Quote
Or how about ccp let the thousands of players decide what logo they want over a few art devs?
If it's not illegal or explicit, anything should go.
If you want to focus on how the logos are suited to their space settings, then you might want to look into how alliances with trillions of isk cannot design a logo without it being covered in gray spraypaint. http://i.imgur.com/pvHiYxy.jpg |
Lan Wang
Stillwater Corporation That Escalated Quickly.
379
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 09:32:16 -
[130] - Quote
Snoop Dong wrote:Or how about ccp let the thousands of players decide what logo they want over a few art devs? If it's not illegal or explicit, anything should go. If you want to focus on how the logos are suited to their space settings, then you might want to look into how alliances with trillions of isk cannot design a logo without it being covered in gray spraypaint. http://i.imgur.com/pvHiYxy.jpg
what does isk have to do with logos? its already been explained as to why ccp need logos designed in a specific way, its not an issue its just people have to be a little more creative and follow a simple set of rules so the logo can be applied to ships, if ccp let anything go and your logo looked **** when on a ship then people would complain, i dont get the whole watermarking tbh but if thats what they want and the legal team says this is ok then im good with that
EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding | Digital Design
|
|
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 10:08:10 -
[131] - Quote
I'm curious where you got that image c: is there any source for the publication? I'd like to know more about it's origins. Sorry if it is somewhere on the forum already, I usually only look at devblog comments, and not even every devblog at that. And I don't really do reddit or most other social media c: |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1003
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 12:07:23 -
[132] - Quote
Edohatrem Inur wrote:I think most people are just similarly struggling to grasp the rationale behind the decision rather than wanting to engage in petty one-upmanship. Unfortunately, thats exactly what most people are trying to do, engage in petty one-upmanship that has one end result - alliance logos getting removed altogether.
Quote:YouGÇÖve said that in an ideal world ccp would own the copyright on the Images outright, but since that went down so badly the current solution has been devised as a compromise. That's the problem, we collectively threw such a fit over the idea of letting CCP own "our" logos, that they had to find a compromise. As several people have said, the reason is obvious - CCP want to sell ship logos back to us, and for reasons that should be obvious, they cannot sell something to the people who already own it, they have to own the logo that goes on our ship. If they don't, some smart arse (pick the likely culprit from this thread) will pull a stunt to try and be clever, and "prove a point", and bang, we all lose alliance logos and ship logos. Thanks *******.
Quote:How about allowing alliances to buy a daysGÇÖ worth of an artistGÇÖs time (paid for in plex), and CCP creating a logo for them out of whatever rough sketches / ideas they give you? IGÇÖm no artist, but IGÇÖm assuming a day would be long enough to come up with something and make a couple of small revisions Heh heh, ask any Goon about "Not Fatbee". CCP went that route before, and the result was silly, to the point that many years later its still a running joke
Ultimately, end of the day, this is a mostly painless solution to everyone but a handful of asspained internet lawyers who just want to prove a point that their elawyer skills are better than CCPs. To the rest of us, "yaay, we are getting alliance logos back", and about bloody time, with a bonus of "yaay, maybe ship logos on the horizon". The only genuine gripe is the slightly silly guidelines (only real guidline should be nothing offensive, nothing that screws with the shipskin system), and the threat of existing logos getting rejected for asanine reasons.
To the asspained, stop trying to screw the rest of us. |
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 12:41:04 -
[133] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:As several people have said, the reason is obvious - CCP want to sell ship logos back to us, and for reasons that should be obvious, they cannot sell something to the people who already own it, they have to own the logo that goes on our ship. I am not sure it works that way. Are they really selling the logos back to the players? Was there any confirmation for this? Because I can think about two other ways how alliance logos on ships will happen: The alliance logo is placed on a separate spot by default or replaces the "ship developer" logo. This could either be free, as a token of CCP being nice, OR you're buying the option to "slot" your alliance logo on your ship. No matter which Alliance you join, their logo would be there because of your purchase for that display. This would be less about purchasing that LOGO, but rather purchasing the SPACE to display whatever given logo of the alliance you happen to be in. This circumvents the copyright violation.
I'm still wondering why the "royalty-free license to use the logo within the game" decision was not up to debate. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
488
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 12:41:42 -
[134] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote: To the asspained, stop trying to screw the rest of us.
Aralyn Cormallen.
He gets it.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 12:27:06 -
[135] - Quote
I'm not sure if he gets it, Elenahina.
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Ultimately, end of the day, this is a mostly painless solution to everyone but a handful of asspained internet lawyers who just want to prove a point that their elawyer skills are better than CCPs. Maybe it is a less painful solution, but I wonder where you get that impression from of people being that egocentric? People actually showed concern and worry in order to help CCP avoid a possible mistake. A watermark of this little effect is not sufficient to be a derivative work to be called their own and will not hold a copyright claim.
Furthermore we're actually not getting the alliance logos we're submitting, even if the submission is meeting every rule. Because the watermark falsifies the image. This is also going to be a double standard since I'm pretty sure by now we're getting the NON-watermarked image on future ships but the watermarked one on alliance infocards. Of course, it is just an assumption based on what we have in game now. Look at any ship developer logo on the infocard and then on the ship. One is smooth, one isn't. Maybe the watermark will be extended to the actual ship hull even though I doubt it.
Now compare this to a royalty-free license of use. Why are other companies capable of using the same method without the necessity of a watermark or a derivative work? If you bring the argument of "they want to sell our stuff back to us" then you're missing the point. They just need to sell the permission to display the icon, regardless of which alliance you are in. This does not touch the copyright. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1012
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 14:49:00 -
[136] - Quote
Natya Mebelle wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Ultimately, end of the day, this is a mostly painless solution to everyone but a handful of asspained internet lawyers who just want to prove a point that their elawyer skills are better than CCPs. I wonder where you get that impression from of people being that egocentric? Probably from the fact people keep saying...
Quote:Now compare this to a royalty-free license of use. Why are other companies capable of using the same method without the necessity of a watermark or a derivative work? I get it, you think this is enough. CCP don't, and on a scale of who has any say in CCP legal policy, you don't rate against their lawyer. Suck it up, and move on, because if CCP's lawyers don't think a certain way of doing it is going to protect them from a massive law suit, they are not going to say "but Natya Mebelle says it will, with absolutely no credentials in the proffession what so ever, so screw it, lets listen to her, whats the worst that can happen".
And to think they would do otherwise is... a little egocentric
|
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 17:26:08 -
[137] - Quote
I think we are at an impass here.
No, it's not about me, it's about bringing other companies as example and asking why are things different here. There is nothing egocentric about this. It is not about me or others needing to prove their point to CCP, it is bringing legitimate questions to the table in a concerned manner because we want to make sure the company of the game we like to play won't get into any trouble.
Not every random person on the internet playing a video game is a basement dweller with no job who only knows things from wikipedia and google c: But I am a kind person, so I'll be overlooking your veiled assault against my persona because I cannot blame you for your opinions. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
518
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 19:06:35 -
[138] - Quote
Natya Mebelle wrote:I'm not sure if he gets it, Elenahina.
No, he gets the part where if we ***** and moan enough CCP will say screw it and give us a half assed alliance logo designer that looks very much like the half assed corporate logo designer we already have.
I'm not saying people don't have concerns, and I'm sure some of them are legitimate - especially since we're dealing with multiple nationalities, all with differeing IP laws. But pissing and moaning on the forums isn't going to do anything - we were told where to get answers - if you don't care enough to sit down and write an email, obviously it's not that big a deal to you.
*Note, not you specifically, Natya. You in general, as in all of us.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 21:41:48 -
[139] - Quote
Not to worry! Thank you for making it a point though c:
Maybe I wasn't as clear as I hoped for, or I read the statement a bit too blurry that the "asspained" in this topic are all of them who voiced their concerns, and I understood it as a generalization that I was not agreeing with. So with what you said, I agree. Selective perception and stuff c: My bad. |
Alundil
Isogen 5
930
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 19:29:14 -
[140] - Quote
I did not create this list and am not maintaining it. But someone has begun documenting which Alliance logos have been denied here. http://aether.space/ccp-denied/
There's also a page put together by Squizz (of zKb fame) cataloging current state alliance logos here. http://logos.zzeve.com/
Reddit thread detailing the effort here. http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/352s1a/did_your_logo_get_denied_tell_me_about_it/
All in all, this process seems completely arbitrary and the growing lists of approved versus unapproved logos smacks of some combination of favoritism and nepotism. Poor form on the part of CCP and their handling of this. Poor form indeed.
I'm right behind you
|
|
Natya Mebelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 15:43:39 -
[141] - Quote
I was visiting this topic again in hope for reading replies to questions which have been asked numerous times, but the void is disappointing. That single post by Alundil is a very great summary and I appreciate it dearly.
It is horribly ironic how the icons created in 2004, 2005 and most of 2006 fit perfectly well into the Eve online design theme. There increasing trend into comical / cartoon / flat / abstract designs happened from that period onward, to the point where almost no alliance icons of newer generations fit the original theme any more.
That again screams for a two-picture submission. One 128x128 in full detail for infocard windows and other shared resources, and one 512x512 flat abstract of the previous logo to slap onto ships. I should start saving all those alliance logos from the websites posted before they are wiped :c |
Julien Kusoni
NERV Reborn Independent Stars Allied Forces
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 15:23:18 -
[142] - Quote
Question:
I can't find information nowhere, but is CCP still up to removing all logo's on June 2nd (so in a few days) ? Or did it get postponed?
As the Patchnotes are out, and I cannot see anything about it there -.-
Cheers |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services
367
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 01:08:10 -
[143] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Fantastic news for Alliances! After having temporarily put alliance logo submissions on halt in 2014, we now gladly announce that alliances can submit their logos again to CCP so that the logos can be added to EVE Online. Approved logos will receive a slight modification and a small CONCORD logo of approval before they are put in game. Please note that also existing alliance logos needs to be resubmitted again. For all the details (size and format of the logo, submission process etc.) please check CCP Falcon's latest dev blog Alliance Logos & You - Submissions Re-Opened!
a logo for our alliance that meets the requirements has been submitted, but do not see it in game yet, when could I expect to see it, or if it is rejected, when should I expect to receive a message stating that it has been rejected?
o/ Celly
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Hassan Al-Fassir
NERV Reborn Independent Stars Allied Forces
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 10:55:50 -
[144] - Quote
Celly S wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:Fantastic news for Alliances! After having temporarily put alliance logo submissions on halt in 2014, we now gladly announce that alliances can submit their logos again to CCP so that the logos can be added to EVE Online. Approved logos will receive a slight modification and a small CONCORD logo of approval before they are put in game. Please note that also existing alliance logos needs to be resubmitted again. For all the details (size and format of the logo, submission process etc.) please check CCP Falcon's latest dev blog Alliance Logos & You - Submissions Re-Opened! a logo for our alliance that meets the requirements has been submitted, but do not see it in game yet, when could I expect to see it, or if it is rejected, when should our executor expect to receive a message stating that it has been rejected? o/ Celly
You might want to check onhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=425409&find=unread for a list of approved logos, as well as on https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=418817&p=4 for CCP Falcons reply that they are still looking for an easy way to inject them. |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services
367
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 11:50:06 -
[145] - Quote
Thanks for that, seems I have been quite derpy of late.
:) o/ Celly
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Mari Camos
Finnish Space Jaegers Tactical Narcotics Team
27
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 12:16:48 -
[146] - Quote
Wrong thread...
Let the lager decide what is wrong, what is right.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |