Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21]:: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Astrid Farnsworth
Broke and Famous
6
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 04:13:27 -
[601] - Quote
Wait guys they free up the names, not delete de account. That mean if after sorting time and the person comeback to the game they will have generic name, not the initial name they had. Ccp dont delete accounts.
"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980**strong text**
|
Anataine Deva
University of Caille Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 08:16:19 -
[602] - Quote
Sadly my question "Where is the line between a game of chance and a give away?" is still not answered by any CCP officials. The GMs as far as I know don't know it either.
So if I randomly pick a capsuleer in local and give him a ship, or ISK for free, that's a give away and not a game of chance, right?
But if I ask first, who want's a prize for free and I pick randomly one of the capsuleers who replied, then is that a game of chance? And all who replied are at risk to get banned?
I don't ask for making gambling legal but for making the EULA more understandable for your custsomers. Even for you CCP guys, it must be obvious that the current EULA is too vague defined and out of touch with reality.
Give The BIG Lottery a try and me your Fedos!
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
291
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 22:53:03 -
[603] - Quote
I hope CCP is planning to introduce their own version of EVEBet & this is just their way to get rid of the middleman.
I've never gambled on any of the various gambling sites, but it seems that if people want to send CCP money to get their gambling fix, then CCP should let them, especially if that means cheaper PLEXes for me. |
Clara D'Arbanville
UK Industries The Serenity Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 09:27:35 -
[604] - Quote
CCP - I seek clarification of a matter from you please as recommended by Senior GM Dagon.
I will not post his response to Support Request #274641 as I am aware that it is prohibited. All I will say is that he stated that Customer Support was unable to provide the clarification I requested in my support ticket, and he directed me to post to you in this Dev Blog for you to address.
Please find below my ticket submitted on Oct 19th @ 17:25 UTC in regards to the updates to the EULA and a scenario which I need certain clarifications on its legality now that the EULA has been amended.
"Good evening CCP.
I'm receiving conflicting advice from friends and so I need to run a scenario past you before Nov 8th please to confirm whether this complies with the recent changes to the EULA.
If I run an in-game raffle whereby alliance members send me ISK for raffle tickets, and with that ISK I buy prizes from the in-game market in Jita 4-4 e.g. Ships, Injectors, PLEX etc. A draw takes place determining winning tickets and those prizes are given out to the winners. Is that now a breach the new EULA?
To clarify - No ISK or in-game assets are ever able to be taken out of the game. No-one gives ISK to anything or anyone outside of the game. ALL transactions are conducted within the game via the "Give ISK" option to purchase tickets, and then prizes are given out via contracts just like any other item.
I've read the new EULA several times and from what I can tell the EULA is targeting "Outside influences" on the in-game economy.... which I agree with..... however my scenario has no outside influences on the in-game economy, so is it acceptable?
Thanks for your time on this, I really want to avoid breaking any rules.
Kind regards."
As you can see with the above scenario, I hope you understand my feeling the need to seek clarification. Lotteries and raffles such as this scenario have taken place in the game for years, with the only outside influence for them being something like Chribbas DICE or another such random number generator to pick winning tickets.
I hope that you can shed some light.
Thanks for your time.
Kind regards. |
Samsara Toldya
Academy of Contradictory Behaviour
973
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 09:59:22 -
[605] - Quote
So... the delay of Ascension will delay the EULA changes (including "gambling ban"), too? |
Anataine Deva
University of Caille Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 10:11:45 -
[606] - Quote
Samsara Toldya wrote:So... the delay of Ascension will delay the EULA changes (including "gambling ban"), too? No it will not.
CCP Falcon wrote:Please note: The postponement of the Ascension deployment does not affect the already announced changes to the EULA. These will still come into effect on Tuesday, November 8th, 2016. Source: https://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/deployment-of-eve-online-ascension-postponed-until-2016-11-15/
Give The BIG Lottery a try and me your Fedos!
|
Samsara Toldya
Academy of Contradictory Behaviour
976
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 10:23:05 -
[607] - Quote
Anataine Deva wrote:Samsara Toldya wrote:So... the delay of Ascension will delay the EULA changes (including "gambling ban"), too? No it will not.
Hm... kind of difficult. So I'm going to have a free to play Alpha Clone as stated in the new EULA* without Alpha Clones being released.
*"keep that Account active by paying the subscription fee on a timely basis" is removed on Nov 8th.
Let's see how that will work... what could go wrong ^^ |
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
136
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 11:36:02 -
[608] - Quote
Does isk doubling fall under the new 3rd party rules against games of chance? Since there's a chance you get money back can we report them for doing illegal gamblings through the third parties, hmm? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5427
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 19:24:28 -
[609] - Quote
Henry Plantgenet wrote:Does isk doubling fall under the new 3rd party rules against games of chance? Since there's a chance you get money back can we report them for doing illegal gamblings through the third parties, hmm?
No. There is no third party from CCP's perspective.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5427
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 19:25:41 -
[610] - Quote
Samsara Toldya wrote:Anataine Deva wrote:Samsara Toldya wrote:So... the delay of Ascension will delay the EULA changes (including "gambling ban"), too? No it will not. Hm... kind of difficult. So I'm going to have a free to play Alpha Clone as stated in the new EULA* without Alpha Clones being released. *"keep that Account active by paying the subscription fee on a timely basis" is removed on Nov 8th. Let's see how that will work... what could go wrong ^^
Or maybe you could not be so deliberately obtuse....
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5427
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 19:36:54 -
[611] - Quote
Anataine Deva wrote:Sadly my question "Where is the line between a game of chance and a give away?" is still not answered by any CCP officials. The GMs as far as I know don't know it either.
So if I randomly pick a capsuleer in local and give him a ship, or ISK for free, that's a give away and not a game of chance, right?
It should not be a game of chance.
Quote:A game of chance is a game whose outcome is strongly influenced by some randomizing device, and upon which contestants may choose to wager money or anything of monetary value. Common devices used include dice, spinning tops, playing cards, roulette wheels, or numbered balls drawn from a container. A game of chance may have some skill element to it, however, chance generally plays a greater role in determining the outcome than skill. A game of skill, on the other hand, also has an element of chance, but with skill playing a greater role in determining the outcome.
Unless there is a way to place a wager it is not a game of chance. Further, if you are doing this all "in game" then there is no third party.
Quote: But if I ask first, who want's a prize for free and I pick randomly one of the capsuleers who replied, then is that a game of chance? And all who replied are at risk to get banned?
No, see the definition of game of chance.
You would be in trouble, IMO, if you:
1. Charged a fee, set the odds so the law of large numbers assured you of a stream of income, etc. 2. Did so outside of the game--i.e. set up your own website.
I'm guessing right now that people are having some discussions at CCP on what is and is not a game of chance. Personally, something like Hulkaggedon should not count as it is a game of skill possibly with some element of randomness. But, given that CCP employees may not be aware of the distinction between a game of skill vs. a game of chance if you are unsure err on the side of caution.
I really wish CCP would actually step up for once and respond with something more substantive than what we have seen so far.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Anataine Deva
University of Caille Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 00:00:05 -
[612] - Quote
At large I'm with you Teckos.
Wikipedia wrote:A game of chance is a game whose outcome is strongly influenced by some randomizing device, and upon which contestants may choose to wager money or anything of monetary value. ... Any game of chance that involves anything of monetary value is gambling. Now to the nitpicking details: "A game of chance is a game whose outcome is strongly influenced by some randomizing device,..."
Can one or a group of humans be called a randomizing device? I would say no, but what is a device? Let's see what Wikipedia has to say to this:
"A device is usually a constructed tool,..."
In the following text people are not mentioned. If you look for "randomizing device" then the result is even clearer, that this term does not include humans.
-> So as long as the winner is selected by humans, maybe even by the participants themselve without using dices, numbered balls, randomizing software etc. then it's not a game of chance.
"...and upon which contestants may choose to wager money or anything of monetary value."
-> If there are no wagers, it's not a game of chance.
Conclusion: 1. A x-up in chat for participating on a give away is not a game of chance and therefore not gambling because the participants don't have to pay a wager. 2. Even if a wager or fee is needed to participate, as long as the "drawing" is done by a human, it's still not a game of chance if there is no randomizing device involved.
Teckos Pech wrote:I really wish CCP would actually step up for once and respond with something more substantive than what we have seen so far. This soo much!
Give The BIG Lottery a try and me your Fedos!
|
Toobo
Project Fruit House Solyaris Chtonium
305
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 18:58:10 -
[613] - Quote
Yeah by now I think it's pretty damn clear that ISK gambling's not coming back, it's gone for good. Sad loss of an option I feel, but that doesn't matter.
But there are many potentially unclear cases where clear GM response would make everything clear to people. There are so many 'what if' scenarios that there is real danger of breaching EULA unintentionally and getting handed the heaviest ban hammer of them all.
From my own attempt to contact CCP regarding various scenarios, it seems to be that they are taking 'no comment on use of third party tools' stance they have always had vs. things like ISBoxer and stuff. They say 'automation' or 'click broadcast' is clearly banned, but they will NEVER say it IS ok to use ISBoxer if you do not use such functions.
So in this case, yes, they say third party gambling is banned. But that's all they'll say about it now. I know CCP's leaving room for 'reasonable game play for fun' by making the EULA a little vague and not so detailed with examples, but considering what happened to IWI bankers and players (all wallets turned to zero, including alt toons if there were transaction record), I don't think people want to take any chance at trying to see if something is 'ok' or not.
The penalty's too heavy for breaking the new EULA, yet it is not so clear what it allows and what it doesn't.
"When faced with my demons, I clothe them and feed them,
and I smile, yes I smile as they are taking me over" - Strange Glue
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5434
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:50:54 -
[614] - Quote
Anataine Deva wrote:At large I'm with you Teckos. Wikipedia wrote:A game of chance is a game whose outcome is strongly influenced by some randomizing device, and upon which contestants may choose to wager money or anything of monetary value. ... Any game of chance that involves anything of monetary value is gambling. Now to the nitpicking details: " A game of chance is a game whose outcome is strongly influenced by some randomizing device,..." Can one or a group of humans be called a randomizing device? I would say no, but what is a device? Let's see what Wikipedia has to say to this: " A device is usually a constructed tool,..." In the following text people are not mentioned. If you look for " randomizing device" then the result is even clearer, that this term does not include humans. -> So as long as the winner is selected by humans, maybe even by the participants themself without using dices, numbered balls, randomizing software etc. then it's not a game of chance. " ...and upon which contestants may choose to wager money or anything of monetary value." -> If there are no wagers, it's not a game of chance. Conclusion: 1. A x-up in chat for participating on a give away is not a game of chance and therefore not gambling if the participants don't have to pay a wager. 2. Even if a wager or fee is needed to participate, as long as the "drawing" is done by a human, it's still not a game of chance if there is no randomizing device involved. use that would tend to move it into a game of skill. If, for example, we have some sort of contest using the dualing mech Teckos Pech wrote:I really wish CCP would actually step up for once and respond with something more substantive than what we have seen so far. This soo much!
Well we are getting a bit into the weeds, but maybe that is good IF CCP devs and even GMs are reading this (hahahahahaha who am I kidding?!?!)....
I would say that not, humans cannot be the randomizing device because then it is more a game of skill. For example, suppose we set up a contest where we use the in game dual mechanic and the person with the most victories wins some item. While we could state the outcomes in terms of subjective probabilities, those probabilities will be heavily influenced by the player skill levels. That is we'd have probabilities of the nature like,
P[V(i) | Skill Level(i),Skill Level(~i)]
That is, the probability of victory for player i is determined by the skill level of player i (read the ~ as "not" as in "not player i).
So while we could say, "Ah ha! Look, probabilities! Thus a game of chance." That, IMO, would be wrong. A game of chance usually depends on a randomizing device such as a (pseudo) random number generator of some sort. Now people can gamble on something like is which is what we see with gambling on various sporting events. But so long as there are no such side bets taking place, IMO, it is not a game of chance nor is it gambling and it should be fine with regard to the changes to the EULA.
Even a game of chance that is completely in game--i.e. there is nothing outside the game should also be fine, by my reading of the EULA. The way I read it is CCP is the first party. Players are the second party (parties) is 2 or more second parties start interacting they are still second parties from CCP perspective.
But again...it would be awesome if CCP confirmed this and was explicit instead of leaving everyone to wonder and risk possible bans. This is really a topic that should be entail clear and plain English responses from CCP even if one of their legal team has to sit down and hold CCP Falcon's or some other Dev's hand while doing this. Frankly, CCP's utter silence on this is baffling to me. I work in a highly regulated industry and our lawyers are very involved in EVERYTHING we do. They get right down in the weeds not just with managers in various departments, but with the analysts as well. Then again our revenues make CCP's look like chump change....so maybe it is that.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3687
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 06:59:14 -
[615] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:
Even a game of chance that is completely in game--i.e. there is nothing outside the game should also be fine, by my reading of the EULA. The way I read it is CCP is the first party. Players are the second party (parties) is 2 or more second parties start interacting they are still second parties from CCP perspective.
Is it actually possible to run a game of chance in game? There are no tools in game to support a true randomisation and as soon as you use any tool like a dice, it's not all in game any more.
Given they are also including the AT wagers as having to wrap up by the deadline the implication also is that Esports betting is also being covered by this change as well. |
Anataine Deva
University of Caille Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 09:08:45 -
[616] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Is it actually possible to run a game of chance in game? There are no tools in game to support a true randomisation and as soon as you use any tool like a dice, it's not all in game any more... Yes it is possible. You can use the capsuleers themselves as randomizing factor for example.
If the next capsuleer who jumps through a gate is male or female, what's his security status, what kind of ship he's in, what race he is, the third letter in his name, or a combination of all those things.
There are other, much better ways, but I'll leave that to everyone's own imagination.
Give The BIG Lottery a try and me your Fedos!
|
Malcom Hargrove
Dark Delusions
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 05:09:53 -
[617] - Quote
Does this also cover in-game scammers? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5443
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 06:15:44 -
[618] - Quote
Malcom Hargrove wrote:Does this also cover in-game scammers?
No, why should it?
Do you think scams are games of chance? Who is the third party? Seriously, why do people keep asking this? If you got burnt by a scam learn from your mistake and move on.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Malcom Hargrove
Dark Delusions
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 21:54:10 -
[619] - Quote
There are many in-game scams that represent themselves as raffles, lotteries and competitions and such. I am wondering if these are covered? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5453
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 22:21:04 -
[620] - Quote
Malcom Hargrove wrote:There are many in-game scams that represent themselves as raffles, lotteries and competitions and such. I am wondering if these are covered?
Not unless they are doing so via a third party.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
Anataine Deva
University of Caille Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 07:40:07 -
[621] - Quote
Hi CCP,
25 days ago you announced the EULA changes. Since then the only clarification we got was:
CCP Falcon wrote:The 90 day clause:
Our policy on inactive accounts has not changed, we have simply shortened the notice period from six months to three months due to a potentially higher volume of account creation. Thanks for that.
But there are still some customers out there (those who pay your salary) who still wait for an explanation of the following part of your EULA:
EULA wrote:...You may not use, transfer or assign any game assets for games of chance operated by third parties... What's for you a game of chance and who is the third party is still an open question, which many interpret in different ways. Despite the helpfull posts of a few the only answer that matters is from you CCP. Only you!
Is it really so hard to put the authors thoughts of that questionable sentence into some clarifying answers? - I don't think so.
At the moment I can only guess, that your customers who are affected by that part of the EULA are too few, of being worth an answer in your opinion.
Can you at least confirm that by ignoring this post?
Thank you.
Give The BIG Lottery a try and me your Fedos!
|
Toobo
Project Fruit House Solyaris Chtonium
308
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 14:32:53 -
[622] - Quote
No clarification is the baffling part. No game of chance involving a third party, to me, is at least clear. That would rule out classic tools like Chribba's dice or the third number on UK lotto for next week or any other out of game RNG tools.
But I did receive GM confirmation that I cannot set up a website and run ISK funded pvp campaigns and competitions hsing kill records pulled from API (so all real in game records and no third party RNG involved).
If the same logic is applied (which is a funny thing because CCP can choose to apply their 'logic' where/when they want - they are under no 'obligation' to apply same policy to all) then in-house/in-game prize reward based on existing third party killboard is also not approved. Neither can you in game 'pay outs' based on third party tools such as using discord/TS to track fleet participations or miner payout calculations tools or whatever.
This is really broad application and CCP reserves right to ban/confiscate any in game asset transferred/rewarded based on a third party pay out system, even if that third party system does NOT involve game of chance.
Like I said, people know I was a heavy gambler at IWI and raged about ban on ISK gambling. But I accepted that and moved on. But CCP not allowing hse of third party tools for in game pay out decision maker has huge implicaitons and puts people on the risk of getting banned/wallet zeroed even if no 'gambling' is involved.
This certainly needs clarification.
"When faced with my demons, I clothe them and feed them,
and I smile, yes I smile as they are taking me over" - Strange Glue
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5480
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 04:58:21 -
[623] - Quote
Toobo wrote:No clarification is the baffling part.
I agree...some additional clarifying comments would be good. Heck, even something like, "We are reviewing this and will issue some additional clarifying language SoonGäó," would be good.
But the stony silence is what I expect from CCP and it is disappointing.
That all being said, I hope some player does do something that flies below the radar and then lands CCP in very serious legal trouble so I can have the distinct pleasure of saying, "I told you so!"
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Toobo
Project Fruit House Solyaris Chtonium
308
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 16:34:47 -
[624] - Quote
Now I get the feeling CCP is being deliberately unclear so they can just shut stuff down and confiscate in game stuff on a whim in the first sign of trouble. :p 'we never said such and such is ok' kinda thing.
It's pretty bad though as per EULA and TOS CCP can just take whatever you have in game as everything on the server belongs to them lol (players don't 'own' anything if I understand correctly, CCP just needs to grant access to the server for paid subscribers and their responsibilities end there)
There can/probably will be some legal trouble at some point though. A different example, but the German authorities are now probinh into whether Facebook is dealing/had dealt sufficiently with 'hate messages' on their site. Facebook does look into stuff that get reported and sometimes take actions but hate speech and allowing that to happen on your online platform is a serious crime in Germany, more so than what Facebook understood it to be.
When you have a global operation online there is always legal risk that something that seemed ok in one place is suddenly criminal in a particular country. Whether it be gambling or any other stuff that CCP has not clearly dealt with can always backfire. Can happen to any company where people can access their service from all over the world.
EDIT; Just for record, despite what happened with IWI, I do wish that EVE continues and thrive. But whether being vague on issues is a smart thing or will later be penalised as negligence remains to be seen :p
"When faced with my demons, I clothe them and feed them,
and I smile, yes I smile as they are taking me over" - Strange Glue
|
Samsara Toldya
Academy of Contradictory Behaviour
1077
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 18:26:46 -
[625] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Or maybe you could not be so deliberately obtuse.... Nov 8th - no updated EULA.
Told'ya why.
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 00:14:34 -
[626] - Quote
Quote:Alpha characters may not be logged in simultaneously from the same location as other active EVE Online clients. For details please see our End User License Agreement
What does this mean exactly ? I could go to coffee shop and try to play eve online on my notebook, but because their wi-fi is free and open, someone 150 meters away could also try to play eve online with alpha character via their wi-fi (same ip).
Does this mean i will not be able to connect via the same ip or is this locked onto device (as per device) ? |
Freelancer117
so you want to be a Hero
514
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 14:42:22 -
[627] - Quote
New EULA says:
REQUIREMENTS TO PLAY To play EVE, you must: (i) purchase and download a copy of the Software; (ii) establish a valid account within the Game (an "Account") and keep that Account active by paying the subscription fees on a timely basis; (iii) obtain and maintain your own Internet access (Internet access is required to play EVE; CCP is not responsible for your access to the Internet); and (iv) comply with the EULA.
Is CCP games intention for Eve online Buy to Play
Eve online is :
A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online
D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
|
Freelancer117
so you want to be a Hero
514
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 19:39:04 -
[628] - Quote
Freelancer117 wrote:New EULA says: REQUIREMENTS TO PLAY To play EVE, you must: (i) purchase and download a copy of the Software; (ii) establish a valid account within the Game (an "Account") and keep that Account active by paying the subscription fees on a timely basis; (iii) obtain and maintain your own Internet access (Internet access is required to play EVE; CCP is not responsible for your access to the Internet); and (iv) comply with the EULA. Is CCP games intention for Eve online Buy to Play
REQUIREMENTS TO PLAY To play EVE, you must: (i) download a copy of the Software; (ii) establish a valid account within the Game (an "Account"); (iii) obtain and maintain your own Internet access (Internet access is required to play EVE; CCP is not responsible for your access to the Internet); and (iv) comply with the EULA.
Nice change CCP, just in time
Eve online is :
A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online
D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
|
Ruthbar
Thuggee
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 07:31:18 -
[629] - Quote
hello,
i would like to see clarification re alpha accounts and location of ppl playing them. there is a significant difference what theb patch notes say and what the EULA states.
EULA vs. Patch Notes: the patch notes state
Quote:"Alpha characters may not be logged in simultaneously from the same location as other active EVE Online clients" such passus can not be found in the EULA, there is written
Quote:"You may establish more than one Account for each copy of the Software licensed. You are however not allowed to play EVE by using more than one Account at the same time, unless you pay a subscription fee for each of the Accounts you intend to use for that purpose." the EULA makes no reference to the location, can you please clarify ?
thanks
Have FuN! Ruthbar |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21]:: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |