| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Proton Power
Amarr
Power Corrupts Tech
    |
Posted - 2008.08.17 11:42:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Mr Horizontal
Originally by: EBANK Ricdic
I am not issuing any isk to anyone unless there is a problem with the lottery. You should catch me on MSN if you need clarification Horizontal 
OK. Seems the OP already has 10b, he's just putting in EBANK to hold as collateral for the life of the venture, while the OP collects a further 10b to and runs the lottery with that. We just monitor that everything's hunky dory.
This I have no problem with, since we're just holding the collateral, and we've done before with SYDR.
Overcomplication ftl.
WoW. Would have explained a lot from the start and probably saved a 3 page thread.
Earn Isk on your Idle Isk Today! |
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 11:51:00 -
[62]
Actually my first post and a pile of my subsequent posts stated it. Looks like some people missed it though so I will quote it again, post 7 in this thread
Originally by: EBANK Ricdic
1) The ISK is paid to secure the lottery before the lottery begins (rather than EBANK needing to accept the deposits
I have bolded and underlined the relevant points.
 |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 12:01:00 -
[63]
I read it and I think my concerns, for eBank, still stands. (And yes, before you say it, who cares about what I think about ebank - I left.) This is like the online casino thing that was recently raised. I've been talking with the person coding it and I'm tentatively on board with the project. The major point that comes up is: Auditing. It is here that the real work is done regardless of how much isk is handled upfront. I am dubious that Ric will have the time or the patience to handle this matter if it goes wrong somehow. I simply think that eBank should husband their reputation more carefully. No one is above scandal and should not act like they are or ever would be. PS: Just to re-visit, I helped to start ebank so never think I don't care for anything my hands have touched. Doesn't stop me from disagreeing, I did that while there as well. 
To Shar -verb:
1 - To say what you mean.
2 - To say what it means.
3 - To say something mean. |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 12:04:00 -
[64]
Let me also add this: I'm with Shadarle on this one.
Lotteries have been discussed many times at eBank. We've explored it over and over again. If eBank should get involved in one, lending it's reputation, then it should be very much like the relationship with Proton. The person so hired manages the lottery for eBank. The person gets the standard monthly stipend as an eBank staff member and that is it.
eBank intends to be an organization, let it be so in full.
To Shar -verb:
1 - To say what you mean.
2 - To say what it means.
3 - To say something mean. |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 12:29:00 -
[65]
Edited by: LaVista Vista on 17/08/2008 12:29:01
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Let me also add this: I'm with Shadarle on this one.
Lotteries have been discussed many times at eBank. We've explored it over and over again. If eBank should get involved in one, lending it's reputation, then it should be very much like the relationship with Proton. The person so hired manages the lottery for eBank. The person gets the standard monthly stipend as an eBank staff member and that is it.
eBank intends to be an organization, let it be so in full.
I agree with this. I must admit I'm by no means in agreement with this whole deal. But well 
Edited for carification.
 |
Roguehalo
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 13:22:00 -
[66]
A lottery involving Ebank would be very simple to organise.
The organisation isn't the problem.....the problem is would there be a demand for the tickets?
For instance I could lodge 5 billion isk with Ebank and run a lottery. The charge would be 5% commission on ticket sales split equally between my self and Ebank.
The winning number could be say the bonus ball of UKs Saturday lottery
There you have the bare bones of a fair transparent and fraud free lottery. It's not exactly rocket science
|
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 13:36:00 -
[67]
Rogue has basically said above what I have been saying the last 3 pages.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 15:27:00 -
[68]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Edited by: LaVista Vista on 17/08/2008 12:29:01
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Let me also add this: I'm with Shadarle on this one.
Lotteries have been discussed many times at eBank. We've explored it over and over again. If eBank should get involved in one, lending it's reputation, then it should be very much like the relationship with Proton. The person so hired manages the lottery for eBank. The person gets the standard monthly stipend as an eBank staff member and that is it.
eBank intends to be an organization, let it be so in full.
I agree with this. I must admit I'm by no means in agreement with this whole deal. But well
Edited for carification.
The reason what I've been saying makes sense is because I've been advocating on behalf of E-Bank. Everything I've been arguing has been that E-Bank should be getting more out of this because they deserve to be getting more out of it. That's why it has been so strange to see some E-Bank people arguing with me that they don't in-fact want more... even though no one is really arguing that they deserve it.
If E-Bank is going to put itself on the line with this thing and take the possible chance of this going really wrong and having to clean it up then they should be getting paid for their potential trouble. Especially considering E-Bank is the only reason this thing works, without E-Bank there is no lottery. It's not like E-Bank is providing an optional service, they are providing the essential service.
|
CornerStoner
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 16:53:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Proton Power
WoW. Would have explained a lot from the start and probably saved a 3 page thread.
No Doubt!
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Edited by: LaVista Vista on 17/08/2008 12:29:01
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Let me also add this: I'm with Shadarle on this one.
Lotteries have been discussed many times at eBank. We've explored it over and over again. If eBank should get involved in one, lending it's reputation, then it should be very much like the relationship with Proton. The person so hired manages the lottery for eBank. The person gets the standard monthly stipend as an eBank staff member and that is it.
eBank intends to be an organization, let it be so in full.
I agree with this. I must admit I'm by no means in agreement with this whole deal. But well
Edited for carification.
The reason what I've been saying makes sense is because I've been advocating on behalf of E-Bank. Everything I've been arguing has been that E-Bank should be getting more out of this because they deserve to be getting more out of it. That's why it has been so strange to see some E-Bank people arguing with me that they don't in-fact want more... even though no one is really arguing that they deserve it.
If E-Bank is going to put itself on the line with this thing and take the possible chance of this going really wrong and having to clean it up then they should be getting paid for their potential trouble. Especially considering E-Bank is the only reason this thing works, without E-Bank there is no lottery. It's not like E-Bank is providing an optional service, they are providing the essential service.
I agree with this. Without EBank this lottery would fail. With Ric having stated that the actual work involved would be minimal when compared with the returns it stands to reason that an EBank Lottery could be a good venture...in income AND "advertising".
I have issues with the amount of tickets the OP can sell at 200mil each given his status as an unknown. Once a month isnt enough to attract the attention to sustain it either IMO. If EBank (or the OP) set it up as a weekly event and lowered the ticket prices considerably it could fly I think.
In any case EBank should get a larger cut of the profits simply because it is securing the entire operation.
|
Vanora Kime
Caldari
Reapage Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 22:02:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Vanora Kime on 17/08/2008 22:03:47
Ok, I was away for the weekend and this thread seems to be opening up some more topics than I intended it to. The only thing I wanted to know was if some of the MD community would play in an EBank-secured lottery. The lottery itself would obviously have to be posted in Sell Orders anyways because that is the only place where it is allowed. I was just hoping to get some of the MD regulars interested and buy a ticket or two to get me started there (as EBank isn't as trusted/known there as here in MD). Seems I got some clear answers by now and a lot of discussion around them.
To catch up with some questions (I won't list them all):
Originally by: Mr Horizontal
OK. Seems the OP already has 10b, he's just putting in EBANK to hold as collateral for the life of the venture, while the OP collects a further 10b to and runs the lottery with that.
Maybe I didn't make that clear enough at the start, but this is exactly what it's about.
Yes, I already have that 10b and I'll deposit it to EBank before any of the tickets are sold. The condition to get it back would be that there are no open lotteries or payment disputes of any kind. I will then run the lottery from the tickets I sell and pay the winners with it (or pay back all tickets in case of an unsold lottery). If everything runs smoothly, EBank will have nothing to do at all, my collateral ISK stays there and I'll move on to the next lottery. When I finally quit running lotteries (or am convinced this absolutely doesn't work out), I'll get my collateral back from EBank after everything is finished.
Originally by: Pink Kiwi
When it comes to paying prize money, will Ebank or Vanora Kime be paying the winners?
I will be paying the winners, as I will do the whole process of the lottery - from starting a thread, advertising/bumping, updating ticket lists, checking transactions, determining the winners, contacting them and paying the prize. Or in the case of a not completely sold lottery, refunding all buyers. EBank will only need to act in the following cases:
- I scam all buyers (again: pointless, I deposited the full value at EBank before): EBank refunds buyers, using the sales thread and API key.
- A winner claims that I didn't send the prize: EBank checks my transactions via API and publicly states what happened.
- I claim I didn't get the ISK from a ticket buyer: same as above.
- Ticket buyers doesn'tget their ticket reserved in thread, allthough they sent the ISK: again as above.
If you check past lotteries, these kind of problems simply do not happen often at all.
(to be continued ...)
Edit: formatting of quotes.
|
|
Vanora Kime
Caldari
Reapage Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 22:03:00 -
[71]
Originally by: CornerStoner
I have issues with the amount of tickets the OP can sell at 200mil each given his status as an unknown. Once a month isnt enough to attract the attention to sustain it either IMO. If EBank (or the OP) set it up as a weekly event and lowered the ticket prices considerably it could fly I think.
Well, I don't know how fast the lottery would sell. I'm expecting to it to sell slower at the start, but once it is established and people can see it works, I think it will speed up and may become a regular event. Again, this is why I started in MD: If a few MD veterans are willing to play, they'd somehow publicly state that they trust in the 'third party' I've chosen. As you correctly said, without EBank this lottery will fail. So I started to ask where EBank is well known and trusted - in MD.
On another topic, there seems to be a dispute within EBank about this whole 'getting involved in a lottery' issue. I don't see how you get involved directly, as you are just holding the collateral to ease peoples' concerns about security. Yes, if I run with the ISK you'd have to refund the buyers, which would involve some work (reconstruction the tickets sold/buyers, transferring the ISK etc). But still you'll not be the one running the lottery, I will. But as some guys already said, this is an internal EBank topic and this thread was really only about checking how much interest there is to play in this kind of a lottery.
I hope you will resolve that issue clearly, because I need a strong trusted party for this :-)
|
KISOGOKU
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 23:08:00 -
[72]
Edited by: KISOGOKU on 17/08/2008 23:09:11
why ebank deserve more?What will they do except holding isk in wallet ?And how much will this deserve? Why someone need to use them if they will pay 50% or more to ebank instead of using chribbas 3th party service?
Edit: spelling
Originally by: Shadarle
Everything I've been arguing has been that E-Bank should be getting more out of this because they deserve to be getting more out of it.
|
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 23:10:00 -
[73]
Shadarle regarding your specific issue (that being EBANK's cut in the profit) this is a preliminary test that I will be overseeing to determine the viability of this operation. I offered the operator the percentages I did with express advice that this was subject to change for future lotteries if it all goes without a hitch.
I have spoken with Shar and pointed out my 'Grand Plan' assuming this works but I don't really want to let the cat out of the bag in a public sense right this second.
I would like you to accept that this is a test bed lottery and that the minimal return is acceptable to us at this point during testing and that there is a means to an end. I am personally overseeing this first operation to make sure it goes smoothly before taking a much larger step.
Final Note: No, EBANK will not be doing their own lotteries |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 00:14:00 -
[74]
Originally by: KISOGOKU
Edited by: KISOGOKU on 17/08/2008 23:09:11
why ebank deserve more?What will they do except holding isk in wallet ?And how much will this deserve? Why someone need to use them if they will pay 50% or more to ebank instead of using chribbas 3th party service?
Edit: spelling
Originally by: Shadarle
Everything I've been arguing has been that E-Bank should be getting more out of this because they deserve to be getting more out of it.
Re-read the thread, I've stated this too many times to repeat it for you.
|
cosmoray
Cosmoray Construction
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 00:21:00 -
[75]
Most of the posts have shown that people would accept a lotto/lottery run by EBank but not the original OP.
Doesn't really matter to me because I have a problem with gambling when the odds are higher than the payout.
Odds of drawing one of the 6 numbers = 8.33/1
payout = 7.5/1
|
Roguehalo
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 06:53:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Vanora Kime
Originally by: CornerStoner
I have issues with the amount of tickets the OP can sell at 200mil each given his status as an unknown. Once a month isnt enough to attract the attention to sustain it either IMO. If EBank (or the OP) set it up as a weekly event and lowered the ticket prices considerably it could fly I think.
Well, I don't know how fast the lottery would sell. I'm expecting to it to sell slower at the start, but once it is established and people can see it works, I think it will speed up and may become a regular event. Again, this is why I started in MD: If a few MD veterans are willing to play, they'd somehow publicly state that they trust in the 'third party' I've chosen. As you correctly said, without EBank this lottery will fail. So I started to ask where EBank is well known and trusted - in MD.
On another topic, there seems to be a dispute within EBank about this whole 'getting involved in a lottery' issue. I don't see how you get involved directly, as you are just holding the collateral to ease peoples' concerns about security. Yes, if I run with the ISK you'd have to refund the buyers, which would involve some work (reconstruction the tickets sold/buyers, transferring the ISK etc). But still you'll not be the one running the lottery, I will. But as some guys already said, this is an internal EBank topic and this thread was really only about checking how much interest there is to play in this kind of a lottery.
I hope you will resolve that issue clearly, because I need a strong trusted party for this :-)
I would suggest that the lottery operates at regular fixed intervals irrespective of how many tickets are sold.
Assuming you only sell 50% of the tickets and assuming that the winning number as produced by an independant verifiable source hasn't been sold then just 'rollover' the tickets you HAVE sold and then continue to try sell more by the time of the next draw.
This way once a ticket has been sold it is in play until such time that the regular draw produces a winner.
Incidentally I suggested in a previous post using the bonus ball of the UKs Saturday night National Lottery. Probably a better bet would be to use the FIRST number drawn in an independantly verifiable 3rd party lottery.
|
Vanora Kime
Caldari
Reapage Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 12:06:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Roguehalo
I would suggest that the lottery operates at regular fixed intervals irrespective of how many tickets are sold.
Assuming you only sell 50% of the tickets and assuming that the winning number as produced by an independant verifiable source hasn't been sold then just 'rollover' the tickets you HAVE sold and then continue to try sell more by the time of the next draw.
This way once a ticket has been sold it is in play until such time that the regular draw produces a winner.
Incidentally I suggested in a previous post using the bonus ball of the UKs Saturday night National Lottery. Probably a better bet would be to use the FIRST number drawn in an independantly verifiable 3rd party lottery.
I'm actually planning it almost that way. There will be somehow 'fixed' intervals, I'll set a timeframe for each lottery. If any tickets remain unsold until that, the ticket buyers will have the option to keep their tickets for the next lottery. But I want to offer them the option to get their ISK back, as it may take a while to sell the whole lottery. I won't draw the winners without all tickets being sold, as I could not pay the prizes if a sold ticket number would get drawn. And I'd like to have fixed prizes, so the buyers know what they can win before they play.
About determining the winners: I don't want to have one single winner with one large prize, I'll have six winners (the six winning balls of UK National, all treated equally). A reason for this is that UK National publishes their drawn numbers sorted by value and not in the sequence they had actually been drawn. So if I would take only the first number, the lower ticket numbers will have much higher chances to win. Same goes for taking any other single ball (except the bonus ball).
Also, more winners means better chances for the buyers, which I hope will lead to the tickets being sold faster. Actually it's around a 13% chance to win with a single ticket this way, which is quite good for a Lotto :-)
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 16:01:00 -
[78]
I'd rather see the exchange market be opened to futures trading on things like EVE events, wars, etc... and even RL events like sports games, etc..
If it can handle what I think it can handle, the bank is in a very lucrative position to spin off its own Las Vegas. |
SencneS
Amarr
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 16:08:00 -
[79]
Edited by: SencneS on 18/08/2008 16:09:33
Quote:
Person x would like to do something to make some ISK and offer a reward for those who participate in their plan.
Person x seeks a way to attract people into using or taking part of their project.
Person x sees that entity z has a reputation for being trusted and that entity z offers support.
Person x contacts entity z and make a deal to secure person x's plan at 100% of total possible loss of ISK. If person x scams, or has real life issues etc entity z will reimburse 100% of the public isk.
Entity z gives person x the right to use Entity z's name to attract people in to person x's project.
Person x advertises that entity z is securing their project at 100%.
Just what is it about the above that people are having a problem with?
I honestly don't see any reason to attempt to combat the above other then an attempt to stunt the growth of the secondary market. Because that is what you really are doing, trying to combat the services and the people using those services is a direct attempt to prevent the expansion of tools and extra curricula activities outside of the EVE client.
Edit:- I broke the forums using the code option instead of quote, changed to quote to make it readable.
Amarr for Life |
Rho'varo
Diversified Operational Services
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:53:00 -
[80]
Originally by: "Vanora Kime"
Would you be interested in playing in a 'high stakes' lottery if the full value was secured by EBank?
If I were to participate in a lottery, EBANK holding collateral and being permitted to audit transaction records via API would go some of the way toward convincing me a particular lottery is above board. It doesn't necessarily go all the way, though, and might still leave me with some undesirable alternatives, e.g., if the organiser does a runner, might I need to grant EBANK access to my own API to prove I'd sent ISK?
|
|
CornerStoner
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 20:28:00 -
[81]
Originally by: SencneS
Edited by: SencneS on 18/08/2008 16:09:33
Quote:
Person x would like to do something to make some ISK and offer a reward for those who participate in their plan.
Person x seeks a way to attract people into using or taking part of their project.
Person x sees that entity z has a reputation for being trusted and that entity z offers support.
Person x contacts entity z and make a deal to secure person x's plan at 100% of total possible loss of ISK. If person x scams, or has real life issues etc entity z will reimburse 100% of the public isk.
Entity z gives person x the right to use Entity z's name to attract people in to person x's project.
Person x advertises that entity z is securing their project at 100%.
Just what is it about the above that people are having a problem with?
I honestly don't see any reason to attempt to combat the above other then an attempt to stunt the growth of the secondary market. Because that is what you really are doing, trying to combat the services and the people using those services is a direct attempt to prevent the expansion of tools and extra curricula activities outside of the EVE client.
Edit:- I broke the forums using the code option instead of quote, changed to quote to make it readable.
^Total rubbish^
Maybe if you read the entire thread you would've seen that the security of this entire operation wasn't made clear, by the people offering the security, until page 3.
|
Vanora Kime
Caldari
Reapage Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 20:34:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Rho'varo
Originally by: "Vanora Kime"
Would you be interested in playing in a 'high stakes' lottery if the full value was secured by EBank?
If I were to participate in a lottery, EBANK holding collateral and being permitted to audit transaction records via API would go some of the way toward convincing me a particular lottery is above board. It doesn't necessarily go all the way, though, and might still leave me with some undesirable alternatives, e.g., if the organiser does a runner, might I need to grant EBANK access to my own API to prove I'd sent ISK?
Well, even if I'd run and change my API key, there'd still be the sales thread where all buyers need to pick their numbers publicly. This should be enough to reconstruct all sales for that lottery. I wouldn't say that you'd need to grant EBank access to your own API key in that case, but it would speed up the refunding I guess. |
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 22:48:00 -
[83]
Originally by: CornerStoner
^Total rubbish^
Maybe if you read the entire thread you would've seen that the security of this entire operation wasn't made clear, by the people offering the security, until page 3.
Maybe if 'you' read the whole thread you would see that on Post 7 (on page 1) I clarified the situation regarding the security. A few people misinterpreted it however. |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 23:27:00 -
[84]
Originally by: EBANK Ricdic
Originally by: CornerStoner
^Total rubbish^
Maybe if you read the entire thread you would've seen that the security of this entire operation wasn't made clear, by the people offering the security, until page 3.
Maybe if 'you' read the whole thread you would see that on Post 7 (on page 1) I clarified the situation regarding the security. A few people misinterpreted it however.
When I read that post I took it to mean those were things you'd like to see done, not things that were being done. And even so, Mr. H contradicted you later in the thread and diff E-Bank posters posted different things.
I can't understand why you guys have such a hard time muzzling your people.
Almost every time there is an issue with E-Bank it's due to the constant posting of every single E-Bank member. They always end up contradicting each other or adding flame to the fire by saying things that shouldn't have been said.
The best advice was given way back, have one person designated to speak on behalf of E-Bank (or 2 or 3 even) but allowing the free-for-all that exists now is clearly not beneficial for E-Bank. Mr. H had no knowledge at all on the specifics of this topic but he just HAD to make posts which ignited a pile of dry leaves. Why didn't you have a post on your internal boards explaining the situation to the rest of the e-Bank people so they knew either A) not post about it and let you handle it or B) what was going on so they could post intelligently.
If we bring up every E-Bank thread that got out of hand I bet you could see the main reason was the constant posting by too many different E-Bank people.
If you guys really care about making E-Bank great then you have to understand that most of you saying nothing is the best way to accomplish it. This is why corporations and governments have spokespeople who talk on behalf of who they represent, no one else is allowed to so as to prevent a free-for-all. |
CornerStoner
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 23:30:00 -
[85]
Originally by: EBANK Ricdic
Maybe if 'you' read the whole thread you would see that on Post 7 (on page 1) I clarified the situation regarding the security. A few people misinterpreted it however.
LOL. I read it allright. I guess the "few" people who misinterpeted it just happened to include a few of your own board members huh? (post 36, 62, & 66)
SencneS, in a nutshell, said that people who were questioning this venture were intentionally stunting the growth of the secondary market. It was heroic for you to come to the defense though!
In any case theres no need to digress this thread yet again. I withdraw.
|
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 01:16:00 -
[86]
So back on topic, stop dragging it away Shadarle |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 03:16:00 -
[87]
/me is boggled that this is still an issue at all, and wonders why it didnt stop after the first page. |
Saint Lazarus
Spiorad ag fanaiocht
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 05:07:00 -
[88]
Yea this seemingly simple thread turned into a bit of a dozzle 
And for the record I wouldnt play an EBank secured lotto cause it'd have the same low chances of winning as any other lotto |
SencneS
Amarr
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 13:28:00 -
[89]
Edited by: SencneS on 19/08/2008 13:30:37
Originally by: Saint Lazarus
....cause it'd have the same low chances of winning as any other lotto
I was thinking of that as well, it seems like high stakes for a low chance. Someone else had the risk to reward ratio before.
Odds of Winning = 8.33/1
Payout Ratio = 7.5/1
Maybe run the lotto every week. And Dynamically set the reward. So lets say that 15 people buy tickets. Out of those 15 tickets if only 2 numbers hit they get 1.5b, If only 1 number hits, that lucky person gets 3bil.
If no numbers hit, people have the chance of rolling over their ticket number to next week, or backing out, in which they get their 200mil back. This is ONLY if no numbers win. If there is one winner, the rest get nothing, and no carry over to the following week.
Of cause with the above plan, you would have to sell 6 tickets minimal otherwise people would get less back then they put in, if all 6 numbers where drawn.
Edit:- Clarification reasons. |
cosmoray
Cosmoray Construction
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 14:36:00 -
[90]
To the OP, if you are worried about the use of EBank (remember not everyone knows about them) why not secure your money with Chribba. Make a one time payment and secure funds that way.
The one person / entity with a rep considered beyond question by most players in EVE, and probably better than EBank's. |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |