Jump to content

Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy


Azimech
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Part tools is the system for exporting parts into also usable format. In a very real way, all parts are created using part tools.  N very much the same way the missions will be created in the mission creator.  There's intellectual property before it gets to part tools, but there could be construed to be intellectual property before ideas get to the mission creator.  

Ithink you misunderstood the role ksp part tools takes.  it doesn't read parts, it creates them from assorted resources.

I absolutely understand that PartTools creates a file from the resources - this sense of the word 'create' is distinct from creating in an intellectual property sense. My point is, PartTools doesn't create those resources. KSP itself is needed just as much as PartTools for any mod to be usable, and if the ownership of mods not using PartTools remains with the creator, so too would mods that use PartTools to become functional. No resources need be created for Mission Creator from what we know about it. The resources are the IP. T2 cannot redistribute mods that use your IP.

If anything, I would say you might be able to make an argument that T2 can't redistribute certain missions either, depending upon their content (copyright-able storytelling as opposed to historically factual orbital parameters which can't be owned).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

Calm down folks.

I work in software. I detest legalese and EULAs and licensing ballyhoo and such. But unfortunately in the legal-economic system we have, it's not possible to do without them, or to do with flowers-and-ponies-and-rainbows versions.

Thing with licenses like that in products like KSP is, they're never intended to be consistently or strictly enforced. Never.

The purpose is that if the license owner gets into a dispute with someone over the IP, there will be a clause in the license they can use to beat them over the head. Who to hammer legally is a business decision, not a legal decision. And if TT thinks modding and Twitch and KerbalX and what have you are good for the product, then they're going to keep supporting that regardless of what the license says.

The license itself AFAICT is practically boilerplate. It has zero bearing on what TT's intentions are in re KSP. They're not idiots though and I have no reason to disbelieve their assertion that they understand the importance of the modding scene to KSP and will continue to support it.

Doesn't much matter if it's boilerplate in my opinion. If anything that makes it worse in that Take Two haven't bothered to give this any thought and have just slapped together a set of standard clauses without really considering what they're doing. 

The basic problem I have with these terms (and by extension any similar terms and conditions, although KSP is the first time I've cared enough to look at them) is that they're quite so skewed in favour of Take Two. They're demanding that we treat Squad's work and their (Take Two's) rights in that work with respect and in the way they want them to be treated. That's fine - I don't have a problem with that. However, they then completely fail to extend that same respect to work created by the playerbase by throwing in a bunch of clauses giving them the legal right to do what they want with player created work if they so choose and if they think they can get away with it.

Forget all the legalese, at heart this is a question of courtesy and treating others as you'd like to be treated yourself. Take Two have failed badly in that respect.

To me, it doesn't matter if they don't ever intend to enforce those land-grab clauses, it's the fact that they feel the need to include them in the first place that grates. And if they don't intend to enforce them in practice - well they could just take them out and save everyone a lot of wasted time and heartache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Poodmund said:

you're asking for the mod developers to potentially operated and continue without any security and protection of their intellectual property

They always did. Modders are entirely at the mercy of the developer of the game they're modding. They can change the license at any time or release a version that obsoletes their mods or makes modding impossible or at least much more difficult at any time. The only reason they don't do it is if they believe mods are good for the game.

Modders do retain copyright to the work they actually did, but since it's 100% dependent on the game they're modding this doesn't amount to much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

But unfortunately in the legal-economic system we have, it's not possible to do without them...

Sure it is.  We just all accept it now.  There was a time before all this nonsense after all.

I'll just continue my life with a perpetual eye roll knowing that it's only going to get worse and hope it never actually affects me.

Edited by klgraham1013
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, KSK said:

@Just Jim - that's my reading of it, yes. The part that gets me really riled up though is where they don't even appear to be obliged to credit you as the author. 

Well, I hope this is all just a formality... and I seriously doubt Emiko Station would ever get to that point. But if someone from TT reads through the comments, they're going to find several long discussions started by people asking if and when it'll be published.... and weirder things have happened. And if they were interested, I would hope TT would be cooler than to just try and steal it.

Besides, I have the ultimate bargaining chip... I end each chapter with it... hehehe

The Saga of Emiko Station is far, far from over!!!

So.... if they want to know how it ends... they'll play nice. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Sure it is.  We just all accept it now.  There was a time before all this nonsense after all.

And there will be a time after it. But until the Revolution, this is what we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is kinda funny but also kind of sad. This is why we can't have nice things. Indie games get too big, stop being indie games. Actually, while I still love KSP, I do not like any of the directions it has taken over the last 18 months. Only the mods have kept it fresh

 

15 hours ago, Gaarst said:

This segment looks a bit strange, especially the last sentence. How does that even work? What if the modder writes a licence in which he includes "No purported appropriation terms or licence modification by a hosting website shall have any force or effect" (or simply uses an ARR licence), who would have the last word?

Simple. Whoever has the most and most highly paid lawyers. Unless its a huge case in which case I believe you may have to buy one or more judges?

25 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

And there will be a time after it. But until the Revolution, this is what we have.

Viva la revolution. 

At least as an end user, but not a creator, and not in the US, I have limited (not blanket) protection from the enforcement of EULAs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KSK said:

The basic problem I have with these terms (and by extension any similar terms and conditions, although KSP is the first time I've cared enough to look at them) is that they're quite so skewed in favour of Take Two. They're demanding that we treat Squad's work and their (Take Two's) rights in that work with respect and in the way they want them to be treated. That's fine - I don't have a problem with that. However, they then completely fail to extend that same respect to work created by the playerbase by throwing in a bunch of clauses giving them the legal right to do what they want with player created work if they so choose and if they think they can get away with it.

While the legalise might be skewed toward T2, the userbase has one truly gigantic ace up their sleeve, and T2 is fully aware of that.

We're the ones who provide the cash.

While we don't know what T2 paid, I'm pretty sure it's not a trivial amount. Surely they might go ahead and take all the mods and sell them as their own. But it will kill the KSP ecosystem, and with it any revenue they expect to make from it in the future.

To be honest, your biggest fear regarding T2 should not be that they "turn evil" and are hellbent on destroying KSP. They want their investment to prosper. The biggest fear is that they're not touching anything out of fear of destroying their revenue stream, and they don't change anything. Then again, neither was Squad; which is why I think T2 is a positive development. It can only get better (looking forward to a long series of high quality expansion packs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not as 'the sky is falling' as most here but understand keeping a cautious eye out. I'm also not a lawyer and tend to glaze over when reading this stuff.

Disclaimers out of the way, it seems to my uneducated guess that if you publish a mod on github or elsewhere with a license attached then post a thread about said mod with your license info then you are safe. Unless I'm missing something the mod does not exist on this forum. 

With fan fiction, if you start a blog and post your chapters there first you should retain copyright. I really think you are safe anyway. I suspect T2 is not stupid and wouldn't alienate an established community.

I do have some concern that DRM (is that the correct term?) might be added. I never run my game through Steam. I have crappy limited internet and would likely no longer update KSP beyond my current 1.3.1 install if I had to be connected to the internet to start the game. I generally only use one install but I do have all my old versions saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2018 at 5:02 PM, adsii1970 said:

And if I am reading this completely, then technically could fan-fiction be considered a "taboo" subject now?

On 2/22/2018 at 5:16 PM, Just Jim said:

I don't think so... technically, as writers, I think we already own the copyrights... at least in this respect. 

Fanfiction of software (which, now that I think about it, seems like a really weird concept) looks to be a derivative work (PDF). So no, you would not own the copyright. Same with all mods. Now IANAL but one could make the case - as in, a lawyer in a trial or pre-trial hearing could claim - that it's been customary for years, encouraged by Squad and TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.  and therefore we have been granted an implicit license. But this would be tried in Manhattan, New York, which I'd imagine is pretty full of petty writers and etc who might be very very against this argument. And, of course, should it get to trial or pre-trial hearing, the opposing (corporate) lawyer would claim Nuh Uh, No Such Thing.

On 2/22/2018 at 5:16 PM, Just Jim said:

The problem I'm worried about is when I've quoted songs and such... although I've always tried to credit the artists who sang and/or performed them. And I know I'm not the only one to quote stuff.

The music industry has historically been rabid about copyright of lyrics, but I don't think there aren't enough lawyers in the entire history of the world to whack all the Internet infringements of the last year. But yeah, no; 'fair use' for song lyrics is pretty strict, and I don't think your uses qualify.  And giving credit does NOT count.

BUT

All of this requires that someone (TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC. or whomever) actually bother to pursue the matter in court. At that point, if they want your buns, you get to fight a corporate team of lawyers in a place you probably don't live and therefore have to hire a lawyer of your own in that jurisdiction, which would financially destroy many of us all by itself, never even mind what the verdict of the trial would turn out to be.

In other words, SNAFU in modern America. Looks like Squad didn't have Real Lawyers (TM) advising them, and Take Two does, and Real Lawyers... well, there's a reason people like to talk about killing all of them. (which is older than you might think). They're just grabbing everything they can reach just in case it ever becomes useful.

I wish we could do gladiatorial combat or duels as a legal option. The common person would have a better chance of winning.

On 2/23/2018 at 9:28 AM, Tyko said:

Have you guys ever actually read the fine print on an apartment lease agreement? Now THOSE are scary - at least in the U.S.

Mine the last several years have said that if I get arrested - not convicted, but arrested - for a felony, that therefore I have voluntarily violated my lease agreement, and therefore I can be evicted immediately while owing the remainder of the lease payments (also immediately), and they can throw my stuff out on the lawn as well. If they feel like it.  Well, do ya feel lucky, punk? My nightmare (one of my nightmares...) is that I grossly offend an apartment manager - my politics or something - and they make an anonymous claim to the police that I'm making & selling Illegul Drugz, and when the cops get done with me "Never mind!" I get back to find passersby sneering over my clothing and books because everything else is already gone.

 

4 hours ago, KSK said:

[...] they then completely fail to extend that same respect to work created by the playerbase by throwing in a bunch of clauses giving them the legal right to do what they want with player created work if they so choose and if they think they can get away with it.

Forget all the legalese, at heart this is a question of courtesy and treating others as you'd like to be treated yourself. Take Two have failed badly in that respect.

To me, it doesn't matter if they don't ever intend to enforce those land-grab clauses, it's the fact that they feel the need to include them in the first place that grates. And if they don't intend to enforce them in practice - well they could just take them out and save everyone a lot of wasted time and heartache.

SNAFU, my friend. This is how 'everyone' does business these days. There is no respect, there is no decency, there is no assumption of reasonable-ness; just a gun to your head or your non-tangible life (credit records, rental history, bank accounts, retirement & pension, employment...). All you can do is hope you never attract enough attention to make it worth the effort for them to get you.

Edited by InterplanetJanet
Brikoleur IS right, this is pretty standard stuff. What I resent is that I am hostage to the goodwill, not just of the present corporation and its officers and employees, but those who control or influence that corporation as long as records exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

They always did. Modders are entirely at the mercy of the developer of the game they're modding. They can change the license at any time or release a version that obsoletes their mods or makes modding impossible or at least much more difficult at any time. The only reason they don't do it is if they believe mods are good for the game.

Modders do retain copyright to the work they actually did, but since it's 100% dependent on the game they're modding this doesn't amount to much.

See, but here's the thing. This new license DIRECTLY goes against what you have said. People above have posted this clause many times, so I'm sure you've already seen it. I don't know how linking sites works, but AFAIK, your stuff is theirs. 

One other question for @SQUAD: does using this forum after March 5 mean we agree to the new terms? Does opening up a version of the game not shipped with those terms? Does stopping by the website or taking a look at the API count? Because I may just have to say my goodbyes and quit if any of these things do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

This new license DIRECTLY goes against what you have said.

Losing copyright on your work if you're a modder? Unenforceable.

Again: what's in the license doesn't matter. Its only purpose is to serve as a stick to beat people with if the publisher feels they need a beating.

Example: if someone has the bright idea to make a Kerd Reich mod, draping the VAB in swastikas and supplying barbed wire, cattle cars, and gas canisters as parts, and TT feels this reflects poorly on the game, they will want a nasty license to be able to shut it down easily.

I don't like this system either, but that's the way it works. There's really no way to opt out of it. You can work to change it, you can push to overthrow it, you can resist it, but whatever you do, you're going to be a part of it. And if what you're doing happens to be publishing a game and expecting to make money off it, then you're going to have to play by the rules that are there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, InterplanetJanet said:

Fanfiction of software (which, now that I think about it, seems like a really weird concept) looks to be a derivative work (PDF). So no, you would not own the copyright.

Hmm, okay. From reading that link, it looks like any new material, additions to or changes in the original work, can be copyrighted, ownership of that copyright going to the author in the first instance, unless anyone (for example an employer) has a claim to that copyright through an agreement with the author. Happy to have that debate though. And of course, that 'agreement with the author' part takes us right back to the forum terms and conditions.

As far as I recall, 'Kerbal' is a Squad trademark, so I'm presuming that if you did want to publish your fanfic for sale, you'd need permission from Squad / Take Two to use that trademark. I presume you'd also need permission to use whatever copyrights Squad / Take Two have in the 'original work' that your fanfic was based on. Those are just legal technicalities though - at the end of the day you're basing your work on somebody else's work, so getting permission from that other person first is just the right thing to do.

Thinking about it, KSP fanfics would be an interesting exercise in original works vs derivative works simply because Squad have provided so little canon material to work with. As a result a given KSP story tends to be a very small amount of original work mixed in with a heaping portion of new material. A weird concept it may be ( :) ) but from a writer's perspective, that lack of canon material can be the best of both worlds - you have a couple of recognisable 'hooks' to hang a story off but almost completely free rein to develop that story. Heck, I've seen a couple of KSP stories that don't even involve spaceflight and a several others where the spaceflight parts are really just background to the story proper.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, there is legal precedent in the US that, if you are under 18, clicking Agree is non-binding. If you are a minor, you can't make a legal agreement, and as such the company cannot prosecute you for violating the terms of service.

So, if you are under 18, you know what to do.

Edit: Or if you're in a nation like Equador that doesn't have extradition.

Edited by Brent Kerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How to EULA....

http://store.steampowered.com/eula/292030_eula_0

https://regulations.cdprojektred.com/en/user_agreement

https://regulations.cdprojektred.com/regulations/privacy_policy/

While in legal aspects, it's not groundbreaking, it is at least not written in a manner to justify lawyer expenses.

 

As far as the EULA situation in general, we all feel like we are being grabbed by the short and curlies with little option to do anything but it's supposed to be a "contract" and in the civilised world you have 3 options...

1) Accept

2) Decline

3) Negotiate

Option 3 is seldom used and while as an individual we probably carry little weight, en masse, things could be changed. I'm not trying to incite a riot by saying that but it's just how it is. Personally, I have little issue with companies and individuals trying to protect their intellectual property but software EULAs have been pushing boundaries of what most would deem acceptable for a long time and largely, intellectual property is covered by regular law which one could argue makes a lot of EULA text unnecessary.

I recall once being told about an individual rewriting a mobile phone contract and the company "agreeing" to it (they didn't read it). Can't remember all the details but in trying to google it I found this which is even more hilarious...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/creditcards/10231556/Man-who-created-own-credit-card-sues-bank-for-not-sticking-to-terms.html

Edited by Manwith Noname
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a lawyer, but this isn't my fist rodeo when reading the law and legal terms. Please feel free to regard all of the following 'non-professional' analysis as total rubbish:

99% of the EULA is not game specific but a generalized 'boiler-plate' of terms and agreements. This particular one has been copied and pasted several times though the years and still includes parts of EULA from 1998. Sometimes, and I have seen EULAs be deliberately copied from one come company to the next with only names and titles changed; EULA plagiarizing often occurs. This one in particular is Take-Two's general terms and agreements. No one writes a new one every time a game is released, so specific terms are used to generalize, encompass, and protect the company and IPs from theft, theft though legal action, and to prevent any other game/software manufacturer/developer from making a copy-cat or clone game/software identical to the one being released. The EULA is to protect the company from monetary loss, prevent circumventing the purchase of the software, and to prevent the licencee from making a KSP-alike game identical to KSP using code that is protected by said license.   

In regard to modding:

Although modding, which should be a considered a deliberate function of the game itself, should be tolerated as long as the mod/plugin/software in question is designed specifically for the intent and use for the software being licensed. The mod/plugin/software is not an unauthorized copy the licensed material or is designed to circumvent the license agreement (in the case of Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.) Or in the case of Blizzard v. BnetD, there was a deliberate copying of copyrighted code, and deliberately used reverse engineering to circumvent the EULA license outright. 

I figure if you are not trying to make money from any mod or trying to circumvent the license, then modding is allowed.

43 minutes ago, KSK said:

Hmm, okay. From reading that link, it looks like any new material, additions to or changes in the original work, can be copyrighted, ownership of that copyright going to the author in the first instance, unless anyone (for example an employer) has a claim to that copyright through an agreement with the author. Happy to have that debate though. And of course, that 'agreement with the author' part takes us right back to the forum terms and conditions.

As far as I recall, 'Kerbal' is a Squad trademark, so I'm presuming that if you did want to publish your fanfic for sale, you'd need permission from Squad / Take Two to use that trademark. I presume you'd also need permission to use whatever copyrights Squad / Take Two have in the 'original work' that your fanfic was based on. Those are just legal technicalities though - at the end of the day you're basing your work on somebody else's work, so getting permission from that other person first is just the right thing to do.

Thinking about it, KSP fanfics would be an interesting exercise in original works vs derivative works simply because Squad have provided so little canon material to work with. As a result a given KSP story tends to be a very small amount of original work mixed in with a heaping portion of new material. A weird concept it may be ( :) ) but from a writer's perspective, that lack of canon material can be the best of both worlds - you have a couple of recognisable 'hooks' to hang a story off but almost completely free rein to develop that story. Heck, I've seen a couple of KSP stories that don't even involve spaceflight and a several others where the spaceflight parts are really just background to the story proper.

 

There is the aspect of space flight which is a common technology and the concept of the rocket which is also a common technology. I guess what would be at stake is the use of the Kebal character itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Manwith Noname said:

I recall once being told about an individual rewriting a mobile phone contract and the company "agreeing" to it (they didn't read it). Can't remember all the details but in trying to google it I found this which is even more hilarious...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/creditcards/10231556/Man-who-created-own-credit-card-sues-bank-for-not-sticking-to-terms.html

Hahah, it's not fraud if someone  has signed a renegotiated contract without reading it first, but that is my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Eskandare said:

There is the aspect of space flight which is a common technology and the concept of the rocket which is also a common technology. I guess what would be at stake is the use of the Kebal character itself.

Yeah, it's an interesting one. For videos and artwork, Squad have a load of original material. For written works - I honestly don't think they have much more than a good handful of names (for characters, rocket parts and companies), the 'junkyard style' flavour text for the rocket parts, some character memes for the Original Three and a geographical map of Kerbin. That's all good stuff of course (and the vital starting inspiration for a story) but it's fairly thin pickings when it comes to actually sitting down and writing that story. Which is why KSP fanfics are so diverse.

Then you get into the whole idea/expression dichotomy - in short, at what point does an idea (which isn't protectable by copyright) become sufficiently well expressed - in writing or other tangible form - that it is protectable by copyright? That one has caused no shortage of judicial headscratching and tends to be more important in US copyright law, so I have no idea where the current case law stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/02/2018 at 3:51 PM, swjr-swis said:

Or even something as simple as sharing a craft file or a savegame, since that too would be 'making a copy of part of the software'.

No those are products of the software, like a word document. So you can share those. They don't contain part of the program they just interface with it.

 

On 22/02/2018 at 3:51 PM, swjr-swis said:

Which in essence states that they get to ignore whatever license terms you choose on your mod (= user created content) and do as they please with it and allow others of their choosing to do so as well. Which would mean mod authors need not bother anymore with picking and publishing a license for their mods, since they are nulled and voided anyway by the above text, at least when it comes to T2 and subsidiaries and yet-unidentified third parties.

 

Since most UGC is hosted on non-affiliated sites like github, imgur, youtube, etc.. and the copyright clause says this "engaging in any form of communication with or through the Online Services"  I don't think so.

Anything hosted on the forums or squad's curseforge is likely subject. I'm not even sure the reverse engineer clause would apply. Squad provides API's for modding, no hacking required. Besides Android won that fight.

Leagalise is all about looking for keywords and knowing what's come before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, snkiz said:

Besides Android won that fight.

Leagalise is all about looking for keywords and knowing what's come before.

This is true with any legal precedent and thus, for the USA, we have a system of case law that provides legal precedent based off of the decisions of previous cases. 

Edited by Eskandare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"WHAT GAMEPLAY INFORMATION DOES THE COMPANY COLLECT?

When you use products or services on internet-capable hardware, the Company may receive information regarding your gameplay without any additional notice to you or actions taken by you. The Company will not receive personal information such as your name and address*, but may receive other information such as a console ID, gaming service ID, game achievements, game scores and performance, IP address, MAC address, or other device ID*, other console/device use information, or other information and statistics regarding your usage of the games. Information about gameplay may be collected while you are offline and transmitted to the Company when you next connect to the Internet whether or not you are currently logged into your Internet Connection from your console, handheld, mobile device, computer, or other gaming platform. The Company may combine the information with your personal information and use such information as set forth in this Privacy Policy whether or not you register for or use the Online Services. The Company may also monitor gameplay information by automated means to ensure that software and services are used in accordance with applicable policies, including the Terms of Service and the End User License agreement. The Company reserves the right to terminate your license if you violate these policies."

(*This means that, yes, they can in fact get your name and address)
------------
lmao

Edited by Greenfire32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

"WHAT GAMEPLAY INFORMATION DOES THE COMPANY COLLECT?

When you use products or services on internet-capable hardware, the Company may receive information regarding your gameplay without any additional notice to you or actions taken by you. The Company will not receive personal information such as your name and address*, but may receive other information such as a console ID, gaming service ID, game achievements, game scores and performance, IP address, MAC address, or other device ID*, other console/device use information, or other information and statistics regarding your usage of the games. Information about gameplay may be collected while you are offline and transmitted to the Company when you next connect to the Internet whether or not you are currently logged into your Internet Connection from your console, handheld, mobile device, computer, or other gaming platform. The Company may combine the information with your personal information and use such information as set forth in this Privacy Policy whether or not you register for or use the Online Services. The Company may also monitor gameplay information by automated means to ensure that software and services are used in accordance with applicable policies, including the Terms of Service and the End User License agreement. The Company reserves the right to terminate your license if you violate these policies."

(*This means that, yes, they can in fact get your name and address)
------------
lmao

"The ECPA, sections 18 U.S.C. 2510 and following, prohibit interception of electronic communications flowing over a network. Because packets are communications, network packet inspection may violate ECPA. There are many exceptions to this general prohibition. For example, the service provider may intercept and use communications as part of “any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.” In addition, if the parties to the communication consent, then there is also no legal problem. The ECPA is a complicated statute, so if your research involves inspecting network packets -- even you’re only interested in addressing information, such as source and destination addresses -- you should talk to a lawyer first about ensuring that your work meets one of the exceptions."

(citation) https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq#footnoteref1_im8m1am

Edited by Eskandare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...