Blizzard's Environmental "Footprint"

90 Goblin Mage
Rez
11640
Out of curiosity I've been wondering what does Blizzard Entertainment do to lessen its footprint on the environment? Being that the company has been around for 20 years now I assume there is some effort to make less of an environmental impact in companies of this age.

I'm currently working towards finishing a grad degree in environmental management, and I was just wondering if Blizzard uses any known environmental management systems such as ISO 14001 or maybe one of its own design?
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Shaman
0
I think they have something on their corporate website about this issue, or at the activision website. Try looking there.
Reply Quote
While I understand this is probably just curiosity, I am sick of hearing about all this environmental stuff:P Don't get me wrong we should be trying to pollute less but I think too often it goes too far.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Shaman
0
06/06/2011 02:04 PMPosted by Reliana
While I understand this is probably just curiosity, I am sick of hearing about all this environmental stuff:P Don't get me wrong we should be trying to pollute less but I think too often it goes too far.


Being good stewards of our planet is good. Not wasting resources and money is also really good.

However, the Green movement tends to be more about control over society than actually about concern about the environment. A lot of the environmentalist policy is close to socialistic policy, just couched in concern for the environment, in my opinion.

Now, not all environmental regulation is bad, since it does help keep companies from doing stupid things like polluting the water supply, etc. However, many times, there are policies that are just plain stupid, like outlawing the old school incandescent bulbs, for the mercury filled CFL bulbs. Yeah, they don't use as much energy, but they produce a lot more heat as byproduct, and they are not quite as bright, but mercury is much more detrimental to the health of people and the environment.


A group of professors from varying backgrounds and universities have looked into the Green Energy marketplace movement (i.e. the green industry) and have written a book on it. One of the people involved is the chair of the Econ dept at the university I am currently attending. It is very interesting, and feel free to read it. It approaches the issue from economic and business side, while also trying to verify claims made as to the benefits of various green projects or movements within the industry and policies by the US government.

http://www.uta.edu/ucomm/mediarelations/press/2011/04/meiners-anti-green-book.php
Edited by Nachtstier on 6/6/2011 2:28 PM PDT
Reply Quote
85 Draenei Warrior
9495
06/06/2011 02:15 PMPosted by Nachtstier
Being good stewards of our planet is good. Not wasting resources and money is also really good.


oh please. its narcissistic. we arent trying to preserve nature, we are trying to force it to stay habitable for us so that we can continue to exist at a level of comfort of our choosing.

people dont care about the environment at all. they care about their own health and welfare.
the enviornment, if left alone, changes all the time. species evolve or die. its only our selfish nature that tries to stop this natural process and mold it as we see fit.

the only part of "green" that makes any sense at all for the computer industry is the bottom line savings due to the higher cost of energy caused by government forcing higher costs on to consumers to try and encourage green behavior.

this has forced the market to come up with incredibly complex redundant single systems to replace what would otherwise be physical floor space filled with truly redundant systems that use more energy. all the while the costs only go up, and there is no measurable effect on the enviornment.

see, when i was a kid, we had smog. it was something you could actually account for. it has a measurable PPM that you could point to. so we past laws and regulations to cut the smog. now you dont see smog alerts, or smog days in schools.
thats what you can look to as practical. but some immeasurable, maybe it works, maybe it doesnt BS like carbon is just a way for governments to reach into your wallets.
Edited by Xurk on 6/6/2011 3:31 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Shaman
0
oh please. its narcissistic. we arent trying to preserve nature, we are trying to force it to stay habitable for us so that we can continue to exist at a level of comfort of our choosing.


This isn't narcissism. It is the way we keep the world at a comfort level of our own choosing, while still having resources we enjoy at a comfortable level.
Edit: Maybe I misunderstand what you said. If you are saying that we as a society or species are narcissistic, then I would agree with that (though that's not necessarily a good thing). If you are saying that being good stewards of the planet is narcissistic, I would disagree and say it's the opposite, but I could understand someone saying it is egotistical (though I'd still disagree).

The thing is, we do change the environment, but it's stupid to say we change it for our benefit and ignore that we affect it in a negative manner. Just look at litter and pollution, smog, etc (not climate change, which I see too much contrary evidence to believe it's mostly caused by man and not just a natural process, but there's already another thread for this topic).

Cleaning up after ourselves keep us healthy, as well as our environment, and it makes it cheaper to clean up as you are going, rather than have to go back and do a massive clean up. Same with many corporations, but a lot feel that they could save money by paying the fines, rather than the as you go policy, and file bankruptcy so the feds have to pay for the massive clean up afterwards, but the boards and CEO's keep their income so they don't care. But then it costs the taxpayers a lot of money. Again, I'm talking about real pollution, not carbon emissions.

I also stated that many of the environmental policies are socialism masked as concern for the environment, and are for redistributing wealth. Otherwise, the government would actually make those who cause environmental problems pay for it if the corporation goes defunct, rather than take the money from taxpayers. You have to pay for a ticket if you get caught throwing trash out the window, so applying this at an industrial level should also be true. This wouldn't be redistributing wealth, it's holding those responsible accountable. But this isn't the status quo.
Edited by Nachtstier on 6/7/2011 12:39 AM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Human Warrior
7150
06/06/2011 05:30 PMPosted by Hypersauce
Its all about cohabitation, we're one of the only species on the planet that abuses the natural resources available to us in order to make life "easier", not just survive.


And it should stay that way.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Paladin
9410
06/06/2011 05:30 PMPosted by Hypersauce
Its all about cohabitation, we're one of the only species on the planet that abuses the natural resources available to us in order to make life "easier", not just survive.


Hardly, many species affect the environment around them. Many of them do more than simply would make life "easier", but they also often function on instinct. Birds make nests (do they NEED them to survive? No.), ants make mounds, bees make hives.

These species COULD survive without these things, yet they are far more able to thrive with them.

If you want an example of a species (other than Humans) that alters the surrounding environment, look at beavers. Their dams can cause as much downstream habitat changes as our own, they just tend to dam smaller rivers and don't put as much thought into making lakes and the like.


We just do it on the largest scale, and we do it by active will rather than instinct...maybe. It could be argued our desires to build and cluster together into cities is somewhat instinctual. Humans are social creatures...this could be an instinctual marker. And it is being driven by this that has us make things like cities, power plants, and water facilities - all things that allow this drive to be met.


Of course, Dolphins don't seem to...but they haven't evolved opposable thumbs yet, and there's not that much reason to build stuff in water. So they can be social without having to build cities. They also don't have a lot of pesky ideas like we do (like wearing clothes or working jobs) that require more.


Also, "abuses"? How do you define abuse?

If you define it as alteration, we aren't the only ones - bees, ants, birds, beavers and many many others ALSO alter their environment to their ends.


So how does one abuse a rock? Or a river? Or a tree?

You're using a negative term to imply an evil where one may not exist. Define abuse. Then we'll see if Humans are the only species that does this. THEN we can argue (should other species ALSO do this - which invalidates your initial statement, btw) whether or not it is active will or instinct that distinguishes us and them, and whether or not this is even an issue of any importance.


EDIT: I should point out, for examples like the birds nesting, I'm referring to individuals surviving. For the species, birds would have to come up with a new way to protect their eggs, but they don't absolutely need nests as there are many other ways that other species (who lay eggs) survive without needing to build nests in trees.
Edited by Arthinas on 6/7/2011 12:29 AM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Paladin
9410
For the most part, though, I agree with Nacht. Many things that are good for the environment are ALSO good for the bottom line. Turning up your air conditioner thermostat during the summer doesn't just save energy (and supposedly, the environment), it also saves you money.

The only time this is not the case is when it comes to externalities. Namely, when the company can do something and the negative consequence isn't taken by them, but is passed to some third party. In this case, regulation is good. An example is a shoe factory that pollutes a river. It doesn't drink from the river, but the nearby neighborhood does. So the factory either needs to pay the people of the neighborhood for the use of THEIR resource, OR it needs to not pollute the river. This is a form of good regulation.

But much of the "green movement"'s policies are more socialism and redistribution of wealth, not a concern for the environment. Carbon offsets are one such example. Also known as cap & trade and a dozen other names.

Suppose there are two companies, A and B. A pollutes 100 tons of "carbon" a year, B only 20. Suppose the government says you can only pollute 80 tons. So A "pays" B for 20 of it's allotment.

B is only using 20, so they have 60 free to sell. A buys 20 of that.

Before: 120 tons pollution a year.
After: 120 tons pollution a year.

IF, if if IF, the intent was REALLY to curb emissions, THEN there'd be no carbon trading. It would be everyone can ONLY pollute 80 tons per year.

The fact that the proposed systems allow trading is saying that the intent is to force some money changing hands, not to limit the emissions.



Also: Apparently CO2...not CO, CO2...is a pollutant. I find this odd, considering it is what plants "breath" in (just as we breathe O, O2, and out CO2.)

It's natural and has existed far longer than Humans. Not to mention H2O is a FAR bigger greenhouse gas, particularly by volume...but read that other thread.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Paladin
9410
Being good stewards of our planet is good. Not wasting resources and money is also really good.


oh please. its narcissistic. we arent trying to preserve nature, we are trying to force it to stay habitable for us so that we can continue to exist at a level of comfort of our choosing.



As for this...I disagree.

While many people are concerned chiefly with Humanity's survival (a "narcissistic"...I think "self-centered" is a better term), that is, the Earth will survive, global warming or not, and plenty of species will, but it COULD be a danger to Humans in the long term (really, global cooling/ice ages are far more dangerous to us as a species), I don't think that's the majority of the drive.

Many people have political motivations, often socialistic ones, that they co opt the idea of a cleaner environment to pursue.

...but you also have a lot of goodhearted people, especially young people, who want to "save" the environment for all the fuzzy lil critters as well as future generations of Humans and maybe even just for the Gaia herself, as it were.


Not everyone is cynical, ya know.

...just policy makers. They tend to not be goodhearted (i.e NOT not cynical. Double negative, yay.)

...and they tend to be...well, let's just say their concern isn't often for the future of our species. So if they aren't concerned for the species as a whole, and they aren't goodhearted, by elimination, that leaves...

EDIT: Hehe, either/either/or fallacy for the win. :p
Edited by Arthinas on 6/7/2011 12:44 AM PDT
Reply Quote
85 Draenei Warrior
9495
narcissism is a word apparently many people dont like the sound of, so try to soften it into its parts like egotistic, etc.
06/07/2011 12:38 AMPosted by Arthinas
...but you also have a lot of goodhearted people, especially young people, who want to "save" the environment for all the fuzzy lil critters as well as future generations of Humans and maybe even just for the Gaia herself, as it were.

this by definition is narcissism. its believing you can impose your will onto an ordered system and alter it. your ego allows you to believe that you have power over a system that actually has power over you.

you cannot "save" anything. if nature wants it to die, it WILL die. if nature wants it to live it WILL live. we can cause damage, dont get me wrong, we hunted buffalo and carrier pigeons and dodo birds, etc. we helped them become extinct. we did not cause their extinction however. they failed to adapt to new predators, etc.

kudzu is a natural plant. we brought it by ship to America, thinking to use it as a feed crop. the problem is, it tastes so bad even cows wont eat it. the plant's natural defense against predators is tasting bad. its natural assult on other plants is its amazing growth rate, that allows it to smother other plants and steal their light. even large trees, it will grow up along their trunks, out onto their limbs and bury their leaves with its own.
all completely natural, all completely destructive to the environment they are introduced to.

heck, the massive california wild fires a few years ago were largely fueled by deadwood left behind by the bark beetle infestation, that if it wasnt for human intervention, would have wiped out nearly all our forest.



dont confuse pollution with the green movement, they are not the same.
pollution is MEASURABLE. its impacts are DOCUMENTED and VERIFIED. there are tons of reasons to prevent pollution.

the green movement isnt about that. its trying to co-opt that to give itself some legitimacy. the green movement is about trying to contain our impact. which is to say, balance our existence to some zero sum. This isnt about pollution. this is about a belief that somehow humans are to blame for every problem in the world, and that every change is a bad change and so we should prevent humans from making any change at all. (zero sum)

dealing with our trash and keeping our air and water clean are all fine.
worrying that we are somehow responsible for the temperature of the planet as a whole, and more importantly, believing we have the power to change that, is not.

or as a NASA scientist stated a few years ago. "yes, the temperature is changing, so what?" its done so in the past, the world has been much hotter and colder than it is now. and yet, here it is.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Shaman
0
dont confuse pollution with the green movement, they are not the same.
pollution is MEASURABLE. its impacts are DOCUMENTED and VERIFIED. there are tons of reasons to prevent pollution.

Yes, I agree. This is what I was trying to get at.
Reply Quote
85 Tauren Druid
5975
We should all do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJxjOv94pXQ&feature=fvst

So we can all start ROLLIN' COAL

And yes, says the druid :P
Edited by Jotun on 6/13/2011 10:40 PM PDT
Reply Quote
06/08/2011 03:01 AMPosted by Narsh
Are you talking about CO2? Sorry, not a pollutant...


Not exactly.

CO2, like many other gasses is a necessarily part of the ecosystem. Animals breath it out and plants absorb it. However it is also a greenhouse gas, which means it's very good at trapping heat.

At certain levels, this is a good thing. Without any greenhouse gases, the planet's temperature would rarely, if ever, go above freezing. But when there is an overabundance of a greenhouse gasses (such as when a worldwide species starts emitting far more CO2 then the existing plantlife can handle) occurs, the average world temperature will increase.

If the average temperature increases, even by a few degrees it can create a ripple effect that disrupts weather patterns around the world. Suddenly land that was fertile it now in a perpetual drought, and land that was useless (and therefore uncontested) becomes extremely valuable. Flooding in low-level coastal areas is also possible as water levels slowly start to rise due to melting polar ice.

So while CO2 isn't a pollutant in the sense of being a toxin, it is not something we can just ignore.

Reply Quote
85 Draenei Shaman
8855
However, many times, there are policies that are just plain stupid, like outlawing the old school incandescent bulbs, for the mercury filled CFL bulbs. Yeah, they don't use as much energy, but they produce a lot more heat as byproduct


This is the exact opposite of reality. CFLs produce less heat to produce the same amount of lighting when compared to incandescent lighting. I won't get into your conspiracy theories about environmentalism.


But much of the "green movement"'s policies are more socialism and redistribution of wealth, not a concern for the environment. Carbon offsets are one such example. Also known as cap & trade and a dozen other names.

Suppose there are two companies, A and B. A pollutes 100 tons of "carbon" a year, B only 20. Suppose the government says you can only pollute 80 tons. So A "pays" B for 20 of it's allotment.

B is only using 20, so they have 60 free to sell. A buys 20 of that.

Before: 120 tons pollution a year.
After: 120 tons pollution a year.

IF, if if IF, the intent was REALLY to curb emissions, THEN there'd be no carbon trading. It would be everyone can ONLY pollute 80 tons per year.

The fact that the proposed systems allow trading is saying that the intent is to force some money changing hands, not to limit the emissions.


You're missing the point because you're only using 2 companies, and assuming that the total amount of CO2 they output is less than the total amount allowed.

Say companies A and C both manufacture something that results in 140 tons of CO2/year. The product A manufactures generates $360 million/year in profit, while the product C manufactures generates $60 million/year in profit. B, as above, generates 20 tons of CO2/year.

Under the current system, where there is no regulation, all three will manufacture their products and result in 300 tons of CO2/year. Under carbon trading, both A and C have to bid for the CO2 emission allowances that B has as excess. A, being more profitable, can afford to pay B $60 million for their allowance and still turn a profit, while C could not do that and still be profitable. C will have to adjust their business model in some way such that they are no longer producing carbon above the regulated limit, and the resulting total will be 240 tons of CO2/year.

The benefit of this system instead of the simple regulation of "you can only produce X tons of CO2/year" is that it allows the free market to determine what CO2 emissions are really worth, and therefore what products are really worth manufacturing instead of the government being the one to pick winners and losers. Socialism, you say?
Edited by Sumati on 6/16/2011 2:50 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Death Knight
4645
06/07/2011 11:34 AMPosted by Xurk
this by definition is narcissism. its believing you can impose your will onto an ordered system and alter it. your ego allows you to believe that you have power over a system that actually has power over you.


Just to be clear, believing you can impose your will over an ordered system and alter it is not the definition of narcissism.

Narcissism has a couple, albeit related, definitions:
1. Excessive or erotic interest in oneself or ones physical appearance
2. Extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration.

Narcissistic personality disorder is also a thing which can be loosely defined as a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

If you are going with either of the second two definitions of narcissism then believing you can alter an ordered system, regardless of whether it has power over you or not, could be accurately called a narcissistic belief IF you, in fact, do not have the ability to do so. If you believe you can alter a system, regardless of whether you are a part of that system, and you, in fact, CAN alter the system then it is not a grandiose view of one's own talents, it is actually a very accurate view of one's own talents.

When it comes to the ecosystem of the earth I do not think it is narcissistic to believe we can alter it. Destroying it entirely is a very different question. Life as a whole is resilient. Whatever tactic we took it would be unlikely to destroy all life on Earth and what life remained would mostly adapt to the new environment. But destroying all life aside, we CAN alter the ecosystem of the Earth.

Acts of mass destruction such as strip-mining, clear cutting, fire bombing, nuclear strikes, and urban development cause clear and dramatic alterations to the ecosystems where they happen. But we can also alter them in subtler ways. You used an example of the Kudzu plant. A very similar thing happened in the pacific northwest, most notable in southern Oregon and northern California, with the introduction of blackberries. Blackberries fair extremely well in that climate but are not native and have no natural predators, even the insects and diseases wont normally target them. As a result the blackberry bushes grow frighteningly large (razorfen kraul often came to mind when I was there) choking out the local flora, which in turn starves the local fauna. Plants like the Blackberry bush and the Kudzu are called invasive plant species. There are also invasive animal species which can cause as much of an alteration to an ecosystem. In almost every example throughout human history the introduction of an invasive species to an ecosystem has been performed by humans. Introducing an invasive species to an ecosystem will alter that ecosystem. It is also easy. It is so easy to do that we, as a species, have done it accidentally on many occasions.

However, it is not the only type of alteration we are capable of making. Ecology is actually a very advanced science. We have an extremely advanced understanding of how different plants, animals, insects, and microbes interact with each other and with their climate and geography. We can tell whether a plant will be edible for an animal and then train that animal to eat it. We can tell whether a plant will form a parasitic relationship or a symbiotic relationship with another plant and then take advantage of that. We can even culture microbes to target whatever species we want. This understanding is the basis for the agricultural technique called Permaculture, which aims (and has succeeded) to create fully functioning ecosystems in which every plant or animal produces, or can be used as, food or medicine for humans. You can use these agricultural techniques to alter, even radically, an ecosystem. For an example of a complete recreation of an ecosystem research Greening the Desert.

My point is that we CAN impose our will on this particular ordered system and thereby alter it and, as such, we DO have power over it. We have repeatedly demonstrated this, so it is not really narcissistic to believe it.

That said, I want to be vary clear about something. We are also entirely dependent upon the ecosystem of the earth. We are dependent upon this system for the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breath. Our ability to travel is still largely dependent on whether, at least in that poor whether can make it hard or impossible to travel. So you are correct in saying that the ecosystem has power over us. We have power over it, it has power over us. In this way it is somewhat democratic. In a democracy, in theory at least, the government has power over it's citizens, but the government is also constructed of it's citizens and, as a result, the citizens of that country can exert power over their government.

There are two more points I would like to make. But this post is getting a little long so I will address those two points in a different post.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Death Knight
4645
06/07/2011 11:34 AMPosted by Xurk
you cannot "save" anything. if nature wants it to die, it WILL die. if nature wants it to live it WILL live. we can cause damage, dont get me wrong, we hunted buffalo and carrier pigeons and dodo birds, etc. we helped them become extinct. we did not cause their extinction however. they failed to adapt to new predators, etc.


If I do something, let's say hunt down and shoot every panda in the world (there aren't that many left so it's more then possible), and then something happens, like say panda's become extinct, and there is a clearly definable causal relationship between my action, killing all the pandas, and the effect, pandas are extinct, then I caused pandas to be extinct.* It is not the panda's fault for failing to dodge the bullet. Personally, I think it is extremely important to take responsibility for the results of our actions, first and foremost by acknowledging that we caused those results.

Also, "nature" is a pretty all inclusive word. In fact, the word "nature" could mean the whole of the universe. But I'm assuming you mean life on earth? i.e. the entire ecosystem of the planet? If that is the case then you are probably correct about our inability to "kill" it. Life will probably survive anything we do to the planet, even if we do not. But we CAN influence, even determine, the survival of any given plant or animal or microbe on the planet, both in regards to individual specimens and in regards to entire species. I will revisit this point in a moment.

As I said in the above post, we are dependent on the ecosystem of this planet in order to survive. This may not always be true, maybe scientists and engineers will discover ways around that at some point, but for the time being it is true. We rely on the ecosystem to survive. We rely on plants and microbes to clean our air and water. We rely on plants and animals for food, plants and animals who, in turn, rely on each other, as well as insects and microbes, to survive and produce their own food. It's a system that works. But we, as a species, have a uniquely vast ability to effect and alter that system. We can accidentally cause entire species to go extinct. If we are not careful we could cause enough species to go extinct that the resulting ecosystem would not be able to support human life. So we have to be careful about our impact on the ecosystem because we rely on it to survive. On one level it is about survival, in that way it is selfish.

But on another level it is also about respect for life. We are not the only living things on this planet. We are not the only species on this planet which has thoughts and feelings and personalities. Chimpanzees and dolphins and a whole host of other species out there have very clear thoughts and feelings and personalities. They share most of the same DNA as us, and most of the same instincts. They eat most of the same food as us and drink the same water and breath the same air. All life in the ecosystem of this planet is biologically bound together. We are all related, we are all brothers and sisters. If you trace our genetic lines back far enough, we are related to every plant, animal, insect, and microbe on this planet. And we are the strongest, the most powerful. We have traveled into space. We have inhabited every corner of the world. We have caused plants, animals, insects, and microbes to become extinct. Most people would protect a younger sibling if that siblings well being was threatened. Only rarely would someone question if it was the right thing to do. Trying to save all the fuzzy little critters is just an extension of that same chivalry. On this level, it is not selfish.

So I don't think that trying to save fuzzy little critters is narcissistic. It is not wholly selfish, nor outside the realm of our talents to accomplish, nor is it really about admiration and recognition (at least not for most of the people involved.)

Finally, I'd just like to say that the green movement isn't about Not making an impact on the environment. It's about not making a negative one. There is a huge difference between these two things. I don't really want to spend another page explaining this difference in detail. But here is a little food for thought: If you add up all the biomass of all the humans in the world and do the same for all the ants in the world and compare the two, the ants out-mass us. They also have a massive impact on their environment. But in every ecosystem in which ants exist (which is most of them) they a vital component of the system and are necessary for the survival of the system as a whole. The end goal of the green movement is to become more like ants in our relationship with the rest of the world. We can do this and still go to space. We can do this and still have cars and planes and internet. We can do this have have a worldwide population of over 6 or 7 billion.

As for global warming: if it is, in any way, our fault, we have to stop for our own sake. If it is not our fault we still have to do everything that solving global warming would imply if it were our fault, both for our own sake, for our own survival, for our own health, for our own welfare, and for the sake of all the little fuzzy critters that are, in a sense, our weaker brothers and sisters.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Shaman
13965
@ the people who don't believe in carbon emissions/humans causing global warming. Take a look at these 3 graphs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_%28NASA%29.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg

The correlation seems fairly obvious to me.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]