• 0
Vokhev

Stickers

Question

The post about stickers in the Help forum got me thinking.

I think there is a way to manage stickers in Rebrickable as is, without development. The key is the alternate inventory feature.

Stickered parts would be inventoried as printed parts (Bricklink's term "decorated" would be better but that's cosmetic). The default inventory would stay as it is and have all parts unstickered. If someone has a set for which they want to keep track of stickered parts, they could submit the stickered parts then submit a second inventory where the stickered parts are included instead of the unstickered variations.

This would require no development and it would have 0 impact on people who don't care about stickers since the default inventory stays the same. Even if someone includes stickered parts in a MOC, since there is already a feature to ignore printed parts so the stickers could be ignored.

Obviously, a separate feature for prints and stickers would be ideal and this solution doesn't take into account cases where people only apply some stickers in a set but it would still be pretty good. The only impact I see is that the admins would have to manage the new parts and inventory submissions. But since these would be added on demand, not systematically for all sets in the database, it would probably not be massive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 1

Well my Step 1 is basically that, except that it doesn't indicate the applied part or parts so no special treatment for sticker on assembly would be needed. and if you really lack parts you can always use a stickered part instead of regular part in the build process. ie you simply mark ownership of the sticker rather then the part + sticker combo. if you apply them you know it's already on the right part. there is no need to record that.

in overall it will be same or less entries as introducing bricklinks stickered part(s) entries. and you could manage partially complete sticker sheets as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
13 hours ago, Simon said:

Jared, you are fantastic - this is your idea (or me building on it -smile- your last sentence did this):

Consider the following: we already have sticker sheets, and we introduce individual stickers as sub-parts. So a 'sheet' becomes a combination (super-part) of 'stickers'. Our inventories stay the same, after all, what you get from LEGO in the set box, are plain bricks.

Users can then couple a sticker to a part (this is a new feature - coupled parts), thereby reducing the number of plain parts they own. So for each coupling (a stickered part) you loose a plain part and you get, in your part overview, a stickered part. In other words, the fact that you applied a sticker to a part, is what you add to your part-list.
We don't have to inventory stickered parts, you do it yourself, if and when you put a sticker on a part. If you don't use stickers (like I do) you just have the sticker sheet in your part list, and all your bricks are plain.

The system can create part numbers for these coupled parts (combining the part number of the brick with the part number of the sticker), and the thumbnail is simply a combination image, the brick on top and below that the sticker. Your inventory will show all your stickered parts, and there could be a feature to exclude them from the build system.

If you want to use this, you can, if you don't, nothing changes..

 

Sounds like my suggestion ?just with less words. except for users doing the coupling, I didn't define who would do the work..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi, Vokhev;

I fear this is a general problem, not specifically related to your suggestion. There are not many people who actually visit the forum, and if they do, it is mostly to report a bug or ask for help. When the question is answered, they disappear and never return.

The comment function on the main website seems to have much more traffic then this forum, specially for moc designers commenting on other mocs, and because people earn some points when they post a comment, they are also starting to add comments to the sets catalog. And the more people communicate using the comment function on the main website, the less likely they are to switch to the forum.

A few weeks ago, when I started noticing this, I actually considered suggesting Nathan to add a some more functionality to the comment function and turn it into a simple forum on the main website. No idea if this could be done, or if Nathan would like the idea, but I have no idea how else to solve the problem.

Take care,
Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

hi, everyone

7 hours ago, Simon said:

... There are not many people who actually visit the forum, and if they do, it is mostly to report a bug or ask for help. When the question is answered, they disappear and never return.

and what might be the reason?
I used to visit the forum frequently, but some doubts, questions, whatever, remain without feedback  or unseen. So, now I just pass here to check if there any new interesting topic to follow. To me, it become some how useless to post here. Unfortunately... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Sure, but it the 15 hours since Vokhev asked his question, there have been 30 comments made on the main site, and only two posts (yours and mine) on the forum. That's 15:1! You and me and probably a handfull of other regularly check the forum, but most don't even seem to bother. Which is understandable, because the main website allows them to talk and comment. I really think that's the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

But, aren't the discussion functions on the site all either in MOCs, sets or parts? That's ok if you want to talk about one of these but for general discussions, you would never find them if they were in the comments of MOC #28495. Funny, maybe it's because the MOC part of Rebrickable is not the interesting one for me, maybe it's because I'm used to discussing possibilities for community projects like Rebrickable on a forum, but it feels much more natural to talk about this here.

For people, mostly interested in talking about specific items (a MOC, a set or a part), it's ok to not come here. This is a place for more general discussions. It's unfortunate to not have more people interested in talking about ideas that are more "big picture". But if they're not interested in developing the site itself, we can't force them to be interested.

But there's at least 3 of us here. So even if it's just between the 3 of us, what do you think of the idea in the original post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

a few months ago I also raised a question about the parts with sticker, although mu issue was spare parts with sticker.  I solved my "problem" with a new parts list just for parts with sticker, with a link to the sticker image, on the notes. But and your idea seems very reasonable...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This is how I would like the stickers to work on rebrickable. A sticker sheets should be a combine parts of all their "stickers" which is counted as sub parts.

and then we simply add the stickers we use the sticker subparts in the inventory on MOCS. This won't restrict them to use them on the same part or parts.

to handle already applied stickers we should first introduce composed parts where you as a user can toggle each category to tell if they can be divided into their subparts and reconstructed into another composed part. ie user decide if he/she are willing to pull minifig torsos apart to build new torsos or not same with wheels and wheels holder and in the end parts and their stickers. ie a functionality that can be used for more than the sticker case, which hasn't yet been implemented. but we can do step 1 above before that has been implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 10/20/2018 at 5:11 AM, biodreamer said:

to handle already applied stickers we should first introduce composed parts where you as a user can toggle each category to tell if they can be divided into their subparts and reconstructed into another composed part. ie user decide if he/she are willing to pull minifig torsos apart to build new torsos or not same with wheels and wheels holder and in the end parts and their stickers. ie a functionality that can be used for more than the sticker case, which hasn't yet been implemented. but we can do step 1 above before that has been implemented.

This would be incredibly powerful and, if well thought, would allow to manage many, many things that aren't presently. But as you said, it would probably require significant development. I know stickers are not a high priority so I wouldn't expect Nathan to spend weeks working on this right now. That's why I thought using a way that requires zero dev, only data entry by users and approbation by admins would be a better way to go about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Biodreamer;

I want to make sure that I understand you correctly (I'm getting a little older, okey? -smile-)

We have parts that contain sub-parts. I would call them super-parts, I think you call them compound parts. My favorite example would be 3829c99 Steering Stand 1x2 with Wheel, which is a super/compound part made of 3828 Steering Wheel and 3829 Steering Stand 1x2.

In our current inventories we only have the super/compound parts, like the 3829c99, and the sub-parts are currently not used. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that a user can switch from normal view (the current view that shows the super/compound parts) to sub-part-view (the view that shows only sub-parts).

Now if you want to have that choise (between the two views) at the level of individual part categories, that would be pretty difficult to implement (I think), but having this choice overall is actually not that difficult to implement.

If an inventory contains one or more super/compound part, the system could automatically generate a second inventory, with each super-part split into its sub-parts. If the main inventory is changed, the sub-part inventory is regenerated. Then we'd have both a main/compound inventory and a sub-part inventory, and the user can simply switch from one to the other. There could be a general preference (the default view), but when needed, one could switch to the other inventory on an ad-hoc basis.

(there could be additional problems with the build and search sub-systems, but I am ignoring those for now)

If we add complete minifigs as compound parts, minifigs would also fit into this idea (not to say that would be easy... OMG, what have I done... -smile-)

Now, I understand that you can put a sticker sheet into this system, by turning it into a compound part, with sub-parts for each individual sticker (technically not a problem, but operationally a very tedious job, and not something admins can do by themselves). But how do you connect a sticker to the part where it belongs?

If you have five 2 x 4 bricks, and one of them has a sticker applied to it, I presume you'd want to see that in your part list: you have 4x 3001 plain and 1x 3001 with sticker. How would that be solved by this, without adding new part definitions for all parts that might have a sticker on them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Simon yes that is more or less what I mean, we have what you call super parts today, It's almost what I want so it's a good starting point from a developers point of view.

I was not really considering the inventory view, I was more thinking from a build perspective. ie lets take a  example let's say I have Blue pants and Black pants as Lego parts. but run a build for a set with black/blue pants. if I have the category marked as "Don't take apart" should probably be default true on the minifig category. I would get the black/blue pants as missing (super part). while if I ran it with "take apart" option on the category it would find the parts and only mark any missing sub parts as missing. ie I wouldn't see the super parts in that category.

So it would have my personal inventory cached either in "sub part" or "super part" state. and then run it towards the set/moc inventory cache with same settings. You probably want to have a filter for each inventory telling which settings that actually affect the inventory. so you don't waste memory with copies of same cache object.

when it comes to dealing with the sticker sub parts, yes it require a lot of initial work making all of them but just the same or less then making sticker + part compound parts.

when it comes to set/moc inventory there is no need to tell which part the sticker goes on. it's not like we tell which part that goes on another part sticker should be the same.

since most people put the sticker on the correct part manage the sticker/part combo comes automatically, otherwise you could always use the pro feature and comment where the sticker part is located.

so in the end it then boils down to two view points. my system would mean that a stickered part would be seen as a regular part and be usable in any moc/set, since it will not know it has a sticker on it. in many cases it won't be a problem since you might have enough without stickers but if you would run out of none stickered parts at least you have a option to use the stickered part in that location rather then get missing part. other's might prefer to get missing part it's a matter of preferences. but it's how the site deals with them today.

Basically not so different from the printed flag feature, except that it's inverted. ie you might use stickered parts on places that are blank. while with that feature you use blank parts instead of printed.

either that or you would end up having to do the compound parts for all the part(s) + sticker combos and have the the category flag defaulted to not take apart. and simply let the collector add the super/compound part in their collection rather then the sticker. Not sure this is worth it but it's the only way to give both camps their preference.

because if you only do sticker + part compounds without having stickers as sub parts. That part will not be usable as a plain part. That and the fact that you will have to go in and manage all inventories and replace the plain part with the stickered part and force user to use the "ignore printed part" flag to build without stickers. it's simpler to just ignore the sticker category

I think my solution is cleaner and still would allow you to do compounds if you really want, it's just not as important.

 

When it comes to making Minifigs into super parts, I think it's a bad idea. They should be a subsets. from developers view more or less the same data structure but different naming system at least. subsets are intended to be taken apart. I know some people don't but some people don't take their sets apart either we can't have that on Rebrickable can we?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It's interesting because we come at it from very different angles. I honestly don't really care about the build functions. I sometimes use it to see if there are sets I don't have that I could build but it's mostly just out of curiosity. The one thing I use it for is when I'm trying to assemble a set myself out of bought parts to add to my collection. I then set the options to not include my sets in build calculations and I see what loose parts I need to get to complete the set. That's all.

To me, the main use of Rebrickable is for inventory. I have to admit, I didn't follow everything Biodreamer said. But tome, the important is to be able to know that:

For part X in blue, I have:
- 5 without stickers
- 2 with sticker A
- 1 with sticker B

Instead of what I get now where it only tells me I have:

- 8 of this part in blue (and I have to remember some of these have stickers)

If a solution can do that I would be happy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well if you don't use your existing sets when building, you won't need to know where the stickers on those are. (so the number of parts with stickers isn't needed)

You only need to know the number of stickers you have left, ie in loose parts. so if you would use my system you would get the same result except in two cases.

when you have the sticker applied to a different part, which is rare since there is very little overlap among sets with stickers unless it's one of those ideabook sheets.

the other is if you have a stickered part and trying to build something without stickers. in that case the system would try to use the stickered version. So I guess your in camp two and would need the full solution imo, while the first would improve it from today. while bricklink system seem to work fine for you, since you don't need the rebrickable enhancements, ie the option to use stickers on unoffical parts in MOCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Oh I do use my sets to build. I keep no set built and use them all for parts. I just don't use them often with the build function of the site because I build original MOCs.

When I build, I will often check my inventory on Rebrickable to know what is available to me. The problem I have now is that it can tell me I have 10 copies of a part without indicating that 8 of these have stickers on them. If what I need is 10 unstickered parts, I'm mislead. Unless I physically check the parts or remember that some of these have stickers, I have no way to know that I actually have only 2 clean parts.

On the flip side, if I want to know how many parts I have with a specific sticker, there's just no way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Folks,

Just to be sure, if you have a Pro-Plan, you have Part Notes. That means that if you select a part in your part lists, you can select the tab My Part Notes, and then you have two check boxes:

    Is the Part Used (i.e. not New)
    Is there a sticker on the Part?

and two text fields:

    Storage Location
    General Notes            (this has a bbcode editor, so you can add links tot this one)

Now, this is a bit rudimentary, because the notes are stored at part level. In other words, if you select 3001 2x4 Brick, and check Used and Stickered, and add "drawer three" to Storage Location, then these notes apply to all of your 2x4 bricks. For storage location this seems reasonable; you might want to store all your 2x4 bricks in the same drawer, but for used and stickered it is not. These are qualifications of individual bricks, not of types of bricks or parts. In others words, if you select Used the system should consider that single brick used, and display two entries for 3001, one for new bricks, and one for used.

If we'd had that kind of functionality for stickered parts, would that work for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Okey, I need explain myself. I started writing this:

===

Vokhev;

one thing I liked about your suggestion is the incremental nature of it (added on demand). However, demand could be high. -smile-

So what is the theoretical impact of your proposal?

Bricklink currently has 3,322 sticker sheets. Presuming BL is complete, that means that 24% of all our sets will get a second inventory for the stickered parts. So for a quarter of our sets, inventory management will doubled (each inventory change has to be made twice). Bricklink currently has 11,689 stickered parts, adding those will mean a 38% increase of our parts. Each of these needs at least a part photograph (11,689 additional photo's), and a 'stickered' relationship with the part the sticker is applied to. That's a software change, we need to add the relationship, enable adding and deletion, display stickered parts on the parts detail pages, and add an 'ignore stickered parts' to the build sub-system.

There are 428 sticker sheets that occur in multiple sets, so we need to add 428 similar part relationships.

Some additional problems:

We currently have 1,234 sticker sheets, 558 of those have basic part numbers, 676 have BL part numbers (setnumber+stk001). Set numbers in parts are a problem, because if we renumber a set, the part numbers are NOT updated. Presuming the remaining 2,088 sticker sheets (which we don't have) are mostly older sets, we'd only know the BL part number, so the set renumber problem increases five fold.

Some stickers need to be applied on two or more parts. If these are different parts (a 1x2 and a 1x3), how do we create a part number to that combination, and even if there are the same, how do we show that both parts are stickered? We could cut the sticker in half, so we'd have two parts each with half a sticker, but then how to show that both half's belong together?

===

When I realized how much work was involved, I wondered, is there any other way to solve the problem. Sets are in a box. Think out of the box. Think parts. Think part notes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
58 minutes ago, Simon said:

Folks,

Just to be sure, if you have a Pro-Plan, you have Part Notes. That means that if you select a part in your part lists, you can select the tab My Part Notes, and then you have two check boxes:

    Is the Part Used (i.e. not New)
    Is there a sticker on the Part?

and two text fields:

    Storage Location
    General Notes            (this has a bbcode editor, so you can add links tot this one)

Now, this is a bit rudimentary, because the notes are stored at part level. In other words, if you select 3001 2x4 Brick, and check Used and Stickered, and add "drawer three" to Storage Location, then these notes apply to all of your 2x4 bricks. For storage location this seems reasonable; you might want to store all your 2x4 bricks in the same drawer, but for used and stickered it is not. These are qualifications of individual bricks, not of types of bricks or parts. In others words, if you select Used the system should consider that single brick used, and display two entries for 3001, one for new bricks, and one for used.

If we'd had that kind of functionality for stickered parts, would that work for you?

The problem is you don't know which sticker is on the part. And you probably can't add a picture of it either...

49 minutes ago, Simon said:

Vokhev;

one thing I liked about your suggestion is the incremental nature of it (added on demand). However, demand could be high. -smile-

So what is the theoretical impact of your proposal?

Bricklink currently has 3,322 sticker sheets. Presuming BL is complete, that means that 24% of all our sets will get a second inventory for the stickered parts. So for a quarter of our sets, inventory management will doubled (each inventory change has to be made twice). Bricklink currently has 11,689 stickered parts, adding those will mean a 38% increase of our parts. Each of these needs at least a part photograph (11,689 additional photo's), and a 'stickered' relationship with the part the sticker is applied to. That's a software change, we need to add the relationship, enable adding and deletion, display stickered parts on the parts detail pages, and add an 'ignore stickered parts' to the build sub-system.

Yes it's a lot of part data but isn't the point of an inventory system to be as complete as possible? I thought we wanted as much info as possible. I know I do.

The doubled inventories are an unfortunate and unavoidable side effect of my proposal, yes. As I said, in an ideal world, you would have a single inventory with the option of activating or not each stickered part in each set you own. There would need to be some way to indicate in an inventory that X number of part Y in the set can be stickered version Z according to the instructions. Then, you could just check those you have applied the stickers to and the site would consider you owning the stickered part instead of the unstickered one. This would have the advantage of allowing you to apply some stickers in a set but not all. Multiple copies of a set with not the same stickers applied would still need to be managed in different set lists. That would be cool but this is probably huge a development.

As I said, I would be very happy to consider stickers as prints (like the "decorated" term on Bricklink includes both stickers and prints). That way, it's zero dev with my proposal. And it remains completely optional.

1 hour ago, Simon said:

There are 428 sticker sheets that occur in multiple sets, so we need to add 428 similar part relationships.

Some additional problems:

We currently have 1,234 sticker sheets, 558 of those have basic part numbers, 676 have BL part numbers (setnumber+stk001). Set numbers in parts are a problem, because if we renumber a set, the part numbers are NOT updated. Presuming the remaining 2,088 sticker sheets (which we don't have) are mostly older sets, we'd only know the BL part number, so the set renumber problem increases five fold.

I just want to say that I have no interest in keeping track of sticker sheets. Some people may want to but I really don't care about stickers that are not on a part.

1 hour ago, Simon said:

Some stickers need to be applied on two or more parts. If these are different parts (a 1x2 and a 1x3), how do we create a part number to that combination, and even if there are the same, how do we show that both parts are stickered? We could cut the sticker in half, so we'd have two parts each with half a sticker, but then how to show that both half's belong together?

I would create a stickered version of each part with a sticker fragment. Each part would be inventoried individually even though they can't be separated. Maybe the word STAMP (Stickers Across Multiple Pieces) in the description could indicate that it is part of a group of parts with one sticker (that term is not from me). The picture could be the group of parts unless someone actually ripped a sticker in half and separated the parts. This is not very common so I don't think it would be much of a problem to manage it this way.

1 hour ago, Simon said:

When I realized how much work was involved, I wondered, is there any other way to solve the problem. Sets are in a box. Think out of the box. Think parts. Think part notes...

The main idea of using the alternate inventory was to add value to the database for other users at the same time. Once I've added the stickered parts for a set I own, the next user can just choose the alternate inventory and pouf! all his stickered parts for that set are correctly inventoried. I didn't just want to inventory my stickered parts, I wanted to make it easier for the next person who wants to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Isn't there an issue that you can't guarantee people put stickers on the correct parts? Do we inventory every instance because a user may have an incorrectly stickered part? Even though it wouldn't be the 'official' use of the sticker doesn't mean they wouldn't want the part to be reflected in their inventory. The possibilities are endless.

I don't necessarily think having a picture of the stickered part is that important, especially when it comes to trying to decipher what parts can be used in other builds, but a system to separate a stickered part in your collection is important. The pro-plan option needs to be expanded so you can say how many of that part has a sticker and make them an unusable option similar to printed parts. You can chose to include them in build calcs or not.

Even though it would be a mammoth task, I wouldn't oppose inventorying stickers separately and have them as subparts of sticker sheets, then you could still inventory the individual stickers and see images of stickers, but just not attached to a part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Jared, you are fantastic - this is your idea (or me building on it -smile- your last sentence did this):

Consider the following: we already have sticker sheets, and we introduce individual stickers as sub-parts. So a 'sheet' becomes a combination (super-part) of 'stickers'. Our inventories stay the same, after all, what you get from LEGO in the set box, are plain bricks.

Users can then couple a sticker to a part (this is a new feature - coupled parts), thereby reducing the number of plain parts they own. So for each coupling (a stickered part) you loose a plain part and you get, in your part overview, a stickered part. In other words, the fact that you applied a sticker to a part, is what you add to your part-list.
We don't have to inventory stickered parts, you do it yourself, if and when you put a sticker on a part. If you don't use stickers (like I do) you just have the sticker sheet in your part list, and all your bricks are plain.

The system can create part numbers for these coupled parts (combining the part number of the brick with the part number of the sticker), and the thumbnail is simply a combination image, the brick on top and below that the sticker. Your inventory will show all your stickered parts, and there could be a feature to exclude them from the build system.

If you want to use this, you can, if you don't, nothing changes..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That seems like a very powerful function @Simon and @biodreamer, but it looks like something that will be quite heavy to develop. It adds new concepts to the database, alters the display, impacts build calculations, etc. There are also some cases not addressed. We need to be able to put many stickers on a part, how would that be displayed? Once the part has a sticker attached to it, it doesn't count as the basic part so do you find yourself with less than 100% of a set even if you own it? That would be the logical impact since you technically don't own the unstickered part that is in its inventory.

Like I said, this is the seed of a very powerful feature if it's well designed and well built. But will we ever see it?If it is a big to build as I expect, Nathan would likely spend weeks on this. Will he think it's worth it? I don't know. Maybe it's simpler than I think, who knows? (actually, @Nathan probably knows)

The reason I suggested using the secondary inventory was to work as much as possible with the features we have and maximize the use of the current system while avoiding new development unless necessary (it's kind of my job to do that so I tend to favour that approach).

Your approach is more powerful, no argument. But I wonder if it will be worth it for Nathan and Rebrickable itself to put so much development work into it. Maybe it is. That would be great. But if it'S not, with my approach, if we work out a few naming conventions, we can start adding stuff tomorrow if we want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Vokhev;

I surely see the value of your approach, but IMO it has one big drawback: once we start adding 'stickered parts' and duplicate inventories, we are stuck into that system. We can't use stickered parts in any other way. And it has disadvantages, you yourself mentioned them when you talked about 'in a perfect world' (you use all stickered parts or none, there is no in between), and Jared added another disadvantage (can you put a sticker on a wrong part).

In other words, your suggestion is like walking into a canyon, once you're in, there's no other way but forward. Backward means all the work was done in vain, and whatever solution we choose, it is always going to be a huge effort. I am scared of that kind of risk. I'd rather keep as many options available as I can.

If we simply start by adding individual stickers as sub-parts of sticker sheets, we keep all options open. We can, at any time, start creating 'stickered parts' as compound parts with a plain brick and a sticker, and go your way; but if Nathan wants to add the code needed to apply the stickers yourself, that is possible too, and there is no work done in vain.

And we don't need any additional software to start adding individual stickers as sub-parts of sticker sheets, we only need to rename the current category 'stickers' to 'sticker sheets' and add a new category for 'stickers'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The only reason to split stickers from sticker sheets in categories would be pure number of entries or to make new features easier to implement,. I don't think users will care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

No, but I do -smile- If ever Nathan wants to do something special with stickers, he must have a way to recognize them. Having all of them in a separate category makes that easy. Just thinkin' ahead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now