Submitted for Your Consideration: Changes to ORIGINS Awards

The following is a proposal I intend to submit to GAMA and the Academy for review. Following the widespread dissatisfaction with this year's ORIGINS Award process, I believe rapid, significant change is necessary to rebuild the stature and interest in the Awards that is required to make them meaningful and relevant.

650x650_de5f47be2b7f2bc4d3bf2c5d0dd66ee07a29cbeb56c1bb1faf782ff0.jpg

Your comments are welcome!
-----------------------------------
PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE ORIGINS AWARDS - DRAFT

Intent:
=======
The intent of this proposal is to focus the ORIGINS Awards toward the games which are produced by the members of GAMA, specifically products that represent the bulk of the products sold by the majority of the
members of GAMA, and to position the ORIGINS Award as the pre-eminent award which could be earned by those products in any venue.

Problems with the Current System:
=================================
1. Awards Not Representative of Best in Class
------------------------------------------
Due to the challenges in working with European and Japanese publishers,
the ORIGINS Awards do not fully represent the extremely active and
diverse publisher communities in either region. As a result, awards in
the Board Game, Card Game and Trading Card Game categories (by any
terminology) often overlook worthy entrants. And, even if the
nominations process was improved, the vast preponderance of voters are
located in North America, meaning that the chance of a product from
either Europe or Japan winning in its category regardless of merit is
essentially nil.

2. Specificity of Game Types
-------------------------
The increasing overlap between the terms used to describe tabletop games
and video/computer/console games makes it hard to differentiate the
ORIGINS Awards from Awards targeting the computer game market.

3. Get Out the Vote drives unduly influence winners
------------------------------------------------
Each year, a handful of publishers make an extraordinary effort to
motivate their consumers to vote on their behalf for ORIGINS Award
consideration. As a result, a number of products have won ORIGINS
Awards despite overwhelming general consensus that they were not the
best products in the categories in question. This effect is especially
pronounced when the publisher in question operates a widely distributed
house-organ such as a magazine or a highly trafficked website.

4. A number of categories are outdated
-----------------------------------
Several ORIGINS Awards are given to product categories which no longer
have any material effect on the financial health of the industry. These
categories slow down the awards presentation, clutter the ballot, and
reduce the overall impact of ORIGINS Award nomination and winning.

5. A number of categories are subordinate to other awards
------------------------------------------------------
A number of the current ORIGINS Award categories are subordinate to more
prestigious awards handled through other venues. Continuing to make
awards in these categories, without realistic hope that the ORIGINS
Award will rise to become the pre-eminent award in that category,
reduces the overall value of the ORIGINS Awards substantially.

Proposed Award Category Revision
================================
The following is a list of the current Award categories, and a proposed
list of new award categories, removing a number of existing categories
and adding three new general recognition award categories.

Current Categories (as of 2003):
--------------------------------
  • Best Abstract Board Game
  • Best Board Game Expansion or Supplement
  • Best Card Game Expansion or Supplement
  • Best Game Aide or Accessory
  • Best Game Periodical
  • Best Game-Related Fiction Long Form
  • Best Game-Related Fiction Short Form
  • Best Graphic Design of a Board Game
  • Best Graphic Design of a Book Format Product
  • Best Graphic Design of a Card Game Or Expansion
  • Best Graphic Fiction
  • Best Historical Board Game
  • Best Historical Figure Miniature Series
  • Best Historical Miniature
  • Best Historical Miniature Rules
  • Best Play-By-Mail Game
  • Best Roleplaying Adventure
  • Best Roleplaying Game
  • Best Roleplaying Supplement
  • Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Board Game
  • Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Miniature
  • Best Illustration
  • Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Figure Miniature Series
  • Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Miniatures Rules
  • Best Trading Card Game
  • Best Traditional Card Game
  • Game of the Year

Proposed Revised List of Categories:
------------------------------------
  • Best Game Periodical
  • Best New Game Aide or Accessory
  • Best New Traditional Board Game
  • Best New Traditional Card Game
  • Best New Tabletop Wargame
  • Best New Tabletop Roleplaying Game
  • Best New Tabletop Roleplaying Supplement
  • Best New Tabletop Roleplaying Adventure
  • Best New Game Requiring Sculpted Miniature Figures
  • Best New Sculpted Miniature Figures Line
  • Best New Individual Sculpted Miniature Figure
  • Best New Trading Card Game
  • Best New Trading Card Game Expansion
  • Artist of the Year
  • Designer of the Year
  • Publisher of the Year
  • Game of the Year

Revisions to Policies & Procedures:
===================================
The following points represent changes to the ORIGINS Award policies and
procedures which are designed to better achieve the objectives of the
Awards in general.

Scope of Awards:
----------------
The ORIGNS Awards will specifically be described as:

"The premiere Award recognizing excellence in the field of tabletop game
publication featuring products distributed in the North American
market."

It is important to note that these are not >game design< awards. They
are product awards, which encompass game design, graphic design,
illustration, editing, marketing, and brand management. As such,
separate recognition for the components of the game products (as per the
current "Art" awards) is not desirable.

Changes to Award Categories:
----------------------------
Many of the current categories represent works eligible for more
prestigious awards in other venues. Several are legacy awards that no
longer represent mainstream unit volume or revenue for most GAMA
members. Others target things sold in game stores which are not games.
And some are subdivisions of categories that already represent small
portions of the general GAMA membership's marketplace.

The list of categories eligible for Award consideration is changed
substantially by this proposal. First, it focuses on the 3 significant
categories of revenue which support the whole industry: RPGs, CCGs and
Miniatures games. Second, it removes legacy categories and categories
with more prestigious awards. Third, it recognizes individual
excellence in the fields of Artist, Designer, and Publisher.

The net effect of these changes should be a much more focused Awards
Ballot and Ceremony, and an increase in the overall prestige value of
the Awards. The Awards will also be more fully representative of the
actual market represented by the GAMA Memebership.

New and Unusual Formats:
------------------------
In the event that a game appears which is both popular, and defines a
new category not covered by the existing ORIGINS Awards categories (i.e.
Diskwars or Magic: the Gathering), the Academy would have the ability
within 2 years of the game's first distribution in the North American
market to award a special "ORIGINS Award for Innovation" to that game to
ensure proper recognition of the achievement.

Selection of Products for the Final Ballot:
-------------------------------------------
Based on market research provided either by GAMA, or gathered by the
Academy in a process acceptable to GAMA, the top 3 best-selling (by unit
volume) products that qualify for each category will be automatically
placed on the Final Ballot.

A Nominations Form will be circulated to the members of the Academy.
The Nominations Form will list all products qualifying for each category
to the best of the Academy's ability to assemble such a list. The list
will not include the marketshare leading products that are automatically
placed on the Final Ballot. The members of the Academy will be allowed
to vote for 3 products in each category. The 3 products with the most
votes in each category will be added to the Final Ballot.

The Academy committee may, at its sole discretion, add one or more
products it deems worthy, but overlooked, to the Final Ballot for each
category.

The Academy Nominations Form will be used to select the Artist, Designer
and Publisher of the Year nominations.

The Academy committee will determine which products are nominated for
Game of the Year. Game of the Year consideration is not limited to
products eligible for the other ORIGINS Award categories.

Publisher Control of Nominations:
---------------------------------
The publisher of a given work may elect to omit that work from the Final
Ballot for any reason and without prejudice. Publishers with products
nominated (or placed) on the Final Ballot will be contacted in a timely
manner prior to the public release of the Final Ballot and asked if they
wish to exercise this privilege. In the event that a publisher
exercises this option, the next product in the natural sequence of
selection for that category would be placed on the Ballot.

Voting Process:
---------------
The winner of the ORIGINS Award will be determined as follows:

Each GAMA Full Voting Member will be permitted to vote, and those votes
will constitute 33% of the total value of the votes.

Each Academy member in good standing will be permitted to vote, and
those votes will constitute 33% of the total value of the votes.

Members of the general public (those who are neither GAMA members nor
Academy members) will be permitted to vote, and those votes will
constitute 33% of the total value of the votes.

In the event of a tie, the Award will be given to both products.

This procedure will tend to minimize the impact of "bloc voting"
engendered by publisher campaigning, and will shift a preponderance of
the vote value to professionals in the industry. Essentially, the
public vote becomes a tiebreaker between the publishers and the gaming
professionals who comprise the Academy itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Ryan S. Dancey

Ryan S. Dancey

OGL Architect

Piratecat

Sesquipedalian
Big_Daddy said:
If you're this good at proposing changes, why can't you run your own company?

Let's all give Mr. Ryan a hand for single handly killing Living City, and now taking a shot at Origins Voting too.

If you'd like to discuss Living City, you're more than welcome to do so in another thread, but hijacking this one for the purpose is both inappropriate and a bit rude. I understand if you're bitter - but please address the issue outside of this Origins discussion, and without personal attacks.

Thanks. Feel free to email me if this is somehow a problem.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mark

CreativeMountainGames.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Submitted for Your Consideration: Changes to ORIGINS Awards

Coik said:
Well, if we're gonna argue that, then we might as well make the argument that it'd be a helluva lot easier to just reduce the awards to a dice off between WotC, White Wolf, SJG, and maybe one or two small to mid sized companies.

That doesn't seem like a viable solution.

Coik said:
That's my main problem with the whole basing it on sales thing...it weights the process so obsenely in the favor of the big companies, and WotC in particular. Frankly, one of the reasons I stopped caring about the Origins awards was that weighting...when five of six nominees in one catagory are all from the same company, it pretty much eliminates any meaning for that award.

Which category this last year had five or six nominations all from the same company?

Coik said:
I'd do it just be allowing any company (restricting to members of GAMA, if you want, since that seems to be how it's done now anyway) can nominate any one product they have in each catagory. That would prevent trying to win a catagory through volume, and would get each company to put forth the product they think is their best effort in that catagory. It'd still wind up being a glorified popularity contest, but at least they'd all get equal showing.

If a company (large or small) has the five best products in a category why should the sixth best product in that category have an artificial equal footing created for it with the first best product in that category?
 

Erik Mona

Adventurer
I hope Piratecat will forgive me for this, but. . .

>>>
Let's all give Mr. Ryan a hand for single handly killing Living City
>>>

I was sitting about seven feet away from the spot where Living City was "killed" by an over-ambitious and ultimately incompetent "conversion" to third edition. By the time Ryan arrived, the stink was already on the corpse.

--Erik
 

Coik

First Post
Monte At Home said:

Look at the nominees for this year. If you hunt you can find them, but the big guys in no way dominated the list (one big guy, WizKids, got quite a few but the others are less represented than MUCH smaller companies).

Are there archives of previous years' nominees anywhere? Because I really want to say that, sure, the big big boys didn't dominate this year...

However, seeing how memory is an imperfect thing, and the fact that I never bothered to save a copy of the nominees from year to year on the off chance I'd be arguing this sort of thing, I'd like to actually look at the hard data before I do the open mouth/insert foot thing. :)


That's (one of the) inherent problems with any awards system in our industry. Company size is so disparate that if you look at the nominees and don't see any of the big names, the awards ring false. If you look at the list and its full of big names, the awards appear unfair. It's lose/lose. [/B]

I totally agree. But really, I fail to see how giving automatic nominations will fix that...if anything, I would think that it would make the awards top-tier heavy.

I just re-read what Mr. Dancy said, though, I think I should get some clarification before I go any further. On my first read-through, I missed that he said "top selling by unit volume." What exactly does that mean?

Honestly, the only point of contention I have with this thing is that automatic nomination based on sales...I agree with pretty much everything else. (And coming from me, that's high praise)

Originally posted by Mark
Which category this last year had five or six nominations all from the same company?

See my first reply to Monte.

Out of curosity, why is this particular year so important? Everyone keeps referencing it...

If a company (large or small) has the five best products in a category why should the sixth best product in that category have an artificial equal footing created for it with the first best product in that category?

Ummm...moo? I don't see how limiting it to one nomination to a catagory, their pick, creates any sort of artifical equal footing. It'd be the best they produced (by their judgement) competing against other peoples' best. And if people disagree about what they picked, well...that's what write-ins are for.

Edit: Closed a tag
 
Last edited:

Mark

CreativeMountainGames.com
Coik said:
"top selling by unit volume." What exactly does that mean?

Number of units sold regardless of price or profit.

Coik said:
I don't see how limiting it to one nomination to a catagory, their pick, creates any sort of artifical equal footing.

Let's say there is a category for widgets.

Company A produces five each with a quality (on a ten scale) of 10, 9, 10, 8, and 9.

Company B produces one with a quality of 2.

The artificial equal footing is created when 2 is allowed to compete with a 10 while the others aren't allowed.
 

I have to add my vehement opposition to the notion of giving automatic nominations to top-selling products. It's akin to giving Oscar nominations to movies just for grossing high.

A lot of products sell purely on the basis of brand or company name. On the whole, I think WotC has maintained a high standard of product quality--but even with those products for which the D20 market offers a better alternative, the WotC product will invariably sell more due to better distribution channels, more hype, and--above all--the fact that it's branded as an official Dungeons and Dragons product.

If the top-selling items are really that popular, they'll be nominated on their own merits. There is simply no good reason to give an already leading product an artificial leg up.
 

James Heard

Explorer
It's akin to giving Oscar nominations to movies just for grossing high.

How else would you explain Titanic? No really, sales are one of the few things that can't be manipulated by a committee discussion - they're facts, and if they're misrepresented then they're fraud at some point. Sales are popularity awards too, else no one would be buying them. The better distribution channels comment is good, but I think that most of the best products seem to find the better distribution channels too. Monte's stuff takes up a good portion of the shelving in most of my local game stores, for instance. I haven't seen that sort of depth in some of the big chain book retails, but occassionally a book or two from a licenced product ends up there. It certainly shouldn't be the only criteria for any sort of reward, but like they say, "quantity has a quality all it's own."
 

Talaysen

First Post
Sorry. I think the Origins Awards need a change, but I'm not going to support a proposal that includes, albeit buried under a bunch a double-speak, yet another swipe at KenzerCo for having the audacity to win for HackMaster. I'm just sick and tired of all the industry whining over this issue. Yeah - the fans voted for a parody. They voted for a FUNNY GAME, one based by their admission on D&D but filled with elements all its own. If this bothers you, you can always use the strategy favored by authors afraid of J.K. Rowling's success and push for a separate set of awards.
 

tmaaas

First Post
Talaysen said:
Sorry. I think the Origins Awards need a change, but I'm not going to support a proposal that includes, albeit buried under a bunch a double-speak, yet another swipe at KenzerCo for having the audacity to win for HackMaster. I'm just sick and tired of all the industry whining over this issue. Yeah - the fans voted for a parody. They voted for a FUNNY GAME, one based by their admission on D&D but filled with elements all its own. If this bothers you, you can always use the strategy favored by authors afraid of J.K. Rowling's success and push for a separate set of awards.

Huh? I went back and re-read the proposal, and I don't see this.
 

woodelf

First Post
Re: Origins award proposal

hinj said:
I agree the Origins Awards as they are currently granted may be a bit out of kilter. However, your proposal does even more to squeeze out traditional (i.e. non-fantasy rpg themed) board games. The current categories are not great (witness Stephenson's Rocket being nominated as a Science Fiction game). However, they do at least allow traditional boardgames a chance. Your proposal reduces the possible categories to one.

So yes, reform is needed. You're on the right track and have some good ideas. But let's not make the whole thing even more rpg fantasy no board games centric than it already is.

Huh, i look at the current categories, and what i see marginalized is RPGs. Boardgames, wargames, and miniatures each get 2 or more categories, based on genre, as well as a "supplement" category. RPGs all have to compete with one another, except for supplements. Either there's no need to separate the various types of boardgame, or there should be multiple categories for new RPGs--either fantasy/scifi/modern or, more sensibly, original/new edition/licensed. D&D3E should never have been elegible for a category called "Best New RPG"--it's not new. So, if new RPGs only get one category, why should new boardgames get more than one?
 

woodelf

First Post
James Heard said:


How else would you explain Titanic? No really, sales are one of the few things that can't be manipulated by a committee discussion - they're facts, and if they're misrepresented then they're fraud at some point. Sales are popularity awards too, else no one would be buying them. [snip] It certainly shouldn't be the only criteria for any sort of reward, but like they say, "quantity has a quality all it's own."

It's just not that simple. Frex, a while back i decided to go see a movie, and decided that it would be either Matrix: Reloaded or X2. I chose Matrix because i figured it would be the lesser-quality of the two (this was before i'd read any reviews or heard from friends who'd seen them--i thought X-Men was better than Matrix, so expected the sequels to follow suit). Now, this is not masochism on my part. It's simply that, precisely because X2 is a better movie, it will still be enjoyable if i see it in a 2nd-run theater with less-awesome sound, or even rent it on video to see it. I didn't expect Matrix Reloaded to have much going for it but special effects, which would lose most of their value on a 20" TV screen (especially since i don't have a DVD player, and VHS is almost always pan-n-crap instead of letterbox). And, as it turns out, i was right--it was flashy, and had a couple good bits to the soundtrack, and a few nifty bits in the fight scenes, but pretty much lacked plot, dialogue, or acting, IMHO. I enjoyed watching it--but no more than a patently B-grade effort like Flash Gordon--but wouldn't bother with the next one if it hadn't ended on a cliffhanger. Even then, i still may not. It just left me feeling hollow.

So, the fact that i've increased the sales of Matrix Reloaded and not X2 is not an indication of quality--i wouln't have even voted for the original Matrix, which was far superior, for any kind of award based on quality--but of factors related to the medium. I rarely see movies in theaters any more--pretty much just those rare ones that are very flashy, and only appeal to me because they're flashy.
 
Last edited:


Fast Learner

First Post
I don't think your analogy works in gaming, though. Do you really buy a gaming product that you think might be inferior to another because you'll buy the other one... when?

It is true, certainly, that people buy products -- including games -- for all sorts of reasons not related to quality including pretty packaging, cool names, recognizable brands, release timing, advertising, the physical weight of the product (heavier usually seems more valuable), and probably a dozen other things that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the product is actually better or worse than another in terms of its core or "real" purpose.

But: what is the "best" item in a category? For example, in popular music I would argue that the best song is the one that people most like to buy, regardless of any music critic's perspective. It's the best simply because it's the most popular. If you're the average 14 year old then you want it because other people want it. It likely became the most popular due to all kinds of reasons, mostly good marketing, but that is how popular music is measured: its popularity.

Both popularity and awards are limited by exposure: if you never saw it you're certainly not going to buy it and you're probably not going to vote for it. As such it's highly likely that the most popular item in a category isn't necessarily the best, and the most highly awarded item isn't the best: at least not the best in some theoretical objective comparison of quality for the item's purpose.

When it comes to games, then, should popularity apply when determining the "best" product? Why not? Does anyone believe that those who nominate and award the Pulitzers have read and evaluated every possible piece of published writing that might apply, or that those who nominate and award the Nobel prizes have examined every potential winner? And even if they did, why would anyone believe that they're being even remotely "objective"?

As far as I'm concerned industry awards are and will always be about popularity and highly subjective judgement. To pretend that they're not is, in my opinion, idealism of the most unfortunate kind.

Revamping the Origins awards so they more accurately reflect the state of the industry and admit that popularity and subjectivity are the core of any award system makes perfect sense in my book.
 

Originally posted by Fast Learner
I don't think your analogy works in gaming, though. Do you really buy a gaming product that you think might be inferior to another because you'll buy the other one... when?

This situation breaks down in one key area. Unless you are into pdf file-swapping you have to buy a book before you can read it and use the material - and therefore judge its value.

I can hawk a book and (through, for example, a house organ mag or incredible retailer penetration) sell a billion copies. But every single one of those buyers are disastisfied with their purchase. Am I the "best" or not? If you go by sales then yes I am, if you do some sort of follow up with the buyers - after they have time to read or play the material, the result may be very different. Many people buy games that end up being bad buys - they become almost cult hits because of their kitch value.

The problem is further compounded with FLGS' that polybag (and don't allow peeking), and internet sales (which you cannot peruse the material before buying).

Then comes along the problem of print run and the bias toward large publishers. If you go by copies sold = popularity then you are all but handing nominations to Hasbro, White Wolf et.al. because they can get the larger print runs - it's more cost effective for them. Factor in certain deals at the retailer level (for example, Exalted may be kick ass, but because you can't find it in a Toys R' Us, whereas you can find a copy of the PHB, which is going to have more "sales"). You are penalizing small presses twice - they can't afford to print many copies of their product, and they lack the weight with distributors and big box retailers that other companies may have.

And if you allow online sale figures... who are you going to trust? I can say I sold a billion copies of my pdf on my homepage, and nothing short of an audit of my books will prove otherwise.

Number of sales is a flawed way to measure quality or popularity.

- Ma'at
 

Fast Learner

First Post
Anubis the Doomseer said:
Number of sales is a flawed way to measure quality or popularity.
I certainly agree that sales don't measure quality, but they most certainly measure popularity. The product that sells the most is the most popular. How else would you measure it?

Awards, though, as a stated above, aren't about quality.

If you have the fans vote you're guaranteed to not have the highest quality product win because the only way someone could vote for the highest quality RPG Supplement, say, would be to have tried all of the RPG Supplements available that year.

The same is true of any other group.

Awards in such a broad field can never really represent quality. Even awards like the ENnies only represent the perceived quality of the products submitted to the ENnies.
 

ichabod

First Post
The Origins awards are pointless. They've been pointless for a long time. It would not surprise me if they've been pointless forever, so I don't see this "rebuilding stature" thing. Weighting things towards the "professionals" in the game "industry" is not going to help them. Weighting things towards big sellers is not going to help them.

And really, what is the point of the awards? To give publishers a sticker to put on their game to increase sales. If publishers want to increase sales they should produce quality product in a timely manner. If consumers want to know what game to buy, they should find a reviewer whose tastes correlate with their own. With a very few exceptions, awards ceremonies are meaningless. GAMA would be much better served putting their efforts into other areas.
 

cnath.rm

First Post
Talaysen said:
Sorry. I think the Origins Awards need a change, but I'm not going to support a proposal that includes, albeit buried under a bunch a double-speak, yet another swipe at KenzerCo for having the audacity to win for HackMaster. I'm just sick and tired of all the industry whining over this issue. Yeah - the fans voted for a parody. They voted for a FUNNY GAME, one based by their admission on D&D but filled with elements all its own. If this bothers you, you can always use the strategy favored by authors afraid of J.K. Rowling's success and push for a separate set of awards.

Is this what people are complaining about? I hadn't heard any complaining or anything, but I didn't have much of a chance to talk to the shopkeeper from my flgs who went. Ryan's comment could fit this, I'm just wondering if this is what/who he meant.
 

Coik

First Post
Mark said:
Let's say there is a category for widgets.

Company A produces five each with a quality (on a ten scale) of 10, 9, 10, 8, and 9.

Company B produces one with a quality of 2.

The artificial equal footing is created when 2 is allowed to compete with a 10 while the others aren't allowed.

But they are allowed...they just got eliminated in the primaries when Company A choose to submit Widget 10 (Mark I) instead of one of the others.

Besides, wouldn't allowing a company more than one entry in a catagory (and thereby increasing the likelihood they'd get the award) artifically increasing their chances to win?

And really...if Company A's widget is really so much better than Company B's, than this would be a non-issue, since it'd blow Company B's widget out of the water without even trying...

Anyway, mouseferatu summed up my point on the sales-based nominations pretty well...

If the top-selling items are really that popular, they'll be nominated on their own merits. There is simply no good reason to give an already leading product an artificial leg up.

And again, I ask...what was so bad about this year's awards?
 

Mark

CreativeMountainGames.com
Coik said:
Besides, wouldn't allowing a company more than one entry in a catagory (and thereby increasing the likelihood they'd get the award) artifically increasing their chances to win?

Nope because it wouldn't be artificial. The five best products (if that's the number of possible nominations) should be able to compete against one another regardless if they come from one company, two, three, four or five. When you eliminate the chance for the best products to compete, then you are making an artificial adjustment.

(The second quote you made is not from me.)
 

Coik

First Post
Mark said:
The five best products (if that's the number of possible nominations) should be able to compete against one another regardless if they come from one company, two, three, four or five.

Well, Mark, I think that this is where the crux of our disagreement lies. If there's a Widget catagory and Company A has nominations for their Widget 10 (Mark I), Widget 10 (Mark II), and Widget 9, you see it as all three of them competing against one another. I, on the other hand, see it as all three working together in order to stack the deck and increase the chance that Company A will take home the Widgets Award.

(The second quote you made is not from me.)

Check out the sentance immeditely prior to my second quote. :)
 

Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top