Jump to content
kenmorefield

Top 100 for 2020 -- Organization

Recommended Posts

I finally submitted my own list and decided to stick to my original plan of choosing the films that really have most shaped my understanding of "arts and faith," which meant including some avant-garde films that definitely won't get enough votes to qualify.

1920s - 1
1930s - 1
1940s - 2
1950s - 4
1960s - 5
1970s - 1
1980s - 1
1990s - 2
2000s - 6
2010s - 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darren H said:

But, more importantly, can someone remind me what the final goal is? Ken, do you still have a book contract associated with this project? If so, what is your goal as an editor? Is it "The Top 100 Films" (which implies 100-1 ranking) or "100 Great Films" (which could be organized chronologically or thematically)? I'd find the latter more interesting to read, but it wouldn't be as click-baity/provocative.

One reason I ask is because I've been struck how my own top 25 films seem to fall into certain categories (post-war Modernism, the question of personhood, contemplative form, the problem of evil, etc.) that, frankly, would be more fun to write about than individual films.

The book is not yet under contract, but before COVID-19 happened I got a letter from editor saying they would give me a firm reply within a couple of weeks. I had been hoping to have that in time to put the Call for Papers in place in time but...well you all know the story. That said, I'd be shocked if they don't offer a contract just based on the back and forth leading up to it.

My goal for the book is to allow for a place for longer examinations than are allowed for by a blurb or promoted by Internet writing. The proposal I gave them include three rough categories: examinations and articulations of "spiritually significant"' : the history and development of the lists and what, if anything, the evolution signifies, and pieces about the films on the list (either individually or in groupings." That could be fleshed out or developed depending on who submits proposals and how many. I do want the *list* to be structured in a 100-1 format because...well, lists are fun. But the book doesn't have to be (couldn't really be) about every individual film on it. I suppose my other goal for the book is to provide opportunities to write for those who want them. I've probably got 10 more years or more before I retire, but I'll say that academia can be an isolating place, maybe especially for Christians, and it is helpful to have a large sandbox to try out new ideas, rehearse arguments, and write and talk in ways that are academically informed but don't have to necessarily sound like a French thesaurus. 

As far as my/our final goal for the list -- that's harder to pin down. I've tried to be as transparent as possible since I acquired the website from Image that I see my role (or want to anyway) as one who preserves something that was worth preserving even if I didn't have a clear vision for what I wanted it to become. In some ways, I've always thought that a plus because it allows the site (and the list) to be different things for different people without necessarily becoming chaos. But I've also seen a weakness in that approach (after a year and a half) in that that historical and relational patterns may make some reluctant to feel the freedom to direct or drive the site (or list) lest they cross me. I'm reluctant to the point of antipathy to talk about past leadership, but I hope it is not too aggressive to say that at times I found it...capricious. And one result of that caprice has been to make people reluctant to invest too heavily in it (in terms of time or energy or caring). I say that knowing full well that there are probably plenty of people who experience me in that way (or have in the past). 

So I guess what I am trying to say is as for the list and site, my goals are to provide structural support that allow those who want to use it to talk about arts & faith in whatever ways that jazz them. For me that's usually film and perhaps more in an academic vein, but for others it might be sharing new discoveries over a beer, and for others it may be just an excuse to get together with other people they've come to love (or hate or love to hate). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for such a thoughtful reply, Ken.

> it is helpful to have a large sandbox to try out new ideas, rehearse arguments, and write and talk in ways that are academically informed but don't have to necessarily sound like a French thesaurus.

Forgive the aside, but that comment gave me a strong flashback to my earliest days on previous versions of this forum. I'd just finished my Ph.D. coursework and had started a blog and begun writing online for exactly that reason -- to try to find my voice as a writer. I'd discovered in grad school, much to my surprise, that I enjoyed writing and the rigor of academia, but I'd also realized by that point that I didn't necessarily want to achieve fluency in academic language. This forum really was a place to test ideas and prose styles. I'm intentionally spending more time here these days because it's one of the few spots left where I can do that kind of writing and get feedback. It would be nice to see a rebirth of those kinds of conversations, although I know we all live in a world of responsibilities and distractions.

The Top 100 project is triggering other facets of my professional skillset, so you all should feel free to tell me to step back if I'm pushing things too much or in the wrong direction. I asked about your editorial goals, Ken, because I spend a lot of my time talking to teams about objectives -- making sure that everyone has bought into a shared vision and collecting all of the information necessary to make good decisions that will lead us toward that goal.

If we want to produce a 100-1 list, I think we should probably agree on the process before the first round of voting. I have total trust in the pool of voters, so I'm not worried about anyone gaming the system. Still, we should all know how our votes will be tabulated.

I understand your dislike of weighting. I spend most of my working life staring at spreadsheets now, and I'm confident there are ways to build a model that weights results in intelligent ways to account for consensus. If nothing else, I'll build the model out of sheer curiosity because it's an interesting data question to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darren H said:

If we want to produce a 100-1 list, I think we should probably agree on the process before the first round of voting. I have total trust in the pool of voters, so I'm not worried about anyone gaming the system. Still, we should all know how our votes will be tabulated.

I understand your dislike of weighting. I spend most of my working life staring at spreadsheets now, and I'm confident there are ways to build a model that weights results in intelligent ways to account for consensus. If nothing else, I'll build the model out of sheer curiosity because it's an interesting data question to answer.

Were it me alone, I would have two rounds of voting. The first would use a Likert (scale 1-5) to say whether one agrees or disagrees that a film should be included in the Top 100. Making the list would be determined by the average score. The second round would be along the lines of what Rob outlines above--ranking the Top 20 from among the final 100, with #1 receiving 20 points, #2 19 and so on.. Rank on the final list would be determined by total number of points with those that receive no votes in round 2 using average from Round 1 as a tie breaker. 

What I think is most important is that people voting in Round 1 on the nominees know and understand whether their vote is just a straight up vote on whether or not  the film make the final 100 or whether that vote will be factored in its rank. 

The system above does have the potential downside of incentivizing people to inflate their rankings in Round 1 (I could just pick 100 films and give them all 5s), but judging from Darren's report on the nominations I don't think anyone is trying to game the system. And I can see one or two films on my list of nominees that I would feel very strongly ought to be on the list but that I honestly don't care all that much where they are ranked. 

 

Quote

I understand your dislike of weighting. 

That's a preference, admittedly a strong one, but not a mandate.
I've come to terms with the fact that not everyone who wants/likes weighting is trying to make his/her vote count more. There is a school of thought that some people may want their votes to count less because they feel less qualified and are less likely to participate at all if they feel as though their participation would not be beneficial to the sort of list they want to see. I've always used the somewhat tongue-in-cheek point that if David Bordwell (or Roger Ebert or whomever is your patron saint of film criticism) were to miraculously pop into this board and say I want to vote, there would be something wrong with the voting system that said, fine, your vote counts 1/2 of [insert long-time name of A&F member here].. But the flip side of that is that if someone comes in and says, "I've only ever watched Pureflix and Sherwood films, I don't watch "R" movies, and I've never even heard of the Dardennes" there is something equally wrong with a system that said, fine, your vote counts the same as [insert long-time A&F member name here.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think based on who's participating, there's no need to have a weighted voting system.

That said, we definitely need some system in place to account for films with more votes and fewer votes, because a film with an average of 4.9 after 20 votes should not finish behind a film with an average of 5 with only two votes.

I believe IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes both use the Bayesian average,

Quote

 

adjusted score = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C

Where:

R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating)
v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)
m = minimum votes required to be listed
C = the mean vote across the whole report

 

So with my two scenarios above, (and let's say m = 2 (a nominee and second, essentially), and C = 3, because it's the middle of the scale)

(2/(2+2)) * 5 + (2/(2+2)) * 3 = 4 (adjusted score of a film that gets a 5 from two votes)

(20/(20+2)) * 4.9 + (2/(20+2)) * 3 = 4.72 (adjusted score of a film that got 4.9 from twenty votes)

Obviously we might want a minimum vote cutoff higher than 2, if we did use a Bayesian average, but I'd be fine with that as a means of tallying votes, if everyone else was.


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evan just beat me to the punch! The kind of weighting I have in mind, Ken, isn't anything like what you're describing. It's a small way to account for something like the example I used earlier, where one film gets 6 votes with an average score of 4.5 and another film gets 20 votes with an average score of 4.4.

Using Evan's formula, the data should be able to identify m, too, by looking at standard deviations from the mean. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Darren H said:

Evan just beat me to the punch! The kind of weighting I have in mind, Ken, isn't anything like what you're describing. It's a small way to account for something like the example I used earlier, where one film gets 6 votes with an average score of 4.5 and another film gets 20 votes with an average score of 4.4.

Using Evan's formula, the data should be able to identify m, too, by looking at standard deviations from the mean. :)

That would be fine with me too. I know that in Top 25 some people didn't really want to do a second ballot. I think that part is the most fun, but I get and respect that some people may not want the process to be elongated. Certainly simplifying the nominations process has been a success, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't need to be an either/or. If, after looking at the adjusted results, we still want to do a second round of voting, we'll have "better" original rankings for the films that don't get any votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Darren H said:

It wouldn't need to be an either/or. If, after looking at the adjusted results, we still want to do a second round of voting, we'll have "better" original rankings for the films that don't get any votes.

That's true. I'm pretty sure with Ecumenical Jury that a small but real minority didn't want to do a second ballot and for them I just equally weighted all the films they gave a 5 to. For my part, if there are 200+ nominees, I think I'll want to make some distinction between the 5s and not just between what is a 5 and what's a 4. That's also possible by having a broader range (maybe a 7 or 9 point scale). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some more examples of Evan's formula in action. I used 4 votes as the minimum threshold and 3 for the average score (mean), but those values will be determined later by the results. This feels intuitively right to me. For example, a film that gets 10 votes with an average score of 4.5 is just slightly ahead (4.071) of films that get 8 votes of 4.5 or 4 votes of 5 (4.000).

Title Number of Votes Mean Minimum Threshold Average Score Adjusted Score
Movie 1 20 3 4 4.5 4.250
Movie 2 15 3 4 4.5 4.184
Movie 3 10 3 4 4.5 4.071
Movie 4 5 3 4 4.5 3.833
Movie 5 4 3 4 5 4.000
Movie 6 8 3 4 4.5 4.000
Movie 7 12 3 4 4 3.750
Movie 8 16 3 4 3.5 3.400
Movie 9 20 3 4 3 3.000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long will we have to watch and discuss the nominated films before voting? I'm hoping for a longer period (at least a month, and really my ideal would be three months) in order to watch or rewatch and thoughtfully consider as many nominated films as possible. (And really, we've been waiting so many years, is there really any reason to hurry now?) But I'm guessing that others will want to get things moving faster than that, which is fine too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we initially discussed voting by May, but I know a lot of libraries are closed right now, which might make it harder to watch some of the more obscure nominees that may not be streaming anywhere, so I'd be for extending our original deadline if it doesn't create conflicts with schedules or publishing a book.


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rushmore said:

How long will we have to watch and discuss the nominated films before voting? I'm hoping for a longer period (at least a month, and really my ideal would be three months) in order to watch or rewatch and thoughtfully consider as many nominated films as possible. (And really, we've been waiting so many years, is there really any reason to hurry now?) But I'm guessing that others will want to get things moving faster than that, which is fine too.

I've had a similar question in mind, and it also relates to Darren's earlier question to Ken about the book project (which I'm quite excited about!), which is: in light of experiencing a global pandemic, would our timeline need to be adjusted in any way? I will say that my own calendar, which was originally very full of academic events and responsibilities and writing deadlines, is now quite freed up. However, I've also found that my own attention span, emotional wherewithal, and physical energy has been sapped, so I'd lean towards having more time than less. And as Evan mentioned, some resources are now unavailable. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rely heavily on DVDs from our well-stocked public library and the library of the large state university where I teach (and our library consortium and ILL), which are all closed with no reopen date in sight. Normally I'd want the extra time to watch more films, but I'm afraid that I won't be able to put it to good use since there are only so many films available on Kanopy!

I'm interested in contributing to a book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Joel Mayward said:

I've had a similar question in mind, and it also relates to Darren's earlier question to Ken about the book project (which I'm quite excited about!), which is: in light of experiencing a global pandemic, would our timeline need to be adjusted in any way? I will say that my own calendar, which was originally very full of academic events and responsibilities and writing deadlines, is now quite freed up. However, I've also found that my own attention span, emotional wherewithal, and physical energy has been sapped, so I'd lean towards having more time than less. And as Evan mentioned, some resources are now unavailable. Thoughts?

I don't have a strong initial impression, which tells me I guess I need to think about this and listen more. I see pros and cons on both sides, but I'm not wedded (personally or professionally) to a particular timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darren H said:

It wouldn't need to be an either/or. If, after looking at the adjusted results, we still want to do a second round of voting, we'll have "better" original rankings for the films that don't get any votes.

 

2 hours ago, kenmorefield said:

That's true. I'm pretty sure with Ecumenical Jury that a small but real minority didn't want to do a second ballot and for them I just equally weighted all the films they gave a 5 to. For my part, if there are 200+ nominees, I think I'll want to make some distinction between the 5s and not just between what is a 5 and what's a 4. That's also possible by having a broader range (maybe a 7 or 9 point scale). 

I can see how using the model that Darren and Evan describe could make the pick of 100 films on the list more representative of the group as a whole. I'm not an expert in how they tend to work so I wonder about that. Would it potentially make a film that was loved by many but hated by nearly as many (and none in between, everyone had a strong opinion) go higher than a film that was simply above average but hadn't been seen by as many people but which ended up with the same average score? I guess I'm wondering if there are scenarios where it wouldn't be desirable to simply favor films more people had seen or if this isn't the kind of thing people would want to take into account

But mostly, I think it doesn't matter too much as long as there's a second round for ranking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rob Z said:

 

I can see how using the model that Darren and Evan describe could make the pick of 100 films on the list more representative of the group as a whole. I'm not an expert in how they tend to work so I wonder about that. Would it potentially make a film that was loved by many but hated by nearly as many (and none in between, everyone had a strong opinion) go higher than a film that was simply above average but hadn't been seen by as many people but which ended up with the same average score? I guess I'm wondering if there are scenarios where it wouldn't be desirable to simply favor films more people had seen or if this isn't the kind of thing people would want to take into account

But mostly, I think it doesn't matter too much as long as there's a second round for ranking.

In that scenario, yes the film with more votes (presumably of 5s and 1s) would finish slightly ahead of the film with same average but fewer votes. But at the same time, more people would have felt strongly about the first film being included, so shouldn't it be included ahead of something that a few people felt so-so about? To be honest, I doubt either film would make the final list in that case.

 

Personally, I don't like ranking through a second voting round. It's okay with the EJ, because there are only ten films, but I don't see why we should arbitrarily pick a number and only rank those films. I'm not suggesting ranking all 100 - that would be unfeasible. However, I don't feel strongly enough about it to seriously object if everyone else wants to do it.

Edited by Evan C

"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kenmorefield said:

 I know that in Top 25 some people didn't really want to do a second ballot. I think that part is the most fun...

This will be the first Top 100 I have participated in, but based on the Top 25s, I agree completely. The second part was the most fun for me too last year. I took part in the previous Waking Up list, for which we only had one round. I felt a let down at the end, of that process as though it ended abruptly. The second round for the Growing Older list allowed me to watch all of the finalists I had not yet seen. That made me feel more like a part of the community. I felt a sense of co-ownership in the list that did not feel from the Waking Up list.

The flip side of that, however, seems to completely undermine everything positive I just shared. What I just described is for a list with a much smaller scale. Not only would the second round for a top 100 not likely allow anyone enough time to watch all previously unseen finalists, I think the idea of ranking that large a number of movies also sounds overwhelming and stressful. So, I have difficulty anticipating having the same kind of fun with a second round this time that I did with the top 25. Again, this is the first top 100 I am participating in. So, if I am ignorant of anything that could alleviate these potential problems, please let me know. Also, I'm no mathematician. I'm entirely right-brained. All these statistics being thrown around intimidate me, so it's possible that someone has already proposed something I would like but just don't have the patience to study the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Evan C said:

In that scenario, yes the film with more votes (presumably of 5s and 1s) would finish slightly ahead of the film with same average but fewer votes. But at the same time, more people would have felt strongly about the first film being included, so shouldn't it be included ahead of something that a few people felt so-so about? To be honest, I doubt either film would make the final list in that case.

Thanks for clarifying that, Evan.

 

10 hours ago, Evan C said:

Personally, I don't like ranking through a second voting round. It's okay with the EJ, because there are only ten films, but I don't see why we should arbitrarily pick a number and only rank those films. I'm not suggesting ranking all 100 - that would be unfeasible. However, I don't feel strongly enough about it to seriously object if everyone else wants to do it.

I guess I see the value of picking a number to rank like 20 or 25 is that most of us (probably) will have seen that many, and it's enough to produce a meaningful ranking when combined that reflects much more accurately which films people prefer the most. I get that the number is ultimately arbitrary, as was 25 for the nominations list, and I'd be fine with ranking more. 100 is arbitrary, too, I guess, but it's a nice round number. I picked 25 because it's how many we each nominated. I'd also be fine with ranking our top 20 (or however many) to determine only the list's top 20 and have 21-100 be ranked by the first round results--then the number would be much less arbitrary. A Likert scale is a blunt instrument for ranking, as Ken has said, and so having the opportunity to actually rank them would be more meaningful. As Ken said, this would be optional, and a person's 1-5 votes could be applied accordingly.

 

8 hours ago, Ed Bertram said:

This will be the first Top 100 I have participated in, but based on the Top 25s, I agree completely. The second part was the most fun for me too last year. I took part in the previous Waking Up list, for which we only had one round. I felt a let down at the end, of that process as though it ended abruptly. The second round for the Growing Older list allowed me to watch all of the finalists I had not yet seen. That made me feel more like a part of the community. I felt a sense of co-ownership in the list that did not feel from the Waking Up list.

Ed speaks my mind.

 

8 hours ago, Ed Bertram said:

The flip side of that, however, seems to completely undermine everything positive I just shared. What I just described is for a list with a much smaller scale. Not only would the second round for a top 100 not likely allow anyone enough time to watch all previously unseen finalists, I think the idea of ranking that large a number of movies also sounds overwhelming and stressful. So, I have difficulty anticipating having the same kind of fun with a second round this time that I did with the top 25. Again, this is the first top 100 I am participating in. So, if I am ignorant of anything that could alleviate these potential problems, please let me know. Also, I'm no mathematician. I'm entirely right-brained. All these statistics being thrown around intimidate me, so it's possible that someone has already proposed something I would like but just don't have the patience to study the math.

This is why we'd only rank our Top 20 or 25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we're  discussing process before we start the first round of voting, I wanted to bring up an idea I had. We discussed earlier the idea of having a "golden ticket" pick for each person on the final list. We're over 20 people nominating, so that's too many for that to really work.

We discussed considering any films that ought to be included after we'd submitted our list of 25. It sounds like Darren said most of the "canonical" picks have been nominated, but I thought that one way to approach this would be that each person gets to nominate one more film after we've seen the initial nominations list. That way no film would slip through the cracks. And , for instance, if we felt there was a second film by a canonical director that we didn't feel we had room for but we'd like to have others considered, it can be considered. I could see that happening with films I considered. I know we just each got 25 picks, but the overlapping/duplicate nature of submitting them blind means that many of us nominated far fewer than that. I for one favored canonical picks in my nominations over smaller gems that I'd have liked to see considered because I felt it more in line with the criteria. 

I get the impression from what Darren has said that maybe a lot of our #26 films are already nominated. Or maybe not. I still think doing this would be a fun way to approach finalizing the otherwise "blind" nomination process, and I don't think the list of nominations is unmanageable at this point to add 20 or so more. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rob Z said:

This is why we'd only rank our Top 20 or 25.

Thank you Rob. I missed that part, probably out of my fear of statistics! That removes almost all of my concern. The scope of the list, regardless of how many movies we rank, still limits the amount of unseen finalists that any of can see between the two rounds of voting. I guess I won't know how I feel about that, though, until/if the time comes. So, with that as my only lingering concern, I will say I'm in favor of two rounds of voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rob Z said:

Since we're  discussing process before we start the first round of voting, I wanted to bring up an idea I had. We discussed earlier the idea of having a "golden ticket" pick for each person on the final list. We're over 20 people nominating, so that's too many for that to really work.

We discussed considering any films that ought to be included after we'd submitted our list of 25. It sounds like Darren said most of the "canonical" picks have been nominated, but I thought that one way to approach this would be that each person gets to nominate one more film after we've seen the initial nominations list. That way no film would slip through the cracks. And , for instance, if we felt there was a second film by a canonical director that we didn't feel we had room for but we'd like to have others considered, it can be considered. I could see that happening with films I considered. I know we just each got 25 picks, but the overlapping/duplicate nature of submitting them blind means that many of us nominated far fewer than that. I for one favored canonical picks in my nominations over smaller gems that I'd have liked to see considered because I felt it more in line with the criteria. 

I get the impression from what Darren has said that maybe a lot of our #26 films are already nominated. Or maybe not. I still think doing this would be a fun way to approach finalizing the otherwise "blind" nomination process, and I don't think the list of nominations is unmanageable at this point to add 20 or so more. Thoughts?

Rob, I love this idea. Narrowing down to 25 nominees was a challenge many of us. I have one regret in particular from my list. I have never seen any discussion of that film on A&F, although it is by a director who has at least one movie that is probably a canonical choice. Therefore, I don't expect it to be nominated. This seems like a great way to finish the nominating process. Thanks for suggesting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason I favor some sort of second wave voting (or more specifically ranking) is because I care exponentially more about the difference between #1 and #4 or #5 and #12 than I do about the difference between #58 and #82. 

I second Ed's comments about things ending abruptly without some sort of follow up and giving people who have seen fewer of the nominees (or eventual winners) some time to catch up on a few of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are good reasons for a second round of voting. Do we want to do top 20 or 25? Since we submitted lists of 25, maybe ranking that many would make sense.

And I like the idea of one non-blind nominee in place of a "golden ticket" since there are definitely too many participants for that to be feasible.


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...