FANDOM


  • Atvelonis
    Atvelonis closed this thread because:
    Consensus reached: "unlicensed" will be used in place of "out-of-game."
    16:08, June 13, 2018

    Hello peeps, Jauffre here. I feel the need to come back on a previous Moot decision.

    In a previous Moot (I think it was january?) it was decided to not seperate the Out-Of-Game template for the Novels and Obscure Texts, because both are out-of-game which was true, and considered fine.

    But last week the topic came back in my head, and I realized something. We're a wiki of the franchise, not the games specifically. Sure, most of our material is related to ingame events, characters, quests, etc, because most of the franchise is, well, in a game.

    But not all of it is. The Novels being part of the franchise, but not in the game proves this. And with Pete Hines saying "Yes, we consider the Elder Scrolls novels canon to TES lore.", is there really any reason to care that they are not ingame? In another event Hines specifically states the Novels are part of the franchise, but unfortunately, I couldn't find that quote.

    Anyway, back to the topic. Canoncity is not the point of this post, but the OOG thing is. Before the Novels came out, it made sense to have an OOG template, because practically all the content we had was from the games, official material was gathered in the games themselves. But ever since the Novels came out, it's made the OOG template, well, strange in a sense.

    Because we shouldn't care if it's from a game or not, since we are The Elder Scrolls Wiki, we should only care if it's part of The Elder Scrolls Franchise or not. Not if it's inside, or outside of one of the game.

    I don't think a re-vote should be made until opinions are gathered regarding this matter, as the reasoning for the refusal to change the template was quite logical in the last Moot. I just think that maybe people agree with this kind of thinking, focused on the franchise instead of it being in- or out-of-game.

    I'm not saying that we should remove OOG sources alltogether, far from it. OOG sources, especially those from Kirkbride, tend to sometimes at least partially make it ingame, and therefor, should still be found and/or used on the wiki, because they might make an appearance in future games.

    But I do think we need to seperate what is part of the Franchise and what might someday be part of the Franchise. Because it doesn't really matter if something is part of the game, because that doesn't define if it is Elder Scrolls or not, we shouldn't care if it's ingame or out-of-game, as we're a wiki that covers the franchise, we should care for what is part of the franchise.

      Loading editor
    • I fully agree

        Loading editor
    • AFAIK is info from the Loremaster's Archive in the OOG category as well, which is as nonsensical as putting the novels there. It's all published on the official website and written by the devs. Stuff like MK's texts or a dev's comments in a forum should go there. Otherwise it lacks purpose and accuracy.

      I talked about this once and proposed to change OOG to UO (unofficial), PUO (published unofficially), NPB (not published by Bethesda, little problem with ZeniMax there) or WOG (Word of God). Atvel suggested DEV (Developer Text), Supplementary and Peripheral, but he wasn't all too happy with the implications of those descriptions.

        Loading editor
    • Nekyn Alb wrote: AFAIK is info from the Loremaster's Archive in the OOG category as well, which is as nonsensical as putting the novels there. It's all published on the official website and written by the devs. Stuff like MK's texts or a dev's comments in a forum should go there. Otherwise it lacks purpose and accuracy.

      I talked about this once and proposed to change OOG to UO (unofficial), PUO (published unofficially), NPB (not published by Bethesda, little problem with ZeniMax there) or WOG (Word of God). Atvel suggested DEV (Developer Text), Supplementary and Peripheral, but he wasn't all too happy with the implications of those descriptions.

      I don't get why Atvel has a problem with it though. Surely as an admin, he'd care the most about the wiki being as accurate as possible?

      I've heard some terms, in the Moot I came up with UL (Unlicensed), which would, for all terms and purposes, fix the problem imo. As just because it's unlicensed doesn't have to mean it's worth less or anything, just that Bethesda has not allowed it to use their licenses.

        Loading editor
    • Blademaster Jauffre wrote:

      ovels being part of the franchise, but not in the game proves this. And with Pete Hines saying "Yes, we consider the Elder Scrolls novels canon to TES lore.", is there really any reason to care that they are not ingame? In another event Hines specifically states the Novels are part of the franchise, but unfortunately, I couldn't find that quote.



      ​​​​​Source is Pete's twitter, back from 2011 https://twitter.com/dcdeacon/status/21951830233710592

      The conflict seems to be that the novels conflicted with/disprove a lot of TES fans' "headcanon" and/or theories, so a lot of people preferred to assume they weren't canon. I remember back when they came out there was a lot of arguing on TES forums (like on UESP) over their canon status. Given that the novels were specifically commissioned by Bethesda to tie in Oblivion and Skyrim I found the arguments kinda funny.

        Loading editor
    • Blademaster Jauffre wrote: I don't get why Atvel has a problem with it though. Surely as an admin, he'd care the most about the wiki being as accurate as possible?

      I've heard some terms, in the Moot I came up with UL (Unlicensed), which would, for all terms and purposes, fix the problem imo. As just because it's unlicensed doesn't have to mean it's worth less or anything, just that Bethesda has not allowed it to use their licenses.

      I don't think Atvel has a problem with the discussion itself, just with the changed definitions.

      UL was the one I struggled to remember the whole time, I like it.

        Loading editor
    • Are there any other terms that are more commonly used? I've seen OOG used elsewhere to refer to developer texts. TIL uses "Obscure Texts", but I'm not totally sure how common that is.

      I like UL, but as I say, if there's another term we can import for it from elsewhere that would be better. Can't think of any currently, I must say.

        Loading editor
    • Aramithius wrote: Are there any other terms that are more commonly used? I've seen OOG used elsewhere to refer to developer texts. TIL uses "Obscure Texts", but I'm not totally sure how common that is.

      I like UL, but as I say, if there's another term we can import for it from elsewhere that would be better. Can't think of any currently, I must say.

      I know, but the point of the matter is that there really shouldn't be any reason for an "OOG" template to exist in the first place, referring to my point above: We're a wiki about the franchise, not the games, so why does a template exist stating some material is not found in the games, if the franchise itself isn't exclusively games?

      I think the term "Obscure Texts" is specifically for developer interviews/texts, such as "Loveletter form the Fifth Era", or the interviews with Greg Keyes, Pete Hines, etc. Which, imo, can also replace OOG, as it also makes a distinction between what is/isn't official. But, as said, I think it's a less commonly used term.

      The reason I proposed "UL" is because it quite literally states what those works are without caring if they're ingame or out-of-game. It'd only care if it's directly part of the franchise, as my last point was, they seperate what is part of the franchise and what might someday become part of the franchise.

        Loading editor
    • Aramithius wrote: Are there any other terms that are more commonly used? I've seen OOG used elsewhere to refer to developer texts. TIL uses "Obscure Texts", but I'm not totally sure how common that is.

      We and UESP use OOG, so most people probably just pick up on that and keep using it. "Obscure Texts" is used in places where there's a lot of discussion about those topics but I don't think it's a commonly known term.

        Loading editor
    • I can understand that. This wiki is, after all, about all of the elder scrolls stuff, just like you said.

      Do you want me to highlight this for the community to see? I can certainly do that if you want.

        Loading editor
    • Ottoman Hold wrote: Do you want me to highlight this for the community to see? I can certainly do that if you want.

      Doesn't need to be highlighted. I already asked Atvelonis a similar question. He responded with saying "CTs normally shouldn't be highlighted, as we end up with a bunch of casual editors talking on there. Usually a mention in the update is sufficient, as well as just spreading the word otherwise." So no, no highlight.

        Loading editor
    • Ottoman Hold wrote: I can understand that. This wiki is, after all, about all of the elder scrolls stuff, just like you said.

      Do you want me to highlight this for the community to see? I can certainly do that if you want.

      As much as I'd like it to be, Crusader's already stated it won't be necessary.

      Thanks for offering though!

        Loading editor
    • You make a convincing argument here. I agree that the term "out-of-game" is somewhat antiquated, perhaps, and it would probably not be a terrible idea to use a more applicable phrase to describe the texts it covers. This is something we have to be very careful about, though, because using misleading terminology to distinguish between sources can and will give readers an inherent bias about those materials.

      The term "Unofficial" (UO) is not an acceptable replacement. The thing to remember about TES is that there is no clear line between unofficial/official texts, because Bethesda/ZeniMax very rarely comments on it; categorizing sources in this manner is an almost entirely subjective decision on our part. While we do evaluate sources for reliability on talk pages and apply them to content articles appropriately based on those decisions, our analysis on canonicity/officialness does not extend to the mainspace proper. It could be argued that this counts as original research, which is expressly prohibited by our guidelines. We absolutely don't want to bias our readers' own source analysis!

      "Unlicensed" (UL) is a somewhat more objective term than "Unofficial" as it distinguishes between texts that have been "licensed" by Bethesda/ZeniMax from those that were produced independent of legal copyright (?). My primary concern is that the term "unlicensed" is rather stigmatized in English; it implies illegal activities/productions in particular (which do not apply to developer texts), so it's not exactly the most neutral/objective term. I also suspect that it will be a little difficult to determine whether many texts are, in fact, "licensed" or not. Just look here for some material whose licensed/non-licensed status is basically impossible to verify.

      "Published Unofficially" (PUO) has the same problems as described above. "Not Published by Bethesda" (NPB) would be a poor choice for the reason Nekyn gave, and is sort of clunky anyway. "Word of God" (WOG) has clear religious connotations, which I feel is deeply inappropriate for an encyclopedia to endorse on its actual articles. I am not very keen on "Supplementary" (SUP) or "Peripheral" (PRL?) because they imply that developer texts are insignificant, which is not accurate in the slightest.

      I feel that "Developer Texts" (DEV) would have less potential to be misleading than "Unlicensed." It's easier to define, and probably more widely understood. It works very similarly to "Unlicensed" but avoids the stigma which that word carries. The games, novels, and strategy guides would be exempt from this categorization, obviously, whereas things like the Loveletter and similar works, developer interviews, and the Loremaster's Archives would all be given this distinction. Plus, you also don't have to worry about finding verifiable proof that something is "licensed" this way, which, as mentioned above, is nigh impossible for many texts.

      I suppose "Obscure Texts" would cover all of the "weirder" OOG stuff like everything you see on the Out-of-Game Texts article right now. However, this is not an objective distinction as far as I can tell. It implies that texts are classified under it depending on how well-known they are, which is unusual and not really that informative. For example, I'm sure C0DA is more well-known than Oblivion Mobile, but that's not necessarily a useful distinction. We should certainly be making an effort to keep things relevant to readers.

      I'm very interested to hear some additional thoughts on this. Whatever decision we make will influence quite a few articles, so I hope we can agree on the most reasonable solution.

        Loading editor
    • Atvelonis wrote: You make a convincing argument here. I agree that the term "out-of-game" is somewhat antiquated, perhaps, and it would probably not be a terrible idea to use a more applicable phrase to describe the texts it covers. This is something we have to be very careful about, though, because using misleading terminology to distinguish between sources can and will give readers an inherent bias about those materials.

      The term "Unofficial" (UO) is not an acceptable replacement. The thing to remember about TES is that there is no clear line between unofficial/official texts, because Bethesda/ZeniMax very rarely comments on it; categorizing sources in this manner is an almost entirely subjective decision on our part. While we do evaluate sources for reliability on talk pages and apply them to content articles appropriately based on those decisions, our analysis on canonicity/officialness does not extend to the mainspace proper. This counts as original research, which is expressly prohibited by our guidelines. We absolutely don't want to bias readers' own source analysis!

      "Unlicensed" (UL) is a somewhat more objective term than "Unofficial" as it distinguishes between texts that have been "licensed" by Bethesda/ZeniMax from those that were produced independent of legal copyright (?). My primary concern is that the term "unlicensed" is rather stigmatized in English; it implies illegal activities/productions in particular (which do not apply to developer texts), so it's not exactly the most neutral/objective term. I also suspect that it will be a little difficult to determine whether many texts are, in fact, "licensed" or not. Just look here for some material whose licensed/non-licensed status is basically impossible to verify.

      "Published Unofficially" (PUO) has the same problems as described above. "Not Published by Bethesda" (NPB) would be a poor choice for the reason Nekyn gave, and is sort of clunky anyway. "Word of God" (WOG) has clear religious connotations, which I feel is deeply inappropriate for an encyclopedia to endorse on its actual articles. I am not very keen on "Supplementary" (SUP) or "Peripheral" (PRL?) because they imply that developer texts are insignificant, which is not accurate in the slightest.

      I feel that "Developer Texts" (DEV) would have less potential to be misleading than "Unlicensed." It's easier to define, and probably more widely understood. It works very similarly to "Unlicensed" but avoids the stigma which that word carries. The games, novels, and strategy guides would be exempt from this categorization, obviously, whereas things like the Loveletter and similar works, developer interviews, and the Loremaster's Archives would all be given this distinction. Plus, you also don't have to worry about finding verifiable proof that something is "licensed" this way, which, as mentioned above, is nigh impossible for many texts.

      I suppose "Obscure Texts" would cover all of the "weirder" OOG stuff like everything you see on the Out-of-Game Texts article right now. However, this is not an objective distinction as far as I can tell. It implies that texts are classified under it depending on how well-known they are, which is unusual and not really that informative. For example, I'm sure C0DA is more well-known than Oblivion Mobile, but that's not necessarily a useful distinction. We should certainly be making an effort to keep things relevant to readers.

      I'm very interested to hear some additional thoughts on this. Whatever decision we make will influence quite a few articles, so I hope we can agree on the most reasonable solution.

      Coming back on UL, in the OOG template of now we have, a notice stating:
      "Notice: The following are out-of-game references. They are not found in any in-game books, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness."

      With UL, we could change the text around a bit, I don't know in what way, but to make it similar to what we have right now, so that people know it doesn't refer to illegal activities or something along those lines, but rather, that it's not the same thing as the things we read ingame or read in the Novels. Perhaps something like:
      "Notice: The following are unlicensed references. They are not found in any in-game books, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness."

      I know that that's only a one-word edit, but still. I'm sure something similar can be found.

      The idea of DEV also seems like a potential replacement, imo. I do, however, think that the Loremaster's Archive are different from your other OO.... DEV, works. Mainly because they are written while ESO is still getting updated, and because they are written by ESO's loremaster and appear on ESO's site. Imo, this makes it look like official material to me, especially considering that they did not put up a disclaimer stating it isn't official like they did here. Though I suppose it wouldn't be the end of the world if the Archives were included as DEV.

      I agree that the other templates would become a bit messy, because, as said, they would make it look like it's worth nothing at all, and if it's worth nothing at all, we'd have no reason to cover them in the first place. But we do, and that's because they do have value. Curious to see what we'll come out with here.

        Loading editor
    • Atvelonis wrote: "Word of God" (WOG) has clear religious connotations, which I feel is deeply inappropriate for an encyclopedia to endorse on its actual articles.

      It actually has barely anything to do with religion in this context, it's a rather well-known trope.

        Loading editor
    • I have a question, instead of kind of really contributing to this as well as I probably could: Why not just completely skip using stuff like OOG, WOG, DEV, etc, and stick with something like this:

      Notice: The following sources are debated canon, but should can still be considered part of the The Elder Scrolls universe and should be included for completeness.
        Loading editor
    • Nekyn Alb wrote: It actually has barely anything to do with religion in this context, it's a rather well-known trope.

      Perhaps, but I think we have better options. Currently I think it's really between UL and DEV.

      The Crusader of Truth wrote: I have a question, instead of kind of really contributing to this as well as I probably could: Why not just completely skip using stuff like OOG, WOG, DEV, etc, and stick with something like this:

      The issue is that we still need to identify OOG references through in-text citations, so eventually we do have to come to some sort of decision about the terminology.

        Loading editor
    • Atvelonis wrote:

      The Crusader of Truth wrote: I have a question, instead of kind of really contributing to this as well as I probably could: Why not just completely skip using stuff like OOG, WOG, DEV, etc, and stick with something like this:

      The issue is that we still need to identify OOG references through in-text citations, so eventually we do have to come to some sort of decision about the terminology.

      Wouldn't Crusader's idea fit that idea though? If we were to use a template, such as UL or DEV, and then just replace the OOG notice with Crusader's proposal for a DEV/UL notice, wouldn't that solve the problem?

      Or am I missing something?

        Loading editor
    • Blademaster Jauffre wrote: Wouldn't Crusader's idea fit that idea though? If we were to use a template, such as UL or DEV, and then just replace the OOG notice with Crusader's proposal for a DEV/UL notice, wouldn't that solve the problem?

      Or am I missing something?

      OOG citations are differentiated in the body of an article with tags that look like [OOG 1], [OOG 2], etc., where the ref group is "OOG." We need to choose a new reference group (in this case the group would be named "UL" or "DEV") to replace OOG here. Without one, it would be literally impossible to separate the references into two reference lists.

        Loading editor
    • Atvelonis wrote:

      Blademaster Jauffre wrote: Wouldn't Crusader's idea fit that idea though? If we were to use a template, such as UL or DEV, and then just replace the OOG notice with Crusader's proposal for a DEV/UL notice, wouldn't that solve the problem?

      Or am I missing something?

      OOG citations are differentiated in the body of an article with tags that look like [OOG 1], [OOG 2], etc., where the ref group is "OOG." We need to choose a new reference group (in this case the group would be named "UL" or "DEV") to replace OOG here. Without one, it would be literally impossible to separate the references into two reference lists.

      So we're now voting between UL and DEV for which one replaces the OOG ref group?

        Loading editor
    • Blademaster Jauffre wrote: So we're now voting between UL and DEV for which one replaces the OOG ref group?

      Yes. We also have to come up with an adequate replacement for the text on the {{OOG}} template. You suggested above that we could simply change "out-of-game" to "unlicensed" in that description, but if we go with that terminology we'll probably have to give a more accurate explanation of what is considered licensed.

      Notice: The following are unlicensed references. They are not found in any in-game books, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness.

      This sort of works, but I think it isn't really useful to readers who aren't already familiar with the term. I still don't exactly understand the way you intend to define "unlicensed" but my guess is based on copyright from Bethesa/ZeniMax, so something like this might be preferable:

      Notice: The following are unlicensed references. They are not copyrighted by Bethesda or ZeniMax, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness.

      Personally it makes intuitive sense to me which texts would be sorted under DEV and which wouldn't, but I'm having a hard time wording this in a concise way. I guess just changing "out-of-game" to "developer" works because it's not a legal definition or anything, but this definition still feels a bit off to me.

      Notice: The following are developer references. They are not found in any in-game books, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness.
        Loading editor
    • Atvelonis wrote:

      Blademaster Jauffre wrote: So we're now voting between UL and DEV for which one replaces the OOG ref group?

      Yes. We also have to come up with an adequate replacement for the text on the {{OOG}} template. You suggested above that we could simply change "out-of-game" to "unlicensed" in that description, but if we go with that terminology we'll probably have to give a more accurate explanation of what is considered licensed.

      Notice: The following are unlicensed references. They are not found in any in-game books, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness.

      This sort of works, but I think it isn't really useful to readers who aren't already familiar with the term. I still don't exactly understand the way you intend to define "unlicensed" but my guess is based on copyright from Bethesa/ZeniMax, so something like this might be preferable:

      Notice: The following are unlicensed references. They are not copyrighted by Bethesda or ZeniMax, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness.

      Personally it makes intuitive sense to me which texts would be sorted under DEV and which wouldn't, but I'm having a hard time wording this in a concise way. I guess just changing "out-of-game" to "developer" works because it's not a legal definition or anything, but this definition still feels a bit off to me.

      Notice: The following are developer references. They are not found in any in-game books, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness.

      That's indeed what I meant with unlicensed, I'm personally a supporter of unlicensed, but I suppose there might have to come some kind of serious vote.

      I think either of the two suggestions you made would work.

        Loading editor
    • Why are Bethesda and ZeniMax the only developers considered licensed? What about Dire Wolf Digital and Vir2L? I changed my mind since the moot, I think that we should highlight that the information comes from sources that are sanctioned by Bethesda.

      I propose to use Sanctioned (SAN) for novel references. If we reach an agreement I could change the references in the pages I edited.

        Loading editor
    • Good question. Maybe because ZeniMax owns dat shit? Dunno. Referencing the novels separately shouldn't be done at all.

        Loading editor
    • Amulet of Kings wrote: Why are Bethesda and ZeniMax the only developers considered licensed? What about Dire Wolf Digital and Vir2L? I changed my mind since the moot, I think that we should highlight that the information comes from sources that are sanctioned by Bethesda.

      I propose to use Sanctioned (SAN) for novel references. If we reach an agreement I could change the references in the pages I edited.

      No reason Dire Wolf Digital and Vir2L wouldn't count as licensed if they're making copyrighted material, they would be included if we go with "Licensed." Novels would probably count as licensed too.

      I still feel that "Unlicensed" isn't the best grouping. It's difficult/impossible to define whether a lot of texts are copyrighted at all, such as the Translation of Calcelmo's Stone (authored pre-Skyrim by Kuhlmann, who works for Bethesda, but it wasn't part of the game...?). We also have the From The Many-Headed Talos, which is partially copyrighted because part of it appeared in Skyrim. There's also numerous undated texts such as the ones I linked above, so we'll end ultimately up with a bunch of sources whose status can't really be accurately defined.

      Using the classification of "Developer texts" would help us avoid this issue. If it was written by a developer, and is a standalone text, it would fall under that category. Kind of self-explanatory. So all of the current Out-of-Game Texts would be sorted this way, but a published blog post from ZeniMax (e.g. Loremaster's Archives, news updates, etc.) would be given a regular reference tag.

        Loading editor
    • Atvelonis wrote:

      Amulet of Kings wrote: Why are Bethesda and ZeniMax the only developers considered licensed? What about Dire Wolf Digital and Vir2L? I changed my mind since the moot, I think that we should highlight that the information comes from sources that are sanctioned by Bethesda.

      I propose to use Sanctioned (SAN) for novel references. If we reach an agreement I could change the references in the pages I edited.

      No reason Dire Wolf Digital and Vir2L wouldn't count as licensed if they're making copyrighted material, they would be included if we go with "Licensed." Novels would probably count as licensed too.

      I still feel that "Unlicensed" isn't the best grouping. It's difficult/impossible to define whether a lot of texts are copyrighted at all, such as the Translation of Calcelmo's Stone (authored pre-Skyrim by Kuhlmann, who works for Bethesda, but it wasn't part of the game...?). We also have the From The Many-Headed Talos, which is partially copyrighted because part of it appeared in Skyrim. There's also numerous undated texts such as the ones I linked above, so we'll end ultimately up with a bunch of sources whose status can't really be accurately defined.

      Using the classification of "Developer texts" would help us avoid this issue. If it was written by a developer, and is a standalone text, it would fall under that category. Kind of self-explanatory. So all of the current Out-of-Game Texts would be sorted this way, but a published blog post from ZeniMax (e.g. Loremaster's Archives, news updates, etc.) would be given a regular reference tag.

      Given your current explanation, I think DEV would be fitting.

      I'll always have a bit of favoritism for UL, because for the more casual player, it's easier to understand than DEV, imo, but I suppose that could depend on the person.

        Loading editor
    • Reviving this thread because some folks over at the UESP have had some similar ideas.

      I've been thinking about this proposal over the past couple months, and in that time I've started to like "UL" (unlicensed) more than "DEV" (developer). The issues of determining whether certain obscure texts are licensed/unlicensed still remains, but it feels the "neatest" and least subjective classification to me regardless.

      Lady Nerevar describes it well on the other thread: "Unlicenced is a simple distinction - did this text appear in something a Zenimax Media Company paid for?" Also, I suppose it isn't out of the question to simply ask Bethesda/ZeniMax for a clarification on licensing info if we need to do so.

        Loading editor
    • Atvelonis wrote: Reviving this thread because some folks over at the UESP have had some similar ideas.

      I've been thinking about this proposal over the past couple months, and in that time I've started to like "UL" (unlicensed) more than "DEV" (developer). The issues of determining whether certain obscure texts are licensed/unlicensed still remains, but it feels the "neatest" and least subjective classification to me regardless.

      Lady Nerevar describes it well on the other thread: "Unlicenced is a simple distinction - did this text appear in something a Zenimax Media Company paid for?" Also, I suppose it isn't out of the question to simply ask Bethesda/ZeniMax for a clarification on licensing info if we need to do so.

      That's what I was aiming for. Though Lady Nerevar seems to have described it in a much more simple and clear manner than I did, our aims were the same.

      Now I suppose we'd just need to have a common vote?

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.