 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
Ok, the problem as I see it is more a matter of definitions.
I would fully agree that OFFICIAL business of the team should only be conducted by officials who have been empowered by our system to do that. Others should clearly refrain from it and instead offer their freedback (including criticism) of how it is being done as they wish... ultimately, they always have the power to change WHO is doing these things by the power of the ballot box.
What I have a problem with is us telling members of the team that they cannot chat with members of other teams about this game under any circumstances without permission. Aside from perhaps being in contradiction with Apolyton's free speech rules, it's just unpractical and unenforceable.
The issue, as I see it then, is to define what IS and what IS NOT official communication and then who may (and may not) use it.
What I think people (myself included) would like to see is posts made to the United Nations forum to be considered "official communications" and thus something only those given the power to do so can do. We keep the process of WHAT is being posted reasonably democratic by allowing for input from the entire team and as always, the power of the ballot box (a CoC can be called against a Consul at any time, you can ask for a minister or ambassador to be ousted at any time). Ultimately, it would be helpful if the Consuls, ministers, and ambassadors were responsive to feedback however.
The more tricky issue is what to do about the embassy chat channels. Do places like #isdgfamtalks, the CGN #isdg-Embassy1, and the CFC #demogame_CFC_embassy count as places where only officials should post or is it permitted for anyone to go in there and just have some light banter with miccofl or Chieftess or Furloaf or anyone, either on stuff relating to this game or any other? As long as secure information is not being leaked or people aren't POSING as officials, should it be restricted or not?
Open question in my book... I'd like to see what the team thinks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigFree
|
 |
Acampo, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
This is bologna.
This is being brought forward by Trip because of a comment I made to miccofl.
quote:
(14:09:15) • @miccofl can't decide whether to get half baked and hopefully clam down before posting or just cut loose.
(14:09:30) (@miccofl) calm, not clam
(14:09:58) (BigFree) lol
(14:10:53) (BigFree) jump in head first
(14:10:57) (@miccofl) once they started using the word cheat it really set me off
(14:11:04) (BigFree) I know
(14:11:12) (BigFree) like the made the definitions themselves
(14:11:16) (BigFree) *they
|
Trip thinks that I may have caused miccofl to kill/try to kill the negotiations with GWT and GCA. That is simply not the case. This was a personal comment only on how I would handle the situation; I did not misrepresent myself as speaking on behalf of all of Apolyton when I said "jump in head first"
quote:
(15:04:02) (Arnelos) look, we're never going to replay the past 30 turns whatever... just not going to happen... the game is more likely to end first. If this is a ploy to get GCA out of the game entirely, I can understand... but we're not REALLY going back that far.
(15:11:12) (@miccofl) let them sweat
(15:12:11) • @miccofl has no intention of backing the game up that far
(15:12:46) (Trip) why post that then?
(15:12:58) (Trip) after so much has been accomplished
(15:13:03) (@miccofl) because they called us cheats
|
Trip seems to think only his opinion matters. miccofl had no intention of sabotaging any discussions regardless of what I said to him. Trip does not understand that.
As long as a perosn is not divulging secret information or information that compromises how the team is playing the game, then I don't see why they should be stiffled.
I can see in a chat atmosphere or in a forum the want or need for fewer voices so as to get a clearer message accross. That is fine and is accepted by the team. When Trip asked all to refrain from posting at the UN I suggested that MZ post there for us. But, this is not what Trip is refering to exactly. He wants to not only control "official" correpsondence, which is legit; but he wants to stiffle even the "non-official" chatter as well. To tell the truth, this is part of the fun in the game for me.
Tell me why Senators should not express their own personal opinons? Even to other teams as long as they do'nt divulge compromising information?
To be censured from that free speech would require a mandate of the people - they would have to vote on the circumstance. I highly doubt that many people want their voices taken away.
Trip, before he was a Consul, often spoke in chats to other teams. Was he, at times, asked to pipe down or to just be quiet? Yes, he was. Was he ever threatened to be "kicked" from the team if he did not keep his personal opinons to himself? I don't think so.
Having one voice to speak for us in diplomatic situatons is fine and is even needed at times, but to censure the Senate, accross the board, is ludicrous and I would hope that every Senator would vote agaisnt such a measure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trip
|
 |
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
Shortly after miccofl and BF's chat, miccofl posted this:
quote:
A mere thirty hours ago we were more than willing to copromise. Our official posts took great care not to use words that would inflame the situation; at the time, almost everyone else was doing the same. Then, something happened to change that; someone used the word cheat and directed it at us, a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Well Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle is here to inform you that you are just as black. The actions we took last turn were no more cheating than the actions that were taken 23 turns ago.
So now, it’s out in the open. We all cheated, we all had approval to cheat and we all took advantage. If we continue, this game will be forever tainted by it (regardless if we all agree to stop now or not.) The time for it to stop was many turns ago, not now. Regardless of the outcome, if we proceed, we are all going to look back on this and think; “They cheated!” I don’t think that is something that any of us want.
The only acceptable solution, one that eliminates cheating and the fact that everyone cheated, is to go back before the cheating started and “do over.” Yes, GCA gets the short end of the stick but that is the end they had before this whole mess started. Go back to before GCA made their teleport, and then we can go forward. |
Miccofl posted this, partially due to BF's encouragement. How much? Impossible to say. But I know that when miccofl has said something like "gee, I'm fuming mad, I don't know if I should post" I tell him to calm down instead of "jumping right in."
I personally have spent countless hours on this recent situation, negotating, sending PMs, chatting, engaging in other back-and-forth, working my ass of to try and find a compromise that every team can be happy with and that is favorable to us.
After a post like that from miccofl, GCA or GWT could take offense, clam up and drop the agreement. And miccofl posting it owes some blame on BF's encouragement.
Despite no one acting in an "official" sense, a comment from one of our members has the possibility of derailing the discussions we've spent so long working on. Despite no "official" message being passed or any sensitive information being revealed, a single senator has the potential to greatly undermine what's in the team's interest.
That is what I'm trying to prevent.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:34
|
|
Oh boy oh boy...
Ok, first of all, in principle I believe that our team members be open to reading, discussing, and openly posting in public forums or chat rooms. I am not a fan of elitism, nor am I a fan of withholding information to others just because they a bit lower in the chain of command. All Apolytonian citizens deserve access to the chats, to the UN, etc. and they also have the right to give their points of view on all matters.
HOWEVER
I think some people have abused that privilege, and have used the public forums as an outlet for their own immature agenda of pissing off other teams and stooping as low as the others. And I don't care how many disclaimers they put saying its just their opinion and not the team, I makes our team look back, period. And I've tried arguing this endlessly with BigFree to no avail, he keeps on insisting that he has free will and has the right to post whatever he wants in the UN and insult whoever he pleases (even me). What I think is so bad is that this isn't the work of a raging lunatic, it's the work of someone who comes up with very good ideas and has also helped this debate tremendously: for example the disbanding units which is now a given thanks to his insistence.
So, my question: why BigFree, why when you could easily spend your time and effort making more of the same constructive posts you are known for must you stoop as low as a 12-year old FPS gamer and resort to provocations, insults and other derogatory or sarcastic comments? Do you think they find it funny? Do you think they will have a much higher regards for our team when they hear such things? Absolutley not.
I know this is the millionth time me (and others) have criticized your behavior, and so far it seems for naught but I ask you in the name of this team to show some goddamn self-control sometimes. EVERY ONE of us would love to jump out and call Lucky a cheating sonofab*tch as well as GWT too. But will that get us anywhere? No. Will it help our cause? Absolutely not. So, if we gain absolutely nothing positive from this experience, why continue it? The only reason is of course, to satisfy our own personal lust for getting the last verbal laugh.
Just quit it man, seriously. You have so much to offer this team and you've shown it on many times. Don't fall for their crap, just keep a straight face, reply to them harshly but don't cross the line of insults and needless sarcasm.
Now on the other issue: which is proposing solutions which have to be discussed. In such crucial situations as these, we have tried very hard to maintain a unified position on the matter, at least us three consuls and people who are present with us in the chat. We have also tried to keep the forum posted with the latest advances. Posting solutions which differ from our official ones might have other teams say "oh that is a better idea" and force us to lean towards that one, even when it might not be in our interests to do so. So all I would ask is to stay current with the lastest posts in this thread or catch us in the chat (where at least one of us three consuls is usually online).
In conclusion, my solution:
We discussed various weeks back if there should be an official spokesperson for the UN. I would strongly suggest that every issue brought at the UN have a thread here in our private forum where everyone can discuss and debate, but that only official representatives post in the UN, this would mean the Consuls and the FAM.
Same thing with the embassy channels. People should be free to lurk and hang out there, and they may carry conversations with the other teams, but any game issue should only be discussed with a consul or FAM member present.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
Frankly, we do need some information control. This is getting dangerously unpredictable.
This was much easier back in the day when the FAM was just myself and my little group of ambassadors and we met in channel and came to a unified decision on how to approach a team, how to talk to them, what issues to push on, and what issues to give on. It was also easier as we generally handled one issue at a time, had one individual to handle, and had a clear plan and policy with regards to how to handle things.
Things were also made easier by the fact that MasterZen and I haven't disagreed on a diplomatic issue since the beginning of this game ... a feat that, frankly, startles and amazes me. He and I were interchangable and we were able to keep a coherant policy going regardless of who was present.
Things are different now. With Arnelos and MasterZen and Trip as Consuls (all of whom are very capable diplomats), I haven't had the same responsibilities nor have I filled the primary negotiator role. In fact, my "office" has become more of an advisory post.
Unfortunately, the complexity of these UN negotiations, the seriousness of the issues, and the difficulty in getting our team to see eye-to-eye on the issues has caused a breakdown. I'm unclear on who has become "the voice" of Apolyton, but we either need one voice, or we need one common agenda that everyone understands and follows.
I agree that this is far to serious to let people freely post their feelings and beliefs on the UN board. This task is also too big to have just one person undertake it. What we need is a unified goal and a unified front. Perhaps we can also play off each other, but whatever we do, we need to be more focused and also more prepared.
I have no problem with the Consuls limiting who can and cannot talk during this key issue, but that prohibition should be lifted after this is resolved.
I will continue to be available to advise the Consuls on this situation, and be available to step in and handle things if needed.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I would rather compromise this team's chance at victory than restrict freedom of speech on any forum or channel.
That said, if BigFree's comments really are hurting the team (not sure if this includes our reputation), I would expect BigFree to figure it out and tone it down a little, assuming the good of team is still his main concern. I would furthermore expect the Consuls to deal with this matter as a special circumstance, rather than propose a blanket ban on Senators opening their mouths at the UN or other public fora.
As vondrack so perfectly pointed out, if Trip were not Consul he would never agree to something like this. Trip's unofficial communications were very useful to this team; so were BigFree's. And so can many others'.
As a side note, I would like to point out that the UN should ideally not be a place where our team's best interests are perennial. The UN is a metagame forum; it should deal with issues that relate to how the game should be played in order for all teams to have an enjoyable experience. I'm finding it rather annoying that our three Consuls are using the UN to further our in-game aims, as though that were the only thing that matters. For instance, BigFree's comments were considered "completely unacceptable" until they got results (GCA agreeing to disband units).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Are we going to vote on this proposal?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
As a side note, I would like to point out that the UN should ideally not be a place where our team's best interests are perennial. The UN is a metagame forum; it should deal with issues that relate to how the game should be played in order for all teams to have an enjoyable experience. I'm finding it rather annoying that our three Consuls are using the UN to further our in-game aims, as though that were the only thing that matters. For instance, BigFree's comments were considered "completely unacceptable" until they got results (GCA agreeing to disband units).
|
I still don't find some of BF's comments acceptable, if the truth be known.
That said, some of his other arguments were indeed helpful and not simply because BigFree is extremely partisan.
As for whether the Consuls have put team interest before the fairness of the game, I'll say this: The compromise that Trip is trying to defend, even from BigFree's or miccofl's attempts to force a more advantageous agreement (which both Trip and I have been unhappy with and expressed), was reached both because the teams agree that it is AGREEABLE and FAIR to various teams, but also because it is RIGHT. How often do political expediency and moral right run together? These things are NOT as mutually exclusive as you make them out to be.
I will fully admit that what I've been doing is defending a compromise which I see as fair and right as also being advantageous because I perceived that a portion of the team thinks that way as well as thinks in terms of right and wrong (though right and wrong are oft confused with advantage and disadvantage). So the fact that you, being the contrarian you are, have chosen to pick out the part of the defense you don't like as somehow cancelling out everything you would actually like I don't really find all that surprising.  
I honestly believe the compromise worked out is both fair and right. That it could be potentially advantageous to Apolyton is icing on the cake (and our assessment of that COULD even be wrong, though obviously I don't think so). The right thing to do does not suddenly become the wrong thing to do because it is ALSO advantageous... the good path is not ALWAYS hard and we should be thankful for the few times when it is not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arnelos
So the fact that you, being the contrarian you are...
|
Thank you. 
quote:
I honestly believe the compromise worked out is both fair and right.
|
I'm not really sure how forcing mongoose to rescinding his decisions is right, given that we appointed him to deal with these matters in the first place. It should be up to him to work this out, not us to barter for settlements.
Let's face it, our decisions are mostly governed by two things: 1) our desire to win, 2) our complete and utter vendetta against GCA. GCA teleported, mongoose, said it was okay. Now we get our chance to "make our point" about teleportation, and jump on the opportunity to put ourselves ahead by forcing GCA to disband units. All the while we herald teleporting CGN's units as a great tactic that saves our bacon.
I'm not saying we're the only ones to blame here; GWT, GCA and CGN are all pretty sketchy in my book. I just really really dislike how the UN has shaped up, namely as a place to whine when things do not our way, and strike deals that are most definitely not within the spirit of the game. But if that's the kind of place it's going to be, I see no reason to prevent individual members of teams from speaking their mind. Again, our in-game agenda should have no place at the UN (whether the ideal one I would like it to be, or the place it is now).
Dominae
P.S: Thank you all for putting up with my negative comments these past few days, especially the Consuls. I will try to do something constructive for the Interior to compensate (that is, if E_T will allow it).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
I'm not really sure how forcing mongoose to rescinding his decisions is right, given that we appointed him to deal with these matters in the first place.
|
If it has not already become obvious, it's because even Mongoose prefers it when the teams themselves unanimously agree to a solution to a problem so that he doesn't have to. To be blunt, Mongoose is too much of a nice guy to be as effective as a moderator/admin as we'd want him to be. Lacking a tough moderator who forces people to play fairly, the teams are resorting to agreeing to things by consensus on our own. Mongoose is sitting back to let us do it ourselves because he PREFERS IT THAT WAY, mostly because he's tired of doing the job himself and getting whined at from all sides.
There's also something to be said for this approach... there are certainly some outstanding issues in terms of exploits in this game. If all of the teams can come to a unanimous decision regarding them, that means that everyone ACCEPTS that decision and makes everyone far less likely to whine to Mongoose about it or to anyone else. Afterall, they approved it.
quote:
Let's face it, our decisions are mostly governed by two things: 1) our desire to win, 2) our complete and utter vendetta against GCA. GCA teleported, mongoose, said it was okay. Now we get our chance to "make our point" about teleportation, and jump on the opportunity to put ourselves ahead by forcing GCA to disband units. All the while we herald teleporting CGN's units as a great tactic that saves our bacon.
I'm not saying we're the only ones to blame here; GWT, GCA and CGN are all pretty sketchy in my book.
|
There is no question that we grudgingly accepted to help CGN with their unit warp because we (as a team) felt that (1) it was justified by GCA and GWT's earlier use of the same exploit and (2) our desire to highlight just how abusive said exploit could be in the hopes that if we used it ONCE, it would never have to be used again. Part of that justification was UNDOUBTEDLY that people felt good about getting back at GCA and GWT for their unit warp of GCA's army and use of the WW exploit against us.
That said, as I have argued, sometimes the right thing and the advantageous thing coincide. Not often, but it happens. GCA and GWT were clearly in the wrong for using these exploits. Had we not used the same exploit in a more harmful fashion, do we really expect that the situation would have changed? Mongoose is completely feckless as an administrator. Would he have really created a ruling to outlaw such practices on his own?
So, we did it, we muddied our hands and we're sure as hell not proud that we had to, but it was necessary. It also has the desired outcome: ending the use of said exploits.
That said, I'll be the first to admit that the reason it was our team (and not another) that felt it had the INCENTIVE to do this is that it was US being harmed by these exploits. Would we have gone to the same level as to muddy our own hands in order to end exploits being used against a team we desired to be damaged or destroyed? I don't know. That would have been a harder road to take.
Point is, the road we did take was both the right one and far easier for us to take because it was advantageous to us. I'm not going to complain about the coincidence of those two things.
quote:
I just really really dislike how the UN has shaped up, namely as a place to whine when things do not our way, and strike deals that are most definitely not within the spirit of the game.
|
Sounds just like the real life United Nations, actually.
Seriously... no where on earth is there a place for more petty bickering and naked self-interest attempting to pose as naive idealism as the United Nations. The fact that this is mirrored in this game is almost appropriate.
Any time you're going to give the same people competing with each other the say in determining the rules by which they compete with each other, this is going to be what results.
quote:
But if that's the kind of place it's going to be, I see no reason to prevent individual members of teams from speaking their mind. Again, our in-game agenda should have no place at the UN (whether the ideal one I would like it to be, or the place it is now).
|
And here is where I disagree. The statements by our members reflect upon their entire team. If our members our whinny and *****y in the U.N. forum, Apolyton will get a reputation for being a bunch of whinny little brats.
The distinction is that if a Consul or the Foreign Affairs Minister or an ambassador is responsible for such behavior they can be removed from power and effectively prevented from damaging the reputation of the entire team. If any member of the team does it, the only recourse the team has is to kick the member off of the team. 
It is THAT distinction which makes it entirely permissible for us to restrict who may and may not represent the team at the U.N. Because if I behave poorly there and make my team look stupid, you can just CoC me to shut me up and stop damaging the entire team.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
P.S: Thank you all for putting up with my negative comments these past few days, especially the Consuls. I will try to do something constructive for the Interior to compensate (that is, if E_T will allow it).
|
Dominae, believe me, your comments are everything but negative. Yes, you might seem like a pain to us sometimes but it is always healthy to see every side of the story regardless of our positions.
I strongly welcome any type of debate, especially that which questions our points of view since it strengthens our own beliefs on what is right and what is wrong.
I honestly think that us three consuls have done all we can to reach a compromise which benefits our team the most. Morality is always an issue here an we are very much aware that our current course of action is very far from what we, as a team, would have hoped for from the start.
I am very proud of this team. Proud that we are capable of distinguishing what is right and what is wrong. But also proud that we can compromise on these things even when it hurts us a bit.
I strongly encourage not only you, but anyone else, to question and debate all of our decisions. We are a far better team because of it. Keep up the good work. 
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
 |
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
I will try to do something constructive for the Interior to compensate (that is, if E_T will allow it).
|
Hey, I've NEVER said anything that I don't want help. If anything, this is all starting to get real old and sometimes really fast. If anything, I would like to get the Palace moved (and the FP rebuilt, as the time jump covers that, too) and get us into and through our GA, before I feel like it's a good time to retire from the MoI.
But we shall see what happens. As I've posted in other threads, I specifically need help with Sims and keeping them updated. Not only for my use, but for everyone to download and see if there is a better way that I might be missing.
With this turning back of time, we have a little bit of time to examine a few things a little bit more closely.
Anyways, back to this discussion
My main Problem, for some time now, is Trip's lack of keeping us informed. If anything, if he has several conferences with different people over diffenent things, in one day, he should atleast post summeries & logs once per day. I'm a person, who likes to have the raw data available, mainly for 2 reasons, so that I can look for intelligence slips, ON BOTH PARTIES parts. And so that I can keep informed as much as possible as to the flow of any particular negotiations. All of the other FAM/Consuls are able to do this, so why do we have to let Trip get away with it??
That's my Basic beef with Trip, in a nutshell.
E_T
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:34
|
|
This isn't just about shutting someone up con, it's about making our whole diplomatic/consular apparatus more efficient.
What the last couple of days has shown us is that our system is not perfect. That it is very flawed precisely because we have no control over who says what and where. And that, in my opinion is what needs to be solved urgently before other debates arise (and from the looks of this game, they are bound to).
At the UN we were close to having reached a consensus among all the teams involved. This consensus went to the gutter because of CGN's hot-headedness and one of our members, who is neither an ambassador nor a consul who encouraged it instead of attempting to calm them down (or at least keeping quiet).
It also does not help to have everyone post things at the UN which have not been discussed previously by the team as a whole, not just by the Consuls.
I understand that some people think that this is an attempt to consolidate more power to the consuls and thus having only us three able to post on the matter. But this team hsa a structure, it has a system of checks and balances to ensure that everyone is accountable to someone. In a nutshell it goes Ministers -> Consuls -> Citizens. Who do the citizens respond to? What can we do about people who go and post things which are out of line with policy at the UN or in the diplomatic chat rooms with other teams? If a consul screws up, we get CoCed. If a minister screws up he gets replaced by the Consuls. What do we do when a citizen screws up?
All we are proposing here is to trim the system so that there is accountability on all sides and that our policy actually be coherent and unified. What is posted at the UN and at the other chat rooms should be the Voice of Apolyton, not the thoughts of each of us as individuals. Considering that everything said at the UN has been so far been polled and discussed here, I don't see where the accussations of elitism or keeping the citizenry in the dark have any foundation.
Please think of this carefully. And also think if the citizenry as a whole have done anything to reign in inappropriate behaviour in our diplomatic forums. I know the FAM and the Consuls have, but unless the citizens do anything about it, it is pointless since we pretty much have no power over the people per se. This is your chance to do something about it.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigFree
|
|
Acampo, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
Yeah, lets make this game more efficient by only letting a few select people have a voice.
I thought this was a "Democracy Game"?
Both words being operative here.
Democracy; as in everyone can take a role, everyone has a voice, onone is left out, no one is greater than the whole.
Game; as in this is for fun and how much fun is it if only a few people get to have their say. How much fun is it to have them have to pass everything along through the Consuls in order for them to be heard?
Apolyton, if it really wanted to win this, would be better off just letting a few select individuals play this game while the rest of the "team" just 'observes.' I'm serious, it really would be more efficient and we'd have a better chance at winning.
But, is that why any of us signed up for this? Did we sign up so that we could give away our voices to others?
The more the Senate is silenced and the more power the Consuls are given, the more this is not a Democracy game.
While I understand the need for a unifying voice, why can't the general public be heard abroad with the other teams knowing that only an "Official" of Apolyton has the authority to make or break deals? When RL diplomats do their thing, they do so under the understanding that any deal must be approved by the higher ups. We have been operating under that principal and I don't understand why the Consuls want to change it. I mean if the team saw this as a problem, then why didn't the Senate bring this up? A Consul has suggested this as a way to increase their power and involvement in the game and to muscle out what little voice that the Senate had.
Let's tell the Consuls that they need to do their job as directed by the Constitution and tell them to keep their shackles off of our right to be heard!
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-02-2004 04:49
|