Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Slapdash

***Official PSF Moderation Thread***

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Among other things you compared asking a foreign power for help in discrediting a political opponent to "opposition research." There aren't many places where an opinion like that will escape unchallenged. 

Not all opinions are created equal.

I am confused at what the big difference really is.  Would it be wrong for Pelosi to ask Putin about Trump?  Seeking the truth should not illegal.  

Share this post


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

No, I don't think this is accurate. There's a heckler's veto at work on this board, and it has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the counterarguments presented, nor of reasoning. It's really simply an exertion of political will; nothing more, nothing less. That someone as bright as yourself might have missed that possibility strikes me as willful, to a degree.

I would like a link for each of these assertions. Tia

  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

I am confused at what the big difference really is.  Would it be wrong for Pelosi to ask Putin about Trump?  Seeking the truth should not illegal.  

He wasn't seeking truth...but anything he could use politically.

Yes...if Pelosi on here own contacts Putin and asks him to investigate Trump...and for Putin to contact her personal lawyer...that is wrong.

I will ask again...do you honestly believe Trump was asking about Biden had anything to do with National Interest or National Security?

Share this post


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

I am confused at what the big difference really is.  Would it be wrong for Pelosi to ask Putin about Trump?  Seeking the truth should not illegal.  

The correct analogy would be if Pelosi asked Putin for damaging information about a Republican running against Pelosi for Congress in her district- and Pelosi offering to lift sanctions against Russia if Putin provides it. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I would like a link for each of these assertions. Tia

Here!

Share this post


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

The correct analogy would be if Pelosi asked Putin for damaging information about a Republican running against Pelosi for Congress in her district- and Pelosi offering to lift sanctions against Russia if Putin provides it. 

You are assuming there is a link between the two which has not been established.  Asking for facts is not criminal.

Share this post


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

You are assuming there is a link between the two which has not been established.  Asking for facts is not criminal.

It doesn't have to be criminal for it to be impeachable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

He wasn't seeking truth...but anything he could use politically.

Yes...if Pelosi on here own contacts Putin and asks him to investigate Trump...and for Putin to contact her personal lawyer...that is wrong.

I will ask again...do you honestly believe Trump was asking about Biden had anything to do with National Interest or National Security?

No, but politicians just need plausible deniability.  

Share this post


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

You are assuming there is a link between the two which has not been established.  Asking for facts is not criminal.

Common sense should tell you that if he’s asking about Biden, Trump’s motivation is winning the 2020 election. If Trump defenders attempt to make the argument that you’re making- “we don’t know for sure why he asked about Biden-“ they’re going to lose public opinion. Badly. Because it’s absurd, frankly. 

Share this post


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

It doesn't have to be criminal for it to be impeachable.

That is a really low bar then to overturn an election.  This is a moderation thread, let's not pollute this fine thread about the horrors of PSF moderation with Trump-hating discussion which is already in 24 front page threads. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No, but politicians just need plausible deniability.  

And its quite obvious it wasn't about National Interest and National security.  He can try to deny it...but there is nothing plausible about the denial.  Thats the point.  Its clearly in the wrong.  Even you admit it wasn't about those things.  That is part of what makes it impeachable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

No, but politicians just need plausible deniability.  

The argument that Trump brought up Biden for reasons other than his own personal election desires is not plausible. 

Share this post


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

That is a really low bar then to overturn an election.  This is a moderation thread, let's not pollute this fine thread about the horrors of PSF moderation with Trump-hating discussion which is already in 24 front page threads. 

Its not overturning an election.  Its punishing the man for improper actions.  And its what impeachment is there for.

Though, I agree its a moderation thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, rockaction said:

No, I don't think this is accurate. There's a heckler's veto at work on this board, and it has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the counterarguments presented, nor of reasoning. It's really simply an exertion of political will; nothing more, nothing less. That someone as bright as yourself might have missed that possibility strikes me as willful, to a degree.

The mob is always right.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That is a really low bar then to overturn an election.  This is a moderation thread, let's not pollute this fine thread about the horrors of PSF moderation with Trump-hating discussion which is already in 24 front page threads. 

Agree with your second point but one last item: impeaching and removing Donald Trump is NOT overturning the election. Hillary would not be the next President; Pence would. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

And its quite obvious it wasn't about National Interest and National security.  He can try to deny it...but there is nothing plausible about the denial.  Thats the point.  Its clearly in the wrong.  Even you admit it wasn't about those things.  That is part of what makes it impeachable.

 

Only if it was truly tied to aid.  But that is a topic for 24 other threads, not this one. 

Share this post


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

The mob is always right.  

I mean, for someone as smart as Ramsey not to even consider that possibility strikes me as a glaring omission, at the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

You are assuming there is a link between the two which has not been established.  Asking for facts is not criminal.

We really should be seeking the truth about these candidates.  I honestly don't care where it comes from.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I mean, for someone as smart as Ramsey not to even consider that possibility strikes me as a glaring omission, at the least.

Political bias gets to everyone.  As a rule though, whenever anyone lays out 'all' the possibilities they usually intentionally leave out the ine they don't want to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I mean, for someone as smart as Ramsey not to even consider that possibility strikes me as a glaring omission, at the least.

I agree with him.  The reason there's an "anti-Trump bias" on this board is because Trump is incapable of being defended in an honest and thoughtful way.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't care one way or another if Trump gets impeached. The next boss will be just as bad. Which is also how I felt about Hillary.

But lets all be honest here. If Trump were an active participant on the FBG forums, he'd be reported more than any other poster for not being excellent, and lead the forum in timeouts. Which would put him in the same group as many of the posters most vocal against him. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, rockaction said:

No, I don't think this is accurate. There's a heckler's veto at work on this board, and it has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the counterarguments presented, nor of reasoning. It's really simply an exertion of political will; nothing more, nothing less. That someone as bright as yourself might have missed that possibility strikes me as willful, to a degree.

If the poster is saying that the board is 90% biased against him, I don't see how that qualifies as a heckler's veto.  That's just the marketplace of ideas working.  Many of the people who more typically post in this particular thread, on both sides, are using a heckler's veto.  That's what the report button and constantly whining about the moderators is.  My personal preference is for everyone to post what they honestly think and let the chips fall where they may,.

And yeah, I'm sure it feels unfair when people dogpile on your opinion.  It's no surprise that I disagree, strongly, with a lot of opinions you've expressed on this board.  You've shown some real willingness to interrogate your reaction to disagreements and how you choose to present disagreements, and consequently the board--me included--are more inclined to try to engage with you and try to take your arguments seriously because you've at least demonstrated enough that we can be sure they are sincere.  

And this is a process.  Out of 70 political issues, IvanK and I probably agree on 5 to 10.  But's it's not as if I just started taking his arguments seriously because he was against Trump.  I knew Ivan was that rare unicorn arguing for a conservative position who was actually telling the truth when he said he was a libertarian.  It's the same with Maurile.  He's been a favorite poster of mine in political threads for close to 20 years and we disagree 8 out of 10 times.  

The thing is, I don't particularly care about civility for civility's sake.  Respect is earned.  And when confronted with the typical Trump supporter's post, I can be pretty sure that it's either free of analysis or citation whatsoever, or that it completely misrepresents what it cites.  In the latter case, when I take the 45 seconds on Google it requires for me to confirm my suspicion, I don't really see the benefit of treating that post like a difference of opinion between rational people.  I'd rather be honest.  And because it's not my board, that means sometimes I'll get a timeout.  Which is fine.  I don't report posts and I don't protest timeouts.  Because Joe or any other moderator doesn't have to share my preferences in this regard.   

  • Like 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's kind of you in certain parts but I respectfully disagree, aside from the poor use of "heckler's veto," which was wrong from the jump on my end.

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

If the poster is saying that the board is 90% biased against him, I don't see how that qualifies as a heckler's veto.  That's just the marketplace of ideas working.  Many of the people who more typically post in this particular thread, on both sides, are using a heckler's veto.  That's what the report button and constantly whining about the moderators is.   

It is not a bias against me.  Look at the polls taken in this forum.  Like Kavanaugh was over 90 percent against him.  Impeachment would be very similar.  Virtually all the threads are anti-Trump or pro democrat candidate X.  The one thread on AOC which mocks her antics, usually gets lots of pushback no matter how stupid the things she says.  90 percent of the makeup of this forum is filled with the 30-40 percent of the strongest left-leaning segment of our general population.  Ideas which are counter to the leftist ideology get mocked everytime and it is more a function of the bias than it is of the content.  

As far as moderation goes, Joe will tell you a bad post from a conservative will generate 8 reports immediately which gets the mods attention.  That is not the case with a bad post from the liberal side where it will only get 1 or 2 reports and usually ignored by the mods. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

We really should be seeking the truth about these candidates.  I honestly don't care where it comes from.  

So you fully support the impeachment investigation and efforts to obtain Trump's tax returns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, apalmer said:

So you fully support the impeachment investigation and efforts to obtain Trump's tax returns?

I think you have to ask at what cost?  The house has other jobs to do with the taxpayer's money and I think the Dems should be approaching 2020 by focusing on the issues since the Mueller fiasco has shown they are inept at poo slinging.  If Ukraine has a copy of Trump's tax return then by all means post it on the internet for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this earlier, Biden has been my choice from the start because I thought he would calming after 4 years of Trump and not going totally opposite with Warren or Bernie.  That being said if he is dirty at all or has ties that would be uncovered after the election I want to know that right now.  I don`t want another 4 years of constant turmoil and investigations.   Lets get it done before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, apalmer said:

So you fully support the impeachment investigation and efforts to obtain Trump's tax returns?

You're changing the subject, of course.  But I've stated several times in relation to that stuff that it should be a requirement that one obtains a security clearance BEFORE being allowed to run for President or even Congress.  It wouldn't weed out all the turds but it help tremendously with the corruption.  Part of obtaining that security is not only tax returns but full financial disclosure information.

You probably already know this too but a desire for the public to know Biden's history of corruption has zero to do with any action by Trump.  It's not either or.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 90% of threads in this forum eventually get derailed by whining about moderation, I guess it's only appropriate that we're arguing about Trump in the designated moderation thread.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

There is also a huge anti-Hitler and anti-Manson bias on this board.  If you feel that you are unfairly singled out for the opinions expressed on this board, maybe you should consider the possibility that those opinions are either:  1)not very informed; 2) poorly reasoned; and/or 3) morally indefensible.

I just about never agree with him but he is well informed and his reasoning is fine. I wouldn't call his opinions morally indefensible, just often wrong.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2019 at 4:49 AM, FBG Moderator said:

Altering what someone said and then quoting someone when it's not what they actually wrote is lame and not something we allow. If you see that, report it.

 

That's wasn't what I was talking about. Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2019 at 1:16 PM, Max Power said:

What is the FBG staff take on their site hosting a white power symbol? 

Its offensive to many people and I feel like I'm doing my part bringing it to your attention for removal. 

👌

Happy 4th all. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/26/us/adl-new-hate-symbols/index.html

No reply to this and the threat continues. FBGs is fine hosting hate symbols? 

👌

Ok, we got you. :pics:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidenote...  what caused the trump town country name thread to get deleted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Max Power said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/26/us/adl-new-hate-symbols/index.html

No reply to this and the threat continues. FBGs is fine hosting hate symbols? 

👌

Ok, we got you. :pics:

In reality, the OK sign is probably used to represent 'white power' maybe 0.1 percent of the time at most.   It is funny how such a common symbol can be used to project some kind of racist hidden meaning in people.  It is like they have to invent #### to find racism.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

In reality, the OK sign is probably used to represent 'white power' maybe 0.1 percent of the time at most.   It is funny how such a common symbol can be used to project some kind of racist hidden meaning in people.  It is like they have to invent #### to find racism.  

Or because racists took it over as their thing and people are being careful about it.

Nobody is inventing that racists use it...it happens.  The issue now os determining when its use is for white power and when its just people playing the circle game or saying something is ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Or because racists took it over as their thing and people are being careful about it.

Nobody is inventing that racists use it...it happens.  The issue now os determining when its use is for white power and when its just people playing the circle game or saying something is ok

A normal human being would presume it was an OK sign.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Or because racists took it over as their thing and people are being careful about it.

Nobody is inventing that racists use it...it happens.  The issue now os determining when its use is for white power and when its just people playing the circle game or saying something is ok

Or we could just not care at all and not give the racists exactly what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Use of the okay symbol in most contexts is entirely innocuous and harmless.

In 2017, the “okay” hand gesture acquired a new and different significance thanks to a hoax by members of the website 4chan to falsely promote the gesture as a hate symbol, claiming that the gesture represented the letters “wp,” for “white power.” The “okay” gesture hoax was merely the latest in a series of similar 4chan hoaxes using various innocuous symbols; in each case, the hoaxers hoped that the media and liberals would overreact by condemning a common image as white supremacist.

In the case of the “okay” gesture, the hoax was so successful the symbol became a popular trolling tactic on the part of right-leaning individuals, who would often post photos to social media of themselves posing while making the “okay” gesture.

Ironically, some white supremacists themselves soon also participated in such trolling tactics, lending an actual credence to those who labeled the trolling gesture as racist in nature. By 2019, at least some white supremacists seem to have abandoned the ironic or satiric intent behind the original trolling campaign and used the symbol as a sincere expression of white supremacy, such as when Australian white supremacist Brenton Tarrant flashed the symbol during a March 2019 courtroom appearance soon after his arrest for allegedly murdering 50 people in a shooting spree at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-hand-gesture

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that 4chan is to blame.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2019 at 7:13 AM, jon_mx said:

Yes, but that bias is far heavier in the forum than it is in general. 

That's because it is on the internet. A large contingent of pro-trumpers are quite old and/or uneducated. Internet forums attract younger more (relatively) tech savvy people. I doubt all those rural voters are playing fantasy football or debating politics on the internet. 

Share this post


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

That's because it is on the internet. A large contingent of pro-trumpers are quite old and/or uneducated. Internet forums attract younger more (relatively) tech savvy people. I doubt all those rural voters are playing fantasy football or debating politics on the internet. 

:no: Wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

That's because it is on the internet. A large contingent of pro-trumpers are quite old and/or uneducated. Internet forums attract younger more (relatively) tech savvy people. I doubt all those rural voters are playing fantasy football or debating politics on the internet. 

The forum is filled with quite old white males, but yet there is a very strong anti-Trump and anti-conservative bias in the political subforum.  The same bias is not present in the FFA.  It is a combination of the bias of the moderators and the gang mentality of the more liberal-leaning posters who have succesfully manipulated the moderators. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

A large contingent of pro-trumpers are quite old and/or uneducated.

This simply isn’t true. 

Share this post


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

The forum is filled with quite old white males, but yet there is a very strong anti-Trump and anti-conservative bias in the political subforum.  The same bias is not present in the FFA.  It is a combination of the bias of the moderators and the gang mentality of the more liberal-leaning posters who have succesfully manipulated the moderators. 

:tinfoilhat:

I don't believe that to be true, but all I've got is an anecdote: Despite the fact that my posts probably contained the most linked sources out of everyone here, I had a mod give me a time out with the line saying something like "I get that condescending bully shtick is your thing..." when I was replying with a short quip to a known troll that never contributed anything meaningful to a conversation. Can I be condescending to a worthless poster? Yep. Guilty. If someone posts unsubstantiated garbage and propaganda-like one-liners while never actually engaging in a meaningful way, I'll occasionally respond in kind which I'll admit is a mistake. But I've started a few well sourced topics, brought a lot of sourced information into serious topics, and frequently engage in thoughtful discussions, so it was utter BS for a mod to say "bully shtick" is my thing. If the mod had stuck to giving me a time out for being condescending, I'd have been fine with it. But that mod crossed a line with that accusation. 

I tell this story to combat your narrative that the mods have been manipulated into a bias against people who continue to support trump. I'm not saying a bias swings the other way, but the unwarranted attacking shot in the explanation indicates there is certainly no bias favoring anti-trumpers. Hell, I think the mod even said "if you don't agree that's what you were doing, find another board." Wtf? I absolutely agree I was being condescending, but I also absolutely disagree that my posts here are bullying or that my posting could be classified as "shtick." I didn't take the time to link my sources just for fun. I've stopped doing it as much, because it's clear people don't even bother to click on them, but back when I got the warning, I was very deliberate about sourcing all my data.

As for warnings/time outs, if anything, it sounds like trump supporters are the most thin skinned and trigger happy when it comes to reporting. Perhaps, there's a bit of chicken little going on here, but I honestly don't think so. Moderation will never be perfect. There will be missed time outs at times and heavy handed time outs at other times. You probably just notice it more when one of the minority goes missing than one of the majority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

:tinfoilhat:

I don't believe that to be true, but all I've got is an anecdote: Despite the fact that my posts probably contained the most linked sources out of everyone here, I had a mod give me a time out with the line saying something like "I get that condescending bully shtick is your thing..." when I was replying with a short quip to a known troll that never contributed anything meaningful to a conversation. Can I be condescending to a worthless poster? Yep. Guilty. If someone posts unsubstantiated garbage and propaganda-like one-liners while never actually engaging in a meaningful way, I'll occasionally respond in kind which I'll admit is a mistake. But I've started a few well sourced topics, brought a lot of sourced information into serious topics, and frequently engage in thoughtful discussions, so it was utter BS for a mod to say "bully shtick" is my thing. If the mod had stuck to giving me a time out for being condescending, I'd have been fine with it. But that mod crossed a line with that accusation. 

I tell this story to combat your narrative that the mods have been manipulated into a bias against people who continue to support trump. I'm not saying a bias swings the other way, but the unwarranted attacking shot in the explanation indicates there is certainly no bias favoring anti-trumpers. Hell, I think the mod even said "if you don't agree that's what you were doing, find another board." Wtf? I absolutely agree I was being condescending, but I also absolutely disagree that my posts here are bullying or that my posting could be classified as "shtick." I didn't take the time to link my sources just for fun. I've stopped doing it as much, because it's clear people don't even bother to click on them, but back when I got the warning, I was very deliberate about sourcing all my data.

As for warnings/time outs, if anything, it sounds like trump supporters are the most thin skinned and trigger happy when it comes to reporting. Perhaps, there's a bit of chicken little going on here, but I honestly don't think so. Moderation will never be perfect. There will be missed time outs at times and heavy handed time outs at other times. You probably just notice it more when one of the minority goes missing than one of the majority. 

Try not to be so condescending and rude to other posters is my advice.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This simply isn’t true. 

It is. There's a lot of data on the demographics including my link below (which doesn't even include independents like myself) and this link. Older people were more likely to vote for trump and uneducated people were more likely to vote for trump. It's well known that rural people were more likely to vote for trump and I've got no data on this, but rural people don't strike me as fantasy football message board types. My broader point was that you shouldn't expect the population on any internet forum to mimic trump's approval rating.

47 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

There are more links like this available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The forum is filled with quite old white males, but yet there is a very strong anti-Trump and anti-conservative bias in the political subforum.  The same bias is not present in the FFA.  It is a combination of the bias of the moderators and the gang mentality of the more liberal-leaning posters who have succesfully manipulated the moderators. 

How could it be?  We don't talk politics in the FFA.  What a weird thing to say :mellow: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

Try not to be so condescending and rude to other posters is my advice.  

I don't recall asking for advice. I was simply providing him an example which called into question his presumed moderation bias.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Commish said:

How could it be?  We don't talk politics in the FFA.  What a weird thing to say :mellow: 

Because, once upon a time both forums were as one, and the internal polling tended to be pretty well split and reasonably well representative of the country's population.  Now the PSF polling tends to be 90 percent leaning towards liberal and anti-Trump stances.  

Share this post


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

Because, once upon a time both forums were as one, and the internal polling tended to be pretty well split and reasonably well representative of the country's population.  Now the PSF polling tends to be 90 percent leaning towards liberal and anti-Trump stances.  

Sure...and once upon a time "liberal" wasn't the term you guys use it as today and I'm willing to bet the "anti-Trump" stances are pretty prevalent in the FFA today.  They are just smart enough not to wander over into this chaos to say it.  Take quite the set of gymnastics skills to pull this logic off, but I do see where you're coming from with all the inference and supposition.  I'll just point out that it's probably not the smartest/strongest thing to assume all else constant except for the creation of the PSF which is what's required to make this statement in good faith.

  • Like 1

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.   Restore formatting

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.