SFO : Street Fighter Online

Go Back   SFO : Street Fighter Online > Street Fighter Online > General Comments & Strategies

SFO : Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
(non official idea)Official Tournament Server Josh26 New Features 7 04-24-2009 04:07 PM
Tut making help ~H~Zabuza Banners, Avatars and Images 5 12-24-2006 12:58 PM
Making a sig ShisouReiki Banners, Avatars and Images 1 08-18-2006 10:54 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-05-2012, 06:04 AM   #1
bloodpack
Super Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,895
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 37
Rep Power: 6741
bloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nice
Default making it official(?)

there are times that we see us emphasizing the rule about NO REVIVING OF OLD THREADS

this rule is currently being implemented and yet for some reason, it is not officially included in the forum rules (after browsing/reading it)

anyone can argue in their defense that it is not included in the rules, no citation for infraction thus they shouldnt be warned or their revived topic be closed

that being said, do we have any 'specifics' for this ruling? like the length of time has passed a thread becomes dormant or how long or how old a thread that shouldnt be revived? a year? a month?

or do we have exceptions like if the posts has nothing to do (spam) or HAS something to do with the topic? or if the topic at hand has been addressed, pending, etc.

or if the post that revived the topic is legitimate?

should we make this rule official and at the same time be clearer as to the scope and terms of this ruling?

any thoughts?

Last edited by bloodpack; 09-05-2012 at 06:19 AM.
bloodpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 06:12 AM   #2
LuXv
BANNED BY: TMyApp
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ATL + LA
Posts: 6,475
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 768
Rep Power: 0
LuXv is just really niceLuXv is just really niceLuXv is just really niceLuXv is just really niceLuXv is just really niceLuXv is just really niceLuXv is just really niceLuXv is just really niceLuXv is just really niceLuXv is just really niceLuXv is just really nice
Visit LuXv's Twitter
Default Re: making it official(?)

There are a lot of rules, some posted. Some forum common sense and some official but not posted in the official rules seeing as (we) at least thought it was quit clear.

Maybe one day, we will add more rules to the official rules list, would but... the Staff would have to have a disscussion on what to add and how specific it is and etc.
LuXv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 06:27 AM   #3
bloodpack
Super Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,895
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 37
Rep Power: 6741
bloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nice
Default Re: making it official(?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuXv View Post
There are a lot of rules, some posted. Some forum common sense and some official but not posted in the official rules...
but the rule about respecting staff etc., is very common sense (very common in everyday life) as compared to reviving old threads rule AND yet it IS still included in the forum rules

the rule about reviving old threads is really vague
some cases i see it slipped and the staff lets it pass by, what are the grounds?

thus it needs further elaboration to be clear
bloodpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 06:41 AM   #4
SSJKarma
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada somewhere in the province of quebec
Age: 39
Posts: 18,619
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 1
Rep Power: 0
SSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really nice
Default Re: making it official(?)

you answered yourself there...
Common sense.
would you revive a thread that is 5+ year old just to say... i agree to this ?
i sure know i will not.

common sense is common sense, if the discussion was finished wth, there is no need to revive it.
we do this on a thread by thread basis.
entirely dependant on what was said, how long it had been.
this is the kind of thing we cannot put definitive ruling on.
just use your common sense and it will be fine.
SSJKarma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 06:51 AM   #5
bloodpack
Super Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,895
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 37
Rep Power: 6741
bloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nice
Default Re: making it official(?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSJKarma View Post
you answered yourself there...
Common sense.
would you revive a thread that is 5+ year old just to say... i agree to this ?
i sure know i will not.
i didnt brought up the word common sense btw

and yes i would revive a thread that is 5+ year old just to say i agree if the topic at hand is worth reviving, interesting, a topic that didnt resolve the issue

as long as i know im not breaking any rules then theres no reason for you to close or lock the topic

Quote:
if the discussion was finished
IF the discussion was finished, that is
what if not?

Quote:
entirely dependant on what was said, how long it had been.
ive never heard of a certain rule that is very SUBJECTIVE
when i read viper's rules, he outlined it very clearly, no room for buts and ifs

Quote:
this is the kind of thing we cannot put definitive ruling on
then why implement it?
bloodpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 10:34 AM   #6
donkios
VIP
 
donkios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte. NC
Age: 25
Posts: 2,797
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 185
Rep Power: 5538
donkios has a spectacular aura aboutdonkios has a spectacular aura aboutdonkios has a spectacular aura aboutdonkios has a spectacular aura aboutdonkios has a spectacular aura aboutdonkios has a spectacular aura aboutdonkios has a spectacular aura aboutdonkios has a spectacular aura aboutdonkios has a spectacular aura aboutdonkios has a spectacular aura aboutdonkios has a spectacular aura about
Default Re: making it official(?)

I'm sure it's because there are sometimes exceptions to reviving a old thread whereas even though not disrespecting a mod is common sense there aren't any exceptions.
__________________


--------------------------------------------------------

donkios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 10:35 AM   #7
-Elite_Ken-
EVIP
 
-Elite_Ken-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: am a live?
Age: 27
Posts: 1,506
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 77
Rep Power: 4840
-Elite_Ken- is a jewel in the rough-Elite_Ken- is a jewel in the rough-Elite_Ken- is a jewel in the rough-Elite_Ken- is a jewel in the rough-Elite_Ken- is a jewel in the rough-Elite_Ken- is a jewel in the rough-Elite_Ken- is a jewel in the rough-Elite_Ken- is a jewel in the rough-Elite_Ken- is a jewel in the rough-Elite_Ken- is a jewel in the rough-Elite_Ken- is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: making it official(?)

Define "common sense".
__________________
-Elite_Ken- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 01:02 PM   #8
bloodpack
Super Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,895
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 37
Rep Power: 6741
bloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nice
Default Re: making it official(?)

example of common sense is RESPECTING A STAFF/MEMBER. This is very common sense. Respect is a moral thing to do even if ur not in a forum but still its cited in the rules

Whereas, reviving old thread rule IS not common sense. Its vague & therefore it needs an elaboration

I just want to point out im not against on anything. In fact i just wnt to fortify this rule, strengthen it with complete terms/provisions so that it can properly be cited & implented. Im trying to help u guys (staff)
bloodpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 02:54 PM   #9
Xx_paki786_xX
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uk, London
Age: 29
Posts: 1,111
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 2
Rep Power: 5249
Xx_paki786_xX has a spectacular aura aboutXx_paki786_xX has a spectacular aura aboutXx_paki786_xX has a spectacular aura aboutXx_paki786_xX has a spectacular aura aboutXx_paki786_xX has a spectacular aura aboutXx_paki786_xX has a spectacular aura aboutXx_paki786_xX has a spectacular aura aboutXx_paki786_xX has a spectacular aura aboutXx_paki786_xX has a spectacular aura aboutXx_paki786_xX has a spectacular aura aboutXx_paki786_xX has a spectacular aura about
Default Re: making it official(?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by donkios View Post
I'm sure it's because there are sometimes exceptions to reviving a old thread whereas even though not disrespecting a mod is common sense there aren't any exceptions.
^ This.
Xx_paki786_xX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 05:20 PM   #10
(-ObNoXiOuS-1-)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,466
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 3
Rep Power: 5500
(-ObNoXiOuS-1-) is a jewel in the rough(-ObNoXiOuS-1-) is a jewel in the rough(-ObNoXiOuS-1-) is a jewel in the rough(-ObNoXiOuS-1-) is a jewel in the rough(-ObNoXiOuS-1-) is a jewel in the rough(-ObNoXiOuS-1-) is a jewel in the rough(-ObNoXiOuS-1-) is a jewel in the rough(-ObNoXiOuS-1-) is a jewel in the rough(-ObNoXiOuS-1-) is a jewel in the rough(-ObNoXiOuS-1-) is a jewel in the rough(-ObNoXiOuS-1-) is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: making it official(?)

The knowledge of "common sense" varies between individuals, but the same principles apply; hence why the term was presented in this topic - to deal with forum rules which are not stated, where the general knowledge ("common sense") in an individual states their action(s) are not legal (i.e. they know their actions are wrong/immoral). The word "common sense" is vague (IMO), and I won't define it any further; since it's a topic of it's own. So feel free to do your own individual research, or create a topic/thread.

Now, on topic. Thanks for the thread in attempt to improve/stabilise the rules, bloodpack. Always appreciate your input.

For an old community such as this one, certain things can become unclear or lost. Especially the latter after the "accident" with the data loss on Ikonboard in early 2005. Even more so, as we had countless rules on the previous forum, and once it was lost, the new rules were written and confusion was caused (the "new rules" are the rules found on this board). That's not the end of the story, specific aspects later changed too (I'll describe later if necessary), leaving us where we are today. We're not as bad off as we/I sound, right?

OK, so where am I going with this? To cut a long post down, I'll get straight into it. I too hope this isn't going to be a long post. Since data was lost in 2005, we created a new set of rules, fresh from the baker himself, viper (look at the date of the rules thread, 'twas made in late 2005; after the recovery of the forum). As a result, certain rules were missed (hence why we've had to apply "common sense"). Regardless, since then the rules are constantly being placed under reform. Even now, they're not perfect; and never will be, unless we take away the member's freedom and restrict countless factors. But then, if we remove the right to exercise freedom, then the rules are still not perfect. Sorry, hold on, I know I talk a lot of junk. The rules eventually got to a stable point, considering common sense/morals.

We're now running vBulletin, the board you see before your eyes (and monitor too). Note, before you ask, why am I brining forum software into this? Remember the thread is about "Forum Rules" after all, and there's a reason, continue reading. On vBulletin, some.. OK, quite a few modifications have been added. The main concern here is the "Similar Threads" you see above each thread. These are threads which are same/similar in purpose (the rest is practically self-explanatory), but some/most threads are out-dated. As a result, members click these threads and post, whilst not paying attention to the date, ultimately reviving old threads. I'm not ripping my hair out at these people, since we all make mistakes, and let's be honest, the date of a thread isn't that clear. With that said, I generally don't have a problem with members reviving old threads, but in certain circumstances, threads must be closed.

Of course, when implementing the similar threads feature, we [the staff] did discuss revival of old threads (yes, we saw it coming! ); and unfortunately I cannot regurgitate the discussion that was held, but it was stated reviving old threads was no problem really. We just ban those who even post the slightest comment in an old thread. Just kidding! No seriously, I am kidding. Haha, when I joke, everyone thinks it's serious. Honestly, we just leave the thread to be, regardless of it's date. This conflicted with our old motto, that we close old threads. Some staff members still follow this principle, and some don't. Not that it's a problem of course, since in some scenarios it's appropriate to close old-threads. IMO different staff have different approaches, but we agree on the same common ground; i.e. us/we [the staff] are judges, the rules are law, and we may present different verdicts. Basically said, some staff may close threads and some may not. Perhaps closing threads should be defined in the rules more clearly; if necessary, I'll describe this later on this post too (hopefully it's not necessary ).

As for the members who revive old threads, they can freely use the defence that it's not stated in the rules. But this defence is not applicable to all cases! I would like to re-empathise this, the defence is not applicable to all cases. Members who are anti-SFO are clearly not permitted to preach their ways on this forum, this was not a rule until recently. Even prior to the introduction of that rule, the action(s) was not permitted. The rules then addressed this issue. Therefore, I would like to state the defence "it's not stated in the rules" is no defence, and never will be for any case. But now, I've just contradicted myself (if you re-read the first sentence of this paragraph). So why have I? The individual who posted in an old-thread would never have to use the defence. Why? We don't punish/ban members who post in old threads. That maybe too extreme, depending on the case. This is the sole reason why there isn't a rule stating not to post in an old thread, we don't ban anyone for conducting this action(s). Of course, there are rules in the thread which we wouldn't ban anyway, but are present to act as a guide. Personally I believe the rule not to post in an old thread would be too harsh, restrictive of freedom (we've even added the similar threads modification onto vB), and too small of a rule. If the staff ever do ban someone for reviving a thread, I'm sure there is much more logic behind it. I don't think I've ever seen it happen or ever will.

Perhaps we could enact this rule, and it of course is a great suggestion. But as defined above, could restrict freedom. In addition, I think this is only minor. I believe we're (or I am) making a bigger deal of "posting in old threads" than necessary. I don't really pay much attention to it, and rarely see it happen; of course, I'm not ruling out that it doesn't occur.

P.S. The rules thread contains rules and guidelines. As stated above, the rule of posting in old threads may be too small and restrictive (described above), whereas respecting staff is evident, yet present, as we will enforce it and will ban members if necessary.

Thank you for your input once again.
__________________

^ Thanks estset.
(-ObNoXiOuS-1-) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 07:01 PM   #11
SSJKarma
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada somewhere in the province of quebec
Age: 39
Posts: 18,619
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 1
Rep Power: 0
SSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really niceSSJKarma is just really nice
Default Re: making it official(?)

and i thought i was the only one making a hell of a long wall of text.

ob: we had only half of the rules here... the real question to ask here is...
do we really want to create our own 500 rule book, at that point we might as well give trials and executions.
this is a forum, not a court of law where rules are predominant.
what were asking people is to use their knowledge to distinguish what is good and what is wrong.
thats common sense, common sense by definition is just that... find whats right and find whats wrong.

respect is right, laughing of people differences is wrong. if you can't determine this by yourself then you have a problem.
now is reviving old threads wrong... not necessarily, we have have often seen people revive threads that we wanted to be revived. but we closed it down and asked the member to recreate the thread because we didn't want to have old post in it, we wanted a new thread for it. that happens often. the other half of the time, epople revives old thread to just post spam in it... exemple... posting a single word saying "agreed" to a thread that is 5+ year old. see it like this, you are in a conversation with someone, then 35 minutes later way after that conversation is done, you come in and say "i totally agree" everyone around you will be like, what the hell you talking about ? thats just plain wrong.

so yes there will be exceptions, no there wont be a definite ruling.
because we cannot be precise in this rulling.

all the rules we have are strict, they are precise.
if its not precise, we dont put it there.
SSJKarma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 04:49 AM   #12
bloodpack
Super Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,895
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 37
Rep Power: 6741
bloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nicebloodpack is just really nice
Default Re: making it official(?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by (-ObNoXiOuS-1-) View Post
The knowledge of "common sense" varies between individuals, but the same principles apply; hence why the term was presented in this topic - to deal with forum rules which are not stated, where the general knowledge ("common sense") in an individual states their action(s) are not legal (i.e. they know their actions are wrong/immoral). The word "common sense" is vague (IMO), and I won't define it any further; since it's a topic of it's own. So feel free to do your own individual research, or create a topic/thread.

Now, on topic. Thanks for the thread in attempt to improve/stabilise the rules, bloodpack. Always appreciate your input.

For an old community such as this one, certain things can become unclear or lost. Especially the latter after the "accident" with the data loss on Ikonboard in early 2005. Even more so, as we had countless rules on the previous forum, and once it was lost, the new rules were written and confusion was caused (the "new rules" are the rules found on this board). That's not the end of the story, specific aspects later changed too (I'll describe later if necessary), leaving us where we are today. We're not as bad off as we/I sound, right?

OK, so where am I going with this? To cut a long post down, I'll get straight into it. I too hope this isn't going to be a long post. Since data was lost in 2005, we created a new set of rules, fresh from the baker himself, viper (look at the date of the rules thread, 'twas made in late 2005; after the recovery of the forum). As a result, certain rules were missed (hence why we've had to apply "common sense"). Regardless, since then the rules are constantly being placed under reform. Even now, they're not perfect; and never will be, unless we take away the member's freedom and restrict countless factors. But then, if we remove the right to exercise freedom, then the rules are still not perfect. Sorry, hold on, I know I talk a lot of junk. The rules eventually got to a stable point, considering common sense/morals.

We're now running vBulletin, the board you see before your eyes (and monitor too). Note, before you ask, why am I brining forum software into this? Remember the thread is about "Forum Rules" after all, and there's a reason, continue reading. On vBulletin, some.. OK, quite a few modifications have been added. The main concern here is the "Similar Threads" you see above each thread. These are threads which are same/similar in purpose (the rest is practically self-explanatory), but some/most threads are out-dated. As a result, members click these threads and post, whilst not paying attention to the date, ultimately reviving old threads. I'm not ripping my hair out at these people, since we all make mistakes, and let's be honest, the date of a thread isn't that clear. With that said, I generally don't have a problem with members reviving old threads, but in certain circumstances, threads must be closed.

Of course, when implementing the similar threads feature, we [the staff] did discuss revival of old threads (yes, we saw it coming! ); and unfortunately I cannot regurgitate the discussion that was held, but it was stated reviving old threads was no problem really. We just ban those who even post the slightest comment in an old thread. Just kidding! No seriously, I am kidding. Haha, when I joke, everyone thinks it's serious. Honestly, we just leave the thread to be, regardless of it's date. This conflicted with our old motto, that we close old threads. Some staff members still follow this principle, and some don't. Not that it's a problem of course, since in some scenarios it's appropriate to close old-threads. IMO different staff have different approaches, but we agree on the same common ground; i.e. us/we [the staff] are judges, the rules are law, and we may present different verdicts. Basically said, some staff may close threads and some may not. Perhaps closing threads should be defined in the rules more clearly; if necessary, I'll describe this later on this post too (hopefully it's not necessary ).

As for the members who revive old threads, they can freely use the defence that it's not stated in the rules. But this defence is not applicable to all cases! I would like to re-empathise this, the defence is not applicable to all cases. Members who are anti-SFO are clearly not permitted to preach their ways on this forum, this was not a rule until recently. Even prior to the introduction of that rule, the action(s) was not permitted. The rules then addressed this issue. Therefore, I would like to state the defence "it's not stated in the rules" is no defence, and never will be for any case. But now, I've just contradicted myself (if you re-read the first sentence of this paragraph). So why have I? The individual who posted in an old-thread would never have to use the defence. Why? We don't punish/ban members who post in old threads. That maybe too extreme, depending on the case. This is the sole reason why there isn't a rule stating not to post in an old thread, we don't ban anyone for conducting this action(s). Of course, there are rules in the thread which we wouldn't ban anyway, but are present to act as a guide. Personally I believe the rule not to post in an old thread would be too harsh, restrictive of freedom (we've even added the similar threads modification onto vB), and too small of a rule. If the staff ever do ban someone for reviving a thread, I'm sure there is much more logic behind it. I don't think I've ever seen it happen or ever will.

Perhaps we could enact this rule, and it of course is a great suggestion. But as defined above, could restrict freedom. In addition, I think this is only minor. I believe we're (or I am) making a bigger deal of "posting in old threads" than necessary. I don't really pay much attention to it, and rarely see it happen; of course, I'm not ruling out that it doesn't occur.

P.S. The rules thread contains rules and guidelines. As stated above, the rule of posting in old threads may be too small and restrictive (described above), whereas respecting staff is evident, yet present, as we will enforce it and will ban members if necessary.

Thank you for your input once again.

@obnoxious - thanks buddy, i really appreciate for taking time to read my post, understanding what im trying to present to the table, and at the same time for your thorougly well-written feedback

its kinda long but it pretty sums up your views on the topic at hand

keep up the good works and always stay cool
bloodpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 07:20 AM   #13
Jin^Kazama
VIP
 
Jin^Kazama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 36
Posts: 240
Tournaments Joined: 0
Tournaments Won: 0
Post Thanks / Like
Chats: 6
Rep Power: 0
Jin^Kazama is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: making it official(?)

Would luv to see old topics from 2003 to 2007 alot of old people have moved on but there memories remain with us all.
__________________


[#1 SpiderMan User 2003-2008]
1. U.C.T (Winner)
2. SFO TOP DOG Winner
3. Voted #1 Number 1 King Of Spiderman since 2002/2008
4. SpiderMan Week 2 (Winner)
5. Ken Week (Winner)
6. King Of SpiderMan (Winner)
7. King Of Ken (Winner)
8. Akuma Week 9 (Runner Up)

Last edited by Jin^Kazama; 10-09-2012 at 07:25 AM.
Jin^Kazama is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump



Bookmarks

Tags
making, official

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Navbar with Avatar by Kolbi