Jump to content

A plea to consider Co A line members


Guest John Q Listener
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

I believe that it is normal to agree to each term sequentially, so this is not unreasonable.

The aspect which people find unreasonable is forcing coalition A to negotiate blindly (without context). Going through the terms chronologically is no problem at all. 

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener
37 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

The aspect which people find unreasonable is forcing coalition A to negotiate blindly (without context). Going through the terms chronologically is no problem at all. 

This is a bad faith argument, and you know it. All you are trying to do here is to deflect responsibility from Co A & Co.

What continues to be difficult to understand is whether the terms exist or not. Currently there are about three narratives running through this community; the terms exist and were leaked, the terms don't exist because Co B won't give them, and it's unreasonable that the terms are negotiated sequentially. The level of spin present by certain bad-faith actors here is making it more difficult for peace to be achieved.

The saddest thing is that it seems a small percentage of line members from Co A are starting to believe the false narrative espoused by some of their leadership.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

This is a bad faith argument, and you know it. All you are trying to do here is to deflect responsibility from Co A & Co.

What continues to be difficult to understand is whether the terms exist or not. Currently there are about three narratives running through this community; the terms exist and were leaked, the terms don't exist because Co B won't give them, and it's unreasonable that the terms are negotiated sequentially. The level of spin present by certain bad-faith actors here is making it more difficult for peace to be achieved.

The saddest thing is that it seems a small percentage of line members from Co A are starting to believe the false narrative espoused by some of their leadership.  

You are aware that its this muddied because y'all made shit needlessly complicated, yes?

 

There are 3 different overlapping convos because half the coalition was allowed to negotiate, but it was done in an extremely strange way. The other half was given no chance to peace.

Then: 

- Terms for half are ready, but coalition B refused to present them all at once. Only revealed 1 at a time. Then for the other half, terms arent drafted yet. The ready terms are now partially leaked by people in your own coalition. 

Edited by Prefonteen

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

I believe that it is normal to agree to each term sequentially, so this is not unreasonable.

Firstly, I am unaware of a war in the past where terms were given sequentially, and secondly, it's a bit hard to do things in sequence when we're waiting on another term to come in through the mail.

3 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

This is a bad faith argument, and you know it. All you are trying to do here is to deflect responsibility from Co A & Co.

What continues to be difficult to understand is whether the terms exist or not. Currently there are about three narratives running through this community; the terms exist and were leaked, the terms don't exist because Co B won't give them, and it's unreasonable that the terms are negotiated sequentially. The level of spin present by certain bad-faith actors here is making it more difficult for peace to be achieved.

The saddest thing is that it seems a small percentage of line members from Co A are starting to believe the false narrative espoused by some of their leadership.  

As for this... Perhaps you did not read my previous post? The only people who know for sure what the terms are Coalition B, because Coalition A has not received them. To explain again, the leaked logs on the terms were taken from an internal IQ channel Coalition A does not have access to where they were discussing what terms to issue. Coalition A is not sure if these are the terms IQ wishes to give us because IQ has refused to speak or issue any terms to us. The feeling of unreasonableness is because the style in which the terms are being presented sequentially with the demand that the next term will not be seen until we agree to the presented term is because it is either unprecedented or so far out of the norm that it is unreasonable. All wars previous have had all terms be listed and given at once, without the demand that a term must be agreed to before another is given.

I must express my disappointment here with how fully people on the forums seem to ignore any words that have been written, and immediately chalk it up to bad-faith actors when grievances have been aired in public because nothing that has been done in private has gone anywhere. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quichwe10 said:

Firstly, I am unaware of a war in the past where terms were given sequentially, and secondly, it's a bit hard to do things in sequence when we're waiting on another term to come in through the mail.

As for this... Perhaps you did not read my previous post? The only people who know for sure what the terms are Coalition B, because Coalition A has not received them. To explain again, the leaked logs on the terms were taken from an internal IQ channel Coalition A does not have access to where they were discussing what terms to issue. Coalition A is not sure if these are the terms IQ wishes to give us because IQ has refused to speak or issue any terms to us. The feeling of unreasonableness is because the style in which the terms are being presented sequentially with the demand that the next term will not be seen until we agree to the presented term is because it is either unprecedented or so far out of the norm that it is unreasonable. All wars previous have had all terms be listed and given at once, without the demand that a term must be agreed to before another is given.

I must express my disappointment here with how fully people on the forums seem to ignore any words that have been written, and immediately chalk it up to bad-faith actors when grievances have been aired in public because nothing that has been done in private has gone anywhere. 

If you're waiting on IQ to give you terms, you might want to speak to the doc and borrow his delorean.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener
1 hour ago, Quichwe10 said:

Firstly, I am unaware of a war in the past where terms were given sequentially, and secondly, it's a bit hard to do things in sequence when we're waiting on another term to come in through the mail.

As for this... Perhaps you did not read my previous post? The only people who know for sure what the terms are Coalition B, because Coalition A has not received them. To explain again, the leaked logs on the terms were taken from an internal IQ channel Coalition A does not have access to where they were discussing what terms to issue. Coalition A is not sure if these are the terms IQ wishes to give us because IQ has refused to speak or issue any terms to us. The feeling of unreasonableness is because the style in which the terms are being presented sequentially with the demand that the next term will not be seen until we agree to the presented term is because it is either unprecedented or so far out of the norm that it is unreasonable. All wars previous have had all terms be listed and given at once, without the demand that a term must be agreed to before another is given.

I must express my disappointment here with how fully people on the forums seem to ignore any words that have been written, and immediately chalk it up to bad-faith actors when grievances have been aired in public because nothing that has been done in private has gone anywhere. 

I appreciate the really detailed response here, however, this is still just a lot of spin. The facts have been well established, it is now just a case of hopefully Co A & Co's leadership being willing to authentically engage in negotiations in the next round.

Any failure to achieve peace is completely on Co A & Co. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

I appreciate the really detailed response here, however, this is still just a lot of spin. The facts have been well established, it is now just a case of hopefully Co A & Co's leadership being willing to authentically engage in negotiations in the next round.

Any failure to achieve peace is completely on Co A & Co. 

Then if you know better than I, then exactly lay out what facts you claim to know. Coalition A's leadership would greatly appreciate knowing what facts a member of but a single alliance in your coalition knows about the peace process that we do not. 

Perhaps you could once again go over how a refusal of your side to offer the remainder of peace terms is apparently the fault of ours?

If we are truly discussing this, then outline for me what parts I have said are false, what parts are spin, and why they are as such. 

Edited by Quichwe10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener
14 minutes ago, Quichwe10 said:

Then if you know better than I, then exactly lay out what facts you claim to know. Coalition A's leadership would greatly appreciate knowing what facts a member of but a single alliance in your coalition knows about the peace process that we do not. 

Perhaps you could once again go over how a refusal of your side to offer the remainder of peace terms is apparently the fault of ours?

If we are truly discussing this, then outline for me what parts I have said are false, what parts are spin, and why they are as such. 

And now we have moved to the logic chopping stage of the conversation, have we? I put forward my thesis in the OP and subsequent posts, none of which have been clearly addressed or refuted. All that has been put forward since is a lot of not-my-faultisms, and grr Co B. When will a Co A & Co leader come forward and take responsibility. I hope it's soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2019 at 7:40 PM, Epi said:

All major alliances try to force the opposition out of the game.

Completely and utterly false.  Never once was that the goal during Syndisphere's track of wars, or even the couple of wars after that.  Until now.

(Sidenote:  Did AAs disband over the course of multiple wars?  Yes.  Vanguard, Cornerstone, etc.  Did any talks with the leads ever happen to forcefully disband or dissolve AAs?  No.)

 

You folks are replying to GOONS waaay too much.

 

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Completely and utterly false.  Never once was that the goal during Syndisphere's track of wars, or even the couple of wars after that.  Until now.

(Sidenote:  Did AAs disband over the course of multiple wars?  Yes.  Vanguard, Cornerstone, etc.  Did any talks with the leads ever happen to forcefully disband or dissolve AAs?  No.)

 

You folks are replying to GOONS waaay too much.

 

I do enjoy the hypocrisy your coalition spouts. You vigorously said that a couple of high ranking members of your coalition wanting to do the same at a point when the war hadn't been decided wasnt an overall view/goal of your coalition. Yet here you are once again trying to pin the words of a couple high ranking members of coalition B as the overall goal of the war. While there is no evidence I possess to back up my words, I would 100% bet in every single one of those past wars, someone of high ranking in those coalitions said at one point that they wanted to disband/destroy another alliance. I could point out how many tried to drive NPO out of the game in the early years. 

Like ive said in previous posts, Coalition B will start talks once Coalition B are ready to. You offering to surrender doesn't automatically lead to peace. 

 

Edited by Tiberius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Q Listener said:

And now we have moved to the logic chopping stage of the conversation, have we? I put forward my thesis in the OP and subsequent posts, none of which have been clearly addressed or refuted. All that has been put forward since is a lot of not-my-faultisms, and grr Co B. When will a Co A & Co leader come forward and take responsibility. I hope it's soon.

On 12/6/2019 at 5:39 PM, John Q Listener said:

Hello all,

As a Co B line member (and someone not in gov), I'd like the leaders/negotiators of Co A and t$ (whatever it is sorry) to consider the line members of Co A. Through the admission of many Co A posters on this very forum, there is a concern that some Co A players are not having a good time and might consider leaving the game. As a Co B member, I agree, I too am worried about the welfare and wellbeing of Co A players.

My plea today is for the leaders/negotiators of Co A/Syndicate or whoever else, put aside your ego and pride and act in the best interest of your alliance members. There has been a lot of posting recently about the allegation that Co B is deliberately strangling the game and making people quite, but I think that this is really just spin and displacing the responsibility of Co A & Co to act in the best interest of their members. 

Please post below if you also agree that Co A & Co should consider the welfare of their alliance members, thanks.

Then so be it. Let us go over your thesis, and subsequent posts yet again. We start with your OP, in which you have asked us, the leaders of Coalition A, to "think of our members", and to peace out, rather than stroking our egos. You state then that it doesn't matter what IQ has done, but that it's all really just spin, and us putting off the blame to IQ. There are two major issues that have been raised with your OP. Firstly, that Coalition A has been able to surrender, and that IQ's very leadership outright saying that they plan to war us until we are either disbanded or have left the game entirely. 

These points were mentioned several times on the first page of the thread. First by Filmore, who stated that KERCHTOG had surrendered to Coalition B, and made reference to the leaked logs of internal IQ channels that showed leaders of Coalition B purposefully stalling peace negotiations in order to have more and more Coalition A members delete. This is the very fourth response to your OP in the thread. Charles the Tyrant also makes reference to said leaked logs several posts down, to which you respond as such:

On 12/6/2019 at 6:02 PM, John Q Listener said:

Thanks for making a sexually suggestive remark, it positively adds to the discussion here. Also, thanks for gaslighting me.

You are minimising the responsibility of the Co A & Co leadership here. This thread isn't about Co B, it's to highlight that I don't think Co A $ Co are considering their own members, but your opinion has been noted...

We are indeed thinking of our membership right now because we are attempting to make peace with IQ. And yet, you decide to go, well, anything you say does not matter because you don't think we, Coalition A, is actually doing anything, and that any criticism of the current peace progress, where IQ refuses to speak to us whatsoever, is gaslighting you and shifting blame away from Co A. 

Partisan later comes into the thread and makes his own response, on how t$, a part of Coalition A, is unable to get peace, and makes reference to leaked logs that have IQ gov members continue to give us the runaround. 

The second page begins with multiple people attacking Partisan and blaming him for why t$ and its allies have not dropped out of the war. In response, Partisan points out that we are still trying to reach peace in private, that their doors are still open to IQ negotiators. He then makes reference to  logs showing that IQ leadership has stated that they wish to destroy and punish t$ aligned coalition members as to why they have not sought separate peace. 

You quickly then drop back into the thread with:

On 12/6/2019 at 7:30 PM, John Q Listener said:

Very interesting how the Col A & Co posters in this thread have demonstrated the very sentiment that is damaging the game for Col A line members. Sad!

and:

On 12/6/2019 at 7:40 PM, John Q Listener said:

How are you not damaging the game by your actions? You've been posting in a lot of threads about how the current situation is completely not of your doing, and how it's all [insert person/coalition here] fault, but you haven't taken ownership of your responsibility as part of the executive team of your alliance. What about your members?

Both of these show a complete lack of willingness to actually read a thing and understand what is happening. Rather, it is vastly more apparent that your only purpose here is to continually blame Coalition A for every issue that has happened in the peace process, contrary to your opening attempt to appear as if all you wish for is honest and open discussion. You do this again on the start of the third page of the thread, once again stating, "think of the membership!". 

Pausing here for a moment, and actually assuming that you had been in earnest, something that has been shown to be patently untrue in this thread, you ask us to peace out for the sake of our members. And, again, you give us no direction on how to do so. Peace through private channels and behind closed doors have been halted, turned away, or rejected. The very ways you keep telling us to go through for peace do not exist. Sardonic attempts to defend IQ by saying that he is sure that continued statements by IQ that they wish to see Coalition A rendered entirely defunct from the game itself mean absolutely nothing, and that we must persuade IQ negotiators to give us peace in order to do so, a defense you upvoted. 

This brings us to a new issue, in that, how do we persuade IQ's negotiators to come to the table with us? We are defeated, and we have admitted as such, meaning that we cannot apply the pressure to force negotiators to the table via sheer military force. Economic force is not present, as all major alliances have incredibly large reserves to keep themselves going in the war. Appealing to the goodness of their hearts did not work, and by the comments of their leadership when they are in closed quarters, will not work because they seek to inflict more war upon us. The avenue we were left with was to appeal to Coallition B's membership, that they perhaps may push IQ negotiators to speak with us at the peace table. And, that now appears to have put far too much stock in them, as we can see by this very thread.

Continuing on in the thread, you then post this: 

On 12/6/2019 at 7:54 PM, John Q Listener said:

Is Col B so powerful that they are making it impossible to surrender? It does seem really weird that Col A & Co keep saying they want to surrender but then they haven't yet? Why aren't they thinking of their membership?

Again, you purposefully state, "think of the membership", and ask why we can't surrender. Much like sex, it takes two to tango here. Do you perhaps think that the victim of a serial killer is able to simply surrender to the serial killer, and the serial killer, who's just there to murder them, will actually agree? For peace to happen, both sides must agree to stop fighting the other. Coalition A wishes for the fighting to end. IQ evidently does not. That being said, I would predict that you would merely ignore this in totality, in order to continue to troll and shitpost. 

It is by page 4 then, that we begin to see you speak about the terms, and how they were leaked. 

On 12/7/2019 at 1:21 AM, John Q Listener said:

Ummm weren't there terms leaked? Are these Schroedinger's terms now, and they exist/don't exist at the convenience of the author.

Fighting from beige mode is now an emerging strategy, apparently.

As I explained to you, we had not been given the terms by IQ, so we did not know of them beforehand. After those had been leaked, IQ has refused to speak to us and give, confirm, or deny any further terms. DivineCoffeeBinge then comes in and tells Coalition A must give terms to IQ in order for peace to bring them to the table. Once again, we run into the issue of IQ refusing to speak to us, and a new issue in which, apparently, we're completely changing the original peace process. However, this is very easily explained by the logs that were leaked. That is, that IQ does not wish to peace with us. They would rather force us from the game entirely. Divine then comes in later that very page, and states that "the side that isn't winning doesn't get to set terms". Surprise surprise, this runs into the issue that, we're not setting terms. We're ready to receive them. It just so seems that IQ either does not have the terms, is not willing to give the terms, or just doesn't wish the war to end, the latter of wish would be supported by previously mentioned leaked logs. 

After that is where I step in, and attempt to explain once again my perspective on some things. @Edward I steps in with his portion on the infeasibility of minispheres. Unfortunately, I don't believe I'll be able to give you a response worthy of your own here, Edward, but with the concern of how to counteract too large groups, Rose's forward looking direction was to be a free agent that would be able to pick their own fights, and also to help keep the minisphere concept alive. This belief was a very large part of their joining of the current war, in order to prevent more people from making plans to attack other minispheres at their weakest or during a fight. I really only saw this war as an effort to be the first stress test of the system for how it would be enforced. Unfortunately, the IC/OOC and amnesia criticism was fully born out by NPO joining BK's side. But, before that, you had people who had previous working relations with each other fight each other for something that was all in fun and relative good cheer. And, this is where I'd probably chalk up so much anger stemming from here, because it was basically a time where defeat was seized from the looming jaws of victory. The system had had it's first war between people who'd known each other, the system had responded back to someone who attempted to abuse the system, and it had almost been working once again until NPO engaged on behalf of BK.

Heading back into @John Q Listener's shitpostings, page six more or less was a series of shitposts until you once again moan that no one is accepting blame, and I explain as others did before me the situation at hand. Your subsequent posts just kept ignoring every single thing that was said to you, and continuing to blame Coalition A for not peacing out. It's actually here that you start going, "lalalalalalala everything I don't like is Hitler spin!"

Coffee then comes in and goes, well, how does making it public help you, to which, our response is, well, nothing else worked, so why wouldn't we give it a shot, as well as explaining in more detail how it takes two to peace out.

After that, you return:

3 hours ago, John Q Listener said:

This is a bad faith argument, and you know it. All you are trying to do here is to deflect responsibility from Co A & Co.

What continues to be difficult to understand is whether the terms exist or not. Currently there are about three narratives running through this community; the terms exist and were leaked, the terms don't exist because Co B won't give them, and it's unreasonable that the terms are negotiated sequentially. The level of spin present by certain bad-faith actors here is making it more difficult for peace to be achieved.

The saddest thing is that it seems a small percentage of line members from Co A are starting to believe the false narrative espoused by some of their leadership.  

1 hour ago, John Q Listener said:

I appreciate the really detailed response here, however, this is still just a lot of spin. The facts have been well established, it is now just a case of hopefully Co A & Co's leadership being willing to authentically engage in negotiations in the next round.

Any failure to achieve peace is completely on Co A & Co. 

Once again, you refuse to listen to a thing that we have said, and continue to deflect and make your own assertion that it is Coalition A's fault for why no peace has been reached. Finally, I ask you to offer a rebuttal to the arguments that have been made, only to have you respond with faux offense, claiming that nothing you said was argued against, and that once again, Coalition A must take responsibility, while completely dodging my offer to actually discuss things honestly. So, with this, we have stated our issues, why they exist, and that we are unable to do as you so desperately wish us to do, only to be received by deaf ears.

@Supreme Master Joi, I'm afraid that my hopes of honest discussion grow exceptionally dimmer the more time I spend in these forums. 

Edit: 

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I do enjoy the hypocrisy your coalition spouts. You vigorously said that a couple of high ranking members of your coalition wanting to do the same at a point when the war hadn't been decided wasnt an overall view/goal of your coalition. Yet here you are once again trying to pin the words of a couple high ranking members of coalition B as the overall goal of the war. While there is no evidence I possess to back up my words, I would 100% bet in every single one of those past wars, someone of high ranking in those coalitions said at one point that they wanted to disband/destroy another alliance. I could point out how many tried to drive NPO out of the game in the early years. 

Like ive said in previous posts, Coalition B will start talks once Coalition B are ready to. You offering to surrender doesn't automatically lead to peace. 

I suppose this also gives us another issue on how we'd be able to think of the members.

Edited by Quichwe10
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You vigorously said that a couple of high ranking members of your coalition wanting to do the same at a point when the war hadn't been decided wasnt an overall view/goal of your coalition.

Where?  There may have been a couple of voices from members, but nobody from the high gov spots.

(Unless you're talking about Sketchy's trolling bits, which I've and multiple others already disproved from our ends)

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leo the Great said:

Your second in command isn't considered high gov?

You mean the multiple times Keegoz, myself, and Adrienne pointed out wasn't our goal?

(Also the Sketchy stuff came after NPO jumped in, which they lied to us, and the logs show that)

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

You mean the multiple times Keegoz, myself, and Adrienne pointed out wasn't our goal?

(Also the Sketchy stuff came after NPO jumped in, which they lied to us, and the logs show that)

It's easy to backtrack when things aren't going your way. You rolled the dice and lost, but turnaround is fair play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leo the Great said:

It's easy to backtrack when things aren't going your way. You rolled the dice and lost, but turnaround is fair play.

I mean go to the quotes at hand.  I think just a short period of time afterwards Hodor disagrees with these comments.  

Please don't try to paint an equivalence between a clearly emotional, trolling response from a singular person (who isn't calling the shots for Col A), and the clear, orchestrated and systematic viewpoint on your side that our disbanding is somehow pragmatic for your continued hegemony.  

Honestly Leo, I'm surprised you'd even show your face here.  There isn't a lot of tolerance for people who act and say as you do, but I guess whatever lets you sleep at night.   

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Honestly Leo, I'm surprised you'd even show your face here.  There isn't a lot of tolerance for people who act and say as you do, but I guess whatever lets you sleep at night.   

Lmfao. Do something about it then.

If I am as bad as you say I am you would think people would do something besides complain. 

Edited by Leo the Great
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
59 minutes ago, Micchan said:

We really need a name for Coalition A and Coalition B

 

59 minutes ago, Leo the Great said:

Memesphere and Anti-Memesphere

'Memesphere' and 'PLEASE LET US SURRENDER OH GOD WHY WON'T YOU LET US SURRENDER YOU'RE KILLING THE GAME BY NOT LETTING US SURRENDER JUST LET US SURRENDER IT'S NOT FAIR THAT WE CAN'T SURRENDER PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP-sphere'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Leo the Great said:

Lmfao. Do something about it then. 

I find it interesting that it was only after things turned around that  you started posting. 

You're right I'm not in a position to do much more than call out your bs for what it is.  But if you think that NPO and BK dancing over the graveyard of this game is some sort of victory, I guarantee you will not be the one having the last laugh.  I doubt your members will enjoy a dead game.  

16 minutes ago, Leo the Great said:

If I am as bad as you say I am you would think people would do something besides complain. 

I mean almost half of your original sphere thinks this and many members still in your coalition.  It's not an isolated attitude that encouraging disbandment and member attrition is unacceptable.  Maybe I am a purist for these sorts of ideologies, but that doesn't make me wrong.

Edited by Cooper_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

I find it interesting that it was only after things turned around that  you started posting. 

You're right I'm not in a position to do much more than call out your bs for what it is.  But if you think that NPO and BK dancing over the graveyard of this game is some sort of victory, I guarantee you will not be the one having the last laugh.  I doubt your members will enjoy a dead game.  

My members are fine. I am sure if they had issues we’d hear about it. Ultimately I imagine they agree with me that I am not responsible for your failure to keep your members interested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

I find it interesting that it was only after things turned around that  you started posting. 

You're right I'm not in a position to do much more than call out your bs for what it is.  But if you think that NPO and BK dancing over the graveyard of this game is some sort of victory, I guarantee you will not be the one having the last laugh.  I doubt your members will enjoy a dead game.  

I mean almost half of your original sphere thinks this and many members still in your coalition.  It's not an isolated attitude that encouraging disbandment and member attrition is unacceptable.  

tenor.gif?itemid=5552043

On the upside, if the game does end, think about how much free time we'll all have.  I plan to take up bird watching (by which I mean staring creepily at @TheNG)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.