Jump to content
Papa Smurf

i am looking for constructive criticism

Recommended Posts

i originally posted this a month ago. it's nothing special, but it does have a significant effect on how debaters debate kritiks. i tried bumping the thread in hopes to illicit some response but have gotten none. so, i'm reposting this post. any criticism would be greatly appreciated. even if i'm wasting my time arguing with everyone about "pre" and "post" fiat, i'd like to know. thanks.

i've just been itching for a useful discussion on fiat in relation to criticism for quite some now, so i'm just throwing whatever i can out.

 

i think the "pre/post fiat" distinction debaters make is just an excuse to delineate between critique and policy, as if there were a difference. most debaters acknowledge that fiat is imaginary and that all they're doing in debate is comparing competing discourses (i don't just mean k debaters, but even law debaters). so why make such a delineation? how, in any way, is such a distinction useful?

 

if my previous objections weren't clear:

such a distinction is only useful to exclude one of two methods of discourse (either a "purely political" or a "purely critical" one) that, i think we can agree, don't even exist (and shouldn't).

 

it forces a bad interpretation of fiat - that via this imaginary tool and the ballot there is a differing world post-fiat; that impacts happen.

 

and: it forces heavy impact debates. there's a post-fiat world and peoples lives are at stake!!! i feel it's ruined resolutional debate (by both the affirmative and negative, both kritikal and law) by shifting impact focus away from case and towards body counts that not only don't happen, but wouldn't happen (in the fictional world of fiat). debaters ignore things like internal links and specific (strategic) impact scenarios in favor of khalilizhad, schell, (etc.), and "zero-points" of "ontology." i think it distracts from the crucial points of debating "policy" (again, whatever that is; i'll argue "an interpretation of should"), what the policy does and what it means - who it effects, how it effects them, whether or not it's beneficial, and the ethics of such a discussion (how should this discussion occur, should this discussion occur, etc.). instead of finding the best warranted, most sound arguments/advantages, they search for easiest access to the heaviest cost because that's what win debates, despite it being unrealistic and improbable (most teams will never, ever articulate an internal link to khalilizhad, mead, biopower, the holocaust, or whatever awful thing will happen).

 

also, and this might be where your disagreement is, but i think that the object of the resolution is "should" - what should we do in terms of the resolution? should we do what the affirmative asks, should we do what the negative asks, or should we do nothing at all? debaters argue which imaginary world is better. granted, we aren't dong anything, but, personally, i think that debate is functionally useless. it serves no purpose other than to educate and promote discussion, hopefully build research and analytical skills (and, ideally, someway to apply them and to communicate ideas effectively). maybe "should" shouldn't be the object of the resolution, maybe kritiks should work to disrupt ideas like should and the resolution as a whole, but i don't think it's possible or useful (for the sake of argument, i think resolutions are good). anyway, i think "should" is awesome so long as we remember that fiat is imaginary, and i think this is the only reason one would argue that such a delineation is useful ("should" is bad/resolutions are bad, that or that we really are enacting policy).

 

well, that or to determine time... to begin, i think there are two parts to debate (two things that occur during debate rounds): people talking and their story. meaning there are two things to evaluate: the act of telling the story (value in terms of education, debate, logic, and language - value of discourse) and the story itself (value of the the imaginary world that their evidence and arguments build via claims). that said, i don't see how defining a period that occurs "before" fiat (plan, i suppose) and another "after" fiat is in anyway useful to anyone. in my opinion, fiat doesn't happen - it's an imaginary world built on our discourses, of what debaters think the world "should" be given their claims. there's nothing that happens "pre-fiat," there's just stuff that happens during fiat - people talking and making arguments for something. for some reason kritik debaters seem to shy away from the idea of abandoning the pre-fiat notion as if they'll lose ground to a lot of discursive arguments - but i don't see how this interpretation is anything but useful to kritik debaters, as well as law debaters. it removes any idea that things happen before or after the round, AND that anything happens "during" fiat - it eliminates all sorts of stupid arguments (he said "woman" it's the holocaust, workability, some politics disads) - all arguments dealing with the relationship between how the world is and how the world should be by eliminating the time during which "plan" (interpretation of should) is passed and implemented and the time between when "plan" happens and the implications of "plan" occur. things still happen during the round - people say or do things and some of those things might be good or bad (language critiques, theoretical objections), but they don't happen on the same plane as the world of fiat. and, of course, things still happen in the fictional world of fiat, but no so much "in" as "on." problems are solved, people die, etc; but these events don't happen in turn, they happen at once and forever unless proven otherwise by a competing interpretation of the event (competing functions to define the point of whatever impact (solvency, plan/counterplan/alternative, harms and advantages) on the imaginary plane, or the wording to the story being told).

 

i also think this model opens up a lot of opportunity to any progressive debater (kritikal or law) - if fiat is imaginary why not imagine how the world could be? i think it opens up a lot of ways to approach not only the object "should" but the resolution as a whole (i played with this idea a little at the end of high school - affirming an interpretation of how the resolution should be viewed - in an imaginary world what would be the best way to approach the resolution, what kind of discourses should be examined to imagine such a world? in my case we ended up rewriting the resolution so as to avoid technological approaches, leaving what would be done with this resolve open ended). given that fiat is imaginary, why is viewing it in terms of should bad? i think it opens discussion on how the government should operate, in it's entirety, when addressing a harms area, discourses about how the government should interpret the resolution and how their operation would function in terms of the object (how the government would operate in the imaginary world of fiat, how it "should" operate without being limited by how it "could" operate given status quo/reality).

 

that's all i've got for now.

original thread: http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=957647

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiat is irrelovent often times, k's are reasons to prioritize one thing over policy analysis. Questions of fairness are dumb since they are often the same thing as saying it's unfair for the affirmative to make a deontological framework. sack up and impact turn those bitches and don't complain about how it's lazy debate.

abers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fiat is irrelovent often times, k's are reasons to prioritize one thing over policy analysis. Questions of fairness are dumb since they are often the same thing as saying it's unfair for the affirmative to make a deontological framework. sack up and impact turn those bitches and don't complain about how it's lazy debate.

abers

of course it is - fiat is mostly irrelevant is what i'm trying to get at. pure political analysis isn't possible - "politics" don't exist without critique (nothing to be critical of means no harms area means nothing to solve and so on). on the same token, pure critique (purely pre-fiat) isn't possible. i'm not sure what you mean by the rest of your post, but i can assure you that when i debated most of my arguments began with "turn." if not it was something like "that's stupid, juuuudge."

Duh.
i'm not sure who this was directed at.

 

i just think that the pre/post fiat distinction debaters make leads to a lot of stupid, ugly, messy debates that shouldn't happen. i am wondering if there are any objections. i wonder if those that have been around here a longer while simply agree and don't care (i doubt this as so many bother to make the distinction) or if they just think i'm wasting my time (in which case, why?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm yeah, I pretty much agree with Abe, and you don't really respond to his common sense argument. I also think you're ignoring the fundamental point of the use of prefiat vs fiat. If I were to run a masculinity K on the discourse of you're 1ac (you used masculine gendered language), then I would claim "pre-fiat" implications. My argument would thus be that you can not declare that your case impacts outweigh the impacts of my Kritik because the implications of your language should be evaluated before the judge even looks at the flow. If it were otherwise, I don't think anyone would Kritik discourse because they would always lose the impact debate.

 

In addition, I don't think you are adequately giving weight to the various forms of criticisms out there and how they can be run. For example: I have seen the running of a biopower K in several distinct ways, one way was that the implementation of the aff plan is bad because it justifies biopolitical control and docility, which causes x,y,and z. On the contrary, I've seen a variation of that K where the focus is on the literal discourse of the 1ac, and thus the debate is framed in a way that the aff should not get to compare advantage impacts to the of the K once again, because the neg would focus on rhetoric of speach, and not the actual idea of a plan with that rhetoric being implemented.

 

Also, I think you're making a brash assumption with the idea that we shouldn't be debating fiat as if it were another world, I don't feel that is a warranted argument in your post. Why shouldn't debaters focus on an imaginary world of fiat? I get what you are saying with the focus on bodybags, but when it comes down to it, that's only bad debaters anyway. The teams that matter on a competative circuit still analyze internal links, how alts operate in round, how advantages work with external impacts, and they do this without rambling about "judge we all gonna die!". Unless of course you are in a UDL (like me). So other than your psuedo "Mitchell- debate =spectators" argument, is there any other disad to evaluating a policy debate round as if the impacts were to happen? Because isn't that what your should argument really proves? If we would all die without plan hapening (acording to warranted evidence), then yeah, I'd vote for that over a contained genocide happening from a neg disad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I will extend upon my previous post, since it probably looked flippant.

 

It wasn't. I am in complete agreement with the original post: the distinction between the pre-fiat and post-fiat worlds are completely arbitrary. I will go further than that, and say that the construction exists almost exclusively for ideological and symbolic reasons rather than to facilitate meaningful debate. I would prefer to see discussion where arguments interact without the rigid chronologically-based barrier of "fiat" put in place to keep free mingling from taking place. It would force BETTER debate on the part of competitors, and would also create more INTERESTING and CREATIVE outcomes when the ideas truly clash with one another. The idea of a "framework" debate seems laughable to me--the framework is the debate round. Yet, almost every critical debate devolves into a sloppy debate over "framework" and "worlds", which is also humorous, given the nominally post-structural or anti-structural nature of most criticisms in vogue today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, some framework debates get nominally excessive and sloppy, how does that prove that they aren't necessary? And how can you acount for discursive criticisms in a technical manner without making the prefiat/postfiat distinction? Wouldn't the impact debate on the feam K i presented above be a helluva lot messier without it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm sick. i'll answer later, though.

 

perhaps you could clarify - what do you mean by "other" kritiks? you seem to be drawing some line between "discursive" kritiks (feminism and kritiking "literal discourse" via foucault), but i don't see what the other side of it is. what other kritiks are there? why are the two foucault scenarios different from each other?

 

and i suppose i'll clarify - i don't mean that debate should only be taken "literally," as you put it, that is without an imaginary world of fiat. i was actually arguing that such a world is very useful and makes the pre/post fiat distinction debaters make unncecessary. if it didn't come across, just ask some questions. that was my original intent anyway :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i tried to respond but i think you're just misreading me

 

i don't know what abe's "common sense" argument is.

 

as for those kritiks that you suggest need a "pre/post" fiat dichotomy, why? couldn't you just use words like "discourse" and "rhetoric?"

also, i really don't think foucault would be okay with someone excluding the represenations of certain discourses (ie what these academic discourses mean for the body) from critique.

 

Also, I think you're making a brash assumption with the idea that we shouldn't be debating fiat as if it were another world, I don't feel that is a warranted argument in your post. Why shouldn't debaters focus on an imaginary world of fiat? I get what you are saying with the focus on bodybags, but when it comes down to it, that's only bad debaters anyway. The teams that matter on a competative circuit still analyze internal links, how alts operate in round, how advantages work with external impacts, and they do this without rambling about "judge we all gonna die!". Unless of course you are in a UDL (like me). So other than your psuedo "Mitchell- debate =spectators" argument, is there any other disad to evaluating a policy debate round as if the impacts were to happen? Because isn't that what your should argument really proves? If we would all die without plan hapening (acording to warranted evidence), then yeah, I'd vote for that over a contained genocide happening from a neg disad.
i don't think i'm making any of the arguments you suggest i'm making here.

i think fiat is a tool that allows us to create an imaginary world

i think one thing that most debaters (most importantly kritik debaters) don't seem to understand is that our discourses create this imaginary world, that often times people like foucault are criticizing the discourses that occur in academia (debate rounds) and how those discourses redistribute power over some individuals (case harms)

when i mentioned body counts and what you call my "mitchell" argument i was really just referring to the way debate rounds have shifted from discussions of policy to discussions of death. at the end of the debate you don't get much noise about how plan doesn't solve or the link turn or how the alternative doesn't solve or whatever but you hear a lot about a risk of solvency and a risk of preventing six world wars and so on. i just think it's silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I will extend upon my previous post, since it probably looked flippant.

 

It wasn't. I am in complete agreement with the original post: the distinction between the pre-fiat and post-fiat worlds are completely arbitrary. I will go further than that, and say that the construction exists almost exclusively for ideological and symbolic reasons rather than to facilitate meaningful debate. I would prefer to see discussion where arguments interact without the rigid chronologically-based barrier of "fiat" put in place to keep free mingling from taking place. It would force BETTER debate on the part of competitors, and would also create more INTERESTING and CREATIVE outcomes when the ideas truly clash with one another. The idea of a "framework" debate seems laughable to me--the framework is the debate round. Yet, almost every critical debate devolves into a sloppy debate over "framework" and "worlds", which is also humorous, given the nominally post-structural or anti-structural nature of most criticisms in vogue today.

Given this, how does one respond to "fiat is good juuuuudge"? Clearly, "no it's not" isn't responsive. Should one, perhaps, start ranting about how the affirmative's/negative's "fiat" arguments are non-sensical? I'm just not sure how to respond to tradition, regardless of how moronic it may be. I've tried all sorts of stuff. It tends to be A. this argument is non-sensical. It's like arguing that it's not fair for me to say T comes before Khalilizad, or something B. kritiking framework, impact turning it (fairness bad works with Nietzsche) or internal link turning education and C. making arguments about framework being political, talking about how fairness is not objective, but a "fair for whom?" kinda thing. I usually don't have a proper interpretation of framework, I just sorta make an "anything goes, go with it" kinda argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

given that it doesn't matter it doesn't matter

whatever word up see my abc's

further more etc

omg shootin blanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yusf, alot of what you said reaffirms what I believe. This being said, I still am yet to make conclusions about some things, Hopefully you can calrify what you believe and why.

 

Question 1:

 

You set forth a distinction between the story, and people telling the story. An attack on people telling the story would take the form of a language kritik. (For simple reference I will use a very simple "affirmative use of langauge places women in roles subordinate to men") How do these two areas of distinction weigh against eachother.

 

I see 3 possibilities:

 

1) How the story is presented is given weight. This is because te hypothetical world of should does not matter in comparassin to what we actually leave the round believing. Any objections on the grounds of fairness and preserving debate, assuming these arguments had internal links of people actually quitting the acitivty, are answered by that debate ought not exist if all it does is prop up heirarchal structures.

 

This seems incomplete . . .

 

2) How the story is presented must be weighed in the world of the story. Yes the rhetorical constructions were bad, however debate puts us into the role of decission makers. If we are playing our roles, are rhetoric would enter the political sphere. If we are playing our role, has the affirmatives rehtoric already been broacast on csapn? Is it the judges ballot that decides if it will be broadcast? Decssion maker would take all results into account. One can agree with an idea, however disagree with how it is presented. I want to stop going to war with china, just as much as I dont want women to be oppressed.

 

Weighing these two against eachother, seems impossible. Both sides will say were going to die eventually, and debating probobities of these two scenarios is rediculous(if anything it probobly leans toward war killing us) However, assuming war will always win out, how can the rhetorical assumptions of the affirmative ever be responded to? how can discources ever be anything but perputated. Without holding the affirmative responsible in the round, it seems like these things will continue.

 

3) Only the story matters. Its impacts are almost always going to win, and if not, all an affirmative needs to do is be more careful in selecting impacts in order for there discourse not to matter. The resolution only asks about the resolution itself, it does not hold the affirmative responsible for things outside of it.

 

Of course its hard to see anything as outside of the resolution, and even many rhetoric critiques are focused to the specifics of the resolution. Womens rights, at some point probobly plays a role in war with china, or least with war in general, and war will impact all areas of decission making.

 

 

Ack. When i say "affirmative" i mean the team engaging on a policy level, i suppose the affirmative could abandon the 1ac and attack the rhetoric of the 1nc, during the 2ac. Just keep that in mind.

 

Anyways, before i started I thought I would be leaning toward the middle ground, now I think Id have to lean towards the first option. Your thoughts?

 

Question 2:

 

Less important, I'd like to hear a more clear justificaiton for your repharsing of the resolution as your affirmative. Was your case like "The united states should do X to the end of Y/Not Y, while maintaining Y/Not Y as the paramount concern"

 

Question 3:

 

When we start to view "should" in this way, How do you justify a move from hypothesis testing. When does the resolution say what? How does this fall in line with your advoacy that I ask about in question 2?

 

 

Just thoughts, and lots of typos/spelling errors, Id like to see what you, or anyone else thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one; i don't intend to present a complete vision of debate, or a function by which to evaluate it. as i said before, "whaver, word up." all of this talk about "the story" (whatever that is) is nonsense. there is no need for framework and it seems counterintuitive given the nature of most critiques these days. fuck talking about how the debate ought to be structured and debate it out; act as if. there doesn't need to be an opposition between what debaters are "doing" and what they're "pretending to do."

really, i don't know what you're saying. sorry. as far as i know all that's going on is the story - "storytelling" is a part of the value of the story, but i don't know why you'd talk about it. if they say "nigger" you say "they're being racist they are racist policymakers they are killing niggaz they don't solve" and so on.

 

two; no, it was like the government should protect coastal regions (versus the usfg should establish an ocean policy substantially increasing protection of marine natural resources by devolving the state into radical democracies and developing with the earth's natural environments and getting rid of corporations in the name of socialism and being gay hippies). there was a lot of heidegger in various incarnations and some lacan and this guy named cornelius castoriadis. i don't know what sort of justification you're looking for - i suppose i could outline the case if you want.

 

three; i'm not sure how you mean hypotesting. this model is counterfactual but it is not about the impossible - if someone ran a "ride

our nanocars to jupiter and build a mcdonalds that tastes good" they'd still be susceptible to arguments like "that's impossible." so on.

"when does the resolution say what?" it says what it says even if you read it another way. with the case i ran - it was topical, it just didn't use certain language to define the object(ive). it was possible - i imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to build bioregions and coexist with nature and so on. i'm just taking advantage of the word "should."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was at a camp this past summer I had a wonderful claim made by a man the is remarkably similar in appearance to Jesus, going by the name of Paul Hood. On the off-chance he or someone knowing him reads this, I'll apologize in advance if I butcher anything. That said, let me just blip out what he said in an extremely paraphrased fashion:

 

For a Kritik to operate on a "critical" level, or in this case a "pre-fiat" level it has to manipulate the notion that fiat is illusory. Its something debaters take for granted, understanding that plan won't ACTUALLY happen, but we operate as if it will for the contextualization of the round and to discuss the impacts/implications of case. Kritiks attempt to have re-evaluation of the round through an in-round mechanism, usually the judge's ballot. This is where it starts to get fuzzy.

 

Using something similar to Paul's argument, I'll use an analogy to explain the problem of having pre-fiat voters come before fiat/post-fiat level voters in a round where fiat is claimed to be illusory: Today I'm going to play with my leprechaun after I go ride my unicorn. Simply put, if fiat is illusory, then so is anything caused or directly related to fiat, such as pre-fiat and post-fiat. If pre-fiat is also an illusion than so its ability to change the real world. So, simply put, pre-fiat implications cannot exist without the fiat and post-fiat level analysis.

 

Now, lets assume you wanted to assume fiat was real in the round, then you'd have critical implications along with impact-level debate, because the two would essentially have to weighed together in a debate where fiat is "real," in that a judge would have to weigh two alternatives;

1 - Violate kritik, pass plan, advantages are gained

2 - Don't violate kritik, gain any implications, plan fails, advantages are lost.

One of the two must be done, and it would essentially come down to an impacts debate OR a framework debate trying to determine if critical arguments somehow outweigh body-counts or something.

 

Meh, really doubt any of that was useful, but whatever, I'll just be happy if it made any damn sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the previous post makes a great deal of sense for some k'S, however it doesnt work in some situations. Alot of alternatives dont prevent plan action, but instead may just complain about rhetoric, or reshape the plan. In these cases the debaters are asking the judge to make a decission about bout the nature/goal of debate before they can enter a regular impact calculous. The Judge must first decide if the affirmative is responsible for unresolution issues (rhetoric) or if the negative can have a topic pic(plan inclusive counterplan/advoacy) or pec (exclusive).

 

I guess I always assumed what was posted in the previous post to be true, it only answers what are to me, the easiest questions.

 

As to yusf. I find your answer (to my first question) to be pretty unhelpful, if not destructive to the activity if it was adopted. the "do anything with the round, i dont care) doesnt give the judge a way to evaluate the round. I think i understand your answer as more of a "I really dont feel like thinking about it now" more than an advoacy though. Anyways, thanks for starting the thread, and thanks for keeping up on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

framework is useful because it allows each team to know what they must do to win the round. Idealy, it would be a structure based only on logic that could be figured out before either team ever debates. In practice, two teams will probobly never come to exactly the same conclusions, but at least having a framework debate in the round allows teams to know what they should try to appeal to, and allows for teams to reshape their previous views on framework for further rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uh what

 

use more words

 

why is framework useful?

 

I would sort of agree with shoeofmine...but my explanation is far simpler.

 

How the hell is a judge supposed to weigh the round unless someone's told him which scale to use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
framework is useful because it allows each team to know what they must do to win the round. Idealy, it would be a structure based only on logic that could be figured out before either team ever debates. In practice, two teams will probobly never come to exactly the same conclusions, but at least having a framework debate in the round allows teams to know what they should try to appeal to, and allows for teams to reshape their previous views on framework for further rounds.

i think that sort of thinking is "destructive to the activity;" especially the idea that we would have a system of logic that defines how we debate.

 

why do judges need some *formula* by which to judge rounds? how does that work, anyway? i'm sure we can agree, debate isn't about two teams competing to solve some problem, it's about one team beating the other. two teams never agree on everything - all frameworks do is establish a means by which to understand one opposition's arguments. they are redundant - debaters debating logically build frameworks (plural) through their argumentation. do you really need to say "means come before ends" to effectively argue that six billion people dying isn't worth releasing prisoners from guatanomo bay over?

 

if you're running foucault you don't start business by saying "here's a formula by which you should judge every argument presented in this round" or "the only thing that matters is what we say the ideas that the affirmative presents in the post fiat world don't matter," that's just stupid. it's a lot like you reading one of those "rigged game" cards because the affirmative has presented a rigged game in which you can't win because all of your responses have already been assimilated by whatever, or reading one of those "zero point of holocaust" cards because the affirmative is excluding some group or one of those "normativity" kritiks because the affirmative is pretending that they are more than academic.

 

p.s. glub glub glub rhisky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont feel like being very argumentative, but. . .

 

because teams and judges dont agree on anything due to pre round bias is precisely why we do need frameworks. It is the only chance for all to be on the same page. Without a framework one team may be appealing to things that do not matter to the judge. If a judge is instead adherining to the framework that was proved to be the best (maybe fair or maybe educational, or maybe some other standard is proved to be the most important) teams have an opportunity to know what to impact their arguments too.

 

Simply making arguments that impact to "means" without saying why "means should be viewed before ends" makes the activity too subjective. One team may win means impacts/implications, the other ends impacts/implications, is the judge to flip a coin to deciside which will be more important? Probobly not. Any judge determinination of what to view as more important would be the judge debating for the debaters.

 

Framework serves the goal of making sure that no team or judge can perposly or accidently rig the game because everything is subjected to the same logical tests. A good framework debate should prevent anything too unfair. Granted, I'll conceed that this is probobly a rare ideal.

 

I didn't read this over, sorry in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or maybe the debaters go "ten billion people dying isn't worth saving the whales because humanity will be dead" and the other team will be like "but we need the whales for this advantage and that one"

 

frameworks don't put arguments into some vacuum where their logic is tested, they just exclude other arguments because they're wrong:

"nu-uh the ends justify the means all those people dying doesn't matter because we saved the whales"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think a framework necessarily, or ususally says somethings dont matter, just that they are not what must be evaluated first.

 

I see debating such issues to be very important in your example. Without the debaters deciding to weigh the life of humans vs something else (risk of losing all life on the planet?) the judge is left to arbitrarily decide who wins the round.

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.   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...

×
×
  • Create New...