Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DeCoach

Mahoney's proposal at the Topic Meeting

Recommended Posts

Part of Tara Tate's post from the Topic Selection meeting noted this:

 

Business by Kent Summers:

 

Thanks went out to the topic authors.

 

Other business – proposal by Tim Mahoney (TX) on having the NFHS move the topic release date from January to August 01. Proposal will be discussed later.

 

Wow....this idea has been floated before, but I don't recall it being advanced by someone with Tim's status & program clout. Usually its from a small-school coach who feels his/her kids are at a competitive disadvantage if their students couldn't/didn't attend the major workshops.

 

In past discussions, the idea was to "give debate kids their summers back again"...nowhere near as many kids would go to camps, and those that did go would spend their time on "skill development"...like band camps or sports camps, learning to play the game better rather than learning a specific set of arguments. Expect MASSIVE opposition from the established camps, as this is their bread & butter.

 

I also assume the topic voting process would change as well; that last time I remember us seriously discussing this idea, the final vote was between THREE different topic areas with THREE potential resolutions inside each topic area, so a squad or workshop couldn't really "research it all and then go with the winner."

 

I am intrigued by the possibility, but I can also see some "down" side:

 

1. Kids whose school year course loads include a lot of AP and/or International Bacculaureate courses are going to have a LOT on their plate in that first month of school; being able to get a lot of the topic prep done in July has been a great help to those kids;

 

2. I fear that such a policy will result in driving the final nail into the coffin of case-side debate; the incentive will be to prepare as many broad, generic arguments as possible and just go with those.

 

But its an interesting proposal and all the more significant by the status of its sponsor.

 

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wouldnt this hurt the small school who needs camp evidence to survive?

 

Very possibly; the last time we seriously discussed this was long before the internet made those files available to all. But if everyone had to start researching at the same time (Aug 1), it might also level the plaing field somewhat.

 

It would also make a lot of early-season tournaments less of a debate-camp-throwdown and much more like walking through a mine field without a map!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very possibly; the last time we seriously discussed this was long before the internet made those files available to all. But if everyone had to start researching at the same time (Aug 1), it might also level the plaing field somewhat.

 

 

This inherently gives bigger schools the advantage. More researchers = more evidence way faster. It also hurts the smaller schools because they have to start from scratch with little guidance, while the bigger schools generally have access to tons of college talent, the same people that put together pre-camp files and the people that decide what files the camp will work on, to look at the topic and offer their valuable insight on it. Camp files provide everyone with a starting place and a good idea of what to expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but it might end up creating somethings which i have been advocating for a long long time -

 

universal case lists with complete citations (and maybe even full text 1acs, but i am just dreaming there)

 

winter break intensive camp - 7 days, xmas to new years, you know the rez, now you get wicked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see why you guys are freaking out, but its only a proposal And like Hartney said before, there were a whole lot of proposals like this before but it never really happened, so i wouldn't freak out quite yet. :D

AND if this proposal was to become "activated" (Sorry i can't think of any other words for it at the moment,) then, i agree, it would hurt the small schools more than it would with the more bigger schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Virgil comes to mind, when distinguished coaches of large programs start offering things they perceive to be gifts, my first instinct is to fear them. (OK, so it's a paraphrase.)

 

This is a bad proposal from a good coach.

 

First, a topic being released on August 1st simply favors the schools who have deep backfiles and lots of generics. It would benefit large programs - hence the first though I had being Virgil, It gives kids less time to actually research cases and case specific arguments, and forces them to rely on the aforementioned arguments. Not every school has deep backfiles or lots of generics.

 

Second, A lot of kids go back to school in August...robbing them of research time if they do what kids should be doing and concentrate on the books first, debate second. Throw in the AP/IB schedule that somone already referenced and it gets worse...and, assuming the debaters are well rounded people inolved in many other things in their schools - try telling the football coach during August two a days that you can't come, you need to go to the library and research your debate topic, it would limit the ability to be involved in other activities in the school.

 

Third, It would put a whole bunch of college camps out of business, because once August roles around colleges need to allocate the dorm space to other activities related to their school (band camp, athletic training camps for the school's sports team, special summer orientation programs, early returning students, etc) and they aren't going to have space for a couple of hundred high school kids at that point in the year.

 

There is no benefit, that I can see, to releasing the topic on the 1st. NOW...If they did what colleges do - announce the topic area at some point in the spring, and then the actual topic on August 1st, like the NDT, then..maybe..............but I'm sticking to my first impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the objections I've heard so far seem particularly troublesome. I expect Tim has anticipated them, and I think it would behoove us to withhold judgment until he has put forth his case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of the objections I've heard so far seem particularly troublesome. I expect Tim has anticipated them, and I think it would behoove us to withhold judgment until he has put forth his case...

 

withhold judgement? what are you trying to do, change the whole direction of this forum? if it wasn't for flying off the handle and jumping the gun, we'd have no posts at all!

 

(except for your explanations of Plan-Plan and my stories about the tournament we hosted where we asked teams to predict their W/L record..........:P )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Expect MASSIVE opposition from the established camps, as this is their bread & butter.

 

On the other hand, it's a boon for people that make handbooks. (or for online camps that don't need no stinkin' dorms.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, it's a boon for people that make handbooks. (or for online camps that don't need no stinkin' dorms.)

 

Well it would work to the DISadvantage of handbooks that were put out by college squads UNLESS they could just dump their backfiles from a recent season....by August 1 the college squads have their hands full researching THEIR topic. But independent handbooks could make a strong comeback.

 

And yeah I think online camps could/would fill a nice niche. Why, do you know someone who has such a camp? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put this in the wrong forum this morning. It seems to apply better here.

 

Topics Release Date

One real problem for most college debaters who help with HS teams and at HS institutes will be that with an August 1 release date,TWO (college in mid-late July and HS on August 1) topics would be coming out at virtually the same time. How many college coaches and debaters would elevate money (for working with HS squads and at late HS institutes) over their own research prep for college debating?

 

Maybe that's Mr. Mahoney's idea though . . . get college kids out of the assistant coaching market and return HS debate to the HS coaches while dramatically reducing the influence of institutes on topic research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the official post I submitted. I'll answer some of the specific arguments raised in this forum in my next post but thought I'd start with what was submitted to NFHS.

Justification:

1) Shorten the season

The current “season” for high school debate can most appropriately be described as never ending. This past season, my students who participated at the National Forensic League’s national tournament arrived home on Thursday night and left for their summer debate institute two days later. In previous years some of my students who attended NFL nationals arrived late for their summer debate institute meaning they literally had no real break between the end of one season and the beginning of the next.

Releasing the topic each January “allows” programs to begin working on next year’s debate topic long before the current season is over. There is an implicit pressure to start working on one topic as soon as one season ends. For many debate programs a summer institute is considered virtually mandatory even for students who have been debating since seventh grade and have already attended four or more summer workshops.

This puts an extraordinary demand on students and teachers that, I believe, is unparalleled by any other sport or academic activity sponsored by schools.

2) Summer Institutes

Many, if not most, of the summer institutes have come to derive most of their value out of producing evidence. The arguments produced at these camps are seen as a virtual necessity for many students who plan to participate in debate. In fact, many of the arguments and the evidence produced at summer camps are read verbatim at season ending championships like the NFL National tournament and the Tournament of Champions. Students attend not to improve their debate skills but instead to receive a carton of evidence that they can then use throughout the year without having to do any of their own research.

This is not to say that some institutes don’t provide real educational value. They definitely do. However, the current system is now out of balance. A topic release date of August 1 would create a strong motivation for summer institutes to focus on teaching debate skills and teaching students how to do their own research instead of teaching students how to use evidence that was prepared by others.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my basic arguments in favor:

 

Here is why I like this idea:

 

1) This would decrease the value of debate institutes as evidence production machines and force them to focus more on teaching debate skills.

2) It means that debate institutes become less mandatory. Our students who already have solid technical skills might be able to only go to camp for two or three weeks and actually do something else for the summer.

3) It shortens the season. There should be an opportunity for a complete break from topic specific research. I can't help but believe that large component of coach burnout is related to having a year long season. Giving coaches a break for 6 weeks doesn't seem that unreasonable.

 

 

 

 

>First, a topic being released on August 1st simply favors the schools who >have deep backfiles and lots of generics. It would benefit large programs - >hence the first though I had being Virgil, It gives kids less time to actually >research cases and case specific arguments, and forces them to rely on >the aforementioned arguments. Not every school has deep backfiles or >lots of generics.

 

I'm going to call this the SBE DA. SBE as in Small But Established. There are a set of schools that might be big but underfunded, small but have a way of getting to camp and their coaches know how to help them get in and get the right lab leaders, have very little coaching support but can afford camp, etc. We could all name a few schools in this boat.

SBE's get most, if not all, of their coaching from summer institutes. We can discuss the quality of the instruction they get but it does seem clear to me that they would be immediately impacted by a system that changed how important camps are. It's possible that summer institutes would be forced to teach students how to write their own affs.

 

Elites

Check your results sheets from the major national tournaments. Elites can't dominate much more than they already are doing.

 

 

Who would this help?

 

I think there is a really good argument that this proposal would really help students who are motivated to learn about debate, write their own affs, and don't get much coaching but aren't a part of the SBE. In the status quo, most of the potential aff areas are worked on by one camp or another so the schools that can afford to send their students to camp throughout the country have a HUGE advantage over all the other schools. There is little to no advantage to writing your own aff since it is extremely unlikely that a camp somewhere hasn't already written it.

 

 

 

>Second, A lot of kids go back to school in August...robbing them of >research time if they do what kids should be doing and concentrate on >the books first, debate second.

 

Students wouldn't have to spend any more time researching after this proposal than they would in the future. It would, however, for the SBE make the time spent on debate more valuable.

 

>Throw in the AP/IB schedule that somone already referenced and it gets >worse...and, assuming the debaters are well rounded people inolved in >many other things in their schools - try telling the football coach during >August two a days that you can't come, you need to go to the library and> research your debate topic, it would limit the ability to be involved in >other activities in the school.

 

Having to commit 2-7 weeks of your summer every summer of your high school career to debate camp doesn't exactly help make students well rounded.

 

>Third, It would put a whole bunch of college camps out of business, >because once August roles around colleges need to allocate the dorm >space to other activities related to their school (band camp, athletic >training camps for the school's sports team, special summer orientation >programs, early returning students, etc) and they aren't going to have >space for a couple of hundred high school kids at that point in the year.

 

1) Aff outweighs

There will be some colleges that are opposed to this policy and although I'm not unconcerned about that I wouldn't weigh this particular argument as highly as I would weigh the effects on high schools.

2) No link - different type of camp

Colleges can still run camps they will just have to focus more on skills than on research. A camp starting on July 23 where the first week was devoted to research skills, speaking skills, and then spent two weeks working on the topic seems like a more balanced approach that the squo.

3) No link - handbook sales

For colleges who have a budget dependent on a camp (is it really our duty to pay for their debate program?) they could move into evidence sales. Many camps are already nothing more than evidence factories. If that's what it's about then lets just make the system more transparent and pay directly for the evidence instead of pretending students go to camp to get better at debate.

 

 

Duane, also implied that the fact that I come from a school with a long debate tradition that I'm biased and only looking out for the "large schools". It's reasonable to be skeptical. Although I think my breakdown of the SBE is pretty balanced.

It should also be noted that I make a fair amount of money over the summer right now that I probably won't be able to make if this proposal passes.

Do i think this proposal would help my students? Of course. Do I think that it will create a significant competitive advantage for my students over other schools? No. I think things will stay about the same. This proposal helps us because I'm paid full time to teach debate classes and coach the team. I will have time to help my students to research. This proposal hurts us because virtually all of my students can afford to go to camp and we have access to all the evidence produced at all of the camps. So when we debate students from schools who can't afford to go to camp we have a massive advantage over students who can't afford to go to camp or those students who are the only students from their school that go to camp and so they have a lot less camp evidence than we have.

 

I think that's enough line by line for now.

 

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that releasing the topic on August 1st would simply provide a larger advantage to larger schools. My school will have two varsity cx teams this year. There is another school in our area that will have over ten. If the topic were to be released on August 1st there would be almost no way to compete, in terms of research, with the larger school in my area. Unfortunately we would be forced to run super-generic arguments, simply becuase we don't have the students to field a massive amount of research. It may be that camps should focus more on skills instead of evidence, but without camps and without the research time we currently have in June and July it would be nearly impossible for my school to compete locally, not to mention nationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, are you also suggesting that we change the voting process so that there are more than 2 topic choices still on the table on July 31? I fear that with only 2 choices that big squads will just pursue BOTH topics all summer and then go with the winner on August 1.

 

(For some odd reason, I'm reminded of the WWII movie The Great Escape, where they dug 2 tunnels simultaneously as backups to each other...maybe that's Freudian, my view of my world as a coach as being like a prisoner of war? I dunno.....)

 

But I think--correct that, I KNOW-- you are dead-on right in the idea that the current 17-month long season (5 months before we finish one topic we start thinking about the next one...) is a MAJOR reason for coach burnout. I've been doing this for over 30 years as a coach (longer when you add in the years as a debater) and I can't remember a week in my life when I WASN'T working on a topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Reply:

 

1) Releasing the topic on August 1st would do nothing to shorten the season. The season is the season - it is what is...it's doubtful that schools that host mid and late September tournaments will push those tournaments back on the calendar because the calendar is simply the calendar - you run out of space early when if you factor in local tourneys (CFL, etc), school activities, other comittments the debaters have, family life, etc. So, under this proposal you simply have the same lenght of season - unless NFL moves their tourney back from June (I can say that I'm fairly sure NCFL won't move their tourney) - with a shorter amount of time to prepare for it.

 

Second, if that's what summer institutes have become - then we've allowed them to become that way, which is sad. I do contest the claim that they derive most of their value from evidence production. The kids I've sent off to camps over the years have come back better debaters than when they went, so I know there is a lot of learning going on (Unless they've been misleading me about the teaching skills of the various lab leaders they've idolized over the years, possible, but not likely.) Really, teams at the TOC reading verbatim camp evidence???? Really? Well...if evidence is the goal, then we're guilty again - we (coaches, judges) are the ones who say 'it's not hard if it's not on the card." Where the ones who reward teams for reading politics link cards from the AP Newswire, or who vote for the team because the evidence you read was one day, one hour, one minute, fresher than theirs, or reward the teams for digging into the backfiles and pulling out the most generic stuff they have. I mean - you're whole 2nd point reminds me of Captain Renault walking into Rick's place and being "shocked" to find gambling going on.

 

Thirdly, with an August release date who would teach at these institutes? Most college programs are gearing up for the NDT/CEDA season by the 1st of August - I think another coach asked "do you really think they'll take time out of their prep to work an institute?" I doubt it..maybe....but I think the pressure of chasing first round bids will give incentive not to.

 

You know - a more radical solution to the current problem would be to simply let the circuit die - have NFHS pass a rule that prohibits inter-state debate tournaments (as they have, in various years, with athletic competitions)outside of the NCFL, NFL, the TOC and the NDCA tournaments (Maybe we have to consider why we have so many "national championship" tournaments). Have those last two tournaments, but under different qualifying proceedures (well, wiht the NDCA it wouldn't have to be different proceedures, those proceedures are pretty much in line with NCFL and NFL.) That would be radical - pushing the topic release to August keeps the status quo, but allows less time for schools with less resources to prepare to take part in the activity - getting rid of the circuit would be something - let debate go back to the region, stop the insanity of kids sacrificing multiple school days each year to travel around the country to compete. Think of the savings in time, money, etc....and you could still have a national tournament at the end to sort who is the best.

 

August release won't fix the problems in our community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I acknowledge that Duane has some good points, I disagree at the end-level:

 

A Reply:

 

1) Releasing the topic on August 1st would do nothing to shorten the season. The season is the season - it is what is...it's doubtful that schools that host mid and late September tournaments will push those tournaments back on the calendar because the calendar is simply the calendar .

 

True, but with fewer teams "ready" to debate the 2nd weekend in September, tournaments will gradually migrate to later dates out of economic necessity.

 

Second, if that's what summer institutes have become - then we've allowed them to become that way, which is sad. I do contest the claim that they derive most of their value from evidence production. .

 

We'll probably never get agreement here, we all have our own experiences to draw from.

 

I mean - you're whole 2nd point reminds me of Captain Renault walking into Rick's place and being "shocked" to find gambling going on. .

 

MAJOR props to you for being able to make that allusion....my The Great Escape reference pales in comparison...;)

 

Thirdly, with an August release date who would teach at these institutes? .

 

High school coaches & teachers perhaps???? I've found that being a "first-round NDT bid recipient" doesn't always mean the person in question can TEACH debate; Ted Williams was a great ball player but couldn't coach a lick, while Walter O'Malley was a failure as a player but excelled in teaching the game of baseball.

 

 

You know - a more radical solution to the current problem would be to simply let the circuit die - have NFHS pass a rule that prohibits inter-state debate tournaments (as they have, in various years, with athletic competitions)outside of the NCFL, NFL, TOC and NDCA tournaments. Have those last two tournaments, but under different qualifying proceedures (well, wiht the NDCA it wouldn't have to be different proceedures, those proceedures are pretty much in line with NCFL and NFL.)

 

Now THERE'S a proposal! Wow.....actually at this point of my career I'd support it, but.....wow........When we make that proposal, I'm willing to be right behind you.....BEHIND you.....hiding in cover, but supportive nonetheless.....;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(When I posted the other post, I didn't see Tim's reply)

 

 

Most of your first three points are answered above in my other post - but:

 

A) Why is that you think the purpose of camp would change? That they would stop evidence production and focus more on teaching skills? Isn't it possible that the camps will still grind out evidence, albeit in less quantity, but with several more generic, less specific arguments? I can't see this quantum shift in the purpose of camp from the status quo to the world you envision, because the underlying bedrock of the activity is built on evidence.

 

B) I didn't realize that camps were mandatory. They aren't mandatory. Heck, one of the best teams I ever saw debate - Baltimore City College High School, back on the Education topic, never went to camp - they simply worked very hard, and did very well. If we've reached the point where thinking that camp is mandatory, then we should be ashamed of ourselves. It’s not mandatory, nor should it be. That's a culture that you as coach can build - you can build of culture of not going to camp, doing your own research and having success - I've witnessed it. Perhaps we should rethink debate camps entirely if they've reached "mandatory" status.

 

C) It wouldn't shorten the season, unless you have verbal commitments from the September schools (Wake, Colleyville, etc) to push those tournaments back - on an already crowded schedule. You run out of room. Heck, we have a devil of a time trying to schedule six CFL League tourneys a year against school activities, religious holidays, secular holidays, standardized testing, etc. As I stated above - you'd still have the long seasons, you'd just have less time to prepare for them. (See my post above where I advocate a much more radical proposal that will save everyone time, money, the need for camp, etc)

 

And, camps build on socialization skills - they teach teamwork, having deadlines, the ability to take instruction and criticism - so they do go a ways to producing well rounded people. In fact, a previous post on this thread pointed out that camp allows kids to do their work, and then be free to focus on other things.

 

Next, if you're saying that there is some sort of prestige system in play at camps where debaters from "Star School A" get more attention, coaching etc than a debater from "Regular School B" then there's a problem with the system. ALL kids should get the SAME level of instruction/coaching/help etc..it sickens me to think that some are getting more than others - that's not right. And, if that's what is going on - then changes need to be made.

 

1).I would think that given the logistics of college rooming/room use/etc, that the only places hosting camps would be, with some exceptions, those schools that start later in September or are on the 1/4 system where they have breaks at different times than schools on the regular semester system that are going to start in August (I can probably get a few experts on college enrollment patterns and residence hall and meeting space allocation to weigh in here, if you need that perspective.)

 

2) What makes you soooo sure that the focus shifts from evidence to skills? Two week camps still produce evidence, they don't produce as much as other camps, but they still focus the time on lab work and evidence production. With less time to prepare, since we've made evidence the coin of the realm, more people spend more time gathering the coin - and the heck with how to spend it (learn skills.) IF anything, you've just compressed the race for the evidence into a shorter timeframe.

 

3) Oh...Great! Handbook sales? You really think it's a good think to foster greater reliance on handbooks????? Hmmm...come to think of it, the proposal would create the perfect market for them, wouldn't it? Less time to actually do your own research, more time to buy handbooks, hordes of college debaters freed from the shackles of teaching and working at camps with plenty of time to generate handbooks which they can then price at any price they want, college debaters free to produce evazon files which they can price however they want, knowing that schools will be captive to them--wow.....I think I now know why I thought of Virgil when I read your post. Yeah, I'll concede that handbook sales really would fill the gap, but do we as coaches, educators, interested parties, really want to go down that road? And, come to think of it - the colleges would profit better off of the sales wouldn't they? Camps are insanely expensive to run - dorm space, work space, liability insurance, paying the people to come and run them, food, etc..all of those costs go by the way in your world, but then the colleges can produce handbooks which they can then sell at whatever price the market bears...hmmm...And here I am, an ardent capitalist nixing capitalism, oh my....

 

It is my belief, and this answers your last part, Tim, that any student with a computer can get any evidence they want. The days of getting evidence from camps that you went to, and only that evidence, have gone away. IF you know ftp transfers, etc, the evidence is there. I can go to another forum on Cross-X and in the space of a few hours get all the files from nearly every camp in the country. The files I can't get there, I can trade for with other programs. NO school is locked into not getting evidence, one laptop, one internet connection, and its there. Your argument rings hollow, given the weight of technology.

 

Next, post your proposal, camps still exist, and evidence still gets produced, and your kids, being well off, still get to go to whatever camps are out there, and still get whatever evidence is produced. You're talking about an issue of socio-economic ability to access camps, which is a problem that still exists post your plan. And is a problem we should all be talking about in greater detail.

 

In the end, the SQ might not be perfect, but we've made it what it is. Shortening the time would probably do nothing to solve the problems you have identified...more systemic changes are needed, I believe. But, I think moving to a world where camps get shorter, the season stays the same, and handbooks become the sine qua non of the activity, is a bad move.

 

 

 

 

 

[

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gregg..Casablanca is one of my favorite flicks, so the allusion wasn't that hard to make. Actually, greater props to you for the Great Escape reference, of course Steve McQueen vs. Claude Raines is a hardly a fair fight..lol.

 

I might make that proposal...I'm a large man, you can hide behind me...nobody will see you there..lol!!:)

 

I like your point on Ted Williams...I didn't know he was a lousy coach, but he remains to me one of the greatest players to touch a bat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the "shortening the season" argument: Why would September tournaments have to reschedule? Is it seriously your claim that we couldn't possibly be ready to have decent debates on a policy topic with a little over a month to prepare? That's absurd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the "increase the emphasis on generics" argument: As debate is currently practiced, I don't think it is humanly possible for generics to be empahsized more than they already are. This is a dog that won't hunt, my brother... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My knowledge of college debate logistics are minimal, but someone correct me if I am wrong.

 

Camps are generally run by colleges more or less as a fundraiser for the colleges program. The bigger the camp, often the more competitive the team. Look at Gonzaga, Northwestern, etc. I think the implications of moving the release date backwards will cause a huge ripple through the college circuit. While the previously mentioned schools probably have the funding necessary to continue the camp and the program, the impacts are better seen on smaller teams, like Marquette. Less kids attending camps and for a shorter period of time means less money for the college circuit to operate on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrance - my argument is that the season would not be shortened. I don't think those September tournaments will move back - we'll have the same season, with a shorter prep time for it.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...