Jump to content
CongratulationsDamien

Standards for Evidence

Recommended Posts

Before the TOC this awesome article came out about SPS. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1359/1

The author credited Justin Skarb for some help.

 

Upon further research, it appears Justin Skarb actually wrote the article. He is also the coach at Damien.

http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/time-to-build-a-first-look-at-the-initial-plan/#comment-3110

 

 

Obviously people have called out Damien before on emailing authors and using their responses as evidence, and there has been much debate on the legitimacy of that. This is a seperate matter, and I think this issue merits some discussion as well. I have three questions:

 

1) Is it legitimate for a coach to write articles which are clearly relevant to the current debate topic? Should we treat these differently? And should the purpose/content be relevant? For example, here are two different scenarios:

a) It is clearly written for the purpose of a debate round, such as this article which included a few disads and a counterplan without citing research

B) It is not as rhetorically powerful, is backed up with research, and is written as a product of knowledge acquired over a year of debating the topic rather than with the intent of producing new evidence.

Obviously it is difficult to measure intent, although it may not actually be necessary, since in scenario b it is less likely that the article would be used as evidence or be the critical card in some debate.

 

2) If it is legitimate, should the coaches experience on the topic be an additional factor when comparing qualifications, or should the evidence be evaluated based solely on the author's other qualifications? If it is not legitimate, what is the remedy? Should the evidence be evaluated as nothing more than a lengthy analytic, or is it an ethics question?

 

3) If it is ok to write the article, is it ethical to use a pen name?

 

Because I am remaining anonymous, I'm not voicing opinions. This is an attempt to spur discussion from others on an important issue, and shouldn't just turn into a hate on Damien thread.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that it's fairly important to take into consideration the credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a major in engineering or something of the sort, there's no problem with you publishing the article and having debaters card from it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not sure there's much to discuss here. if he honestly had no ulterior motive, he could have published it after the debate season, not two days before the TOC.

 

it kinda sucks for incoming damien debaters that they have to deal with this rep.

Edited by Synergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not sure there's much to discuss here

 

it kinda sucks for incoming damien debaters that they have to deal with this rep.

 

it kinda sucks for the opponents of teams who functionally fabricate evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm putting this out there:

 

is that worse than rap music as evidence?

 

discuss

 

Want to know how I know you have 0 understanding of the types of arguments you're complaining about? We've had this argument on here more times than I can count, and it always ends up being filled with this exact same ignorance and unwarranted whining.

Edited by Arbitrary
Wording
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that everyone is taking this thread as seriously as the poster intended. Despite your feelings on rap music in debate, this is an issue of the integrity of the evidence that our activity revolves around. I want to see some responses from Damien coaches, now.

 

 

 

I think there are a couple problems with this article that no one is really addressing.

 

1. Why use a penname? If you’re going to refer to yourself in the research notes, why not just say you posted it? The pen name is what makes me suspicious: if it were posted as Justin Skarb initially, it would seem to reflect a genuine interest in contributing to the debate on SBSP. But a fictional author? Why?

 

2. Did Damien teams ever read this evidence? I know other schools have—it’s a phenomenal article for debate. But reading evidence that YOUR COACH wrote masked as a QUALIFIED AND OBJECTIVE AUTHOR (this is not to say that Skarb has not researched SBSP—I’m sure he has extensively—but he is far from objective) is cheating—plain and simple. It’s one thing to email a solvency advocate for a card—and yes, that’s kind of sketchy—but this is indistinct from fabricating evidence. It is just as if a debater wrote the perfect card, pretended an “expert” wrote it, and read it in a round. To be sure, there have been articles written by debaters—the OTEC article by Friedman, a former Head Royce debater, and the BC debater who published a very nice LOST article—perhaps with intentions to be used in debate. But they did not change their names to pretend to be “experts.”

 

3. I think that this kind of project dilutes the purpose of policy debate. We hear a lot about how debate should be “real world” or we should look “to the literature”—and despite the merits of these claims, I think we can agree that policy debate is at least at some level based in available research in the field of the topic: if there is literature on it, it will be debated. But if we can stand up and write and publish articles that are IDEAL for debate—and let’s be honest, this article is as close to perfect as you can get—what’s the point of researching the literature base? This article cites almost no footnotes and makes disad claims that probably don’t exist in an external environment. If we’re willing to shape the literature on the topic to conform to what makes debate “sweet,” what’s the point of having a literature base in the first place?

 

 

Clearly Damien debaters are very successful: I have nothing but the greatest respect for Sean, Reid, Greg, Christian, and all their younger debaters. But it’s actions like this that discredit an amazing program.

 

Justin, your debaters are really good. Why did you post this article?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think our coaches peruse cross-x on a normal basis. If you want answers to these questions, you should email them directly instead of asking for responses on a public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars.

 

I know a variety of debate coaches have contacted Skarb directly and suggest you do the same instead of demanding answers here.

 

Also, no, Damien never read this evidence, and our coaches were responsible for the name Justin Skarb being attached to the article in the first place.

Edited by ReidEQ
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont think our coaches peruse cross-x on a normal basis. If you want answers to these questions, you should email them directly instead of asking for responses on a public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars.

 

I know a variety of debate coaches have contacted Skarb directly and suggest you do the same instead of demanding answers here.

 

Also, no, Damien never read this evidence, and our coaches were responsible for the name Justin Skarb being attached to the article in the first place.

 

Sorry, but it sounds like you're just trying to help your team evade a public answer for the purpose of saving face. I'm not going to take a stance on this right now, but I think it's an issue that needs to be discussed whether or not Damien's name is attached to the discussion.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not sure there's much to discuss here. if he honestly had no ulterior motive, he could have published it after the debate season, not two days before the TOC.

 

just for the record, this article has been floating around the web since at least february, spammed all over the comments sections of space websites. it seems like it was only recently though that skarb's name became attached to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know the coaches or debaters mentioned. My team does not compete outside of Colorado and we do not attend TOC. As I discuss this, there are absolutely no associations with the individuals who inspired this question.

 

I remember when I was in college (20 years ago), debating old-style CEDA. During my debate tenure, two coaches published articles relevant to the topic being discussed. One was from a nearby univeristy, and I remember that when his name was first read in a round, it met universal disapproval and ridicule. Once the cat was out of the bag, news of the coach writing evidence for his students to read spread like wildfire. Everyone knew what had happened whether they had met that school or not. And it became a joke.

 

Of course, the amount of research we do (both as coaches and as debaters) rivals the amount of research necessary for a thesis (or at least a really good college senior paper). We learn a lot about the topic throughout the season. We certainly become more expert than the average American (way more than average).

 

That being said, I am still uncomfortable with a coach intervening in the evidence process. We all have experienced the desire to find the "perfect card," the one that makes the point we want in a concise way, the one that connects all the dots. Any research endeavor means connecting our own dots, whether that's for a debate case or a research paper. Finding that perfect card is a like a treasure hunt (and is why I'm a research nut). Likewise, a way to answer an argument is that the evidence doesn't say exactly what is claimed and provides hedge room.

 

When a coach (any coach -- again, I do not know any of the people involved in this particular incident) writes an article about a topic during the season of that topic, he/she circumvents the ideal of the treasure hunt. He/she provides the "perfect card." I remember that article from my college days and it said exactly the right thing to counter another school's argument. I tend to agree with the previous poster who said it seems like cheating.

 

LSK asked about whether the coach might have great credentials in the topic area. I have a great deal of credentials in education, and education sometimes comes around as a topic. However, I would never imagine creating an article that might be used in a debate season about that topic. It would look like I was giving my students an unfair advantage: afterall, I can write exactly what they need. On the other hand, if my articles about education from some other year happened to come up, that would be fair game. I wrote and published those articles clearly from a desire to further the research and conversation around an issue important to me. Writing and publishing during the season of the debate topic looks like I am trying to manipulate the system and writing only to win.

 

That college coach probably had some very important things to say about whatever topic it was. That college coach was knowledgeable and probably qualified to comment. However, once that coach published an article used and cited by his own debaters, he lost credibility in the eyes of that generation of debaters. He wasn't taken as a qualified expert - he was seen as someone who would pander his knowledge into a way to give his debaters a leg up against the competition.

 

 

 

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

One other thought: I am equally uncomfortable when my English students "cite" me and my lectures in their essays. I want them to find expert information. It will probably support what I have said in class, but it will show the students are doing more than just parroting back what I have said in lecture. While I am extremely knowledgeable in my content area, I want kids to find out if I'm right -- I want them to think for themselves instead of just regurgitating what I have said. I realize this debate question is a bit different, but it gives me the same uncomfortable feeling. Citing ones own coach in a debate round reminds me of how Denzel Washington's character in Great Debaters. He said, "You do the research and I'll write the arguements. You will run the arguments I write." I want kids to think for themselves, to question authority (especially my authority), and think critically as they evaluate evidence and coble together arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the coach is an expert in the field. For instance, what if the coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she coaches debate in their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be off-limits insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main solvency author in the field?

 

I think if we are talking about coaches writing stuff for wikis, or for forums where there is no peer review (like some blogs, etc.) then it might not be ethical - because there's no check on what they are writing and they could write whatever they wanted to. But if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited journals, etc., then I don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't say that we can't have subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're lucky enough to get a subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing should be fair game - as long as the writing is from legit sources..

Edited by hylanddd
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, if this evidence was never read by any team coached by Skarb, then I think we can agree that publishing this article is ethical. Agreed?

 

Second, I know that keyboard wars are annoying, but ethical violations should often be dealt with in public. On the other hand, if my accusers don't wish to post under their own names, then again I can understand not wanting to respond to those people.

 

Third, clearly there has to be a place for publishing work in this activity. At the college level, it is expected for graduate students and professors to publish to get ahead. And even if there wasn't a publish or perish issue involved, I feel that being involved in an activity like debate shouldn't limit your free speech abilities, including publishing work. So, the question is not whether you can publish work, but what are the ethical guidelines we as a community believe in when publishing work? I propose the various guidelines:

 

(1) If teams you coach never cite you, than debate as a community should have no problem with your publishing practices.

 

(2) You should not try to hide your identity in any practice for your debaters to cite you.

 

(3) If the work in question was published before the current topic was chosen, than your debaters can cite that work.

 

(4) All other work you publish should be embargoed for that topic.

 

The real other question comes for non-topic specific work. Should pitt never be allowed to read the Mitchell cards? I have an article I co-authored with Kevin Cummings on human rights and ranciere and agamben, should debaters from Mercer and Binghamton never be able to cite that article?

 

So far, Bing hasn't.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont think our coaches peruse cross-x on a normal basis. If you want answers to these questions, you should email them directly instead of asking for responses on a public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars.

 

I know a variety of debate coaches have contacted Skarb directly and suggest you do the same instead of demanding answers here.

 

Also, no, Damien never read this evidence, and our coaches were responsible for the name Justin Skarb being attached to the article in the first place.

 

This is just what i expected from damien- "we don't need to talk about our ethical practices, just email our coach!" It seems that damien is regularly called out for un-ethical shit and never wants to answer to the community for it. If you're going to write your own cards, I think you should at least be willing to engage in a public discussion about that practice. But of course, i guess they'll call this a 'keyboard war' and avoid the issue.

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone spends 40 hours a week doing research on an issue they are potentially qualified to write an article about that issue. It should not matter that they are a debate coach. The incinuation that debate coaches have no right to be academics comes up from time to time and is ludicrous. Why would you tell someone, you have to read every single article in existence on a topic (ie. SPS) but you aren't allowed to apply that knowledge towards anything except debate files. It's possible that Justin Skarb could benefit professionally from being credited in the article. Perhaps he is not going to coach debate for the rest of his life. Why should he be denied that benefit?

If the evidence he contribued to was read in-round this would be a different situation but it appears that it was not so what's the issue? Synergy notes that it would have been better to publish it after the TOC, perhaps that is true if only to save face, but as long as it's not being used for competitave purposes I don't get the impact. Ben Sovacool (who rocks) wrote an article about RPS. No one accused him of trying to help the schools he used to coach and/or debate for. Unless someone has evidence that this article was used to help Damien I don't even think the accusation warrants a response..

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone spends 40 hours a week doing research on an issue they are potentially qualified to write an article about that issue. It should not matter that they are a debate coach. The incinuation that debate coaches have no right to be academics comes up from time to time and is ludicrous. Why would you tell someone, you have to read every single article in existence on a topic (ie. SPS) but you aren't allowed to apply that knowledge towards anything except debate files. It's possible that Justin Skarb could benefit professionally from being credited in the article. Perhaps he is not going to coach debate for the rest of his life. Why should he be denied that benefit?

If the evidence he contribued to was read in-round this would be a different situation but it appears that it was not so what's the issue? Synergy notes that it would have been better to publish it after the TOC, perhaps that is true if only to save face, but as long as it's not being used for competitave purposes I don't get the impact. Ben Sovacool (who rocks) wrote an article about RPS. No one accused him of trying to help the schools he used to coach and/or debate for. Unless someone has evidence that this article was used to help Damien I don't even think the accusation warrants a response..

No one's saying debate community members shouldn't write articles on issues they have expertise in. They of course should be encouraged to do so. That's not the issue here. Did you read the article? There are some lines that stand out to some readers as assertions (without any cited sources) that also happen to be perfectly-written for debate positions. There is little else in the literature base that supports those claims, so some think what besides debate rounds could these claims have been intended for? That, combined with the possible use of a pseudonym, and the publication days before a tournament, make some feel this is fishy. It's certainly nothing like the Sovacool articles, that comparison is ridiculous.

 

I moved this thread to the debate theory forum because the intent of this thread was claimed to be a question of general debate theory. If you have complaints regarding Damien/the Marburry article, please follow Reid's advice and email Skarb instead of presuming to know the full facts of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never look at this website and most likely won't see anyone's responses, but this is almost unbelievable to me. I can be contacted directly through e-mail rahul.jaswa@gmail.com, and I don't have Skarb's email but if you actually care about resolving such an issue that you can forward this along to him and then i'll post his responses too.

 

Here are my thoughts:

 

First, this is completely unethical.

 

1) No attempt was made to inform the community that such an article was written. Given that it was produced by a debate coach instructing students during the current season, that seems to be minimally appropriate.

 

2) The article is obviously written for strategic benefit. It has several DA and CP solvency arguments without appropriate data, and draws on "non-intrinsic" arguments which would be largely inappropriate for any real "peer-reviewed" journal. Citing 2 references and attempting to then publish an article would be laughed at by any journal submission board.

 

Some examples:

 

“every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent on terrestrial research and commercialization”. Unfortunately, it is these very programs that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the current economic crisis."

 

"the problem with DOD investments in SBSP in the short term is that the military will end up having to pay not only for its traditional energy supplies but will have to also carry the extra burden of funding SBSP research and development costs. With readiness, maintenance, and procurement accounts already stretched thin, this is simply a situation the DOD can not afford. In a worst-case scenario, a mandate to pursue SBSP research and development could force the military to drastically scale back, if not cancel entirely, critical weapons programs to pay for an energy system that it will not be able to use for decades."

 

"If there were such a thing as a money tree and the American economy were not in dire straits it would make perfect sense for the government to embark upon an all-out path towards the development of space-based solar power. Unfortunately, money trees only exist in our dreams and, quite simply, the nation currently has better uses for the money that would need to be spent by funding SBSP research and development. Fortunately, however, there is a more moderate path the government can take, agreeing to purchase commercial power beamed from space, which does not require any federal outlays in the near-term but will effectively help speed the development of SBSP. This is one case where we might be able to have our cake and eat it too."

 

3) Why was a name other than Skarb's ever cited? Marburry is Skarb, as we know, and saying that Skarb helped "research" is even more unethical because it blatantly redirects credit for the article from an actual person to a fictitious person.

 

4) This was in the comments section, posted under the name "norman ornstein," coincidentally... I wonder how that would sound in a debate round? Plan derails lost--Ornstein yesterday

 

"It seems clear, however, that DOD serving as an anchor tenant for commercial power beamed from space would drain the last drop of Barack Obama's finite reserve of political capital that he is currently using to persuade key senators and moderate Republicans to pass the Law of the Sea Treaty. That treaty is up in the air right now, but if the status quo is maintained it seems very likely to pass, due to Obama's focus on spending political capital there. Space is a controversial issue in these times, as poll after poll attest to, and DOD action would surely be perceived as part of Obama's green energy plan, which would engender backlash from the same, interestingly enough, senators he's co-operating with to pass LOST."

 

5) Published 2 days before the TOC

 

6) Did Damien teams debate this case at the TOC? If not, I don't think that "we didn't read these cards is an appropriate defense." The onus is clearly on them.

 

7) It pollutes the existing research base which is constituted by the writings of researchers who have no vested interest in producing oversimplified debate arguments.

 

8) When is the next "socio-political" foray into space based energy going to be published? I'm anxious to hear more from the newest topic expert. After all, Arizona State's political science, history, and political communication departments are world renowned for their classes on space based energy. And your master's research, i'm sure, required you to devote your time and thoughts to learning the intricacies of DOD weapons programs, the details of agency fiscal discipline, and the workings of the imaginary "money tree" which guide the future of such a program--most importantly, how they would interact given immediate funding of such a program.

 

9) The bottom line is that this activity is meant to promote quality education among students. Even if Damien's coaching doesn't believe that debate is more than a game, there are a slew of people, apparently more wise, who recognize the importance of keeping debate clean. EVEN IF there were arguments in defense of this behavior (there are not), this was clearly approaching questionable territory and instead of erring against it, or at least diffusing the problem by proactively taking measures like informing the community that such an article had been written by your program, you decided it was more important to have another strategic tool.

 

Second, addressing other people's rationalizations.

 

1) "I'd say that it's fairly important to take into consideration the credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a major in engineering or something of the sort, there's no problem with you publishing the article and having debaters card from it."

 

This is nonsensical--just like how qualified global warming researchers used to be paid money by thinktanks to publish articles supporting their side of the debate. Except this is worse because it affects a strategic game.

 

2) "you should email them directly instead of asking for responses on a public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars."

 

Please, own up. I know you're young and proud and feel the need to defend your program--this obviously deserves "community" attention, and the fact that I, a UC Berkeley debater with essentially no ties to high school debate, heard about it, is clear evidence that this sort of discussion has far-reaching influence.

 

Right or wrong, relegating this to the private sphere is obviously an inappropriate way to deal with a phenomenon which directly affects the way that debates take place on a community-wide basis. More importantly, the longer this goes without

 

It was published two days before the TOC. There was no effort to tell the whole community that this article was available. The article obviously cited no research to backup the vast majority of its assertions.

 

3) "What if the coach is an expert in the field. For instance, what if the coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she coaches debate in their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be off-limits insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main solvency author in the field?"

 

Well that is certainly not the case here, and this imaginary coach/field expert would certainly not publish articles in an obscure hybrid between community blog and public discussion of "published" articles.

 

More importantly, this article wouldn't be written from an oversimplified argumentative perspective with shallow analysis and exclusively debate arguments. "Peer-reviewed" in academia/policy analysis doesn't just mean that someone else read and approved it, it means that reputable academics/analysts within your subdiscipline read and approved it. Please, submit this to a scientific journal and send us the response, i'd be glad to read it. Or, if you prefer, an economics journal, or the economist, or the New Yorker even.

 

4) "if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited journals, etc., then I don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't say that we can't have subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're lucky enough to get a subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing should be fair game - as long as the writing is from legit sources.."

 

At minimum, there needs to be specific practice to protect the community--people need to be made aware of the existence of such an article from the author/debate coach; in this case it is inappropriate to say that the burden is on the researcher because, among other things, this is ingenuine research and artificially benefits the team making the arguments.

 

Their writing should not be fair game as evidence, their opinions should help direct your research/argumentation so that you can find people who don't have a vested interest in your winning that support your findings.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not adequately answering the fact that they didn't read the evidence in round at the TOC. You're in a double-bind; either a) you're talking about this situation specifically and nothing unethical actually went down, or B) you're talking about citing evidence which a coach or someone close to the debate community has written, in which case the specifics of what happened in THIS scenario are not important (i.e. the fact that it was published 2 days before the TOC, that no one attempted to alert the community of the article, etc.). Damien did not do anything wrong in this instance.

 

Moreover, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with this practice. Cards exist to supplement warrants, not vice versa, so it doesn't matter what claims the cards are making if they have nothing to back them up.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one's saying debate community members shouldn't write articles on issues they have expertise in. They of course should be encouraged to do so. That's not the issue here. Did you read the article? There are some lines that stand out to some readers as assertions (without any cited sources) that also happen to be perfectly-written for debate positions. There is little else in the literature base that supports those claims, so some think what besides debate rounds could these claims have been intended for? That, combined with the possible use of a pseudonym, and the publication days before a tournament, make some feel this is fishy. It's certainly nothing like the Sovacool articles, that comparison is ridiculous.

 

 

I went back and read the article and agree that it does nto approach the scholarship of Sovacool and perhaps that is a bad example. My question remains, though: What is the impact of this article? Everyone is complaining and no one has given an implication. Who cares that a debate coach wrote a bad article about a debate issue if it wasn't used competitively?

 

p.s. to whoever I didnt "rep" anyone on this thread

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are not adequately answering the fact that they didn't read the evidence in round at the TOC. You're in a double-bind; either a) you're talking about this situation specifically and nothing unethical actually went down, or B) you're talking about citing evidence which a coach or someone close to the debate community has written, in which case the specifics of what happened in THIS scenario are not important (i.e. the fact that it was published 2 days before the TOC, that no one attempted to alert the community of the article, etc.). Damien did not do anything wrong in this instance.

 

This summarizes my point exactly. If we are discussing the notion of debate coaches publishing articles generally cross apply my previous arguments. If we are discussing Damien specifically, they didn't use the article in a debate so what exactly is the problem?

Ya'll should try to impact your arguments. Here's mine: Link is villainizing a debate coach for attempting to use their research to create a scholarly article outside of debate, impact is discouraging coaches from pursuing academic interests and creating a culture where they aren't also allowed to be academics or have opinions. Maybe Skarb cut a lot of cards about SPS to answer Westminster and Hooch, developed an opinion based on his research, and felt compelled to write about it. Who knows?

Now, the other argument would go: Link, debate coach writes suspiciously debate-like article about SPS before the TOC, Impact, competitive advantage for teams who read his biased article to win debates. *Except this didn't happen, so there was no impact.*

As Antonucci notes, you can find bias in debate evidence all over the place regardless of whether a coach wrote it. Even if, as it has been suggested, Damien did intend to read the evidence, it would easily be resolved by the other team a) mentioning in the debate that it was written by the opposition's coach. Seems like a pretty devastating takeout and B) debate the unsubstantiated claims in the article.

So, again, is there an impact to all this complaining or are folks just bitter?

Edited by Wittwer
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   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...