Jump to content
PerfectlyImperfect2015

Answering Performance Affs

Recommended Posts

I think it depends on the performance itself, but I've found Nietzsche to be really helpful with a lot of them. Since performances often use vivid imagery, or personal accounts from a subject being performed  it usually works to run Guilt, or ethical mast. as a away to say that the way they are approaching awareness and action is wrong. Trying to coax out a reaction from people within a debate round defeats the purpose of good, ethical action. What they are doing is essentially placing guilt across people's shoulders as a way to encourage the change of the apparent world into the real which creates ressentiment and absolute hatred for life. Instead, action should be taken with an active nihilist approach to where we aren't doing actions based on their ability to make ourselves feel better, but for the genuine goodness of the action itself. Nothing is expected- nothing is gained- it's just right. People often think that Nietzsche was against all action of this type- but reading "Thus Spoke" makes you realize that he wasn't about this at all, it's just the guilt inherent of performances that he was against. (This interpretation may not be the best, but I hope it works for others as it has for me!)

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be careful with framework or T though, since most performances spend SO MUCH TIME prepping blocks against every type of those arguments, and they are also experienced at turning them in one way or anther to solidify the reason why they are performing in the first place. 

Edited by JolenMartinez
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the performance itself, but I've found Nietzsche to be really helpful with a lot of them. Since performances often use vivid imagery, or personal accounts from a subject being performed  it usually works to run Guilt, or ethical mast. as a away to say that the way they are approaching awareness and action is wrong. Trying to coax out a reaction from people within a debate round defeats the purpose of good, ethical action. What they are doing is essentially placing guilt across people's shoulders as a way to encourage the change of the apparent world into the real which creates ressentiment and absolute hatred for life. Instead, action should be taken with an active nihilist approach to where we aren't doing actions based on their ability to make ourselves feel better, but for the genuine goodness of the action itself. Nothing is expected- nothing is gained- it's just right. People often think that Nietzsche was against all action of this type- but reading "Thus Spoke" makes you realize that he wasn't about this at all, it's just the guilt inherent of performances that he was against. (This interpretation may not be the best, but I hope it works for others as it has for me!)

I would not recommend reading Nietzsche against critical affirmatives, even with that form of contextualization. 

First, such a contextualization is hard to explain, and I honestly have never seen nietzsche run that way-- and it is super easy to come off as offensive (because you quite probably are).

Second, you're handing the Affirmative ethos-- Nietzsche was quite clearly a philosopher writing from privilege.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it's a hard explanation to master, but Nietzsche definitely intends this notion in two of his chapters from "Genealogy of Morals". If you cut the right cards, which i have if you want them, then the guilt response is pretty useful. Encouraging a more ethical viewpoint of race, or gender, or sexuality is important to point out- but there is no reason why people need to do so by the situation they place you in. The best ethical action is one performed by the self-realizing purpose of the individual- if it is inserted into someone else by performance then the true purpose is distorted and allows for ressentiment. The affirmative's proposal is indeed a good intention, but the procedure can be improved upon. (Not really as offensive as one might think). 

 

As for the second point, it's very true, Nietzsche was probably writing from privilege as he didn't experience discrimination in that sort, but you could possibly apply the discrimination he received for being an atheist??? Idk what to do there, and thank you for pointing it out, I'll need to find an argument for this. 

(Sorry for the downvotes, I thought you were just trolling with yours :P, I really do apologize- I'll make it all better for you with some up votes lol)

Edited by JolenMartinez
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that Harvard BS has read a Nietzschean ressentiment argument similar to the one described above against performance affs

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five key strategies:

1) Plan inclusive kritic/PIK

2) Impact Turn

3) Topicality/Your Framework is Bad/You are bad for debate

4) Counter-advocacy

5) Counter-project/Counter-performance

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five key strategies:

1) Plan inclusive kritic/PIK

2) Impact Turn

3) Topicality/Your Framework is Bad/You are bad for debate

4) Counter-advocacy

5) Counter-project/Counter-performance

1.) Best option if executed well

2.) Terrible idea, most performance affs have stuff like racism/poverty, patriarchy/rape, etc. as an impact, don't turn these.

3.) Things most K teams prep for, if done well it can be won but I wouldn't make this my only option

4.) Can work if you have a GREAT net benefit.

5.) Can be fun/refer to #4

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five key strategies:

1) Plan inclusive kritic/PIK

2) Impact Turn

3) Topicality/Your Framework is Bad/You are bad for debate

4) Counter-advocacy

5) Counter-project/Counter-performance

 

1.) Best option if executed well

2.) Terrible idea, most performance affs have stuff like racism/poverty, patriarchy/rape, etc. as an impact, don't turn these.

3.) Things most K teams prep for, if done well it can be won but I wouldn't make this my only option

4.) Can work if you have a GREAT net benefit.

5.) Can be fun/refer to #4

1. I don't think the K necessarily needs to be a PIK, as long as it can turn and/or solve the case.  You're right that it's a solid strategy, but I think being able to differentiate your method from that of the aff is more important than stealing the whole case, because most affs want to make a perm.

2. Obviously you don't say racism/rape/patriarchy/poverty good.  What you can say, and what is often quite effective is cap./heg/state, etc. good.  Generally the aff Ks a broader structure than just one impact (and if they don't, alt causes that the counter-advocacy is key to solve), and it can be quite effective to turn those broader structures.

3. You're ignoring the fact that a lot of affs don't meaningfully link to more than one or two Ks, all of which they're ready to beat.  Sometimes framework is your only option, and it's a very useful one to have.  That said, it requires a lot of preparation and strategic thought to make sure you can answer the various ways the case pre-empts and turns framework arguments, at which point you might be better off just beating the aff directly and not risking RVIs, especially in front of particularly liberal judges.

4 and 5.  These  strategies are awesome.  The issue is the perm more than the net benefit, which generally is encapsulated in the turns case / solves case / prerequisite arguments.

 

 

If they call for a RoB, PIK out of it bc RoB's are fascist 

Don't do this, it's terrible and pointless.  Every argument makes a claim about the role of the ballot, even if it's not explicit, and the aff will have a defense of the one they chose.  More to the point, it makes for bad debates about irrelevant minutia, rather than substantively engaging the aff.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five key strategies:

1) Plan inclusive kritic/PIK

2) Impact Turn

3) Topicality/Your Framework is Bad/You are bad for debate

4) Counter-advocacy

5) Counter-project/Counter-performance

 

One should not have to cheat to answer a performance aff 

 

Now let's see how many downvotes I can get for this post. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I don't think the K necessarily needs to be a PIK, as long as it can turn and/or solve the case.  You're right that it's a solid strategy, but I think being able to differentiate your method from that of the aff is more important than stealing the whole case, because most affs want to make a perm.

2. Obviously you don't say racism/rape/patriarchy/poverty good.  What you can say, and what is often quite effective is cap./heg/state, etc. good.  Generally the aff Ks a broader structure than just one impact (and if they don't, alt causes that the counter-advocacy is key to solve), and it can be quite effective to turn those broader structures.

3. You're ignoring the fact that a lot of affs don't meaningfully link to more than one or two Ks, all of which they're ready to beat.  Sometimes framework is your only option, and it's a very useful one to have.  That said, it requires a lot of preparation and strategic thought to make sure you can answer the various ways the case pre-empts and turns framework arguments, at which point you might be better off just beating the aff directly and not risking RVIs, especially in front of particularly liberal judges.

4 and 5.  These  strategies are awesome.  The issue is the perm more than the net benefit, which generally is encapsulated in the turns case / solves case / prerequisite arguments.

 

1. True, I just live PIKs

2. Hadn't thought of it that way, nice

3. We agree here. Just to clarify, not saying framework is terrible, just not always the best option.

4/5. The NB is what prevents the perm

 

 

Don't do this, it's terrible and pointless.  Every argument makes a claim about the role of the ballot, even if it's not explicit, and the aff will have a defense of the one they chose.  More to the point, it makes for bad debates about irrelevant minutia, rather than substantively engaging the aff.

Fascism is never irrelevant, and I think he's making a joke relevant to a vdebate on this site where I call ROBs fascist in cx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plan inclusive kritic/PIK

 

 

I'm curious if answers to performance K's should actually be more like the following:

1) performance inclusive critiques

2) advocacy inclusive critiques

As plan is not what the performance critique really does.  I'm sure people have ultimately done both.

 

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five key strategies:

1) Plan inclusive kritic/PIK

2) Impact Turn

3) Topicality/Your Framework is Bad/You are bad for debate

4) Counter-advocacy

5) Counter-project/Counter-performance

 

1.) Best option if executed well

2.) Terrible idea, most performance affs have stuff like racism/poverty, patriarchy/rape, etc. as an impact, don't turn these.

3.) Things most K teams prep for, if done well it can be won but I wouldn't make this my only option

4.) Can work if you have a GREAT net benefit.

5.) Can be fun/refer to #4

1. Can work, is a strategy- if the aff is written well, good luck at finding a link, because otherwise you're using Links of Omission and those are bad.

 

2. Can work, by impact turning the thesis/method of the 1AC. Not literally saying racism good, but saying that their process is good. Heg good is also applicable, and cards exist that make the argument that heg is awesome and doesn't justify evil.

Also certain K aff impacts/arguments can be impact turned, except the obvious ones- you've named the obvious things that can't be impact turned because of the auto loss/0 speaks (and because they are just bad arguments). The Cap/State/Securitzation/Biopower/etc. is good impact turns apply, but make sure you know the stance of the aff on those issues.

 

3. works well, depends on judge. yes it's the main strategy but honestly, especially in high school there is a large majority of judges who err towards topicality, ect. If college, pref the people you want, but yeah, 1 off framework isn't a great strat unless you have an absolutely awesome case debate or the right judge. Or if the aff team wrote a good aff and there is literally no good link to anything else.

 

But having the other options prepped does not preclude reading it. If this is college debate, pref the people you want to get. if you want to go for framework all of the time, pref those people higher, if you want K stuff, pref those people, most of the time you'll get people who are in the middle so you can do whatever. But framework's an option and a good one. Unless you get someone with a huge ideological bias one way or another, you should read T and a counteradvocacy in the 1NC

 

4/5. Can work, but is harder than the other strategies, depends on the team and if you actually have the goods on what the aff is, and if you do, go for it. This strategy is harder because it's not only judge dependent, but you need to know what your argument is.

 

One should not have to cheat to answer a performance aff 

 

Now let's see how many downvotes I can get for this post. 

except technically they did first? Also I see no reason why going for a Floating PIC is bad against a performance/K aff. It's strategic, and it's easier to beat the perm, the problem with most of these affs is actually getting a real link.

 

 

Role of Ballot PIC's, and Ballot Commodification based arguments are even worse than reading the super old Shively cards and a Cap K in the 1NC. Those arguments are far worse than any of the strategies here, except maybe saying Patriarchy/Racism/Rape good, mostly because the argument doesn't make any sense.

 

Could also read a DA plus Util if a team actually defends part of the topic that you have topic link to.

 

Nietschze and or Schmitt are also arguments you could read, depends on the aff and their argument.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Can work, is a strategy- if the aff is written well, good luck at finding a link, because otherwise you're using Links of Omission and those are bad.

 

2. Can work, by impact turning the thesis/method of the 1AC. Not literally saying racism good, but saying that their process is good. Heg good is also applicable, and cards exist that make the argument that heg is awesome and doesn't justify evil.

Also certain K aff impacts/arguments can be impact turned, except the obvious ones- you've named the obvious things that can't be impact turned because of the auto loss/0 speaks (and because they are just bad arguments). The Cap/State/Securitzation/Biopower/etc. is good impact turns apply, but make sure you know the stance of the aff on those issues.

 

3. works well, depends on judge. yes it's the main strategy but honestly, especially in high school there is a large majority of judges who err towards topicality, ect. If college, pref the people you want, but yeah, 1 off framework isn't a great strat unless you have an absolutely awesome case debate or the right judge. Or if the aff team wrote a good aff and there is literally no good link to anything else.

 

But having the other options prepped does not preclude reading it. If this is college debate, pref the people you want to get. if you want to go for framework all of the time, pref those people higher, if you want K stuff, pref those people, most of the time you'll get people who are in the middle so you can do whatever. But framework's an option and a good one. Unless you get someone with a huge ideological bias one way or another, you should read T and a counteradvocacy in the 1NC

 

4/5. Can work, but is harder than the other strategies, depends on the team and if you actually have the goods on what the aff is, and if you do, go for it. This strategy is harder because it's not only judge dependent, but you need to know what your argument is.

 

except technically they did first? Also I see no reason why going for a Floating PIC is bad against a performance/K aff. It's strategic, and it's easier to beat the perm, the problem with most of these affs is actually getting a real link.

 

 

Role of Ballot PIC's, and Ballot Commodification based arguments are even worse than reading the super old Shively cards and a Cap K in the 1NC. Those arguments are far worse than any of the strategies here, except maybe saying Patriarchy/Racism/Rape good, mostly because the argument doesn't make any sense.

 

Could also read a DA plus Util if a team actually defends part of the topic that you have topic link to.

 

Nietschze and or Schmitt are also arguments you could read, depends on the aff and their argument.

 

1. Good luck writing an aff that doesn't link; there's evidence that a lot of words and phrases are ableist, most authors don't censor themselves nearly as much as debaters, and you can always run things like PIK out of author citations or PIK out of speaking (Derrida has a bunch of stuff about how it's problematic to privilege speaking over writing, and it's probably ableist against deaf people); worst case, reread the aff with an internal net benefit about repetition.

2. Fully in agreement; my hardest 2acs with a K aff last year were against neolib good; a lot of K affs are more prepared to contest K links and beat framework than to actually have a strong impact.

3. Also in agreement; if you're reading an extra counteradvocacy, make sure to have ethical condo good and kicking framework good blocks prepared because a lot of teams will put 2 or 3 voters on framework that they can go for even if you don't extend it.

4 and 5 - if you're decent on the link debate, these are really good because you can capture most of their offense, a lot of judges prefer it to framework, and you know their 2ar is going to be perm with case, link turns, and some sort of coalition-building argument as net benefits, so you can prep the 2nr and pre-empt the 2ar pretty easily.

 

I agree the PIC is strategic, particularly since the aff can't read theory without contradicting themselves on framework; some judges will buy the argument that the neg didn't perform so they can't access the aff (personally, I think it's a weak argument, but you do need to answer it as a serious threat)

 

Ballot commodification probably dumb; suffering commodification is decent, particularly coupled with a speaking for others argument since the former turns most of the offense against the latter.

 

Nietzsche is really offensive, particularly when run by a team that's not really good at controlling the characterization of the aff, doesn't really provide a good reason to vote neg, and isn't well-liked by the judging community.  If you want a generic, cap and anthro link to just about everything and are generally more effective than Nietzsche at capturing offense, beating the perm, not being internal link turned (cap can be, admittedly, but I've never seen anyone try it with anthro).

As I understand Schmitt, he's more of an IR author and isn't particularly responsive.  It also seems problematic to cite a white supremacist Nazi who advocated genocide in his theories against any team that talks about oppression.  That being said, I haven't had many Schmitt debates and am not hugely familiar with the literature, so I may be completely off base.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Good luck writing an aff that doesn't link; there's evidence that a lot of words and phrases are ableist, most authors don't censor themselves nearly as much as debaters, and you can always run things like PIK out of author citations or PIK out of speaking (Derrida has a bunch of stuff about how it's problematic to privilege speaking over writing, and it's probably ableist against deaf people); worst case, reread the aff with an internal net benefit about repetition.

I agree with most of what you said, granted I just have seen people read schmitt, not so much have read it myself. But what I remember from this is that I think people read Schmitt as a "differences good" aff eliminates those differences, and that's bad. (yes I know this sounds horrible and most likely is) and that's how they get the link. At the same degree, I don't like the way you worded this, or I think it is an explanation that's caused the idea of engagement to not be as serious as it could be, not so much as the ableism argument itself (granted, i'm not a fan of it as a debate argument, much less so than other identity based arguments), but it seems to me that while some affs are harder to find links to, I don't get the strategic benefit of either of those PIKs, as citations are more than likely good to have on just a research/making sure someone isn't writing their own evidence level.

 

On another level regardless of the aff, it seems like getting links from things the author says is kind of ridiculous, not to say that

specific links are good, just I don't see the strength in a link that is based off of what the author said in their writing, instead of the actual theory/thesis of the aff itself. I think there's a large difference between a debater saying something, and an author saying something and that while people should try and find evidence that isn't using offensive language... basing all of your offense on that the aff used x word is not a good idea or strategy.

Edited by Firewater
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a generic, cap and anthro link to just about everything and are generally more effective than Nietzsche at capturing offense, beating the perm, not being internal link turned (cap can be, admittedly, but I've never seen anyone try it with anthro).

As I understand Schmitt, he's more of an IR author and isn't particularly responsive.  It also seems problematic to cite a white supremacist Nazi who advocated genocide in his theories against any team that talks about oppression.  That being said, I haven't had many Schmitt debates and am not hugely familiar with the literature, so I may be completely off base.

I have two questions. First, what exactly does Schmitt say? I've heard this from a couple people when I went to camp a week ago and was wondering if anyone could possibly clarify. Second, could I by any chance get an anthro k from you, Bobby, or someone else? For some reason they have eluded me, and my attempts at cutting one from the UT library have been complete failures :/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you said, granted I just have seen people read schmitt, not so much have read it myself. But what I remember from this is that I think people read Schmitt as a "differences good" aff eliminates those differences, and that's bad. (yes I know this sounds horrible and most likely is) and that's how they get the link. At the same degree, I don't like the way you worded this, or I think it is an explanation that's caused the idea of engagement to not be as serious as it could be, not so much as the ableism argument itself (granted, i'm not a fan of it as a debate argument, much less so than other identity based arguments), but it seems to me that while some affs are harder to find links to, I don't get the strategic benefit of either of those PIKs, as citations are more than likely good to have on just a research/making sure someone isn't writing their own evidence level.

 

On another level regardless of the aff, it seems like getting links from things the author says is kind of ridiculous, not to say that

specific links are good, just I don't see the strength in a link that is based off of what the author said in their writing, instead of the actual theory/thesis of the aff itself. I think there's a large difference between a debater saying something, and an author saying something and that while people should try and find evidence that isn't using offensive language... basing all of your offense on that the aff used x word is not a good idea or strategy.

To clarify, I don't think those are optimal strategies; I'm just saying that you can PIK out of virtually anything, so saying a good team will write an aff that has nothing you can PIK out of seems a bit absurd; those were particularly extreme instances, but I've personally lost to the first (in my defense, I was running the aff for the 3rd time ever, had never debated a PIK, assumed it was a timesuck arg more than a serious strategy, and didn't have a block to it), and I've seen literature for the second, so they do exist and can be won.  I'll admit, some affs are harder to get links to than others, but I've never seen something that doesn't say anything you can PIK out of (particularly after the 2ac; teams are a lot less careful about phrases like "take a stand" or "silence the oppressed" than they are in the 1ac).  You're right that I was probably not treating the argument as seriously as I should, sorry.

 

I'm not sure why the aff shouldn't have to defend what their authors say; at least in the parts that they've read.  If you win discourse matters, the aff's implicit endorsement of violent language by reading that card is no different than their endorsement of heg by reading a heg good impact.  Again, I don't think word PIKs are ever your optimal strategy, but they do make sense as a one-card argument that can win you the round if the aff mishandles it and give you an out if you're behind on the other parts of the debate.

Edited by BobbyTables

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Good luck writing an aff that doesn't link; there's evidence that a lot of words and phrases are ableist, most authors don't censor themselves nearly as much as debaters, and you can always run things like PIK out of author citations or PIK out of speaking (Derrida has a bunch of stuff about how it's problematic to privilege speaking over writing, and it's probably ableist against deaf people); worst case, reread the aff with an internal net benefit about repetition.

2. Fully in agreement; my hardest 2acs with a K aff last year were against neolib good; a lot of K affs are more prepared to contest K links and beat framework than to actually have a strong impact.

3. Also in agreement; if you're reading an extra counteradvocacy, make sure to have ethical condo good and kicking framework good blocks prepared because a lot of teams will put 2 or 3 voters on framework that they can go for even if you don't extend it.

4 and 5 - if you're decent on the link debate, these are really good because you can capture most of their offense, a lot of judges prefer it to framework, and you know their 2ar is going to be perm with case, link turns, and some sort of coalition-building argument as net benefits, so you can prep the 2nr and pre-empt the 2ar pretty easily.

 

I agree the PIC is strategic, particularly since the aff can't read theory without contradicting themselves on framework; some judges will buy the argument that the neg didn't perform so they can't access the aff (personally, I think it's a weak argument, but you do need to answer it as a serious threat)

 

Ballot commodification probably dumb; suffering commodification is decent, particularly coupled with a speaking for others argument since the former turns most of the offense against the latter.

 

Nietzsche is really offensive, particularly when run by a team that's not really good at controlling the characterization of the aff, doesn't really provide a good reason to vote neg, and isn't well-liked by the judging community.  If you want a generic, cap and anthro link to just about everything and are generally more effective than Nietzsche at capturing offense, beating the perm, not being internal link turned (cap can be, admittedly, but I've never seen anyone try it with anthro).

As I understand Schmitt, he's more of an IR author and isn't particularly responsive.  It also seems problematic to cite a white supremacist Nazi who advocated genocide in his theories against any team that talks about oppression.  That being said, I haven't had many Schmitt debates and am not hugely familiar with the literature, so I may be completely off base.

1.) Are you calling Nietzsche a Nazi or Schmitt?

 

2.) Nietzsche is only when it's run badly, I agree that when teams run it as a "suck it up" type K, it's offensive, but it can be run in a non-offensive manner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) Are you calling Nietzsche a Nazi or Schmitt?

 

2.) Nietzsche is only when it's run badly, I agree that when teams run it as a "suck it up" type K, it's offensive, but it can be run in a non-offensive manner

1. Schmitt.

2. Perhaps, but I still don't think it can present a coherent reason to vote neg because I'd wager most performance affs will be willing to defend that the aff is life-affirming.  I'm also not sure how Nietzsche doesn't lead to total moral relativism (even if he wouldn't say he does), in which case there's no objective reason the neg's ethics are any better.  Could you link to a round where you feel it's run well or explain how well-run Nietzsche functions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Schmitt.

2. Perhaps, but I still don't think it can present a coherent reason to vote neg because I'd wager most performance affs will be willing to defend that the aff is life-affirming.  I'm also not sure how Nietzsche doesn't lead to total moral relativism (even if he wouldn't say he does), in which case there's no objective reason the neg's ethics are any better.  Could you link to a round where you feel it's run well or explain how well-run Nietzsche functions?

1. Cool

 

2.  I think Nietzsche advocates moral relativism ("GOD IS DEAD") because of the rejection of a transcendental ethical system, which isn't necessarily a bad thing or at the least probably no worse than institutionalized ethics (which i'll warrant out more if requested). If run properly neg teams aren't saying "our ethics are better" as opposed to saying "they shouldn't be telling you what's ethical or you end up hating life". I feel like certain versions of Nietzsche run well works on several levels

       A.) Indicts the affs truth claims

       B.) Says bad stuff is inevitable and the way they view X structural impact as negative only kills VTL because you'll never completely fix life and hate yourself                    because of it 

       C.) Says we should reconceptualize the impact of the 1ac as something positive (yes, X is bad, but because we survived it we are stronger. Think like civil rights              movement, people were bitten by dogs (which i know firsthand sucks) but they understood it was a necessary suffering in order to improve their subject-                    position within society.

 

Whereas when run badly it's just the neg saying:

       The aff is being whiny about bad stuff, god is dead bro, suck it up, you don't even matter.

 

 There can be a very thin line between the two and if i need to explain this better i'd be more than glad to 

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...