NATION

PASSWORD

[DISCUSSION] Are naughty words now against the rules?

Who needs it, who got it, who hands it out and why.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Greater Miami Shores
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10104
Founded: Aug 06, 2010
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Greater Miami Shores » Thu Oct 08, 2020 6:36 pm

Genivaria wrote:So we're to understand then that negative discussion of public figures is no longer allowed on this forum?
Because it MIGHT offend followers of said figures?

I think what the mods mean is, don't bait, don't flame, don't troll, don't use any foul language of any kind, against any fellow nations, favorite politicians, and VIPS, and problem solved, its easy to do.
Last edited by Greater Miami Shores on Thu Oct 08, 2020 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I once tried to K Me. Posted It and Reported. Locked by Mods. I am Autistic accounts for Repetitive Nature. I am Very Civil and Respectful to all on NS and off NS. My Opinions Are Not Bad Opinions No Ones Opinions Are Bad Opinons. We are on NS, to share, discuss, argue, disagree, on Trump, elections, Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians and whatevers, with respect. This Respect Is Given It Is Not Earned, This Respect Is Called Freedom of Expression and Democracy. This Man Always Says What He Means, I Am The Real Thing. I Make Ted Cruz look like a Leftist. I have been on NS For over 10 Years with a Perfect Record of No Baiting, Trolling, Flaming, or Using Foul Language. I Am Very Proud of It and Wish To Keep My Record Clean. But I Am Not The Only One On NS. GMS. I'm Based.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Senator
 
Posts: 3676
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Thu Oct 08, 2020 6:40 pm

Title should be [disCUSSion]
Home of the first best pizza topping known to NationStates | Prolific Security Council Author (15x resolutions written) | Not that one fraud, Pineappleistania(ew) | Mouthpiece for Melons' first-rate SC takes | read this please

Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass

User avatar
Washington Resistance Army
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53356
Founded: Aug 08, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Washington Resistance Army » Thu Oct 08, 2020 7:05 pm

Katganistan wrote:2) For the duration of the election, since things are heated, comments that are likely to inflame supporters of one side or another will incur warnings or short term bans. So yes, calling Trump a cunt is likely to upset his supporters 27 days out from the election, and thus incurred a warning. Calling Biden the same would incur a warning as well. This is likely to continue until a winner in the election has been confirmed.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.


Calling Trump a cunt would upset his supporters irregardless of when the next election is, and the same is true for Biden. If it's trolling near an election it should just flatly always be trolling, no? Do supporters of politicians become immune from trolling simply because an election has past?

This whole thing just makes really no sense from a moderation perspective.
Hellenic Polytheist, Socialist

User avatar
Drop Your Pants
Senator
 
Posts: 3840
Founded: Apr 17, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Drop Your Pants » Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:17 pm

Greater Miami Shores wrote:I think what the mods mean is, don't bait, don't flame, don't troll, don't use any foul language of any kind, against any fellow nations, favorite politicians, and VIPS, and problem solved, its easy to do.

What's a "favourite politician", or a VIP for that matter? Except during american election time (always hilarious for every other country) the rules aren't enforced as much.

Purely from a GP point (which is where i'm mostly in), swearing loudly has never been a problem. These possible new rules will extend into other sections of the forum and it probably won't end well.

Edit: Also, out of interest if i called trump a twit and a willy would it equal the same warning of the use of cunt?
Last edited by Drop Your Pants on Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Happily oblivious to NS Drama

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 35956
Founded: Antiquity
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Katganistan » Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:25 pm

Valrifell wrote:
Luna Amore wrote:There's an internal discussion currently afoot, so I'm not sure what else an individual Moderator is going to be able to say here until that discussion has run its course.


Then why did Kat even bother posting.

For the same reason the other moderators here have posted. To give you the information that is available at this time.

Why did you bother posting this?

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 35956
Founded: Antiquity
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Katganistan » Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:30 pm

Greater Miami Shores wrote:
Genivaria wrote:So we're to understand then that negative discussion of public figures is no longer allowed on this forum?
Because it MIGHT offend followers of said figures?

I think what the mods mean is, don't bait, don't flame, don't troll, don't use any foul language of any kind, against any fellow nations, favorite politicians, and VIPS, and problem solved, its easy to do.

No, that's not what we mean. Please stop interpreting the rules to be far reaching enough to reach the event horizon. Please stop telling people they should follow your incorrect interpretation. Please stop.

User avatar
WayNeacTia
Senator
 
Posts: 4330
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WayNeacTia » Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:27 pm

The answer to this whole mess seems pretty simple doesn't it? There really is zero reason to use derogatory comments about political figures. Moderators are correct in implying that when you use derogatory comments about politicians, you tend to wind up their supporters. Given the current U.S. political climate and the violence it is causing, the last thing we need on here is people being riled up by what is in effect, someone trying to be edgy and flaming a politician.

Feel free to call out politicians for their dumbassery, but do it in a civil tone. Is it really that hard, not to swear and call a politician (whether they are on the site or not) derogatory names?
Sarcasm dispensed moderately.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac

wait

User avatar
New haven america
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43472
Founded: Oct 08, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby New haven america » Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:42 pm

Wayneactia wrote:The answer to this whole mess seems pretty simple doesn't it? There really is zero reason to use derogatory comments about political figures. Moderators are correct in implying that when you use derogatory comments about politicians, you tend to wind up their supporters. Given the current U.S. political climate and the violence it is causing, the last thing we need on here is people being riled up by what is in effect, someone trying to be edgy and flaming a politician.

Feel free to call out politicians for their dumbassery, but do it in a civil tone. Is it really that hard, not to swear and call a politician (whether they are on the site or not) derogatory names?

There are hundreds of reasons to do so.
Human of the male variety
Will accept TGs
Char/Axis 2024

That's all folks~

User avatar
WayNeacTia
Senator
 
Posts: 4330
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WayNeacTia » Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:44 pm

New haven america wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:The answer to this whole mess seems pretty simple doesn't it? There really is zero reason to use derogatory comments about political figures. Moderators are correct in implying that when you use derogatory comments about politicians, you tend to wind up their supporters. Given the current U.S. political climate and the violence it is causing, the last thing we need on here is people being riled up by what is in effect, someone trying to be edgy and flaming a politician.

Feel free to call out politicians for their dumbassery, but do it in a civil tone. Is it really that hard, not to swear and call a politician (whether they are on the site or not) derogatory names?

There are hundreds of reasons to do so.

There really isn't. Civility is actually a thing.
Sarcasm dispensed moderately.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac

wait

User avatar
New haven america
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43472
Founded: Oct 08, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby New haven america » Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:45 pm

Wayneactia wrote:
New haven america wrote:There are hundreds of reasons to do so.

There really isn't. Civility is actually a thing.

Incorrect on every conceivable level.
Last edited by New haven america on Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human of the male variety
Will accept TGs
Char/Axis 2024

That's all folks~

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 15546
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby The Free Joy State » Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:59 pm

Luna Amore wrote:There's an internal discussion currently afoot, so I'm not sure what else an individual Moderator is going to be able to say here until that discussion has run its course.

Thank you for the update, Luna.

If the outcome of your internal discussions is that using insulting terms against politicians is to be regarded as trolling, I would appreciate some clarification as to whether:
  • This move is only for the duration of the American election.
  • And, if so, if it is only regarding American politicians.
  • If substantive posts and one-liners will be treated differently (a one-liner of insults seems more likely -- just from my personal perspective -- to potentially anger than a substantive post in which one curse is used).
  • If you may still use intensifiers and highly critical descriptive terms (for example, "Boris' latest policy is fucking stupid") to describe disagreeable political decisions.

Whatever the outcome, I will abide by it, but I would appreciate clear clarification (as it seems like a potential minefield).
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:39 am, edited 4 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
WayNeacTia
Senator
 
Posts: 4330
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WayNeacTia » Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:07 am

New haven america wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:There really isn't. Civility is actually a thing.

Incorrect on every conceivable level.

And what exactly does it achieve, other than pissing people off? There is very little reason to flame a politician here, except to troll their supporters.
Sarcasm dispensed moderately.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac

wait

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35483
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:32 am

Wayneactia wrote:
New haven america wrote:Incorrect on every conceivable level.

And what exactly does it achieve, other than pissing people off? There is very little reason to flame a politician here, except to troll their supporters.

"Flame" a politician can only happen if the politician is a site user. The Mods have made this abundantly clear numerous times over the course of years.

And as has been pointed out in my posts, there is an abundance of use of swear words against politicians that is not intended as trolling their supporters.

Wayne, we are wanting clarification of the rule, because as it stands it is contradictory. That's why we are all asking them for some kind of update to the rules or a clear message to spell out that the recent rulings are contradictory and will be reversed.
Last edited by The New California Republic on Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 29265
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:39 am

Thank you for your patience while we juggle timezones.

While I can't give a precise timeline, our internal discussion seems to be moving forward positively, and I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to clarify this issue in the next couple of days.

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35483
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:42 am

The Archregimancy wrote:Thank you for your patience while we juggle timezones.

While I can't give a precise timeline, our internal discussion seems to be moving forward positively, and I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to clarify this issue in the next couple of days.

Thanks Arch.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
WayNeacTia
Senator
 
Posts: 4330
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WayNeacTia » Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:42 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:And what exactly does it achieve, other than pissing people off? There is very little reason to flame a politician here, except to troll their supporters.

"Flame" a politician can only happen if the politician is a site user. The Mods have made this abundantly clear numerous times over the course of years.

And as has been pointed out in my posts, there is an abundance of use of swear words against politicians that is not intended as trolling their supporters.

Wayne, we are wanting clarification of the rule, because as it stands it is contradictory. That's why we are all asking them for some kind of update to the rules or a clear message to spell out that the recent rulings are contradictory and will be reversed.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

How much clearer does it really need to be spelled out?
Sarcasm dispensed moderately.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac

wait

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35483
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:46 am

Wayneactia wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:"Flame" a politician can only happen if the politician is a site user. The Mods have made this abundantly clear numerous times over the course of years.

And as has been pointed out in my posts, there is an abundance of use of swear words against politicians that is not intended as trolling their supporters.

Wayne, we are wanting clarification of the rule, because as it stands it is contradictory. That's why we are all asking them for some kind of update to the rules or a clear message to spell out that the recent rulings are contradictory and will be reversed.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

How much clearer does it really need to be spelled out?

None of that spells out that the rule we are discussing will change for the course of the elections. Sorry Wayne but it just doesn't.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
CoraSpia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13458
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Anarchy

Postby CoraSpia » Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:51 am

Wayneactia wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:"Flame" a politician can only happen if the politician is a site user. The Mods have made this abundantly clear numerous times over the course of years.

And as has been pointed out in my posts, there is an abundance of use of swear words against politicians that is not intended as trolling their supporters.

Wayne, we are wanting clarification of the rule, because as it stands it is contradictory. That's why we are all asking them for some kind of update to the rules or a clear message to spell out that the recent rulings are contradictory and will be reversed.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

How much clearer does it really need to be spelled out?

We've quite thoroughly explained previously in the thread why that rules reminder doesn't notify us of this new rule. The reminder speaks of current rules being enforced more strictly, when we have been told repeatedly that this isn't against the rules.
GVH has a puppet. It supports #NSTransparency and hosts a weekly zoom call for nsers that you should totally check out

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35483
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:57 am

CoraSpia wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

How much clearer does it really need to be spelled out?

We've quite thoroughly explained previously in the thread why that rules reminder doesn't notify us of this new rule. The reminder speaks of current rules being enforced more strictly, when we have been told repeatedly that this isn't against the rules.

Yes this discussion thread makes it abundantly clear that there is not a stricter enforcement of this "rule", as the rule doesn't actually exist; it's actually a user action that changes from being non-actionable to actionable by mere merit of there being an election on, with there being no actual rule change.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
CoraSpia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13458
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Anarchy

Postby CoraSpia » Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:00 am

The New California Republic wrote:
CoraSpia wrote:We've quite thoroughly explained previously in the thread why that rules reminder doesn't notify us of this new rule. The reminder speaks of current rules being enforced more strictly, when we have been told repeatedly that this isn't against the rules.

Yes this discussion thread makes it abundantly clear that there is not a stricter enforcement of this "rule", as the rule doesn't actually exist; it's actually a user action that changes from being non-actionable to actionable by mere merit of there being an election on, with there being no actual rule change.

To put it in context, if the police were going to start enforcing road rules more, then while they previously might have given someone a pass for doing 55 in a 50 zone, they'd now get pulled. This is pulling people for driving an annoyingly colored car.
GVH has a puppet. It supports #NSTransparency and hosts a weekly zoom call for nsers that you should totally check out

User avatar
WayNeacTia
Senator
 
Posts: 4330
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WayNeacTia » Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:02 am

The New California Republic wrote:
CoraSpia wrote:We've quite thoroughly explained previously in the thread why that rules reminder doesn't notify us of this new rule. The reminder speaks of current rules being enforced more strictly, when we have been told repeatedly that this isn't against the rules.

Yes this discussion thread makes it abundantly clear that there is not a stricter enforcement of this "rule", as the rule doesn't actually exist; it's actually a user action that changes from being non-actionable to actionable by mere merit of there being an election on, with there being no actual rule change.

And that post clearly states that naughty behavior is far more likely to be smacked, simply because there is an election going on. The fact the mods are more lenient when there isn't an election happening doesn't change the fact.

All of this seems like a mountain being made out of a molehill. The answer seems pretty clear. You want to denigrate politicians, particularly ones who are very good at riling people up on their own, then go do it on a site where it is more appropriate,.
Sarcasm dispensed moderately.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac

wait

User avatar
CoraSpia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13458
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Anarchy

Postby CoraSpia » Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:04 am

Wayneactia wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Yes this discussion thread makes it abundantly clear that there is not a stricter enforcement of this "rule", as the rule doesn't actually exist; it's actually a user action that changes from being non-actionable to actionable by mere merit of there being an election on, with there being no actual rule change.

And that post clearly states that naughty behavior is far more likely to be smacked, simply because there is an election going on. The fact the mods are more lenient when there isn't an election happening doesn't change the fact.

All of this seems like a mountain being made out of a molehill. The answer seems pretty clear. You want to denigrate politicians, particularly ones who are very good at riling people up on their own, then go do it on a site where it is more appropriate,.

It says that the rules will be enforced more strictly. Things not against the rules are still not against those same rules being enforced more strictly.
GVH has a puppet. It supports #NSTransparency and hosts a weekly zoom call for nsers that you should totally check out

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35483
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:07 am

Wayneactia wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Yes this discussion thread makes it abundantly clear that there is not a stricter enforcement of this "rule", as the rule doesn't actually exist; it's actually a user action that changes from being non-actionable to actionable by mere merit of there being an election on, with there being no actual rule change.

And that post clearly states that naughty behavior is far more likely to be smacked, simply because there is an election going on. The fact the mods are more lenient when there isn't an election happening doesn't change the fact.

Nonsense. Nowhere does it say that non-rules suddenly become rules, as is occurring here.

Wayneactia wrote:All of this seems like a mountain being made out of a molehill. The answer seems pretty clear. You want to denigrate politicians, particularly ones who are very good at riling people up on their own, then go do it on a site where it is more appropriate,.

I don't see why you aren't getting this. It's been deemed non-actionable for years, years. And then it suddenly changes with no warning. Folk are rightly concerned about the contradiction.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
WayNeacTia
Senator
 
Posts: 4330
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WayNeacTia » Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:10 am

CoraSpia wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:And that post clearly states that naughty behavior is far more likely to be smacked, simply because there is an election going on. The fact the mods are more lenient when there isn't an election happening doesn't change the fact.

All of this seems like a mountain being made out of a molehill. The answer seems pretty clear. You want to denigrate politicians, particularly ones who are very good at riling people up on their own, then go do it on a site where it is more appropriate,.

It says that the rules will be enforced more strictly. Things not against the rules are still not against those same rules being enforced more strictly.

I would think it would be obvious that name calling politicians, especially in the middle of an election, is nothing more than trolling. Would it not be trolling if I insulted your mother, who I assume is not a member of the site, just to rustle your jimmies? It works both ways. Simply because people are trying to rules lawyer, doesn't change the fact that it will rustle a lot of people jimmies. If you don't want to classify it as trolling, then classify it as baiting, as that is exactly what it is.
Sarcasm dispensed moderately.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac

wait

User avatar
CoraSpia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13458
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Anarchy

Postby CoraSpia » Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:12 am

Wayneactia wrote:
CoraSpia wrote:It says that the rules will be enforced more strictly. Things not against the rules are still not against those same rules being enforced more strictly.

I would think it would be obvious that name calling politicians, especially in the middle of an election, is nothing more than trolling. Would it not be trolling if I insulted your mother, who I assume is not a member of the site, just to rustle your jimmies? It works both ways. Simply because people are trying to rules lawyer, doesn't change the fact that it will rustle a lot of people jimmies. If you don't want to classify it as trolling, then classify it as baiting, as that is exactly what it is.

Go for it, we don't get on all that well.
If it's trolling, then perhaps the mods shouldn't have set a precedent for several years that it in fact wasn't trolling. They've told us it's not against the rules many times in the past and decided it was with absolutely no warning.
GVH has a puppet. It supports #NSTransparency and hosts a weekly zoom call for nsers that you should totally check out

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Moderation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads