NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Conscription Fairness Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13798
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:47 am

Cossack Khanate wrote:OOC: I would specify more on Clause 3b, because it may be within reason for nations to conscript, for example, Green Card holders during very dire emergencies. What are people’s thoughts on this?

OOC: ...or instituting a "serve or leave" kind of thing (and for IA and others, I'm thinking of like existential level of severity of conflict, here, where anyone not involved in the war effort being a drain on limited resources).
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:53 pm

Araraukar wrote:Perhaps you or author can tell me if clause 4 means that if the war lasts longer than 4 years, you can't have the soldiers/sailors serving for the duration of the war, but instead a completely arbitrarily decided 4 years?

There are always new recruits and people into the population that can be brought into the army. As people who have fully served their four years leave, a new class of recruits will be able to take their place.

Oh and does clause 5 ban "rehearsal drills"? I can't dig out the English term from my memory right now, but like, say you are conscripted right out of school, serve your time, go home, have a life, and when you turn 35, you're asked to come back for a couple of weeks to rehearse the skills you learned during your original year(s) of service. The point being that if a war does break out, your soldiering skills will be more up to date than as forgotten as what was the capital of Zaire (which, I know, doesn't exist under that name anymore)

No, it only forces nations to budget their conscription time. For example, a country could require conscription from the ages of 18 - 20 (2 years), and then require each person to return for retraining every five years (25, 30, 35, 40, etc.) for a period of, say, three months. At that rate, a country could require retraining until the person is sixty for the maximum time period to be fulfilled. I can do the math in a spreadsheet if you are unconvinced.

Of course, your arguments do not consider that there will surely be many willing citizens who will gladly take up arms to defend their nation.

Cossack Khanate wrote:OOC: I would specify more on Clause 3b, because it may be within reason for nations to conscript, for example, Green Card holders during very dire emergencies. What are people’s thoughts on this?

Otherwise, this proposal is very interesting and, I think, non-partisan. Commendable.

Thank you. I oppose the conscription of non-citizens, but I do understand where you are coming from. I will consider it.
Last edited by Inhorto on Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18629
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:35 am

Cossack Khanate wrote:OOC: I would specify more on Clause 3b, because it may be within reason for nations to conscript, for example, Green Card holders during very dire emergencies. What are people’s thoughts on this?
OOC
'Green Card' = RL Reference, = Illegal.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Marxist Germany
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1294
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Corporate Bordello

Postby Marxist Germany » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:41 am

"This gains my support."
Country represents RL views mostly. Not Marxist anymore.
Author of GA#461, and GA#470

Ex-delegate of The United Federations; citizen of 10000 Islands | Gaming User#0721(Discord)
RP name: Germany
The National Factbook (WIP)
Ambassador Klaus Schmidt
Political Compass
PolitiStates Result
Pro:Laissez-faire, Nationalism, Guns, Free speech, Christianity, Same-sex marriage, United Ireland.
Anti:Extreme Progressivism, Abortion, Socialism, Interventionism, Mass-migration.
A high school student aged 15 from Ireland, living in Co. Dublin. Interested in politics, gaming, and history.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5214
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:16 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Cossack Khanate wrote:OOC: I would specify more on Clause 3b, because it may be within reason for nations to conscript, for example, Green Card holders during very dire emergencies. What are people’s thoughts on this?
OOC
'Green Card' = RL Reference, = Illegal.

(OOC: I think Cossack Khanate was using that as an example, rather than suggesting adding that to the text.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13798
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:41 am

Inhorto wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Perhaps you or author can tell me if clause 4 means that if the war lasts longer than 4 years, you can't have the soldiers/sailors serving for the duration of the war, but instead a completely arbitrarily decided 4 years?

There are always new recruits and people into the population that can be brought into the army. As people who have fully served their four years leave, a new class of recruits will be able to take their place.

OOC: I don't think you quite appreciate the death/injury rate of new recruits compared to veterans, nor the fact that just putting a person in uniform and handing them a gun does not a soldier make. Or the fact that in small countries (think population under 5 million) you don't have an unlimited number of fresh recruits anyway, and in the cases where the actual nation's actual existence is threatened by the invading force, requiring nations to let their veterans go and replace them entirely with recruits would in essence mean the loss of the nation (or at least its independence).

No, it only forces nations to budget their conscription time. For example, a country could require conscription from the ages of 18 - 20 (2 years), and then require each person to return for retraining every five years (25, 30, 35, 40, etc.) for a period of, say, three months. At that rate, a country could require retraining until the person is sixty for the maximum time period to be fulfilled. I can do the math in a spreadsheet if you are unconvinced.

So it's the total (not counting war) time, then, not a "single serving". That makes a bit more sense, but still, why 4 years? What is the logic based on?

Of course, your arguments do not consider that there will surely be many willing citizens who will gladly take up arms to defend their nation.

See the bit about small nations above. And yes I'm sure many/most would be willing, but this is likely going to be problematic for you when this gets to voting stage.

Cossack Khanate wrote:OOC: I would specify more on Clause 3b, because it may be within reason for nations to conscript, for example, Green Card holders during very dire emergencies. What are people’s thoughts on this?

Thank you. I oppose the conscription of non-citizens, but I do understand where you are coming from. I will consider it.

Would you consider the active wartime exception for the serving length too, please? You could even specify it for defensive war (nation being invaded) only.
Last edited by Araraukar on Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:23 pm

Araraukar wrote:[-]

The wording is clunky and I will likely rewrite it, but here is a clause making an exception for purely defensive wars:
ALLOWS Members to retain conscripted soldiers for an indefinite amount of time if and only if that Member is fighting an exclusively defensive war wherein the territorial integrity of that Member is in grievous jeopardy;
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13798
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:16 am

Inhorto wrote:
Araraukar wrote:[-]

The wording is clunky and I will likely rewrite it, but here is a clause making an exception for purely defensive wars:
ALLOWS Members to retain conscripted soldiers for an indefinite amount of time if and only if that Member is fighting an exclusively defensive war wherein the territorial integrity of that Member is in grievous jeopardy;

OOC: Use "member states" instead of "Members" (and don't capitalize it), but otherwise that's a good addition. Thank you. :)
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:06 pm

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Use "member states" instead of "Members" (and don't capitalize it), but otherwise that's a good addition. Thank you. :)

Inhorto wrote:Separatist Peoples capitalized "Member(s)" in his edits. I thought this was odd, so I looked through UN resolutions and they capitalize "Members" as well.
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13798
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:17 pm

Inhorto wrote:*snip*

OOC: But we're not the UNmentionable organization for a good reason. Capitalizing Nouns that are not Names makes Text look weird.
Last edited by Araraukar on Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:19 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Inhorto wrote:*snip*

OOC: But we're not the UNmentionable organization for a good reason. Capitalizing Nouns that are not Names makes Text look weird.

Sorry for the late reply, but on such a matter I shall hold my position.
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
La Montevideo
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Jun 29, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby La Montevideo » Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:40 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
La Montevideo wrote:But Aren't You Forgetting About The National Security?

(OOC: The draft explicitly permits conscription, and lots of the groups that are prohibited from conscription wouldn’t be of much use anyway: the disabled, elderly, children and sick. Only those that have dependents could fight just as well, and the war effort would still be helped by the populace being looked after by them.)


Now I See Why.

User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:52 pm

Are there any other criticisms of this proposal?
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5214
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:30 pm

“In clause 4b, I recommend adding that sailors should also be released upon reaching a friendly shore, if there is a reasonable way for them to return home from that point.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 352
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:32 pm

PROHIBITS all Members from conscripting: [...]

Citizens exempted by operation of diplomatic service,


'Why should this be prohibited by international law? Sure, it would be impractical and maybe not very sensible to do so, but if a member nation wants to implement such a policy... why should they not be able to?'
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5214
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:13 am

The New Nordic Union wrote:
PROHIBITS all Members from conscripting: [...]

Citizens exempted by operation of diplomatic service,


'Why should this be prohibited by international law? Sure, it would be impractical and maybe not very sensible to do so, but if a member nation wants to implement such a policy... why should they not be able to?'

“It harms international relations for one thing, and could be seen as very disrespectful if interpreted wrongly. I don’t see how the added military aid offsets the large possible global relations problems.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Drystar
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: May 05, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Drystar » Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:17 am

I’m curious how you arrived at the service time of 4 years? Also, you mention purely defensive wars, but for argument sake, let’s assume the defensive action holds out until the offensive negates itself. Are you then saying that a country that then shifts to an offensive stance to prosecute a final ending to the war has to release vast numbers of soldiers and retrain new ones to somehow fill their place?

User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:48 pm

Drystar wrote:I’m curious how you arrived at the service time of 4 years? Also, you mention purely defensive wars, but for argument sake, let’s assume the defensive action holds out until the offensive negates itself. Are you then saying that a country that then shifts to an offensive stance to prosecute a final ending to the war has to release vast numbers of soldiers and retrain new ones to somehow fill their place?

The four-year length was drawn from the approximate length of the First World War, which lasted a few months over four years. The purpose of the purely defensive clause is to allow countries to conscript soldiers who have already served the maximum four years if and only if that country is being invaded. The purpose of any conscription after four years would then solely be in the name of defending the territorial integrity of the nation under purely defensive terms. In this situation, yes, the country who would switch from defense to offense would be obligated to release those serving involuntarily. I see this as a good point, however, as it would discourage nations from prosecuting offensive wars.
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Drystar
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: May 05, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Drystar » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:59 pm

Inhorto wrote:
Drystar wrote:I’m curious how you arrived at the service time of 4 years? Also, you mention purely defensive wars, but for argument sake, let’s assume the defensive action holds out until the offensive negates itself. Are you then saying that a country that then shifts to an offensive stance to prosecute a final ending to the war has to release vast numbers of soldiers and retrain new ones to somehow fill their place?

The four-year length was drawn from the approximate length of the First World War, which lasted a few months over four years. The purpose of the purely defensive clause is to allow countries to conscript soldiers who have already served the maximum four years if and only if that country is being invaded. The purpose of any conscription after four years would then solely be in the name of defending the territorial integrity of the nation under purely defensive terms. In this situation, yes, the country who would switch from defense to offense would be obligated to release those serving involuntarily. I see this as a good point, however, as it would discourage nations from prosecuting offensive wars.


No war is “won” by being fully defensive. You have to be able to force a solution, other wise it just turns into one long bloodbath like the fore mentioned World War. I can’t see how releasing your veteran soldiers and bring up raw recruits will do anything but increase the carnage. Sort of a living (or dying) example of what not to do. Plus depending on the amount of technology involved, it takes time to train soldiers to use weapon systems properly, as a previous post mentioned, being a soldier is more then dropping them in a uniform and handing them arms. While I currently have no suggestions other the the comments I’ve made, I will watch the debate going on here, since service in my nation is a universal obligation for the majority of the population.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8927
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jul 25, 2019 4:19 pm

You can't win a war by defending. At maximum, it would yield a white peace.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:35 pm

Drystar wrote:[-]

Imperium Anglorum wrote:[-]

I don't ostensibly disagree with what either of you is saying; the only problem is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. The exception made here for defensive wars is to allow nations to garrison soldiers in situations wherein the territorial integrity of that country is under serious threat. Once the national territory is secured, if a nation wants to sue for an offensive war, that's their prerogative and their citizens are no longer obligated to fight on foreign soil if their time has already lapsed. If we just allowed all nations to conscript indefinitely during war, then this resolution would be toothless.

Once again, one must consider that there will certainly be willing citizens, arguably more than unwilling citizens, who would take up arms to protect their country. If there aren't, then I would think that that country should rethink why it is going to war in the first place, as well as what sort of authority it can actually command from its citizenry.
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Drystar
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: May 05, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Drystar » Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:39 am

Inhorto wrote:
Drystar wrote:[-]

Imperium Anglorum wrote:[-]

I don't ostensibly disagree with what either of you is saying; the only problem is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. The exception made here for defensive wars is to allow nations to garrison soldiers in situations wherein the territorial integrity of that country is under serious threat. Once the national territory is secured, if a nation wants to sue for an offensive war, that's their prerogative and their citizens are no longer obligated to fight on foreign soil if their time has already lapsed. If we just allowed all nations to conscript indefinitely during war, then this resolution would be toothless.

Once again, one must consider that there will certainly be willing citizens, arguably more than unwilling citizens, who would take up arms to protect their country. If there aren't, then I would think that that country should rethink why it is going to war in the first place, as well as what sort of authority it can actually command from its citizenry.



OOC: I’m assuming you paid enough attention to the mentioned world war that was defensive in nature on the western front. No decisions were made ultimately, which led to the next world war, where having learned their lessons, the allies demanded unconditional surrender and backed it by offensive actions. All sides used conscription because there were never enough bodies to fill the spaces, but the conscription was open ended, which gave the draftees incentive to finish the war. Only a very few want war, most want to finish it as quick as possible. By assigning a rather arbitrary time period as a limit, that promises to drag out the conflicts that you would rather not happen.

User avatar
American Pere Housh
Diplomat
 
Posts: 954
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Moralistic Democracy

Postby American Pere Housh » Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:35 am

"My nation follows many these proposed rules. Our citizens serve 2 years of conscription and have the choice to stay voluntarily or go back to their lives. We will voting aye if this proposal comes to a vote."
“I’m responsible only for what I say, not what you understand.” – John Wayne
“I’d like to know why the well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazing and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.” – John Wayne
I don't use NS stats for this nation.
WA Ambassador: Dr. Jonathan Delacroix
May Confederation of Corrupt Dictators forever prevail in the Light & Darkness.

User avatar
Liberimery
Envoy
 
Posts: 325
Founded: May 27, 2018
Anarchy

Postby Liberimery » Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:05 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:You can't win a war by defending. At maximum, it would yield a white peace.


The US Revolutionary war, the war of 1812, and the Vietnam war were won by the team playing defense to name three wars. The Russo-Japanese war was a humiliating defeat for Russia, who declared war on the Japanese.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13798
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:00 am

Liberimery wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:You can't win a war by defending. At maximum, it would yield a white peace.

The US Revolutionary war, the war of 1812, and the Vietnam war were won by the team playing defense to name three wars. The Russo-Japanese war was a humiliating defeat for Russia, who declared war on the Japanese.

OOC: Also Finland in 2nd World War. (Well, "winning" is always a bit relative, but not getting annexed by Russia - which was Russia's goal - is counted as a win, despite the loss of some areas and reparations required.)
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Karteria

Advertisement

Remove ads