Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophelia

For endless numbers of endless posts about the same endless techniques
Wonderist
.
.
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:19 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot
Contact:

Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophelia

#1

Post by Wonderist » Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:40 pm

Without any objective reason, Lsuoma has relegated me to a single forum, preventing me from posting on the main thread, where nearly all of the discussion and lurking takes place.

As I mentioned in this earlier post: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=338, I have no other word for being shunted off 'into the corner' based merely on the whims of the site owner than 'autocracy'. He's welcome to it, but it is what it is. Might as well call a spade a spade.

For the record, I consider this counter to the principles which I had previously associated with the existence of the pit. I saw the pit as against ostracism for arbitrary reasons. I consider this action by Lsuoma to be a clear form of ostracism. I'm very disappointed that he's chosen to take this route. I consider it selling out, not standing by principle.

It's shameful, in my opinion, that he'd let his personal whims dictate his actions, rather than thinking things through and *having an open discussion about it*, as I had requested *several times* (see my responses to him here viewtopic.php?f=34&t=338).

I consider his action the equivalent of when Ophelia banned me for posting this comment on her blog: http://gnuatheism.wikispaces.com/Elevator+Guy+Kerfuffle I can see no salient differences between the two situations.

If you approve of this action by Lsuoma, do you also approve of Ophelia's banning of me based on that comment? If not, I ask you to consider, why not? What is the difference? She *also* used the excuse (later on) that it was 'boring': http://atheiststoday.com/blogs/reapercussions/?p=71 I ask you, do you think digging into the *main reasons* for the ElevatorGate Kerfuffle is 'boring', too? Fuck as hell, I don't! I think it's crucial! 'Boredom' is a bloody *excuse* for shutting out things you don't want to hear. Plain and simple.

I have repeatedly asked for people to engage me in *dialogue* rather than pissing contests. *Many* people *have* engaged me in dialogue, and you can see from the "Pros and Cons" thread that I'm perfectly willing and able to respond in kind. To them, you have my gratitude. But *several* others, sadly including Lsuoma himself, have *never even once bothered to try* having a dialogue. To those folks, I would say, take a long hard look in the mirror. Is that the kind of future you want, where people shun dialogue in favour of pointless ad hom drama-mongering? Is that what you want your contribution to society to be? I hope not. I hope you can one day wake up and see what the long-term effects of such attitudes have on society. We can only make progress towards a *reasonable* society if we *value reason* and make a persistent effort to *engage* in reason with our fellow humans. We only get one shot at life. Let's make it a good one.

To all those who've engaged in conversation and dialogue with me here, and elsewhere, thank you very much, I truly appreciated it. And I hope to continue such conversations outside the pit. But it will not be here, sadly. Lsuoma has made his decision, and it is ethically unacceptable to me, the same way I find Ophelia Benson's actions unacceptable. This is not how we are going to foster a better, more self-skeptical community. This is *not* how we are going to be able to defeat wasteful drama shit-storms like ElevatorGate. And I will not support anything I find unethical like this. Thus I withdraw my support for Lsuoma and his website: http://slymepit.com/ It's his loss. Too bad.

The minimal conditions that would have to be in place before I would consider returning to this site: Restoring my user status to 'normal pit member' just like everyone else, posting some sort of rule or guideline (with community consensus, I'm guessing) that the site owner will not impose arbitrary restrictions on any users without a clear and publicly stated reference to violated rules and/or laws, as well as fair warning given to the transgressor.

Ciao, everyone! I'll still be around, of course. Probably will be spending more time at the Anti-Atheism+ group on FB now: https://www.facebook.com/groups/436163826435836/ I still like and respect most pit members, and will continue to support *individuals*, just not this site as an entity. Anyone who'd like to establish contact outside the pit is welcome to 'friend' me on FB at: https://www.facebook.com/wonderist

Sincerely,

Thaumas Themelios, aka Wonderist

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10111
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#2

Post by Lsuoma » Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:29 pm

Cry me a fucking river, Kleenex boy.

Also, having TWO pseudonyms is the height of pseuditude.

Also also, leave the Shift-8 combination alone!!!

ianfc
.
.
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:00 pm
Location: Go to where they speak chinese then go to where they write plough

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#3

Post by ianfc » Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:44 pm

Went for a pleasant drive to Nimbin in the awesome state of N.S.W today and the drive back to Brisbane was even pleasanter.

http://www.visitnimbin.com.au/media/use ... detail.jpg

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/20 ... 556887.jpg

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#4

Post by Jan Steen » Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:50 pm

Wonderist wrote:I have repeatedly asked for people to engage me in *dialogue* rather than pissing contests.
This is rich. Your whole 'technique' routine is by definition a pissing contest. I despise people who debate for the sake of debating. Which is what you do. It is very hard to distinguish from trolling.

Look at it from the bright side: you won.

Didn't you?


Remick
.
.
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:47 pm

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#6

Post by Remick » Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:07 pm

Wonderist wrote:Without any objective reason, Lsuoma has relegated me to a single forum, preventing me from posting on the main thread, where nearly all of the discussion and lurking takes place.
You were warned multiple times by the admin that not changing your behavior would result in this. Rather than discuss it with the admin, or the community, you continued to ONLY do the the behavior you were warned against doing.

Are you just an idiot?

EdwardGemmer
.
.
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:15 pm

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#7

Post by EdwardGemmer » Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:19 pm

Remick wrote:
Wonderist wrote:Without any objective reason, Lsuoma has relegated me to a single forum, preventing me from posting on the main thread, where nearly all of the discussion and lurking takes place.
You were warned multiple times by the admin that not changing your behavior would result in this. Rather than discuss it with the admin, or the community, you continued to ONLY do the the behavior you were warned against doing.

Are you just an idiot?
Hey it's like I'm back on Pharyngula!

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#8

Post by Jan Steen » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:21 pm

EdwardGemmer wrote:
Remick wrote:
Wonderist wrote:Without any objective reason, Lsuoma has relegated me to a single forum, preventing me from posting on the main thread, where nearly all of the discussion and lurking takes place.
You were warned multiple times by the admin that not changing your behavior would result in this. Rather than discuss it with the admin, or the community, you continued to ONLY do the the behavior you were warned against doing.

Are you just an idiot?
Hey it's like I'm back on Pharyngula!
What are you talking about? Nobody is calling him a misogynist or a rape enabler. :lol:

Wonky Donkey
.
.
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 8:41 am

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#9

Post by Wonky Donkey » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:21 pm

What an ugly sight the treatment of Wonderist is.

1. People who didn't want to read had him as a "foe" and couldnt see what he wrote, ergo self moderation was working.
2. He was being trolled, and warned that he'd respond in a lengthy way each time he was trolled.
3. Those doing the trolling were backing off.

Any forum has an implicit contract between the host of the board - i.e. the provider of the server - the admin of the board and the users. The admin of the board runs it on the consent of both. That is the ONLY hard line to walk - keeping the members happy and not doing something stupid that means you have the plug pulled on you.

I've adminned a large IT board with a moderation team over five years before I gave it up as a time hog, and as we ran it on our own servers with our own modified board software replete with trolls, brinkers, abuse report games and even rogue moderators it was stressful. This board would be a cinch in comparison, so I don't think stress would be an excuse.

What IS in common with both places is that cliques form, and the admin feels pressured into inequal treatment by a core of long-termers and even strikes up friendships. That introduces stress, and often causes mis-steps like this one. That core - or clique - are well aware of their influence and will play up to it as in this case and support the admin even when they have done something unreasonable, again as in this case.

Those outside the clique are left uneasy, they can see the inequal treatment for what it is, and either back away looking for the exit, complain or cave and join the clique as they have the power.

Again, this has happenned here.

Of course, as one of the clique said, it is Lsuoma's house, and therefore his rules go. But if you don't want someone to contravene rules then you explain to them carefully what they are doing wrong, and what will trigger a ban which Wonderist asked for.

What proved to me that Lsuoma realised he fucked up was three things:

1. When he said he was joking, initially, before actually doing the ban (clearly he wasn't but didn't want to lose face).
2. When under criticism, MILD in fact, he had a tantrum and locked the board with a juvenile emotional message.
3. When he then later on said he had relented shortly after enforcing the ban but hadn't told anyone (or even Wonderist).

(1) and (2) are predictable and fair enough, I can see he was pushed to the brink and felt he had only limited options - lose face with Wonderist having made a threat or lose face with the clique. But I think he knows that he should have stepped away from the computer before banning Wonderist and reflect calmly on the implications, as it stands the users are ignoring the elephant in the room - Lsuoma has damaged the implicit contract, the trust, he had established and appears irrational.

Those who get on the wrong side of him (me included) are wary. You either have to not give a fuck about whether you get banned (I don't) and lose touch with the rest of the clique or you fall in line.

(3) was just plain silly and spineless and again points to an issue of pride. Yes you relented, did you tell anyone? You made such a public song and dance, the apology and correction should have been similarly public.

I read Wonderists posts, and ok they required a reading comprehension and stamina above the average Sun readers but he made thoughtful responses and corrected himself with an apology when he was wrong. Had I got bored of them I could have ignored him either with the mouse wheel or foes list.

The fact that some could not speaks volumes about their inability to self moderate. It was a really stupid incident, and I hope Lsuoma shows a bit of backbone and apologises for it.

Curious Lurker

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#10

Post by Curious Lurker » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:24 am

Start banning and you become Pharyngula. Period.

You can offer up all the rationale waltzes you see fit to offer up, but at the end of the day you will still be on the low road to becoming PZ Myers, et ass. Think about it.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5422
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#11

Post by Gumby » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:28 am

Wonderbore was never banned, and his "exile" lasted all of an hour or so, when lsuoma calmed down and reconsidered his actions.

Skep tickle
Factotum Zebra
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#12

Post by Skep tickle » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:35 pm

Wonky Donkey wrote:...

Any forum has an implicit contract between the host of the board - i.e. the provider of the server - the admin of the board and the users. The admin of the board runs it on the consent of both. That is the ONLY hard line to walk - keeping the members happy and not doing something stupid that means you have the plug pulled on you.

...
I agree that confining Wonderist to a small area of the board was over-reaction & not called for, but it looked to me like it was Lsuoma's decision, not that it was called for by some members and Lsuoma followed their urging (though there were members who were expressing frustration with Wonderist's posts).

But about the part I quoted above: Hunh? Why would there be an implicit contract* that includes the users? The owner has ultimate say but may or may not care about the details, and the admin runs the board (with or without a team). Many boards have explicit guidelines for how users are expected to behave & what they can expect in return. The Slymepit isn't one of those sites.

In the absence of an explicit agreement, users may hope or feel that there's a mutual understanding, & they can use whatever clues they can find to indicate how the board is run, & they can relay opinions to the admin. Indeed, people have felt strongly that the Slymepit should be a place where users are not restricted (including but not limited to banning), and members had been reassured at seeing it operated that way, but there is no explict agreement, no guarantee about how any particular situation will be addressed. But users at any board don't have rights or a formal interest to make it anything like a contract, right?

(*In the US, medicolegally, the relationship between physician and patient is considered to be based on an implied contract, with some specific rights & responsibilities based in law - particularly, rights for patients codified in federal legislation. I know that situation is different, but your use of "implicit contract", and also my experience on the mod team of a fair-sized forum at which people must agree to abide by the explicit guidelines as part of becoming a new member, are what led to my head-scratching in response to your section quoted above.)

Matt Cavanaugh
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 11493
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#13

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:57 am

The only implied contract is: "my roof -- my rules."

Those of us who felt the quarantine of Wonderist was excessive said so -- and we did it while enjoying the extremely wide latitude for comment our unpaid host affords us.

Lsuoma can ban/restrict whoever the fuck he wants. If he were ever to ban me, I'd just ask for one last post to support his right to do so.

Skep tickle
Factotum Zebra
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#14

Post by Skep tickle » Sun Aug 04, 2013 3:50 pm

Like the Ferengi greeting from host to guest: "My house is my house."

curious lurker

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#15

Post by curious lurker » Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:23 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:The only implied contract is: "my roof -- my rules."

Those of us who felt the quarantine of Wonderist was excessive said so -- and we did it while enjoying the extremely wide latitude for comment our unpaid host affords us.

Lsuoma can ban/restrict whoever the fuck he wants. If he were ever to ban me, I'd just ask for one last post to support his right to do so.
Except for the problem of deciding which free speech if the right free speech.

I'm apparently under permanent banhammer on the WEIT site for having had the bad taste to point out to Jerry (who was throwing a hissy a few month back about an allegedly anti-Semitic Gerald Scarfe cartoon) that the conservative Israeli PAC has been making common cause with the extreme hard-right American fundies since the days of Ronnie Ray-Gun. It would seem that Jerry feels that pointing this out harms the cause of Israel Uber Alles, and so the speaker of such shameful (read: truthful) slanders should have his voice heard no more in the land.

Sorry, but IMO you need to allow freedom of speech to let rip on your blog/forums or be prepared to advise that this will not be the case bloody well in advance. This deciding who gets heard/doesn't get heard after the fact shiite smacks just a whole way too much of PZ Barnum and the FfTB circus in general for my taste.

Curious Lurker

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#16

Post by Curious Lurker » Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:24 am

"if free speech=is free speech

cc_
.
.
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#17

Post by cc_ » Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:42 pm

I'm just so happy to be here!
-r
(not sarcasm)
-=-

ianfc
.
.
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:00 pm
Location: Go to where they speak chinese then go to where they write plough

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#18

Post by ianfc » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:32 am

TBP of EW feels a bit like a dungeon with visiting rights; but alas the prisoner has absconded.

ianfc
.
.
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:00 pm
Location: Go to where they speak chinese then go to where they write plough

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#19

Post by ianfc » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:38 am

Oh and a big just fuck off for cc_ and note that all you will get here is either sarcasm or bullshit.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#20

Post by Git » Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:05 am

curious lurker wrote:I'm apparently under permanent banhammer on the WEIT site for having had the bad taste to point out to Jerry (who was throwing a hissy a few month back about an allegedly anti-Semitic Gerald Scarfe cartoon) that the conservative Israeli PAC has been making common cause with the extreme hard-right American fundies since the days of Ronnie Ray-Gun. It would seem that Jerry feels that pointing this out harms the cause of Israel Uber Alles, and so the speaker of such shameful (read: truthful) slanders should have his voice heard no more in the land.
The fact that you through around such a dodgy phrase as "Israel Uber Alles" without irony would suggest that Jerry was bloody well correct to ban your sorry arse.

Guest

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#21

Post by Guest » Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:59 am

LOL. I've posted a response to Git that seems to be caught up in permanent 'SPQL error'. Let's see how long this forum lasts under the weight of its choice to adopt FfTB tactics to hush up those whom it prefers not be heard from.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5422
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#22

Post by Gumby » Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:24 am

Guest wrote:LOL. I've posted a response to Git that seems to be caught up in permanent 'SPQL error'. Let's see how long this forum lasts under the weight of its choice to adopt FfTB tactics to hush up those whom it prefers not be heard from.
Paranoid much?

curious lurker

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#23

Post by curious lurker » Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:17 pm

Gumby wrote:
Guest wrote:LOL. I've posted a response to Git that seems to be caught up in permanent 'SPQL error'. Let's see how long this forum lasts under the weight of its choice to adopt FfTB tactics to hush up those whom it prefers not be heard from.
Paranoid much?
I notice my comment has failed to appear as of yet. Champion permamodding much as a way of banning those whom you'd prefer not to hear from? How very PZ-esque of you, honeybunch.

Let's just see when/if my original post appears in full, and I might then consider granting you your point. Until then--not so much.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10111
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#24

Post by Lsuoma » Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:40 pm

curious lurker wrote:
Gumby wrote:
Guest wrote:LOL. I've posted a response to Git that seems to be caught up in permanent 'SPQL error'. Let's see how long this forum lasts under the weight of its choice to adopt FfTB tactics to hush up those whom it prefers not be heard from.
Paranoid much?
I notice my comment has failed to appear as of yet. Champion permamodding much as a way of banning those whom you'd prefer not to hear from? How very PZ-esque of you, honeybunch.

Let's just see when/if my original post appears in full, and I might then consider granting you your point. Until then--not so much.
SPQL Error? WTF is that?

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5422
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#25

Post by Gumby » Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:26 pm

curious lurker wrote:
Gumby wrote:
Guest wrote:LOL. I've posted a response to Git that seems to be caught up in permanent 'SPQL error'. Let's see how long this forum lasts under the weight of its choice to adopt FfTB tactics to hush up those whom it prefers not be heard from.
Paranoid much?
I notice my comment has failed to appear as of yet. Champion permamodding much as a way of banning those whom you'd prefer not to hear from? How very PZ-esque of you, honeybunch.

Let's just see when/if my original post appears in full, and I might then consider granting you your point. Until then--not so much.
If you're the same "curious lurker" I've seen before, you've posted plenty of times here, right?. No one, and I mean NO ONE, is in the moderation queue. And no posts have been deleted. Why are you automatically assuming that your post was intentionally poofed? Maybe the system just glitched or something. It happens. Sometimes the board slows to the point where it goes offline for a bit. Give this place a bit more credit, please. This isn't FtB FFS.

TheMan
.
.
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#26

Post by TheMan » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:22 pm

Lsuoma wrote:
curious lurker wrote:
Gumby wrote:
Guest wrote:LOL. I've posted a response to Git that seems to be caught up in permanent 'SPQL error'. Let's see how long this forum lasts under the weight of its choice to adopt FfTB tactics to hush up those whom it prefers not be heard from.
Paranoid much?
I notice my comment has failed to appear as of yet. Champion permamodding much as a way of banning those whom you'd prefer not to hear from? How very PZ-esque of you, honeybunch.

Let's just see when/if my original post appears in full, and I might then consider granting you your point. Until then--not so much.
SPQL Error? WTF is that?

I think he meant a SQL error. I got one of these recently when posting from Tapatalk. Seems to have resolved now but my short sharp witty post disappeared in the SQL database labyrinth. No biggie

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10111
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#27

Post by Lsuoma » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:02 am

TheMan wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
curious lurker wrote:
Let's just see when/if my original post appears in full, and I might then consider granting you your point. Until then--not so much.
SPQL Error? WTF is that?

I think he meant a SQL error. I got one of these recently when posting from Tapatalk. Seems to have resolved now but my short sharp witty post disappeared in the SQL database labyrinth. No biggie
Oh, OK. If that's the case, the post never got submitted, so it'll need redoing.

flemshot007
.
.
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:18 pm

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#28

Post by flemshot007 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:48 am

Isn't everyone sposed to be bitch'n an back bit'n, around here, didn't it say something bout hatred, or am I mistaken and that was another can of worms.
It all seems like an exibition in analysation at the minute.

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#29

Post by jimthepleb » Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:22 pm

meh

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 4504
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#30

Post by KiwiInOz » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:37 pm

Just because jimthepleb has had his name in lights for far too long.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 6511
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#31

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:39 pm

S same to yah, Kiwi.

Begather
.
.
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 10:11 pm

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#32

Post by Begather » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:46 pm

[quote="ianfc"]Went for a pleasant drive to Nimbin in the awesome state of N.S.W today and the drive back to Brisbane was even pleasanter.

The scenes are really very amazing and have lots of attraction in it.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4092
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Well, there you have it: arbitrary moderation a la Ophel

#33

Post by Service Dog » Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:42 am

Click now, thank me for changing your life later...

http://www.hobofoot.com/intro

Post Reply