Jump to content
Zamarus

In game rule enforcement/censorship. Good/Bad?

Recommended Posts

Thought this warranted a new post, it appears that (if they are continuing with this line of thinking) I was wrong.

 

NQ-Nyazaltar

 

"Yes, we have been thinking a lot about this question as it is a fundamental challenge to balance the quality and user experience in the game. We cannot  censor every possible construction in the game ourselves: it would be too costly and wouldn’t make sense in a player-driven emergent game. So we definitely want to give freedom for anyone to build anything, and, without a doubt, all sorts of various things will be made.

 
There are however two key factors that will help increase the quality of what is created: 
 
1) Building a construct, and especially mass producing a construct, is a costly activity, so the number of copies you’ll find for any given construct will depend on the efforts the builder is willing to make. It has to be “worth it”.
 
2)  The amount of copies of any given construct you will see in the game will, in most cases, directly depend on its success as a product on the in-game markets. Any ship that sells in quantities will, by definition, be something that the players like and buy in-game (well, if you assume the majority of players have bad taste, you could get bad taste ships proliferating, but after all, if everybody likes it, it’s not bad taste anymore. Vox populi, vox dei). Most people will like to fly in kickass ships, for sure, and not ugly bad designed shoe-like potatoes. So, following this reasoning, we can hope that even if jokes/ugly experiments will exist (there is no way to avoid it), they will remain in minority because of costs and market selection. Finally, a last point: as an organization owning territories, you will be able to control quite precisely who and what people are allowed to build on your territory. This should ensure that certain areas at least are developed according to some rational policy, and not randomly. In other words, we would delegate the “censorship” job to the players themselves. This overall “quality control” problem is a very complex matter however, and we don’t pretend to have solved all possible issues. So, we are very much interested in the feedback and ideas of the community about it!"
 
I don't think this was the thread I was thinking of, as it was a AMA so I will continue to look for it.  However, if this IS the case I am fairly disappointed.  If someone builds a giant dick out of a mountain, and protects it... they'd be okay with that?  I'm glad they acknowledge there are problems with this system.
 
But as you said, I suppose we will have to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to jump back in here. Like Hades pointed out, there is no way the NQ would even be able to police everything, let alone want to. It will mostly be up to the players to blow up things they don't like.

 

The problem with censorship is that it can easily backfire and get rid of things you do like. Not to get too deep in real world politics, but there is a large portion of the population in my country (US) that sees no irony in advocating for more free speech in other countries but advocates for reduction is speech at home. 

 

Back to the game: We have to trust NQ to do the right thing, and if they do something that the community doesn't agree with, it is important for us to let them know in a constructive manner, so that the community as a whole can improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not for censorship per se. Dicks, boobs, words....Don't matter much to me, it's what it is: a game. When someone really annoys you then there's always the mute....

I have nothing against the (by us citizens) praised freedom of speech movement. Everyone should be allowed to express himself. But there's something called respect and etiquette - when everyone respects those two basic concepts of human interaction, no censorship is needed. (OH and this has nothing to do with respect for the other guy, just respect his opinion even when it's dumb). If my opponent can't even follow those two basic things then he's just a dumb a....h...

 

To me it only gets too far when rl would be involved, names/adresses/telephone numbers exchanged, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently don't consider this to become a giant issue. Perhaps it could change, perhaps I am yet care free, perhaps for others some things might become a huge issue but I think a good thing to have is a thick(er) skin while trying to police things in the game first.

 

You don't like what someone built? Try to evoke change through the game if you can.

 

If it's really bad or breaking TOS etc you can still consider reporting it. A thick skin is good regardless because chances are that a "possibly offensive object" can be placed like that for many to see for a while. Alternatively they'd have to ban how certain blocks are connected, which I don't see happening.

 

I also think that the amount of questionable objects will be limited all in all. It don't think there will suddenly be swastikas, genitalia, hate speech etc with a relationship to reality or just childish things everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Its fact that as creators of the game NQ has the unfortunate legal right to police anything that is put in their game, and even more unfortunately they may be forced to in some cases by French law. (I'm not familiar with it but some commented that it isn't the best on freedom of speech)

 

2. Just because NQ is private organisation and can do what they mean doesn't matter at all to whether it is best for the community, business or players, or right in any way so if someone tries to dismiss this conversation with "NQ has right to do what they want", please don't (I wouldn't want to censor you if you did, but I think it shows... whats a good word... stupidity?) 

 

3. If NQ ends up censoring I at least hope they are consistent, because people often aren't. For example if you say "all black people + something negative" or "all women + something negative" people are all over it, but replace those with white people or men...

 

4. Offensive/disturbing/etc are extremely vague and subjective matters + if you think something should be censored because it offends someone (no matter how many are offended) you are saying someone has right to not (subjectively) be offended above someone's right to free speech etc. Some people get offended if you call woman or female looking person she or dress in costume that describes another culture, muslims get offended if you draw human character and call it Mohammed, some Christians get offended because some other people are allowed to marry in a way they personally don't support.

 

I would like to ask how many people have to find something offensive to make censoring it "right" 99% 90% 80% 51% 25% or one crybaby. 

 

If someone makes Nazi moonbase in DU http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/274/full/1349386589_2.jpg , one person flies past and ignores it, other has a good laugh and flies past it. Third thinks it would be good idea to arrange raid against it with friends and stream their attack on moon Nazis for people to enjoy, but after all the preparations gets disappointed because fourth had his/her/it's/zis' etc. (have to be careful not to accidentally offend someone) feelings hurt and went crying to NQ to remove the station. Let alone these fun moments 1:00-1:07 

That (which harms no one) wouldn't happen if people just censored like some here want to.

 

5. Let me make an another example on same topic (swastika). This thread has people who think that specific set of lines (and I don't care about intent, it's still set of 6 lines that aren't going to hurt you) or even people who make them should be banned because they TAKE offense on it based on what it was used for at one point in history. Even ignoring that you still shouldn't censor people, that position shows great ignorance of reality. Swastika wasn't invented by Hitler. in india its past goes back at least 11 000 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika with apparent religious meaning. In some contexts I have also heard it referred as symbol of luck of something like that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz8gE92lVDY Finnish airforce used it as their symbol after Swedish donor of the first plane painted it on the plane to bring luck and remains on flag of Karellian air command https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Karjalan_Lennoston_lippu.svg/200px-Karjalan_Lennoston_lippu.svg.png (what if some Finnish former conscripts wants to found org with that name in the game, uses the flag and gets censored because easily offended ignorant people don't care about facts or basic freedoms.). FYI the swastika it also exists in our most important medal http://koulut.kontiolahti.fi/lukio/ilpo/pm_risti.jpg and there are lot of people who are likely to take offence if someone decides to censor that, it identifies the greatest heroes of a nation after all. 

 

Last two texts were to prove the subjectivity of offence and stupidity of people who are eager to censor.

 

6. I have heard "free speech" "freedom from consequence" argument before as excuse for censorship. Only consequence for free speech should be that which other people can cause within limits of their free speech, which does not include censorship. 

 

7. If you get easily offended by words people say in chats, then sufficient solution is to have personal filter where individual person can "censor" messages he sees, or block messages to him, but does not affect other people beyond being harder to reach for them. Maybe NQ could extend something like that to screens and such that exist in the game world. 

 

8. To make my stance clear, I do actually recognize exceptions to freedom of speech that should have not just in game-, but also legal consequences, but they aren't some vague bs like "hate speech" "racist" or "offensive" There are three main exceptions:

A) threat/direct incitement of violence or crime. 

B) Spreading false (especially harmful) lies about another person as fact (here I might tolerate, even support some burden of proof on person doing the spreading as proving negative could prove unreasonably hard for the other person)

C) Spreading true but private or secret/confidential information without permit (note I do not recognize secrecy on evidence of a crime, especially by governments, so I do support right of people like Snowden, Assagne and Manning to do what they did.). In games and anonymous social media names, addresses etc. would count as private information. 

 

Hell, I was just about to vote in elections couple of days ago during last pre-election day, for a guy that seemed quite decent and transparent, then I though about asking about free speech, first half a dozen words in his answer were good, then came the word hate speech, and I decided to wait till actual election day and reconsider who to vote. 

 

Well it seems, this discussion pushed my buttons. I think I end this novel here, for now at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't agree. It is very subjective what about what is offensive and not. For many it's as simple as looking away if they don't like what they see. For others, they might take it personal and be filled with disgust/rage.  Regarding freedom of speech, what you call "responsible speech" is just a limitation of freedom of speech. In it's essence you should be allowed to say irresponsible things, else it's censorship. 

 

Point was if NQ says x behavior is not allowed, that's its, no debate, no crusading, its not allowed. That simple.

 

Now obviously they (NQ) shouldn't just bow and cater to every SJW that gets butthurt but there also shouldn't be no rules either. Letting players police while might sound ok on paper in practice all you'll end up with is those bad elements as the decent players will have left the game tried of dealing with it. not exactly a sound business model, IMO. So based on dev statements posted sounds like it'll be a mix of both players can and will take care of it and NQ can step in when needed.

 

but yes there is absolutely a responsibility that goes along with free speech. If you're on an airplane and use your free speech to yell "BOMB" you'll be arrested. Yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater, incite violence, issue threats of murder etc, those are all things you can do with your free speech but will face consequence's for. To the point of whats considered hate speech and the like, while subjective to a point the intent is generally clear and its one of those things when you just know it when you see it.

 

Freedom of speech isn't a get out of jail free card. Freedom of speech is simply to protect against the government coming after you for voicing your opinion, not a licenses to be a bigot, racist, homophobe. Sure one has the "right" to be one of those things but see it all works both ways, the rest of us can use our rights as well to express how that's not acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point was if NQ says x behavior is not allowed, that's its, no debate, no crusading, its not allowed. That simple.

 

Now obviously they (NQ) shouldn't just bow and cater to every SJW that gets butthurt but there also shouldn't be no rules either. Letting players police while might sound ok on paper in practice all you'll end up with is those bad elements as the decent players will have left the game tried of dealing with it. not exactly a sound business model, IMO.

 

 

and yes there is absolutely a responsibility that goes along with free speech. If you're on an airplane and use your free speech to yell "BOMB" you'll be arrested. Yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater, incite violence, issue threats of murder etc, those are all things you can do with your free speech but will face consequence's for. So to the degree of whats considered hate speech and the like, while subjective to a point the intent is generally clear and its one of those things when you just know it when you see it.

 

 

Freedom of speech isn't a get out of jail free card. Freedom of speech is simply to protect against the government coming after you for voicing your opinion, not a licenses to be a bigot, racist, homophobe. Sure one has the "right" to be one of those things but see it all works both ways, the rest of us can use our rights as well to express how that's not acceptable.

Couldn't have said it better myself. NQ will have to step in if there's excessive abuse of their "freedom for the players" stance. I don't doubt that for a second, as they did state their current stance on the issue has problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't they've (NQ) mentioned before that there won't be any censorship from them?

 

They mentioned in the case of "questionable" ships -in this case- the market would or at least hope to be mature enough to not mass produce such shapes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't they've (NQ) mentioned before that there won't be any censorship from them?

 

They mentioned in the case of "questionable" ships -in this case- the market would or at least hope to be mature enough to not mass produce such shapes!

 

Yep, it was from a post in July.  Considering that was almost a year ago now, it is hard to tell if that's still their plan.  I can't believe they wouldn't have any disciplinary measures in place.  They won't have a developer running around looking for obscene content, however, I can't believe they won't have a report feature in which people are warned/blocked/banned based on severity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you know, NQ could always appoint volunteer moderators in-game like they did on the forums. Have them be trusted and vetted beforehand in order to avoid any abuse of power.

 

On that note, they should also be anonymous to protect themselves from unwanted attention. For the same reason, I am against any sort of NQ-appointed "interstellar board/council" to oversee moderation or the like. Yes, in the end it should be the community itself that decides whether or not it's mature enough to police for these kinds of things - NQ need only give it the resources to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skimming over the thread, I can safely say that I would be pulling my pledge and boycotting the game if it turns into a censored SJW shithole to "protect the feelings" of degenerates whose sole purpose in life is to try and find things to be offended by.

 

That said, I can completely understand and support reasonable rules that ruin the gameplay on an immersive level for majority of the people, because one person decided to be a troll. An example of this would be naming policies in older MMOs back in the 1990s / 2000s, where names like "qwertyuio1234" or "Aragorn513" were not allowed for the sake of creating a living, realistic and immersive world for the playerbase. In context of DU, I can completely understand and support them not wanting planets that consist fully of dick pics drawn all over them as an example.

 

But to go back to the point, in game conflict is part of the game - regardless of whether that conflict originated from in game politics of one organisation to another, or a group of players encroaching on someone else's in-game property. RL politics and censorship that has zero relation to the gameplay or immersion value of the game, has no place in it whatsoever.

 

As for people who cannot differentiate between reality and an online MMO, or who try to bring their personal real world issues into the development and structure of an online game, need to piss off and crawl back to under whatever rock they feel "oppresses" them.

 

EDIT: Fixed a typo and split a paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to make a new topic but I knew we already had one recently about this topic. Since we have just seen in the latest DevDiary that it will essentially be possible to directly insert our own images into the game and display them on screens, and everyone was discussing it in that thread, I feel like this thread needs a revival.

 

I am of the mind that NQ should lay out a set of guidelines for what is acceptable. Parading swastikas or hentai around the Arkship? Unacceptable. Parading those things around in your own private base? Questionable, yes... But if a tree falls down in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise?

 

I believe NQ and a select few others (new forum moderators?) should have the ability to respond to reports made by users. If the reported content is deemed offensive, then the content is removed and the user who created it is issued a warning, just as with any other infraction if they broke another rule.

 

This would of course require there to be a way to see who created what images.

 

On 4/7/2017 at 5:15 AM, Stig92 said:

5. Let me make an another example on same topic (swastika). This thread has people who think that specific set of lines (and I don't care about intent, it's still set of 6 lines that aren't going to hurt you) or even people who make them should be banned because they TAKE offense on it based on what it was used for at one point in history. Even ignoring that you still shouldn't censor people, that position shows great ignorance of reality. Swastika wasn't invented by Hitler. in india its past goes back at least 11 000 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika with apparent religious meaning. In some contexts I have also heard it referred as symbol of luck of something like that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz8gE92lVDY Finnish airforce used it as their symbol after Swedish donor of the first plane painted it on the plane to bring luck and remains on flag of Karellian air command https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Karjalan_Lennoston_lippu.svg/200px-Karjalan_Lennoston_lippu.svg.png (what if some Finnish former conscripts wants to found org with that name in the game, uses the flag and gets censored because easily offended ignorant people don't care about facts or basic freedoms.). FYI the swastika it also exists in our most important medal http://koulut.kontiolahti.fi/lukio/ilpo/pm_risti.jpg and there are lot of people who are likely to take offence if someone decides to censor that, it identifies the greatest heroes of a nation after all. 

 

Last two texts were to prove the subjectivity of offence and stupidity of people who are eager to censor.

 

While the swastika was originally quite innocent, it has gone the way of the name Hitler: offensive. No matter what it meant before or what it was used for, it is now associated with a regime which made it their goal to rid certain types of people from the planet because they were deemed sub-human, putting millions of people through unimaginable horrors. The Nazi party, and the war they started, caused Europe to completely rip to shreds. There are holidays in Europe that celebrate the ridding of the Nazi regime, and their swastika, from power. So yes, it was innocent, but there's a difference between being offended by a symbol associated with anti-gay marriage, and one associated with the racist genocide of millions. Also, I'm American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know guys,... 

 

Seeing a boob or a fallus, how in the world should that upset anyone? Pretty much every building can be reduced into those 2 shapes. Have we devolved that much in recent history? 

Why should anyone care if some dude wants to fly around in a penis? 

 

And what if some screen shows something like a lady showing her bewbies?

If it upsets you, turn around and move on. I don't understand this obsession with trying to "protect" people from seeing possibly "offensive" content. 

 

Online interactions can not be rated. 

It says so on the box. Although that doesn't mean people should have carte blanche to stalk people with God knows what language. 

 

In my opinion, if and when NQ steps in I hope it's on the basis of an established set of rules that is accessible to everyone to read. If you leave moderation of content in the hands of a personal opinion then you have a recipe for disaster. 

 

I am from Belgium. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Falstaf said:

I don't know guys,... 

 

Seeing a boob or a fallus, how in the world should that upset anyone? Pretty much every building can be reduced into those 2 shapes. Have we devolved that much in recent history? 

Why should anyone care if some dude wants to fly around in a penis? 

 

And what if some screen shows something like a lady showing her bewbies?

If it upsets you, turn around and move on. I don't understand this obsession with trying to "protect" people from seeing possibly "offensive" content. 

 

Online interactions can not be rated. 

It says so on the box. Although that doesn't mean people should have carte blanche to stalk people with God knows what language. 

 

In my opinion, if and when NQ steps in I hope it's on the basis of an established set of rules that is accessible to everyone to read. If you leave moderation of content in the hands of a personal opinion then you have a recipe for disaster. 

 

I am from Belgium. 

Yeah, I don't think the real concern is about boobs and dicks. Pretty sure its more about hate speech and symbols of it.  NQ did state such things would not be allowed in the ToS, so yeah there will be a set list of things not allowed. Any subjectivity on our parts of what is and isn't offensive is trumped by whatever rules NQ makes and enforces.

Edited by Pang_Dread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Context is everything

 

It's basically a give and takes, depending on how people play it will dictate how hard NQ will bring down the law.  Obviously, there is a minimum legal requirement put on them by the law in France, child porn and death/gore is definitely going to be a bannable offence.

 

If a bunch of players decide to be provocative and push the limits there will be a push back, if players are more chill and create some risqué content but keep it to themselves in their own bases then It will be fine, but the same content erected at the ark ship might be breaking the rules.


NQ has been very clear, this is a game for adults, children are not allowed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe that censorship should not take place in this emergent mmo game. The biggest reason is emergent gameplay, the game is after all a political intrigue emergent simulator. The devs WANT there to be conflict and the best way to have conflict is via conflicting ideals. If certain ideologies and the iconography related to those political systems aren't allowed then what's the point to a universe full of one way of doing things, where is the real narrative if everyone is just the same and have to abide by the rules.. It breaks immersion badly and subsumes the value of the individual. Just my 2 cents. 

 

Of course, that being said, I understand that we live in the real world controlled by those who make the rules. The rules of France will most definitely conflict with the ideal simulation that Dual Universe promises and thus, Censorship is most likely. It's probably pointless debating it here - they were already removing frog pictures from avatars on these forums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pang_Dread said:

 Any objectivity on our parts of what is and isn't offensive is trumped by whatever rules NQ makes and enforces.

And that's how it should be. ?

I'm hoping for a list that isn't buried in a ToS but I think we all want the same thing in the end. An enjoyable experience for everyone within the parameters of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Falstaf said:

And that's how it should be. ?

I'm hoping for a list that isn't buried in a ToS but I think we all want the same thing in the end. An enjoyable experience for everyone within the parameters of the game. 

Indeed.

 

BTW, I meant "subjectivity" not objectivity in relation to what we all find to be offensive or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pang_Dread said:

Indeed.

 

BTW, I meant "subjectivity" not objectivity in relation to what we all find to be offensive or not.

I got what you were saying, no worries. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Falstaf said:

I don't know guys,... 

 

Seeing a boob or a fallus, how in the world should that upset anyone? Pretty much every building can be reduced into those 2 shapes. Have we devolved that much in recent history? 

Why should anyone care if some dude wants to fly around in a penis? 

 

And what if some screen shows something like a lady showing her bewbies?

If it upsets you, turn around and move on. I don't understand this obsession with trying to "protect" people from seeing possibly "offensive" content. 

 

Online interactions can not be rated. 

It says so on the box. Although that doesn't mean people should have carte blanche to stalk people with God knows what language. 

 

In my opinion, if and when NQ steps in I hope it's on the basis of an established set of rules that is accessible to everyone to read. If you leave moderation of content in the hands of a personal opinion then you have a recipe for disaster. 

 

I am from Belgium. 

Because I believe that would be violating laws, at least in the US.  With their planned screen/multimedia implementation... I could just post a hardcore collection on a screen placed right outside the spawn area.

 

Which would be seen as providing adult content to minors.  That's how games get banned from countries... especially in Australia.  Not to mention, I don't think this is NQs intent.

 

i believe a report system is the best implementation.  I don't think these things will be much of an issue, but when it is handle it case by case as per NQs standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, OnePercent said:

I personally believe that censorship should not take place in this emergent mmo game. The biggest reason is emergent gameplay, the game is after all a political intrigue emergent simulator. The devs WANT there to be conflict and the best way to have conflict is via conflicting ideals. If certain ideologies and the iconography related to those political systems aren't allowed then what's the point to a universe full of one way of doing things, where is the real narrative if everyone is just the same and have to abide by the rules.. It breaks immersion badly and subsumes the value of the individual. Just my 2 cents. 

 

Of course, that being said, I understand that we live in the real world controlled by those who make the rules. The rules of France will most definitely conflict with the ideal simulation that Dual Universe promises and thus, Censorship is most likely. It's probably pointless debating it here - they were already removing frog pictures from avatars on these forums. 

Bah, I've bungled things up.  But I would like to say that it isn't only the rules of France.  Countries are able to deny access to certain games.  Take a look at the ban list of Australia, China and the US, it's actually pretty lengthy.

 

Having no censorship whatsoever means illegal material could be put into the game.  No thanks, I'll move on from this game.

 

Granted like I said before, I don't think it will be much an issue.  But for the rare cases, a report and handle by NQ seems adequate 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2017 at 1:07 PM, Hades said:

No one should feel disgusted for playing a game.

 

As for going out and taking things into your own hands... and if you're not part of a group?  What if the structure is protected... and you're alone.

 

NQ has already stated there will be some form of censorship in the game.  No specifics afaik, but it's going to be there.

You have no right to not get offended.  Differences are part and parcel to being around other people.  Don't like it?  Go play a single player game.

 

Now if you are in game and don't like what someone else is doing... gather up your forces and stop them.  Don't have a group?  make one.  Can't get enough other people to agree with you?  Perhaps you are the one who's wrong... live with it or leave.  Nothing in game is 100% protected.  There are ways to deal with anything... if you are willing to expend the effort.  If you're not then I guess it wasn't that big of a deal to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fitorion said:

You have no right to not get offended.  Differences are part and parcel to being around other people.  Don't like it?  Go play a single player game.

 

Now if you are in game and don't like what someone else is doing... gather up your forces and stop them.  Don't have a group?  make one.  Can't get enough other people to agree with you?  Perhaps you are the one who's wrong... live with it or leave.  Nothing in game is 100% protected.  There are ways to deal with anything... if you are willing to expend the effort.  If you're not then I guess it wasn't that big of a deal to start with.

Agree to disagree I suppose.  I think you need to read the rest of the thread though.

 

It doesn't matter what I find offensive, it matters what NQ will tolerate.  I can guarantee some things won't fly if you post them on the multimedia platform as per the last dev blog.  

 

Just as it doesn't matter what I find offensive, it doesn't matter what you think you have the right to do 

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...