Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2860
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:10:00 -
[91] - Quote
Cede Forster wrote:it isnt broke, do not fix it ?
in all honesty, that was the only point that i found convincing. it should be the players who decide about how to vote for the player representation - but that would also include the possibility of endorsing the current system
I wholeheartedly agree. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:13:00 -
[92] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Yes, I understand, but that is not what Trebor said in his post. He said that the CSM believes that "these would be good requirements for a voting system", not "proposals that fail to meet these requirements shall not be discussed in this thread and will not be presented to CCP". You are implying a form of attempted censorship that was never there. Everyone is free to disagree with those objectives for any reason they want and advocate something different.
No, what he said was, and I quote "The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:"
"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion, especially when one of those "at a minimum" clauses is a direct attack* on a very specific group of players. The reactions of the entire CSM response in that thread only reinforced this idea.
* Just because you don't think it's an attack doesn't mean it isn't. |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1889
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:19:00 -
[93] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:Every single CSM response in that thread contained some kind of putdown, except maybe Dovinian's "Hay guyz I'm still kinda drunk," and some of them were nothing but putdowns (every post by Seleene, many posts by Alekseyev Karrde). Basically, the CSM members did everything they could to escalate hostilities and made no real attempt to engage the people affected by this proposal.
This is my first response post in the thread on page 18:
Quote:All right, time for a few words. I'm sure I'll miss a few of the more inventive theories about this but that's fine.
Discussion about 'voting reform' in the CSM were coming up even early on in CSM 6 however, as most here remember, we got a tad distracted by other events. Even so, during the December summit last year we knew this was going to be something which would become a hot topic during the next CSM term. At Fanfest, post-election and pre-Jagerbomb Gate (pick your title), several of us that were on CSM 6 and newly re-elected to CSM 7 were in Islenski Barinn (one of the main bar hangouts) talking to Mittens about this very subject.
CCP hasn't been silent on this either and has very vocally supported the need to have this ~discussion~. The original white paper / CSM charter was 'masterminded' by a very small group of people with no player input. It's not surprising that CCP would want to give the community an opportunity to chime in on if they like the current process or believe it needs to be changed.
So just to be clear, this is not just some CSM 7 initiative.
As of right now, I plan to have the CSM and CCP try to take as much constructive feedback as possible to the December summit and put together a framework that can be refined even further before the CSM 8 elections.
The bottom line for me as Chairman is that, regardless of any tinfoil flying about, this is a discussion that needs to be had and I believe the community should have input on it. If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. I'm not foolish enough to believe that any system will meet with everyone's full approval, but I do believe in making the effort.
Now, if you want to take offense to my 'tinfoil' comment that's fine. I won't apologize for it because, as Hans has pointed out in his recent replies, some of the participants in that other thread seemed to just be along for the ride. The rest of my reply was about as martini dry as I could make it. I explained where this initiative came from and why it was an 'issue'.
With that said, let me clarify a couple other points which have come up a few times.
The proposal posted by Trebor is something that was being discussed for a while now but not actually drafted out until roughly a week ago. That was the first time many of these ideas had merged into one document. It wasn't intended to be the one and only way to look at things, just a starting point to spur ideas and get others to join in the internal discussion. From that point, while the proposal was put forth for internal discussion about a week ago, in retrospect, a more simple, "Dudes, let's talk about voting!" thread would have been a better starting point for the discussion.
I cannot speak for the other CSM members but, with regard to my own activity in that thread, I simply did not have the time. I've been dealing with a family medical emergency since last Thursday so my available time has been extremely limited. I hope everyone can agree that RL > EVE, even for CSM members.
That being said, I stick by my above original statements about how this discussion came to be and the intent behind it.
To clear up my personal feelings on this subject - voting in EVE would be a grand place of unicorns and rainbows if everyone would get off of their ass and vote. There is a great simplicity to just counting the ballots and being done with the process.
In the argument of changing the system versus increasing voter awareness, I lean toward the later but see no problem with discussion of the former.
A few other things to clarify so everyone is clear on exactly how much ~power~ the CSM ultimately has. All of this is being done in cooperation with CCP Xhagen and, as the CSM Project Manager, he is the final gatekeeper in saying 'go' or 'no go'.
The main points to emphasize are:
- No changing the voting system just for change's sake. The goal, as stated by CCP Xhagen, is a CSM that is more representative of the community.
- Discussing this does not mean that it will be rammed through in a specific time frame.
- As it has evolved, matters relating to the CSM, and changes to it have mostly been done out in the open. I don't see a reason to change the methodology at this point.
Hopefully this clarifies a few things and I believe it is fair to say that there will be a new 'official' thread started on this subject in the near future. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
281
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:23:00 -
[94] - Quote
10/09/12, Mood: Perplexed Dear Diary,
Brought forth a proposal to and stem the influence of Goons with regards to CSM voting. It was not received well :(
I ran out of reverse gears about 40 pages ago and am waffling on whether to throw the rest of the CSM under the bus to save my own skin. This would normally be an easy decision but here I am again unable to take a stand on anything. I swear the only thing keeping me upright some days is the starch in my pants.
Why does this happen to me? This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:24:00 -
[95] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Yes, I understand, but that is not what Trebor said in his post.
It's exactly what he said in his post. It was very clear. I think everyone would be willing to consider that it's not what he meant to say in his post, but if that's the case he should retract it and say what he actually meant.
|
Cede Forster
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:24:00 -
[96] - Quote
first of i am very sorry to hear about the family medical emergency
i think what people would really get down to know is quite simple
1) do you support the "Trebor Proposal" ?
2) do you support the idea that there should be a "Penalty for organized voting groups"
|
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:24:00 -
[97] - Quote
That's an awful lot of words without even answering the one question that has been asked so many times it's going to become burned into our memories.
Also I like how your family emergency left you with no time to answer questions but juuust enough time to stop in the original thread and troll everyone that didn't agree with you. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
283
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:26:00 -
[98] - Quote
woops This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:26:00 -
[99] - Quote
Seleene wrote:In the argument of changing the system versus increasing voter awareness, I lean toward the later but see no problem with discussion of the former. Nobody has a problem with good-faith discussion about voting system changes. What people have a problem with is the posted requirement that states: "The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum: ... 3) Reduce ... the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs". Can you please stop pretending you don't understand the difference, it's getting tiresome and it's insulting the intelligence of all those involved. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2860
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:27:00 -
[100] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion.
Sure it does, and you did discuss it.
All you have to say is "Sorry CSM, we don't agree with your requirements and we would like to achieve different objectives with any attempts electoral reform". Many of you said this specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trebor never once said such feedback would be invalid, and neither has any CSM member since than.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
695
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:30:00 -
[101] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:CliveWarren wrote:"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion. Sure it does, and you did discuss it. All you have to say is "Sorry CSM, we don't agree with your requirements and we would like to achieve different objectives with any attempts electoral reform". Many of you said this specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trebor never once said such feedback would be invalid, and neither has any CSM member since than.
While you seem to be willfully ignoring it in favor of whinging about how everyone (not actually everyone) is attacking you and the CSM personally, it has been said, many times, that we do not agree with your objectives. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Cede Forster
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:31:00 -
[102] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:CliveWarren wrote:"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion. Sure it does, and you did discuss it. All you have to say is "Sorry CSM, we don't agree with your requirements and we would like to achieve different objectives with any attempts electoral reform". Many of you said this specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trebor never once said such feedback would be invalid, and neither has any CSM member since than.
okay
sorry csm, i dont agree with the requirement and i would like a new thread to discuss this |
Lord Zim
1457
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:33:00 -
[103] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:CliveWarren wrote:"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion. Sure it does, and you did discuss it. All you have to say is "Sorry CSM, we don't agree with your requirements and we would like to achieve different objectives with any attempts electoral reform". Many of you said this specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trebor never once said such feedback would be invalid, and neither has any CSM member since than. "At a minimum" suggests very strongly that it's ... well, the minimum they'd prefer to see, and would prefer it to go further.
And at no point, I'll repeat, at no point during this discussion has the words "maybe that requirement is wrong" been uttered by anyone from the CSM. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
108
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:34:00 -
[104] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:CliveWarren wrote:"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion. Sure it does, and you did discuss it. All you have to say is "Sorry CSM, we don't agree with your requirements and we would like to achieve different objectives with any attempts electoral reform". Many of you said this specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trebor never once said such feedback would be invalid, and neither has any CSM member since than.
I'll go through this point-by-point even though I know you're just being intentionally obtuse:
- Trebor makes a proposal that is quite hostile to one specific group of players (and makes no attempt to hide this) - Said group of players object to the hostility and other aspects of his proposal - CSM Alekseyev starts the "tinfoil" accusations, you continue the same trend on the next page (we're only at Page 2 here) - The pertinent question ("why is disenfranchising a group of voters acceptable?") is asked ad nauseam and is either ignored or dismissed as tinfoil by every CSM active in the thread
The even shorter version: Trebor's proposal started hostile, and when the group it was hostile towards objected, they were met with derision and dismissal from every CSM that posted in that thread.
The short, short version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGp9P6QvMjY
|
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:35:00 -
[105] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Sal Volatile wrote:Every single CSM response in that thread contained some kind of putdown, except maybe Dovinian's "Hay guyz I'm still kinda drunk," and some of them were nothing but putdowns (every post by Seleene, many posts by Alekseyev Karrde). Basically, the CSM members did everything they could to escalate hostilities and made no real attempt to engage the people affected by this proposal.
This is my first response post in the thread on page 18: Quote:All right, time for a few words. I'm sure I'll miss a few of the more inventive theories about this but that's fine.
Discussion about 'voting reform' in the CSM were coming up even early on in CSM 6 however, as most here remember, we got a tad distracted by other events. Even so, during the December summit last year we knew this was going to be something which would become a hot topic during the next CSM term. At Fanfest, post-election and pre-Jagerbomb Gate (pick your title), several of us that were on CSM 6 and newly re-elected to CSM 7 were in Islenski Barinn (one of the main bar hangouts) talking to Mittens about this very subject.
CCP hasn't been silent on this either and has very vocally supported the need to have this ~discussion~. The original white paper / CSM charter was 'masterminded' by a very small group of people with no player input. It's not surprising that CCP would want to give the community an opportunity to chime in on if they like the current process or believe it needs to be changed.
So just to be clear, this is not just some CSM 7 initiative.
As of right now, I plan to have the CSM and CCP try to take as much constructive feedback as possible to the December summit and put together a framework that can be refined even further before the CSM 8 elections.
The bottom line for me as Chairman is that, regardless of any tinfoil flying about, this is a discussion that needs to be had and I believe the community should have input on it. If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. I'm not foolish enough to believe that any system will meet with everyone's full approval, but I do believe in making the effort. Now, if you want to take offense to my 'tinfoil' comment that's fine. I won't apologize for it because, as Hans has pointed out in his recent replies, some of the participants in that other thread seemed to just be along for the ride. The rest of my reply was about as martini dry as I could make it. I explained where this initiative came from and why it was an 'issue'. With that said, let me clarify a couple other points which have come up a few times. The proposal posted by Trebor is something that was being discussed for a while now but not actually drafted out until roughly a week ago. That was the first time many of these ideas had merged into one document. It wasn't intended to be the one and only way to look at things, just a starting point to spur ideas and get others to join in the internal discussion. From that point, while the proposal was put forth for internal discussion about a week ago, in retrospect, a more simple, "Dudes, let's talk about voting!" thread would have been a better starting point for the discussion. I cannot speak for the other CSM members but, with regard to my own activity in that thread, I simply did not have the time. I've been dealing with a family medical emergency since last Thursday so my available time has been extremely limited. I hope everyone can agree that RL > EVE, even for CSM members. That being said, I stick by my above original statements about how this discussion came to be and the intent behind it. To clear up my personal feelings on this subject - voting in EVE would be a grand place of unicorns and rainbows if everyone would get off of their ass and vote. There is a great simplicity to just counting the ballots and being done with the process. In the argument of changing the system versus increasing voter awareness, I lean toward the later but see no problem with discussion of the former. A few other things to clarify so everyone is clear on exactly how much ~power~ the CSM ultimately has. All of this is being done in cooperation with CCP Xhagen and, as the CSM Project Manager, he is the final gatekeeper in saying 'go' or 'no go'. The main points to emphasize are: - No changing the voting system just for change's sake. The goal, as stated by CCP Xhagen, is a CSM that is more representative of the community.
- Discussing this does not mean that it will be rammed through in a specific time frame.
- As it has evolved, matters relating to the CSM, and changes to it have mostly been done out in the open. I don't see a reason to change the methodology at this point.
Hopefully this clarifies a few things and I believe it is fair to say that there will be a new 'official' thread started on this subject in the near future.
I stand corrected. Your post did not consist entirely of insults; it just merely started out as disparaging and ended on the same note. Sandwiched in there, you made a claim that Mittani later disputed about the origins of this discussion, and tried to steer discussion away from the stated goals of the proposal to the idea of just having a proposal without acknowledging the blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters who support popular candidates. So I guess that's something. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
132
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:35:00 -
[106] - Quote
Any CSM member feel like saying "after careful consideration we've decided to remove the third requirement of Trebor's original post"? No? Yeah thought so |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
286
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:36:00 -
[107] - Quote
Maybe trying to words lawyer your way out of this isn't the best plan. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1889
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:37:00 -
[108] - Quote
Cede Forster wrote:1) do you support the "Trebor Proposal" ?
2) do you support the idea that there should be a "Penalty for organized voting groups"
1.) Word for word as presented? No.
2.) I don't see the word 'penalty' anywhere in the draft. As a general question though, no.
I'm open to seeing the topic discussed, simple as.
Sirane Elrek wrote:Seleene wrote:In the argument of changing the system versus increasing voter awareness, I lean toward the later but see no problem with discussion of the former. Nobody has a problem with good-faith discussion about voting system changes. What people have a problem with is the posted requirement that states: "The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum: ... 3) Reduce ... the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs". Can you please stop pretending you don't understand the difference, it's getting tiresome and it's insulting the intelligence of all those involved.
I'm not pretending anything and think I've made my personal preference clear on this issue by now - I'm fine with the way things are currently but have no problem seeing if the community believes the system could or should change. My long-ish post above made it pretty clear that it was a drafted proposal, where it came from, how it ended up being posted and that I would have preferred a different starting point. "Requirements" in a draft proposal don't carry the weight of law with myself or anyone else. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
181
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:39:00 -
[109] - Quote
so how's the k+Šstur h+íkarl this time of year
i guess it's not winter so it's not particularly traditional to eat it right now but it's not like csm 7 is doing anything else this term so why don't we talk about shark |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:39:00 -
[110] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:Maybe trying to words lawyer your way out of this isn't the best plan.
I don't know, I haven't had a really good discourse analysis exercise since grad school. Maybe a point by point breakdown of some of this evasion, equivocation, and general BS would be an enjoyable evening activity.
|
|
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:43:00 -
[111] - Quote
Seleene wrote:2.) I don't see the word 'penalty' anywhere in the draft. As a general question though, no.
Quote:3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
So is this the part where you quote me and say it doesn't use the word penalty so you're still right, or is it back under the pile of coats for an afternoon cuddle/cry with Hans? |
Lord Zim
1457
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:43:00 -
[112] - Quote
Seleene wrote:1.) Word for word as presented? No. But in spirit, eh?
Seleene wrote:2.) I don't see the word 'penalty' anywhere in the draft. As a general question though, no. Yeah, you're trying to word-lawyer yourself out of this one. While it may not use the word "penalty", it clearly outlines the need to "reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized blocs", which is, per definition, applying a penalty to a group of people. |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:47:00 -
[113] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Seleene wrote:2.) I don't see the word 'penalty' anywhere in the draft. As a general question though, no. Yeah, you're trying to word-lawyer yourself out of this one. While it may not use the word "penalty", it clearly outlines the need to "reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized blocs", which is, per definition, applying a penalty to a group of people.
Actually, there is one way to reduce the advantages held by blocs without really penalizing them, and that's by increasing participation across the board. Because that's really all the specific bloc (not "blocs" -- come on) does to get results.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1675
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:50:00 -
[114] - Quote
Seleene wrote:A few other things to clarify so everyone is clear on exactly how much ~power~ the CSM ultimately has. All of this is being done in cooperation with CCP Xhagen and, as the CSM Project Manager, he is the final gatekeeper in saying 'go' or 'no go'.
mail sent
Quote:Hi, Seleene seems to be under the impression that he is a legitimate Chairman and not voted third in the CSM elections, only receiving the position because the first and second choices removed themselves from the position. He, along with Trebor, feels he has a popular mandate to disenfranchise candidates and voting groups who received far more votes then he himself did. This notion of theirs was disabused when they decided to go public with it. Hard. And now the legitimacy of the CSM is called into question on a level unlike any before. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917&find=unreadAs the CCP coordinator of the CSM, what are your feelings on the current conflict before the situation escalates further and more publicly? Regards, Helping Hoper Nicolo da'Vicenza |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
181
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:55:00 -
[115] - Quote
as the members of csm 7 currently clamor to throw each other under the bus to avoid the political fallout from this series of trainwreck ideas and forum posts I wish to remind them to be careful when driving the bus and to watch out for low underpasses as they can be potentially damaging to your vehicle if you are not mindful of your vertical clearance. Check out http://11foot8.com/ to see some examples of such heedless driving, and observe all local, state and federal laws when throwing each other under the bus |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2861
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:58:00 -
[116] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Any CSM member feel like saying "after careful consideration we've decided to remove the third requirement of Trebor's original post"? No? Yeah thought so
So should we expect to see page after page of comments and questions on this until you convince every last member of the CSM to share your opinion on electoral reform, instead of acknowledging that some disagreement can exist even if a different proposal (or none at all) ends up being championed to CCP instead?
The original post was not a draft to congress made public for review. It was a conversation starter, and was explicitly described as such. There's no need for line-item vetoes on other people's beliefs. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1889
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:59:00 -
[117] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Seleene wrote:A few other things to clarify so everyone is clear on exactly how much ~power~ the CSM ultimately has. All of this is being done in cooperation with CCP Xhagen and, as the CSM Project Manager, he is the final gatekeeper in saying 'go' or 'no go'. mail sent Quote:Hi, Seleene seems to be under the impression that he is a legitimate Chairman and not voted third in the CSM elections, only receiving the position because the first and second choices removed themselves from the position. He, along with Trebor, feels he has a popular mandate to disenfranchise candidates and voting groups who received far more votes then he himself did. This notion of theirs was disabused when they decided to go public with it. Hard. And now the legitimacy of the CSM is called into question on a level unlike any before. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917&find=unreadAs the CCP coordinator of the CSM, what are your feelings on the current conflict before the situation escalates further and more publicly? Regards, Helping Hoper Nicolo da'Vicenza
Please share the reply if you get one. I would very much like to see it.
CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1682
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 22:00:00 -
[118] - Quote
Seleene wrote:]Please share the reply if you get one. I would very much like to see it.
No prob, given your uncanny political sensibilities displayed so far I'm sure it'll end well for all involved. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
132
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 22:02:00 -
[119] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:So should we expect to see page after page of comments and questions on this until you convince every last member of the CSM to share your opinion on electoral reform, instead of acknowledging that some disagreement can exist even if a different proposal (or none at all) ends up being championed to CCP instead? as long as your electoral reform starts off with the premise that some players should have more relative influence than other players, there's nothing to discuss really |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
183
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 22:05:00 -
[120] - Quote
you see some people are more equal than others |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |