|
Terminal autist posted:Whos getting doxxed? Thats a serious allegation brought up by multiple people and seems like a pretty serious issue if people are getting doxxed and admins are ignoring it. The only thing that comes to mind for me is when seven hundred bees was getting made fun of for his race science in cspam and then made some as far as I am aware spurious claims. doxxing has devolved into "remember that one time 700 bees made a racist post" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Lobster Shirt has been really doing well on the forums since buying an account. They've got my vote. spacetoaster.... thank you (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:I didn't nominate anyone in my previous post so just gonna say (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Most of the problems here fall under the umbrella of “lazy moderation”. This problem is especially egregious in a forum where effort is explicitly expected from normal posters. Some examples: 1) Threadbans being handed out like candy, and seemingly capriciously. “This discussion thread benefits by removing someone’s opinion” should be a statement of last resort, and often that message is expressed is a dismissive way. Threadbans should be discussed and agreed on by the mod team, and delivered with clearly evidenced cause. 2) Retroactive/grandfathered threadbans. Mods made a huge deal laying out how USNews was a new and distinct thread from USPol, then turned around and said “all the old threadbans apply”. Lazy. 3) Partisan modding - enough’s been made about this itt already, but mods should call balls and strikes wrt the rules, not enforce their worldview. 4) Feedback. It’s clear that pervious mod-established feedback threads had a narrow agenda with a set of results that were agreed on before the thread went up. People gave feedback, most of it negative towards the proposed changes, and the result was “changes agreed to!” No. In terms of who would make a good mod, I think fool_of_sound is good and should continue if they want. Literally every other mod is terrible in their own way, lost the thread of what their role is, and should resign. And, I’ll add the caveat that fool_of_sound should seriously think about wether they want to keep going. They’ve been a font of really good ideas and thought about moderation, but they’ve seemed especially jaded and frustrated recently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
I am curious why Herstory Begins Now is allowed to threadshit without consequence. Their posting has been literally nothing but hostile, combative white noise in a thread where people are trying to fix the environment their poor moderation helped toxify. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
There should be one rule: don't be an rear end in a top hat. If a poster can't manage that, it's a week. If they come back and are still an rear end in a top hat, it's two weeks. repeat as needed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
If I want to pick fights and be a raging rear end in a top hat, I go to Reddit, which is lousy with fascists and other pieces of poo poo anyway. If I want to stay informed on national politics and have a reasonably mature and deep analysis of the news, I come here. I'm not interested in being a member of a clique or feuding with other people; I have no enemies on SA. As long as we have a place that's inclusive to people (provided they're acting in good faith) and can discuss politics like adults, I'm happy. F_Shit_Fitzgerald fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Sep 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
I think how r u and Raenir Salazar would be perfect mods for D&D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
i have a few stupid ideas 1) moderation should do a complete 180 to how it operates now. a mod's knowledge of a topic should have little to no impact on the punishment a user does or does not get. they should look at a post and ask "is this post funny" and "is this post informative". those things are foundational to SA. that's what makes discussion on here better than other sites. argueing with a mod about nuances of racism and media analysis aren't fun, and discussion gets shut down a lot; either by a probe or silo'ing to another thread. a mod or IK from one dnd thread should pretty easily be able to go to another thread in dnd and do their volunteer job almost the same. which brings me to my next stupid idea 2) for the most part punishments should be for posts that discourage discussion. mods should always be looking to encourage discussion, but it seems like ppl feel they shut down discussion a lot. ive scratched my head a few times when i see a lot of new posts in a thread, go to check it, and at the end of it there's a mod saying "ok we've covered it lets move on". move on from what? why? we're on this dead gay site to discuss whatever is being discussed. let people discuss it. i think the response to this will be championing for lurkers, the silent majority lol. stop protecting them, if they are bothered by a few posters drilling down in a civil disagreement, they can post about it. why do mods have to be the ones to say, "take it to a new thread"? let people decide for themselves where a post needs to go. if a thread is being poisoned by 1 person and the rest of the people in the thread make it known, then the mod can step in. the way dnd operates right now is not organic and that's why the friction is felt everywhere. mods/iks should be maintaining the discussion machine, not policing it edit: i agree with disreputable dog for the most part (minus the lazyness) thehandtruck fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Sep 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
thehandtruck posted:i have a few stupid ideas I agree with a lot of this but the problem with 2 is that often what happens is a conversation eventually cycles around as both sides get trapped in circular arguments and get increasingly hostile to one another as a result. It's not really tenable and that's why mods step in ask people to move on, they're not protecting feelings or running interference for the demonrats or whatever, at least not ideally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
It seems like polling the kind of people willing to post entire paragraphs in a D&D moderation thread who should be a mod here is like asking the guy breaking into your house for advice on home security but okay here goes You could just mod some good, smart posters. Joepinetree, ylatya or however its spelt, pentecoastal elites, silicone thrills, someone like that. But honestly it seems like the best way to moderate a space like d&d is to have a bunch of mods with a real insane diversity of opinions that cover the entire spectrum. Rather than trying to find balanced people, find enough people to form a balance, basically. Mod YMB. Willa. That thorn talon guy who already pretends to be a mod. lollontee. Me. Raskalinov. Jarmak. Just go apeshit with it, do the moderation version of packing the court and see how the dust settles. I'm being absolutely sincere here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
This is leaking into the threads that aren't USpol as well, to the degree where people with authority over USpol should have no authority over the non-US threads. Maybe a separate forum for local non-US politics from a local viewpoint, one where neither the D&D forum bans nor moderators carry over. The threadbans and forumbans are seriously overused. Also Handsome Ralph is the very worst moderator at moderating anything I have ever seen, and really demonstrates the problem as a whole here. The enforcement of the rules is sporadic at best, especially the meet effort with effort rule, and people get punished for disagreeing with him with far more certainty than for breaking the rules. It's like the rules exist only if you personally annoy them. And then everyone catches on to this on both sides, and the thread either becomes a ghost town or a way to own your forums enemies, and either way we can fully abandon any hope of debate or discussion. I don't know what fool of sound thinks he's accomplishing here, but it seems like he's just burning out worse and worse as D&D continues to decline. Moderator suggestions? ronya being charged with equally punishing empty shitposts and using a lot of words to say nothing would be the ultimate ironic punishment, and I'm honestly curious what would happen with virtualboyCOLOR as a moderator. They do seem to genuinely care about the quality of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
I've read D&D off an on since 2004 and learned a lot from the discussion, with one of the biggest influences on me being Willa Rogers. As hard as it is to believe, there was a time during Obama's first term where being critical of his administration from the left was greatly tolerated, and honestly, it produced some great discussions. That was a different time and the stakes were not as high. Even after the 2016 election, there were a few threads that were up and running for years where arguing about the Democratic party was the main topic. Ever since the 2020 primary got underway, the culture in D&D took a nosedive. At present, there is virtually no space to criticize the current administration from the left, and so it's no surprise that it pops up in random threads throughout the forum and causes various derails. During the spring of this year, the immigration thread became a serious cesspool, where a large majority of the posters criticizing the current admin were probed or threadbanned, while many of the flippant posts defending the admin were left unchecked. That basically sums up the current state of affairs in D&D, there is pro-establishment hegemony that is maintained through many American politics threads backed by the mod team. It's gotten a little better recently with the demodding of a few trouble makers (though Handsome Ralph is the poster child of a trigger happy mod and who continues to perpetuate this trend), but there are many very bad posters whose posting existence is to try to bait the left (how are u), while an account that posts solely to bait the establishment would find itself in hot water. I think Joeinpinetree should be a mod. They are a very smart and knowledgeable person and has a good temperament.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
I’m just curious why Handsome Ralph thinks the book IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation Book by Edwin Black was so bad and so “laughed out of academia” that it merited swift probation. I asked them and got no response at the time. Perhaps I should have been gentler in discussing the involvement in the Holocaust of US corporations like IBM, given we might have people who work there. It’s stupid but it’s been on my mind most days since; I don’t get why someone would respond that way and exactly why it was laughed out of academia should be explained especially when it’s very unclear that that was the case  It’s honestly been shocking. It’s really alienating being a non-American who posts about American politics on this forum. There’s little leeway for criticism of the military and the Democratic Party (infinite leeway versus “chuds” and the left) and I think it has partly to do with the military and professional affiliations of people posting here and modding it. I got probed last week for not supporting the troops hard enough. They aren’t even my troops! My suggestion would be to avoid putting people who have worked for the military or for a political party in charge of moderating the forums where people discuss said military or political party, and to remove buttons from people with this background because the emotional and material investment act as blinders and as triggers that ultimately harm the forum. Oh, and consider a non-American to moderate American threads. gradenko_2000 shows that there are people who follow what happens here as ardently as anyone. I am not nominating them because I don’t think they would like it, but someone like that would be an improvement. mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
Another issue that’s sometimes on my mind is the visibility of the stars — I feel it has a chilling effect on threads when the mod hat rears its head, whether it is said so or not. I don’t feel like it is possible to engage with buttoned people on the same terms, and the costs for disagreeing are a lot higher. At the same time I do like knowing the person I’m talking with does have that power. Overall I think it degrades the user experience and the discourse. However, I have no solution except to proscribe participation in threads, and few people interested enough to do this job for free would be disinterested enough not to want to post. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
thehandtruck posted:
Heck, that's a bit of an issue in multiple forums, not just D&D. There's this fear of the dreaded "derail", as if it is some sort of natural disaster and not something that (usually) stems from an organic conversation. Most times, just letting it run its course is the proper thing to do. In D&D in particular it can just be the sign of a slow news day or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
Dixon Chisholm posted:I think how r u and Raenir Salazar would be perfect mods for D&D. I strongly disagree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
I think the main problem with D&D as it currently exists is that the majority of activity occurs in a handful (1-4, and usually 1 or 2) threads that are periodically renewed while most other threads tend to whither on the vine. This creates two dynamics that I think add a lot to the toxicity in this forum: (1) Those few active threads are kind of "the cool kids' table," with desireable participation in D&D viewed mostly in terms of how much you get to actively participate in those threads; (2) Any effort to prevent a particular topic or poster from dominating that tiny number of threads is viewed as tantamount shutting that topic (or poster) out of meaningful participation in D&D, which seems to correlate with heightened resentment toward to moderators/IKs. I posted pretty actively in D&D from 2004 to about 2010, and only really started reading it again in about 2019. One thing I recall from my earlier years posting here is that although we often had a page or more of active threads at any one time, many (if not most) threads died in their first hundred posts or less. When new political developments or news came up, it almost seemed like there was a race among posters to get a thread up about it. Some of these threads stuck around for a while, but most petered out as we got farther from the event that motivated their creation. There were some perpetual threads (gun control and Israel/Palestine come to mind) but these were relatively narrow in scope, so they didn't tend to dominate the forum and if you wanted to avoid certain topics or certain posters, it was easy enough to steer clear of areas that you knew were their particular hobby horses. Similarly, if an OP wanted to steer discussion in a particular direction or to attract participation from a particular group of posters, it was easy enough to frame the thread the way that they wanted. This wasn't a cure-all for toxicity by any means (and the perpetual threads were often created in part to quarantine discussions that tended to go toxic), but I do think it was more pleasant than the current iteration of D&D. So if I had my druthers about changes that could be made in D&D it would be to either eliminate USNews/Pol or to severely curtail discussion of new events in that thread. This would hopefully mean more attention for threads other than USNews/Pol and less of a pressure cooker environment overall as posters sort themselves out over a broader selection of active topics. I don't think any particular mod is more or less likely to address this problem. I think the way this forum currently stands, even mods who are coming from a good place overall will tend (very understandably) to crack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 00:17
|
|
|
Why not simply select D&D mods by sortition from the top 5-10 most active CSPAM threads?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
Dixon Chisholm posted:I think how r u and Raenir Salazar would be perfect mods for D&D. This is true; when I think of posters who most embody D&D and its posting identity, I think of How Are U/Raenir Salazar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
I'm going to save my comments about D&D for the feedback thread if it ever happens, because what I would have said has already been said by other people anyway. Picking mods doesn't help unless you decide what you want D&D to be. Is it supposed to be a serious debate and discussion forum about the political and social topics of the day where open discussions can be had without censoring hard topics to spare people's feelings, or is it a partisan cheerleading section to have a good time with our friends dunking on the bad team with any opinion too unpopular or contentious getting banned and people with unpopular opinions removed to clear the report queue with as little fuss as possible. If it's the former, nominate someone with the kind of unpopular opinions that have been mostly chased out, Willa Rogers has endless patience and would be a good choice. If it's the latter, then keep on keeping on, and I throw my hat in with the others who have pointed out How Are U is the most suited for what the mods seem to be trying to accomplish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 01:08
|
|
posted:
|
I don't normally complain about mods because it's some of the most tedious slapfighting garbage but Handsome Ralph really does suck. I checked the Leper's Colony like a week ago and he handed out at least 3 threadbans in one day for "trolling" and when I looked at the offending posts and posters none of them were trolling. They were people who were correctly making fun of stupid idiotic opinions. None of those people should have been threadbanned or even probated for those posts. This kind of obviously partisan crap needs to stop. As others have said, changing and adding mods alone won't solve the problem, however I am in favor of this idea. One of the things that really needs to change is updating the "meet effort with effort" rule with something like "the number of words, sentences, and paragraphs you use in a post does not count towards effort". I have nothing against long effort posts but there are multiple insufferable and unreadable posters in D&D who love to pretend that they're smarter than they really are by posting a zillion words to say practically nothing of substance and there are a lot of really good posters who can make a cogent argument in a sentence or two. And yes sometimes the latter are dismissive, pithy one-liners because it is often the case that huge walls of text don't really say anything meaningful and as such they don't deserve anything else. I've also seen many many many one-liners that contain way more substance than the wall of text that was replied to. And I know this will never happen but since this is the space to say it I will: This forum was originally called Current Events before it got renamed to Debate & Discussion, and making it a debate forum is the worst thing that ever happened to it. None of us are in high school debate club and none of us should have to play by a bunch of stupid rules that essentially gamify posting. We live in a hellish world where terrible things happen to real people every day and yet we have a whole forum full of people who want to use those events to practice their debate skills or who just like disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing or who, for completely nonsensical reasons, just like to participate in painful unnecessary pedantic arguments for pages upon pages. All those people should be run right out of here. Rename this forum back to Current Events and get rid of the high school debate club bullshit. I'm not saying there should be no rules here but trying to make this some kind of semi-formal space is really silly and it should never have happened. Having said all that, to address the direct question of the OP, the only person I can think of off the top of my head who I would want as a mod is Willa Rogers. IDK if she would even want or accept it, but she's been here a long time and I remember seeing her posts way back in the early 2000s and she's always been a good poster. While I think everyone knows she's a leftist I can't imagine her abusing her mod powers or enforcing the rules in a partisan way. As far as others who have been suggested, joepinetree would be OK I guess. Ytlaya wouldn't be bad. However How r u is one of the dumbest people not only on this forum but on this entire planet and should never have buttons ever. Elephant Ambush fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
I'll mod D&D
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
Roth posted:I'll mod D&D I vote for this as long as Smythe has to come with you
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:And I know this will never happen but since this is the space to say it I will: This forum was originally called Current Events before it got renamed to Debate & Discussion, and making it a debate forum is the worst thing that ever happened to it. None of us are in high school debate club and none of us should have to play by a bunch of stupid rules that essentially gamify posting. We live in a hellish world where terrible things happen to real people every day and yet we have a whole forum full of people who want to use those events to practice their debate skills or who just like disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing or who, for completely nonsensical reasons, just like to participate in painful unnecessary pedantic arguments for pages upon pages. All those people should be run right out of here. Rename this forum back to Current Events and get rid of the high school debate club bullshit. I'm not saying there should be no rules here but trying to make this some kind of semi-formal space is really silly and it should never have happened. I agree with most of your post, but must take exception to this part. The reason for enforcing rules of good argumentation here isn't like in a debate club, where they give judges some criteria of finding out who won. The point of D&D is explicitly not to be the winner of a debate. Rather, the rules are in place here to make the discussion more likely to be in good faith, more likely to arrive at the truth, and more interesting to the people reading it. They also don't, or shouldn't, encourage pedantic arguments. In my view, pedantry is when you act as though a small flaw you find in an argument refutes the whole thing, when in actuality the point didn't rely on it. A real example I saw recently was when the topic came up of McDonald's ice cream machines breaking on purpose so that a repairman can come out to fix them due to some strange inside dealing. Someone said they said they weren't really breaking, just completely shutting down. It wouldn't even have been a problem to point that out per se, but they did it in the way that acted as though everyone was wrong about the whole thing, rather than humbly presenting it as a small correction. Another poster was very irritated with it and explained why, and I felt the same as I read it. My point being, pedantry is actually a bad form of argument, not a good one, and having good rules for argument doesn't mean pedantry would be encouraged (hopefully the opposite).
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:10
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:My point being, pedantry is actually a bad form of argument, not a good one, and having good rules for argument doesn't mean pedantry would be encouraged (hopefully the opposite). do yourself a favor and steer clear of the media fact checking thread then
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Stringent posted:do yourself a favor and steer clear of the media fact checking thread then 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
lol. that thread of like the pure distillation of what’s wrong with d&d agreed with everyone upthread saying handsome ralph is the worst mod in recent memory in here and that joepinetree and ytlaya would be good
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
I don't know if I can state what the largest issue that D&D faces is nor do I have a poster who I'd like to nominate. However, I just want to state that we should not have a moderator in this forum who looks down upon and/or generalizes posters in this subforum. IMO, it's impossible for someone who thinks either of these things to be unbiased in their moderation decisions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky seems like they would have the right temperament for modding D&D. But frankly I think the fundamental issue is that there's a lot of users who just have open contempt for each other, and I don't think that's fixable with six hour probes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:50
|
|
|
Aegis posted:When new political developments or news came up, it almost seemed like there was a race among posters to get a thread up about it. Some of these threads stuck around for a while, but most petered out as we got farther from the event that motivated their creation. There were some perpetual threads (gun control and Israel/Palestine come to mind) but these were relatively narrow in scope, so they didn't tend to dominate the forum and if you wanted to avoid certain topics or certain posters, it was easy enough to steer clear of areas that you knew were their particular hobby horses. Similarly, if an OP wanted to steer discussion in a particular direction or to attract participation from a particular group of posters, it was easy enough to frame the thread the way that they wanted. This wasn't a cure-all for toxicity by any means (and the perpetual threads were often created in part to quarantine discussions that tended to go toxic), but I do think it was more pleasant than the current iteration of D&D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 03:04
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Leon Trotsky seems like they would have the right temperament for modding D&D. But frankly I think the fundamental issue is that there's a lot of users who just have open contempt for each other, and I don't think that's fixable with six hour probes. what if nobody could see each other's names in d&d. mods too. serious suggestion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 03:13
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This is true; when I think of posters who most embody D&D and its posting identity, I think of How Are U/Raenir Salazar. I agree with this, also put Mellow Seas, Discendo Vox and Vincent Van Goatse on the list of mod candidates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
Can we get pissflaps and volkerball to mod the forum In all fairness, the mods currently do a good job of mitigating discussion to other threads or stamping out potential derails from going out of control. One thing I notice is as a mod probates more people in a single day the probates become more vengeful and quicker. I will see a few good troll probates happen, then the bar for what qualifies as a troll goes down lower and lower till people are getting probated for going "oops wrong thread" and editing their posts. WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
- Handsome Ralph is too one-sided. Others seem fine but I haven't been reading much D&D lately so whatever - Ignore anyone's posts ITT who has started a thread or made serious posts in QCS attempting to wage war on either CSPAM or D&D - Mods, whether old or new, should shake it up. Close USNews altogether and make more, smaller topic-based threads, make a bunch of mods/IKs per some plague rats' suggestion, permanent slow mode in the busiest threads, idk. Try some big changes for a month or two and see if they work Roth posted:I'll mod D&D +1 Neurolimal posted:This is true; when I think of posters who most embody D&D and its posting identity, I think of How Are U/Raenir Salazar. Dixon Chisholm posted:I think how r u and Raenir Salazar would be perfect mods for D&D. Judakel posted:Raenir Salazar is my choice. Always great effort posts, had a terrific suggestion about how to run the forums a while back, and in general has great ideas. Somfin posted:I agree with this, also put Mellow Seas, Discendo Vox and Vincent Van Goatse on the list of mod candidates. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:I want to highlight this post because I think it's an idea worth considering. One of the major problems with USPol is that everything has to go in it, so when slapfights arise it drowns out discussion of literally everything else happening in US politics. It'd be cool if when people want to discuss a particular news item, they could make a thread all about that particular news item, and everyone who doesn't want to discuss it can just not open that thread. Maybe have some side threads for poo poo like "funny/weird minor stories" and long-term issues like gun control and I/P, and enforce some rule where threads should try to keep their focus on their original topic. I realize I am asking this question when I have limited who can reply, so I will re-ask it when I fully open the thread to everyone, AND I'm also veering way the gently caress off the topic of "Who should I give buttons too" but: Isn't this how it works? Topics are suppose to be broken off into other threads. I'm pretty sure that was something decided in the last D&D war. Is there something stopping people from making threads?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 04:07
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:I realize I am asking this question when I have limited who can reply, so I will re-ask it when I fully open the thread to everyone, AND I'm also veering way the gently caress off the topic of "Who should I give buttons too" but: I think people hate being told they need to take something to a specific thread because they want to keep debating and there's no obligation for anyone to follow them back to whatever thread is more appropriate. e: It's basically the "I'm being silenced!" guy
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
Athanatos posted:Is there something stopping people from making threads? bookmarks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 04:24
|
|