board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Article 7: Binding Votes: VOTE OVER: Discuss continued

Post Reply   Page 1 of 6  [ 106 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: Article 7: Binding Votes: VOTE OVER: Discuss continued
Posted: Wed 22 Jun , 2005 5:21 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
APPROVED TEXT

Article 7: Binding Votes and Initiatives of the Membership


Binding votes of the membership are held when an issue must be decided which affects the whole board and is neither covered by existing Articles of the Charter nor requires an amendment to the Charter. Voting is conducted by the standing Committee for Binding Votes.

A request from the Mayor, or from two current Rangers, or from five registered members regardless of status will be sufficient to convene the Committee on Binding Votes.

¶1: Composition of the Committee

If the committee is convened by the Mayor or by two current Rangers, the committee will be composed of:
• one Loremaster to ensure that the vote is consistent with the Charter;
• the Mayor or the two Rangers who requested the vote;
• volunteers sufficient to bring the size of the committee to five members.

If five members requested the vote, the committee will be composed of:
• one Loremaster to ensure that the vote is consistent with the Charter;
• the five members who requested the vote;
• five volunteers, one of whom must be a current Ranger.

The Committee will be convened by posting a sticky thread in the Business Forum announcing that a vote has been requested and accepting volunteers in order until the committee is filled and composed as required. Any registered member may serve on the committee, unless the vote concerns the age-restricted forum, in which case committee members must be 18 years of age or older.

Announcement of the vote, acceptance of volunteers, discussion of the ballot, voting, and announcement of voting results will all take place in the same thread.

¶2: Routine voting cycle, emergency votes, and allowable propositions

Binding votes on non-emergency issues are held during the first week of the month. The Mayor can declare an emergency vote at any time if an issue requires immediate attention.

A binding vote cannot be held for a proposition that has been defeated by an earlier vote during the past six months and the same proposition cannot be voted on more often than twice in one year. It is the responsibility of the Committee to determine whether the proposed vote is allowable. If the committee is divided, a straw poll will be taken and a simple majority of the committee members will decide whether the vote is allowable.

The Committee will create the text of the ballot, edit the ballot into the first post of the Business Forum sticky thread created for the vote, and allow ten days of discussion among the membership. Ideally, the ballot will be posted during the third week of the month, between the 20th and 27th day, so that voting can begin during the first week of the following month, unless the issue is declared an emergency by the Mayor.

The ballot may be modified in response to member comments, and the request for a vote may also be withdrawn during this period.

Following the discussion period, the membership will vote for ten days, and the result of the vote will be binding.

¶3: Form of the Vote and quorum and majority requirements

For a vote to be binding, a quorum of the members must vote, defined as:
30% of the number of members active over the past 60 days.

The committee is responsible for deciding what form the vote will take, and this must be clearly indicated on the ballot.

The board recognizes three legitimate voting forms:
1. A simple poll for which the board software tallies the vote and a specified percentage wins;
2. A poll in which the board software tallies the vote and the percentages associated with successive responses which increase or decrease in stringency are aggregated until a specified percentage is reached and the response associated with that aggregated percentage wins;
3. A secret ballot submitted by PM or email, using either a two-choice format, or an instant runoff format when the vote entails more than one question or there are more than two mutually exclusive options.

If a simple poll or two-choice secret ballot is used, the proposition(s) will be accepted if 67% of the voting members accept it.

If aggregated percentages are used, the winning option will be determined as that response associated with an aggregated 67% of the vote.

If an instant runoff ballot is used, the winning option will be that which aggregates to 51% of the vote.

The committee will be responsible for counting the vote and announcing the results for each question on the ballot in the same thread in which the vote took place.

¶4: Executing and Archiving the voting results

A thread will be created in the History Forum entitled, “Binding Vote Ballot Archive,” and all ballots, together with voting results, will be placed in a post in that thread. The voting thread will be moved to the History Forum when the vote is concluded.

If the result of the vote takes the form of a Resolution of the Membership, the resolution will be recorded with the by-laws. If the result of the vote requires action by the Rangers, the Mayor, or the members, this action will be executed within ten days of the close of the vote.

The committee may dissolve when the results of the vote have been executed, the ballot has been placed in the archival thread, and the thread has been moved to the History forum.

¶5: Actions which cannot be undertaken without a Binding Vote of the Membership:

1. Moving to a new server
2. Altering the terms of ownership for the board
3. Elimination of a Forum and/or restructuring of the forums which would entail mass renaming and/or moving of subfora and threads.
4. In the deletion of threads, any departure from the policy stated in Article 8.
5. In the creation of new forums, any departure from the policy stated in Article 9.

A binding vote is not required if the action is being ratified by the membership as part of an Amendment to the Charter.
_______________________________________________
Original Post:
This might be a tough issue friends, and I have to confess that my well of inspiration is going dry by now.

The only Elections the charter will provide for are the election of the Mayor and ratification of Amendment. But we will need binding votes of the membership to resolve issues that come up, and we need a way for members to initiatate (a) the launch of a binding vote, and (b) charter amendments. The Committee for Binding Votes will conduct the vote, but we need a mechanism by which the members can get the committee itself started.

Here are excerpts from the Committee Article where member initiative is relevant:

• Committee for Amendments to the Charter:
This committee will be convened under two circumstances:
(1) The Committee for Review of Extraordinary Powers decides that an Amendment to the Charter is required and convenes this committee;
(2) An Initiative by the Membership - suggest this be defined in Article 7 along with Binding votes

• Committee for Binding Votes of the Membership:
This committee will be convened under two circumstances:
(1) A majority of the Rangers do not agree that a decision can be made by ad hoc committee and they convene this committee instead;
(2) An Initiative by the Membership - suggest this be defined in Article 7 along with Binding votes


Here’s what we have to decide:

• Who among the members has the right to initiate a binding vote or propose an amendment to the charter?
• How do they go about doing this?
• What constitutes a quorum in a binding vote? Should it be the same for Amendments?
• What constitutes a winning majority in a binding vote? Should it be the same for Amendments?
• How long must a defeated proposition stand before it can be put to a vote again?
• Are there issues which require a binding vote? - general categories?

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Mon 11 Jul , 2005 10:15 pm, edited 13 times in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 23 Jun , 2005 4:43 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
It is problematic. I would like to feel that anyone could bring forward an issue and have it acknowledged and put up for a vote. It isn't that simple though.

- You have to wonder about the volume and whether or not there should be constraints

- You have to wonder about the content. We know how much energy we put into the wording of things, and still not everyone is pleased. Clarity of expression isn't spontaneous.

Having any limits creates the opportunity for censorship and I hope everyone knows I am strongly against that.

For discussion:

1. We hope the mayor we elect is responsible and working for the best interests of the board. We should trust the Mayor to call for a vote at anytime based on their own initiative, or as the result of prompting by the members for issues that need immediate attention. It should be the Mayor's decision to ignore the normal voting cycle discussed below.

I think this is essential to provide the Mayor a way of presenting unanticipated management issues to the membership for voting and for allowing concerns of the members that cannot wait for the normal voting cycle. I don't know what these are, but unexpected things do happen and we need a procedure for them. I hope this is rarely used.

2. Members at large should be able to request a vote on any issue. Yes I can see Lidless thinking already. :Q

I think this right is essential to a board that claims to be democratic.

3. There do needs to be some orderliness, like there being a standard voting period in a standard cycle. For example, issues presented by members will be put up for voting on the first Friday of a month and be open for X days.

I think this allows members to know when to expect to be voting, so that no one can claim to be uninformed.

4. There here needs to be a formal acceptance of an issue up for vote X days prior to the vote. The purpose of the period should be to allow the issue to be discussed and for the proposing member to accept and reject suggestions about the wording of the question. At the end of the period, the proposer decides on the wording. The proposer can also decide to not present the final wording of the question which cancels the request for a vote.

This implies that someone be empowered to accept the original request, accept the final wording of the question, conduct the vote, and post the results. I don't know if all of these are the responsibility of the committee, but some are.

I know the freedom I am suggesting for the proposer creates opportunities for abuse, for poorly posed questions, and for ambiguous results. However, removing control of the content from the proposer is censorship. I would hope the delay, the discussion, and the need to submit the final question would reduce the noise. If not, the members can vote down or ignore the trash that makes it through. Some of us remember Gus Hall.

I am ambivalent about the revoting issue because that requires someone decide how close an issue presented this month is to a similar one from last month.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 23 Jun , 2005 5:39 pm
Another bright red day
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Far from the coast of Utopia
 
I do tihnk that anyone should be able to bring forth an issue, however, especially for binding votes and intiatives, perhaps there should be conditions. Say, we'll be happy to discuss this again and put it to a vote if. . . you have get X number of people to agree and the Mayor approves it.

Also, perhaps there should be some period of time before something can be brought up. For example, the mission statement is about to be ratified, no? It wouldn't make sense for someone to come along not long after and decide that they don't like it.

Apparently I have a dentist appointment now, so I'll post some more thought out thoughts on this later.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 23 Jun , 2005 5:57 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
It does seem reasonable to ask people to show there's some support for their position before they can call for a boardwide vote. Certainly in the United States, this is necessary for citizen initiatives.

The alternative leaves us open to votes being called, maybe repeatedly, by angry or vindictive individuals.

I also agree with Mossy that some kind of time limit would be good before an issue can be revisited. I remember this was problematic when I first came on the board, because new members didn't know their concerns had been discussed and even voted on only a few weeks earlier. And, for the charter, I think it makes sense to live with it for a while before starting in to tinker.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 23 Jun , 2005 6:04 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5171
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
What Prim said. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 23 Jun , 2005 8:45 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Well, we've got a committee that manages the execution of the vote, so what we need is a mechanism for convening that committee. What I hear people saying that is (a) there should be more than one way this can happen; and (b) one of the ways should come straight from the membership.

**** Suggested first draft:

Binding votes of the membership are held when an issue must be decided which affects the board as a whole and is not covered by existing Articles of the Charter. Voting is conducted by the standing Committee for Binding votes.

A request from the Mayor, or from two current administrators, or from five registered members regardless of status will be sufficient to convene the Committee on Binding Votes. The committee must be composed of members other than those who presented the initiative. (I have to go back to the Committees thread and see if the Mayor is a voting member of this one - if yes, I'll change the wording here.) [EDIT: OK, as currently suggested in the other thread, this committee has a loremaster, a current ranger, a former ranger, and two other members. So above wording is all right.]

A Binding Vote cannot be held if an identifical or very similar proposal was defeated within the last three months. The Committee on Binding Votes will decide whether the vote is allowable. If the vote can proceed, the committee will receive suggestions first from those members who presented the initiative as to the full content of the vote and the wording of the ballot. The Committee itself will compose the ballot and have final say over its contents and the percentage(s) required for confirmation, subject to the provisions of this Article.

A draft ballot will be presented to the membership for ten days of discussion. During this period, the Committee may modify the ballot or the percentages required for confirmation based on member comments, but will retain final say over all the terms of the vote. The vote itself will be held for ten days immediately following the discussion period.

All discussion and voting will take place in the Business Forum. Discussion will always begin on specify a day of the week? following the completion of the draft ballot.

The board recognizes three legitimate voting forms:
1. A simple poll for which the board software tallies the vote and a specified percentage wins.
2. A poll in which the board software tallies the vote and the percentages associated with successive responses that increase or decrease in stringency are aggregated until a specified percentage is reached and the response associated with that aggregated percentage wins.
3. A ballot submitted by PM or email, using either a two-choice or instant runoff format, when the vote entails more than one question or there are more than two mutually-exclusive options.

For a Vote by the membership to be binding there must be quorum voting, determined as define a quorum.

If a simple poll or two-choice ballot is used, the percentage required for confirmation may not be less than 51% nor more than 80%. If aggregated percentages are used, the percentage required may not be less than 67% nor more than 80%. If an instant runoff ballot is used, one of the choices must aggregate 51%. In the event of a tie, the Committee on Binding Votes will cast deciding ballots.

The ballot and results will be posted in the History forum thread entitled, "Binding Vote Ballot Archive," including the date that results were announced. If the result of the vote takes the form of a Resolution of the Membership, the resolution will be recorded with the by-laws. If the result of the vote suggests that an amendment to the charter should be made, the Committee on Binding Votes will convene a Committee to Amend the Charter. There should be no overlap between the members of these two committees. For all other voting results, the Committee for Binding Votes will dissolve when the binding decision of the membership has been executed.

Actions which require a Binding Vote of the Membership:
1. Moving to a new server
2. Altering the terms of ownership for the board
3. Elimination of a Forum and/or restructuring of the forums which would entail mass renaming and/or moving of subfora and threads.
4. In the deletion of threads, any departure from the policy stated in Article 8. (added)
5. In the creation of new forums, any departure from the policy stated in Article 9. (added)


Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Tue 28 Jun , 2005 6:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 24 Jun , 2005 10:01 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
last point 3 above: Elimination of a ..... and/or threads will be moved and/or retitled simultaneously

Surely in those 'thread' cases it won't go through membership wide discussion and vote :Q The Rangers can do all this with the threadoriginators approval only (email, PM), or, in the absence of communication for a considerable time (e.g. 2 weeks max) go ahead and do it and inform the originator of the action taken.


All else sounds very reasonable to me... but I'll sleep over it ;)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 24 Jun , 2005 10:07 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Alandriel - no, there shouldn't be a separate vote on every thread.

I was looking for defining characteristics of a re-organization so major that it should require a vote of the membership. Estel had undertaken at one time to plan a reorganization of the whole board, and I think a change like that should be voted on. So how do we define it? - lots of new titles and moving threads? ... or is there a better way to distinguish between this kind of change and the addition of a single forum which admins can do under their own power?

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 24 Jun , 2005 10:13 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
3. Elimination of a Forum and/or restructuring of the forums which would entail mass renaming and/or moving of subfora and threads.

Mass is perhaps a bit exagerated, but I think it does convey the meaning better that way. Or perhaps my brain's fried, it's 23.23 after all


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 24 Jun , 2005 10:16 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Good enough! I'm going to paste in your words, shameless plagiarist that I am. :D

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 25 Jun , 2005 5:57 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Quote:
If the vote can proceed, the committee will receive suggestions first from those members who presented the initiative as to the full content of the vote and the wording of the ballot. The Committee itself will compose the ballot and have final say over its contents and the percentage(s) required for confirmation, subject to the provisions of this Article.
Quote:
If a simple poll or two-choice ballot is used, the percentage required for confirmation may not be less than 51% nor more than 80%. If aggregated percentages are used, the percentage required may not be less than 67% nor more than 80%. If an instant runoff ballot is used, one of the choices must aggregate 51%. In the event of a tie, the Committee on Binding Votes will cast deciding ballots.

Arbitrary and capricious.

You can ask for a vote. We might let you have it. If we allow it, we might let it express your concern. Whether or not it expresses your concern, we will hold the vote. If we want it to pass we'll accept a simple majority, but if we really don't like the idea and haven't distorted the wording enough to serve our purposes, we'll ask for 80%. Have a nice day.

That may be too cynical for you, but that is what it allows. Wording fit for a king, not a democracy.

Editted to add:

I think we might be too distracted at the moment. We have the opening :clap: , I've had my personal distraction :( , my Internet service is sporadic :rage: , and I have a birthday on the 27th :D

Jnyusa: The rest is fine, thanks for your work.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 25 Jun , 2005 10:11 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
That may be too cynical for you, but that is what it allows. Wording fit for a king, not a democracy.

And yet someone must be responsible to closing the discussion of wording which, as you've seen, can easily continue here ad nauseum. Someone must be accountable for the final ballot. Similarly, someone must decide what is an appropriate percentage, unless we specify it in the charter and hope that we have covered all cases. The same percentage will not be appropriate everywhere, e.g. when percentages are aggregated one wants more than 51%, but when there are only two choices 51% should be enough.

If this wording gives too much discretion to the committee, then we need suggestions for a better balance.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 25 Jun , 2005 6:48 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
I'm sympathetic to your concerns and I expressed them myself in my first post. I'm not sure how to guide the development of a proposition without taking control of it, but I know I don't want the control. I'm not sure how you fairly allocate desired percentages, but they so influence the outcome, I know I don't want to make the choice. I would like something that is enforceably fair.

I think specific voting percentages could be expressed for a few broad categories.

I am in favor of giving the originator of a propostion some control of its final wording in spite of what I know can happen, rather than transfer it to someone else. I'm sorry, but I have seen the consequences of handing a good idea to a committee. I agree the subject may need discussion and the writer may need assistance, but totally removing control from the originator seems wrong.

I will have to think about words.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 25 Jun , 2005 7:00 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I think specific voting percentages could be expressed for a few broad categories.

We could specify percentages by form of vote. It seems to me that the form the vote takes is more of an issue than the contents of the initiative, as explained above. 51% is definitely too small when successive options are aggregated. We might say that 67% is required for any binding vote, but IRV rarely yields a 2/3 majority - that's not what it is designed to do.

So ... it requires some discussion of the pros and cons of different options.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 25 Jun , 2005 9:20 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
I agree.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 6:48 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Hm, things have slowed down here. I know people are in a party mood and it's hard to wrap our heads around binding votes.

I'm wondering though, if we might tackle the easy part of this Articel - determining what constitutes a quorum.

Farawen had suggested long ago that this should be a percentage of members active during the past x months; and Hobby tells us that Rangers do in fact have access to that info, even though it doesn't appear on the memberlist visible to all.

For ratification of the charter, we used 30% of the registered members as of March 12, 2005. I know that Faramond felt that this number was too weak, though we didn't get very far past it on some of the votes.

What do you think is an appropriate percentage, and an appropriate # of months' activity? Or would you prefer a different method of determining a quorum?

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 7:02 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
To be honest Jny, I've been waiting for someone else to ask exactly what's meant by "Binding Votes and Initiatives" so I don't look too stupid. Too late!

Can you clarify exactly what we're meant to be discussing here?

Alatar

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 8:26 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Sure, Alatar!

Remember all those votes that kept going up about how long Invite threads should stand, and whether to open the board? There would be a poll, and a week later there would be another poll, and Voronwe in particular kept asking - When are these votes binding?

The article we're trying to write here would say
• what kind of issues require the members to vote?
• who has the right to start a vote that is binding - that is, a vote whose results must be executed by the board?
• how must the vote be conducted and how do we know what option won?
• how frequently can you revote on the same issue?

Initiative simply refers to any issue that is first raised by the members, as opposed to being raised by Rangers or the Mayor or something.
• How many members does it take to require that a Standing Committee be convened to deal with some issue?
• How do the members go about making that happen?

Does that clarify?

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 28 Jun , 2005 9:26 am
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Thanks Jny, I'm with you now. I'll have to think about that one.

Alatar

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 30 Jun , 2005 1:25 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Jnyusa,

Thanks for waiting for me. At least I have service. I'll be back later.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 6  [ 106 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: