board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Article 8 - Policy on Thread Deletion VOTE CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 1 of 5  [ 95 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
truehobbit
Post subject: Article 8 - Policy on Thread Deletion VOTE CLOSED
Posted: Tue 28 Jun , 2005 3:36 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
APPROVED TEXT

Article 8: Policy on Thread Deletions

Our policy is to not delete threads for any reason except those stated in this Article.

¶1: Routine Exceptions

Obsolete Announcements, obsolete FAQ threads, and Jury Room threads used by the various committees in their work may be moved to the forum entitled Threads of Historical Interest.

Hearing threads that an involved member has asked to be deleted will be moved to Deleted Thread Storage for one month beyond the expiration of the member's right to appeal under Article 5, ¶8. Then the thread will be deleted permanently. (These threads are not moved or deleted except by member request.)

Threads moved to Deleted Thread Storage by a Ranger because of their objectionable content will be held for one month beyond the period in which a Hearing may be convened under Article 5, ¶4. If a Hearing is convened, the threads will be held throughout the Hearing and one month beyond the expiration of the member's right to appeal under Article 5, ¶8. (These threads can be deleted without member permission because they contain objectionable content and can no longer be used as evidence.)

Threads moved to Deleted Thread Storage because they resulted in an Immediate Ban imposed on the member will be held for one month beyond the expiration of the member's right to request a reversal of the ban with evidentiary arguments under Article 5, ¶5.

The expiry date of a thread will be noted in the thread when it is moved into Deleted Thread Storage.

¶2: Other Exceptions
If it seems necessary to delete a thread in order to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board, a Binding Vote of the membership must be held to do this.

Last edited by truehobbit on Sun 17 Jul , 2005 12:31 pm, edited 4 times in total.

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 28 Jun , 2005 3:37 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Our venerable but unfortunately only temporary Mayor :love: has suggested some new topics it would be helpful to formulate a policy about – so we won’t have to spend a lot of energy on discussion of principle each time the question comes up. These are policies on thread deletion and forum readability. (Thread on this latter one to come soon.)



We’ve been through thread deletion a couple of times already, and it would be good if we could agree on a general policy about it.

Let me point out the questions and problems connected with this:

- Should threads be deleted at all?
- If so, under what circumstances?
- What do you think of deleted thread storage?
- What if a threadstarter asks for a thread to be deleted, because they change their mind, but there are already a few posts in it? (Even if it’s just posts that say: hey, this thread is a mistake)

Some aspects that might speak for occasionally deleting a thread:

- saving room on the database
- keeping the fora orderly

Some aspects against it

- each thread is some kind of document
- loss of postcount (although that might go with the pros for some ;) )


Personally, I suggest the following:

Only the following threads may be deleted:
- threads started by the admin account for information purposes, when there are no posts by members
- threads started accidentally or erroneously, when the threadstarter agrees to or suggests the deletion
caveat by Prim: only after a few days in storage, in case the threadstarter changes their mind
- threads started for the purpose of trolling, threats, obscenity, or commercial activity (use the language from the charter for bannable offenses). But the deletion should not be immediate.


- bike racks and hearing threads: Jny noticed a discrepancy between our rule that they may be deleted and that they are needed for appeals - needs more thinking about


I think we should keep the deleted threads storage, although right now I don’t see all that much use for it.

Deleted threads storage is a hidden forum where we can move threads from the forum so that they appear deleted to the members. They are, however, only moved out of sight, and not destroyed.

One really good use for Deleted threads storage suggested by Prim:
temporary parking place for trolling or obscene threads that we want to get out of members' faces, but should retain until a hearing is over, as evidence

This might be useful in case one day we get really cluttered forums.
I also think in such a case as I mentioned in the last question, moving such a thread to deleted storage might be a compromise.

Ok, just a few ideas to begin with, I hope you guys will fill the gaps! :)


Wording for policy suggested by Jny:

As a matter of policy substantive conversation threads can be locked but not deleted; and a Binding Vote of the membership would be required to delete exceptional threads or groups of threads.

Last edited by truehobbit on Tue 28 Jun , 2005 5:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 28 Jun , 2005 4:24 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Another use for deleted thread storage would be as a temporary parking place for trolling or obscene threads that we want to get out of members' faces, but should retain until a hearing is over (? I was thinking as evidence—otherwise it's people's word against other people as to how bad the image or language or threat actually was).

So, Hobby, I would add to your list of threads that may be deleted: threads started for the purpose of trolling, threats, obscenity, or commercial activity (use the language from the charter for bannable offenses). But the deletion should not be immediate.

In fact, it might be a good idea not to make any deletion, other than used Administrator threads, immediately permanent—sometimes things come up or threadstarters change their minds. After few days in cold storage, the thread could then be truly deleted.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 28 Jun , 2005 4:28 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Hobby, thanks so much for doing this!

A question and a reminder:

• All admins can see deleted thread storage, correct?

• Hearing threads and Bike Racks threads can be deleted at the request of the participating members according to the Charter. I believe that if these threads are kept in a place where all incoming admins eventually see them, we are defeating the intent of the Charter. Their value as documents is summarized and preserved in the Archive with names edited out. And the purpose of deletion is to have a clean record for members.

I don't especially like the idea of keeping things like Global Announcements and stickies (or even non-global ones) in storage forever because their useful life is so short. If they have document value, they end up in the History Forum.

We've gone to some effort to avoid making high post count a criterion of status around here, so I don't think that post count should be a valid argument for saving anything that is not otherwise worth saving.

But as a matter of principle, I like having a policy which says that threads with substantive conversation should not be deleted. Now that we have a History forum and a Member's Lounge, I don't foresee a practical need for a Deleted Thread Storage Forum except as a fail-safe option.

Because we so recently voted on this issue in a different context, I think the general consensus of the current membership is fairly clear, and what we might do by way of Charter policy is to say that:

as a matter of policy substantive conversation threads can be locked but not deleted; and a Binding Vote of the membership would be required to delete exceptional threads or groups of threads.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 28 Jun , 2005 4:46 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
Hobby, thanks so much for doing this!
Ditto! I very much appreciate it. :love:


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 28 Jun , 2005 4:56 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Thanks all! :)

Prim, excellent point about proof!
Jny wrote:
• All admins can see deleted thread storage, correct?


Yes.
Quote:
I believe that if these threads are kept in a place where all incoming admins eventually see them, we are defeating the intent of the Charter.
Good point!

I agree about non-deletion, but I think the term "substantive" might be a problem - from when on is a conversation substantive?

I'll add the suggestions now. :)

Last edited by truehobbit on Tue 28 Jun , 2005 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 28 Jun , 2005 4:59 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Oh, Prim - we cross-posted, and now that I've read your post it reminds me of something else. :)

I've been combing the Charter and making the cosmetic consistency changes (listed in thread about charter consistency) and then marking for later discussion things that are really substantively inconsistent and have to be discussed.

One of them is the whole Appeals issue vis a vis deleted Hearing threads. We said that Hearing threads could be deleted at the request of the member, and also that Hearings can be appealed, and also that the original Hearing thread must be read by the Appeals panel ... but that would be impossible if the thread had been deleted.

So in Article 5 we need to refine some stuff - primarily, I think, by setting a time limit within which appeals take place. And we've got the same issue mentioned in Prim's post above -- troll threads generally should be deletable, but they should be held for a certain period of time ... and, in fact, that become the Statute of Limitations for the board, which is another thing we did not specify in Article 5 ... how long can Ranger wait before deciding that a violation warrants a Hearing? There should be a point beyond which it is 'too late.'

(In fact - I'm going to add that point to the consistency thread)

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: Thu 30 Jun , 2005 4:46 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
I think deleting anything other than duplicates and outright trash is always a mistake. Disk space costs almost nothing. 1 gig of consumer grade disk is $1 and commercial grade is probably $5. With mirroring the cost is doubled. I don't know what the underlying file system is, but unless someone is doing something inefficiently, Board77 currently shouldn't fill up 1 gig.

I think there are 2 issues here. The first is, what very few things might be candidates for a rare deletion? The second is, under what conditions should threads be moved somewhere out of view?

Technical issues govern the transition from "live" to "archive". "Archive" here probably means something far different than what has been used in the discussions so far.

In a technical environment over which we have control, access can be restricted and monitored in a way that all activity is recorded. This would alleviate concerns about Rangers having access to everything.

Until we have control, someone has to be trusted to be the keeper. So long as Rangers can move things somewhere to which they don't have "read" privileges, this could be the Mayor.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 30 Jun , 2005 10:25 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Thanks for contributing IS - but I'm afraid I don't understand a lot of what you said. :(
Quote:
Archive" here probably means something far different than what has been used in the discussions so far.
Then what does it mean here?
Quote:
In a technical environment over which we have control, access can be restricted and monitored in a way that all activity is recorded. This would alleviate concerns about Rangers having access to everything.
You mean for when we move to another site?
Well, I don't know how that works - what ways of monitoring and restricting there are if we have a site of our own.
Quote:
Until we have control, someone has to be trusted to be the keeper. So long as Rangers can move things somewhere to which they don't have "read" privileges, this could be the Mayor.
Rangers can not move things somewhere where they can't read them! We have access to everything!

And thank goodness for that, too - the idea that there might be a place to which one person only has access scares the hell out of me!

I'm a mistrustful person, I guess - I don't want to trust someone to be the keeper.

Even if not all things are visible to everybody here, the fact that admin fora can eventually become visible to all, namely when they become admins themselves, is the only thing that allays my concerns about having hidden fora in the first place.
That way we get a workable compromise between transparency and the need for confidentiality.

Fortunately, there is no need for secrecy anywhere here.
We are not, I think, talking about threads that future admins shouldn't see.

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 30 Jun , 2005 2:51 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Except in the case of Hearing threads. My understanding was that this is a privacy and anonymity issue, and a desire to create a clean slate for members once a Hearing is over.

Besides specifying how long the thread must be kept - for Hearing purposes in the case of troll bans, and for Appeal purposes in the case of everything else - I see no positive thing to be gained from preserving those threads against the wishes of the member involved.

The historical record can continue to exist in the Archive forum if it is worth keeping at all.

It would be different if we operated by precedent ... to a certain extent we do, I suppose, and that is what the Archive forum is for ... but having a 'secret list' of past offenses is really anathema to me.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 30 Jun , 2005 3:17 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Me too.


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 30 Jun , 2005 4:55 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
OOoooo... me three.

:Q

I had an ephipany over this subject when we were discussing what to do with "certain" threads before, and with the typical zeal of the newly converted ;) ... I say we STRONGLY limit the power of anyone on this board to remove a thread.

In the case of Hearings, moving/storing/hiding the threads is the right thing to do. I very much like the idea of "letting go" of past conflicts... the secret "bad guys" list is something that I will stand strongly against. In the case of Hearings, too, the fact that the thread will be handled differently from typical threads is clearly stated before the thread starts. The fact that participating members have the power to delete these threads is appropriate... and is the choice of the participants in the discussion, not the choice of a Ranger.

However, when a b77 member broaches a subject, that post is thereafter a fact. When another poster comes along and responds to it, that post is also a fact. The threadstarter has no right to have a thread deleted in which someone else has posted; that gives one person the personal power to edit/delete/erase someone else's thoughts and comments.

If a thread is not going in a direction that a threadstarter feels comfortable with, that person has the right, already, to request it be locked. This is an appropriate level of control for the threadstarter.

Even Global Announcements have a historical place. There are often responses to such announcements, and I just get a little itchy spot on my neck when I think of people's posts being removed because someone else thought them non-substantial.

That there are non-substantive posts and entire threads may well be true; but often the measure of substance is pretty subjective.

So.... as to what is to be deleted, I say: not much. ;) Even commercial or "trolling" threads, where the trolling is not of an obscene nature, can be locked and left, I think. (Unless something truly horrible is posted that I'm not able to imagine just now, besides blatant obscenities, which could get us in trouble legally or with this messageboard host.)

Someone who repeatedly starts such things can be addressed through other policies already in place.
IS wrote:
I think there are 2 issues here. The first is, what very few things might be candidates for a rare deletion? The second is, under what conditions should threads be moved somewhere out of view?
Candidates for deletion:

1. Hearings threads, upon request by participating members.

2. Obscene threads, after a period of storage for evidential purposes.

Threads to be moved out of view:

1. Hmmmm... ?


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 30 Jun , 2005 6:20 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
I think we are not discussing Hearing threads here anyway!

What to do with them was decided in the discussion and vote on Hearings.
So there is no suggestion here of keeping them.

Spam should simply be deleted, however. (Though after a storage time for proof purposes if necessary.)

Anthy, I'm not sure what you mean when you speak of commercial threads, but I think that sort of spam should be erased - I wouldn't want to give it room and visibility on our board.

I think the thing is that most of us haven't yet seen any spam on a messageboard. I know that I haven't.
I saw a post on TORC the other day, alerting the mods to some spam, but it was already gone, but from what it said, I think this spam is professional, automatised stuff.

Just thought I'd point that out - correct me if I'm wrong the people who have seen some messagboard attacked by spam.

And maybe any of the former TORC-mods or people who run other messageboards could inform us what is the best way to deal with real spam?

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 30 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
 
Automated spam should definitely be deleted. The charter calls for an immediate ban on the registry i.d., which can be reversed by hearing between 30 and 90 days afterwards, but no automated spammer is going to return and ask for a hearing. So I would think that after 90 days those threads should be deleted.

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: Fri 01 Jul , 2005 4:33 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
th,

B77 is essentially one application running on a shared host. The Rangers are application administrators and have limited rights on the host system. They have rights someone else has decided upon, to do whatever someone else decided to let them, with the tools someone else decided to give them, on whatever objects someone else decided to allow them to act on. This is normal.

1. Archive
Quote:
Quote:
Archive" here probably means something far different than what has been used in the discussions so far.
Then what does it mean here?
Archived data is separated from normal on-line data. The degree of separation is somewhat arbitrary. Sometimes it remains on the same system, sometimes moved to another system, and sometimes converted to a medium that is stored in a vault. Sometimes there is a phased movement through all of these stages. For example, state systems usually have archived data removed and placed on a separate system for several years. During this period, and admin can restore it within a few minutes, but there is an audit trail kept of the movement. After that period is ended, the data is moved to a medium that can be physically stored in a vault. Retrieval usually requires a request be made to the state police who take care of the chain of custody and deliver it to computer operations who mount the media and notify the admin. The admin can then restore the data to the electronic archive file , and if necessary restore it to the on-line system.

At any of these steps data might be encrypted and/or compressed. Archived data is always protected as read-only data. All movement between systems and media and vaults is documented and usually requires a sign-off. In the movement of the data, it is never intended to be readable by those who move it. This includes the librarian, if such a position exists. Normally the admin, or some other designated person is the only one intended to "see" the data.

What is called "archiving" on B77 is pretty limited and informal.

2. Residing on someone else's site vs your own

B77 exists on a system and all of us are users with some level of privileges, all less than root or the superuser. In theory the superuser has unrestricted access to everything, although encrypted data should be safe from reading. I'm trying avoid the technical details, but it is normal for operations, maintenance, and administrative personnel to move things they can't access, or to cause things to be moved from a place where they have access to one that they don't.

3. Ranger access

As stated above, B77 is a resident on someone else's system and all users, including Rangers, have access restrictions. I don't know whether or not the host allows movement to a place Rangers do not have access, or, if it does exist, if Rangers know how to use it. It is normal for application administrators to have limited access.

My statement was a response to Jnyusa's statement:
Quote:
I believe that if these threads are kept in a place where all incoming admins eventually see them, we are defeating the intent of the Charter.
There is no technical reason why it can't be hidden from Rangers, but someone has to have access. That doesn't mean the host allows you to do it.

I'm not judging the correctness of Jnyusa's statement, but you seem to disagree with it. I don't really care, I'm just discussing the possibilities.

4. Real security

For real security, which B77 does not require, access and privileges are restricted to those who have an absolute need. Shared security is compromised security. You start from the idea that no one can be trusted with anything.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 01 Jul , 2005 5:01 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Idylle,

The system you're describing is a tool of a community. In our case, the online system is the community. There is no group external to the information which gives security clearance to access the information. ;) We are both the permission givers and the 'object' of that permission.

[A lesson in phenomenology?]

The only question we have to answer here, I think, is what kind of information is so useless, so annoying or so potentially damaging to community morale that we would routinely get rid of it.

We should, so to speak, discard our fingernail clippings but take care not to cut off our fingers.

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: Fri 01 Jul , 2005 6:33 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
A simulacrum, I think. Although a degenerate form, the outlines of the original can be made out. Even if we deny the fact that our freedom of movement is determined externally, we have constructed our own model of the external reality and called it our existence. Within the model, the familiar themes of rights, privileges, sacred objects, anathema, and empowered agents still prevail.

I actually prefer fractal (Sierpinski gasket?), but I don't think the concept is accepted in philosophy yet. I agree with Miller (Living Systems) that all organisms share the same fundamental patterns.

This is why it strikes me that normal concepts are applicable here.

We have already adopted archiving for some things. We have already deleted some things. So, both patterns already exist in our world. It's purely a matter of deciding which objects fall into which of the existing patterns.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 01 Jul , 2005 6:50 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
This is why it strikes me that normal concepts are applicable here.

Yes, I agree that the concepts are applicable; but not all mechanisms available in the external reality are relevant to our needs here.

We have already adopted archiving for some things. We have already deleted some things. So, both patterns already exist in our world. It's purely a matter of deciding which objects fall into which of the existing patterns.

Yes, that's exactly right, imo.

So - which will go where? :)

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 01 Jul , 2005 10:03 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Thanks for the explanations, IS! :)

I don't think this is quite so complicated, though. ;)
Quote:
"Archive" here probably means something far different than what has been used in the discussions so far.
"Archive", the way I've been using it, doesn't mean the complicated process you've explained - it just means storing out of reach for posting and in form of a collection (i.e. not just locking and leaving all over the place).

And the way this place is configured, this kind of storage involves that the threads so stored are visible to the admins.

I don't know if there's a way on phpbber to store your unneeded stuff outside the board - I rather think not, what should phpbber want with those data. They just offer the messageboard software, and aren't really concerned with our governance issues.
Yes, they provide some settings to which we are then restricted, but that's not been a problem so far.

LOL, we could, of course, create another messageboard: only the founder to have access, and the founder would move all threads for storage onto that board. That way, no one but the owner of that messageboard would have access to our archive. (Provided, of course, that phpbber does no delete forums without a minimum activity.)
But I'm in jest, I'm not actually proposing such a form of archiving. ;) :)

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 09 Jul , 2005 8:17 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
We seemed to run out of discussion on this issue. Is there more to be said? Or can we vote on it?


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 5  [ 95 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 »
Jump to: