board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

ToE access amendment discussion

Locked   Page 3 of 5  [ 88 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 5:45 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
For instance, Cerin's suggestion about requiring an explanation should probably be an option on the ballot. Personally, I'm not sure that it is either necessary or feasible to do this, but I'm not sure that it is not either.
Voronwe, you believe that a right to veto without explanation another member's right to participate in ToE is consistent with our underlying principles of openness, respect and equality!? How so, pray tell.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 5:53 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Axordil wrote:
Nothing except forbidding it, which I am quite amenable to, actually, if the number of objections required were to be as low as ten. If the requirement would be something like the 1/3 Estel proposed, then this is less of an issue, I suspect, as convincing 21 B77ers of anything is nigh impossible
If talking behind the scenes to solicit support were forbidden and the higher number used, I think I could consider accepting the elimination of the independent evaluation. But I still think this must take place through emails to the Rangers/Mayor accompanied by an explanation. I believe people must accept the degree of responsibility and accountability for their objection that they are required to articulate it outside of ToE, for the sake of fairness and transparency.


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 6:04 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Quote:
Ax, no one well-meaning Ranger would ever be making the decision. It would be a joint decision between multiple Rangers and the Mayor.
Is this really better? You would have, what, 5 people making the decision rather than 10.

As for the part you really object to, Cerin, the "no explanation part." The reason why that was thought up, was that explanations would make it seem like the invite thread. Add on top of that that other posters in the ToE, who may not have had a problem with the poster under review, might suddenly, because of the explanations, have a problem with them.

So with no explanation, you might get the requisite number of people and if you do, you KNOW that they don't trust the person simply because they don't trust them.

With an explanation, it is more than possible that you get the requisite number of people who don't trust the poster because they have been convinced not to.

Which is better?



Honestly, the whole reason we had the idea of NO explanations was to avoid the invite type threads that so many people railed against.

Now to find you wanting that same type of thread so badly, Cerin... it's very confusing. If we go with your way, with open explanations, how much of the board will vote against it because it's to much like the invite threads.

If we go with the other extreme, how many people will vote against it because of your reasons?



How about we stop trying to make either extreme the only option, and try to come up with some sort of compromise?

If we're going with my idea - the first person who posts in the veto-vote thread, as well as the other two people who support the nomination - must give a consise, one to two sentence explanation of their reasons. Those will be the only reasons posted, and no one else may post in the thread - only vote. If the person is veto-voted, the explanations are PMed to them by the Ranger who lets them know that they have been veto-voted, and they are also told that they may reapply for entry in X amount of time.

I don't know what to do if we go with your solution Cerin.


One thing I would say is, even if the person is told the explanations, they are not told who the three were that started and supported the veto-vote. I think that would cause very bad results on the rest of the board. The person who had been veto-voted deciding to harrass the members who "did it to him/her" kind of thing. That is definitely not something we need on this board.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 6:20 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Estel wrote:
The reason why that was thought up, was that explanations would make it seem like the invite thread. Add on top of that that other posters in the ToE, who may not have had a problem with the poster under review, might suddenly, because of the explanations, have a problem with them.
The explanations would not be public. None of this would take place in ToE. It would take place in private, individual emails to the Administrator (Rangers and the Mayor).


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 6:29 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Estel wrote:
One thing I would say is, even if the person is told the explanations, they are not told who the three were that started and supported the veto-vote. I think that would cause very bad results on the rest of the board. The person who had been veto-voted deciding to harrass the members who "did it to him/her" kind of thing. That is definitely not something we need on this board.
Well, I believe the accused should have the right to 'face' the accuser by knowing who they are.

Frankly, I think it is cowardly to accuse someone of something behind their back, but not be willing to do it to their face. It is not honest, it is not open, it is not fair, it does not show equal respect to the accuser and the accused -- all supposed underlying principles of this board. If you have the courage of your convictions, what is the problem with that person knowing you are one of those who has kept them out of ToE?

As to the potential problems you mention, they are all addressable by the by-laws.

We are talking about one group of posters having the power to judge other posters as untrustworthy and unworthy of equal rights to post on this board. That kind of power should come with responsibility and accountability, and it should not be exercised behind closed doors.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 6:59 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Cerin:

I normally am all for the courage of one's convictions, et al. However, I think an explanation is going to be superfluous. If 1/3 of the posters in ToE sent emails/PMs to the Rangers saying "ick, no, don't let X in", the simple fact of the matter is that X's presence would cause a huge chunk of the people--likely the most active posters--to leave, and the forum would implode. It doesn't MATTER if there isn't a well-documented set of events leading to the lask of trust. It doesn't matter if there is NO rational reason at all for the lack of trust. All that matters is the result.

I don't have a problem with the email/PM process instead of the ballot veto, though. Both have a reasonable level of privacy, IMO.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 7:24 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Axordil wrote:
It doesn't matter if there is NO rational reason at all for the lack of trust. All that matters is the result.
I couldn't disagree more strongly, and I will continue to contest this point here and when the amendment is up for ratification. There must be some articulatable reason for a ToE poster to object to someone's access. Having a veto without explanation goes against the valued underlying principles mentioned earlier. It is irresponsible, childish, self-indulgent, disrespectful, dishonest and subject to gross abuse.

All posters should have the right to post in ToE unless there is a specific (valid) objection brought against them; if there is an objection brought against them, they have the right to know what that objection is. (Furthermore, there is no hope of amelioration if a person does not know what people are holding against them.)


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 7:54 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Quote:
There must be some articulatable reason for a ToE poster to object to someone's access.
And that reason will ALWAYS be the same, no matter what actual events are cited: I don't trust them. If it were a one person veto, or a three person veto, I would agree that the possibility of abuse would be large. But 21 people all agreeing they don't trust someone?

Here's the thing: I don't even care if an explanation is required, since we're talking about PMs or emails at this point. It's not like people will have any problems coming up with them. But I will not support any mechanism that allows a Ranger, or anyone else, to evaluate someone emotionally, to tell someone their reason for not trusting someone isn't good enough. By definition, if they say it is, it is.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 8:46 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Axordil wrote:
I don't trust them.
Yes, but why. I'm sorry, Ax, but if someone can't articulate a single reason why they don't trust someone, then their feeling does not warrant infringing the posting rights of another member.

Quote:
Here's the thing: I don't even care if an explanation is required, since we're talking about PMs or emails at this point. It's not like people will have any problems coming up with them. But I will not support any mechanism that allows a Ranger, or anyone else, to evaluate someone emotionally, to tell someone their reason for not trusting someone isn't good enough. By definition, if they say it is, it is.
Then we're in agreement. You don't care if an explanation is required; I care a great deal, it is make or break for me. You will not support any mechanism that allows a Ranger to evaluate someone emotionally, that is make or break for you. Well, I said I agree that the evaluation idea can be eliminated.

Here is my proposal:

The ToE provision in section A, para 1 of Member Rights and Responsibilities will be deleted if this amendment passes.

Article 2: Member Rights and Responsibilities
[ratified June 20, 2005; amended August 8, 2005]
¶1: Rights and responsibilities enforceable by procedures and penalties outlined in the Charter

A. You have the right:
To post in our Thinking of England forum (a forum restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older) once you have met the eligibility requirements.



The following text will be added to Article 6:

Article 6: Age Restricted Forum
Ratified May 30, 2005; June 6, 2005
¶3: Eligibility to Access the Age Restricted Forum
A member becomes eligible to access the "Thinking of England" forum after three months and 100 posts. After this time, a member can request access to the forum from a Ranger.

When a member requests access to the forum, their name will be forwarded to a designated ToE member; this poster will maintain a list of applicants in the forum.

When an applicant is listed, ToE members will have a period of 10 days to consider whether they know any good reason why a particular applicant would not make a trustworthy member of the ToE community and should not be allowed access to the forum.

If no member expresses a concern or objection, applicants will be granted access to the forum at the end of the ten-day period.

If a member does have a concern or objection to a particular applicant, these specific concerns or objections must be sent by email to the Administrator account. ToE posters are forbidden to discuss the applicants privately or solicit objections to them from other ToE posters during this period. At the end of the ten-day period, the Rangers will notify the designated ToE member as to the disposition of the application, who will in turn post it in the forum. If the number of objections exceeds
(5, 10, 20, 1/3 the number of members in the forum), the applicant is denied access to the forum for three months. The applicant may reapply to be a member of the ToE after three months, and the process will be repeated.

If an applicant is denied access to ToE, a Ranger will supply the applicant with the texts of the objections received against him/her and offer suggestions as to how the objectionable behavior can be addressed. If denial of access is based on knowledge of the applicant misusing the kind of personal information that is shared in ToE, it is unlikely that the trust of objecting ToE members can be regained, and therefore unlikely that subsequent applications for access to ToE will be successful.


Edited to change 'one week' to '10 days'

Last edited by Cerin on Fri 16 Sep , 2005 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 9:10 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Just a quick post to say that 20 is too high.

If it isn't reached, 19 posters leave and delete their posts for the sake of one?

10 does it for me.

And why doesn't my compromise work? Reasons are given by three people, and the ToE has a choice in the matter. Something that I think is very important, considering it's the ToE we're talking about.

In the solution of sending it to the Rangers - what if the ranger it is sent to is someone who voted against the amendment, and that person ignores the request simply because they don't agree with the amendment? And yes, I can very much see that happening.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 9:32 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Estel wrote:
And why doesn't my compromise work?


Your proposal doesn't work for me for a number of reasons:

No accountability required, no responsibility assumed for the power individuals have to restrict the posting rights of other members (excepting the three who are required to give reasons).

The likelihood that those not knowing a good reason why someone should not be accepted to ToE will vote against them in support of a friend. There is nothing to prevent it from turning into a cliquish exercise of partiality.

The whole process happening behind the closed doors of ToE, within the insular confines of ToE. It is antithetical to our principle of transparency and our vigilance against the misuse of power.

The invitation thread rearing its ugly head once again.

Quote:
Reasons are given by three people, and the ToE has a choice in the matter.
My proposal also gives the ToE a choice in the matter -- individual by individual.

Quote:
In the solution of sending it to the Rangers - what if the ranger it is sent to is someone who voted against the amendment, and that person ignores the request simply because they don't agree with the amendment? And yes, I can very much see that happening.
There is no request to ignore. All of the Rangers plus the Mayor have access to all of the objections sent to Administrator. Are you suggesting there would be a Ranger dishonest and vindictive enough to take a chance on sabotaging the result by deleting emails from the Administrator account before another Ranger had seen them?

In that case, I suppose we could add a clause that the posted results will include the names of the people who objected. That way, if someone didn't see their name on the list, they would know someone had tampered with the results.


Top
Profile
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 10:00 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
One of the first things that this committee needs to decide is whether it is going to give the membership a simple yes or no choice on a single comprehensive, or a ballot in which the members have a choice between several different options.

My preference would be the latter. I would prefer a two part ballot, the first part of which would be a single question asking whether the member approves of amending the Charter to allow for a veto of potential ToE members in general, and the second part of which would include a series of questions that would refine exactly what form the amendment would take. The results of the questions in the second part would only be relevant if the answer to the first part was yes.

I think we could include a question giving several options regarding explanations, ranging from no explanation to the Cerin's proposal

We could also include an option of several different choices of the number of different ToE members that would be required to support a veto, rather then agreeing on one number.

And we could include the suggestion I made before of having the veto option apply to existing members as well as perspective members. But I agree with Ax that idea (which just came to me today) requires more thought.

One option that I would not support including on the ballot, I am sorry to say Cerin, is the option of having the Rangers decide whether to exclude a potential participant from the ToE discussions. It is the ToE participants that need to feel comfortable with new members, not the Rangers. I think that the only fair and correct option is that if anyone is going to have the power to exclude people from the forum, it should be the people effected. I think we need to recognize that ToE is a special forum that needs special rules. I don't think that having the Rangers be the arbiters of this issue would be fair to anyone (including the Rangers themselves) and for that reason I would not support even including this as an option on the ballot.

As for the explanation issue, while I would personally support including different options on this issue as I said above, because I think that Cerin makes some very valid points, I still am continuing to lean in the direction of supporting not requiring any explanation. I am persuaded by Ax and Estel's arguments, and believe that it does come down to a simple issue of people feeling like someone is not trustworthy. I think forcing people to explain exactly why they feel that way would be unfair. Cerin, not everyone has the ability to put in words the way they feel as well as you do (in fact, very few do :love:). I just feel that this is such an emotional issue that forcing people to state logical, rationale reasons is too much to expect. Cerin, I know you disagree with that, and I respect your disagreement. I really think that there are very valid arguments on either side and that's why I think it would be best if we could give the membership a choice on this issue.

Sorry for being longwinded again. :oops:


Top
Profile
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 10:16 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
I agree with your statement about giving the membership a choice. I don't really think it matters who on this committee agrees with what. The duty of the committee is to come up with a ballot that gives choices to the membership, not one choice that a few people feel is correct.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 10:40 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
VtF:

I like your suggestion for overall ballot structure, so long as any combination of the a la carte choices will work together.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 10:43 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Eruname...thanks for the reminder. ;) But I do think in the discussion we are actually discovering some commonalities along with differences, which the proposals floated to the membership will no doubt show.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 15 Sep , 2005 11:20 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
I agree Voronwe :love:

The question is, how would we word something like that? I'm afraid I'm not very good at this sort of thing. I have rare moments of inspiration, and the rest of the time, writing something that makes sense is kind of like trying to pick up a single grain of sand with a fork lift :P


Top
Profile
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 12:11 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
This post, by Steve, in the membership discussion seems like a workable idea
Lidless wrote:
It needs rewording, but how about something along these lines:

In recognition of the special level of trust, sensitivity and comfort required in the Thinking Of England forum as already witnessed by the 3 month / 100 posts rule within the Eligibility Requirements for that forum, we propose the following amendment:

Any current member of the ToE, at any time before a prospective member meets the Eligibility Requirements, may state their objection to the member joining. This will be done in a thread within ToE.

If there are not two supporters, the thread will be deleted and the proposed member be allowed in as per normal. If there are at least two other members that also support the objection, the following will happen:

1 At the time when the prospective member would otherwise meet the Eligibilty Requirements, the original objection thread will be locked and a new thread will start up in the Bike Racks, to which the prospective member will be invited to join.

2 Only current ToE members and the prospective member will be allowed to engage in the debate in that thread. The original objector and the first two supporters of the objection MUST engage in the debate, otherwise the objection is null and void.

3 Debate will be allowed for one week, after which the Bike Rack thread will be locked and there will be a vote within ToE, lasting a week. During both of these weeks, the matter will not be allowed to be discussed within ToE, but will be public in the Bike Racks.

[Quorum / % required to be decided.]

4 If the proposed member is turned down, they will be refused permissions from ToE for one year, after which time they may reapply and the process restarted from the beginning.

At any time the prospective member is allowed into ToE, the original objection thread will be deleted.



The advantages of this set up are as follows:

1: The objectors have to put their money where their mouth is - they have to engage in public debate with the proposed member. This will cut down on any frivolous objections and make it a very serious matter not entered into lightly, which stopping someone joining part of B77 is. There will be no announcements about who is coming up for eligibility - if someone has that strong an objection, it is encumbent upon them to monitor such things, not be spoon-fed information.

2: Since it requires support, the original objection in ToE, if it cannot find enough support, will not even be seen by the prospective member, as it will be deleted before the member joins.

3: With the debate in the Bike Racks, the prospective member will be allowed to state their case.

4: Although people will naturally debate the issue before the Bike Rack thread, a necessity, from when the Bike Rack thread is opened to the end of the vote, all discussion will be public and not behind the prospective poster's back. Transparancy, accountability and equally importantly, representation by both sides. Of course, one cannot monitor PMs, but this is the best we can do.

4: The actual vote has to take place in ToE so as to ensure only ToE members vote. You could have it that votes are sent to the Mayor, but that would mean the Mayor having to keep tally, making sure everyone only voted once, and that all votes come from ToE members. No point really, since a vote in ToE will do all of those things automatically.

5: The prospective member may still gain admittance after a year (or two, or three) - this recognizes the changing membership of active members. If someone decides to leave the board, or not participate anymore in ToE and are worried about what they've written in there, it's up to them to delete it.


Top
Profile
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 12:12 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Quote:
My preference would be the latter. I would prefer a two part ballot, the first part of which would be a single question asking whether the member approves of amending the Charter to allow for a veto of potential ToE members in general, and the second part of which would include a series of questions that would refine exactly what form the amendment would take. The results of the questions in the second part would only be relevant if the answer to the first part was yes.
My initial reaction is that this will lessen chances of the first part passing. For that reason, I would prefer offering the whole package as a yes/no vote.

Quote:
I think we could include a question giving several options regarding explanations, ranging from no explanation to the Cerin's proposal

We could also include an option of several different choices of the number of different ToE members that would be required to support a veto, rather then agreeing on one number.
Voronwe, this is the work that is usually done in committee through votes. Meaning no disrespect, I think this is a terrible idea. Reiterating, I think we should present one concise amendment for an up/down vote, because I think this has the most chance of passing and making quorum.
Quote:
One option that I would not support including on the ballot, I am sorry to say Cerin, is the option of having the Rangers decide whether to exclude a potential participant from the ToE discussions.
Whoa! Where did that come from? That is certainly not part of my proposition.

Quote:
I don't think that having the Rangers be the arbiters of this issue would be fair to anyone (including the Rangers themselves) and for that reason I would not support even including this as an option on the ballot.
According to my proposal, the Rangers will not arbitrate anything. They will collect objections, report the results to ToE, and communicate the substance of the objections to the applicant.

Quote:
I think forcing people to explain exactly why they feel that way would be unfair.

What about fairness to the person being declared untrustworthy?! Honestly, this is so incredibly one-sided I can't believe it.

As I said, I will continue to be vocal in my protest against any amendment that doesn't include this modicum of respect for non-ToE members, and I will have to hope that it fails because I think it is such an affront to our principles of equality, respect and openness.

Quote:
I really think that there are very valid arguments on either side and that's why I think it would be best if we could give the membership a choice on this issue.
I think giving choices is likely to doom the amendment to failure. Are you proposing an IRV on each separate question, then?

Erunáme wrote:
The duty of the committee is to come up with a ballot that gives choices to the membership, not one choice that a few people feel is correct.
That just isn't correct! The committee has always come up with one Charter article that the membership discusses, controversial components removed and is voted up or down. Are we now rewriting history here?!

Axordil, Voronwe, can you please tell me of any other time that a Charter Article or Amendment as been offered as a series of choices? Has it not heretofore been the duty of the committee to come up with the most judicious document we are capable of producing, then offer that to the membership for discussion, removal of controversial components and an up or down vote?


Top
Profile
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 1:13 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
Axordil, Voronwe, can you please tell me of any other time that a Charter Article or Amendment as been offered as a series of choices?
Article 6, the very article that we are discussing.


Top
Profile
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 16 Sep , 2005 1:17 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
The article for amendments does state:
Quote:
The committee will convene in the Jury Room for deciding whether the Charter should be amended and for drafting the amendment. The committee itself will vote on elements of the amendment before presenting a final form to the membership for ratification.

The membership will be given ten full days to discuss the amendment. During that period, anything deemed controversial may be removed and tabled for later consideration, or the amendment may be withdrawn. Following the discussion a yes/no poll will be posted in the thread and members will vote for ten full days, whether or not to ratify the amendment.

A Global email will be sent to all registered member at the start of the discussion and at the start of the vote.
Well, rats, and here I was looking forward to IRVs. :neutral: I guess we were thinking of binding votes.

All right, so we DO have to hash this all out here.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Locked   Page 3 of 5  [ 88 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Jump to: