board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Convention: Ratification

Post Reply   Page 1 of 11  [ 210 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 511 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: Convention: Ratification
Posted: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 4:29 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Convention is in progress. This space now reserved for completed work.
***********************************************************

IV. Our Administrative and Governance Procedures
¶A. Our Charter: Our Charter was drafted by a committee of volunteers who convened on Friday, March 11, 2005. It was ratified by the members, and can be amended in the future, according to the following procedures.

Article 1: Ratification of the Charter
The membership will be given ten days to discuss those parts of the Charter presented by the originating committee. During that period, anything deemed controversial will be removed and tabled for later consideration. Following the discussion a yes/no vote will be held for ten days, two weekends inclusive. In order for this vote to be valid, 30% of the registered members as of March 12, 2005 must vote, that is, thirty-nine (39) out of one hundred and twenty-seven (127) registered members. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the voting members must approve the Charter for it to be adopted. [approved March 17, 2005]

Article 2: Amendments to the Charter
Any items withdrawn for later consideration by the originating committee, and any subsequent changes made to the Charter will be adopted as Amendments. [later in the agenda]

Last edited by Jnyusa on Fri 18 Mar , 2005 3:43 pm, edited 6 times in total.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 5:18 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Next chunk of Agenda:

PART II. Completing Those By-Laws that have already been begun: please pay attention while discussing this section to the distinction between Powers of the Admins and Rights of the Members. Some of these items probably belong under Member Rights.

...A. Administrators

......1. Eligibility (requirements and process)
http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... um=board77

......2. Suggested number, expressed perhaps as a proportion of the membership?
.........a. suggested guideline for distribution by time-zone?
.........b. suggested guideline for cultural diversity?

......3. Routine powers: Suggested so far:
.........a. editing/deleting polls upon request or approval of thread-starter,
.........b. locking/moving threads upon request/approval of thread-starter or when necessary during forum cleanup,
.........c. in case of trolling power to delete threads
.........d. deleting posts in bike-rack forum by uninvited posters and deleting thread at end of dispute
.........e. initiating hearing on a ban
.........f. initiating arbitration process upon member request or without if the problem seems to be serious and reoccurring
.........g. activating new members according to process
.........h. others - to be discussed

......4. Special powers and Emergency powers (currently in discussion is the following:)
.........a. automatic bans / perhaps rephrase to 'immediate bans' ?
.........b. temporary suspension of posting rights, by forum. Suggested:
............i. refusal to participate in a requested arbitration
............ii. refusal to abide by an Arbitration Decision
............iii. invalid email address
............iv. multiple-IDs used for non RP purposes à posting rights only in RP forum (discussed and mostly been agreed upon but not voted on of course)
.........c. cancelled registration: Question: Admin Power or Member Rights issue?
............i. posters who register and visit the board once in order to post ads or spam and do not respond to email contact about policy may have their registrations cancelled after 30 days.
..........ii. Members who have been asked to participate in an Arbitration, or a Hearing on a Ban, and who simply disappear rather than participate, may have their registrations cancelled after 30 days.
..........iii. Inactive members
http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... um=board77

......5. Procedures for using routine, special and emergency powers
.........a. Procedure for creating a new forum
http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... um=board77
.........b. Procedure that must be followed before suspending posting rights

......6. When can an administrator be removed from office: suggested:
.........a. neglecting their duties
.........b. not getting things done in a timely fashion
.........c. trying to take the board into a place not consistent with its purpose
.........d. flaunting authority
.........e. bragging about their 'leader' status
.........f. giving special treatment to their friends
.........g. favoritism
.........h. discouraging members from joining other boards

......7. How is an administrator removed from office. Suggested: will take the form of an arbitration; a decision against the admin will result in the immediate removal of admin powers and being barred from admin position for one year.

......8. How to Contest the decision of an admin.

This post is repeated in the thread entitled: Convention: Admin Powers

Last edited by Jnyusa on Fri 18 Mar , 2005 3:45 pm, edited 6 times in total.

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 3:57 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
A---I lean towards a month. If it were face-to-face and eight hours a day, it wouldn't take a week (the eternal optimist speaks), but under the circumstances I think we should aim for April 11.

Note I say "aim for." If we have some things still unresolved on April 10, an extra day or two won't kill us.

B---The approval process, I think, should have equal parts discussion and poll time, perhaps a week for each. That would still have us ready to resume business as usual by May.

C---Some supermajority seems proper to me, given that these are the rules everyone will live with. Two-thirds or three-fifths pop immediately to mind, but one could make a case for three-fourths, given the fundamental nature of the rules AND the fact that the convention has a pretty wide range of people on it.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 4:35 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
:D

Ok, to business straight away.

A: Ax, I think the first point is about how long the rest of the board is to discuss the stuff we will have discussed before - we are supposed to be done by April 1st! :)

Hmmmh, I think saying a week initially is fine - to be prolonged for another week if there's a problem.

B: I think the poll should be longer than a week. The nine days for the invite polls are usually up pretty quickly. (And discussion in the poll thread doesn't end when the poll comes up, does it?)
I'd say at least 10 days for the poll to stay up, better two weeks.

We'd still have a chance to have everything settled at the end of April that way.

C: big votes like that usually have to get a two-thirds majority. At least that's the way in Germany when they want to change something that's in the constitution. I suppose more than two-thirds are hard to get, although I agree with Ax that ideally it would be much more.

Hmmh, one third of the posters against our ideas would really not be so great, so, yes, maybe something higher would be better. Can't make up my mind on this one just yet.

Ax - why do you think it's meaningful for the vote that the convention has a pretty wide range of people on it?

_________________

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: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 4:43 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Ax, re A. and B. ... these are the two parts of the process for each 'piece' of the constitution that we put up.

If you wanted a month for discussion and equal time for voting, that would be a month for voting too. I think there might be some confusion as to how the committee is going to proceed, so let me offer a clarification.

PART II of the agenda concerns the partial rules we have already created for Admins and use of the Outside Forum. We are going to finish those 'rules' here in committee, and once we have done that I think we can put that part of the constitution up for discussion and vote. It seems prudent to do that because it will give us a working governance structure.

The question is: once we've finished doing here whatever we do in PART II, how long should the membership be given to discuss it before we put it to a vote, and how long should the vote run. The time period will begin from whenever we finish drafting those rule in here.

I don't think that we need a month of discussion before voting, but we might need more than a week. Alandriel had suggested an 11 day voting period for serious topics, and I would think that at least that amount of time should be given for discussion as well.

I agree with you that simple majority should not be the rule here - we need to define a quorum for this purpose ... and how large the quorum is might necessitate a longer voting period as well. I'm sort of thinking in terms of two weeks of discussion and a two-weeks voting period.

As to the size of the quorum ... three-fourths does not sound unreasonable to me given the nature of what we are doing, and the fact that issues whihc prove to be controversial are going to be pulled out and reserved for later hammering.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:01 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
jny--
OK--clarification accepted. :) Gotta slow down.

TH--
I like your timetable. Getting the board running as normal by May 1 is a good goal (Assuming what we do gets accepted).

As far as the wide range of people goes, I think that having an assortment of backgrounds, nationalities, and viewpoints to mesh together (or bang heads together :D) is preferable to having a small handful of folks, no matter how qualified, put something together. Not as easy, but better in the long run for everyone concerned, since the chances of a significant idea being missed are greatly reduced.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 6:52 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
having an assortment

This was Nin's point, too, and I think it's the proper approach. Things actually go faster if the committee itself is diverse, than if the committee is homogenous and comes up with things that a diverse board does not understand or agree with.

*****

With three people weighing in so far, it looks like the pieces of the constitution will be wanted 10-days to 2 weeks of discussion and a similar time for voting, and that we want at least 2/3 approval and preferably more.

How is the rest of the committee feeling about this?

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 7:22 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
I'll come back with more later, but just quickly for now:

A -- I still don't understand this question. Is this discussion time for the board, or disussion time for membership at large? I'm frankly seeing both versions above.

Jn said: How long will the board be allowed to discuss ... and how long should the membership be given to discuss it ...

I guess the latter is meant?


B -- 10 days, covering two weekends.

C -- I recommend a three-fourth supermajority for ratification, with a quorum defined by at least half of all elegible voters voting to approve the constitution. In other words, if there were a hundred people, 51-17 gets it done, but 49-0 doesn't, and 74-25 doesn't either.


--Faramond, California delegate


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 7:25 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Faramond--

Ooh, good point about the quorum necessity. I think we had all been assuming near-total turnout, but that is unlikely, even here...

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 7:39 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
I hope that a formal deadline will help us to stick to it, but it might also have the counter-effect of wishing to finish the document, even if parts are not yet satisfactory (do you say so in English?).

A.) Our discussion time should be as short as possible, as long as necessary. My aim would be three max, four weeks, reagarding there is the Easter week in it, in which discussions might slow down.

B.) The poll among members should be open for tne or eleven days, but include in all cases two week-ends. The length of the discussion is for me more difficult to fix. It would depend on the nember of issues raised by members against the decided points. If after first lecture of the document/documents, it's quickly obvious that they are well accepted by the community of members, I see no sense in putting the poll ahead instead of making function the rules which the board should keep afterwards.

C.) German like truehobbit, I would aim for a two/third majority at least. 75% majority of voters would be ideal. I am pondering Faramond's idea of participation now. Living in Switzerland, which is a direct democracy where we vote very often (up to ten times per year and on all kind of issues), participation is not a criteria for validation. I think at the end of the process all board members should be directed via PM towards the polls, if they don't vote, it's their choice.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 7:49 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Does silence then equal consent? We would need to spell that out when we present the document, very, very clearly.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 8:16 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
I think the Quorum issue is a tricky one. It may be difficult to get even 30% of posters to post. Most people are inclined to trust that others know what they are doing until problems start surfacing. I know I never even read the TOS at TORC when I joined. It was only when there were issues that I started to take notice. We may have the same problem here in that people are generally happy, and happy people do not feel the need to vote.

I would recommend a quorum of 30% maximum with a 75% majority. Abstaining from voting should be considered as consent to abide by the result.

Considering the fact that these discussions are open now and can be discussed on the Business Board I would leave a minimum debating time after the agreement by the board. Those interested will almost certainly be following the discussions and will flag issues as they see them. Those who are not interested will not read a 3 or 4 page constitution. I would suggest 14 days including poll time. The poll can include two weekends as Nin suggests.

Alatar

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 8:21 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Faramond wrote:

Jn said: How long will the board be allowed to discuss ... and how long should the membership be given to discuss it ...
Faramond, I'm afraid we aren't the board! :P ;)
The membership is the board and the board is the membership.
(But I think I understand the confusion: "board" could be taken to mean something like "committee", right? I'm pretty sure Jny meant it in the sense of "messageboard", though. :) )

I've been thinking about a quorum, too. I think Faramond's idea of 50% of the membership is good. In politics, I've always thought that if less than half of the possible voters turn up for an election it should be invalid.
Question is whether it'll be possible to get that - but if we call upon all members by PM or e-mail to give their vote (good thought, Nin!), I think it should be possible.

And, yes, if someone doesn't vote or speak up, we can only conclude they are fine with everything.
Qui tacet consentire videtur. ;) :D
Ax wrote:
As far as the wide range of people goes, I think that having an assortment of backgrounds, nationalities, and viewpoints to mesh together (or bang heads together ) is preferable to having a small handful of folks, no matter how qualified, put something together. Not as easy, but better in the long run for everyone concerned, since the chances of a significant idea being missed are greatly reduced.
Absolutely agree! :D
I just thought you were thinking that this would make what we come up with harder to get accepted by the board, while I thought that it would more likely be the opposite - but I guess you meant it would just take us longer to come to an agreement.

_________________

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
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 8:29 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
That's it, yes. But I could be wrong...it could make agreement easier, since people will be more prone to compromise if there are multiple ideas floating around rather than just two, say.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 10:47 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
(A and B) I like Jn's suggestion of two weeks for discussion followed by two weeks for voting--that way both periods are certain to include two weekends. Having the entire process run four weeks would make it almost impossible to miss, if a member is at all active.

(C) Trickier. I think 75% majority is good--the board should be solidly behind its own structure and rules, and once they're adopted, changes should be hard to make!

As for the quorum issue: Apathy is something I hope the culture of this board will discourage. We have all seen the consequences of a disparity in goals between the governing structure and the members of a message board. Although our governing structure will never be entrenched and its proceedings will be as transparent as possible, transparency means nothing if people don't bother to use it to inform themselves.

My immediate response is to favor Faramond's 50% quorum.

However, I do see a problem for the future: inactive members. This is something churches have to deal with in their own governance, periodically going in and pruning the rolls. If we don't do this, we could end up like TORC, with a huge majority of members who never post and who may not have shown up on the boards in years. It would make getting a quorum difficult.

So, in defining a quorum we must also define eligibility. Right now almost everyone is active, but that won't always be the case. So who counts toward the quorum?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 10:58 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I agree with everyone. :)

I warned you that I probably wouldn't be that helpful. ;)


Top
Profile Quote
Lord_Morningstar
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 12:42 am
Offline
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia
 
Quote:
...A. Duration of deliberations How long will the board be allowed to discuss the pieces of the constitution that we put up for discussion?
I think we’ll need to work out exactly what issues are going to need to be debated before we can know this. We can start by planning for 2 weeks or whatever and work from there.
Quote:
...B. Duration of poll How long will the approval vote run?
Ditto.
Quote:
...C. What percentage must approve?
75% sounds good, but it may have to be practically reduced to 2/3. We’ll have to see how this works.

Are we having a general referendum or do we (the committee) get to decide? Practically, I'd go for the latter, although we could put the final document up and see if there are any objections. Of course, the procedure for Constitutional change will come into effect immediatley, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 12:52 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Future voter apathy

Yes, excellent points, Prim, about future member apathy, and the difficulty of applying a quorum to future constitutional votes, such as amendments and such. Is there any way of tracking posts made by posters in each month, to sort of establish a running baseline of active members upon which to base a quorum?


Meeting the Quorum

As far as meeting the quorum this time around, I think we're going to have to be very active in 'goosing' people to get involved and read and vote. And I guess elegible voters this time will be anyone who is a member as of March 18. (Invites were evidently suspended on March 7th until April 1) I just want to reiterate that my proposal is not technically a quorum of 50 percent of people voting, but a quorum of at least 50 percent of people voting yes. Call me a starry-eyed fool, but I think this constitution should be at least rudimentarily understood and agree to by at least half of the people here to be ratified.


Discussion and Voting times

I'm sold on two weeks for discussion and two weeks for voting.


Voting procedure

I don't know if this has already been decided, or is for later, but I'll say something now. Rather than have a thread poll, I think there should be two stickied threads, one for yes votes and one for no votes. You vote by posting in the appropriate thread and declaring your vote a certain way. In this case I don't think there should be secret ballots --- if people want to vote no, we need to also know why they are voting no, so we can quickly identify and fix problems with the Constitution if it can't be ratified the first time. Those who voted no would be strongly encouraged to give the exact reason why they were voting that way.


Argument against using a thread poll for ratification

Let me ask, do admins know who voted in thread polls? Otherwise an alternate RP identity could come in and double vote, and maybe this isn't likely, but we don't need that even being a possibility. The other disadvantage with thread polls is that one can't change ones vote. Someone might vote one way at the start of the two week voting period, and then through continuing discussion that takes place change his or her mind, and I think that should be allowed. This isn't a traditional political vote.


The silent ones

My philosophy is to not assume anything from those who do not speak up except to assume they are apathetic. I do not view it as passive acceptance --- it is simply disengagement. I recommend we make it as hard as possible to remain disengaged when the time to discuss and vote comes. The problem with having hordes of disengaged is that they can become engaged, and quite enraged, when something they "passively accepted" that they really had no knowledge of suddenly bites them. The people here need to know what they are agreeing to, not just agree to it. There are two ways for governence to be secret, and both are corrosive. One is for those in power to actively conceal things (as with Torc), and one is for the membership to conceal things from themselves through their torpor and apathy. The first possibility we are determined to avoid, but we also need to make sure we avoid the second.


Okay, that's enough for now.


Faramond, Earth delegate


Top
Profile Quote
Lord_Morningstar
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 1:17 am
Offline
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia
 
My recommendations:

1) No limit is placed on the discussion. None of us have any interest in delaying the completion of the Constitution, and I’d prefer it if we had all the time we needed, be it a week or a month. We then put the complete Constitution up for referendum.

2) For voting, we poll opposition to the Constitution rather than support for it. In other words, rather than trying to get 150 people to vote yes, we simply say that the Constitution will be passed unless 50 people or more vote no. If so, we return to the drawing board.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 1:47 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Process clarification:

What I anticipate (and this might have to change) is that the constitution will be presented in four parts to the membership:
(1) Stuff about the Admins
(2) Stuff about the Outside Forum
(3) Additional by-laws we come up with
(4) Mission statement, key principles and goals

Each of these would get its own discussion and vote. During the discussion period we would pull out things where the membership is clearly in disagreement or controversy. Whatever is left is what goes to a vote. This speeds both the discussion and approval process. But the leftover issues have to go back to committee and/or to the membership at the end for resolution.

*******

Prim: So, in defining a quorum we must also define eligibility. Right now almost everyone is active, but that won't always be the case. So who counts toward the quorum?

One of the "routine powers of admins" that I intended to propose but forgot to put on the outline (outline will be expanded as we come to each part) is the power of admins to purge membership. I think that registrations should be cancelled after a year of inactivity, and after 30 days if someone runs away from an arbitration. But the time period matters less than the principle. We can control the quorum by keeping careful control over the currency of the members.

Lord M: I think we’ll need to work out exactly what issues are going to need to be debated before we can know this.

First it will be the complete guidelines for Admins.

Faramond: I don't know if this has already been decided, or is for later, but I'll say something now. Rather than have a thread poll, I think there should be two stickied threads, one for yes votes and one for no votes. You vote by posting in the appropriate thread and declaring your vote a certain way. In this case I don't think there should be secret ballots --- if people want to vote no, we need to also know why they are voting no, so we can quickly identify and fix problems with the Constitution if it can't be ratified the first time. Those who voted no would be strongly encouraged to give the exact reason why they were voting that way.

The discussion process should be a reasonable substitute for the "transparent no." Things that seem really objectionable will be taken out.

What we are trying to avoid is a situation where we have to get all of the membership agreeing on exactly how everything is going to be done before we have anything to put to a vote. We'll come up with our suggestions here, post them for discussion (one part at a time), pull out what lots of people don't like, and put the remainder to a vote.

That way we'll get basic governance in place fast.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 11  [ 210 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 511 »
Jump to: