Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ReadyOrNot

Feature Change Request

Recommended Posts

Finds should not be allowed on an archived cache. If TPTB disallow Virtual Caches, then Non-Existent caches should be disallowed. I cannot think of a situation that conforms to the rules of geocaching.com where a person would log a find on an archived cache.

 

If we are going to allow found it logs on archived caches, then drop all the rules and allow virtual caches. (I don't think virtual caches should be allowed, but I'm trying to lay-out the logic behind my argument).

Share this post


Link to post

What if I find the cache and the owner archives it before I have the chance to log it?

Share this post


Link to post

What if I find the cache and the owner archives it before I have the chance to log it?

 

Allow a 24 hour or 48 hour or a week grace period perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post

I have logged finds on archived caches before, but provided evidence (photos, log sheet, container, etc.) of their existence in my logs. I occasionally enjoy doing "rescue missions" of abandoned caches - I've even posted DNFs on archived caches.

 

I'm not sure I follow your logic of trying to tie archived caches to virtual caches.

 

Until I started hearing about abuses of logging archived caches for the sake of increasing find counts, I would have disagreed with your request. But now, these abusers are planting seeds of oppression, so I wouldn't mind seeing more rules - at least I know where to place blame for my loss of freedom. :o

Edited by budd-rdc

Share this post


Link to post

Chilehead has a bookmark list of archived caches that still exist. what about these, jsut cuz its archived doesnt mean its not there, it may mean the owner doesnt want to maintain it It lives! list

Share this post


Link to post

forgot to mention that users can have there archived caches locked so that no more logs can be made on it.

Share this post


Link to post

I have logged finds on archived caches before, but provided evidence (photos, log sheet, container, etc.) of its existence in my logs. I occasionally enjoy doing "rescue missions" on abandoned caches - I've even posted DNFs on archived caches.

 

I'm not sure I follow your logic of trying to tie archived caches to virtual caches.

 

Until I started hearing about abuses of logging archived caches for the sake of increasing find counts, I would have disagreed with your request. But now, these abusers are planting seeds of oppression, so I wouldn't mind seeing more rules - at least I know where to place blame for my loss of freedom. :o

 

I think the other log types should still be allowed. Heck, I've went hunting after an archived cache before with an old printout and didn't realize it till I got back. It's always nice to share my stupidity with a note log or DNF log.

 

As far as my logic, I'm justing tying together the fact that virtual caches are not allowed because they don't conform to the rules -- As you mentioned, moving pocket caches found through archived caches certainly seems to be skirting the rules also. That's the only connection i'm trying to make between the two.

Share this post


Link to post

You are assuming an archived cache means it is not physically there anymore. That is not always the case. I have found archived caches YEARS after they were archived because the owner never removed them. Sometimes I remove them, sometimes I leave the cache as a bonus cache if one of my own is nearby.

 

More rules are not needed.

Share this post


Link to post

forgot to mention that users can have there archived caches locked so that no more logs can be made on it.

 

Unfortunately, the problem is the cache owners allowing people to use their archived caches to increase their found count. Therefore, another solution is necessary to put a stop to the abuse of this loophole.

Share this post


Link to post

You are assuming an archived cache means it is not physically there anymore. That is not always the case. I have found archived caches YEARS after they were archived because the owner never removed them. Sometimes I remove them, sometimes I leave the cache as a bonus cache if one of my own is nearby.

 

More rules are not needed.

 

Whether or not it is physically there or not doesn't change the fact that it is archived. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a cache is archived, it should be removed. You could adopt the cache and enable it or publish a new listing. There has to be a reason that it got archived, correct? (BTW- I'm not talking about a new rule, I'm talking about fixing a loophole in the website)

Edited by ReadyOrNot

Share this post


Link to post

When my daughter and I started geocaching in 2002, she was 8 years old and we set up "The Leprechauns" as a team account. A year ago, my then-11 year old daughter said she wanted her own account, because Daddy was finding so many caches on his own. She wanted to keep track of how many *she* had found. It turned out to be around 350. She went back and retro-logged all of the caches she found from 2002 to 2005. It was amazing how much detail she remembered! We were sure to explain the circumstances for the late log, using a stock sentence that was pasted into each one, and each log was entered using the correct date of the find. As you might imagine, a good number of the caches she had found had since been archived.

 

Not a single cache owner questioned the retroactive log by my daughter. Instead, she received several messages congratulating her on getting her own account, and on her impressive record of cache finds.

 

Your proposal would effectively prohibit someone like my daughter from retroactively logging an accurate record of their finds. It is fairly common as kids grow older, teams split into individual accounts, etc. Why would you want to prohibit what many view as perfectly legitimate logging activity?

Share this post


Link to post

What about people who are months behind in their logging. We have a local cacher who writes the best dang logs I've ever seen. He's got over 5000 finds. He logs them when he gets around to it - sometimes six months later or more.

 

What about people that have a "family" account, and then one of the kids wants to have their own account two years down the road. They went out and found the caches - so why shouldn't they be allowed to go back and log the finds retrospectively?

 

TPTB have already said that they don't care WHAT people do with their logs. If you want to, go ahead and submit a cache page for yourself, and make it not visible to the reviewers. Then call it "my warehouse". Log ALL of your finds on that cache instead of the right cache pages. So what?

 

...everyone should do what they think is right and STOP worrying about what the other guy is doing
I would also add that cachers should probably stop worrying about how others feel regarding what they are doing.

 

I agree that this is an area where we don't need any more rules. I'm not defending the action, mind you. I just don't think we need another "rule" to combat this behavior. If someone logs an archived cache for a cache that isn't there, or for temp caches at an event, people will figure that out.

Share this post


Link to post

Your proposal would effectively prohibit someone like my daughter from retroactively logging an accurate record of their finds. It is fairly common as kids grow older, teams split into individual accounts, etc. Why would you want to prohibit what many view as perfectly legitimate logging activity?

 

There are plenty of people in these forums that feel virtual caches should be allowed. Or logless caches. Or I've read about confirmation #'s. Why not allow all this if it's purely based upon what a small number view as acceptable? I think the majority of archived cache logs that are being done are these stupid pocket caches which is a clear side-stepping of the rules. Should we just drop all the rules and allow a free for all (which is what is happening with the archived caches)?

Share this post


Link to post

How about that? Hamster-boy and I think alike sometimes. :o

Share this post


Link to post

Is their logging of a pocket cache on an archived cache page in any way diminishing your enjoyment of Geocaching?

Share this post


Link to post

Ahhh, the motivation is clearer. It's another thread about pocket caches. A narrower request advocating that the abuse of archived caches by their owners ought to result in the listing being locked might be well received by a significant percentage of the forum community. Maybe not by TPTB, though. But at least such a suggestion would be targeted towards what's bothering you.

 

Instead we have a thread that hits ants with sledgehammers.

Share this post


Link to post

Your proposal would effectively prohibit someone like my daughter from retroactively logging an accurate record of their finds. It is fairly common as kids grow older, teams split into individual accounts, etc. Why would you want to prohibit what many view as perfectly legitimate logging activity?

 

There are plenty of people in these forums that feel virtual caches should be allowed. Or logless caches. Or I've read about confirmation #'s. Why not allow all this if it's purely based upon what a small number view as acceptable? I think the majority of archived cache logs that are being done are these stupid pocket caches which is a clear side-stepping of the rules. Should we just drop all the rules and allow a free for all (which is what is happening with the archived caches)?

My daughter has never logged a pocket cache. She thinks they're stupid. 100% of her finds on archived caches did not involve asking someone if they were glad to see her.

 

My daughter generally disliked virtual caches that disappointed her. She invented the "Wow" test.

 

If I told my daughter that there was a forum thread seeking to tie together pocket caches, virtual caches and her logs on archived caches, she would most likely put on her iPod and leave the room. She does that a lot when I tell her what's going on in the forums.

Share this post


Link to post

Define abuse .. generally I think of it as harming somebody. Who is getting harmed I some cacher logs bogus finds? Who really cares? My stats are for my purposes only. Last I checked, Jeremy STILL wasn't handing out prizes.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the majority of archived cache logs that are being done are these stupid pocket caches ...

 

And you reached this conclusion how?

Do you have access to this data?

Edited by Stunod

Share this post


Link to post

Is their logging of a pocket cache on an archived cache page in any way diminishing your enjoyment of Geocaching?

 

Ok fair enough. Then I would assume you wouldn't mind me creating a website with puzzle cache solutions and post it in these forums??? After all, it's purely voluntary if you want to go look at the solutions and wont hinder your enjoyment of caching right? I'll get right on that and assume you won't remove the link? I'll wait for your reply before starting this project.

 

It's cheating. It's cheating. It's cheating. Maybe it's just that one form of cheating is acceptable and another is not? Please help me understand the difference.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the majority of archived cache logs that are being done are these stupid pocket caches ...

 

And you reached this conclusion how?

Do you have access to this data?

 

If it were a fact would it change your mind? If so, maybe somebody can run that query.

Share this post


Link to post

Define abuse .. generally I think of it as harming somebody. Who is getting harmed I some cacher logs bogus finds? Who really cares? My stats are for my purposes only. Last I checked, Jeremy STILL wasn't handing out prizes.

 

Please see my post regarding puzzle caches. I will create the website to prove my point if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post

Define abuse .. generally I think of it as harming somebody. Who is getting harmed I some cacher logs bogus finds? Who really cares? My stats are for my purposes only. Last I checked, Jeremy STILL wasn't handing out prizes.

 

Please see my post regarding puzzle caches. I will create the website to prove my point if necessary.

 

There ARE some actions you can take on your own. If a particular abuser is annoying you, take note of the person's name. There's no law preventing you from mocking the abuser behind the person's back at events.

 

I wouldn't escalate the situation by posting solutions to puzzle caches, since you might be compromising people who had nothing to do with the abuses. (I see too many people do silly things "just to prove a point" in my life already)

 

Now, if you are in the minority and everyone else is cheating around you, time to take defensive measures - be sure to tell your families and friends that Geocaching should be avoided since everyone cheats. At least you are saving the people you care from the corruption of this sport.

Share this post


Link to post

Is their logging of a pocket cache on an archived cache page in any way diminishing your enjoyment of Geocaching?

 

Ok fair enough. Then I would assume you wouldn't mind me creating a website with puzzle cache solutions and post it in these forums??? After all, it's purely voluntary if you want to go look at the solutions and wont hinder your enjoyment of caching right? I'll get right on that and assume you won't remove the link? I'll wait for your reply before starting this project.

 

It's cheating. It's cheating. It's cheating. Maybe it's just that one form of cheating is acceptable and another is not? Please help me understand the difference.

 

The puzzle aspect IS different, and a poor analogy.

 

c9b41bd6-ac19-4484-a785-adc435fa5ffb.jpg

 

Someone putting out the solutions to puzzles is hurting the person that took the time to create the puzzle, and reducing the enjoyment of those who wish to actually solve the puzzle without help.

 

Someone logging a non-GC.com cache, or pocket cache, or temp event cache on an archived cache page WITH THE CONSENT OF THE CACHE PAGE OWNER is a matter between the cache owner and the logger and their own ethics. It is not hurting YOU in any way.

 

Even I, a person who very much lives in a Black and White world, can see those shades of gray. And worrying about what someone ELSE is doing with their find count is not something for which I'm not going to spend any time and effort.

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post

Please see my post regarding puzzle caches. I will create the website to prove my point if necessary.

 

Too late. It already exists, but I won't post the link.

Share this post


Link to post

Stupid question: just what the heck is a pocket cache? Sounds like if you meet somebody on the trail you log a find for that on an archived cache? Why is it called a pocket cache?

Share this post


Link to post

Please see my post regarding puzzle caches. I will create the website to prove my point if necessary.

 

Too late. It already exists, but I won't post the link.

Yep. It was discussed here, and the vast majority of the community just dismissed the site as stoopid. It is out there. Big deal. People are still enjoying the challenge of solving puzzle caches, finding the container and logging their finds.

 

Stupid question: just what the heck is a pocket cache? Sounds like if you meet somebody on the trail you log a find for that on an archived cache? Why is it called a pocket cache?

Because the original form was a small cache with a log, carried in the holder's pocket at an event. Hence the phrase was coined, "is that a cache in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me." It was arguably innovative and fun... the first couple times.

Share this post


Link to post

The puzzle aspect IS different, and a poor analogy.

 

A person who wants to solve the puzzle without cheating can still do so. It's only hurting the person who is cheating because it doesn't force honest people to cheat does it? I agree with you 99% of the time, but you are wrong in this case. Answer these questions:

 

1) How is me cheating at a puzzle cache hurting any other cachers who choose not to cheat

2) How does me releasing the answers to puzzle caches force non-cheaters to cheat

3) How is me cheating at a puzzle cache hurting the cache owner in any way.

 

Thanks!

Edited by ReadyOrNot

Share this post


Link to post

The point that is being missed here is that if cheating is occuring a solution should be sought so that cheating does not occur. Noone is offering any solutions here (well, I offered a solution)... We can either accept the cheating (in which case all cheating should be accepted then) or try to limit cheating by making changes to loopholes that get taken advantage of. Noone is talking about changing the rules here, only enforcing existing rules. If existing rules aren't going to be enforced, then don't have the rules in the first place.

 

EDIT: I'd recommend reading the thread "Fake Profile, Fake Finds - What To Do? " because it mimics this topic in a lot of ways.

Edited by ReadyOrNot

Share this post


Link to post

Something should be done about pocket caches and the like but for a lot of reasons - logging of archived caches needs to be alloed at least for a little while after the archive. This however, would just lead to people creating caches - archiving after a week although they never existed and then still faking it. Not sure what the right answer is. It concerns me but won't stop me from having fun caching.

Share this post


Link to post

If you are looking for a real solution, then you need to go right to the root cause:

 

FIND COUNTS

 

The fact that they are publicly viewable by anyone is the problem. Make it private by default. This might not seem to solve the problem on the surface, but it does - the burden of "proof" shifts from the GC.com website to the individual player. A boaster's claim can be shot down easier, since it might hearsay, or it might have been fibbed with computer "editing tools." This doesn't change the fact that you can share your find counts with trusted players for friendly competition.

 

GC.com can take the austere measure of banning leaderboard sites, too, with claims of scraping and bandwidth abuse. Additional way to reduce the meaning of FIND COUNTS. :D

 

If the above is successful, then we might not even need to crack down on high profile individuals who risk bad publicity to the sport. :o

 

Personally, I don't see the need for these at the moment, since the abusers are a very small minority. Let's hope it stays that way.

Share this post


Link to post

It think it's a fair reqeust but also creates a fair amount of probelms.

 

Problem one. I found the cache because the owner hadn't removed it yet.

 

Problem two. A team split up or one of the kids grew up and wants to back log their own caches.

 

Problem three: I completley forget to log a cache and realize it 6 months later and try to log it.

 

Problem four: Some caches are archived that are valid. Case in point. The Yellow Jeep. (which can no longer be logged)

 

There are other reasons to allow the logging of an archived cache. It's also abused.

 

I think the solution isn't a sheer ban on them because it creates more problems than it solved. However the ability to to lock down the ones being abused once you can derive a bright line test for what abuse is maybe a better way. Plus that ability seems to exist now.

Share this post


Link to post

As a second thought I would like to see the ability to toggle no more logs on an archived cache as the owner. There are times when I may need to lock it down. Like when the land manager wants it shut down and is watching the logs.

 

Most of the time I'd leave it unlocked the same way most of us leave archived caches as visible. This creates the same problems I've pointed out above though.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

As a second thought I would like to see the ability to toggle no more logs on an archived cache as the owner. There are times when I may need to lock it down. Like when the land manager wants it shut down and is watching the logs.

 

Most of the time I'd leave it unlocked the same way most of us leave archived caches as visible. This creates the same problems I've pointed out above though.

 

Like I just posted in another thread, if everything is left up to the cache owner, let's get rid of the rules and reviewers and just make it a free for all..

 

This is far too complicated for me.. I'm going to go find some caches. I'm not cheating. If you are one of the cheaters, BITE ME!

 

I'm tired of geocaching and am hereby resigning (JUST KIDDING!!!!) Carry on! I'm gonna go get some caches.. If I run across a cheater though, I'm going to beat you with a bat! :o

Share this post


Link to post

Finds should not be allowed on an archived cache. If TPTB disallow Virtual Caches, then Non-Existent caches should be disallowed. I cannot think of a situation that conforms to the rules of geocaching.com where a person would log a find on an archived cache.

 

If we are going to allow found it logs on archived caches, then drop all the rules and allow virtual caches. (I don't think virtual caches should be allowed, but I'm trying to lay-out the logic behind my argument).

 

I offer 2 examples from my own profile that illustrate finds on archived caches that I believe are completely legit.

 

archived because one person logged a DNF, and cache owner did not go check before archiving it. Honestly, I'd be willing to bet that the little "cammo painted pill bottle" is still in the cedar tree where I found it 2 years ago. :o

 

another example of "geo-litter" that has likely not been retrieved. Or if it has...no indication has been made via a log. I probably should have just "cleaned it up" myself...

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that at some point logging of an archived cache should be stopped. However, it is really tricky to figure out when that would be.

 

A couple of examples:

 

A couple of years ago we were on vacation and found a great cache. When we got home, 2 weeks later, I went to log the cache to discover that the owner archived the day after we found it because they thought it had been out long enough. If archiving had immediately prevented my logging it we would have missed out on a legitimate find. Some people go on longer vacation, 4 to 6 weeks without internet access.

 

The second example involved a cache that was archived because the individual was no longer able to maintain it and a couple of people hadn't found the multi.. I had a good idea it still existed and did find it. When I recorded that fact in the log, arrangements were made to manage it and the cache was in existence for another 2 years.

 

So, I don't when the point should be, but I would think at least 6 months before cache logging is prevented, but it should occur at some point.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

It is my opinion that no one will sway the OP from his opinion. So here is a thought. Don't try. Both sides have stated their opinion. its stalled. I say we let it fall off the page. :o

Share this post


Link to post

It is my opinion that no one will sway the OP from his opinion. So here is a thought. Don't try. Both sides have stated their opinion. its stalled. I say we let it fall off the page. :ph34r:

 

I didn't know the game was to change my opinion? I'd like the problem to be fixed personally. The debate is whether it's a 'problem' or not. I can understand the logic from both sides of the argument. I've just always been a bit more geared towards rules and regulations versus chaos and anarchy. Just my opinion :o

Share this post


Link to post

The solution doesn't have to be a site-change, just a consensus of what is acceptable.

 

Just because you can do doesn't mean it is right or acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post

With all the repetitive threads, it looks like the cache puritans had a revival meeting.

Share this post


Link to post

As a second thought I would like to see the ability to toggle no more logs on an archived cache as the owner. There are times when I may need to lock it down. Like when the land manager wants it shut down and is watching the logs.

 

Most of the time I'd leave it unlocked the same way most of us leave archived caches as visible. This creates the same problems I've pointed out above though.

If that's an issue, you can ask your reviewer to do that.

Share this post


Link to post

It think it's a fair reqeust but also creates a fair amount of probelms.

 

Problem one. I found the cache because the owner hadn't removed it yet.

If the owner hadn't removed the cahce then why did the owner archive it?

Problem two. A team split up or one of the kids grew up and wants to back log their own caches.

 

Problem three: I completley forget to log a cache and realize it 6 months later and try to log it.

Simple not allow FOUND IT logs AFTER the archive date.

Problem four: Some caches are archived that are valid. Case in point. The Yellow Jeep. (which can no longer be logged)

eh?

There are other reasons to allow the logging of an archived cache. It's also abused.

Like the reason to be able to place caches closer than .1 miles

or the reason to make it a virtual cache

or the reason to make it a moving cache

I think the solution isn't a sheer ban on them because it creates more problems than it solved. However the ability to to lock down the ones being abused once you can derive a bright line test for what abuse is maybe a better way. Plus that ability seems to exist now.

Share this post


Link to post

As a second thought I would like to see the ability to toggle no more logs on an archived cache as the owner. There are times when I may need to lock it down. Like when the land manager wants it shut down and is watching the logs.

 

Most of the time I'd leave it unlocked the same way most of us leave archived caches as visible. This creates the same problems I've pointed out above though.

 

I second the motion to allow cache owners to toggle FOUNT IT logs on and off for archived caches. If cache owners are truely expected to manage their cache pages then give us the proper tools to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

You are assuming an archived cache means it is not physically there anymore. That is not always the case. I have found archived caches YEARS after they were archived because the owner never removed them. Sometimes I remove them, sometimes I leave the cache as a bonus cache if one of my own is nearby.

 

More rules are not needed.

 

Agreed. More rules are not needed. But as long as archived caches are able to be logged why should archived caches be exempt from the cache listing requirements and guidelines?

Share this post


Link to post

I found a cache that had been archived a several years ago, before I even started geocaching. The cache was never picked up by the owner and was still in great shape. It looked almost new. I had to get help from a more experienced cacher to find the right cache page to log it under. Luckily, this person had found it before it was archived. I logged the cache and it was a legitimate find in my book, though it was a bit accidental. I don't think any changes are needed.

Share this post


Link to post

I found a cache that had been archived a several years ago, before I even started geocaching. The cache was never picked up by the owner and was still in great shape. It looked almost new. I had to get help from a more experienced cacher to find the right cache page to log it under. Luckily, this person had found it before it was archived. I logged the cache and it was a legitimate find in my book, though it was a bit accidental. I don't think any changes are needed.

Congrats on your find.

 

Your example is a reason why changes are needed. What if someone was to place a newly activated cache within' a few feet of the old archived cache. Since there is no way to search archived caches chances are slim that many would know that the archived cache still existed. All kinds of confusion can then happen when cachers find the wrong cache. Also what happenes when the archived cache falls in to disrepair? Do you make a NEED MAINTENANCE log on an archived cache?

 

You should email the owner and find out what they want done with it. You may be able to adopt the cache and enable it so everyone in your area can enjoy the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Abandoned and orphaned cache are always a problem. But, what if the archived cache is listed on another site or just shared amongst friends? You certainly shouldn't be walking off with viable caches.

 

You'd have the same issues with private caches and those listed on other sites, even letterboxes.

 

The problem here is the lack of encouraging folks to properly identify their caches. Contact information in or on the cache is a good idea and would certainly help in situations like this.

Share this post


Link to post

Abandoned and orphaned cache are always a problem. But, what if the archived cache is listed on another site or just shared amongst friends? You certainly shouldn't be walking off with viable caches.

 

You'd have the same issues with private caches and those listed on other sites, even letterboxes.

 

The problem here is the lack of encouraging folks to properly identify their caches. Contact information in or on the cache is a good idea and would certainly help in situations like this.

 

You bring up an interesting point that I never thought about before, which is moving unacceptable caches to other caching sites. This is a very special moment for me because I am actually conceding to CoyoteRed on a point. Wow! Miracles do happen! :D

Share this post


Link to post

Abandoned and orphaned cache are always a problem. But, what if the archived cache is listed on another site or just shared amongst friends? You certainly shouldn't be walking off with viable caches.

 

You'd have the same issues with private caches and those listed on other sites, even letterboxes.

 

The problem here is the lack of encouraging folks to properly identify their caches. Contact information in or on the cache is a good idea and would certainly help in situations like this.

 

Agreed, and I still stand by the posts that I made during the Great GC and TC Debate. Always attempt to contact cache owner.

 

However, if someone archived their cache listing so that they could list the cache on another caching site then why are they still allowing NEW found it logs on their archived listing on GC? Why doesn't the cache owner just keep the listing active on GC and list it on the other site as well?

Share this post


Link to post

Abandoned and orphaned cache are always a problem. But, what if the archived cache is listed on another site or just shared amongst friends? You certainly shouldn't be walking off with viable caches.

 

You'd have the same issues with private caches and those listed on other sites, even letterboxes.

 

The problem here is the lack of encouraging folks to properly identify their caches. Contact information in or on the cache is a good idea and would certainly help in situations like this.

 

Agreed, and I still stand by the posts that I made during the Great GC and TC Debate. Always attempt to contact cache owner.

 

However, if someone archived their cache listing so that they could list the cache on another caching site then why are they still allowing NEW found it logs on their archived listing on GC? Why doesn't the cache owner just keep the listing active on GC and list it on the other site as well?

 

It could be that they have abandoned gc.com and don't check on the listing anymore. I would also agree, allow the cache owner to disallow found it logs after archiving. Or as TPTB, when an archived cache is being abused, turn off found it logging. I bet this would nearly resolve the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...