Jump to content

Is mentioning an upcoming event in a log REALLY advertising?


joespaz
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I don't think you have anything to worry about. Groundspeak has never had an issue with this kind of stuff in the logs and I don't see that changing. I suspect that neither do you, and are engaging in hyperbole for a purpose known only to you.

 

If the OP mentioned the event in one log there never would have been an issue. He was putting it in nearly every log. It's a matter of degree.

That right. It's a matter of degree like how "wow" a location had to be to get published as a virtual was a matter of degree; or how simple and reasonable an additional requirement had to be to allow it was a matter of degree. Eventually TPTB will get tired of degree creep and will decide you can't mention events or other caches at all in your log. It may seem like I'm engaging in hyperbole, I am just pointing out that where this is going is a slippery slope. If TPTB can clarify exactly where they are going to draw the line I would feel much more comfortable. I have seen it happen too many times that the line ends being drawn excluding far more than anyone expected it would.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I have seen massive spamming of events including adds while logging finds and even placing caches with the name of the event to draw attention.

A couple of years ago in my area, an out-of-town cacher added a whole ton of local caches to a public bookmark list, with a title that advertised an upcoming event he was hosting.

 

It upset some folks.

Link to comment

I have seen massive spamming of events including adds while logging finds and even placing caches with the name of the event to draw attention.

A couple of years ago in my area, an out-of-town cacher added a whole ton of local caches to a public bookmark list, with a title that advertised an upcoming event he was hosting.

 

It upset some folks.

 

That is one I haven't heard of.

Link to comment

I have to agree with those who think this issue is counter-intuitive, but it's the law of the land so go with it.

 

I got my hand slapped years ago when I hosted an event; I went through the logs on caches in the area looking for names I had never heard of and sent them a PM inviting them to the event.

 

Someone complained that my invitation was unwanted spam and Groundspeak sent me a shouldna-done-it email telling me to cease and desist.

 

I thought that it was a great way to alert cachers to an upcoming event who may not read the event calendar, but... not.

 

Oh well. :lol:

Same thing happened in this area a few years back.

Link to comment

I have seen massive spamming of events including adds while logging finds and even placing caches with the name of the event to draw attention. Unfortunately Groundspeak has to draw a line somewhere where and I think they chose no advertising what so ever as the easiest way.

Has the definition of Spam changed? I can see it being considered spamming if the logs were written for the sole purpose of announcing the event, but they were ligitimate find logs, and then they contained the info on the event. How does that make them spam? They would have been written with or without the add on. i'm not going to argue about the Tone/Degree though, I thing a differently worded tag may have avoided any complaints. In truth, I think there was probably one complaint, and it was probably sent in by one person who already has complaints about the OPs other recent activities. I could be wrong though.

 

I have a biased opinion on spam though, I've never really had to deal with it on a large scale, (until I got some facebooks apps). I guess folks who have been getting more of it for a longer time are more sensitive to it. On the other hand, I think the term is used to to make people think they are more wrong that they really are. It's like when I see someone throwing the term "entitlement" out there to try making someone feel like they are asking too much. Advertising or not, these logs were not Spamming.

Link to comment

Not really "changed" but more it has evolved and used in a more broad use like most things in popular use. Now a days "spamming" is associated with doing just about anything including posting information over and over again. This forum itself has an "anti-spamming" filter to block people from making too many posts too quickly.

Edited by Keith Watson
Link to comment

Now a days "spamming" is associated with doing just about anything including posting information over and over again.

 

That was actually the original meaning of "spam." Sending the same message to many email addresses or internet forums was spam. The name came from the Monty Python sketch where Vikings sing the Spam song, which mainly is the word "Spam" over and over again.

Link to comment

Now a days "spamming" is associated with doing just about anything including posting information over and over again.

 

That was actually the original meaning of "spam." Sending the same message to many email addresses or internet forums was spam. The name came from the Monty Python sketch where Vikings sing the Spam song, which mainly is the word "Spam" over and over again.

 

I knew that, and yet I have never seen the sketch. I think I may do some youtubing tonight.

Link to comment

Now a days "spamming" is associated with doing just about anything including posting information over and over again.

 

That was actually the original meaning of "spam." Sending the same message to many email addresses or internet forums was spam. The name came from the Monty Python sketch where Vikings sing the Spam song, which mainly is the word "Spam" over and over again.

 

I knew that, and yet I have never seen the sketch. I think I may do some youtubing tonight.

 

Link to comment

Not really "changed" but more it has evolved and used in a more broad use like most things in popular use. Now a days "spamming" is associated with doing just about anything including posting information over and over again. This forum itself has an "anti-spamming" filter to block people from making too many posts too quickly.

 

I don't know if it's used anymore but there used be a metric that could be used to quantify whether or not spamming had occured. It was based on a formula called the Breidbart Index (created by Seth Breidbart). Posting something over and over again is a key value in determining the spam index, much more so than the nature of the content. It's been long time since I've seen him but I know Seth and have met him on several occasions at social events.

Link to comment

Not really "changed" but more it has evolved and used in a more broad use like most things in popular use. Now a days "spamming" is associated with doing just about anything including posting information over and over again. This forum itself has an "anti-spamming" filter to block people from making too many posts too quickly.

 

I don't know if it's used anymore but there used be a metric that could be used to quantify whether or not spamming had occured. It was based on a formula called the Breidbart Index (created by Seth Breidbart). Posting something over and over again is a key value in determining the spam index, much more so than the nature of the content. It's been long time since I've seen him but I know Seth and have met him on several occasions at social events.

 

Ouch, now my head hurts from looking at that math.

Link to comment

Re: Spam.

 

It was explained to me, in no uncertain terms, that Groundspeaks definition of "SPAM" is different than the actual definition of SPAM. So, don't think that you can apply your understanding of SPAM to Groundspeak policy.

 

Having said that, I am reminded of a concern I once posed to the powers that be. My concern was that there was a leaning towards enforcement when anything was questionable. I argued that "just because something can be enforced under the guidelines, does that mean it always should be". Of course this applied to situations that were in a gray area. Some would automatically look for violations and add that a violation occurs whenever you can make something into a violation. In reality, violations should be blatant, not gray.

 

The OP has listed a gray violation and the reviewer has stated that it IS a violation because something in the guidelines could be interpreted that way. I see it a lot.

 

The same thing goes with the laws (especially municipal laws) where a cop sees something he doesn't like and makes it fit a law that was obviously intended for some other scenario.

 

As I said before. Just because it "CAN" be a violation, does that mean it "SHOULD" be a violation?

 

You could also say that some put the line that is to be crossed a little closer or further from reality.

Link to comment
If the OP mentioned the event in one log there never would have been an issue. He was putting it in nearly every log. It's a matter of degree.
Really? Nearly every Find log I post includes a reference to me leaving "my trackable sig token" in the cache, or to me keeping "my trackable sig token" moving (e.g., for caches too small to hold my sig tokens). The word "trackable" is linked to the tracking site for my sig tokens.

 

Is that spam? I don't think so, and no one has complained so far, but it is something with a link that I include in all my Find logs. Maybe I'm spamming for my sigitem.com site...

Link to comment
Back on subject folks...the OP was talking about advertising. He should have been talking about if his type of advertising should have been allowed. And whether the response from Groundspeak was fair.

Referring to oneself in the 3rd person is a little creepy. Just look at Elmo. I thought the advertising was a little heavy, but if it is up to me, I'll let it slide. I thought the response you had (either from reviewer or Groundspeak) was on the heavy handed side, but you've ignored two suggestions from me, so I guess you're more interested in ranting than in actual solutions. So rant away, that's what these forums are for.

Link to comment
Back on subject folks...the OP was talking about advertising. He should have been talking about if his type of advertising should have been allowed. And whether the response from Groundspeak was fair.

Referring to oneself in the 3rd person is a little creepy. Just look at Elmo. I thought the advertising was a little heavy, but if it is up to me, I'll let it slide. I thought the response you had (either from reviewer or Groundspeak) was on the heavy handed side, but you've ignored two suggestions from me, so I guess you're more interested in ranting than in actual solutions. So rant away, that's what these forums are for.

Maybe he meant the Original Post??

Link to comment

...Any ideas?

 

Copy of email:

...(e) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation."....

Wish me luck...

 

The event was authorized by virtue of being approved (that's from your GC number).

The event page itself is a solicitation by the defintion of the word. "Come visit my event!". Cache pages are solicitation to find a cache. They are their own exceptions.

The claim then falls to "unauthorized advertizing for the event" However the event isn't the problem the soliciation isn't the problem and the authorization for the event isn't the problem. All have the official GC.com thumbs up. The sole problem is someone doesn't want it in your log.

 

I'd simply tell them. "Thank you so very much for your request. Alas this is a hobby and since I won't enjoy changing my logs, I'm not interested in doing so. If you wish to edit or even delete my logs please don't push this task onto a volunteer it would be ever so much better of someone was getting paid for the nuance that is being enforced here. Good luck. Good speed." You can change the wording to suit your own taste.

 

If your numbers are critically important to you. Be ready to relog with "TFTC". Or just cave and relog with a story about the email and being forced to relog and copy and paste it everwhere.

Link to comment
Back on subject folks...the OP was talking about advertising. He should have been talking about if his type of advertising should have been allowed. And whether the response from Groundspeak was fair.

Referring to oneself in the 3rd person is a little creepy. Just look at Elmo. I thought the advertising was a little heavy, but if it is up to me, I'll let it slide. I thought the response you had (either from reviewer or Groundspeak) was on the heavy handed side, but you've ignored two suggestions from me, so I guess you're more interested in ranting than in actual solutions. So rant away, that's what these forums are for.

Maybe he meant the Original Post??

Referring to a post as "He" is even creepier :blink:

Link to comment
Back on subject folks...the OP was talking about advertising. He should have been talking about if his type of advertising should have been allowed. And whether the response from Groundspeak was fair.
Referring to oneself in the 3rd person is a little creepy.
Knowshad doesn't think so.

Exceptions are generally made for dogs. Even those who can't spell their own name :blink:

Link to comment

Back on subject folks...the OP was talking about advertising. He should have been talking about if his type of advertising should have been allowed. And wheather the response from Groundspeak was fair.

 

Like many threads in these forums I think this is a case where the OP (original poster in this case...wasn't that you?) may have intended the issue to be about a specific subject, once a discussion has ensued we discover another issue that may be the heart of the matter.

 

In this case, the original post was about a threat from Groundspeak that logs would be deleted if certain content was deleted. While you even recognized that the content was, in fact, advertising, what I got from the the original post was that you felt that it was a form of advertising that should be allowed.

 

I suggested earlier in the thread that it may not have been as much of a case of good advertising vs. bad advertising. Groundspeak would never have been involved had not a complaint been sent to them and I suggested that it was the frequency in which the complainant received the advertisement. As I pointed out, you had logs on 11 different caches in one day that were all owned by the same person. That person may have even known about the event you were mentioning previously, and even planned on attending, but getting 11 email messages in the same day with the same solicitation probably got old. What they *should* have done was just ask you to re-log their caches and Groundspeak would never been involved, but they didn't do that.

 

Although I understand that you'd like to make this thread about advertising, that isn't to me the core issue. Let's turn this around. Suppose someone found 10 of your caches in one day and included content in the logs that you thought was an inappropriate use of the logs. Suppose you sent a complaint to Groundspeak and they ignored your complaint. How would you feel about Groundspeak then?

 

There are a couple of things we don't know about this incident. First, we have not seen the content of the complaint sent to Groundspeak, and secondly, we don't know that only one complaint was lodged.

Link to comment

I didn't do it in 125 logs...but I will need to search all 125 logs from over the last two months to see which ones I did and didn't do it in. I think 24 hrs to do that is unreasonable...

How are you coming with it? I'm afraid I thought of this a bit late, but you probably could have recruited some of us to help you search through your finder's logs, had you asked. I would have taken a chunk.
Link to comment

It's one thing to say you were at an event or found a cache on the way to an event or something like that. By posting the link and stuff in your log, you look like you're using your log on someones cache page to promote the event. That rubs people the wrong way. I'm not a fan of that.

 

Also, Editing your log like this is kinda lame man.

 

joespaz found Holey Moley Batman, #499 (Traditional Cache)

 

Found It

 

(I edited this log to "Found It" because someone complained I was "advertising" by mentioning an upcoming event. Hopefully this will fix the problem.)

 

[This entry was edited by joespaz on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 4:45:59 PM.]

 

If I got one of your advertisement logs I would be annoyed. If you then edited out the ad and added this remark, I would think you're 'doubley' annoying. Just delete the advertising and move on.

 

Really?! I sure hope you edited the log again.

Link to comment

I've decided that the best thing I could do is play the way I wish others did:

 

Clean up a cache that needs help whenever I can.

 

CITO as often as possible.

 

Leave interesting logs at the cache site AND online.

 

Hide the type of caches that I would enjoy looking for.

 

Add a gaol tag to TB's that don't have one.

 

Maybe if I play the game this way, I will enjoy it more.

 

Thank you all for your input! I have learned a lot...I hope.

 

All good things (except I would take a gander at the thread on TB hospitals before doing the last task on your list). But it is where you go beyond this list where you seem to get into trouble.

Link to comment

I've decided that the best thing I could do is play the way I wish others did:

 

Clean up a cache that needs help whenever I can.

 

CITO as often as possible.

 

Leave interesting logs at the cache site AND online.

 

Hide the type of caches that I would enjoy looking for.

 

Add a gaol tag to TB's that don't have one.

 

Maybe if I play the game this way, I will enjoy it more.

 

Thank you all for your input! I have learned a lot...I hope.

 

All good things (except I would take a gander at the thread on TB hospitals before doing the last task on your list). But it is where you go beyond this list where you seem to get into trouble.

 

 

He has already been there and posted. Didn't seem to make any difference.

 

Joe I assume you are talking about putting tags on bugs that already have a goal, and just no tag?? Everything else on your list sounds like a good plan!!

Link to comment
How are you coming with it? I'm afraid I thought of this a bit late, but you probably could have recruited some of us to help you search through your finder's logs, had you asked. I would have taken a chunk.

Or he could go through his "My Finds" and do a simple text search. Not exactly rocket science. Suggested earlier, also ignored. *shrug*

Link to comment

I didn't do it in 125 logs...but I will need to search all 125 logs from over the last two months to see which ones I did and didn't do it in. I think 24 hrs to do that is unreasonable...

How are you coming with it? I'm afraid I thought of this a bit late, but you probably could have recruited some of us to help you search through your finder's logs, had you asked. I would have taken a chunk.

 

That is a very kind offer. I think I'll just fix any that get deleted. Also, I'll be more careful how I word future logs.

Link to comment

 

Has the definition of Spam changed? I can see it being considered spamming if the logs were written for the sole purpose of announcing the event, but they were ligitimate find logs, and then they contained the info on the event. How does that make them spam? They would have been written with or without the add on. i'm not going to argue about the Tone/Degree though, I thing a differently worded tag may have avoided any complaints. In truth, I think there was probably one complaint, and it was probably sent in by one person who already has complaints about the OPs other recent activities. I could be wrong though.

 

I have a biased opinion on spam though, I've never really had to deal with it on a large scale, (until I got some facebooks apps). I guess folks who have been getting more of it for a longer time are more sensitive to it. On the other hand, I think the term is used to to make people think they are more wrong that they really are. It's like when I see someone throwing the term "entitlement" out there to try making someone feel like they are asking too much. Advertising or not, these logs were not Spamming.

 

The boldened part is what I suspect also. Not only did the person possibly get several logs on caches he owns advertising the event, he might have also gotten one of those pesky emails about missing TBs and how joespaz is on a mission to have them removed from cache inventories. Adding on to all this, it is my assumption that all of the area caches are being cleared of TBs for this event by the OP. (I didn't check.)

 

As NYPaddleCacher suggests, your advertising might be doing more to scare people away than encouraging them to come. I'm sorry to say that I would be running the other way after seeing some of your tactics. You seem obsessive and overbearing in your approach.

Link to comment

If the OP mentioned the event in one log there never would have been an issue. He was putting it in nearly every log. It's a matter of degree.

 

I wonder if a number of those caches belonged to the same person. If so, then when they received the same log multiple times, that's probably why it got reported and GS stepped in.

 

I'm still wondering why they would step in on a geocaching related log like that. But rules are rules.

Link to comment

 

Has the definition of Spam changed? I can see it being considered spamming if the logs were written for the sole purpose of announcing the event, but they were ligitimate find logs, and then they contained the info on the event. How does that make them spam? They would have been written with or without the add on. i'm not going to argue about the Tone/Degree though, I thing a differently worded tag may have avoided any complaints. In truth, I think there was probably one complaint, and it was probably sent in by one person who already has complaints about the OPs other recent activities. I could be wrong though.

 

I have a biased opinion on spam though, I've never really had to deal with it on a large scale, (until I got some facebooks apps). I guess folks who have been getting more of it for a longer time are more sensitive to it. On the other hand, I think the term is used to to make people think they are more wrong that they really are. It's like when I see someone throwing the term "entitlement" out there to try making someone feel like they are asking too much. Advertising or not, these logs were not Spamming.

 

The boldened part is what I suspect also. Not only did the person possibly get several logs on caches he owns advertising the event, he might have also gotten one of those pesky emails about missing TBs and how joespaz is on a mission to have them removed from cache inventories. Adding on to all this, it is my assumption that all of the area caches are being cleared of TBs for this event by the OP. (I didn't check.)

 

As NYPaddleCacher suggests, your advertising might be doing more to scare people away than encouraging them to come. I'm sorry to say that I would be running the other way after seeing some of your tactics. You seem obsessive and overbearing in your approach.

 

I am sorry that you think that this is my goal. I like working with TB's. I like to help them on their goals. I like meeting other cachers. I thought hosting an event where I could meet a lot of cachers and get a lot of TB's off on the right track of their goals would be a good idea. I didn't realize getting lots of TB's together with lots of people with cameras that like working with TB's was a bad thing.

 

While looking for caches I came to find that it is frustrating to see TB's listed that obviously aren't in a cache. So I wondered how to remedy that situation. I have been told that the thing to do is contact the TB and cache owner, then contact geocaching.com to have them removed from the inventory. I tried to write an informative note that wouldn't offend. I even went so far as to ask for help editing that note from the forum community. The reason I started keeping track of which emails I was sending was just so that I would not send annoying duplicates on accident. This is an activity that I can do from home at times that I can't be out caching. It is only meant to help TB owners and cachers that like hunting for them.

Link to comment

If the OP mentioned the event in one log there never would have been an issue. He was putting it in nearly every log. It's a matter of degree.

 

I wonder if a number of those caches belonged to the same person. If so, then when they received the same log multiple times, that's probably why it got reported and GS stepped in.

 

I'm still wondering why they would step in on a geocaching related log like that. But rules are rules.

 

It really was a mess. I appear to have misplaced my cache sheets from that day. I have been doing lots of caching lately and I realized that if I didn't log my finds while my memory was fresh I might forget which caches I had been to. So I logged them by memory with a generic note that I pasted into each...mentioning that when I find my notes I would edit them to represent my experience. The whole reason for going to the caches I did was to get TB's to bring to the event, so I thought I would mention it in the log. Boy oh Boy was that ever a mistake.

Link to comment
How are you coming with it? I'm afraid I thought of this a bit late, but you probably could have recruited some of us to help you search through your finder's logs, had you asked. I would have taken a chunk.

Or he could go through his "My Finds" and do a simple text search. Not exactly rocket science. Suggested earlier, also ignored. *shrug*

Where is that? I don't see anywhere that displays the actual text of all of my logs. I can display the names of my finds, but that won't help.
Link to comment
How are you coming with it? I'm afraid I thought of this a bit late, but you probably could have recruited some of us to help you search through your finder's logs, had you asked. I would have taken a chunk.

Or he could go through his "My Finds" and do a simple text search. Not exactly rocket science. Suggested earlier, also ignored. *shrug*

Where is that? I don't see anywhere that displays the actual text of all of my logs. I can display the names of my finds, but that won't help.

You can then click on the link "Visit Log" and see the text. I think it opens in a new window, and if not, you could do that manualy. Keep the list open in one window and do your work in another.

Link to comment
How are you coming with it? I'm afraid I thought of this a bit late, but you probably could have recruited some of us to help you search through your finder's logs, had you asked. I would have taken a chunk.

Or he could go through his "My Finds" and do a simple text search. Not exactly rocket science. Suggested earlier, also ignored. *shrug*

Where is that? I don't see anywhere that displays the actual text of all of my logs. I can display the names of my finds, but that won't help.

I mean "My Finds" pocket query. All your logs for caches you've found (including notes, SBA, NM) are in there. If he had generated one in the last 6 days, he could use that. If he had deleted it, he could run a PQ selecting caches he's found only.

 

Edit : Alternatively, use this view : http://www.geocaching.com/my/geocaches.aspx

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to comment
How are you coming with it? I'm afraid I thought of this a bit late, but you probably could have recruited some of us to help you search through your finder's logs, had you asked. I would have taken a chunk.

Or he could go through his "My Finds" and do a simple text search. Not exactly rocket science. Suggested earlier, also ignored. *shrug*

Where is that? I don't see anywhere that displays the actual text of all of my logs. I can display the names of my finds, but that won't help.

I mean "My Finds" pocket query. All your logs for caches you've found (including notes, SBA, NM) are in there. If he had generated one in the last 6 days, he could use that. If he had deleted it, he could run a PQ selecting caches he's found only.

OK, that makes sense.

 

Re: WriteShopRobert's idea: 125 caches to search through? I'd rather find a better way.

Link to comment

Haha, it's funny that in the midst of this whole discussion, I received a notification on an item I own today...The finder included a note and this link... http://www.occidentalwyoming.com/ on several logs the same day. Needless to say, I sent them this note...

 

Hi there,

Thank you for your discovery on my Coin. I love to see that other players are enjoying them. I'm writing to ask if you would be willing to edit out the link to the hotel page. Including links in your logs to commercial advertisements is sometimes frowned upon. Thank you for your time, and I hope you've enjoyed finding the Coin.

WRITE SHOP ROBERT

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment
Re: WriteShopRobert's idea: 125 caches to search through? I'd rather find a better way.

See my edited post above. Looking at http://www.geocaching.com/my/geocaches.aspx I see my log text on the screen for all finds of a day. Would make searching and editing easier, I think.

 

I was going to my public profiles, choosing "Your Geocaches," The clicking on each cache, scrolling down to my log, and then clicking (if needed) on "edit log," Then clicking "edit log" again, chainging the log, then click submit, then back click to the list and start again.

 

I have found about 75 caches in the last two weeks and the list you showed me only shows 75. I can try the pocket querry idea if it looks like I have more that need to be fixed. I found about 15 logs that mentioned the event, they were all caches that I had visited and taken a TB from. I thought this made it semi relevent.

 

In fact when I asked if I could have posted the following note, I was told it was okay because it didn't include a link.

 

"I stopped by here after taking care of my rabbits. I picked up a TB that I will take to the "F.A.M.E. Travel Bug Photo Shoot" event."

 

I guess it was listing the date/time/and website that broke the rules.

Link to comment

Logs should be about your experience in hunting that cache, and nothing else.

 

Since your logs go out to anyone watching the cache, or who have it bookmarked with the email option, or have an I.N. set for it, what you're doing is spamming all those people. Not cool.

 

See the bolded part.

 

Good to see that TPTB are trying to cut down on this practice.

 

Edited to add: If someone chooses to advertise their event in this manner, I would make a point of NOT attending.

Edited by AZcachemeister
Link to comment
I guess it was listing the date/time/and website that broke the rules.

I'm curious about two things though:

 

1. Did the email come from Groundspeak, or one of the reviewers?

 

2. I'd include the link to the event, but not include the text inviting people to come to it. Wonder if that would fly. The idea is to generate enough intrigue to get people to voluntarily find out more information.

 

I'd like to attend the photo shoot, but not sure if I'm free on Sunday afternoon. Good luck with the event.

Link to comment
Haha, it's funny that in the midst of this whole discussion, I received a notification on an item I own today...The finder included a note and this link... http://www.occidentalwyoming.com/ on several logs the same day.

Yeah, the cacher does seem extremely enthusiastic about that hotel. I looked at a few found logs and they all mention it.

Oh well, He's going to edit it after my note, no need to complain any further. I thought it was a little funny though with all this discussion. In fact, I sent him a couple of links to Waymarks featuring the same Hotel, and suggested that he might include them instead.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...