Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Looks like the "you can't log your own caches anymore" rule has, as expected, been circumvented. I noticed new caches being published by a "zero finds" account that have been found (cache testdrive) as the main account of the same cacher.

 

Oh yeah! I see that often. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Oh yeah! I see that often. 

I’ve been seeing more “test drive” logs too. Now I know why. Strange the compulsion some people have to add finds to their account. 

Share this post


Link to post

Test drives are good, they are quiet common, but they used to be by other people than the CO to see if there are errors in formulas or if coordinates are off. Testdriving your own caches will not bring up errors.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, on4bam said:

Looks like the "you can't log your own caches anymore" rule has, as expected, been circumvented. I noticed new caches being published by a "zero finds" account that have been found (cache testdrive) as the main account of the same cacher.

This seems to be standard procedure of some "power cachers". I know a group, which has placed close to 1000(!) caches using a few sock puppet accounts, and has logged "beta test" finds for all of them (actually signing the logbooks when placing the trails). These trails also have "optimized" D/T ratings - i.e., often no realistic ratings, but values evenly spread out in the 3-5 range for D and T.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:
22 hours ago, on4bam said:

Looks like the "you can't log your own caches anymore" rule has, as expected, been circumvented. I noticed new caches being published by a "zero finds" account that have been found (cache testdrive) as the main account of the same cacher.

This seems to be standard procedure of some "power cachers". I know a group, which has placed close to 1000(!) caches using a few sock puppet accounts, and has logged "beta test" finds for all of them (actually signing the logbooks when placing the trails). These trails also have "optimized" D/T ratings - i.e., often no realistic ratings, but values evenly spread out in the 3-5 range for D and T.

 

I don't have enough eye rolls in the world for this behavior, but here are a few.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

I can't imagine why this would appeal to anyone as an enjoyable course of action.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

This seems to be standard procedure of some "power cachers". I know a group, which has placed close to 1000(!) caches using a few sock puppet accounts, and has logged "beta test" finds for all of them (actually signing the logbooks when placing the trails). These trails also have "optimized" D/T ratings - i.e., often no realistic ratings, but values evenly spread out in the 3-5 range for D and T.

 

Wow. Completing a Fizzy grid by placing (not finding) caches with less-than-accurate D/T ratings. Wow.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

This seems to be standard procedure of some "power cachers". I know a group, which has placed close to 1000(!) caches using a few sock puppet accounts, and has logged "beta test" finds for all of them (actually signing the logbooks when placing the trails). These trails also have "optimized" D/T ratings - i.e., often no realistic ratings, but values evenly spread out in the 3-5 range for D and T.

 

We've seen a couple now that are submitted under "team" names, with all members already in the middle of the log somewhere.

 - But that took some organization .  Wow is right.  :)  

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

 

Wow. Completing a Fizzy grid by placing (not finding) caches with less-than-accurate D/T ratings. Wow.

One of these guys has the D/T grid completed more than 100(!) times. This would have been significantly more difficult without cheating like this. Also, at least two of these "cachers" (quotes used intentionally :P) use additional tactics to boost their find count, notably entering each other in logbooks when only one of them is present. One of the results of all this is that someone created (and many others happily adopted) a new verb, based on the GC name of one of the cheaters, to mean "to cheat big time in geocaching" :D.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

GPS owners with superiority complexes over smartphone users - people who started caching since the advent of the smartphone, tend to do very well finding and hiding caches with one. 

 

The same people writing logs such as "the coords were 27.3 feet out" as if their Gremlin Ewok has accuracy down to 1/8".

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Oxford Stone said:

GPS owners with superiority complexes over smartphone users - people who started caching since the advent of the smartphone, tend to do very well finding and hiding caches with one. 

 

The same people writing logs such as "the coords were 27.3 feet out" as if their Gremlin Ewok has accuracy down to 1/8".

 

Smart phone users that get defensive when someone writes  that they prefer to use  a handheld GPS.

  • Upvote 8
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

People who don't realize that the 3 digit accuracy lat/lon coordinates provided by the listings only gives a couple of meters' accuracy at best. And you have no basis for trusting that the CO's coordinates are as accurate as they can be either.

Within a few meters of gz? Stop trying to have the "most accurate device" and just start looking.

 

I can't count the number of times in a group I or someone else has found the cache and people are still searching - at various locations and accuracies, not near the actual cache. At that point your device's accuracy or the CO's device accuracy is irrelevant.

Hone the geosense! :)

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Within a few meters of gz? Stop trying to have the "most accurate device" and just start looking.

Of course I will start looking before I reach zero on my GPS. But it's still annoying when the cache position is much less accurate than what is technically possible.

 

Here (in Germany) we have many official geodetic reference points, where coordinates are given with a 10cm accuracy. Whenever I come across one (most have caches nearby) I check both my GPSr and my phone. In good conditions (no obstructions like nearby steep hills or structures) and with a proper measurement, i.e. giving the device a minute or two for averaging its position, I'm always within 2-3m from the reference location. In less favorable conditions, like under dense trees in the woods, I don't have such a precise reference. But judging from repeated visits at my own cache locations, my GZ always ends up less than 10m from the cache, usually in the 4-8m range. Based on this (and 10 years caching experience), I expect cache positions to be accurate to 3m in open conditions and better than 10m in the woods. And with experienced COs, this is usually the case.

 

That said, it's very common that I find a cache 15-20m off my own GZ. And 9 out of 10 find logs say the same. To me, this means that the CO didn't do a good job in getting accurate coordinates. I admit that I don't like that, because one of the most basic requirements for all geocaches are coordinates which are as accurate as possible. Of course I still find the cache, if it's hidden at the bottom of the only tree in an otherwise open field, but the coordinates point 10m away - in this case, I just shake my head. But a micro without hint or spoiler in the middle of the woods, in a nondescript hide 15m from GZ? This is where an accuracy of 4-8m vs. 15-20m makes a lot of difference. And yes, this irks me (to come back to the thread topic ;) ).

 

As for smartphone vs. a dedicated GPSr, I think that you can get good coordinates with both, provided that you know how to do it, and your device is good enough (e.g. my own phone, a somewhat dated Samsung S5 mini, is doing well in open sky conditions, but is much less accurate than my GPSr in the woods). So I assume that obviously inaccurate cache positions are usually the fault of the user, not the device.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

So I assume that obviously inaccurate cache positions are usually the fault of the user, not the device.

These days, that is the same assumption I run with.  On the odd occasion it could be wrong if someone has a really, really, old, cheap device. Otherwise, yes, it's almost always user error/apathy, whatever the device.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

That said, it's very common that I find a cache 15-20m off my own GZ. And 9 out of 10 find logs say the same. To me, this means that the CO didn't do a good job in getting accurate coordinates. I admit that I don't like that, because one of the most basic requirements for all geocaches are coordinates which are as accurate as possible. Of course I still find the cache, if it's hidden at the bottom of the only tree in an otherwise open field, but the coordinates point 10m away - in this case, I just shake my head.

Could it be that they are intentionally "off target" because they're trying to circumvent the saturation guidelines?

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Could it be that they are intentionally "off target" because they're trying to circumvent the saturation guidelines?

 

We've done caches by a CO who has a habit of having coordinates that are "a bit off", the point being that it makes looking for it is a bit harder.  Of course, knowing this has hardly an effect on the difficulty. He also hides about the same way for his series and in between hides in a completely different and unexpected way. Although at first sight it seems that his series are just easy pickups, there's plenty to keep seekers at their toes to avoid DNF's.

In no way are his coordinates off to avoid guidelines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, noncentric said:
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

That said, it's very common that I find a cache 15-20m off my own GZ. And 9 out of 10 find logs say the same. To me, this means that the CO didn't do a good job in getting accurate coordinates. I admit that I don't like that, because one of the most basic requirements for all geocaches are coordinates which are as accurate as possible. Of course I still find the cache, if it's hidden at the bottom of the only tree in an otherwise open field, but the coordinates point 10m away - in this case, I just shake my head.

Could it be that they are intentionally "off target" because they're trying to circumvent the saturation guidelines?

I know very few cases where exactly this seemed to be the root cause for the inaccurate coordinates (e.g. two caches of the same series actually ~145m apart, and both listed ~10m off in opposite directions to bring the listed distance to 162 m). But that's definitely the exception.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, on4bam said:

We've done caches by a CO who has a habit of having coordinates that are "a bit off", the point being that it makes looking for it is a bit harder. 

When I find a traditional cache, which is more off than I would expect at the location, I often add my own measurement to the log. Others may see it differently (like "searching is part of the fun"), but to me, intentionally inaccurate coordinates are a nuisance and not in the spirit of the game.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the intention is that instead of going straight to the right fencepole, you look for the cache at 2 other poles either side. After 3-4 micros hidden at the base of such a pole the next one might be a nano hidden in a hole at the back of the pole. As said, done to keep seekers at edge and not brainlessly picking up one micro after another. Looking at logs, most if not all appreciate this. Every once in a while someone will post "coordinates were a bit off" but as they are never more than 10m off it's considered "part of the game".

 

Recently we found a cache 50m off (mentioned in logs a few times). It was a themed multi where all (virtual) WPs were at similar locations. In the end the cache location was spotted from more than 100m away but since it was also at a similar location we didn't even had to look at the GPS. Went inside, located the hiding place, looked for the logbook and signed it. Getting back on our bikes I looked at the GPS and saw 51m to the calculated GZ as did previous finders.

Some posted DNFs, probably by blindly following the GPS and not thinking about the theme and/or reading logs. The exact coordinated pointed to private property anyway eventhough entering would certainly be allowed (large farm).

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Recently we found a cache 50m off (mentioned in logs a few times). It was a themed multi where all (virtual) WPs were at similar locations. In the end the cache location was spotted from more than 100m away but since it was also at a similar location we didn't even had to look at the GPS. Went inside, located the hiding place, looked for the logbook and signed it. Getting back on our bikes I looked at the GPS and saw 51m to the calculated GZ as did previous finders.

50m is a bit extreme. If I were dead sure that my final coordinates are 100% correct (which is often not the case for a multi ;) ), I'd add an NM. Especially if the calculated coordinates point to private property. As you say, anyone with any experience and/or "using their eyes" will walk to the obvious hiding place. But one cacher blindly following the GPS and roaming around private land might be enough that the land owner "kills" the cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

But one cacher blindly following the GPS and roaming around private land might be enough that the land owner "kills" the cache.

 

I doubt it, the structure where the cache is hidden is also owned by the same person. I guess they are well aware of everything. It's not like it's a cache with 100's of visits either (more like 50-60/year)

Share this post


Link to post

What irks me. If there is a geocache along a canal. Why do these muggle fishermen have to fish exactly at my GZ when there is kilometres of open space on both sides?

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Twentse Mug said:

What irks me. If there is a geocache along a canal. Why do these muggle fishermen have to fish exactly at my GZ when there is kilometres of open space on both sides?

Was the name of the geocache something like "The best fishing spot" by any chance? :D

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/20/2018 at 4:00 PM, cerberus1 said:

 

We've seen a couple now that are submitted under "team" names, with all members already in the middle of the log somewhere.

 - But that took some organization .  Wow is right.  :)  

So... I hid some caches before my kids were born and recently I let them find them and log finds.  I didn't even think about whether or not that would be kosher or not... opinions?  Should I not do this?

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, noncentric said:

Could it be that they are intentionally "off target" because they're trying to circumvent the saturation guidelines?

I have found a couple like that.  They even SAID on the cache page that the cache was actually 100 ft from where the coordinates were because they wanted to hide one there and it was technically too close to another.  It's since been archived.  I might be able to find it though...

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, roziecakes said:

So... I hid some caches before my kids were born and recently I let them find them and log finds.  I didn't even think about whether or not that would be kosher or not... opinions?  Should I not do this?

I think that is just fine! My kids have occasionally signed my caches after FTF, but almost always it's for puzzle caches they helped me create and/or I knew they'd have fun going after them. 

They were not with me for any of the placements, just fyi, so every find was a New experience.

Edited by Max and 99
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/24/2013 at 3:28 AM, The_Incredibles_ said:

Ooh, ooh, I've got a good one.

 

Cut and paste logs. :rolleyes:

 

One caching team in the area apparently uses this technique, every cache they find includes "found right away" and I doubt that is fact. 

Edited by Jayeffel
Spelling error I missed
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Twentse Mug said:

What irks me. If there is a geocache along a canal. Why do these muggle fishermen have to fish exactly at my GZ when there is kilometres of open space on both sides?

 

Heh , we used to have a canal series nearby my home where the CO chose the numbered pegs driven in to define angler's spots for competitions as handy hint items to locate his micros by . Not the most cunning of plans ....

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, niraD said:

Was the name of the geocache something like "The best fishing spot" by any chance? :D

 

45 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

Heh , we used to have a canal series nearby my home where the CO chose the numbered pegs driven in to define angler's spots for competitions as handy hint items to locate his micros by . Not the most cunning of plans ....

 

Okay, I was mostly joking. But that's even worse than I imagined for the joke...

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Jayeffel said:

One caching dream in the area apparently uses this technique, every cache they find includes "found right away" and I doubt that is fact. 

 

 

Autocorrect.  I try to remember to read over my logs and posts before I hit Submit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, niraD said:

 

 

Okay, I was mostly joking. But that's even worse than I imagined for the joke...

 

A punchline for the joke ? Well , the caches I mentioned were all named after fish ...

Genuinely, they were.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/12/2013 at 3:49 PM, Sioux's Tribe said:

Visits! One of my TBs was picked up in May and the "collector" has logged every cache he's visited since and he's a busy little cacher!

That's normal here in Australia. I often supply photographs too of where the TB is visiting. Lots of thanks for doing this, while no-one has complained about me logging the TB's visit to every cache I find. That way they can follow the journey across the country, around the world.

 

Just remembered, I did have one complaint about logging the TB into multiple caches...in this case I think it was after maybe the first whole massive 3 or so caches I had logged. (one against all the thanks for photographing the TB's journey.) They were very demanding I don't do this. I didn't like their attitude. I told them I normally took lots of photographs of where the TB visits and they were keen on this then, but I dumped the TB in the very next cache. I take great care of TBs, carefully consider a cache for suitability before dropping it off, etc. I feel responsibly for it.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't read through all the logs here, so this could have been mentioned. I wish all COs would attempt to rate their caches' difficulty/terrain correctly. It's not so bad if they overrate a cache, but underrating a cache is bad, and here I am mostly thinking of terrain. For people with disabilities it's downright thoughtless. I have seen a one star terrain that involved walking over sand, climbing over rocks and up a small cliff. Somehow I think a wheelchair user would be bogged at the sand; let alone the rest, and even a person not in a wheelchair might have other physical difficulties. It was also a long drive to this cache. How sad that would be for someone to make the effort and then find the CO had lied about the terrain. I have found many examples of this. Some COs should have more empathy for other's disabilities. I even saw one cache with one star terrain and the wheelchair attribute checked, because it was on a trail designed for wheelchairs. However the cache could not be found by someone in a wheelchair; it was off the path and out of reach.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, the copy/paste log.

 

"Thanks for another fun cache in this large long running series."

 

It's an earthcache that is located miles from other geocaches in a national park, not thematically related to any caches in the area, and is over 100 miles from our nearest geocache (which is unrelated).  In short, not part of a series.  But thanks for caring enough to press CTRL-V or run that logging macro.

 

giphy.gif

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

These summertime GS souvenirs promotions. It's becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with having enough unfound caches in my area to achieve these points. So either i not cache all year and wait for summer to go for all the souvenirs or cache as normal and not get to receive all the summertime souvenirs. Super lame GS!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

You can always ignore the souvenirs you don't want. It seemed I got a few for this "promotion" but I've hidden them already.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm having fun with these souvenirs. But my larger region is heavily populated with geocaches. Still many thousands to find within 3-4 hours of home. Makes finding specific themed caches not that difficult. Depends on how far you're willing to travel to cache, I suppose.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rb9228 said:

These summertime GS souvenirs promotions.

 

I agree.  So many other things you have to check a box and "agree to", but not when it comes to promotions?.

"Hiding" doesn't help, unless you want to hide them from others. Not sure what purpose that servesFor you they're just greyed out.  Not a fix.

 - But you can ask Groundspeak to delete them for you.  Maybe enough people asked to have things deleted, we'd have an "Opt in" box to check.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, rb9228 said:

These summertime GS souvenirs promotions.

 

I refuse to let these irk me.  I just ignore them.  In past years when there was something different to do each week for each souvenir I found them interesting enough to play along.

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/6/2018 at 1:00 AM, The Magna Defender said:

Numerous things irk me.

But the words I would describe two particularly troublesome local cachers I unfortunately share an area with aren't allowed to be mentioned on this forum

Oh if only there was a cacher blocking button like on Facebook 

 

What Irks me most?

 

not having a block  function on my caches and not banning arm chair logging

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

What irks me most?

 

Dictators and cyber bullies. 

 

This hobby does seem to be attracting more folk who live by the *do as I say, not as I do* rule.. and then think it's OK to harass other cachers (via the PM system) for daring to break *their* rules.

 

The longer I play the game, the more I realise it's no longer the family friendly hobby it is advertised to be.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

But the words I would describe two particularly troublesome local cachers I unfortunately share an area with aren't allowed to be mentioned on this forum

Oh if only there was a cacher blocking button like on Facebook 

What are they doing?

Share this post


Link to post

Many things already mentioned. I mentioned wrong ratings in a previous log. Other things:

Arm chair loggers. I'm not sure which is more annoying. Them, or the COs who will not remove their logs.

Micro (and worse those devil things, nanos), in a place (say in the middle of a forest) where a regular cache (or at least a small) cache would fit.

Multicaches with unclearly worded WP instructions that could be interpreted in more than one way, and the CO who never corrects this, even when people say in their logs the WP instruction was unclear. Do some people ever read the logs of their caches?

COs who will not correct mistakes when pointed out by multiple finders, such as wrong ratings, but also wrong cache size and out coordinates.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 8:34 AM, LFC4eva said:

What irks me most?

Dictators and cyber bullies. 

 

This hobby does seem to be attracting more folk who live by the *do as I say, not as I do* rule.. and then think it's OK to harass other cachers (via the PM system) for daring to break *their* rules.

 

We used to have issues similar, why I no longer do pmo caches (pre bypass options for the audit). 

Ignoring didn't work, carried on to events, and finally I simply said "bother us again and I send your email to Groundspeak". 

Every one left us alone.  :)    Good and bad thing about a free, worldwide hobby - anyone can play.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 7:28 AM, CHEZRASCALS said:

But the words I would describe two particularly troublesome local cachers I unfortunately share an area with aren't allowed to be mentioned on this forum

Oh if only there was a cacher blocking button like on Facebook 

What are they doing?

 

It would be best for the thread to concentrate on general "irks" and not on specific disputes between two or three individual geocachers.  If anyone's curious, communicate privately.  Thanks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Not sure if I already posted this one...

 

When you ask a previous finder for a tip on how to solve a puzzle -- and they straight up give you final coordinates.

 

No, dude! A tip! I want to solve the puzzle!

Probably means they didn't solve it and just got the final from someone else. =P

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

When you ask a previous finder for a tip on how to solve a puzzle -- and they straight up give you final coordinates.

 

No, dude! A tip! I want to solve the puzzle!

Yes, happens quite often. That's why I usually try to contact the owner first. Only if that doesn't work out (owner doesn't respond, or is not helpful), I'll ask previous finders.

 

45 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Probably means they didn't solve it and just got the final from someone else. =P

Yes, probably ;) .

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

When you ask a previous finder for a tip on how to solve a puzzle -- and they straight up give you final coordinates.

 

No, dude! A tip! I want to solve the puzzle!

Yes, happens quite often. That's why I usually try to contact the owner first. Only if that doesn't work out (owner doesn't respond, or is not helpful), I'll ask previous finders.

The owner may give you unwanted spoilers too. I've had that happen, both with finding the hide ("I saw your DNF, here's where to look:...") and with solving puzzles ("You're on the right track. Now all you need to do is...").

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, niraD said:

The owner may give you unwanted spoilers too. I've had that happen, both with finding the hide ("I saw your DNF, here's where to look:...") and with solving puzzles ("You're on the right track. Now all you need to do is...").

 

Yeah as a CO that's the way I like to give tips too. If someone straight up asks for the final, I won't just give it, I'll try to nudge them productively in the right direction (just as I like to learn and understand than just get the answer; 'do unto others' and all that ;)). But if they really want it, they'll usually go and ask a previous finder for the solution straight out. If as a finder I just get the solution, I'll still try to understand or solve the puzzle with that new knowledge. That's how you learn. I don't think asking for a tip on a puzzle (from the owner or a finder) is any kind of wrong at all.

But bah! If I ask for a tip, I don't just want the answer, lol. It just irks me, cuz you know, that's what this thread is about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, niraD said:

The owner may give you unwanted spoilers too. I've had that happen, both with finding the hide ("I saw your DNF, here's where to look:...") and with solving puzzles ("You're on the right track. Now all you need to do is...").

I'm fine with that. If I ask for help with a puzzle, I don't expect to get a hint on a specific "level". Even if it's the outright solution, this is way better than plain final coordinates.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51

×
×
  • Create New...