Jump to content

To DNF or not DNF


SYOTT

Recommended Posts

So I was out caching yesterday and came across a situation... got within 10m of GZ and realized that with the extra rain we had over the past few days, crossing the brook to the cache had become too dangerous. I tried every avenue but had to call it due to safety.

 

Would you log this as a DNF??? Technically I wasn't in the "looking for the container" phase... I was approaching GZ and turned around. Personally, I put this in the "did not attempt" category... I put a note on the cache page, but did not log as a DNF

 

Opinions?

Link to comment

I'm fairly new to the game but my theory is a DNF is not posted if I have not been able to continue to my "give up" point on that trip. Your example would mean I did not give up looking, I yielded to circumstances. The circumstance may be danger, muggles, dark setting in, my physical ailments catching up with me and not allowing me to continue looking for that cache that trip, or whatever. I just come another day and try again. At most I might post a note that I stopped because I wasn't inclined to confirm that I'm still not susceptible to poison ivy but that would be to warn later cachers that are susceptible to it. But at that point, I'm not coming back either.

 

If on a later trip I gave up looking for it, I would then post a DNF.

Link to comment

Hmm.. difficult one. I think we have quite strict guidelines about posting DNF or not. If we start searching it's certainly one, even if we'd posted multiple DNFs on that particular cache before (we're a bit cacheblind occasionally :P). If we put the bikes aside, think "urgh, still 200m to the cache and it's still raining" and decide to drive on it's not. However, if we go on a specific walk just to that cache and give up because it gets too dangerous, scary or something else then it's also a DNF as we'd not done that walk without the cache. This is one such example: http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2NAVY_levada-pena-del-roque At least the DNF still documents the very nice walk. Shame we could not give it a favourite.

 

Mrs. terratin

Link to comment

I'd have posted a note. Definitions of what constitutes a dnf vary greatly, with some saying anything less than a find from the moment you walk out the door is a dnf and others saying hours of searching (or even multiple trips) is not cause for posting a dnf.

 

My definition is simply that a dnf is a result of an active search for the container at GZ that fails to find it. Any circumstance that prevents me from getting to GZ may or may not result in a note (i.e. if I'm on the way to the cache and my boss calls and asks me to come in to work, that isn't going to result in a note, while something directly pertaining to the cache like the park being closed gets a note). If I arrive at GZ and am unable to search, that also gets a note.

 

My reasoning for this is just a personal one. Doing it that way, I can tell at a glance from my stats which caches I actually searched for and didn't find, and which ones had other issues without needing to resort to memory, guesswork, or reading of logs.

Link to comment

By the sound of it I would have done exactly as you did.

 

Me too.

If you can't get close to GZ you really haven't looked....putting a blue face on the cache page is telling future seekers that the cache might not be there when in reality you have no idea if its there or not. I would post a note so folks would know about the water.

Link to comment

This is not a hard one to figure out. The OP punched goto into his gpsr/phone and was trying to navigate to ground zero so that they could find a cache and sign the log. They began a search but did not complete it so posting a dnf would be the right thing to do.

 

Sure, a blue smiley by itself could be misleading to others. This is why gc.com gives us the ability to type in a log describing our experience. Logging your dnf along with an explanation would not only be of help to the cache owner and future finders, but would also best describe what happened on this adventure.

Link to comment

I personally would log it as a DNF. I started the hunt and didn't find the cache.

^ ^ ^

This, definitely.

 

For geocachers looking for one of the caches I own, all I really care about is that they log SOMETHING when they visit. It's simply nice to know that someone has been there, and especially nice when they update me about the state of the cache and/or the cache site.

 

--Larry

Link to comment
I put a note on the cache page, but did not log as a DNF
I'd do the same, with the notation DNS (Did Not Search) in my note. If I didn't reach GZ, then I couldn't really start searching. If I didn't really start searching, then it seems strange to say that I didn't find it. There are all sorts of things I don't find every day, simply because I never search for them.
Link to comment

I do not see the posting of a DNF as a failure, but rather, as a way to help the CO, and/or anyone else looking for the cache.

 

Therefore, I would post the DNF in this case. If someone else had posted a DNF when the water was high before, I might know not to look when the local rivers and creeks are high.

 

If the reason I didn't make it to GZ had nothing to do with the cache, but just personal, I probably wouldn't log it.

 

I was on a trail locally and got a call from home the furnace was acting up. I turned around a went home, logged nothing. I actually had the same thing you mention, happen once. Got almost to where the cache was and had to cross a creek. The water was running so high, I couldn't find a safe way to cross. Posted a DNF, and went back a couple weeks later and got the smiley.

Link to comment

Opinions seem to be divided 50-50. My preference would be to post a note explaining why you couldn't get there. DNF only if you actually searched. When I see DNF's logged I assume the cache may be hard to find, not necessarily the case here. A Note would cover anything else relevant including why you couldn't get there.

Link to comment

If you can't get close to GZ you really haven't looked....putting a blue face on the cache page is telling future seekers that the cache might not be there when in reality you have no idea if its there or not. I would post a note so folks would know about the water.

 

I also think like that.

Link to comment

If you can't get close to GZ you really haven't looked....putting a blue face on the cache page is telling future seekers that the cache might not be there when in reality you have no idea if its there or not. I would post a note so folks would know about the water.

 

I also think like that.

I think it depends on the circumstances. I've faced both of these situations at one time or another:

 

Scenario 1: A high-terrain cache in the woods, where part of the challenge is to find a safe way to GZ. I once spent an entire afternoon in a state park here in Ohio trying to figure out a safe way to get to a cache location, in an area not covered by any maps. I had to give up when I began to lose the light, and I logged a DNF. I wasn't able to meet the challenge laid out by the hider, and therefore I "failed" in my attempt. I didn't really consider my effort a failure; I saw some terrific scenery and got some great exercise, and had a ton of fun. I just failed to find the cache.

 

Scenario 2: A relatively easy cache (at least that was the claim on the cache page) that I wasn't able to even get to because roads were under construction in the area, and I was never able to figure out a way to get to GZ because of a temporary situation. Another example would be where a bridge had been washed out recently, and for all practical purposes I couldn't get there from where I was. In both these cases, getting to GZ wasn't supposed to be difficult. In this scenario, I went ahead and logged a DNF (and described the situation in my log as a heads-up to other seekers), but I can understand why others might log a Note instead, since they were stymied by circumstances beyond their control.

 

In both these scenarios, I think it's important to log something about your attempt. In the first case, it might help future seekers to know what they're getting into (and the cache owner will get a kick out of reading the log). In the second case, it will definitely be important to anyone going for the cache in the immediate future.

 

--Larry

Edited by larryc43230
Link to comment

I personally would log it as a DNF. I started the hunt and didn't find the cache.

 

Someone got to the starting point of my multi, realized they didn't have time for a multi and left. They logged a DNF. Honestly, I have no interest in receiving such logs. Nor am I interested if it got too dark to continue or your wife called and asked you to come home before you could get to GZ. Now, if you gave it a good search and the cache is missing or there's police tape around the area, I'd like to know.

Link to comment

I personally would log it as a DNF. I started the hunt and didn't find the cache.

 

Someone got to the starting point of my multi, realized they didn't have time for a multi and left. They logged a DNF. Honestly, I have no interest in receiving such logs. Nor am I interested if it got too dark to continue or your wife called and asked you to come home before you could get to GZ. Now, if you gave it a good search and the cache is missing or there's police tape around the area, I'd like to know.

I guess I'm more concerned about the ethics behind my log than whether the cache owner gets any particular value out of it. Whether or not the cache owner is interested in my log, if I didn't find a cache for whatever reason, I log the DNF.

 

And I always give the circumstances so the cache owner will know why I couldn't find it. If I simply looked and couldn't find it, there's nothing that needs to be done. If the only bridge to the location with the cache is washed out, I figure everybody ought to know about it.

 

--Larry

Edited by larryc43230
Link to comment

The words DID NOT FIND are quite limited and clear. You were looking and Did NOT FIND what you were looking for.

There is some confusion about when a hunt starts of course... I figure that when you punch up the coordinates and push GOTO is the clearest one. Do that and the hunt has started in earnest.

 

A collection of DNF's might indicate a problem with the cache, but unless it says clearly that the seeker considers it to be missing it does not imply that. Besides if they did not find it, how would they know if it was or was not there.

 

As for the conditions stated in the OP, that is fine... leave a note that you temporarily abandoned the hunt due to weather or unsafe conditions at the time, or muggles or whatever... I can live with that and so should everyone. Or just say nothing at all. But don't confuse the issue. Safety issues should be noted. Perhaps the CO never went there except in fair weather... or was there before the PI growth, or hornets nest was made.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

I personally would log it as a DNF. I started the hunt and didn't find the cache.

 

Someone got to the starting point of my multi, realized they didn't have time for a multi and left. They logged a DNF. Honestly, I have no interest in receiving such logs. Nor am I interested if it got too dark to continue or your wife called and asked you to come home before you could get to GZ. Now, if you gave it a good search and the cache is missing or there's police tape around the area, I'd like to know.

I guess I'm more concerned about the ethics behind my log than whether the cache owner gets any particular value out of it. Whether or not the cache owner is interested in my log, if I didn't find a cache for whatever reason, I log the DNF.

 

And I always give the circumstances so the cache owner will know why I couldn't find it. If I simply looked and couldn't find it, there's nothing that needs to be done. If the only bridge to the location with the cache is washed out, I figured everybody ought to know about it.

 

--Larry

 

Ethics? If you're honest with yourself, it's more like DNF OCD. There's nothing unethical about sparing people personal details such as you were driving to the cache, your wife called and asked you to pick up toilet paper so you turned back.

Link to comment

I personally would log it as a DNF. I started the hunt and didn't find the cache.

 

Someone got to the starting point of my multi, realized they didn't have time for a multi and left. They logged a DNF. Honestly, I have no interest in receiving such logs. Nor am I interested if it got too dark to continue or your wife called and asked you to come home before you could get to GZ. Now, if you gave it a good search and the cache is missing or there's police tape around the area, I'd like to know.

I guess I'm more concerned about the ethics behind my log than whether the cache owner gets any particular value out of it. Whether or not the cache owner is interested in my log, if I didn't find a cache for whatever reason, I log the DNF.

 

And I always give the circumstances so the cache owner will know why I couldn't find it. If I simply looked and couldn't find it, there's nothing that needs to be done. If the only bridge to the location with the cache is washed out, I figured everybody ought to know about it.

 

--Larry

 

Ethics? If you're honest with yourself, it's more like DNF OCD. There's nothing unethical about sparing people personal details such as you were driving to the cache, your wife called and asked you to pick up toilet paper so you turned back.

I never said anything about any personal details. If I were actively looking for a cache and I suddenly had to leave for whatever reason (and that's happened to me a good number of times), I wouldn't bore the rest of the world with the gory details other than something like "ran out of time". I would however, log the DNF, and I wouldn't care who thought it was symptomatic of OCD.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

Would I log a DNF? No.

Would I log a DNF with a detailed write up as to why I logged it as a DNF? Yes.

 

Logging a DNF with no description is of no help to anyone including yourself. Logging a DNF and commenting that the river was running to fast to cross safely is of immense help to yourself and others. It lets others know the hazard and could save them from wasting time trying to get to the cache. It also lets others know and reminds you that it is better to attempt finding the cache sometime that the river isn't likely to be running fast or to find an alternate route to the cache.

Link to comment

Would I log a DNF? No.

Would I log a DNF with a detailed write up as to why I logged it as a DNF? Yes.

 

Logging a DNF with no description is of no help to anyone including yourself. Logging a DNF and commenting that the river was running to fast to cross safely is of immense help to yourself and others. It lets others know the hazard and could save them from wasting time trying to get to the cache. It also lets others know and reminds you that it is better to attempt finding the cache sometime that the river isn't likely to be running fast or to find an alternate route to the cache.

I agree. My DNF logs are typically much longer than my Find logs, and almost always more entertaining.

 

I do occasionally log the nice short "I came, I looked, I couldn't find the dang thing" sort of DNF. Way too often, in fact. :lol:

 

--Larry

Link to comment

So I was out caching yesterday and came across a situation... got within 10m of GZ and realized that with the extra rain we had over the past few days, crossing the brook to the cache had become too dangerous. I tried every avenue but had to call it due to safety.

 

Would you log this as a DNF??? Technically I wasn't in the "looking for the container" phase... I was approaching GZ and turned around. Personally, I put this in the "did not attempt" category... I put a note on the cache page, but did not log as a DNF

 

Opinions?

I would have done it exactly as you did. I don't call it a DNF unless I reach ground zero and get a fair search in, otherwise I log it online as a Note.

Link to comment

I did a cache this last week that was a 3.5 terrain. In my experience, those have not been tree climbs, or at least, not tough ones, but this one was the toughest one I have ever seen. I saw the cache but decided against getting it. I logged it as a note, but if someone wrote a detailed DNF, that would be fine too. I did not want to write a DNF which would have implied the cache was not there.

 

As long as you are distinguishing a DNF that you could not reach the cache vs it might be missing, you log what you feel is right.

Link to comment

Someone got to the starting point of my multi, realized they didn't have time for a multi and left. They logged a DNF. Honestly, I have no interest in receiving such logs. Nor am I interested if it got too dark to continue or your wife called and asked you to come home before you could get to GZ. Now, if you gave it a good search and the cache is missing or there's police tape around the area, I'd like to know.

In the scenario you described, were it my multi, I would relish a log of some kind, be it a DNF or a note. I consider the social aspects important, and getting such a log would let me know that someone out there cared enough to check out one of my caches.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

My logs are the records of my caching history. If I set out to find and cache, and do not find it, I post a DNF.

If for some reason I have to turn the car around before I get to the parking location I might post a note, but probably wouldn't post anything at all. I would have posted a DNF on this one, but do not hold anything against the OP for opting to post a note. What I don't understand are people who think they should only post a DNF if they have looked hard for a cache or think it's probably there and they just didn't see it. :unsure:

Link to comment

I did not want to write a DNF which would have implied the cache was not there.

I've never been able to understand this attitude. How can a DNF imply that a cache isn't there?

Those were my thoughts as well. Assume for argument's sake, I post a DNF stating I hiked to within 50' of a cache, but I was abducted by space aliens and could not hunt for it. Anyone with the reading comprehension of a gerbil is not going to deduce from that that the cache might be missing. The only thing they could possibly infer is that I must have neglected to don my Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie. As to those folks who don't read the logs, or are unable to understand them, does it really matter what they deduce?

Link to comment

I did not want to write a DNF which would have implied the cache was not there.

I've never been able to understand this attitude. How can a DNF imply that a cache isn't there?

 

Not sure why its an attitude, its a matter of preference and not sure why folks would worry about it. If I looked for a cache and could not find it, its a DNF. In this case, I saw the cache, but I just refused to climb the tree so in my mind, I felt it was a note. If I logged a DNF, I would have been fine with that. I just think it could go either way. As long as folks are relating their experiences, I do not see a big deal.

 

I think we all agree if you look for a cache and not find it, its a DNF, but if you found it, but can't reach it. Or if you got within 200 feet and turned around due to a large lake, or a bear...just log your experience as best you can.

Link to comment

So I was out caching yesterday and came across a situation... got within 10m of GZ and realized that with the extra rain we had over the past few days, crossing the brook to the cache had become too dangerous. I tried every avenue but had to call it due to safety.

 

Would you log this as a DNF???

 

Of course I would log it as a DNF. It meets the criteria perfectly. A DNF is not an admission of failure or a claim that something is wrong with the cache. It's just a record of what happened. And what happened is you could not get to GZ, so it is a DNF.

Link to comment

In this case, I saw the cache, but I just refused to climb the tree so in my mind, I felt it was a note. If I logged a DNF, I would have been fine with that. I just think it could go either way. As long as folks are relating their experiences, I do not see a big deal.

I found myself in exactly this situation a couple of years ago. I was going for a cache with a 3.5 terrain rating, in a wooded area. I had no idea, based on the cache description, whether the terrain rating was due to a hefty hike or something else. It turned out to be a decent hike, but when I got to GZ, I could see exactly what inspired the 3.5 terrain: The cache was a bison tube hanging about 40 feet up a tree trunk that had fallen and was leaning at about a 45-degree angle from the ground. To get to the cache required the dexterity of a monkey and a bit of a daredevil attitude. I lost most of both about 10 years ago, and decided the smiley wasn't worth risking life and limb.

 

I stood looking up at the cache for quite a while before deciding not to take what for me would have been quite a risk (not so much, probably, for someone younger). Then I faced the dilemma of how to log it. I went the way of the DNF, simply because I wasn't able to meet the challenge posed by the cache hider. And I mentioned in my log, without giving the hide away, that I saw the cache but couldn't get to it. But that's just me, and others who decided not to try it logged it as a Note. I don't really see a big deal, either.

 

I still can't agree that logging a DNF ever implies a cache is missing, especially when the cacher doesn't even make the claim that it's missing. I don't think anyone should think themselves responsible for how someone else misinterprets their log.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

So I was out caching yesterday and came across a situation... got within 10m of GZ and realized that with the extra rain we had over the past few days, crossing the brook to the cache had become too dangerous. I tried every avenue but had to call it due to safety.

 

Would you log this as a DNF??? Technically I wasn't in the "looking for the container" phase... I was approaching GZ and turned around. Personally, I put this in the "did not attempt" category... I put a note on the cache page, but did not log as a DNF

 

Opinions?

I would have done it exactly as you did. I don't call it a DNF unless I reach ground zero and get a fair search in, otherwise I log it online as a Note.

Generally agreed. Whatever gets posted, it should have some value to some or all of the following: the CO, future seekers, oneself. I intentionally sometimes "look over" a cache area of a nearby cache that I might try later. A post would be pointless. On the other hand, I drove past a cache recently and saw heavy landscaping underway. I posted a note.

Link to comment

Ethics? If you're honest with yourself, it's more like DNF OCD. There's nothing unethical about sparing people personal details such as you were driving to the cache, your wife called and asked you to pick up toilet paper so you turned back.

 

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that cache logs are only for the cache owner. This misapprehension is very widely held, judging from recent discussions about cut-and-paste logs.

 

Cache logs are there for (at least) three people:

  • The cache owner
  • Future cache seekers
  • The cacher who wrote the log

 

If a log is of value to any of those groups, it is legit. In the case of the OP, it might be of great interest to future finders to know that when it is raining the cache may be inaccessible. A DNF is more appropriate than a note, as it is more likely to be read. In the case of the "getting toilet paper" strawman you propose, it could go either way. If the seeker thought it was an amusing story, or if the seeker had some other reason to value the log, then they should by all means log it. As DNF, if they want.

Link to comment

I've seen this debate many times and I think a lot of it depends on the sort of caching each person is into, and perhaps how long they have been geocaching. For many old school cachers, most caches were adventures when they started caching, therefore their concept of when the "hunt" begins may differ from those who flit between park n grabs.

 

When I started caching the bulk of caches were longish hikes and there weren't many. So to me the cache hunt began the moment I left my house. My goal was usually that one cache and anything that kept me from finding it warranted a DNF. For those who are used to finding 5, 10 or 20 park and grabs in a day, their concept of when the "cache hunt" actually begins may differ

Link to comment

By the sound of it I would have done exactly as you did.

 

Me too.

If you can't get close to GZ you really haven't looked....putting a blue face on the cache page is telling future seekers that the cache might not be there when in reality you have no idea if its there or not. I would post a note so folks would know about the water.

Using that thinking, 95% of DNF's shouldn't have DNF logs. Except in a few cases, you have no idea if the cache is there or not unless you find it. So if you haven't found it, how can you tell if it's missing or you've just missed it? So by not finding it, "in reality you have no idea if its there or not" so (by you statement above)how can you post a DNF?

Link to comment

I used to leave a DNF message when I spent enough resources to make a reasonable conclusion that the cache could not be found by me in that circumstances or could be lost at all.

 

For example, I approach a D=1.5 cache at night, walk to the GZ, look at the description carefully, see that the hint is "ivy". I can imagine the cache is pretty easy at daylight since the tiny contaner could be seen by a sharp eye. However at night it will take me much more efforts with that thorny bushes until I catch the little box with my fingers and these efforts won't be much fun. So, after few seconds of thinking, after I overviewed the area I simply give up and go away. A note, I think. I was at the GZ but I didn't search actually. I cannot say neither that I really made an attempt on this cache nor that the cache was gone. However I felt I needed to share my experience with others because the cache had an attribute "Recommended at night" and I would argue with that.

 

I never thought that my hunt began when I left my house. Perhaps it is because I'm more and old school hiker than an old school cacher :)

Link to comment

Using that thinking, 95% of DNF's shouldn't have DNF logs. Except in a few cases, you have no idea if the cache is there or not unless you find it. So if you haven't found it, how can you tell if it's missing or you've just missed it? So by not finding it, "in reality you have no idea if its there or not" so (by you statement above)how can you post a DNF?

 

The statement is not "the container is missing" but "with my experience and after reasonable search I can state that the container might be missing".

Link to comment
Someone got to the starting point of my multi, realized they didn't have time for a multi and left. They logged a DNF.
I've often done multi-stage caches over multiple days. When I've completed only one or two stages because that's all I had time for that day, then I found everything I searched for that day, and a DNF doesn't seem appropriate. I log Notes reporting my progress in situations like that.

 

 

The words DID NOT FIND are quite limited and clear. You were looking and Did NOT FIND what you were looking for.
So far, so good...

 

There is some confusion about when a hunt starts of course... I figure that when you punch up the coordinates and push GOTO is the clearest one. Do that and the hunt has started in earnest.
Maybe it's that I found hundreds of geocaches before I had a GOTO button to push. Maybe it's that I rarely go on "geocaching trips", but instead include a bit of geocaching when doing something else. But to me, this doesn't seem like a clear place to draw the line at all.

 

I don't start searching for the cache until I reach GZ. If I haven't searched for the cache, then it doesn't make sense to say that I did not find it.

Link to comment

Ethics? If you're honest with yourself, it's more like DNF OCD. There's nothing unethical about sparing people personal details such as you were driving to the cache, your wife called and asked you to pick up toilet paper so you turned back.

 

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that cache logs are only for the cache owner. This misapprehension is very widely held, judging from recent discussions about cut-and-paste logs.

 

Cache logs are there for (at least) three people:

  • The cache owner
  • Future cache seekers
  • The cacher who wrote the log

 

If a log is of value to any of those groups, it is legit. In the case of the OP, it might be of great interest to future finders to know that when it is raining the cache may be inaccessible. A DNF is more appropriate than a note, as it is more likely to be read. In the case of the "getting toilet paper" strawman you propose, it could go either way. If the seeker thought it was an amusing story, or if the seeker had some other reason to value the log, then they should by all means log it. As DNF, if they want.

 

I agree with you on *almost* everything above. If the log has value to the first 2 groups you mentioned, it should definitely be posted. This can include funny stories. A cache page is, after all, a public place to communicate. If a log only has value to the cacher posting it, then perhaps they should instead write a personal cache note or make an entry in their personal agenda.

Link to comment

So I was out caching yesterday and came across a situation... got within 10m of GZ and realized that with the extra rain we had over the past few days, crossing the brook to the cache had become too dangerous. I tried every avenue but had to call it due to safety.

 

Would you log this as a DNF???

Sometimes when I can't get to GZ, I don't consider it a search, but this case is definitely not one of them. There's a clear reason you didn't find the cache, and you should report that.

Link to comment

I have followed the "Didn't find it = DNF" path for maybe 6 months now. I'm starting to see a pattern though that is not positive. What is happening is that because I look long and hard before I log a DNF those that follow feel comforted by it and also DNF easily. I don't want to see those caches archived - they are probably still there and I just couldn't find it because, let's face it, I am an average seeker. Archiving is not good - the caches wouldn't meet the Guidelines today.

 

So I conclude that DNF'ing is not a universal thing - it depends on the circumstances. And that, in my circumstances, I need to be a bit more circumspect before I log a DNF.

 

Geoff aka Tyreless

Link to comment

I would log it as a DNF. Though I don't think it matters much if a DNF or a note is logged.

 

My personal "guideline" is I log a DNF if I start the hunt and I don't find it because of a geocaching relevant reason. Examples of this include:

 

  1. The route was challenging to follow and I was unable to do it
  2. A bridge was out or a path was closed blocking access to GZ
  3. etc

 

I would post a note (or perhaps nothing) if I gave up because

 

  • I ran out of time
  • There was an emergency at home and I had to abort
  • etc

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...
×
×
  • Create New...