Jump to content

Why such negativity towards a NA


Yuma4
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

The continuing drama:

Sure, a couple people are acting kinda dumb, but that happens all the time. (*shrug*)

 

...so the accused responds...

 

10/29/2014

Write Note

Okay...I'm glad you wrote that here, because anyone watching this cache can see how you react. I'm sure the CO is proud of such a defense.

...

At this point, with the cache archived, an acceptable outcome has been achieved, the record is in the log, and there's nothing more to say about the cache, so this note is pointless. It is the equivalent of throwing a punch to start a fight when there's no good reason not to just walk away. ("But he called me "a meddler". Them's fightin' words!") I hope the accused isn't local, 'cuz this is the kind of thing that makes people who say stupid things go out and do stupid things.

 

To reflect on the topic, this is an emotional reaction to an NA because of the disappointment in losing this cache. It seems like a lot of fondness for and a need to defend the cache or the CO or both. That's a good example for people to keep in mind when they post an NA so they make it clear in the log why the need for archival cannot be ignored but is nevertheless still a sad thing to report. And then after posting an NA, it helps to recognize that some people are going to react negatively no matter how justified the NA is. No matter what anyone posts, the only reason to file another log is if something about the NA requires clarification. The text of the NA should provide all the defense the NA could ever need.

Link to comment

The continuing drama:

Sure, a couple people are acting kinda dumb, but that happens all the time. (*shrug*)

 

...so the accused responds...

 

10/29/2014

Write Note

Okay...I'm glad you wrote that here, because anyone watching this cache can see how you react. I'm sure the CO is proud of such a defense.

...

At this point, with the cache archived, an acceptable outcome has been achieved, the record is in the log, and there's nothing more to say about the cache, so this note is pointless. It is the equivalent of throwing a punch to start a fight when there's no good reason not to just walk away. ("But he called me "a meddler". Them's fightin' words!") I hope the accused isn't local, 'cuz this is the kind of thing that makes people who say stupid things go out and do stupid things.

 

To reflect on the topic, this is an emotional reaction to an NA because of the disappointment in losing this cache. It seems like a lot of fondness for and a need to defend the cache or the CO or both. That's a good example for people to keep in mind when they post an NA so they make it clear in the log why the need for archival cannot be ignored but is nevertheless still a sad thing to report. And then after posting an NA, it helps to recognize that some people are going to react negatively no matter how justified the NA is. No matter what anyone posts, the only reason to file another log is if something about the NA requires clarification. The text of the NA should provide all the defense the NA could ever need.

 

Not necessary, but certainly a level-headed response to what appears to be someone clearly going off the deep end. To me it just underlines the fact that his (the CO's husband) response was emotionally charged and quite inappropriate.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

And then after posting an NA, it helps to recognize that some people are going to react negatively no matter how justified the NA is. No matter what anyone posts, the only reason to file another log is if something about the NA requires clarification. The text of the NA should provide all the defense the NA could ever need.

If people react negatively for a geocacher posting a DNF, and rather hash for posting a NM... imagine a NA!!! The first NA that I posted was immediately deleted by the CO, and then undeleted by a Lackey.

 

People feel that they can do whatever they want and that they are above everybody else... We are all equal!!!!

Link to comment

And then after posting an NA, it helps to recognize that some people are going to react negatively no matter how justified the NA is. No matter what anyone posts, the only reason to file another log is if something about the NA requires clarification. The text of the NA should provide all the defense the NA could ever need.

If people react negatively for a geocacher posting a DNF, and rather hash for posting a NM... imagine a NA!!! The first NA that I posted was immediately deleted by the CO, and then undeleted by a Lackey.

 

People feel that they can do whatever they want and that they are above everybody else... We are all equal!!!!

 

It's cute when people don't realize that a NA log is a bell that can't be unrung by simply deleting the log.

Link to comment

Not necessary, but certainly a level-headed response to what appears to be someone clearly going off the deep end.

No, sorry. The note may have been fair, but it wasn't level-headed. However much it was justified, it was still a rant, pure and simple.

 

To me it just underlines the fact that his (the CO's husband) response was emotionally charged and quite inappropriate.

"Underlines" is such a pleasant term for publicly berating.

Link to comment

Not necessary, but certainly a level-headed response to what appears to be someone clearly going off the deep end.

No, sorry. The note may have been fair, but it wasn't level-headed. However much it was justified, it was still a rant, pure and simple.

 

To me it just underlines the fact that his (the CO's husband) response was emotionally charged and quite inappropriate.

"Underlines" is such a pleasant term for publicly berating.

 

I don't get "rant" from that. "Rant" implies clearly expressed anger and emotion, which is not the overriding tone of the response, in my opinion.

 

I suppose you are quite willing to let things go without defending your actions...but others are not. Personally, I find it refreshing to not see the defense descend to name-calling.

Link to comment

I suppose you are quite willing to let things go without defending your actions...but others are not.

Well, obviously I'm quite willing to let things go, which is why I'm suggesting that higher route for others that might not have tried it. I have never, ever found it useful to get into a fight with someone that's being stupid. It's not as if they'll suddenly grow brains just because I loudly defend myself at length. Anyone following the conversation who's smart enough already knows how defensible my actions are, so all I can possibly accomplish is to enrage someone that's already made up their minds against my actions.

 

Personally, I find it refreshing to not see the defense descend to name-calling.

Really? You see name-calling a lot in logs? Man, you live in a sad area. But in that case, I guess I can see how this post might seem like a refreshing improvement. My reaction is mainly, "Why did he bother?"

Link to comment

I suppose you are quite willing to let things go without defending your actions...but others are not.

Well, obviously I'm quite willing to let things go, which is why I'm suggesting that higher route for others that might not have tried it. I have never, ever found it useful to get into a fight with someone that's being stupid. It's not as if they'll suddenly grow brains just because I loudly defend myself at length. Anyone following the conversation who's smart enough already knows how defensible my actions are, so all I can possibly accomplish is to enrage someone that's already made up their minds against my actions.

 

Personally, I find it refreshing to not see the defense descend to name-calling.

Really? You see name-calling a lot in logs? Man, you live in a sad area. But in that case, I guess I can see how this post might seem like a refreshing improvement. My reaction is mainly, "Why did he bother?"

 

You realize you're doing it right now, don't you? I know, it's a forum and that's what it is for as opposed to a cache page...but you are still arguing your point of view even though I'm still obviously solid in my own stance.

Link to comment

I'm all for warranted NA's - I've even posted a few myself.

 

Recently though a local cacher received a NA on a cache that admittedly had been disabled for some time - as a result of a virtual stage being vanadalised - something which only the landowner can fix.

 

This was particularly frustrating for said CO who had invested considerable effort into a cache that while not unique was certainly out of the ordinary.

 

The NA came from a very infrequent cacher from outside the area who, as far as I can tell, has not only never searched for this particular cache but hasn't even searched for any cache anywhere near this one - and quite possibly has no intention of ever doing so.

 

No note enquiring as to the status of the cache - no NM log - straight to NA.

 

I'm somewhat mystified by the whole situation - but I can quite understand now why some NA logs draw negativity <_<

Link to comment

I have left one NA. Cache was wrecked, everything inside soaked and frozen, 5+ NM logs, And I noticed owner had been MIA for 5 1/2 years, and I could have replaced the lunchbox at the base of a tree with a D3. Justified?

Are you saying that you'd replace the cache with a new container, or a new container and new listing?

 

You don't want to replace a still-active cache without first communicating with the owner. In this case it may not be likely to hear back, but you should try that first if you want to adopt the cache and listing, take over the cache location, or anything else to do with that cache. Your NA log is a good start to get Greatland Reviewer involved (assuming this is an AK cache?), but you shouldn't change a cache that isn't yours.

 

Meaning, if that cache is a D3, then sure, you could replace it with a like container in the same manner of hiding, etc to make it a D3. But if the cache is a D1.5, and you put down a D3 throwdown/replacement, you're changing the cache...which isn't really a good idea.

 

I'll assume you mean that the cache was Archived and you want to place a new cache at that location. In that case, go for it! (So long as that location is a good place for a hide, where it won't be likely muggled or have other issues due to where it hidden, or how it is hidden.)

Link to comment

I have left one NA. Cache was wrecked, everything inside soaked and frozen, 5+ NM logs, And I noticed owner had been MIA for 5 1/2 years, and I could have replaced the lunchbox at the base of a tree with a D3. Justified?

Are you saying that you'd replace the cache with a new container, or a new container and new listing?

 

You don't want to replace a still-active cache without first communicating with the owner. In this case it may not be likely to hear back, but you should try that first if you want to adopt the cache and listing, take over the cache location, or anything else to do with that cache. Your NA log is a good start to get Greatland Reviewer involved (assuming this is an AK cache?), but you shouldn't change a cache that isn't yours.

 

Meaning, if that cache is a D3, then sure, you could replace it with a like container in the same manner of hiding, etc to make it a D3. But if the cache is a D1.5, and you put down a D3 throwdown/replacement, you're changing the cache...which isn't really a good idea.

 

I'll assume you mean that the cache was Archived and you want to place a new cache at that location. In that case, go for it! (So long as that location is a good place for a hide, where it won't be likely muggled or have other issues due to where it hidden, or how it is hidden.)

 

I understand, Ive tried adoption, but what I was getting at was the fact that it was hogging a spot. Not the replacing it aspect, it would be a whole new listing, whole new theme, and container.

Link to comment

Incorrect. There was nobody on the stairs...not sure what you are talking about. At the top side of the stairs, they are completely demolished and the stairs are not stable since they are not anchored into the ground at the top half anymore.

It would have been clearer if I'd said, "IF someone used the stairs." I had no idea that the stairs didn't work.

 

My concern is that people are only keeping this one around because of its age and will ignore changing conditions on the site, ignore new restrictions on access and ignore the concerns of permissions and property ownership merely because it fills a square on a grid.

I think people are mainly unconcerned. Despite the new signs, it's not as if anyone's going to get hurt or arrested for going to GZ, so most people, like me, are probably willing to let it continue just to see what happens. Once there's a problem, then we can talk about archiving it. To be honest, I don't think there's any significant legal difference between its placement now behind a scary sign and its original placement on private property without permission.

 

Its plainly disrespectful for one person to intentionally disobey private property signs. That disrespect increases quite a bit when there is an open invitation for the public to intentionally disobey private property signs. When someone senses disrespect they tend to pay it back. Not sure if you really want that. There plenty of hides by great people out there, and when someone's general impression of geocachers is that of disrespectful people, they just may take it out on the others. In the end, following your advice jeopardizes the hard work that the others have done. Kinda reminds me of the deer that sits at the side of the road staring at traffic, while apathetically crossing in front of it.

Link to comment

Its plainly disrespectful for one person to intentionally disobey private property signs. That disrespect increases quite a bit when there is an open invitation for the public to intentionally disobey private property signs. When someone senses disrespect they tend to pay it back. Not sure if you really want that. There plenty of hides by great people out there, and when someone's general impression of geocachers is that of disrespectful people, they just may take it out on the others. In the end, following your advice jeopardizes the hard work that the others have done. Kinda reminds me of the deer that sits at the side of the road staring at traffic, while apathetically crossing in front of it.

While you have a good point in general, this specific case is just an abandoned fast food joint on a corner, not someone's yard. It's impossible for me to imagine anyone being emotionally invested in the property to the point of thinking someone going 15' into it without disturbing anything is being disrespectful. It seems quite likely more people walk through the parking lot just to cut the corner than go there to geocache. So for both reasons, I claim there's no danger here of giving geocaching a bad name. The only real danger is that someone will insist on prosecuting someone for purely legal reasons, and even that seems unlikely.

Link to comment

Its plainly disrespectful for one person to intentionally disobey private property signs. That disrespect increases quite a bit when there is an open invitation for the public to intentionally disobey private property signs. When someone senses disrespect they tend to pay it back. Not sure if you really want that. There plenty of hides by great people out there, and when someone's general impression of geocachers is that of disrespectful people, they just may take it out on the others. In the end, following your advice jeopardizes the hard work that the others have done. Kinda reminds me of the deer that sits at the side of the road staring at traffic, while apathetically crossing in front of it.

While you have a good point in general, this specific case is just an abandoned fast food joint on a corner, not someone's yard. It's impossible for me to imagine anyone being emotionally invested in the property to the point of thinking someone going 15' into it without disturbing anything is being disrespectful. It seems quite likely more people walk through the parking lot just to cut the corner than go there to geocache. So for both reasons, I claim there's no danger here of giving geocaching a bad name. The only real danger is that someone will insist on prosecuting someone for purely legal reasons, and even that seems unlikely.

 

And likewise, it's impossible for me to imagine anyone being emotionally invested in the geocache to the point of thinking that it shouldn't be archived. A 12 year old parking lot micro with 0 favorites isn't something worth losing sleep over. Likely there is some scrap metal nearby that some crackhead would love to grab, and a continual presence of people entering the area, acting sketchy, and wasting the time of the police is not something that the game should be about. A cop sees someone at night and says "oh that's one of those game players", and the next week the owner reports that all of the aluminum wiring and copper piping has been ripped out. A geocache which brings a parade of people to lurk around an abandoned building is plainly inappropriate, whether its legal or not. Wait until the metal scrappers get caught using the game and the free app as an alibi, and that hits the news.

Link to comment

Its plainly disrespectful for one person to intentionally disobey private property signs. That disrespect increases quite a bit when there is an open invitation for the public to intentionally disobey private property signs. When someone senses disrespect they tend to pay it back. Not sure if you really want that. There plenty of hides by great people out there, and when someone's general impression of geocachers is that of disrespectful people, they just may take it out on the others. In the end, following your advice jeopardizes the hard work that the others have done. Kinda reminds me of the deer that sits at the side of the road staring at traffic, while apathetically crossing in front of it.

While you have a good point in general, this specific case is just an abandoned fast food joint on a corner, not someone's yard. It's impossible for me to imagine anyone being emotionally invested in the property to the point of thinking someone going 15' into it without disturbing anything is being disrespectful. It seems quite likely more people walk through the parking lot just to cut the corner than go there to geocache. So for both reasons, I claim there's no danger here of giving geocaching a bad name. The only real danger is that someone will insist on prosecuting someone for purely legal reasons, and even that seems unlikely.

 

To me, it seems more along the lines of the "hole in the ground" aspect of the guidelines. They say caches cannot be buried...no exceptions. It doesn't matter if it's a nano, if it's on the CO's property, if permission was given. All it takes is one person interpreting it as okay to do with their own cache and it just cascades from there. In this case, a new 'no trespassing' sign was put up. That property has been abandoned for at least a year or two...maybe more. All that time there was no sign. Then it changed. I brought it to the attention of others simply because otherwise people might assume it has always been there and everything was A-OK. New conditions on-site called for a new assessment of the cache's status. Period. I simply brought it to their attention. If it doesn't get archived...so what? If there's a problem resulting from someone seeking this cache, they can no longer say it wasn't clear or that it's been that way for a long time.

 

As it is, the cache has been disabled now for over a month and will likely be archived in short order. The CO has not stepped in. Nobody has posted any further logs. This one is on borrowed time right now and will probably be a memory by the end of the month. There has been no pulling of hair or gnashing of teeth despite the age of this cache.

Link to comment

And likewise, it's impossible for me to imagine anyone being emotionally invested in the geocache to the point of thinking that it shouldn't be archived.

True, but I guess my problem was imagining anyone being emotionally invested in the geocache to think that it should be archived.

 

As it is, the cache has been disabled now for over a month and will likely be archived in short order.

Yep, it's a goner. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Link to comment

And likewise, it's impossible for me to imagine anyone being emotionally invested in the geocache to the point of thinking that it shouldn't be archived.

True, but I guess my problem was imagining anyone being emotionally invested in the geocache to think that it should be archived.

 

It certainly doesn't take an emotional investment to post an NA, or to have an opinion that it probably should be archived.

 

See here. A single pair of cachers post 2 DNFs and add an NA on. Usually it takes a string of DNFs before a Needs Maintenance, and then the NA might appear after that is not addressed after a few months. However the reviewer obliges them, and seemingly without any emotional investment either.

Link to comment

I have left one NA. Cache was wrecked, everything inside soaked and frozen, 5+ NM logs, And I noticed owner had been MIA for 5 1/2 years, and I could have replaced the lunchbox at the base of a tree with a D3. Justified?

Are you saying that you'd replace the cache with a new container, or a new container and new listing?

 

You don't want to replace a still-active cache without first communicating with the owner. In this case it may not be likely to hear back, but you should try that first if you want to adopt the cache and listing, take over the cache location, or anything else to do with that cache. Your NA log is a good start to get Greatland Reviewer involved (assuming this is an AK cache?), but you shouldn't change a cache that isn't yours.

 

Meaning, if that cache is a D3, then sure, you could replace it with a like container in the same manner of hiding, etc to make it a D3. But if the cache is a D1.5, and you put down a D3 throwdown/replacement, you're changing the cache...which isn't really a good idea.

 

I'll assume you mean that the cache was Archived and you want to place a new cache at that location. In that case, go for it! (So long as that location is a good place for a hide, where it won't be likely muggled or have other issues due to where it hidden, or how it is hidden.)

 

I understand, Ive tried adoption, but what I was getting at was the fact that it was hogging a spot. Not the replacing it aspect, it would be a whole new listing, whole new theme, and container.

Careful with saying "it was hogging a spot". If a cache is there before you, it has precedent. Don't just log a NA because you want a cache gone to make room for your cache.

 

Now, I understand that this specific case isn't that way--you've said it was damaged and wasn't being maintained. For now, let your NA stand, and the Reviewer will take it from there. If they determine that the cache can live on (email from the owner, etc), you'll need to be ok with that fact.

 

If GR archives it, then you've got the 528' area open for a new hide in proximity to the old one.

Link to comment

Just doing an update on these caches - in front of each cache, in bold...

 

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

 

Disabled for 3 months: (now it´s 5 months!)

 

http://coord.info/GC29A1K - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC1JQ7F - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC3HKN3 - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC1ET3H - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC3E81P - Archived by the owner

http://coord.info/GC2243F - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC3FWFV - Archived by the owner

http://coord.info/GC1FTNY - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC1HCAT - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC3YKMX - still Disabled

 

Your local reviewers will most likely look at these caches the next time they sweep the country looking for, well, caches disabled for more than X weeks.

 

Maintenance requests for 3 months: (now it´s 5 months!)

 

http://coord.info/GC2243F - Disabled by reviewer

http://coord.info/GC3FD6Y - Archived by the owner

http://coord.info/GC3D1V7 - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC3D1RP - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC3D1YM - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC3EBGK - Archived by the owner

http://coord.info/GC3D0N3 - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC3NZ7R - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC184QF - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC1FPM3 - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC1FPGD - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC2KQ64 - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC2YH6X - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC1E7PM - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC3MQ3D - Archived by the owner

http://coord.info/GC1GPPD - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC2EARV - Still with maintenance request!

http://coord.info/GC1J1P3 - Found by others but logbook is soaked! Still needs maintenance!

http://coord.info/GC22NKY - Still with maintenance request!

 

Maintenance requests are originated towards the cache owners. Some geocachers don't consider them critical. Some geocachers ignore them. Some geocachers filter all the automated messages coming from Geocaching.com. Have you tried contacting each and every owner of these caches? Offer a hand?

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing... Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

 

No, the local reviewers only know about the caches for which you post SBA logs. All the other caches, unless specifically pointed out, do not raise any kind of "alarm".

 

The reviewers have been really busy...NOT!!!!! They said they were taking care of it but nothing done in 2 months... Just great!!!!

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

The reviewers have been really busy...NOT!!!!! They said they were taking care of it but nothing done in 2 months... Just great!!!!

 

Complaining on here will get you nowhere.

 

If you think the caches need archiving then post the appropriate log to bring them to the reviewer's attention - that's a Needs Archived log.

Complained directly to all them by email...

 

Complained to the Brazilian Forum...

 

Complained to GS...

 

This is my last resourse...

 

What else?!?!?!?

Link to comment

The reviewers have been really busy...NOT!!!!! They said they were taking care of it but nothing done in 2 months... Just great!!!!

 

Complaining on here will get you nowhere.

 

If you think the caches need archiving then post the appropriate log to bring them to the reviewer's attention - that's a Needs Archived log.

Complained directly to all them by email...

 

Complained to the Brazilian Forum...

 

Complained to GS...

 

This is my last resourse...

What else?!?!?!?

 

Let it go?

Link to comment

The reviewers have been really busy...NOT!!!!! They said they were taking care of it but nothing done in 2 months... Just great!!!!

 

Complaining on here will get you nowhere.

 

If you think the caches need archiving then post the appropriate log to bring them to the reviewer's attention - that's a Needs Archived log.

Complained directly to all them by email...

 

Complained to the Brazilian Forum...

 

Complained to GS...

 

This is my last resourse...

 

What else?!?!?!?

 

I bet you are on a special list and you get ignored.

Link to comment

Just doing an update on these caches - in front of each cache, in bold...

 

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

 

Disabled for 3 months: (now it´s 5 months!)

 

http://coord.info/GC29A1K - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC1JQ7F - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC3HKN3 - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC1ET3H - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC3E81P - Archived by the owner

http://coord.info/GC2243F - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC3FWFV - Archived by the owner

http://coord.info/GC1FTNY - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC1HCAT - still Disabled

http://coord.info/GC3YKMX - still Disabled

 

Your local reviewers will most likely look at these caches the next time they sweep the country looking for, well, caches disabled for more than X weeks.

 

Maintenance requests for 3 months: (now it´s 5 months!)

...

 

Maintenance requests are originated towards the cache owners. Some geocachers don't consider them critical. Some geocachers ignore them. Some geocachers filter all the automated messages coming from Geocaching.com. Have you tried contacting each and every owner of these caches? Offer a hand?

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing... Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

 

No, the local reviewers only know about the caches for which you post SBA logs. All the other caches, unless specifically pointed out, do not raise any kind of "alarm".

 

The reviewers have been really busy...NOT!!!!! They said they were taking care of it but nothing done in 2 months... Just great!!!!

 

Funny enough, just a few days after this post all those caches were archived!!!! Maybe, just maybe this is the only way to get things done here in Brazil:

 

Post the problems in the International Forum so everybody can see the problem that is happening in Geocaching in Brazil.

 

Ohh, yes... I am soooooo lame, but at least I am trying to do something, others just watch and keep quiet...

Link to comment

Good work! Now you are expected to place a number of caches in Brazil equal to the number of which you caused archival. :ph34r:

So you prefer to have listings that have no caches there, or that the owners don't maintain rather then having the listings archived!

 

Great then... I rather have the listings accurate with the reality!

Link to comment

Good work! Now you are expected to place a number of caches in Brazil equal to the number of which you caused archival. :ph34r:

So you prefer to have listings that have no caches there, or that the owners don't maintain rather then having the listings archived!

 

Great then... I rather have the listings accurate with the reality!

 

Do you actally visit these caches and confirm them?

Link to comment

Good work! Now you are expected to place a number of caches in Brazil equal to the number of which you caused archival. :ph34r:

So you prefer to have listings that have no caches there, or that the owners don't maintain rather then having the listings archived!

 

Great then... I rather have the listings accurate with the reality!

 

Do you actally visit these caches and confirm them?

Yes, all of them!!!!

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 5
×
×
  • Create New...