Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
rustynails.

Health Scores

Recommended Posts

This feature's appears defective.

 

I have a cache that HQ's computer has indicated on my cache owner dashboard as low health. The last three logs are dnf-find-find. The dnf logged states they could see it but not able to retrieve due to their tool not up to the task. There are NO needs maintenance logs. You should always review logs before doing a maintenance run, glad I did. Never ever trust a computer.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Which cache? What's the D-rating?

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is why I don’t DNF a cache unless I suspect it is missing. At most I would have posted a note in that situation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, niraD said:

If the CHS can't work with the way people log caches, then the CHS is broken. People should not change the way they log caches.

Amen to that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

D is underrated. Just like it said in the email you got. QUOTE: Adjust D/T rating: If your cache turns out to be more difficult than you thought, adjust the D/T rating so that the community knows what to expect.

 

If I understand it properly and I may not, I'd say both ratings are wrong.  Terrain is way off. 

4.5 terrain: "Extremely demanding movement over potentially hazardous terrain." Am I climbing that pine, or not? I'd say not.

 

I speculate that I'd find this  and sign the log, assuming proper tool, all within a Terrain rating of 1 to 1.5.

 

 Tough to say about the D, but my own tendency is to rate 2 for just about anything micro.  

 

This is where special tool gets funky.  Does needing a screwdriver impact D rating?  or just mean the the special tool attribute should be used?

 

Edited by Isonzo Karst
  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post

The CHS algorithm can't read the contents of a log.  Was this your expectation?

 

While the Health Score may have triggered an email saying that your cache MAY need attention, nothing else will happen to it automatically. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post

They can't really change the DT now....the cache was been found by hundreds of users and active for over 6 years. @Isonzo Karst 

 

I mean, yes they can, but it's not something seen as fair by others...changing DT's on cache years later. The cache very well could be a 4.5T IMO, depending on the tree and where it is, and how high it is. And what tools needed etc....the D may be a stotche low. Seemingly this is more of a 4T judging by the height, but I'm just guessing.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, DreamMachine74 said:

They can't really change the DT now....the cache was been found by hundreds of users and active for over 6 years. @Isonzo Karst 

 

I mean, yes they can, but it's not something seen as fair by others...changing DT's on cache years later. The cache very well could be a 4.5T IMO, depending on the tree and where it is, and how high it is. And what tools needed etc....the D may be a stotche low. Seemingly this is more of a 4T judging by the height, but I'm just guessing.

 

The D/T rating is a tool, not a score. 

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I understand that, but theres a sizable group of people who understand changing DT ratings out of the blue isn't exactly fair, especially years later. I know that DT ratings are meant to guide finders on what to expect for a challenge with regards to finding the cache, but there's been many challenges created over the years where's this tool becomes more important to cachers. I think it's fair to say that as an example, a 3.5D/1.5T trad hidden for a few days but already garnering 5 to ten hides can be altered to a 1.5/1.5 if said cache is found to be far too easy...but changing said cache after say, 6 years and well over a hundred finders? I think that'd be a bit more of a nuisance. Of course, this isn't that bad of an example....a higher DT combination would be more tough to really judge, especially for newer cachers. 

 

Now....changing cache sizes is a different story altogether.... (regulars to small/micros*, or whatever)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Leprechauns said:

While the Health Score may have triggered an email saying that your cache MAY need attention, nothing else will happen to it automatically. 

 

This. A reviewer would actually read the logs, and move on by....

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, rustynails. said:

Never ever trust a computer.

OT, but I trust computers more than people. 

:D

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, DreamMachine74 said:

They can't really change the DT now....

And yet, adjust the ratings is exactly what the email sent by the site asks the cache owner to do. Linky for that email

 

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

@DreamMachine74, how is it fair that a cache rating not accurately reflect the cache condition? Regardless of the D/T rating when placed, if the hide environment changes, the D/T should be adjusted to reflect the current situation. If the bridge washes out on the hiking trail to that 1.5/2 cache, the T rating should be raised to reflect having to swim the river.

Perhaps you are one of those who have the false belief that the D/T ratings are some type of a score, instead of a rating reflective of the cache hide.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

And yet, adjust the ratings is exactly what the email sent by the site asks the cache owner to do. Linky for that email

 

 

 

Not changing D/T.  In this area we define this style hide as high terrain. Also the topic is health scores not terrain.

Edited by rustynails.
  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 2

Share this post


Link to post

Where does CHS show on owner dashboard? I can't seem to find it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, rustynails. said:
43 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

And yet, adjust the ratings is exactly what the email sent by the site asks the cache owner to do. Linky for that email

 

 

 

Not changing D/T.  In this area we define this style hide as high terrain. Also the topic is health scores not terrain.

 

I might be wrong, but I doubt that reducing a cache's T rating would improve its health score.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, colleda said:

Where does CHS show on owner dashboard? I can't seem to find it.

 

It only appears if you've got a cache that's been pinged.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Apologies, my remarks about the T rating have taken this discussion sidewise.

 

Raise the D level to something that matches what's happening at the cache site.  Cache is running nearly 20 % DNFs.  For a maintained cache in good condition, that's high for D 1.5.

  • Upvote 6
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, TmdAndGG said:

OT, but I trust computers more than people.

 

I trust computers to do exactly what they are told. I don't trust people to give correct instructions to computers. ;) 

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Unit473L said:

 

I trust computers to do exactly what they are told. I don't trust people to give correct instructions to computers. ;) 

 Related to:  GI,GO >>>>>> Garbage In Garbage Out???

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, niraD said:

If the CHS can't work with the way people log caches., then the CHS is broken.

 

FTFY.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/3/2021 at 11:25 AM, The Leprechauns said:

The CHS algorithm can't read the contents of a log.  Was this your expectation?

 

While the Health Score may have triggered an email saying that your cache MAY need attention, nothing else will happen to it automatically. 

 

Just received this evening.  Hello rustynails.,

Your geocache, Don't Climb the Pine Tree (GC4QFHN), looks like it might need some attention.

 

Yes. computers can't read. I never expected their computer could read logs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/4/2021 at 4:22 AM, Isonzo Karst said:

If I understand it properly and I may not, I'd say both ratings are wrong.  Terrain is way off. 

4.5 terrain: "Extremely demanding movement over potentially hazardous terrain." Am I climbing that pine, or not? I'd say not.

From the satellite view, I'd agree.... unless that park is *really* gnarly!

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, rustynails. said:

 I never expected their computer could read logs.

 

So what's the defect you're alleging?  When three out of the last five visitors logged DNF on a D1.5 cache, it's not unreasonable to flag the cache as possibly needing maintenance.  The only way to tell for sure is to read the logs.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:

 

So what's the defect you're alleging?  When three out of the last five visitors logged DNF on a D1.5 cache, it's not unreasonable to flag the cache as possibly needing maintenance.  The only way to tell for sure is to read the logs.

 

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the CHS nastygrams are some sort of courtesy.  They are not.  At best, they are nagging spam of the "your car warranty is expiring and here is an offer for a new one at a hugely inflated price" variety.  At worst, they read as a threat.

 

Perhaps reviewers see the letters as useful, but I can assure you that no "regular" cacher I know does.

  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Then all such regular cachers forever forfeit their right to complain that "they don't do anything about all the crappy broken and missing caches."

  • Upvote 6
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Leprechauns said:

 

So what's the defect you're alleging?  When three out of the last five visitors logged DNF on a D1.5 cache, it's not unreasonable to flag the cache as possibly needing maintenance.  The only way to tell for sure is to read the logs.

 

I know this has been gone over a gazillion times before, but consider the sequence of events: several finds -  2 DNFs - 2 more finds - 1 DNF - CHS email.

 

The only likely cache problem that would lead to a DNF is a missing cache, since people don't generally log DNFs if they find it but the container is broken or the log is wet. So for the CHS to be taking those two earlier DNFs into account, it must be assuming that the two intervening finds are fake. But which is more likely, two fake finds or the cache actually isn't missing and those DNFers simply couldn't find it?

 

It'd be a sad endictment on the game if fake find logs really are more commonplace than DNFs on caches that aren't missing.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:

Then all such regular cachers forever forfeit their right to complain that "they don't do anything about all the crappy broken and missing caches."

 

Well, yes.   I always look at past logs before seeking a cache, and if it looks dodgy I tend to ignore it.  But I am probably an outlier.

 

The CHS letters could easily be rewritten to be less threatening; the fact that it purposefully excludes any options that do not involve either archiving or physically visiting the cache is a good clue about its intent.  I mean, it would take maybe 10 seconds of thought to come up with a truly useful notification that didn't come off as a threat.  Like, for example, a quick checkbox at the bottom that says "I have looked at the logs and this notification was in error."  But no, that would be treating cachers as adults worthy of respect, so that's apparently not a workable solution.

 

Personally, I think that resorting to this kind of threat to address the problem is a sign that the company doesn't care much about its customers.

Edited by fizzymagic
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:

Then all such regular cachers forever forfeit their right to complain that "they don't do anything about all the crappy broken and missing caches."

 

Isn't that what NM and NA logs were for? Surely an NM or NA from someone on the ground at GZ has to be more reliable than a head office computer algorithm counting DNFs and trying to infer a statistical likelihood that the cache is missing. Oh, and counting DNFs will only catch missing caches, it won't catch the crappy and broken ones because they still get logged as finds not DNFs.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

sn't that what NM and NA logs were for? Surely an NM or NA from someone on the ground at GZ has to be more reliable than a head office computer algorithm

 

The problem is more and more finders in more and more places globally will not log an NM or NA. If they say anything it’s in a ‘found it’ log, a DNF and sometimes a note. They don’t  want to get an owner upset or get labelled ‘cache cop’. If owners get irritated by a CHS note, imagine the kerfuffle an NM or NA could cause.

 

Just recently I received an angry  reprimand from an owner for logging an NA (signs and fencing said the trail was permanently closed). 

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

The problem is more and more finders in more and more places globally will not log an NM or NA. If they say anything it’s in a ‘found it’ log, a DNF and sometimes a note. They don’t  want to get an owner upset or get labelled ‘cache cop’. If owners get irritated by a CHS note, imagine the kerfuffle an NM or NA could cause.

 

Just recently I received an angry  reprimand from an owner for logging an NA (signs and fencing said the trail was permanently closed). 

 

Maybe, just maybe, those are the real problems that need addressing.

 

I'd much rather get an NM from someone who's actually been to GZ (or as close as they can get if there's an access problem) and can describe the issue, or if it's a potentially missing cache tell me where they looked, than the CHS email that provides no information at all. It doesn't even tell you what triggered it, only that there might be a problem and you need to fix it (whatever it is), disable the cache until you can or archive it. I'd really like to know what the problem is before I make the long journey to GZ so I can take whatever I might need to fix it, but the CHS doesn't tell you that.

 

The times I've had a response to an NM I've logged it's always been a note thanking me for giving them a heads-up on the issue, and that will be my response when I eventually receive one, even if it ends up being a false alarm.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'd much rather get an NM from someone who's actually been to GZ (or as close as they can get if there's an access problem) and can describe the issue

 

Me too. I find it helps if you state that in your cache description. 

For example we said this on one of our cache listings: "Please let us know if the cache is in need of repairing - even small repairs. Thanks."

And you know what, someone let us know that the magnets holding the cover down were not fastening properly. But... they put it in their found log not an NM. Experienced cacher too. 10+ years of activity. Hesitant to use the NM log. 

 

In the end, it falls upon cache owners to read all the logs that come through and respond to issues no matter what log is used. And they should do it in a courteous way so that they don't scare off finders from logging NMs and NAs and important information in other types of logs if they choose.

 

So because many finders (probably most finders) won't use NM/NA, and many owners won't respond to issues, GCHQ had to come up with another tool to encourage COs to monitor and maintain their caches. It helps keep their database attractive to customers. Seems like a good business strategy to me. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

we said this on one of our cache listings: "Please let us know if the cache is in need of repairing - even small repairs. Thanks."

And you know what, someone let us know that the magnets holding the cover down were not fastening properly. But... they put it in their found log not an NM. Experienced cacher too. 10+ years of activity. Hesitant to use the NM log.

 

When I log a Find, the cache may be perfect except there's a little moisture.  Maybe I was able to dry it completely in a couple minutes, and it's fine.  It's no "NM", but I mention it even if "the log is slightly humid" because that's what I wish others would do for my caches.  And not wait until the whole thing is full of water. :rolleyes:

 

I hardly use "NM" because of Anal Cache Owner Syndrome.  And sure, I realize it's people like me who are hesitant, who made The Health Score necessary.  "There Are No Rules" and so some CO's demand that "You Better Not Make A Needs Maintenance And Get My Cool Cache Archived".  CO's that insist that there are "No Rules" have MANY Rules, and swift punishments for breaking their No Rules.  So pretty soon, the rest of us stop making NMs on that guy's caches, and here we are.  The Health Score.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
I'm happier than a bird with a french fry, so I got distracted.
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

For example we said this on one of our cache listings: "Please let us know if the cache is in need of repairing - even small repairs. Thanks."

And you know what, someone let us know that the magnets holding the cover down were not fastening properly. But... they put it in their found log not an NM. Experienced cacher too. 10+ years of activity. Hesitant to use the NM log. 

 

In the end, it falls upon cache owners to read all the logs that come through and respond to issues no matter what log is used.

That could have been me. And yes, I expect that owners are interested in what I have to say in any kind of log I decide to leave for a cache.

If I consider the issue as not urgent and when there is no need to flag the cache for the next searchers I may leave maintenance suggestions within my Found log.

22 minutes ago, kunarion said:

I realize it's people like me who are hesitant [logging NMs], who made The Health Score necessary.

Frankly, no, what eventually makes the Health Score necessary is the unhealthy combination of finders who don't care about writing meaningful logs and owners who are not interested in monitoring their caches.

  • Upvote 6
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

So because many finders (probably most finders) won't use NM/NA, and many owners won't respond to issues, GCHQ had to come up with another tool to encourage COs to monitor and maintain their caches.

 

On 1/3/2021 at 5:49 PM, SamLowrey said:

This is why I don’t DNF a cache unless I suspect it is missing


If GCHQ treats DNF like the new NM/NA, so will cachers.
 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, The Leprechauns said:

Then all such regular cachers forever forfeit their right to complain that "they don't do anything about all the crappy broken and missing caches."

I assume by "they", you mean GS. I've always been against GS doing anything unilaterally about problem caches. In fact, I regularly argued against people complaining that GS doesn't do anything about them.

 

14 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

But no, that would be treating cachers as adults worthy of respect, so that's apparently not a workable solution.

Welcome to progressive America.

 

11 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

The problem is more and more finders in more and more places globally will not log an NM or NA. If they say anything it’s in a ‘found it’ log, a DNF and sometimes a note. They don’t  want to get an owner upset or get labelled ‘cache cop’. If owners get irritated by a CHS note, imagine the kerfuffle an NM or NA could cause.

Exactly: that's the problem: in some areas, the local culture doesn't support NAs and NMs. The COs that get upset by NMs and NAs will get upset by lots of things, so we need to address *that*. People that use NMs and NAs as barbed weapons will use DNFs as weapons, too, and we need to address that, too. GS replacing those mechanisms with their policing doesn't do anything to address the real problem. Instead, it inflicts unneeded and unappreciated oversight on areas that don't tolerate such behavior by either COs or seekers.

 

9 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

I still can't see why all the angst against the CHS.

Really? After all this time? Well, OK one more time: the CHS continues the conversion of geocaching from a game in which a world full of friends play together to a product GS controls and presents to each of us individually. That changes COs from benefactors to suppliers: they are no longer considered friends doing something nice for us out of the kindness of their hearts, but, instead, are servants whose main role is maintaining product quality. That's not nice to COs, the players I consider most important to the game, and I don't think it's good for the game, either.

 

I understand that you don't care about GS taking over responsibility or maybe even think it's a good thing. But after having years of debating it, certainly you can at least try to understand why it upsets some people even as you don't share their concerns.

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So for the CHS to be taking those two earlier DNFs into account, it must be assuming that the two intervening finds are fake. But which is more likely, two fake finds or the cache actually isn't missing and those DNFers simply couldn't find it?

 

All found it logs aren't created equal.   

Being somewhat familiar with the recent loggers of the cache in question I would feel very comfortable that the cache was there just by looking at who did the logs.

That isn't true of all cachers in the area.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

That changes COs from benefactors to suppliers: they are no longer considered friends doing something nice for us out of the kindness of their hearts

 

Not all COs are friendly and nice benefactors. Many only want to supply lots of smileys. It's not always kind to send finders to unattractive locations for poor quality, abandoned  hides. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

I still can't see why all the angst against the CHS. It's here to help and consists of a form letter of sorts that can come to my mail box when there's a possibility of a problem with one of my caches. It's certainly not perfect but at the same time, is very easy to take care of with either physically checking on the cache,, or if I know there isn't a problem, simply logging an OM explaining that everything is fine.

 

Sometimes physically checking on the cache isn't "very easy", particularly in the short time allowed for a CO to act before the reviewer steps in (if I recall correctly, it's about a week). I've done caches that are a full day's tough hiking to reach and which would be treacherous under less than ideal weather conditions, yet these are also the types of caches that are more likely to get DNFs for all manner of reasons that have nothing to do with the cache being missing, and will get insufficient attempts for the DNF to find ratio to be statistically significant. Yes, you can always plead your case to the reviewer in a situation like that, but that's something that can be pretty stressful for some COs.

 

My other gripe with the CHS is that there's no way to respond to a false positive other than by logging an armchair OM, which we're told elsewhere is a bad thing to do. It seems to be designed from the ground up to police COs rather than assist them, in a manner where there's no way to respond to the policeman.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Yes, you can always plead your case to the reviewer in a situation like that, but that's something that can be pretty stressful for some COs.

Given that these CHS emails seem to trigger rather earlier than any reviewer is likely to condemn a cache, just adding a note to the cache page stating what you intend to do (or not do) should be all it takes to satisfy any reviewer that they don't need to immediately disable anything.

I'm still yet to see a cache archived with an active CO making any effort at all to stop it (besides a couple with blatant placement violations), so there's really nothing to stress about here.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Given that these CHS emails seem to trigger rather earlier than any reviewer is likely to condemn a cache, just adding a note to the cache page stating what you intend to do (or not do) should be all it takes to satisfy any reviewer that they don't need to immediately disable anything.

I'm still yet to see a cache archived with an active CO making any effort at all to stop it (besides a couple with blatant placement violations), so there's really nothing to stress about here.

 

That doesn't seem to have been the case with this one from a couple of years back on a D3 traditional:

 

CHS.jpg.c49f02c780203c4c9102ee6fc189c911.jpg

 

The bunch of DNFs presumably triggered a CHS email, which the owner responded to with a WN saying he was pretty sure the cache was still there but would check on it next time he was in the area. In spite of that, two weeks later the reviewer disabled it with the usual boilerplate note about it being subject to archival in 28 days if there was no response. When the CO was finally able to check on it, the cache was fine. It's a D3 and it gets its fair share of DNFs (currently 47 from 386 finds) so sometimes they come in bunches.

 

I don't dispute that there's a need for something like the CHS, I just think the whole process could be handled much better and in a way that's more helpful to COs rather than coming across as an infringement notice.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

There will always be exceptions, that reviewer can have an itchier trigger finger too.... he accidentally archived one of ours this year... :rolleyes:

If all CO's were diligent, none of this would be needed of course, so these, at times blunt, instruments are needed. In this case presumably the CO visited the cache and all was enabled, no harm done?

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, lee737 said:

In this case presumably the CO visited the cache and all was enabled, no harm done?

 

Well nobody died or suffered permanent disfigurement, but the CO was none too happy about having to make an unscheduled and, as it turned out, unnecessary visit to the cache in the middle of the summer holidays. I know when I got my first CHS ping a few years back it was pretty stressful as I couldn't reasonably do any of the three things the email said I should do and didn't know what else I should do.

 

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, lee737 said:

I'm still yet to see a cache archived with an active CO making any effort at all to stop it (besides a couple with blatant placement violations), so there's really nothing to stress about here.

I had a cache archived while I was traveling, after repeated logs saying I'd check/fix it when I got home (we were traveling across the country).  The day we got home it was archived.  So now you have heard of cache being archive with an active CO making an effort to stop it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, The Jester said:

I had a cache archived while I was traveling, after repeated logs saying I'd check/fix it when I got home (we were traveling across the country).  The day we got home it was archived.  So now you have heard of cache being archive with an active CO making an effort to stop it.

 

This one?

 

or this one that was missing for 4 years and where you say you won’t be back until October?  The reviewer left a note in November which did not get a response. 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/4/2021 at 5:21 PM, The Leprechauns said:

Then all such regular cachers forever forfeit their right to complain that "they don't do anything about all the crappy broken and missing caches."

Wellllllllllll, >>>>> got a ping a few days ago. Paid the cache a visit last evening. Found where hidden, as hidden with oodles of space on the log.   

 

As they say in high society Gaaarrrrr-Baaaahhhh-Gggggg. 

  • Upvote 1

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 4

×
×
  • Create New...