Jump to content

New CITO Log Type?


Jeremy
Followers 4

Should we have a new Cache In Trash Out log type?  

259 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

When you CITO at a cache site, should you have a logtype you can use in addition to the ones that exist now?

 

They would *not* be counted as a find, but may be used in another category of # of locations cleared.

 

Benefits:

1. Logs can be aggregated for galleries and statistical purposes

2. Reinforces the "Cache In Trash Out" mantra

3. Badge of honor for doing what's right.

 

Drawbacks:

1. Already too many log types.

2. Clutter up the cache listings with 2 logs per person.

Link to comment

I was going to vote yes, but I accidenlty pressed the null vote button.

 

I think this would be a cool idea. Would the number of areas cached out be in the stats area along with caches and benchmarks found?

 

However I don't know if you'd specifically need too logs. Is there some kind of way you could add a cached out thing to a normal find log?

Edited by TeamK-9
Link to comment

Does this mean we can use polls now? They didn't work before? Not that I have any huge desire to post a poll, but I was curious.

 

Anyway, I'm not voting right now because I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I sort of lean toward no simply because it could create logging questions. E.g. I don't want to mess with wondering if picking up a tiny peice of paper means I should log a CITO etc. Plus, I'm going to CITO whether I can log it or not. At the same time, I see why it would be nice to give some recognition for it. I'll vote after I see some more comments.

Link to comment

I think I like the idea, just not sure how I would like to see it implemented. Maybe not a seperate log (everyone around knows how hard it is to get me to write ONE log for a cache!), but maybe a CITOed checkmark with the cache log? Checking that would add a little globe/Signal/cito icon of some sort next to the stardard smiley, frown or note. These could be totaled on the cache page and in your personal stats.

Link to comment

It's funny - when I read the thread on granting extra finds for doing CITO, I had this crazy idea that it shouldn't affect the find (that's really a different thing) but wouldn't it be nice to still get credit for doing CITO? Maybe by leaving the find count alone, but enhancing the logging to track CITO activity? Then I thought, TPTB would never go for doing the extra work to track yet another statistic. So I didn't bother even posting. Silly me!

 

Now that this idea has been broached, here are a few thoughts.

 

* I agree that it should be separate from the find count.

* Not sure about a separate log type - wouldn't that just add a whole bunch of extra logs to caches?

* What about a checkbox that would appear on any log, regardless of the type?

* How do you confirm? If you don't, then some people would log CITO on every cache find, regardless of whether or not, or how much trash they picked up. If you require a photo, what about people without a digital camera?

 

Overall, I really like the idea of recognizing people who CITO. It would probably be possible to abuse any such tracking mechanism, but it would be a good idea to have some way to reduce it, or make it more difficult. (Kind of like you can fake a cache find, but the cache owner can always check the physical log book to confirm you were there.) But I don't know what confirmation mechanism would do that for CITO, and still be easy for everyone to do.

 

SylvrStorm

Link to comment
* How do you confirm? If you don't, then some people would log CITO on every cache find, regardless of whether or not, or how much trash they picked up. If you require a photo, what about people without a digital camera?

 

This was also a concern of mine. The last thing we need is new arguments about CITO cheaters! :lol:

 

Edit: Hmmm I can also imagine other issues. For example, a cacher hardly ever logs CITOs because he or she is lucky enough to find caches in areas w/o trash. Then the person looks bad even if he or she CITOs when the need arises.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment

I voted yes. I thought about the one log vs. two logs issue and I think two separate logs types is the right answer, for four reasons:

 

1. Finding a cache is a separate action from picking up a bag of trash. I would want to see CITO logs separated out from find counts on my personal stats tab. If I found 20 caches and picked up a trash bag full of trash at two of them, I'd want to see 20 smileys and 2 CITO yin-yang icons.

 

2. Another really good use for this log type would be to generate CITO maps -- showing all the CITO logs recorded in an area, based on the cache coordinates associated with the log. A CITO map would show me "hotspots" where I could plan to spend some extra time with a trashbag. Even better, imagine showing a CITO map of your state to the ranger in a park where you want to place a cache. "See all those circles? Every one of them represents a geocacher who helped clean up a park. You wouldn't want to turn down free help, would you?"

 

3. There are millions of plain old smiley logs already in the database. I'd want to go back and add CITO logs at a few caches where I did some heavy trash cleanup. I wouldn't want to edit my existing logs or change my existing smileys.

 

4. I'd also like to be able to log a CITO icon on a cache that I own.

 

I am guessing that, from a programmer's perspective, it's easier to do all these things if there is an entirely separate log type for CITO.

 

This is an interesting innovation and it has been fun watching it develop as we discussed JMBella's idea, and then MissJenn and JamieZ's ideas, etc.

Link to comment
I think I like the idea, just not sure how I would like to see it implemented. Maybe not a seperate log (everyone around knows how hard it is to get me to write ONE log for a cache!), but maybe a CITOed checkmark with the cache log? Checking that would add a little globe/Signal/cito icon of some sort next to the stardard smiley, frown or note. These could be totaled on the cache page and in your personal stats.

I completely agree with Mopar.

Link to comment
2. Another really good use for this log type would be to generate CITO maps -- showing all the CITO logs recorded in an area, based on the cache coordinates associated with the log. A CITO map would show me "hotspots" where I could plan to spend some extra time with a trashbag. Even better, imagine showing a CITO map of your state to the ranger in a park where you want to place a cache. "See all those circles? Every one of them represents a geocacher who helped clean up a park. You wouldn't want to turn down free help, would you?"

 

After thinking of reasons why I would vote no, this is pretty persuasive to me on the other side. I'll still wait to vote.

Link to comment

I don't think you need to add a separate, second log for CITO-ing. CITO is something that you should do because it's the right thing to do, because you enjoy the outdoors and want to preserve it and keep it beautiful, not because you're going to get recognition for it on the web page. That seems silly and just cheapens the value of CITO if you ask me. :lol:

Edited by TaranWanderer
Link to comment

I'm all for anything that doesn't really matter in the long run. I'm not talking about CITO, I'm talking about the ability to log the fact that you have.

 

If anybody *wanted* to, then at this point they could have done this with a "posted a note" log. This means that the log list will be no more "junky" (for lack of a better word) than it was before this. It's good to outright recognize someone's particular effort for removing a good amount of trash from a cache site. I don't think the average user will post a "CITO note" if they removed a styrofoam cup.

 

Aside from just having the log, can a integer variable be set with the CITO for apx. weight cleaned? It'd be interesting to track the amount of garbage and subsequent cleaning some cache sites are witness to (one site having a CITO note every week with 3 lbs removed while another site having a CITO note every year with 1 lb removed). It would help the more environmentally concious (and land managers) recognize the extra effort some cachers put into their experience.

 

For example, I don't go out of my way to collect a lot of trash, but if I see it and I have something handy to put it in, it'll get trashed out. My CITO notes would be highly infrequent and low weight count...others will have tremendous numbers as they don't necessarily go just to cache but to clean up the park when they do go...

 

Interesting statistics, interesting new concept to the log system, I like it.

Link to comment

EDITED!

 

I re-read some of the above posts and I think I reacted a little too soonly.

 

I think if it is a check-mark on the log page, regardless of whether you found the cache, writing a note (which would allow the cache owner to say they cito'ed) or a DNF. That would work. It can still be tracked on each users stats page etc. It can even show up on the cache page individually. I'm sure it is jsut simple HTML for those that write the stuff. (it would probably take me about a year to write)

 

Sorry for the harsh judgement earlier. And if I can change my vote to a yes I would.

Edited by Camel680
Link to comment

I voted no, not because I don't practice cito but because it would be impossible to confirm. If it was there I think that everyone would just log a cito whether they did or not. I think that it would just add one more thing some cachers would use as a flame tool. "Look at so and so's profile they found 50 caches and have not logged any cito" :lol:

Link to comment
Does this mean we can use polls now?

I think Jeremy just wanted to add a poll because the icon is green, and it's St, Patties day :lol:

 

I am a fan of the CTIO checkbox. Collecting the locations and frequencies of trash pick up by geo-cachers would be nice to show rangers, and other park management for there acceptance of geo-caching.

 

Mastifflover has a very good point. Because of the negative implications of not trashing out, it would probably be miss logged more times than a “Found It” vs. a DNF! It might be a good idea to make this data available for the cache, but not linked directly to any cacher.

Edited by geckoee
Link to comment

I didn't vote but do not think it should be part of the non-stats. If it needs to be done and you are a CITO cacher you will, and don't need the virtual atta-boy.

If you don't CITO you shouldn't have your caching experience lessened by not having an extra icon next to your log.

Should CITO and event caches really be counted in with 'finds' anyway? Methinks not.

Link to comment

I'll go ahead and raise the questions that will come eventually. How much trash must you clean up to qualify for a CITO log? Will the amount of CITO a person does (when made into a statistic) be used to judge their character against that of other cachers? Will any of us feel guilty for trashing out less than others? Should we?

 

I'm all for trashing out when I see something out of place, (like candy wrappers and soda bottles in the wilderness) but I'm not going to spend an afternoon working on a completely dumped upon cache site that needs a twenty man crew, two weeks, and a bulldozer to make a noticeable difference. In areas where the trash accumulates faster than it can be cleaned up by the efforts of individuals, it does nothing more than discourage the people who despite their best efforts, can't make a difference.

 

So once again, should one person feel guilty for doing less CITO than another, and will the proposed log type create a problem in that respect?

 

I'll hold off voting as well. I think people who CITO should be recognized for their efforts, but I'm not sure yet if this is the best way to do so.

Link to comment

Okay, some negative aspects of a CITO log-type:

 

- Peer pressure will re-enforce logging a CITO even if it didn't happen.

 

- No way to verify a logged CITO.

 

- CITO logs, in turn, if used to show land managers activity would be misleading and once they found out would reflect negatively on this site.

 

- Clutter to cache page.

 

- Not all cache sites need CITOing and without inside knowledge it could look bad for a cacher or area even if there is no trash.

 

No, I think a CITO log-type is only a feel good thing and would add nothing to the RASH.

Link to comment

I kinda liked the idea of a checkbox on the log this cache form that puts a little trashbag icon on the log next to the note/smiley/frownie.

And folks could still post notes to show they were there and CITOd if they had already found the cache.

A seperate log is not something I would like though.

Just my 2 pennies.

-Jennifer

Link to comment
How much trash must you clean up to qualify for a CITO log?

 

Will the amount of CITO a person does (when made into a statistic) be used to judge their character against that of other cachers?

 

Will any of us feel guilty for trashing out less than others?

 

Should we?

In order:

 

As much as you think is necessary to report.

 

Only by those people who feel that this is a good means of judging a character.

 

Only if your opinion of your own activities is based on the activity of others.

 

Only if your self-image is too low to begin with.

 

 

Obviously some people will CITO log a soda bottle and others won't worry about CITO logging whole furniture sets. I don't think this really matters given some of the logs that go into caches now. Some people don't log the DNF (omg, a pox upon my log files!) and yet others don't log their finds online and yet others post notes complaining about other people's notes about other people's log descriptions. If the majority of the people posting CITO logs do so within a reasonable set of common sense parameters (which is how the majority of cachers know how long to hold a TB or how much searching is necessary to post a DNF), then I'm sure any statistics drawn from this will be valid for what they are intended to show.

 

Beyond that, if anyone chooses to draw conclusions based on these statistics then it is everyone's choice whether to give any weight to the conclusions they draw. Some people will be able to realize that the conclusions are poor or unfounded, others will ride the bandwagon until they're wrong (and then spin everything to avoid looking like a bunch of mules), and even greater numbers of others won't even take much of a notice to any of it going on. Cheaters exist, people with chips on their shoulders exist, and people drawing horrible conclusions on limited information exist. Limiting their activities by underdeveloping the site to keep them out of hypothetical areas not even created yet seems useless and only serves to disappoint the larger majority that would use the new system correctly.

Link to comment

Thanks for the vocab lesson, CR and RK. :lol:

 

Would there be any benefit from this idea?

Provide a button to click yes/no if you CITO, but it isn't ever displayed next to a username? Just attached to that location? It's a stream of consciousness from "the common good" theory, and I realize it's sort of the opposite of an "Atta Boy" - so I'm not even sure if I will like this idea after I've thought about it some more ... what do you think?

Link to comment

We all know the sting and disappointment in a DNF log. Providing a chance to turn a "DNF" into a "DNF with a Halo" rocks.

 

I like the idea of a checkbox. It keeps the log manageable. As far as logging a single soda bottle as a cito. If I had CITO'd just one bottle from every cache I have attemtped....thats a whole lotta glass man.

 

 

edited punctuation

Edited by BadAndy
Link to comment
- Peer pressure will re-enforce logging a CITO even if it didn't happen.

 

- No way to verify a logged CITO.

 

- CITO logs, in turn, if used to show land managers activity would be misleading and once they found out would reflect negatively on this site.

 

- Not all cache sites need CITOing and without inside knowledge it could look bad for a cacher or area even if there is no trash.

Peer pressure and public appearances currently keeps a number of DNF off the site as well. And there's no way to verify a DNF (or a lack of a DNF) for that matter. That does not mean we should do away with DNF logging or that it would not be a good idea to add it if we didn't have it already. These premises do not support the logical conclusion you are trying to draw by themselves. Even in combination with your third point...well, read on...

 

Also, currently we tell land managers "geocaching will be the greatest thing since sliced bread to come to your park because so many people CITO when they geocache...it's part of our mantra". Then we place a cache there and in some cases, too few people CITO the area (whether it is due to too few people CITO'ing what they find or too many people trashing that specific park). The land manager will look at the area and come to the conclusion that geocaching's mantra of CITO is misleading and it will reflect negatively on the sport... None of that required a CITO log available to be true.

 

As for the need for CITO and appearances based on logs, I think you're reaching hard for something that isn't there. The only way to prove with any validity whether the majority of the people (who aren't reading here, btw) will take offense to cachers not logging CITO or misconcluding a person's environmental integrity based on their CITO logs is to implement it and study the 6 months afterwards to see where we all go with it. Since it should be fairly easy to add and remove, since it appears that most of the site has a new modular coding in the recent change over, I'd say start it up and see where it takes us. I don't think the "immaculate park-public perception" problem is going to be anything of substance in the long run but there's no way to really prove that one way or the other where we are at now.

Link to comment
Thanks for the vocab lesson, CR and RK. :lol:

 

Would there be any benefit from this idea?

Provide a button to click yes/no if you CITO, but it isn't ever displayed next to a username? Just attached to that location? It's a stream of consciousness from "the common good" theory, and I realize it's sort of the opposite of an "Atta Boy" - so I'm not even sure if I will like this idea after I've thought about it some more ... what do you think?

Actually, this gives rise to an idea. Why not associate the CITO tag (trash bag, garbage can, whatever) with the cache page itself, rather than the individual logs. Each time a cacher clicks the checkbox, (once per log) the cache page gets another CITO icon. Because the icons wouldn't be associated with individual logs, the compulsion to cheat would be lessened significantly and the information would be much more useful to those wishing to demonstrate to land managers how much CITO activity is occurring at a given cache site. This would also encourage cache placers to maintain their cache sites. Perhaps caches getting a certain number of CITO tags, say twenty, would achieve some sort of "CITO gold status". This would serve to encourage CITO, and prevent the possible misguided interpretation of statistics when applied to individual logs.

Link to comment

I'd rather not be experimenting with ideas when there is a backlog of things that need doing right now.

 

The wham-bang rock-n-roll geocaching II site is almost a year late. We want to keep pushing it back for questionable feel-good ideas?

 

Oh, BTW, I've never pushed CITO as a reason to allow a cache. I know I can't control what the cachers do while hunting my cache, I won't claim that they will all CITO.

Link to comment

I rather like ju66l3r's idea for being able to select the approximate number of pounds of trash CITO'd.

 

-- If I only picked up one beer can, I'm not gonna bother recording a CITO log. It's under a pound. Set a five pound minimum if you want. This gets at the "how do you verify it?" question. People are less likely to claim credit for a single candy wrapper if they see 5 pounds as the minimum choice. Unless they LIE, but geocachers never do that. :lol: Me, I'd probably take a picture because it would be fun and would support the log entry.

 

-- It would be cool to say "geocachers picked up 4,850 pounds of trash last month" or to see the volumes recorded for different countries or states.

Link to comment
Actually, this gives rise to an idea. Why not associate the CITO tag (trash bag, garbage can, whatever) with the cache page itself, rather than the individual logs. Each time a cacher clicks the checkbox, (once per log) the cache page gets another CITO icon. Because the icons wouldn't be associated with individual logs, the compulsion to cheat would be lessened significantly and the information would be much more useful to those wishing to demonstrate to land managers how much CITO activity is occurring at a given cache site. This would also encourage cache placers to maintain their cache sites. Perhaps caches getting a certain number of CITO tags, say twenty, would achieve some sort of "CITO gold status". This would serve to encourage CITO, and prevent the possible misguided interpretation of statistics when applied to individual logs.

That works!

Link to comment
I'd rather not be experimenting with ideas when there is a backlog of things that need doing right now.

 

The wham-bang rock-n-roll geocaching II site is almost a year late. We want to keep pushing it back for questionable feel-good ideas?

 

Oh, BTW, I've never pushed CITO as a reason to allow a cache. I know I can't control what the cachers do while hunting my cache, I won't claim that they will all CITO.

I believe that it is possible that Jeremy is asking us about this, for possible inclusion in GC.com v 2.0?

Link to comment
I'd rather not be experimenting with ideas when there is a backlog of things that need doing right now.

 

The wham-bang rock-n-roll geocaching II site is almost a year late. We want to keep pushing it back for questionable feel-good ideas?

Uhhh, I don't think anyone's asking for Jeremy to drop everything and create the new log type beginning tomorrow. As with all other changes, I'd expect this one, if accepted, to show up once the entire site is moved to the new codebase.

 

If you haven't been keeping score, we've watched cache pages, log pages, search pages, travel bug pages and benchmark pages get updated. Next is My Cache Page. It's almost done! Then we can see the server farms and other performance enhancers that have been alluded to for so long.

 

This idea has merit, just like cache attributes, opt-in stats and a bunch of other features. It will surely find its proper place on the list of priorities, be it in the middle or the bottom.

Link to comment

Bloencustoms, we could have something here.

Why not associate the CITO tag (trash bag, garbage can, whatever) with the cache page itself, rather than the individual logs. Each time a cacher clicks the checkbox, (once per log) the cache page gets another CITO icon. Because the icons wouldn't be associated with individual logs, the compulsion to cheat would be lessened significantly
This is what I was thinking. You just articulated it better. Edited by MissJenn
Link to comment

I liked Mopar's idea, but I think Bloencustoms' may be even better. It really makes more sense to make it part of the cache page I think. I suppose you could always do some sort of combination of the two.

 

In any case, I don't think a new log-type (as the poll currently suggest) is the way to go, but I do think it's great that you are thinking about it.

 

-BB

Link to comment

I voted no, because i really don't see the point. But Bloencustom's idea does does have merit. If you removed trash during your caching trip, you can click on a button saying you did so on your log. The page could then say something like "X of Y finders have Trashed out while hunting for this cache".

 

That way the cache gets credit for bringing people there to remove the trash, which in turn can make it look better in the eyes of land managers. A land manager isn't gonna give a hoot if Renegade Knight trashed out on 467 of his 524 finds, but seeing that a specific cache drew 16 people who removed litter from the area may mean something.

 

Mopar's suggestion is a good second choice. If you trashed out, you click on a box and get a little CITO icon next to your smiley. But I don't like the idea of having a separate log type just for CITO.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Mastifflover has a very good point. Because of the negative implications of not trashing out, it would probably be miss logged more times than a “Found It” vs. a DNF! It might be a good idea to make this data available for the cache, but not linked directly to any cacher.

hey it's my idea too, and stemmed from Mastifflover... :lol:

Link to comment

I'm not going to vote at all though because no one else can use the poll feature.

 

Sn :lol:B) gans

 

Um, there's lots things Jeremy can do in the forums that you and I can't. You going to stop using them all together?

 

...

 

Anyway, to the question... I don't like the idea of a separate log. I only end up with so many as it is when I upload the page to my Palm; CITO logs would push off possibly useful information. I do like the suggestion of a checkbox that adds an icon to the existing log, though.

 

As far as tracking the amount of trash, I can see advantages to both sides of the argument. But I think in the end the ability to quantify the weight of the garbage isn't valuable enough to outweigh one more possible way to complain about lying, cheating cachers.

Link to comment

I like the idea of a CITO catagory. It encourages positive environmental responsibility and achieving a 'badge of honor' in regards to cleaning up the environment is a very worthy cause. Also, if we portray a friendly and proactive environmental stance, it would go a long way in acceptance from the general public and governmental agencies. IMO.

Link to comment

I'm on the bandwagon that thinks a separate logtype is unnecessary. I envision CITO to be indicated in the log something like this:

 

icon_smile.gifbf_new72.gifMarch 17 by Jamie Z (199 found)

This was a great cache. I took the long way around and had to climb around some muddy patches in the trail. Once in the area, I found the cache easily. It's in great shape. Traded nothing and signed the log.

 

Jamie

Making CITO an additional log would add clutter, take up space in the PQs, and would require extra effort to log, whereas a simple checkbox is easy and the resulting icon unobtrusive.

 

I am against mandating minimum weight or other requirements. Sure, a bag (or more) of trash is more than a can or candy wrapper, but CITO is CITO. If you have your kid with you and stop to pick up just a single bottle on your way out, that leaves a lasting impression on the kid, not to mention may become habit-forming for you. It all adds up.

 

I tend to agree with the folks that say it's tooting your own horn, and isn't completely tasteful. However, I think when landmanagers look at cache pages, they don't read the names. They don't think to themselves, "Oh, The Leprechauns found this cache." They simply note the number of people who found it. Same with CITO. Rather than a CITO icon being a sticker that says "I did good," it becomes part of a quantifiable activity that land managers can look at. A quick glance at the cache page and they can see that 15 geocachers picked up trash on their way out. To muggles (land managers included), we're a group--not individuals.

 

Yes, there will be cheaters. There will be those that check the box even if they pick up a bottle cap. There will be those that check the box even if they left cigarette butts at the cache. Just like there are a few people who log fraudulent finds. Those people are in the extreme minority though, and I think negligible.

 

K.I.S.S. Checkbox and icon is all that's necessary. Lep's great ideas about maps and such could still be implemented.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

I'd like to take credit for coming up with the idea, but MissJenn clearly germinated the concept.

 

I like BrianSnat's idea about a ratio of cachers who trashed out on the page as well. It would provide a quick reference to see the positive impact a cache is having on it's surroundings.

If the total weight of trash removed were also displayed on the page along with the ratio of CITO activity, all kinds of fun, beneficial contests could ensue. Recognition for the cache that saw the most trash removed each week in a given state could be added to the weekly cache notifications. (CITO events would be at an advantage.) :lol: There could be a "hall of fame" for caches that have seen the most CITO activity. This type of beneficial competition will help bring local caching groups closer together, and give them incentive to compete for the title of "cleanest caching state". Not that individuals who practice CITO shouldn't be recognized for their efforts, but I believe that by associating the activity with the location, it places the credit on the presence of the cache in an area rather than the presence of the cachers. This might make the small bit of difference that sways a land manager toward a favorable caching policy.

After a year or so of real data has accumulated, it would be nice to have to approach land managers with positive proof that caches do indeed benefit the areas in which they are placed.

 

Another benfit of having the information directly associated with the page is that new cachers and curious people who might not have discovered the forums yet (read land managers) will immediately become aware of this aspect of the sport... it's all over every cache page.

Edited by Bloencustoms
Link to comment
I'd like to take credit for coming up with the idea, but MissJenn clearly germinated the concept.

I think most of the forum has me on ignore or something. :lol: post at 3:17? hello, am I posting in the same forum as everyone else?

 

Anyway, I think for the CITO to be recorded anything near accurate you are going to have to disassociate it from the logger. Although for a few having it associated with the poster may cause them to CITO more often to keep themselves "honest"

Edited by geckoee
Link to comment
Why not associate the CITO tag (trash bag, garbage can, whatever) with the cache page itself, rather than the individual logs.

 

I am voting 'yes' for the above. Also because CITO looks good to land managers. Plus the idea of, eventually, being able to produce CITO maps. Lots of positives in the whole idea.

Link to comment
I'd like to take credit for coming up with the idea, but MissJenn clearly germinated the concept.

I think most of the forum has me on ignore or something. B) post at 3:17? hello, am I posting in the same forum as everyone else?

Oops. :lol: I noticed your post after I had posted that. It looks as if collectively we have developed upon a sound concept. Just goes to show you that cachers think alike. B)

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 4
×
×
  • Create New...