homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:40 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 2:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 626
Home Schooled: Yes
During prep-time!!!!

Think of how Extemp works, your coach isn't in the Extemp prep room.

Plus, the rules didn't end up banning it, so you could talk with your coach... but if it is Mrs Nasser then she is probably going to tell you the same thing I would... get back in there and figure it out, we'll talk after the round!


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 3:27 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
Come to think of it, I'm leaning away from prep-time coaching -- not for fairness (true fairness has never, does not, and will never exist anywhere in the world, let alone in debate), but to make it more challenging. I'm still skeptical about prep time only being 15 minutes, though. Why not 20 or 25 minutes? One might say that 15 puts more demand on "critical thinking" (that term is so nebulous), but there's no support for that; furthermore, it could just as easily be said that more prep time = deeper critical thinking put into the round itself = higher quality round.

I'm also curious as to why the format is PMC=7min / LOC=7min / MGC=7min / MOC=7min / LOR=5min / PMR=5min. Not that this somehow dooms the debate to be inferior to "real" parli, but I'd like to know the reason for these times instead of 7/8/8/8/4/5.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 3:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:19 am
Posts: 744
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: University of Dallas, formerly Region 4
Halogen wrote:
I'm also curious as to why the format is PMC=7min / LOC=7min / MGC=7min / MOC=7min / LOR=5min / PMR=5min. Not that this somehow dooms the debate to be inferior to "real" parli, but I'd like to know the reason for these times instead of 7/8/8/8/4/5.

This. Why?

_________________
Alex Macdonald

University of Dallas

Buy COG!


Openness is a value not a project


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 4:22 am 
Offline
Not wiggidy-whack; just the regular kind
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:04 am
Posts: 2132
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Howard Payne University; Brownwood, TX
David Roth wrote:
CoachTigger wrote:
The time is 15 PLUS logistics. If your room is five minutes away then the tournament should provide 20 minutes total prep.

Parli drills will now include the 100 yard dash.

Haha. Fo' sho'.

ldrox wrote:
Wait, people considered banning coaching out-of-round? That just blew my mind.

If banning in-round coaching was based on fairness,

What about the team that had the money to go to Nasser & Co. debate camp?
The team that belonged to the bigger club?
The debater who came from an established "debate family?"

We should ban all those. For fairness.

Oh, man. I love the sarcasm.

Either you missed the point I'm making or you are just having too much fun bashing a form of debate you have never competed in.

The idea of "fairness" is a lot trickier to deal with in terms of parli. debate. Based on my past experience and my competing with such a small school, I think the same will apply.

First of all, this is a new event. Perhaps the rule may shift a bit as time goes on, but this is probably the best way to go for the clubs right now. I don't have much to elaborate on here. I just need to inform you all that TX Stoa is trying its best to accommodate and deal with all the debaters' parents' needs, requests, complaints etc. This was brought up as a valid concern from some parents and alumni. I, personally, will trust Stoa with it's current legislation.

Second of all, I bring you back to the oh-so-looked-forward-to rule of limited prep time. Since one of the main purposes of Parli. is to challenge the speaker's improvisational-critical thinking skills, it would only be fair to allow for those debaters only to work in prep time. In my opinion, to allow for other help during this preparation time is not only fair to the other opponents but unfair to the purpose of Parliamentary Debate.*

My final comment pertains to a simple worry. I think such a policy that would allow for conferring among a club could lead to some issues. Issues such as: what makes one a member of a club? what qualifies one as a coach? can alumni help their club? can other tournament-visiting parents assist? can a club "hire" a debate 'expert" to tag along and assist with case constructing? And a bunch of other blahblahblah's and wahwahwah's. I'm just saying that if one wanted to make a rule regarding club/coach conferring, it would have to be very, very, very specific.

*Yes... if I had the option, I would take away the ability to confer among one's school team in collegiate Parli. debate.

Is this making sense, everyone? Jon, your comments [sarcastic as they may be] are welcome. But does anyone else have any questions or "refutations" to my points?

For or against... I'm certainly glad this event has piqued so much interest. :)
Halogen wrote:
Come to think of it, I'm leaning away from prep-time coaching -- not for fairness (true fairness has never, does not, and will never exist anywhere in the world, let alone in debate), but to make it more challenging. I'm still skeptical about prep time only being 15 minutes, though. Why not 20 or 25 minutes? One might say that 15 puts more demand on "critical thinking" (that term is so nebulous), but there's no support for that; furthermore, it could just as easily be said that more prep time = deeper critical thinking put into the round itself = higher quality round.

HahaHA!!! YES! Me gusta. :P

QFT!

_________________
~Jake Asch.


"I forget the last time I felt brave/I just recall insecurity/Cuz it came down like a tidal wave/And sorrow swept over me/I was given grace and love/I was blind but now I can see/Cuz I found a new hope from above/And courage swept over me..."~Owl City[Tidal Wave]


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 4:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 626
Home Schooled: Yes
I want to stress that this year is a PILOT, try it out and give feedback. Part of the reason for doing a pilot is to get it right when it is "for real".

I'm not on the Stoa Parli comittee, but I'll ask for permission to give a contact email for questions.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:58 am 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
I don't see (if there was such a rule in existence) how a no coaching rule would be that bad. It would decrease the quality of debate significantly, but I don't think the quality will be very high anyway. I think there are two far more significant issues with the rules that I outlined in the other thread.

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:54 pm
Posts: 838
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Southern California
DramaticInterp wrote:
Either you missed the point I'm making or you are just having too much fun bashing a form of debate you have never competed in.

I've competed in it as long as you have, Jake.

"people are concerned. it's only fair. it's too complicated."

1. Okay.
2. Are we on the same page? I'm not advocating unlimited prep...I'm talking about coaching in prep time. Awesome. Now that we're on the same page—I'm not sure how it can be unfair to other debaters if they can also get help. The purpose of parli is whatever you make it.
3. Just let anybody who wants to help help. Laissez-faire.

Look, the quality of debate on the homeschool circuit is, quite frankly, crap. This is going to help a lot.

It comes down to whether you think the debate should be more about the debate or the preparation. We're talking about what used to be the NCFCA here. The preparation isn't going to get very far anyways. The higher quality the actual debate can be, the better.

_________________
For Coaches: Download 6 free editions of Dominate cases and articles


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
DramaticInterp wrote:
3) To allow for prepared materials during the round would defeat the purpose of parli. And given TP's reputation for over emphasizing evidence in rounds, I like this rule very much.
To each their own, but this is exactly what I don't like about it.

I spent twelve years engrossed in NDT/CEDA debate full time, but my exposure to parli has been a lot more limited; I've coached teams in it at about three tournaments, total, and judged fewer than fifty parli rounds. Twice I've sat down with very successful NPDA coaches -- one had coached more than one NPDA Nationals winner, and the other had coached an NPDA Nationals top seed -- and talked about how to adjust. We had a little problem and a big one.

The little problem: the negative constructive followed by the one and only negative rebuttal. (Yes, yes, I know -- not negative, "opp." I'm set in my ways, so just substitute in "opp" and "gov" where appropriate.) How does that work? Do you treat it like one long negative bloc, and then hold the affirmative rebuttalist responsible for answering all of it, while giving a 2AR? Or do you treat the negative rebuttal alone like the 2NR -- anything the negative wants considered in the decision better be in that speech? If you view it that way, then the constructive and rebuttal repeat themselves a lot. The negative's big development speech and their rebuttal are back-to-back, with no round of affirmative refutation in between. Both the coaches I talked to said something along the lines of "Different judges deal with it differently." In any event, it has the same problem as LD, that the rounds are a lot more shallow and don't get to second- or third-line extension of arguments. But that's the small problem.

The big problem is what one of the coaches referred to as "Making things up." This is the problem of no materials going into the round with the debaters. On factual claims, or on complex issues, it does a lot of good to require debaters to ground what they say in published evidence by credentialed experts. Yes, I suppose there's such thing as over-emphasis on evidence, but all I can say is be careful what you wish for. Taking the text of the evidence out of the debates, and having everyone debate using only what they remember from what they've read, or what they spin into existence out of their desperate wish to win, unchecked by anything published, doesn't, in my experience, make the debates better.

And if you think parli's better for speaking skills, think again. Every excess of evidenced debate eventually seeps into parli. Your real check on that is your judging pool. At the college level, they talk fast, use a ton of jargon, and get buried in brain-cramping theory debates, just like NDT/CEDA debaters.

Last thing I'll say: I'm not anti-parli. I'm sure the people who love it get a reasonably sound grounding in how argument works, which is the point. It's like choosing which way to get exercise; I myself would never sign up for an aerobics class, but the people who do seem to get a fine workout. But be braced for the problems and imperfections in parli, or your elevated expectations might get dashed and ruin the entire experience.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:19 am
Posts: 744
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: University of Dallas, formerly Region 4
DrSraderNCU wrote:

The big problem is what one of the coaches referred to as "Making things up." This is the problem of no materials going into the round with the debaters. On factual claims, or on complex issues, it does a lot of good to require debaters to ground what they say in published evidence by credentialed experts. Yes, I suppose there's such thing as over-emphasis on evidence, but all I can say is be careful what you wish for. Taking the text of the evidence out of the debates, and having everyone debate using only what they remember from what they've read, or what they spin into existence out of their desperate wish to win, unchecked by anything published, doesn't, in my experience, make the debates better.


This argument is non-unique. :P The potential for this is already in LD, and though it occasionally happens, hasn't been a huge problem as far as I know.


DrSraderNCU wrote:
And if you think parli's better for speaking skills, think again. Every excess of evidenced debate eventually seeps into parli. Your real check on that is your judging pool. At the college level, they talk fast, use a ton of jargon, and get buried in brain-cramping theory debates, just like NDT/CEDA debaters.


I haven't noticed speed and jargon in the college parli videos I've watched (given my knowledge is minimal), in fact they were much slower speakers (and ironically sometimes worse) than many NCFCA policy debaters.

_________________
Alex Macdonald

University of Dallas

Buy COG!


Openness is a value not a project


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 pm
Posts: 928
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wisconsin - R6 Alum
Turumbar wrote:
This argument is non-unique. The potential for this is already in LD, and though it occasionally happens, hasn't been a huge problem as far as I know.

LD doesn't prohibit cards, yo :P That no one reads them is the debaters' fault.

_________________
~Joshua
But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy.
This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter.
~G.K. Chesteron, Heretics


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:54 pm
Posts: 838
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Southern California
FastFlamingo wrote:
LD doesn't prohibit cards, yo That no one reads them is the debaters' fault.
Turumbar wrote:
I haven't noticed speed and jargon in the college parli videos I've watched (given my knowledge is minimal), in fact they were much slower speakers (and ironically sometimes worse) than many NCFCA policy debaters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiNAZJ07IEw

_________________
For Coaches: Download 6 free editions of Dominate cases and articles


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:10 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
NPTE ≠ NPDA

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:19 am
Posts: 744
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: University of Dallas, formerly Region 4
Yeah, I was watching an NPDA finals round.

FastFlamingo wrote:
Turumbar wrote:
This argument is non-unique. The potential for this is already in LD, and though it occasionally happens, hasn't been a huge problem as far as I know.

LD doesn't prohibit cards, yo :P That no one reads them is the debaters' fault.

Nothing prohibits evidence in parli either, you just have to hand-write it like in Extemp.

_________________
Alex Macdonald

University of Dallas

Buy COG!


Openness is a value not a project


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:54 pm
Posts: 838
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Southern California
Halogen wrote:
NPTE ≠ NPDA

Of course they're not. NPTE is a tournament. NPDA is a league.

_________________
For Coaches: Download 6 free editions of Dominate cases and articles


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 pm
Posts: 928
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wisconsin - R6 Alum
Turumbar wrote:
Nothing prohibits evidence in parli either, you just have to hand-write it like in Extemp.

Yes, but realistically, how much are you going to write down? The sentence you want to quote? Maybe a paragraph, but certainly no more than that. That's not really enough to establish the context of a card. And are you going to put in a full citation (author, title, date, publication, issue, ISSN, URL), or "NY Times '09"? The point is, there's no check upon falsification or twisting of evidence in parli, except the honor system and a common sense "does this seem plausible?" if evidence is called into question. I would hope that's enough, but you can't be certain.

_________________
~Joshua
But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy.
This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter.
~G.K. Chesteron, Heretics


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:01 pm
Posts: 11
Home Schooled: Yes
Turumbar wrote:
Nothing prohibits evidence in parli either, you just have to hand-write it like in Extemp.


Um...from the STOA rules "(2) Debaters are not permitted to read published material in the speeches of the debate to support their argument claims"

I agree with Dr. Srader about Parli debate. From doing parli debate, I can tell you it is very frustrating when you're opponent is (unknowingly alot of times) making factually incorrect claims and there is no way for you to prove that they are wrong. For example, at one tournament I went to, the opposing team was arguing that the Supreme Court decision on campaign financing dealt solely with donations from foreign governments. Since the judge didn't know really anything about the case, we were unable to prove that the case dealt with far more than donations from foreign governments and we ended up losing the round. I think that this is the major problem with Parli - that debaters cannot use evidence to back up their claims (something that is already a big enough problem in NCFCA when debaters are expected to use evidence in TP/LD). Hopefully, STOA doesn't end up with the same problems....


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:19 am
Posts: 744
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: University of Dallas, formerly Region 4
formerTPer wrote:
Turumbar wrote:
Nothing prohibits evidence in parli either, you just have to hand-write it like in Extemp.


Um...from the STOA rules "(2) Debaters are not permitted to read published material in the speeches of the debate to support their argument claims"

Ugh... why??? You should at least be able to write evidence down.


FastFlamingo wrote:
Turumbar wrote:
Nothing prohibits evidence in parli either, you just have to hand-write it like in Extemp.

Yes, but realistically, how much are you going to write down? The sentence you want to quote? Maybe a paragraph, but certainly no more than that. That's not really enough to establish the context of a card. And are you going to put in a full citation (author, title, date, publication, issue, ISSN, URL), or "NY Times '09"? The point is, there's no check upon falsification or twisting of evidence in parli, except the honor system and a common sense "does this seem plausible?" if evidence is called into question. I would hope that's enough, but you can't be certain.


In Extemp I was able to write down up to 7-8 pieces of evidence/support on a my little tiny card. I don't there's a card-size limit in parli.

_________________
Alex Macdonald

University of Dallas

Buy COG!


Openness is a value not a project


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:01 pm
Posts: 11
Home Schooled: Yes
Turumbar wrote:
formerTPer wrote:
Turumbar wrote:
Nothing prohibits evidence in parli either, you just have to hand-write it like in Extemp.


Um...from the STOA rules "(2) Debaters are not permitted to read published material in the speeches of the debate to support their argument claims"

Ugh... why??? You should at least be able to write evidence down.


I can't speak for STOA but the prohibition on evidence makes sense on the collegiate level where debaters from smaller colleges would be unable to keep up with the large research teams from a larger college like what happens in CEDA. Personally, I would not be competing in collegiate debate if Parli were not available since I don't have the time to devote to research like I did in NCFCA; thus, please read my comments below with that context in mind.

I have two fears for high school Parli debate. I was very supportive of NCFCA's repeated decisions to not promote parli but the emergence of STOA makes that point moot. I hope those participating in STOA's parli will prove these fears wrong.

1) Lack of evidence
This has been adddressed by Dr. Srader and in my previous post so I won't elaborate further. I just hope that STOAns don't run into the problems faced in collegiate parli where facts and reality are no longer relevant to parli debate.

I'm afraid judges will blame competitor's character rather than the fact that the form itself really prohibits a deep and thorough knowledge of the topic and that misstatements/misunderstandings of facts are inevitable even with the most skilled and ethical debaters.

2) Skills
From my experience in NCFCA, nearly all of the skills I learned from debate that have been applicable to my college work and to real life would never had been learned from Parli debate. For instance, I have been in numerous classes where the professors have had to spend entire lecture periods telling the students how to research in academic databases...something that I learned very quickly in NCFCA :). You just don't have the time in Parli to research in academic databases or really anything than a just quick Google search.

My last year of competition in the NCFCA and from judging and coaching last year, the major weakness I saw in NCFCA debate was a lack of evidence/support to claims and, frankly, most of the competitors didn't even realize they needed to support so many of their statements. I don't see how Parli debate can help - in fact, the discouragement (and banning) of evidence can only make things far worse.

Please realize, I am not trying to bash the form of debate or those in STOA who decided to include Parli debate...I'm glad to see the excitement among the homeschool debate community and am also grateful for those who worked on preparing this event. I hope, instead, that this discussion can lead to a more responsible undertaking of the activity.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:01 pm
Posts: 11
Home Schooled: Yes
Turumbar wrote:
In Extemp I was able to write down up to 7-8 pieces of evidence/support on a my little tiny card. I don't there's a card-size limit in parli.


In college, you can bring anything you write down...no limit at all.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:09 am 
Offline
Order of Merlin, First Class
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:33 am
Posts: 1443
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Sunny San Diego(yes I'm rubbing it in)
Parli debate has many benefits, but before we get into those it is crucial to realize that at its core parli is a strategy game. This may sounds illegitimate to many of you who consider debate to be a purely academic activity, but believe me, it has great implications for how each of its competitors as individuals think and act. While it may not offer topic specific education to the degree of Policy it offers other forms. I think one of the biggest threats to parli is that its debaters may treat it to much like TP when that is not the most effective way to utilize this activity.
I don't really care for the speaker times. I don't know what a 1NR is going to talk about for 5 minutes unless the team splits the block. Teaching kids to shell and extend would be great, cause nobody does that in TP now. The last time I saw that was Prier/Wyer.
First, One thing I guarantee will cause controversy amongst homeschool debaters, because it does so in the college circuit, is the memorized argument, or the canned case. I really think that having teams memorize arguments, like topicalities, generic DAs, and even Ks (the horror) is going to be unavoidable because 1. it is strategically smart, and 2. there is no way to verify that they aren't doing this. Consider this senario: The topic is USFG should pass Arizona's immigration bill on a national level. Opp team preps 15 minutes on Immigration bill bad. Then, surprise, Aff team runs a different immigration bill for their case. Without a box of evidence to back them up, the negative team is left to whatever they can think of, and the "life saving" canned spending Disad with impacts from Ron Paul. So they spend 4 minutes running that and 3 minutes running whatever other arguments they could think up against this case. Is this good or bad? I think this will cause controversy inside the program, and I don't think there is an effective way to address it. I am honestly for it, and am spending parts of my summer memorizing arguments (for college debate, not STOA, sillies). It is all part of the game, but I have a feeling that many people will disagree, with very good reasons why.
Second, Partner arguments? In TP it seems to be forbidden to the point of a DQ if the 2N hands the 1N an argument in the middle of his speech, but I think that it is so important in parli to both increase the quality of the argumentation and team work aspect. Team work is something that becomes so important in parli, and can be a great benefit to the activity. Consider the same scenario above, but the team has no canned argument. The 1N can think up about 2 minutes worth of arguments then she is done. But what is her partner doing while she is giving the speech? Writing a DA against the case. She then hands it to him in the middle of his speech and he proceeds to read it, turning a 2 minute losing speech into a 6 minute round winning speech. Good, or bad? In an activity with no prep time it is all but inevitable. Yet I have a feeling that the league will have an instant reaction to try and ban this all important aspect. This would truly be a tragedy because so much can be learned about trusting your partner in round, and about confidence when you have no clue what you are going to say in 30 seconds.
Third, the canned case. This is slightly different than the canned argument, but works along the same lines.
What do these resolutions all have in common:
This house should redecorate
The USFG should pass legislation to decrease pollution
Cooperation is crucial healthy competition
The USFG should take steps to fix its economic woes
?
Reasons can be given why an RPS/Cap and Trade case can link to all of them. While I know that you probably will never run a case that liberal, I am sure you will find ones that apply to, oh so many resolutions. In college, many of the top teams prep cases on their computer before tournaments, like you would write a 1AC, then in prep time they copy it down onto paper. This increases the education of the round because prep time isn't spent both analyzing the resolution and then writing a case. However there will almost definitely be some who see this as the equivalent of cheating. Is it? and if so, how is it possible to enforce the rules or what is to keep them from finding cases that have been posted online by debaters in other leagues?
These are a few questions that I have a feeling will quickly come to the forefront of many competitors and parents minds as they try to work out the kinks in the activity. However, if worked out correctly, Parli can bring great benefits to teams who participate. Just don't expect it to be TP.

_________________
There are those of us with a sense of Humor, and we suffer for it. -Some Loser


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited