homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:48 am
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.  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2874
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Hi all,

This last tournament was highly enlightening for me. I finally won an affirmative outround (first ever-- all of my previous outround wins of my career have been on neg). And once again, we went undefeated on neg. But, I think the phenomenon of losing aff outrounds is fairly indicative of my debate style for every one of my past four years. Looking back, my record has always been extremely lopsided towards neg.

This last tournament reemphasized that fact with mind-blowing clarity. Our quarterfinal round, we shocked the tournament by beating (IMHO) one of the best affirmatives in the region with a crazy strategy that worked. Our semifinal round, we won the flip and went aff. My worst decision of this month.

Neg runs a great strategy, perfect shell/extension, but drops their only DA in the neg block and has no offense otherwise. Simple, right? Just come back in the 2AR, weigh aff advantages against significance points, show a minute benefit, and win.

All of the judges voted neg on the (successful) takeout of one of our three justifications. Just one out of three.

It was then I came to the conclusion once more that something is fundamentally wrong with my affirmative presentation/strategy/philosophy/argumentation. I can't figure out what it is; there must be some stark difference in rhetoric/strategy/argumentation from aff to neg that is causing so many losses on aff. My partner had a stellar aff record last year, and I can't blame it on the case; I'm at a loss to explain it.

Help?

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
This year, I've experienced the same thing. My aff went 0-4 at the first tournament of the year. My partner and I went 3-0 going neg. I think that most of my issues were case specific things (mandates not clear enough, needed more analysis in the advantages, etc.), but I think some of the general things I learned hold true for everyone.

1. Keep it simple. The more complex and multifaceted your case is, the more possible neg arguments there are. Try and limit your argumentation to a few key ideas (X problem warrants action, Y solution is the best, and Z advantages will occur). A lot of people fall into the trap of trying to be "advanced" debaters by running advanced cases and using advanced arguments. That's silly. Advanced debaters are debaters who can make clear, simple arguments and defend them in depth.

2. Make the mandates understandable. If your judges are scratching their heads at the end of the 1AC, then you have a problem. It allows the negative team to exploit the judges confusion by running arguments that may or may not apply. If your judges are clueless about what your case does, it's hard for them to discern who's right. Don't wait until the 2AC to make clear what your plan does. Don't count on your judges being excellent flowers (pronounced floe-erz).

3. Don't respond to their arguments. Sounds weird, but it's true. Instead, refute their responses to your arguments. A negative team is arguing against your case, so all their arguments should link back to your case. If they don't, then they shouldn't be considered in the round. Especially in the 2AC, tie everything back to the 1AC. Talk about their arguments in the context of your arguments. For instance, it's much more effective to say, "let's examine what's going on in the SQ. We provided several harms in the 1AC, and the negative team responded by saying that they didn't matter because of X. However, X isn't a reason that Y isn't a problem [insert evidence]. So we can see that the SQ does have significant harms." than to say, "my response to significance argument X is that X isn't a big deal." Does that make sense?

That's all for now... hope this helps.

_________________
"Don't waste your life making yourself look good. Spend your life making God look good."
--John Piper


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2874
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Thanks for the response. :)

1. My aff is extremely simple this year... haven't suffered from that problem
2. The mandate is even more simple.
3. Yep. I'm usually pretty good about not getting bogged down with irrelevant arguments. I have a canned response for "No impact" down pretty well.

I realize this question is really broad and vague (most of ya'll not having seen me debate), but then, I don't know what I'm looking for either. I guess I'm just hoping someone is going to throw out an idea that's just what I need.

Thanks guys. :)

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:38 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
This is just a neg-friendly year.

So this is not spam, it sounds like judges voted against you because they focused more on the solvency of a nonessential advantage than they should have. This happened to me at a recent round robin. In fact, we had five advantages and explicitly stated that we were dropping one of them and just going for the other four. The judge voted neg because he needed to see quantification in order to believe that we could solve for the conceded advantage. :|

I guess the solution is to baby the judge. The affirmative tactic is concrete: come up with a short blip about dropped arguments, e.g. "But again, the negative myths I just debunked are irrelevant in the first place. Our opponents still conceded advantage(s) _____, so we win automatically because [summarize impacts]." The judge probably needs to hear this at least every 30 seconds. That might not even be frequent enough.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am
Posts: 321
Home Schooled: Yes
Consider taping your aff rounds. It's legal...just get permission from the neg.

EDIT: Also, I often see a mentality change when people switch from neg to aff. Good negs speak with conviction. Good affirmatives will do that too. But sometimes I see affirmatives get into a defensive mindset....which is the opposite of what you want. Remember...you're ASSAULTING the status quo. Killing it. Like...like round-house kick the SQ in the face. Talk like you're round-house kicking the SQ. lol. (My inexperienced $.02)

_________________
Caleb Howell (Alumnus), former President of In Veritate Victoria (Derby, KS).


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:35 am 
Offline
Laugh, or I will kill you
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:33 pm
Posts: 2492
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: College in San Diego Baby!
That's funny, I am NOT a good negative by any means. I think all 3 of the years I've competed I've had a losing record as negative. This year I'm slightly better, winning about 55% of my negs, but I still need a lot of improvement.

But I do tend to do really well as aff. I see affirmative rounds as "free aff wins" because it's very rare that my partner or I ever lose affirmatives. Over the last 3 years I've gone 13-4, 11-2, 7-1, and 7-1 on ballots with the cases I've gotten prepped and actually focused on.

I don't really know what the problem would be with your affirmative, and I don't expect you to post it online, so a better idea might be to chat about it. Are you on gmail? If so add me, I'm debateme13@gmail.com I have a lot of tips about affirmative, and I could totally use some help as negative. So chatting would be chill :).

_________________
+X wrote:
Oh, come now, Daniel. Your mafia playing habits make you a no-good double-crossing manipulative liar. But I would never call you a jerk!

;) <3


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
Have your mom critique your rounds.

The most valuable feedback I've ever received came from parents and other inexperienced adults.

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:13 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
Sharkfin wrote:
Neg runs a great strategy, perfect shell/extension, but drops their only DA in the neg block and has no offense otherwise. Simple, right? Just come back in the 2AR, weigh aff advantages against significance points, show a minute benefit, and win.

All of the judges voted neg on the (successful) takeout of one of our three justifications. Just one out of three.

I swear, this is exactly what happened to Daniel and me last week. We lost two rounds because our trade justification (the LEAST important one) wasn't a "big" as the neg said it should be.
Quote:
Have your mom critique your rounds.

That doesn't work for me. She thought we won all of our rounds (at least, the ones she watched...).
Quote:
Don't respond to their arguments. Sounds weird, but it's true. Instead, refute their responses to your arguments.

Nate is 100% right. I'm just now starting to realize this. Watching Clark/Grizzard in outrounds, they won the first two as neg because they made aff fight on their ground. Apparently, Bode/Chambers did this in semis and finals at the last tourny as well.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
thehomeschooler wrote:
Quote:
Have your mom critique your rounds.

That doesn't work for me. She thought we won all of our rounds (at least, the ones she watched...).


:P

Then get other adults to critique your rounds. Debaters give good feedback, but they don't always have the community judge mindset :P

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
andrewmin wrote:
thehomeschooler wrote:
Quote:
Have your mom critique your rounds.

That doesn't work for me. She thought we won all of our rounds (at least, the ones she watched...).


:P

Then get other adults to critique your rounds. Debaters give good feedback, but they don't always have the community judge mindset :P

Yes. Very, very true. Actually, my partner is really, really good at being a sort of speed bump for me. It's not that she doesn't understand complex arguments (she does), it's that she's really good at figuring out what a community judge or parent judge with very little experience will be able to grasp in a very short debate round. So in/before a round, I always try and run my arguments past her to make sure that what I'm trying to say will come across to any judge, not just experienced judges. Most of the time it works pretty well.

I also have received a lot of great help from adults. My coaches, as well as various judges I've had, have done sooo much to help me improve my case. A lot of times, adult judges have a lot of real life experience, so when something doesn't sound right to them, it sets off alarm bells in their heads. All it then takes is for the neg team to make an argument that connects with those alarm bells, and you're pretty much toast. Try to preempt that by sending your case to some responsible adults whose opinions you respect to see what their gut reaction is. Obviously, you won't be able to cater to every judge's bias, but at least try and make it something that's reasonable to a wide audience.

_________________
"Don't waste your life making yourself look good. Spend your life making God look good."
--John Piper


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:23 am 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3976
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
I don't have this problem. I have always been stronger on Aff then on Neg simply because I have always known my case better than I know others' cases. The strength in winning on Aff is to know the arguments and know you're responses. If you know Neg's arguments and you know how to beat them, I can't imagine how you can lose as much as you say you do. I assume you're a good speaker.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2874
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Halogen wrote:
So this is not spam, it sounds like judges voted against you because they focused more on the solvency of a nonessential advantage than they should have. This happened to me at a recent round robin. In fact, we had five advantages and explicitly stated that we were dropping one of them and just going for the other four.

That's it.

Quote:
I guess the solution is to baby the judge. [...] The judge probably needs to hear this at least every 30 seconds. That might not even be frequent enough.

Yeah, I think I'll probably try it.

Quote:
Consider taping your aff rounds. It's legal...just get permission from the neg.

EDIT: Also, I often see a mentality change when people switch from neg to aff. Good negs speak with conviction. Good affirmatives will do that too. But sometimes I see affirmatives get into a defensive mindset....which is the opposite of what you want.

Re: Taping. Yep. Except, I have no idea what I'm looking for. Any suggestions?

For 90% of debaters, I absolutely agree. But for me, I win on negative strictly because I turn every argument I can into offense. I do the same on aff. This is the type of issue I think is causing the problem, but I don't think it's offensive/defensive posture that is the specific problem.

lucky13 wrote:
But I do tend to do really well as aff. I see affirmative rounds as "free aff wins" because it's very rare that my partner or I ever lose affirmatives. Over the last 3 years I've gone 13-4, 11-2, 7-1, and 7-1 on ballots with the cases I've gotten prepped and actually focused on.

I don't really know what the problem would be with your affirmative, and I don't expect you to post it online, so a better idea might be to chat about it.

Ughhhh. Free aff wins. The sound of that just kills me for two reasons: (1) I make my living beating unbeatable cases ;), and (2) because I soooo want to have my aff rounds as a "reasonably sure" round. Right now, I'm on pins and needles every aff round, wondering if we did well enough, whereas neg rounds I'm always pretty sure whether we won or lost.

Added on Gtalk, btw. Would love to chat sometime.

Andrewmin wrote:
Have your mom critique your rounds. The most valuable feedback I've ever received came from parents and other inexperienced adults.

My mom can't stand to follow a policy round, but I may try to get someone to critique my rhetorical style. Hmm.
Quote:
I also have received a lot of great help from adults. My coaches, as well as various judges I've had, have done sooo much to help me improve my case. A lot of times, adult judges have a lot of real life experience, so when something doesn't sound right to them, it sets off alarm bells in their heads. All it then takes is for the neg team to make an argument that connects with those alarm bells, and you're pretty much toast. Try to preempt that by sending your case to some responsible adults whose opinions you respect to see what their gut reaction is. Obviously, you won't be able to cater to every judge's bias, but at least try and make it something that's reasonable to a wide audience.

But see, that's the thing. I seem to be the one causing the alarm bells. It's not the case-- it's something about my presentation that's killing my position. It's gotta be something about the rhetoric I use-- surely I can't be getting that many random bad decisions.

Quote:
I don't have this problem. I have always been stronger on Aff then on Neg simply because I have always known my case better than I know others' cases. The strength in winning on Aff is to know the arguments and know you're responses. If you know Neg's arguments and you know how to beat them, I can't imagine how you can lose as much as you say you do. I assume you're a good speaker.

I've memorized the majority of the evidence I read (as the 2A) in the debate round. I've probably read 99% of the literature on my case. Rarely do I run across an article I have yet to read on it. Negatives usually are unprepared for it. They usually quote newspapers, or worse. We have Ph.Ds with warrants, and better. Knowing the case is hardly an issue. And I just started to consistently get high speaks this year.

But there's gotta be something wrong with my rhetoric. Thanks again for the posts, ya'll.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:59 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
Sharkfin wrote:
Re: Taping. Yep. Except, I have no idea what I'm looking for. Any suggestions?
The reason to record yourself is to listen to the fine details that are difficult to remember. Look specifically for inefficiencies in word economy and repetition of nonessential points. Figure out how to trim a rebuttal down to 4-4.5 minutes. Then when you're in a debate, plan your rebuttal as if you only have 4-4.5 minutes. Write some kind of short note at the bottom of each position to remind yourself to repeat the blip about how the judge should focus mainly on your strongest advantage instead of the position you just covered.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
My mom can't stand to follow a policy round, but I may try to get someone to critique my rhetorical style. Hmm.


I don't think it's just the rhetoric, necessarily. A lot of times, an argument that makes sense to a debater (like JVA destroys human rights, which = dehumanization, which justified Hitler) doesn't to a parent (JVA = Hitler? Wut?). I know my parents have helped me on that numerous times :P

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:20 pm
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NH, Reg10n
Sharkfin wrote:
Neg runs a great strategy, perfect shell/extension, but drops their only DA in the neg block and has no offense otherwise. Simple, right? Just come back in the 2AR, weigh aff advantages against significance points, show a minute benefit, and win.
This may be your problem.

"Minute benefit" is not a compelling advocacy. In order to overcome the doubt in the judges mind that comes with Negative argumentation, you have to have a significant advantage/harm. Whenever you have big harms, weighing becomes a lot easier (which is why I switched off of JVA).
Sharkfin wrote:
All of the judges voted neg on the (successful) takeout of one of our three justifications. Just one out of three.
You may want to rethink your case structure.

It often depends on where you are, but Plan/Justification style sometimes works against the Affirmative team. Last year, my partner and I used the Justification style for our Affirmative (Exotic Pets). The rounds got confusing. We switched to a Harms/Solvency format and the rounds were so much more understandable. Before regionals, the case went 8-1. Having a completely understandable format helps judges and debaters a lot.
thehomeschooler wrote:
I swear, this is exactly what happened to Daniel and me last week. We lost two rounds because our trade justification (the LEAST important one) wasn't a "big" as the neg said it should be.
From one perspective, no AFF should have a "Least important" advantage/harm. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

_________________
Mrs. A wrote:
Oh my.... another Edelblut?

edelblutmusic <my music you listen to with your ears


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
"Minute benefit" is not a compelling advocacy. In order to overcome the doubt in the judges mind that comes with Negative argumentation, you have to have a significant advantage/harm. Whenever you have big harms, weighing becomes a lot easier (which is why I switched off of JVA).


That's debatable :P. My piracy aff did pretty well, and most of the time, we basically said that if we caught one pirate, that was a warrant to pass our plan. Since no one had any disadvantages, we usually won on net benefits.

(I know that winning =/= right, but the point is: I think you can win with "minute" advantages)

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:53 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
mechanical pencil wrote:
"Minute benefit" is not a compelling advocacy. In order to overcome the doubt in the judges mind that comes with Negative argumentation, you have to have a significant advantage/harm. Whenever you have big harms, weighing becomes a lot easier (which is why I switched off of JVA).

This is true. I haven't abandoned JVA yet, but I'm finding that it's very hard to win with for this reason.
andrewmin wrote:
That's debatable . My piracy aff did pretty well, and most of the time, we basically said that if we caught one pirate, that was a warrant to pass our plan. Since no one had any disadvantages, we usually won on net benefits.

God bless the judges in your region.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
Halogen wrote:
This is just a neg-friendly year.

So this is not spam, it sounds like judges voted against you because they focused more on the solvency of a nonessential advantage than they should have. This happened to me at a recent round robin. In fact, we had five advantages and explicitly stated that we were dropping one of them and just going for the other four. The judge voted neg because he needed to see quantification in order to believe that we could solve for the conceded advantage. :|

I guess the solution is to baby the judge. The affirmative tactic is concrete: come up with a short blip about dropped arguments, e.g. "But again, the negative myths I just debunked are irrelevant in the first place. Our opponents still conceded advantage(s) _____, so we win automatically because [summarize impacts]." The judge probably needs to hear this at least every 30 seconds. That might not even be frequent enough.


I agree it's neg-friendly. Lots of cases are just like "wut."

But I wouldn't say "WE WIN FLOW TO US!" too often. In fact, I would only say it in the rebuttals. That's because the judge doesn't want to feel as if you're controlling him/her. Give the judge some slack, and end your 2NR with a very good summary of why the judge should vote for you. Ugh, I'm speaking neg. right now. In your 2AC. Whatever.

Visual graphs are good too. Just use your hands to represent the net benefits view. (One for aff one for neg).




BY the way, the whole thing of having the judge vote against you for something really insignificant: it happens to me too. We lost our Increase Foreign Aid case to the argument that "HIV/AIDS is already being worked on by Russia!"

HIV/AIDS is one of 3 advantages, and we had even more effects of Foreign Aid that we didn't mention for lack of time. Like, they didn't even win on that point and we lost to it. I had mentioned that 1. HIV/AIDS rates have grown from 100k to 1 million in the past year (despite Russian work on it), 2. That HIV/AIDS is only a tiny part of our case, and that 3. The more people help, the more gets done.

Somehow, though, we lost. UGH!

_________________
Potent Speaking: the only debate website exclusively dedicated to speaking tips. http://potentspeaking.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:44 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
When it comes down to a choice between letting the judge decide for himself what the important issues are, and treating the judge like a baby, I'll choose without hesitation to baby the judge. I have chosen the former option far too many times, and consequently lost far too many rounds than I could have won.

This choice is especially more important for affirmatives than for negatives due to the tendency of negatives to prey on doubt.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Affirmative help
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:58 am 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
Halogen wrote:
When it comes down to a choice between letting the judge decide for himself what the important issues are, and treating the judge like a baby, I'll choose without hesitation to baby the judge.

That's how I feel, too. But the problem is that in R9 (remember, I'm new there so I'm just finding this out), judges don't like that. They think it's demeaning. They want to be treated like an expert -- which ticks me off because some of them need to be treated like they don't know much about a certain issue -- BECAUSE THEY DON'T. But you'll get marked down if you treat the judge that way... :(

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 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