It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:43 am





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Felidar Sovereign 
Author Message

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:16 pm
Posts: 96
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
As a sociologist I feel compelled to ask the question of whether just building better decks to match the power of one player isn't the more sensible alternative to forming an angry mob.

But don't let me fan the flames even further... the fundamental flaws of multiplayer magic will not be solved in this thread, or any other for that matter.


Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:24 pm
Profile E-mail
Moderator

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:57 am
Posts: 317
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
Well, on the one hand, if the decks are so weak, then being attacked by two of them instead of one shouldn't be a problem? That's why I asked for specific recommendations on numbers of removal.

On the other hand, what some people call "the fundamental flaws of multiplayer magic" are simply the result of a different environment. For example, a firm would behave differently if it was in a monopoly, duopoly, oligopoly or perfect competition situation. There's nothing wrong with a firm that acts differently when the market structure changes, it's just adapting to a different environment. It's the same with international relations, and countries and firms aren't in a last-man-standing environment. In multiplayer, we are!

Expecting the same win percentage in MPM that you get in duels, or expecting that everyone will just allow you to do your thing without attacking you doesn't take account of the multiplayer game structure. If you can understand and accept that fact then you'll enjoy MPM, and if you can't, then you'll probably get pissed off and take it personally when you get ousted. I don't think that, over the long term, enjoyment of MPM is possible without that basic appreciation of what makes it different from duels.


Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:20 pm
Profile E-mail
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:27 am
Posts: 217
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
Well, we just lost Jeff to the USofA, have we now lost Aaron to the alluring charm of CoD? (I'd have to concur with his logic there, though: consistently lose MTG games thanks to gang rape VS mowing down zombie Nazis with machine guns and bazookas... hmm, that'd be a no contest there for me, either)

Also, Aaron, I doubt you're going to be reading this thread any more, but if by chance you do happen to see this, dude, I hope someone's introduced you to TF2.


Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:00 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:16 pm
Posts: 96
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
What makes MPM different from a duel is just that - it is more than two parties (which also makes it very different from, say, 2HG even though that has more than two players). Essentially, the aspect of having both multiple targets and multiple threats changes the game dramatically; you will have to prioritize and weigh each against the other for whichever decision you make, be it during deckbuilding or play.

However, there is another factor largely independent from you personal sphere of influence: multiplayer politics. If you assume a scenario where everyone simply tries to make the best decisions based on the current board positions, you might as well say that Communism works. It's just not going to happen when human beings are involved.

What I have noticed in the MPM games I have played so far, both at Shakey's and various other places, is that despite what people may think politics are the most deciding factor in the vast majority of rounds. I could go on and list a few stereotype persona you could assign to various players, but suffice it to say that you can easily ride the mood and manipulate people if you so wish. That of course is a very malevolent outlook and usually not the case in tables where yours truly isn't rubbing his filthy tentacles together with glee, but such things can happen much more subtly, too.

The "Ganging-Up" issue is a prime example of this. If a player, for the sake of argument let's just call him "A", whips out a monster deck, here is what can happen:

A pulls off a monster win, taking the table by surprise. Next round, A is the prime target due to the obvious danger. He will then either win again or lose to a mob. Results?

1) WIN: A's deck is powerful enough to withstand multiple aggressors. The table powers up their decks, eventually reaching an equilibrium where power levels are somewhat balanced.

2) LOSS: A makes his deck more resilient and/or appear less threatening (e.g. switch from Combo to Control/Combo). The table will re-evaluate his threat level and act accordingly, restarting the loop until once again an equilibrium of power levels is established.

This all assumes the theoretically optimal behavior, acting upon evaluation of threat and board position. And how realistic is it for the usual MPM table environment? About as much as me becoming a figure skating champion.

Here's what's more likely to happen:

A pullls off a monster win. The next game another player, let's call him "D", starts a Crusade to viciously annihilate A asap. Other players follow either voluntarily or because of a lack of initiative. A now either succumbs to overwhelming numbers or wins through the pressure because the deck is just that good.

1) WIN: D will keep targeting A in the subsequent games no matter what board position develops. Since Magic is random, A will eventually suffer Bad Beats, doubly hurt by the fact that many were completely unwarranted by current threat level. A and D subsequently engage in verbal and/or physical confrontation resulting in one of them no longer playing in the first place.

2) LOSS: D will keep targeting A in subsequent games no matter what board position develops. Since Magic is random, A will pull a win or two but lose the majority of games because of D's constant assaults. A subsequently stops trying because no matter what the board looks like, decisions will not be made objectively and apparently someone has painted a red X across his face. Eventually, A stops playing altogether.

The problem of course, is a loss of objectivity. It is not easy to remain objective and the merit of "A's deck is a threat in itself, even from a bad board position" can not be easily dismissed by many. However, I think the main problem with a process like this lies in the lack of improvement. In both examples, A will win/lose the same in the beginning - but the situation becomes very different very quickly. The process of establishing a level playing field through a system of feedback looping is, in my opinion at least, the one great redeeming quality slumbering inside the beast of MPM. Sadly though, it is all too often ignored in the favor of mass hysteria and mob violence. Admit it, it IS kinda fun to watch some get beaten to a bloody pulp; but as with many such things, it is only fun at the right time and certainly only in the right amount.

Another very deadly trap is assigning threat to playing skill. Of course, someone can be better at the game than you. In fact, there will usually be someone better wherever you go but that is how life works. While there is nothing wrong with keeping an eye out for that kind of player and being a bit more suspicious when he lays a Leprechaun than you would be when someone else does it, you must NOT base your targeting priorities on this. The reason is simple: Magic is not chess and good players have bad draws. If you target someone just because his name is Kai Budde, even though he just mulliganed to four and missed his second land drop, then you are NOT making a smart decision, you are making a biased judgment. And you WILL get killed by Joe Random one day who got his five-combo-piece god draw with nobody bothering to counter his One with Nothing because they were too immersed in beating up Kai.
Also, do not forget that you play with people better than you because that kind of challenge is actually a large part of what makes a game fun. If you know you will win every time you step into the ring, it will become stale more quickly than I'd jump an underage catgirl. You will learn and grow when facing tough opponents and instead of fear, you should face them with thrill and joy. But of course, this implies you yourself improving over time as well; you cannot fall into a status-quo apathy, lest you become trapped in the confines of your own lacking. If someone constantly kills you with a certain combination of cards, think about what you could do against them. Reflect upon your deck, does it maybe deserve a bit more removal or an extra counter, maybe some graveyard hate, maybe a Stifle? Even a theme deck can easily be tweaked this way and it sure is more fun to have your Thrulls actually win some time because you did add that extra card.

Conclusion: Do not let players intimidate you. Do not let decks scare you. Do not resign into defensive aggression, ask yourself what you can do better instead. If everyone tries hard, the entire game experience changes for the better. The beauty of MPM is that you can experience a whole different level of community gaming, but only if you do it TOGETHER.


Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:20 pm
Profile E-mail
Moderator

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:57 am
Posts: 317
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
Wow, Vaso, that was an awesome post - thank you. A lot of good stuff to consider.

The first point I would raise is actually one of the oldest questions in MPM - the Alongi/Ferrett divide, you could call it. Even in a zero-politics environment, where "everyone simply tries to make the best decisions based on the current board positions" (and, at least to some extent, potential plays) in order to further their own ends, there are situations where everyone faces a common threat. In that case, each other player will make a rational, independent choice, to take out that threat. What I would argue is that some people confuse that with politics, or use an emotive term like "ganging up" to describe it. If those people perceive that this non-political group is political, or vindictive or "ganging up" in a pejorative sense, then their enjoyment of the game will decrease - possibly to the point where they play another game instead (let's just call it "CoD"). In that case, the problem is not with the actions of the group, but with the individual's reaction/feelings, and the result of that reaction is reduced enjoyment for all.
For example, I have a deck that wins by making it impossible for a creature with power greater than zero to remain on the board. Now, if someone is playing a creatureless deck, or one that uses zero-power creatures, then I am not a threat to them. Everyone else, however, has to eliminate me before they can win. In this case I might find that, once my path to victory is clear, every other player attacks me. This might be considered "ganging up", but it is not political, collusive, personal or in any way bad (except bad in the sense that it reduces my chances of winning - but then everything my opponents do should be designed to reduce my chances of winning). If I felt bad about that, then the problem would lie in my perceptions, not with the actions of the other players, right?
The same holds true when my victory condition is superfast: every deck that is not equipped to win before the fourth turn must act to stop me from winning that quickly, or they lose. They might do that in a variety of ways - they may or may not be successful, and they may or may not have to kill me to prevent my victory - but the very nature of a combo-win deck is a threat to any decks that intend to win in the mid-to-late game (which is to say, the vast majority of decks, casual or otherwise).
Now, before I explain precisely what that means, I want to go back to the question of perceptions. Aaron has said repeatedly that the prevalent mindset at Shakey's is "Let's get Aaron out of the way, so we can play magic!" However, I really don't see that as the case. Not only can I remember a lot of games that Aaron has won, but I can remember games where people were targeting me while Aaron was at the table, and a lot of games where there was no clear pattern to attacks. The only game I remember everyone explicitly and concertedly focusing on Aaron to the exclusion of all other players was his 3rd turn Dragonstorm for 4 Hellkite Overlords. Not only was it clearly the right move to try to eliminate his threat, but as I recall that particular monogame, I came back with my MBC deck, killed Aaron, and then left him alone because a) he was no longer a threat to me, and b) I didn't want him to think I was picking on him. Ironic, huh? When he came back in with the same deck, he stormed again (altho it wasn't so impressive) and I swept the board but didn't focus on him after that. I thought he had Bidding in his deck, and I remember holding my only Haunting Echoes in my hand thinking "shall I use this on Aaron? Nah, that wouldn't be fair!" Not coincidentally, I became the threat for the rest of the game, and so I received the attention of other players.
In short, I have said repeatedly that I think Aaron's perceptions of "ganging up" against him are skewed by the way he views multiplayer dynamics.
That leads us to the current argument about whether he should play the Felidar Sovereign deck or not. In response to Aaron threatening a 3rd-turn Sovereign, 4th turn win, I posted "For the record, the first time you play a white deck post-Zendikar, you have forsaken the right to complain about 'ganging up'. I'm not threatening to kill you, but I'll sure bring you below 40 as fast as I can." I explicitly said that I was not talking about ousting him, but that I wanted to obstruct his victory condition. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable way to respond to a clear threat. Once he plays the Sovereign, I can try to kill it, but whether i can or not, I will apolitically and impartially deal with a threat in the best manner available to me, which may include creature damage. Am I being unreasonable? Was the Kresh example that I offered on my previous example flawed? Is it unreasonable to assume that other players at the table might, independently and rationally reach the same conclusion? Is this "ganging up on Aaron", or simply good strategy? I would argue the latter, but I welcome counter-arguments. Perhaps more importantly, this course of events does not lead to Aaron's explicit ousting. It is not a case of "Let's get Aaron out of the way, so we can play magic!" and it is incorrect and unfair to other players to characterize it as such.
Wow, that's a long post - I hope it makes sense. Short version: eliminating the threat isn't "ganging up", and I personally feel that in most playgroups, it doesn't even make sense to use that phrase. In a duel you may be killed by one player; in MPM you maybe killed by more than one player, but that doesn't mean that the motives of the people who killed you are different. I don't get pissed when I die in duels (OK, sometimes I do :( ), so I shouldn't get pissed when I die in MPM.
To be continued...


Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:16 pm
Posts: 96
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
I do see your point and as for your core arguments, I completely agree. There are of course situations in which one player really is THE threat on the table and unless he is defeated, he will kill everyone else. However, there is a precarious stage where you are faced with a strategic dilemma: you know there is a deck capable of dropping the big one and it is being piloted by someone that will not hesitate to do so as soon as he can - we agree that this happens and demands a response, no question there. Where I differ though, is in the solution; you propose that it is the legitimate, strategically correct choice to eliminate that player before he does the same to the rest of the table. That argument is sound in itself, but it is missing a crucial component in the bigger picture: improvement. If you take that component out of the equation, you may justify your choice as strategically sound all you want (and, objectively speaking, be right about it) but you will still upset the player in question and may, after a few rounds like that, drive him out of the round altogether. Why? Because even though "gangbanging" may be a strategy applicable, it is not the only alternative. In fact, it is at best a temporary solution because all it does is provide momentary relief, without tackling the underlying problem, i.e. power level discrepancies. There will always be better players and better decks, make no mistake about that; but what especially Aaron has repeatedly criticized (and I can absolutely relate to that) is that justified as it may be, the Mob has been the prime solution to power problems. "Nobody plays spot removal anyway" and similar comments raise red flags and hints like that should be heeded to at least some degree if MPM is to work in a given environment.
I notice an alarming lack of awareness to thorough solutions lately and that is by no means limited to Magic play; of course it is convenient if you have a quick fix such as ganging up to deal with problems, but as you can see it doesn't provide structural relief and comes with a whole bunch of other problems attached that may not be obviously connected at first.

Long story short, I do not question the idea that politics and strategy go hand in hand and that not every decision that creates bitter feelings was strategically unjustified. After all, SOMEONE is bound to win/lose eventually and there is no use crying about it. But from what I understand of the issue altogether, that is not what bothers people. Their issue with the whole mess is that gangbanging has become the common solution to everything, essentially eliminating a strategical element from the game that contributes significantly to people's individual sources of enjoyment in Magic. Maybe I can relate better to Aaron because we derive satisfaction from similar elements of the game; namely, coming up with strategies and overcoming strategical challenges. That element is severely threatened by such quick-fix solutions, in fact, you could argue that it is being all but eliminated. A demand to reduce power levels can be effective only to a certain degree and I do believe that a lot of restraint is already in place through common courtesy when building decks (believe me there are WAY stronger decks in Aaron's mind but he knows where not to go for MPM). On the other hand, demanding other people to come up with creative solutions by altering their decks to accommodate a given meta (and that is a beautiful opportunity presented to us with the relatively stable Shakey's crowd) does not remove elements but instead ADDS to them. Is it not enjoyable to ponder over your deck for a while, trying to tune it in a way that overcomes its own shortcomings? Does that not, in the long run, provide much more satisfaction than other solutions to power disparities?

I will try to integrate myself into MPM more in the future (when hopefully my monetary slump becomes less severe) and I would very much like to see people put just a bit more thought into the whole matter. And don't misconstrue, I am in no way demanding people become cardboard powerhouses - on the contrary, a relaxed, casual atmosphere is a very welcome change for me, personally. But that is very much in peril when people stop thinking, just because it's multiplayer. You are STILL playing Magic, and even if it's not all about winning, the least your opponents can demand is that you try your best. On all levels. Don't give in to the temptation of easy remedies! If you don't tackle the underlying problem and just stumble from patch to patch, all you end up with is the Middle East. And nobody wants that!


Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:04 am
Profile E-mail
Moderator

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:57 am
Posts: 317
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
edit: spent an hour writing this in response to your Friday night post, then lost it due to browser snafu. Found it again, but am posting the same article even though I've read (and agreed with) your other one.
A little less hyperbole would go a long way, though. "consistently lose MTG games thanks to gang rape" because "Nobody plays spot removal anyway" is a horrible option, but itis not an objective assessment of what is happening. More on that soon [end edit]
Vaso wrote:
If a player, for the sake of argument let's just call him "A", whips out a monster deck, here is what can happen:
A pulls off a monster win, taking the table by surprise. Next round, A is the prime target due to the obvious danger. He will then either win again or lose to a mob. Results?
1) WIN: A's deck is powerful enough to withstand multiple aggressors. The table powers up their decks, eventually reaching an equilibrium where power levels are somewhat balanced.
2) LOSS: A makes his deck more resilient and/or appear less threatening (e.g. switch from Combo to Control/Combo). The table will re-evaluate his threat level and act accordingly, restarting the loop until once again an equilibrium of power levels is established.
This all assumes the theoretically optimal behavior, acting upon evaluation of threat and board position. And how realistic is it for the usual MPM table environment? About as much as me becoming a figure skating champion.
Here's what's more likely to happen:
A pullls off a monster win. The next game another player, let's call him "D", starts a Crusade to viciously annihilate A asap. Other players follow either voluntarily or because of a lack of initiative. A now either succumbs to overwhelming numbers or wins through the pressure because the deck is just that good.

Sorry for posting articles instead of paragraphs, but your meaty and well-thought post deserves a similarly meaty (if not quite as well-thought out response). In my defense, I read your post at 6am and tried to let my ideas percolate rather than offering a hasty, knee-jerk response.
In the ideal scenario, I can see three separate issues: external balancing, internal balancing and equilibrium.
The first, external balancing, involves multiple group members attacking the prime threat. I think it's important to note that this is a natural, rational response to a strategic reality, and that using a value-laden term like "ganging up" to describe it clouds the issue. It occurred in your Ideal scenario, and even in your nightmare scenario, over the long term it is likely to be a dyadic rivalry not an "everyone against this guy" scenario. If one player always goes for the throat of another (and I had that experience when Bigs was here), that is not the result of a gang, and it is not necessarily a problem for the target of this aggression, on either the strategic or personal levels.
The second is internal balancing, meaning each player makes their decks better (I don't see any difference between making new decks and improving existing decks - but then most of my decks are old friends, and I search for new cards to put in them before I look at new cards to build decks around. Not everyone is the same, and I know that both Jeff and Stephen have different approaches). Now, Aaron has argued that this is an important part of any group metagame, and I completely agree. Since playing in that infamous game with "the Krosan Grip heard 'round the world", I have added at least 6 new cards (three of which are removal, although none of them could deal with a Felidar Sovereign for less than 4 mana) to my Kresh deck.
However, internal balancing takes times, which raises two questions. Firstly, anyone who accepts the role of internal balancing between games should accept the role of external balancing within games, because they are merely different ways of achieving the same ends when faced with the same problem (I'll learn kung fu to kick that bully's ***, but in the 15 years it takes me to become proficient, I'll go to the playground with my friends if I can). External balancing is not necessarily 'dirtier' or less fair than internal balancing.
Secondly, like many forms of evolution, internal balancing may require multiple iterations of ***-kicking. If you are constantly getting your *** kicked, you should totally improve your deck, but if there are just one or two decks that utterly overwhelm you, there is less impetus for adaptation. For example, everyone has stronger and weaker decks. If I always lose when I play my weakest deck, but I always win when I play my strongest deck, then I am unlikely to make wholesale revisions to my deckbuilding technique. As such, I believe that Aaron will get what he wants, in terms of us playing stronger decks and achieving a more dynamic metagame, but if he wants to accelerate that process, he needs to play more. If he's got some of the strongest decks and he's at home playing CoD, then there won't be the same evolution.
So, Aaron and I see the issue of External Balancing differently, but I think we see Internal Balancing the same way and agree on it. The only area where we see things the same way but disagree is, I think, Equilibrium. Every playgroup can be expected to evolve to a certain level of power: Zvi Moshowitz and Richard Jahn have described groups where superfast combos are the norm, whereas Alongi, Sargent, Ferrett and others tend to describe more laidback metagames.
If Aaron wants to see a meta where every player should have removal to deal with a 4/6 on turn three, or deal damage before then, then I don't really see a problem with that. However, if he is describing a metagame where, if I tap out on the 5th turn, I'll be dead before I untap (which is how I perceive a deck that reliably goes Wall-Wall-Lifegain-Flash-Felidar Sovereign, or some such), then I personally think the equilibrium level of that meta would be too high. If we said "OK, let's all play our strongest decks this time", then this problem would be greatly reduced, but if players start to feel that they have to bring the power to every single game, or get crushed in 5 turns, then I think that this is a bad situation.
In particular, I feel that an overly high equilibrium reduces variety. It may encourage innovation, but also imitation, in terms of both individual cards and strategies (e.g., the stronger the metagame, the more cards like Damnation and Counterspell are privileged). Not only does this constrain card choices, it puts pressure on budgets. For example, I have Oblivion Stone, Nevinyrral's Disk and Damnation, and i think these are some of the strongest cards in the game, and should be included in any deck that can cast them. I think I even have one of each in two separate EDH decks. But I don't have enough of them to outfit as many decks as I want to build, and if I need to bring that sort of power to every game, I'll have to leave most of my decks at home. Like a tournament environment, a high equilibrium metagame constrains quirky and cute decks, variety of archetypes and suboptimal card choices (off the top of my head, I'd say that anyone running Cancel and the new Necksnap over Cryptic Command and Path to Exile will get blown out at FNM, let alone a PTQ).
Bottom line: I don't think our metagame is overly strong yet, although I've played a bunch of games where I felt like I was bringing a tribal knife to a gunfight. I think that we have different (and legitimate) ideas about what ballpark the equilibrium level should be. Explicitly or implicitly, the issue of which equilibrium level is the most fun needs to be decided by the group.
EDIT: This is a balancing act, and we all agree that something in between needs to develop. Even if we come at it from opposite sides, I suspect we may all be able to agree on a broad middle ground if we can keep this debate constructive.


Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:41 am
Profile E-mail
Moderator

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:57 am
Posts: 317
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
Just a quickie...
Vaso wrote:
you propose that it is the legitimate, strategically correct choice to eliminate that player before he does the same to the rest of the table.

Not explicitly in the case of Felidar Sovereign - I advocated reducing the offending player's life below 40 as an alternative to removing the creature.


Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:53 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 94
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign/Sense at last
Thank you, Vaso, for some objective (as far as you can) and logically analytical ideas.
There's never any reason to get offensive or over-emotional on these forums. As he says, enjoy and explore, together.
I suggest not using "quote boxes" by the way. It begins a he-said-she-said spiral of foulness....

S ;)


Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:58 pm
Profile E-mail
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:24 pm
Posts: 237
---------
Post Re: Felidar Sovereign
Kona, what is FT2? Right now I'm playing COD - modern warfare and world at war, Halo 3 (I've never tried it before. Yeah, I know. I'm like 2 years late. I've got Halo ODST on the way though.) and Guitar Hero 5. :D

Vaso, thank you for your many well thought out paragraphs. I appreciate all of the effort that you have put into trying to explain, very thoroughly, your perspectives and observations.

Daryl, You have made several points in this thread, many of which are valid. However, I feel that you do not address the main sticking point which is "how do you define a common threat to the group?" I feel that because your definition of this concept is so broad, it allows you to justify, if only to yourself, any argument that you want. And that is what is causing this long discussion, if not the differences in perception.

At this point, if you feel that you don't need to discuss the details of this any further, I can accept that. However, I think we'd be wasting an opportunity. Remember you can know a lot about something, but not really understand it.

On a slightly different note, I was surprised to see you present the argument that you should be doing anything to win. This seems like a very precarious double standard to make as a champion of the casual player against one of the spikes in the group...

And finally, but in my opinion most importantly, I am disappointed that you seek to blame the player if a player feels that he is being treated unfairly. It's an extremely glib response to say that you have no control over how one player perceives an outcome, particularly if you were a participant in the event. If this were a group of people you/I never expected to see again, this would not be an issue. You'd/I'd simply walk away and feel good that we'd never have to deal with that situation again. However we have a very small group here of regulars here and I feel that a lot of effort is put into making sure that people feel welcome. With this in mind, your view, to me, is particularly discouraging. If what I am saying is still unclear, take the first sentence of this paragraph and replace the word "player" with "friend".

Stephen, I encourage your participation in any discussion on these forums or anywhere else IRL for that matter. However, I would like to request that you contribute your view to the discussion rather than just chastise or comment on the participants of this thread. Certain issues may be of greater importance to some members of the group than it is to others and allowing these people to discuss their differences is an important, if not primary, function of these forums. Whether you approve of the tone of these discussions is another matter and one that I feel should be addressed offline (in person or in a PM).

GL. HF.
Aaron


Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:40 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


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