Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All

Author Topic: Inheritance interaction  (Read 1565 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dane-m

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +130
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2018, 05:00:00 pm »
0

There are two classes of solutions: changing the lose-track rules to lose track harder, and changing Inheritance.

The lose-track change would change Throne / Feast in the original main set; I'm not doing it. People don't know the lose track rule, and the main set rulebook said Throne / Feast worked. For new games this would be a thing to consider; Dominion does not want to mess with that.
How about losing track slighty harder as a solution?  If the current location of the card can't be determined without 'cheating', it retains the identity it had when last its location was known.

In the example referred to by the OP the online implementation did something that players IRL could not have done without cheating: it tracked where the particular Estate was.  IRL players would see the Estate go onto the deck, at which point it's still identifiable as the particular Estate, and get drawn, after which it is no longer identifiable as the particular Estate (in principle the drawing player knows which card it is, but the other players certainly don't).

The problem then is reduced to identifying under what circumstances the location of a card becomes indeterminate.



Logged

crj

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
  • Respect: +831
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2018, 06:11:19 pm »
+2

Inheritance should be e.g. "discard an Estate to..." (it's trickier than that because there's no terse way to say "you can do this any time you are allowed to play an action," although again it's too big of a change for errata, and if the card weren't published yet I wouldn't be trying to simulate it exactly).
Might it be simpler to fix Inheritance along these lines?

Once per game: Set aside a non-Duration Action card from the Supply costing up to $4. Move your Estate token to it.
Throughout this game: Estates are also actions. When you play one: play your Estate-token Action card, leaving it there.

By my understanding, that fixes the problem by arranging that every Estate in the game is identical; having Estates be Action-Victory cards isn't the problem.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4805
  • Respect: +19570
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2018, 07:27:21 pm »
+1

Might it be simpler to fix Inheritance along these lines?

Once per game: Set aside a non-Duration Action card from the Supply costing up to $4. Move your Estate token to it.
Throughout this game: Estates are also actions. When you play one: play your Estate-token Action card, leaving it there.

By my understanding, that fixes the problem by arranging that every Estate in the game is identical; having Estates be Action-Victory cards isn't the problem.
It sounds like that works, although you do also need to fit the text in the box. Probably I would say "During your turns" rather than "throughout this game"; for one thing it continues the thought, it's part of the ability.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4805
  • Respect: +19570
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2018, 07:32:10 pm »
+3

How about losing track slighty harder as a solution?  If the current location of the card can't be determined without 'cheating', it retains the identity it had when last its location was known.
It is going to be hard for me to make the leap to "okay I am changing the rules; here is the rule almost no-one will know, that will never come up, but maybe, just maybe, will confuse someone reading the wiki or punchball's document."

If I could go back and do things better, the fix would be to not have this situation be possible, rather than to have more to the lose-track rule. Ideally lose-track itself would also not be possible; probably many of the abilities that move cards could have fairly similar forms without invoking that rule.
Logged

dane-m

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +130
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #29 on: May 13, 2018, 09:08:23 am »
0

If I could go back and do things better, the fix would be to not have this situation be possible
So ideally we would want a simple ruling that makes the situation impossible, but doesn't change the way anything else currently works.  I don't think such a thing exists.

Let's start by summarising how the situation arises.  It's a combination of four factors:
  • TR-alikes play an Action card multiple times by looking at the instructions on the card each time it's played.
  • The instructions on three Action cards, namely BoM, Overlord and inherited Estate, change dependent on the location of the card.
  • Some Action cards trash themselves when played, plus during the Action phase Crown can be trashed by buying Mint with Black Market or top-decked by gaining Mandarin.
  • Once such a card has been trashed or top-decked, a sequence of subsequent Actions can cause its location to become unknown.
For it to be imposiible for the situation to arise one of these factors must be eliminated.

The third and fourth factors cannot be eliminated.

The second factor can only be eliminated by modifying both the way Inheritance works and the way BoM and Overlord work.  Some suggestions have been made on each of these fronts, so maybe this is a possibility, but having to fix two types of functionality seems excessive.

To me the first factor seems the most promising one to eliminate as it only involves one type of functionality, though there are five cards (TR, KC, Crown, Disciple and Ghost) that use the functionality.  The suggestions made so far on this front had the merit of preserving the way everything else currently works, but the disadvantage, as Donald has pointed out, of being somewhat obscure and confusing.  Mine also had the disdadvantage that it would still have allowed a TR-alike to attempt to play a plain Estate.

I can see two other ways in which the situation could be rendered impossible by changing the way Tr-alikes work, but both cause changes to the way TR-alikes interact with morphing cards: BoM and Overlord would get to morph into a different card on each play.

Solution 1: TR-alikes read the text of the card once and remember it rather than looking at the card each time it is to be played, but would this require a change to the wording on these cards or would a ruling to the effect that this is what is meant by playing a card twice/three times suffice?  Might this solution cause some uncertainty as to what the BoM/Overlord is after it has been played twice?  For example after TRing a BoM as two different non-self-trashing cards is the BoM the first card impersonated (on the grounds that the second play of the BoM couldn't find itself to become the second card impersonated)?  Or is it the second card impersonated (on the grounds that the second instruction to be a particular card until leaving play overrode the first instruction to be a different card until leaving play)?

Solution 2: TR-alikes are rephrased to be something along the lines "You may set aside an Action card from your hand.  If you do, play it, then move it into your Play Area and play it again."  This solution works by preventing the card from being moved until it is being played for the last time and has the advantage that it leaves no doubt about what the BoM/Overlord is after it has been played for the last time (on previous plays it wasn't in play, so reverted to itself immediately).  It does, however, have the major disadvantage of being very verbose.  While that's not a problem for TR or KC, it would be for Disciple and Crown.

Maybe neither of these solutions are acceptable, but I'll finish by reiterating that (a) any solution needs to eliminate one of the four factors that lead to the situation and (b) in practice that means either the first or the second factor.

Edit: added Ghost to the list of TR-alike cards.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 12:56:31 am by dane-m »
Logged

hypercube

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
  • Shuffle iT Username: xyrix
  • Respect: +131
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #30 on: May 13, 2018, 09:50:27 am »
+2

I'm just happy we have a solution to a puzzle no-one would have thought to ask: how can you play a card whose only type is Victory?
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6820
  • Respect: +7665
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2018, 10:17:23 am »
0

I'm just happy we have a solution to a puzzle no-one would have thought to ask: how can you play a card whose only type is Victory?

Not sure if we do have that. In the situation in question, the estate is an action; just a different one than it was. Has it been said here what would happen if your opponent had not inherited anything? Would the estate play and do nothing? Or would it fail to play? And is there any actual difference?
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

dane-m

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +130
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2018, 11:32:48 am »
+1

I'm just happy we have a solution to a puzzle no-one would have thought to ask: how can you play a card whose only type is Victory?

Not sure if we do have that. In the situation in question, the estate is an action; just a different one than it was. Has it been said here what would happen if your opponent had not inherited anything? Would the estate play and do nothing? Or would it fail to play? And is there any actual difference?
The Estate could also be a plain Estate by finishing up in the Trash, most simply in the scenario in which Feast or any other self-trashing card has been inherited, and a TR-alike is used to play the inherited Estate more than once.

There would indeed a difference between an Estate failing to play and an Estate playing and doing nothing, namely the number of cards that had been played so far.  As it happens that difference has no effect as the only card that cares about this number is Conspirator and it only cares whether the number is ≥3, which it will be no matter what.  It's not, however, particularly satisfactory having TR do something, namely play a Victory card, that isn't permitted by the rules.  While most players would presumably automatically accept that it means that effectively nothing happens, it might lead some people to believe erroneously that in this scenario the Estate can't possibly have reverted to being just an Estate.
Logged

majiponi

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: +319
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2018, 11:44:36 am »
+1

By the way, after trying to play Feast-inherited-Estate twice via Ghost, do I get +1 Action, +1 Card from Conspirator? I don't remember well.
Logged

dane-m

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +130
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2018, 12:17:26 pm »
0

By the way, after trying to play Feast-inherited-Estate twice via Ghost, do I get +1 Action, +1 Card from Conspirator? I don't remember well.

No.  Only two Actions have been played: the Feast-inherited-Estate and Conspirator.

There would indeed a difference between an Estate failing to play and an Estate playing and doing nothing, namely the number of cards that had been played so far.  As it happens that difference has no effect as the only card that cares about this number is Conspirator and it only cares whether the number is ≥3, which it will be no matter what.

It didn't take long for me to be proved wrong!  I take most of that back.  In practice there is no difference between an Estate failing to play (which is in fact what I assume is the current situation) and an Estate playing and doing nothing, given that Conspirator specifically refers to the number of Actions played, so even if the Estate were somehow considered to have been played, it wouldn't matter for Conspirator.

I also note that I failed to include Ghost in the list of TR-alike cards that would be affected by tackling factor 1.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6820
  • Respect: +7665
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2018, 04:27:35 pm »
0

There would indeed a difference between an Estate failing to play and an Estate playing and doing nothing, namely the number of cards that had been played so far.  As it happens that difference has no effect as the only card that cares about this number is Conspirator and it only cares whether the number is ≥3, which it will be no matter what. 

Actually, Conspirator only cares about action cards that have been played, so it wouldn't count a regular-Estate that has been played. Which is why I don't think anything exists that makes a difference whether the Estate is played or not.

*Edit* I see that you caught that yourself in your next post.

Quote
It's not, however, particularly satisfactory having TR do something, namely play a Victory card, that isn't permitted by the rules.  While most players would presumably automatically accept that it means that effectively nothing happens, it might lead some people to believe erroneously that in this scenario the Estate can't possibly have reverted to being just an Estate.

Well have have been told that "can't" outways "can", but in this case I'm not sure it applies; because 1) Card text overrides rules text, and 2) Not sure if the rules ever say you can't play a Victory card; they don't need to, because they list what you can play.

If there were a card that just said "You may play a victory card from your hand", then it seems almost clear that if you played that card, you would then successfully play a victory card. This leads me to believe that with TR+Estate-as-Feast, you would play the Estate twice (but only get the benefit of Feast the first time).
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 04:28:52 pm by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

dane-m

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +130
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2018, 01:04:58 am »
0

Well have have been told that "can't" outways "can", but in this case I'm not sure it applies; because 1) Card text overrides rules text, and 2) Not sure if the rules ever say you can't play a Victory card; they don't need to, because they list what you can play.
Fair point.  I should have said "It's not, however, particularly satisfactory having TR do something, namely play a Victory card, the effect of which isn't defined by the rules."  The rules tell us what playing an Action card, a Treasure card or a Night card does.  They don't tell us what playing a Victory card does, leaving it to us to deduce that it does nothing.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4805
  • Respect: +19570
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #37 on: May 14, 2018, 01:52:13 am »
+4

If there were a card that just said "You may play a victory card from your hand", then it seems almost clear that if you played that card, you would then successfully play a victory card. This leads me to believe that with TR+Estate-as-Feast, you would play the Estate twice (but only get the benefit of Feast the first time).
This at least has an easy ruling. Yes, if somehow you are told to play a Victory card that doesn't do anything when played, you first put it into play unless you've lost track of it, and then do nothing.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4805
  • Respect: +19570
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #38 on: May 14, 2018, 02:28:40 am »
+2

Let's start by summarising how the situation arises.  It's a combination of four factors:
  • TR-alikes play an Action card multiple times by looking at the instructions on the card each time it's played.
  • The instructions on three Action cards, namely BoM, Overlord and inherited Estate, change dependent on the location of the card.
  • Some Action cards trash themselves when played, plus during the Action phase Crown can be trashed by buying Mint with Black Market or top-decked by gaining Mandarin.
  • Once such a card has been trashed or top-decked, a sequence of subsequent Actions can cause its location to become unknown.
The "TR-alikes" category is a trick; it's just a result of how the card mix fell out, and not some innately important category. Ditto the movement category.

Really, the broad problem is any way to interact with a card twice - for example Remodel trashes a card, then cares what it costs - plus a way to have a copy of a card change in some way without all copies of that card changing that way. You need to add whatever other effects to get the problem, based on what these two pieces look like, but these two pieces are the issue. With the right new cards (triggers on trashing / ways to feed off of them), Remodel would do this; we would have a card where we didn't know what it cost. We can get the cost part to fail for Procession now (also Procession is missing from your list): trivialknot's post, but we Procession instead of Throning, and everything goes down on the second play so that we don't have to first wonder what card gets played.

It looked like cards leaving play was part of it, but it isn't. Cards leaving play before clean-up is bad in that it creates tracking issues a variety of ways (e.g. Bonfire your Hireling), but it's only relevant here because Band of Misfits and Overlord specifically care about leaving play, and Inheritance cares about who has the card (and for a Throned card, it has to leave play to change that). It's part of the actual combos, but not relevant to the broad picture - the perspective of, what if there are 300 more Dominion cards, how do you make sure there aren't issues like this.

We want to be able to have cards like Remodel and Throne Room, and don't need to have shapeshifting cards that just change one copy or some copies, so they're the thing to fix.

Band of Misfits / Overlord could have changed all copies of themselves everywhere; again I think the move there is to not change any copies, just play the card from the Supply. And similarly with Inheritance, you could live with instant weirdness with changing all Estates on your turn, but I think it's better to just play the set-aside card as suggested.

Edit: I should add, yes there is also the category of fix that's, "here's a rule for if you want to know something about a card and it's moved from where you expect it to be." That handles future mistakes or fan cards, that part is nice. But I don't like how it's like lose-track, a confusing rule that no-one knows. I prefer changing three of the most confusing and ruling'd cards in the game.

And despite these posts there is no errata as of yet for those three cards; right now, there are extremely exotic situations that fail IRL (online, the program can track the shapeshifted card).
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 02:43:51 am by Donald X. »
Logged

crj

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
  • Respect: +831
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2018, 08:37:26 am »
0

Once per game: Set aside a non-Duration Action card from the Supply costing up to $4. Move your Estate token to it.
Throughout this game: Estates are also actions. When you play one: play your Estate-token Action card, leaving it there.
It sounds like that works, although you do also need to fit the text in the box. Probably I would say "During your turns" rather than "throughout this game"; for one thing it continues the thought, it's part of the ability.
If card count was no object, you could provide an alternate set of Estate cards (alas, they'd probably stil have to be called Estate, for the sake of the effects that refer to Estate by name) that were Action-Events saying "Play your Estate-token Action card, leaving it there.", and Inheritance could have a setup step saying to substitute them.
Logged

faust

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +2759
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2018, 11:19:31 am »
+3

Once per game: Set aside a non-Duration Action card from the Supply costing up to $4. Move your Estate token to it.
Throughout this game: Estates are also actions. When you play one: play your Estate-token Action card, leaving it there.
It sounds like that works, although you do also need to fit the text in the box. Probably I would say "During your turns" rather than "throughout this game"; for one thing it continues the thought, it's part of the ability.
If card count was no object, you could provide an alternate set of Estate cards (alas, they'd probably stil have to be called Estate, for the sake of the effects that refer to Estate by name) that were Action-Events saying "Play your Estate-token Action card, leaving it there.", and Inheritance could have a setup step saying to substitute them.
That would create an interesting tension when Bonfire and Inheritance are both in the game.

All the fixes take away a significant amount of the fun you can have with Inheritance in order to deal with an obscure edge-case that will never come up in 1000 years of playing Dominion. As much as I see the beauty in structural clarity, it's just not worth it.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4805
  • Respect: +19570
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2018, 06:14:24 pm »
0

All the fixes take away a significant amount of the fun you can have with Inheritance in order to deal with an obscure edge-case that will never come up in 1000 years of playing Dominion. As much as I see the beauty in structural clarity, it's just not worth it.
It's a classic problem. Which is more fun: the most fun version of a card, or the version that works the best with the rules? Either it's a tie, or the most fun version is more fun.

I think if Inheritance had never worked on Durations and Reserve cards - and had been in Empires - no-one would have said, this sucks, I need to be able to turn Estates into Durations.
Logged

majiponi

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: +319
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2018, 09:40:50 pm »
+1

How about letting the turn player decide which behavior happens like what happens first when multiple things are triggers at the same time? For example...

King's Court
--Band of Misfits
----Mining Village(trash)
--Band of Misfits
----Throne Room
------Herald to reveal Graverobber
------Herald to reveal Throne Room
--------Throne Room
----------Band of Misfits

"I declare it not to be the first one." (revealing another from hand)

------------Mill (discard Band of Misfits and another card)

"I declare the discarded Band of Misfits to be the first one." (revealing it)

--Band of Misfits (failing to play from hand)
...

This is very annoying, but I believe everyone who can execute this combo can play like this.
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6438
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7788
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2018, 11:03:10 pm »
+4

This thread makes me think that being God would be hard.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4805
  • Respect: +19570
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2018, 01:56:52 am »
+1

How about letting the turn player decide which behavior happens like what happens first when multiple things are triggers at the same time? For example...
This is no good.
Logged

faust

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +2759
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2018, 02:36:36 am »
+1

I think if Inheritance had never worked on Durations and Reserve cards - and had been in Empires - no-one would have said, this sucks, I need to be able to turn Estates into Durations.
I mean, true, but if you hadn't created Dominion, probably noone would have said, this sucks, I need a balanced, fun game that opens up a whole new genre of games. Still, in the end I imagine publishing Dominion has increased the overall fun.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4805
  • Respect: +19570
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2018, 03:50:20 am »
+2

I think if Inheritance had never worked on Durations and Reserve cards - and had been in Empires - no-one would have said, this sucks, I need to be able to turn Estates into Durations.
I mean, true, but if you hadn't created Dominion, probably noone would have said, this sucks, I need a balanced, fun game that opens up a whole new genre of games. Still, in the end I imagine publishing Dominion has increased the overall fun.
I contrasted Inheritance-that-doesn't-work-on-Durations with Inheritance. You contrast Dominion with nothing.

Man and look how easy it would have been to contrast Dominion with Dominion-without-Durations. That experiment has been played out. Dominion without Durations won nearly every award ever. The Durations part was not required.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 03:52:55 am by Donald X. »
Logged

crj

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
  • Respect: +831
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #47 on: May 15, 2018, 09:44:14 am »
+3

All the fixes take away a significant amount of the fun you can have with Inheritance in order to deal with an obscure edge-case that will never come up in 1000 years of playing Dominion.
The problem I see, from an engineering perspective, is that obscure edge-case problems have a nasty habit of biting harder later if not caught at the outset.

For example, exactly when you clean up a Duration, how they interact with throne rooms, and when you then clean up those thrones, probably looked like obscure edge-case problems when Seaside first came out...
Logged

faust

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +2759
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2018, 12:08:15 pm »
0

I think if Inheritance had never worked on Durations and Reserve cards - and had been in Empires - no-one would have said, this sucks, I need to be able to turn Estates into Durations.
I mean, true, but if you hadn't created Dominion, probably noone would have said, this sucks, I need a balanced, fun game that opens up a whole new genre of games. Still, in the end I imagine publishing Dominion has increased the overall fun.
I contrasted Inheritance-that-doesn't-work-on-Durations with Inheritance. You contrast Dominion with nothing.
What I put in for these placeholders doesn't really matter. The point is that the argument is not logically sound.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

Cave-o-sapien

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 784
  • Respect: +1419
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2018, 02:39:57 pm »
+2

I think if Inheritance had never worked on Durations and Reserve cards - and had been in Empires - no-one would have said, this sucks, I need to be able to turn Estates into Durations.

I think you underestimate our ability to complain about things.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.141 seconds with 21 queries.