Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

Changing rules on the fly hurts the integrity of the game and the [fantasy] league. You are not going to be able to commission your way out of all variance in life. I would not want any part of such a league and would take my money elsewhere, but hey that's just me.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 535
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm the Commish in my ESPN league. This weekend, I had to face my opponent who owned Taysom Hill. He slotted him in his TE spot and had Mahomes in his QB spot. Some other members in my league talked a

Heres my thing: it was well established Taysom's position eligibility before the season.  If a commissioner wanted to make a rule PRIOR to the season I get that. But to try to pull rank during the sea

Posted Images

7 minutes ago, yossarian said:

But they don't know what they signed up for, and neither do you. They signed up for a fantasy league based on an NFL league that is kind of making some of this up as they go along, as we can see. Week to week the league is dealing with a situation somewhere between "a player you've never heard of will have to sit out" to "we're gonna have to cancel an entire game and the Titans will have to take the L because they didn't follow protocol and there's not enough room in the schedule to account for this". NOBODY knows exactly what we've signed up for and it's kind of important to acknowledge that. 

Ultimately if your league is all happy and somebody gets paid the money at the end of the season and nobody feels like they got F'd (well more F'd than a regular ol' fantasy football F'ing, I mean) then that's a good thing and you did a good job addressing that. 

I agree.  As I said in an earlier Covid post, my league thought of adding Covid IR slots which we did.  But none of us had the foresight to consider delayed games, cancelled games, games that could be moved to Tuesday or Wednesday and then cancelled, multiple lost weeks due to positive Covid, etc.

Given that we didn't do anything special for Tenn-Pitt, or the possibility of KC-NE not going (some leagues had a "name a backup and post it on the message board, we'll use it if the game is cancelled", we seem to be now of the mindset to "Sack up and be flexible".  Nobody wants to now institute new policies.  Our league typically votes on rule and format changes at the beginning of the year.  We can't add new rules now because those that lost Tenn-Pitt were affected - those players were essentially treated like late injuries and you just dealt with it.  So that's what we're doing.  Oh well, you just lost 6 players due to Covid and postponed games.  That's the luck of the draw.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2020 at 1:23 PM, lolcopter said:

Changing rules on the fly hurts the integrity of the game and the [fantasy] league.

 

99.9% of the time I would agree.  Unfortunately, we are in a scenario where the NFL itself is also changing the rules.  My job as commissioner is to adapt, address concerns in the best interest of the league, teams within in, and prevent this season from having an asterisk next to it, if at all possible.

 

I'm not here to debate, I'm only here to share my official ruling, to potentially help any other commissioners who decide to go the same path.  This week might only be the tip of the iceberg, so I decided to handle the situation now, get it over with, and have my league covered, to the best of my ability.

 

After reading everyones thoughts and opinions, combined with extensive discussions, here is how we will move forward.
1: We are going to add 2 Bench Spots.
2: We will allow the 'Back-up' designation.
Here's how it will work.
1:
a) Every player that is currently a FA, will go onto waivers that will process Sunday at 12:00 am (Midnight of Saturday)
b) Every team will be reset to $100 FAAB momentarily for THIS WAIVER ONLY. This is a USE it or LOSE it FAAB budget.
c) Sunday, after waivers process, I will reset everyone's FAAB back to their correct/current balance. (Like the previous $100 never happened) Tuesday's waivers will be like nothing ever happened
2:
a) Every team with a COVID-Risk-Cancellation, will have the option to pick a contingency player, from their bench, to substitute for the Covid-risk player.
b) In your lineup, you will start the normal player, as if the game was guaranteed to play. (The Covid Risk Player) This way, if the game goes as planned, nothing has to be changed, everything is normal. Only IF the game is cancelled will the contingency player be involved.
c) You must choose and post into the Facebook group, your contingency player and who they 'would be' replacing, BEFORE the kickoff of the contingency player. This will be a ZERO TOLERANCE rule. Kickoff at 10:00am, your post MUST be time stamped 9:59 or earlier. If your contingency player doesn't play until 1pm or SNF, or MNF, that's fine. Anytime BEFORE their respective kickoff.  If you miss the deadline, you will be at the mercy of your covid-risk player.
d) This will only apply, to an ENTIRE game cancelled by Covid. If your individual play gets hurt, or injured, or declared out, etc... the contingency player will NOT be used. This is 100% for the potential scenario where an entire game is rescheduled, cancelled, or forfeited for Covid reasons.
To be crystal clear, even if your individual player tests positive for Covid, this will NOT qualify. This is only for 'If I knew the game was cancelled I wouldn't have put Derrick Henry in my lineup'.
Immediately following this post, all FA will now go to Waivers that should clear at midnight "tonight" aka the first minute of Sunday.
Immediately following that, all FAAB budgets will be set to $100. USE IT OR LOSE IT. Sunday, FAAB will be put back to the normal values everyone had before as of this post and waivers will return to normal.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This year I’m only playing in the leagues where I’m just an owner. We put the auction league I run on hiatus this year & been discussing ways to improve it for next year. I came up with this:

15 roster spots, 11 starters, 1 IR

Draft 2 QB, 4 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE, 1 K, 1 D

Start 1 QB, 3 RB, 4 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 D

4 spots on bench. The lineup decisions are which QB, RB, WR, TE to bench (1 each) K & D must be dropped during their bye to FA. 
 

The reasons for this unique system are simple:

- We are all still playing FF as if it is still 2005. The game has changed & we must change with it. RBBC’s, 3 WR sets, rules changes favoring passing...they’ve all made the game different than it was 15 years ago. It’s more frustrating than enjoyable the way we play now, & I think this may be a better adaptation of the game we love to play. Whatcha think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like it myself. 

 

The rules seem to be too rigid to me at first glance. 

 

There's a million ways to skin a cat AKA win a title. I don't want to be pigeon holed into doing it in a very specific manner which this format seems to push you towards. 

 

Draft is my favorite part of year (and winning title and holding trophy and getting paid). I prefer to do it the way I feel is best, not the path I've been forced to take. 

 

End of day though if this is what your league wants this is what they want. 

 

It's not what I would want though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, lvsaint429 said:

This year I’m only playing in the leagues where I’m just an owner. We put the auction league I run on hiatus this year & been discussing ways to improve it for next year. I came up with this:

15 roster spots, 11 starters, 1 IR

Draft 2 QB, 4 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE, 1 K, 1 D

Start 1 QB, 3 RB, 4 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 D

4 spots on bench. The lineup decisions are which QB, RB, WR, TE to bench (1 each) K & D must be dropped during their bye to FA. 
 

The reasons for this unique system are simple:

- We are all still playing FF as if it is still 2005. The game has changed & we must change with it. RBBC’s, 3 WR sets, rules changes favoring passing...they’ve all made the game different than it was 15 years ago. It’s more frustrating than enjoyable the way we play now, & I think this may be a better adaptation of the game we love to play. Whatcha think?


I’ll be honest...I don’t see why it’s any better. If anything, it would be more frustrating and maddening. What if I have more than one RB or WR on a bye? Or what if I have two WRs who will miss a week due to injury, or have an injured RB and one on a bye? And why should have I have to drop my defense if I have one of the top defenses in the league?

I wouldn’t be a fan of that at all, and I fail to see why it adapts better to the change in how the game is played. 

But if you have 12 guys who like that format, that’s all that matters :)

Edited by Flyman75
Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea was most every team in actual football during real games uses 3 RB’s & 4 WR’s, so why don’t we? The way the game is played now causes more fantasy frustration than ever before & many people I know aren’t enjoying it as much as they did 10-15 years ago. For example here in the forums, the Vent & Rant thread seems to show more unhappiness & dissatisfaction with FF every year. This format would force owners to take byes into account when drafting or when making roster decisions. Would also probably make for a few more trades too. Everyone in our usual league who’s heard about changing to this format is excited about it 🤷🏻‍♂️

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, lvsaint429 said:

The idea was most every team in actual football during real games uses 3 RB’s & 4 WR’s, so why don’t we? The way the game is played now causes more fantasy frustration than ever before & many people I know aren’t enjoying it as much as they did 10-15 years ago. For example here in the forums, the Vent & Rant thread seems to show more unhappiness & dissatisfaction with FF every year. This format would force owners to take byes into account when drafting or when making roster decisions. Would also probably make for a few more trades too. Everyone in our usual league who’s heard about changing to this format is excited about it 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

The vent and rant thread just reflects society. 

 

More people every year are upset about petty things or have "anxiety" and want to complain. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I go in there too. Mostly to trash those people though. Am I any better? Of course not, I'm a POS too. 

 

The bottom line though which I never made it to is that your format doesn't reflect anything except more venting and ranting to me. 

 

But if it's for you, it's for you.

 

Live it and love it dog. 

 

Side note ... What if you took BYE weeks into account this year (or potentially next) and had 6 new teams with 6 new BYE weeks by week 6, and very likely to be more randomly generated BYE weeks before this is over. 

Edited by Dreams And Dwightmares
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, lvsaint429 said:

The idea was most every team in actual football during real games uses 3 RB’s & 4 WR’s, so why don’t we? The way the game is played now causes more fantasy frustration than ever before & many people I know aren’t enjoying it as much as they did 10-15 years ago. For example here in the forums, the Vent & Rant thread seems to show more unhappiness & dissatisfaction with FF every year. This format would force owners to take byes into account when drafting or when making roster decisions. Would also probably make for a few more trades too. Everyone in our usual league who’s heard about changing to this format is excited about it 🤷🏻‍♂️


First of all, we’re playing fake football. I’ve never understood the attempt to try to make FF mirror real football. I don’t really care how many WRs and RBs NFL teams use, although I’d disagree that they’re using three RB and four WR. 

Secondly, I enjoy FF more now than ever, covid season notwithstanding. I haven’t run across any disgruntled owners in either league I’m in, nor do I sense much in this forum. 
 

Thirdly, I still don’t see how this new format adapts to today’s game. It’s the same thing, but with more players. 

Fourthly, your guys will get frustrated as soon as reality starts to rare it’s head. You can only bench one RB and one WR, but again, what happens when you have multiple byes or multiple injuries or multiple byes/injuries. Then you’re screwed if your opponent’s team is healthy and/or has no byes. And you think that owner with the no1 defense or no1 kicker is going to be cool with having to drop them on their bye week? Lol, no way. 

Fifth, I don’t want to have to take byes into account when I’m drafting. You think guys will be okay having to pass on the BPA because they already have a RB or a WR with a bye that week...or having to make sure all four RBs have different byes? Sorry, but that expectation just doesn’t make sense to me.

You’re pigeon-holing teams. I don’t get the appeal to being so rigid and unforgiving as a league. Not appealing whatsoever. If either of my leagues went this direction, I’d be finding other leagues. 

But if you’re guys want to do it, then roll with it. I just don’t think they’ll like it once they’re in it. 

Edited by Flyman75
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lvsaint429 said:

This year I’m only playing in the leagues where I’m just an owner. We put the auction league I run on hiatus this year & been discussing ways to improve it for next year. I came up with this:

15 roster spots, 11 starters, 1 IR

Draft 2 QB, 4 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE, 1 K, 1 D

Start 1 QB, 3 RB, 4 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 D

4 spots on bench. The lineup decisions are which QB, RB, WR, TE to bench (1 each) K & D must be dropped during their bye to FA. 
 

The reasons for this unique system are simple:

- We are all still playing FF as if it is still 2005. The game has changed & we must change with it. RBBC’s, 3 WR sets, rules changes favoring passing...they’ve all made the game different than it was 15 years ago. It’s more frustrating than enjoyable the way we play now, & I think this may be a better adaptation of the game we love to play. Whatcha think?


Just draft 2 K and 2 D and you solve the issue of bye weeks. Pretty simple. 
 

As for the rest of your setup, my big money league has been playing with roster limits for 12+ years. And we all love it. HOWEVER, I don’t like your construction of 4 RB and 5 WR and then having to start 3 and 4 respectively. You’re pretty much saying 4 out of your 5 WR’s HAVE to have different bye weeks. Of course, you could also take the strategy of drafting most guys with the same bye week and take the L. But what fun is it to draft guys with more concentration on bye weeks rather than performance?

 

in my league we draft 18 rounds:

Draft 2QB, 4RB (Max 6), 4 WR (Max 6), 2 TE, 2 K, 2 D

1 IR slot

Start 1QB, 2RB, 2WR 1Flex (RB/WR/TE), 1 TE, 1K 1D

 

Reason for roster limits is it promotes more waiver activity that contributes to increased pot distribution (we pay for adds) and allows owners who are hit with injuries or underperforming players an opportunity to replace them. It also helps eliminate the need for trades and as a result, avoids the conflict of possible collusion. Some people may say they hate not trading, but as commissioner, I love not having to deal with that element. And everyone in the league also agrees.

 

Anyway, if your ultimate goal is to have more starters in your lineup to account for RBBC’s and such, then you need to draft a MINIMUM of 2 extra players (preferably 3 if no flex) over your starter requirements. For example if u need to start 3 RB’s and 4 WR’s, then you should have to draft 5 RB’s and 6 WR. But preferably, I’d set your starting lineups at 3 RB’s and 3 WR’s with the 7th a flex spot. 

Edited by Sonny_D
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, lvsaint429 said:

The idea was most every team in actual football during real games uses 3 RB’s & 4 WR’s, so why don’t we? The way the game is played now causes more fantasy frustration than ever before & many people I know aren’t enjoying it as much as they did 10-15 years ago. For example here in the forums, the Vent & Rant thread seems to show more unhappiness & dissatisfaction with FF every year. This format would force owners to take byes into account when drafting or when making roster decisions. Would also probably make for a few more trades too. Everyone in our usual league who’s heard about changing to this format is excited about it 🤷🏻‍♂️

If you want to mirror real football you should be starting 1 RB and 3 WR or 1 RB, 1 FB, 2 WR or 2 WR, 2 TE.

Not sure how your lineup mirror's real football.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yanksman said:

If you want to mirror real football you should be starting 1 RB and 3 WR or 1 RB, 1 FB, 2 WR or 2 WR, 2 TE.

Not sure how your lineup mirror's real football.

Other than the depth of active players, I don’t know how else to explain it any more than I have already. 

 

8 hours ago, Sonny_D said:


Just draft 2 K and 2 D and you solve the issue of bye weeks. Pretty simple.

 

in my league we draft 18 rounds:

Draft 2QB, 4RB (Max 6), 4 WR (Max 6), 2 TE, 2 K, 2 D

1 IR slot

Start 1QB, 2RB, 2WR 1Flex (RB/WR/TE), 1 TE, 1K 1D

 

Reason for roster limits is it promotes more waiver activity that contributes to increased pot distribution (we pay for adds) and allows owners who are hit with injuries or underperforming players an opportunity to replace them. It also helps eliminate the need for trades and as a result, avoids the conflict of possible collusion. Some people may say they hate not trading, but as commissioner, I love not having to deal with that element. And everyone in the league also agrees.

 

Anyway, if your ultimate goal is to have more starters in your lineup to account for RBBC’s and such, then you need to draft a MINIMUM of 2 extra players (preferably 3 if no flex) over your starter requirements. 

This whole idea was something we chatted about at work throughout the day yesterday. I like your suggestions, just thinking the WW might be pretty bare in case someone needs to pick up a player?  We generally only allow trades, but only until bye weeks start as a compromise. Some wanted to allow trades & some didn’t, all for obvious reasons on both sides. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, yanksman said:

If you want to mirror real football you should be starting 1 RB and 3 WR or 1 RB, 1 FB, 2 WR or 2 WR, 2 TE.

Not sure how your lineup mirror's real football.


And draft 5 OL...and draft a full defense. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lvsaint429 said:

Other than the depth of active players, I don’t know how else to explain it any more than I have already. 

 

This whole idea was something we chatted about at work throughout the day yesterday. I like your suggestions, just thinking the WW might be pretty bare in case someone needs to pick up a player?  We generally only allow trades, but only until bye weeks start as a compromise. Some wanted to allow trades & some didn’t, all for obvious reasons on both sides. 

In our league(12 team) we start 9. 1QB,2RB,2WR,FLEX(RB/WR/TE), TE, DST,K.  With 8 bench spots. So 17 total with one IR. We’ve been doing this set up for years. Basically 204 players are rostered and there are still plenty of solid FA’s available. We have yet to have any problems with the Covid situations due to the deeper benches. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lvsaint429 said:

Other than the depth of active players, I don’t know how else to explain it any more than I have already. 

 

This whole idea was something we chatted about at work throughout the day yesterday. I like your suggestions, just thinking the WW might be pretty bare in case someone needs to pick up a player?  We generally only allow trades, but only until bye weeks start as a compromise. Some wanted to allow trades & some didn’t, all for obvious reasons on both sides. 


Well, drafting that many RB’s and WR’s, you’re probably right. Pretty damn close to waiver wire being bare. But personally I don’t see any other way if you’re gonna start that many guys. But like the poster right above wrote, our league has the exact same setup (2RB/2WR/1Flex). Personally I Tbilisi that’s the sweet spot in terms of setup. 
 

Curious to hear more of why u guys want to increase the starting lineups. Is it b/c of the RBBC’s and feeling like more “luck” is coming into play with picking and choosing who to play every week? Because if so, we went though the same thing a few years back. To help combat it, we implemented the 2 win per week system, where you get an extra win if you score in the top half of league median. Everyone loves it. Helps eliminate some of the luck randomness for sure. Something to consider. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sonny_D said:


Curious to hear more of why u guys want to increase the starting lineups. Is it b/c of the RBBC’s and feeling like more “luck” is coming into play with picking and choosing who to play every week?

This is exactly the reason. Nobody is enjoying the FF season as much because so many random players go off now & the expected “studs” fall flat more often than they used to. Since we usually have a yearly struggle to end up with 12, we also decided to make it 10 teams & go with your suggestion of 2 bench spots for both RB & WR 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, lvsaint429 said:

This is exactly the reason. Nobody is enjoying the FF season as much because so many random players go off now & the expected “studs” fall flat more often than they used to. Since we usually have a yearly struggle to end up with 12, we also decided to make it 10 teams & go with your suggestion of 2 bench spots for both RB & WR 👍


Nice. Trust me, I get it. We play in a 12 team, 13 year old league with a $2500 buy in and $20 pickups per player. As you can imagine, things get awfully tense and ultra competitive. We’ve made adjustments over the years and ever since we implemented the 2 win per week rule, things have gotten MUCH better. Also, that roster construction seems to be the sweet spot . Good luck man! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A manager in a league I run is throwing a fit because he didn't get his first waiver wire claim. Even though we have never done waivers this way, he thought he should get the top waiver claim since he is in last place. He has since ranted on the message board, sent a ridiculous trade to another owner that quickly vetoed, and has now made roster moves like dropping Chris Godwin/CeeDee Lamb for Cole Beasley/Scottie Miller. Time to lock him out and run his team myself? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Spuds said:

A manager in a league I run is throwing a fit because he didn't get his first waiver wire claim. Even though we have never done waivers this way, he thought he should get the top waiver claim since he is in last place. He has since ranted on the message board, sent a ridiculous trade to another owner that quickly vetoed, and has now made roster moves like dropping Chris Godwin/CeeDee Lamb for Cole Beasley/Scottie Miller. Time to lock him out and run his team myself? 


I assume waiver order began with last pick in draft first and then every time someone makes a move they fall to the bottom of the list? If so, the system obviously has it set up that way and would be in the rules. But yeah, you’d have to kick him out at this point. Running his team though for ROS. I don’t know man. Everyone is obviously going to have a different opinion on lineups/adds/etc. Tough predicament. I’d try talking sense into the dude first, otherwise, I’d look into maybe giving every team a free Win/bye that plays (or has played) him and locking his team up. Guess the issue there would be the teams that probably play him twice (assuming a 12 team league, 13 week regular season). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spuds said:

A manager in a league I run is throwing a fit because he didn't get his first waiver wire claim. Even though we have never done waivers this way, he thought he should get the top waiver claim since he is in last place. He has since ranted on the message board, sent a ridiculous trade to another owner that quickly vetoed, and has now made roster moves like dropping Chris Godwin/CeeDee Lamb for Cole Beasley/Scottie Miller. Time to lock him out and run his team myself? 

You, and two others that rotate every week vote on his lineup. Never the guy playing him

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FantasyGeek2018 said:

You, and two others that rotate every week vote on his lineup. Never the guy playing him

 

Yeah, and don't pick anybody up on the wire. The guy is being an absolute child. What is wrong with people?

Hang on, is he a child?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Spuds said:

A manager in a league I run is throwing a fit because he didn't get his first waiver wire claim. Even though we have never done waivers this way, he thought he should get the top waiver claim since he is in last place. He has since ranted on the message board, sent a ridiculous trade to another owner that quickly vetoed, and has now made roster moves like dropping Chris Godwin/CeeDee Lamb for Cole Beasley/Scottie Miller. Time to lock him out and run his team myself? 


Definitely lock him out, and frankly, I’d boot him. I wouldn’t bother trying to talk sense into him because something else will just set him off at a later date. Put Godwin and back on his roster, and start his players based on highest projected points. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Well... It's been a weird week in one of my leagues.  Let me know your thoughts, fellow commissioners.

 

I'm the commissioner of a family and friends league. This week, we had our first trade activity of the season and it has been interesting to say the least.

 

A 4-3 team and a 1-6 team managed by a pair of twin brothers traded, and the league viewed it as lopsided. There was a debate in our league thread and the trade was vetoed by a majority of the the league via league vote on nfl.com.

 

The trade:

 

4-3 team trades 

IMG8739562759570378276.jpg.e8ba8102463c0f673e342db33bd33957.jpg

 

1-6 team trades his top two draft picks:

Josh Jacobs 

Lamar Jackson

 

The league viewed it as lopsided. One league member threw out the C word (collusion). Either way, it was viewed as bad enough that 7 of our 12 owners voted against it through the fantasy site.

 

After it getting overturned, the twins put the exact same trade up for review. As commissioner, I said my piece in our group thread about how they were thumbing their noses in the league's collective faces. I encouraged everyone to vote again. It soon dawned on me that there wouldn't be enough votes the second time through. Either some owners changed their minds, or enough no longer cared enough to go in and vote against it again. Either way, it looked like the trade was on its way to being processed this morning. Except...

 

The trade never processed. It just... Vanished. Some very Halloweenesque. Disappeared in thin air it seems. There's no indication that the trade was vetoed. It's no longer up for vote or showing pending. It's just... Gone.

 

I'm curious what actually happened here. I see 3 possibilities:

 

1. It was a glitch. The trade should have processed but for some reason didn't.

 

2.  NFL.com has a rule against an already vetoed trade being processed to prevent something like this sequence happening. 

 

3. Divine intervention:  The fantasy football gods spoke.

 

 

Either way, it's only a matter of time before the twins realize what happened and throw a fit in our league group discussion.

 

What are your thoughts here?

 

Do you view the trade as veto worthy?

 

Have you ever seen anything like this in nfl.com?

 

How should I as commissioner handle this?

 

I'm inclined to tell the twins to go pound sand here because the league vetoed that trade already. If they try it again, it will not get processed in time for this week.

 

What would you do in my position?

Edited by Trifecta
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • tonycpsu changed the title to Commissioner's Corner 2020

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...