Angry Police Captain: Electric Boogaloo October 5, 2008 11:20 AM Subscribe
Do we really know this was a self-link?
Admittedly, it was a weak post. A weak post. But I didn't see anything in the guy's profile that would link him to the website and the WHOIS info didn't show any connections to kevinbeaucoup, either.
So... was it just the circumstantial evidence that led to bannination, or was there an actual link? that post did suck, after all.
Admittedly, it was a weak post. A weak post. But I didn't see anything in the guy's profile that would link him to the website and the WHOIS info didn't show any connections to kevinbeaucoup, either.
So... was it just the circumstantial evidence that led to bannination, or was there an actual link? that post did suck, after all.
He emailed. He contributed some of the quips and was surprised the creator put him in the credits in the source.
It's a lame link and he did contribute to it, but he has two years of good activity since then, so I'm open to unbanning, but I banned when I saw his name attached.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:30 AM on October 5, 2008
It's a lame link and he did contribute to it, but he has two years of good activity since then, so I'm open to unbanning, but I banned when I saw his name attached.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:30 AM on October 5, 2008
Yeah I think unbanning after further light of day reflection is in order.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:41 AM on October 5, 2008
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:41 AM on October 5, 2008
The mods already addressed it, but as the guy who pointed it out, I take umbrage at the implication that I was just pulling shit out of the air. He's a longtime contributor and it wasn't spammy, which is why I said it was "a sort of self-link".
UMBRAGE!!!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:56 AM on October 5, 2008
UMBRAGE!!!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:56 AM on October 5, 2008
Worst of all, it reset the days since a-bannin' counter from a historical high.
posted by Kattullus at 12:18 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Kattullus at 12:18 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
That seems like a pretty lame bannination, all things considered. I mean, hell, I've contributed articles and reviews to Blogcritics before, and someone even reviewed my most recent book there -- does that mean I can NEVER EVER link to Blogcritics ever? No matter what? Not even if someone there goes on a killing spree and uses a panda as a weapon? Meh.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 12:28 PM on October 5, 2008
posted by bitter-girl.com at 12:28 PM on October 5, 2008
Not even if someone there goes on a killing spree and uses a panda as a weapon?
See if I ever tell you my hopes and dreams again.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:39 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
See if I ever tell you my hopes and dreams again.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:39 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
It was a lame post, but can't there be a Sunday Afternoon exemption for posts? Cause those of us battling a severe Hay Fever need any distraction from our stuffy, swollen nightmare.
posted by The Whelk at 12:39 PM on October 5, 2008
posted by The Whelk at 12:39 PM on October 5, 2008
See if I ever tell you my hopes and dreams again.
I'm telling you, Brandon, it's no good unless you wear a cape and pretend to be Ronnie James Dio, too.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 12:43 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm telling you, Brandon, it's no good unless you wear a cape and pretend to be Ronnie James Dio, too.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 12:43 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
Sorry about that, everyone. It was settled in email.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 12:52 PM on October 5, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by beaucoupkevin at 12:52 PM on October 5, 2008 [3 favorites]
does that mean I can NEVER EVER link to Blogcritics ever?
I believe it does, yes.
And though kevin didn't create the site, he basically linked to a friend/associate's site. I thought that was also a big no no and was considered a "self" link.
posted by Manhasset at 12:53 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
I believe it does, yes.
And though kevin didn't create the site, he basically linked to a friend/associate's site. I thought that was also a big no no and was considered a "self" link.
posted by Manhasset at 12:53 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
bitter-girl.com, the situation seems (to me) slightly different. Seems that a more accurate comparison would be you contributing to a specific article on Blogcritics, and then linking to that article.
posted by Stunt at 12:56 PM on October 5, 2008
posted by Stunt at 12:56 PM on October 5, 2008
As I see it, multi-contributor sites like Blogcritics are problematic, because whereas it would be an obvious self link if you linked to something you'd written there, linking to something unrelated to you on the same site only becomes a problem when someone wants to play the self-link card. I don't -- as an example -- own or control Blogcritics in any constructive way. So despite the fact I've written there in the past (and it's been quite a while since my last article), I don't think it's self-linking to link to something else on the site. Could we maybe get an overall policy clarification on this? Thanks.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 1:01 PM on October 5, 2008
posted by bitter-girl.com at 1:01 PM on October 5, 2008
Does this mean that Al Gore, were he to join Metafilter, could never link to anything on the internet at all?
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 1:03 PM on October 5, 2008 [21 favorites]
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 1:03 PM on October 5, 2008 [21 favorites]
ANGRY POLICE CAPTAIN BANS FIRST, ASKS QUESTIONS LATER
posted by Meatbomb at 1:12 PM on October 5, 2008 [16 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 1:12 PM on October 5, 2008 [16 favorites]
does that mean I can NEVER EVER link to Blogcritics ever?
I've run a roughly analogous prospective post past the mods and it was vetoed. I don't think that the policy makes much sense as applied to the sort of sites you're talking about, but I can understand the desire to draw a clear line and not get bogged down in arguments over the level of contribution in each individual case.
posted by enn at 1:13 PM on October 5, 2008
I've run a roughly analogous prospective post past the mods and it was vetoed. I don't think that the policy makes much sense as applied to the sort of sites you're talking about, but I can understand the desire to draw a clear line and not get bogged down in arguments over the level of contribution in each individual case.
posted by enn at 1:13 PM on October 5, 2008
Might it be a good idea to change the deletion reason in order to spare the user from the eternal shame of a self-link bannination?
posted by mudpuppie at 1:16 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by mudpuppie at 1:16 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
"UMBRAGE!!!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:56 AM"
*knows what to ask Santa to put in Alvy's stocking*
posted by Cranberry at 1:38 PM on October 5, 2008
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:56 AM"
*knows what to ask Santa to put in Alvy's stocking*
posted by Cranberry at 1:38 PM on October 5, 2008
As I see it, multi-contributor sites like Blogcritics are problematic, because whereas it would be an obvious self link if you linked to something you'd written there, linking to something unrelated to you on the same site
You did hit the nail on the head there, actually: non-ginormous multi-contributor sites are problematic. They're tricky territory, because whether or not it's really pushing on the no-self-links/no-friend-links guidelines or not depends a lot on the individual site, the mefite's relationship with it, their relationship with the specific content in question, their relationship with the folks producing the content/site, etc.
My general counsel for someone is that if they feel they need to check with us—if they have doubts about whether it's 100% kosher—it's better to just not. We don't like being surprised after the fact by an undisclosed relationship between poster and linked content; it's happened a number of times that we've found out someone has been e.g. serially linking to a specific site/publication/group-blog to which they had an unmentioned direct relationship, and it's led to hard, no-argument bans and retroactive deletions. It's enough of a recurring problem that we don't have much incentive to softball folks when it looks like they're flirting with this territory.
On the other hand, we're never going to bothered by someone running something like this by us to get our opinion, and even in the case of a moment of bad judgement and/or bad luck (which I think what happened with beaucoupkevin here, in essence, with more emphasis on the luck than the judgement in this case) we're going to be willing to take a careful look at the situation after the fact if someone has otherwise developed some credibility. But disclosure up front (e.g. is whatever guidelines-abiding connection you have with site/content you're linking made crystal clear on your profile? If you're wondering at all if it's 100% cool, did you write to us first?) and just erring on the side of not is really the way to go.
...only becomes a problem when someone wants to play the self-link card.
It's not about someone wanting to "play the self-link card"; most self-links we notice are pretty obvious, indisputable transgressions. 90%, at least, are from people who are so stupid, mercenary, or fundamentally unclear on what Metafilter is that we not only recognize the self-link at first blush but have a good chance of having seen it coming. Most of these are, in fact, killed very very quickly.
I say that to put this other grey area thing into context: the small remainder of self-links are things that don't jump out at us immediately; those are the things that live long enough for mefites to collectively eyeball the post and give it a sniff test and do a little digging if the odor disagrees with them. And in those cases, folks will say something in-thread, and that may lead to flagging or admin email or a metatalk thread as well if it seems like a legit catch of something problematic.
It's not anyone playing a card; it's folk noticing and (with varying degrees of civility and care, and with varying in-thread results) saying something, which is a tradition as old as mefi itself—you can see this if you go diving into the archives. So I'm not sure what the idea of the card-playing is supposed to refer to, if it's this or some other wrinkle. Can you explain a little more where you're coming from?
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:57 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
You did hit the nail on the head there, actually: non-ginormous multi-contributor sites are problematic. They're tricky territory, because whether or not it's really pushing on the no-self-links/no-friend-links guidelines or not depends a lot on the individual site, the mefite's relationship with it, their relationship with the specific content in question, their relationship with the folks producing the content/site, etc.
My general counsel for someone is that if they feel they need to check with us—if they have doubts about whether it's 100% kosher—it's better to just not. We don't like being surprised after the fact by an undisclosed relationship between poster and linked content; it's happened a number of times that we've found out someone has been e.g. serially linking to a specific site/publication/group-blog to which they had an unmentioned direct relationship, and it's led to hard, no-argument bans and retroactive deletions. It's enough of a recurring problem that we don't have much incentive to softball folks when it looks like they're flirting with this territory.
On the other hand, we're never going to bothered by someone running something like this by us to get our opinion, and even in the case of a moment of bad judgement and/or bad luck (which I think what happened with beaucoupkevin here, in essence, with more emphasis on the luck than the judgement in this case) we're going to be willing to take a careful look at the situation after the fact if someone has otherwise developed some credibility. But disclosure up front (e.g. is whatever guidelines-abiding connection you have with site/content you're linking made crystal clear on your profile? If you're wondering at all if it's 100% cool, did you write to us first?) and just erring on the side of not is really the way to go.
...only becomes a problem when someone wants to play the self-link card.
It's not about someone wanting to "play the self-link card"; most self-links we notice are pretty obvious, indisputable transgressions. 90%, at least, are from people who are so stupid, mercenary, or fundamentally unclear on what Metafilter is that we not only recognize the self-link at first blush but have a good chance of having seen it coming. Most of these are, in fact, killed very very quickly.
I say that to put this other grey area thing into context: the small remainder of self-links are things that don't jump out at us immediately; those are the things that live long enough for mefites to collectively eyeball the post and give it a sniff test and do a little digging if the odor disagrees with them. And in those cases, folks will say something in-thread, and that may lead to flagging or admin email or a metatalk thread as well if it seems like a legit catch of something problematic.
It's not anyone playing a card; it's folk noticing and (with varying degrees of civility and care, and with varying in-thread results) saying something, which is a tradition as old as mefi itself—you can see this if you go diving into the archives. So I'm not sure what the idea of the card-playing is supposed to refer to, if it's this or some other wrinkle. Can you explain a little more where you're coming from?
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:57 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
When asked as a child to pick his favorite crayon, Pauly Shore took 'umberage'.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:02 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:02 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
cortex: tl;dr. Do I get to use my pitchfork and torch or not?
posted by Justinian at 2:05 PM on October 5, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:05 PM on October 5, 2008 [2 favorites]
Could we maybe get an overall policy clarification on this? Thanks.
Generally speaking, the zero tolerance approach to self-linkery is because really almost all the time when it happens it's people being fuckers and we're okay with the very rare "oh, this wasn't what we thought it was, okay we'll unban you..." situation like this is.
I don't know anything about Blogcritics so I can't speak to that case, but if you're worried about something not passing the smell test, run it by us. There are a lot of people on the site who know so many people in the web world that telling them they couldn't link to something by someone they know well is sort of like saying they can't post to the front page.
However, for a lot of people that is not the case at all; what we'd like people to be able to do is assess whether they think something is interesting or postworthy because it's great content or because they know someone associated with it and that's sort of clouding their judgment a little. People are rarely able to say "Oh hey I know that this was created by my roommate but it's really a good site, totally FPP-worthy" and that's the sort of second and third guessing that we'd actually like people to be doing because they take the self-link=ban rule seriously.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:22 PM on October 5, 2008
Generally speaking, the zero tolerance approach to self-linkery is because really almost all the time when it happens it's people being fuckers and we're okay with the very rare "oh, this wasn't what we thought it was, okay we'll unban you..." situation like this is.
I don't know anything about Blogcritics so I can't speak to that case, but if you're worried about something not passing the smell test, run it by us. There are a lot of people on the site who know so many people in the web world that telling them they couldn't link to something by someone they know well is sort of like saying they can't post to the front page.
However, for a lot of people that is not the case at all; what we'd like people to be able to do is assess whether they think something is interesting or postworthy because it's great content or because they know someone associated with it and that's sort of clouding their judgment a little. People are rarely able to say "Oh hey I know that this was created by my roommate but it's really a good site, totally FPP-worthy" and that's the sort of second and third guessing that we'd actually like people to be doing because they take the self-link=ban rule seriously.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:22 PM on October 5, 2008
Might it be a good idea to change the deletion reason in order to spare the user from the eternal shame of a self-link bannination?
The posting page is clear on this: don't link to things you've worked on. Why should we mollycoddle here?
posted by dhammond at 2:59 PM on October 5, 2008
The posting page is clear on this: don't link to things you've worked on. Why should we mollycoddle here?
posted by dhammond at 2:59 PM on October 5, 2008
I don't know anything about Blogcritics so I can't speak to that case, but if you're worried about something not passing the smell test, run it by us. There are a lot of people on the site who know so many people in the web world that telling them they couldn't link to something by someone they know well is sort of like saying they can't post to the front page.
I don't think anyone is really questioning the no-friends'-sites rule. This particular post was clearly a self-link by almost any standard. The gray areas are sites with user-created content, or content created by many authors, most of whom probably don't know each other at all. It's can be very frustrating to try to figure out what's permitted — can I post a link to this blog that I comment on often? Something like MagCloud if I've used it to print a magazine? A site that linked to my blog once? A site I wrote a freelance piece for? An open-source project I filed a bug against/submitted a patch to a year ago? A forum at which I have an account?
posted by enn at 3:05 PM on October 5, 2008
I don't think anyone is really questioning the no-friends'-sites rule. This particular post was clearly a self-link by almost any standard. The gray areas are sites with user-created content, or content created by many authors, most of whom probably don't know each other at all. It's can be very frustrating to try to figure out what's permitted — can I post a link to this blog that I comment on often? Something like MagCloud if I've used it to print a magazine? A site that linked to my blog once? A site I wrote a freelance piece for? An open-source project I filed a bug against/submitted a patch to a year ago? A forum at which I have an account?
posted by enn at 3:05 PM on October 5, 2008
when someone wants to play the self-link card
What does that even mean? Most people make accusations of self-linkery when they perceive there to be some self-linkery going on, not because they get shits and giggles out of it or want to start trouble for someone.
*Plays the "I'm really sick of the whole play the _________ card cliche" card*
In terms of linking to something hosted on a site that you contribute to or participate in, a simple acknowledgment and disclaimer of any involvement with the linked content would suffice, I'd think. I'm sure that I've seen people do just that without any problems.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:25 PM on October 5, 2008
What does that even mean? Most people make accusations of self-linkery when they perceive there to be some self-linkery going on, not because they get shits and giggles out of it or want to start trouble for someone.
*Plays the "I'm really sick of the whole play the _________ card cliche" card*
In terms of linking to something hosted on a site that you contribute to or participate in, a simple acknowledgment and disclaimer of any involvement with the linked content would suffice, I'd think. I'm sure that I've seen people do just that without any problems.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:25 PM on October 5, 2008
Of course, the kind of site does matter - linking to a one where you're one of many contributors and not an administrator would be fine, linking to a blog where it's just you and two other friends, not so much.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:30 PM on October 5, 2008
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:30 PM on October 5, 2008
It's can be very frustrating to try to figure out what's permitted
I sympathize, and at the same time we're loathe to make specific rules about this because we'd be afraid it would keep out more content than it would allow because people were over-vigilant. The general rule is: if you're not sure, ask one of the mods or send it to the contact form.
Unless we think you're an SEO spammer the worst that happens otherwise is we remove your post and maybe toss a self-link allegation your way and you say "oh I guess I misinterpreted the self-link rule" and it's all good. We'll generally give anyone but a cut-and-dried self-linker/spammer a second chance.
The rule of thumb things we look at are
- how close is the link between you and the content-producer [are they a family member or just someone that goes to the same movie theater as you do]?
- how many people have a connection to the content [i.e. is it a giant site and you are one of a thousand or it's a small site and you are one of three]?
- is there money involved [i.e. a link to an ebay auction of someone that you're loosely related to is different than a link to some random ad-free blog page]?
- if people go to the site will they find your name pretty quickly and/or readily?
- if I search the site for your name will it come up pretty easily?
- are you sort of obscuring your relationship with the site in some sketchy-seeming but discoverable way?
- do you have "seo/marketing professional" in the Occupation field of the site?
- does the content seem SUPER AWESOME or is it sort of meh?
So combining the answers we get from those typs of questions are what we would be doing when we're attempting to figure out if we think you're doing some against-the-rules self-linking. And, as with almost anything besides SEO dickhead banning, there's an appeals process which worked okay for Kevin here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:48 PM on October 5, 2008 [3 favorites]
I sympathize, and at the same time we're loathe to make specific rules about this because we'd be afraid it would keep out more content than it would allow because people were over-vigilant. The general rule is: if you're not sure, ask one of the mods or send it to the contact form.
Unless we think you're an SEO spammer the worst that happens otherwise is we remove your post and maybe toss a self-link allegation your way and you say "oh I guess I misinterpreted the self-link rule" and it's all good. We'll generally give anyone but a cut-and-dried self-linker/spammer a second chance.
The rule of thumb things we look at are
- how close is the link between you and the content-producer [are they a family member or just someone that goes to the same movie theater as you do]?
- how many people have a connection to the content [i.e. is it a giant site and you are one of a thousand or it's a small site and you are one of three]?
- is there money involved [i.e. a link to an ebay auction of someone that you're loosely related to is different than a link to some random ad-free blog page]?
- if people go to the site will they find your name pretty quickly and/or readily?
- if I search the site for your name will it come up pretty easily?
- are you sort of obscuring your relationship with the site in some sketchy-seeming but discoverable way?
- do you have "seo/marketing professional" in the Occupation field of the site?
- does the content seem SUPER AWESOME or is it sort of meh?
So combining the answers we get from those typs of questions are what we would be doing when we're attempting to figure out if we think you're doing some against-the-rules self-linking. And, as with almost anything besides SEO dickhead banning, there's an appeals process which worked okay for Kevin here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:48 PM on October 5, 2008 [3 favorites]
Thanks for the clarifications, cortex and jessamyn. :)
posted by bitter-girl.com at 4:10 PM on October 5, 2008
posted by bitter-girl.com at 4:10 PM on October 5, 2008
pardon me if this seems snarky, but can you get any more self linking than having the moniker bitter-girl.com?
posted by msconduct at 5:25 PM on October 5, 2008
posted by msconduct at 5:25 PM on October 5, 2008
It's what I use on all non-knitting site registrations, and have done for years...it's a nickname (and actually, if you click on my profile link, you'll find the story behind it... I should add that the nickname-bestower has been known to add 'DOT COM!' for emphasis to my nickname and just about everything else he says when being funny). When I registered in 2004 there were no posted guidelines for appropriate nicknames, so I didn't even think of it.
And if I remember correctly from former threads, changing usernames after the fact is either a. not ok or b. not possible or possibly c. both, but I would assume the mods would have said something about it before now if it wasn't ok.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 5:33 PM on October 5, 2008
And if I remember correctly from former threads, changing usernames after the fact is either a. not ok or b. not possible or possibly c. both, but I would assume the mods would have said something about it before now if it wasn't ok.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 5:33 PM on October 5, 2008
pardon me if this seems snarky, but can you get any more self linking than having the moniker bitter-girl.com?
???
There's never been any sort of rule against using a URL as your username.
posted by mediareport at 6:34 PM on October 5, 2008
???
There's never been any sort of rule against using a URL as your username.
posted by mediareport at 6:34 PM on October 5, 2008
*Considers changing username to not-bitter-girl.com*
posted by lukemeister at 6:37 PM on October 5, 2008
posted by lukemeister at 6:37 PM on October 5, 2008
And if they'll let me, lukemeister, I'll change mine to not-not-bitter-girl.com, so as to avoid confusion. ;)
posted by bitter-girl.com at 6:41 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by bitter-girl.com at 6:41 PM on October 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
0
days since a banning.
SAFETY FIRST
posted by GuyZero at 7:16 PM on October 5, 2008 [5 favorites]
GuyZero,
Great idea. A poster like this would reduce many sources of unsafe behavior.
posted by lukemeister at 7:21 PM on October 5, 2008 [2 favorites]
Great idea. A poster like this would reduce many sources of unsafe behavior.
posted by lukemeister at 7:21 PM on October 5, 2008 [2 favorites]
*plays the panda card*
It's only got a 3 for defense, but because it's cuteness lulls the victim into a false sense of security, it's attack value is an 8.
posted by quin at 8:54 AM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
It's only got a 3 for defense, but because it's cuteness lulls the victim into a false sense of security, it's attack value is an 8.
posted by quin at 8:54 AM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
Hi quin, I'm Mister_A and I'll be your internet apostrophe schmuck for today. "Its," man, it's not "it's." It's "its."
posted by Mister_A at 9:36 AM on October 6, 2008
posted by Mister_A at 9:36 AM on October 6, 2008
Does it vomit rainbows?
posted by bitter-girl.com at 10:28 AM on October 6, 2008
posted by bitter-girl.com at 10:28 AM on October 6, 2008
My user name IS a url. It's just in a format that hasn't been implemented by those pansies at the UN et al.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:19 AM on October 6, 2008
posted by blue_beetle at 11:19 AM on October 6, 2008
my username is tasty.
posted by garlic at 2:22 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by garlic at 2:22 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
SO IS MINE
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:06 PM on October 6, 2008
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:06 PM on October 6, 2008
...it haz a flavr
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:12 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:12 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
My username speaks for itself, and can be worn if the weather turns bad.
posted by languagehat at 3:18 PM on October 6, 2008
posted by languagehat at 3:18 PM on October 6, 2008
fortunately not "big hat, no cattle"
though I don't know whether you do, in fact, have cattle
posted by lukemeister at 4:18 PM on October 6, 2008
though I don't know whether you do, in fact, have cattle
posted by lukemeister at 4:18 PM on October 6, 2008
My username absolves me of responsibilities.
posted by disclaimer at 10:36 AM on October 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by disclaimer at 10:36 AM on October 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
My username is a dynamic figure, often seen scaling walls and crushing ice. My username is an expert in stucco, a veteran in love, and an outlaw in Peru. My username can hurl tennis rackets at small moving objects with deadly accuracy. It is an abstract artist, a concrete analyst, and a ruthless bookie. But my username has not yet gone to college.
posted by GuyZero at 10:36 PM on October 7, 2008
posted by GuyZero at 10:36 PM on October 7, 2008
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 11:24 AM on October 5, 2008