options for the offended 51

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

"no good reason" = the whole problem with these clusterfucks. i get that for x number of posters, these people are banned for "no good reason". the problem is that for a whole bunch (uh 51 to be specific) of other posters, there is plenty of good reason for them to be banned. its fine to say that you disagree with them, but reducing it to no good reason just means that you think that their opinions/feelings/etc dont matter.

― NAKES HAVE THE STAPLES IN THEM (jjjusten), Thursday, November 26, 2009 1:00 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark

1) Ignore the offensive poster.
2) Exit the thread.
3) Exit ILX. (As the banned are told, ILX is not the end all of the internet after all.)
4) Address the poster through email.
5) Report the poster to a moderator.

its fine to say that you disagree with them, but reducing it to no good reason just means that you think that their opinions/feelings/etc dont matter.

Again the huge flaw here is that whilethe board goes to great length to make sure to respect the offended 51, the unoffended are given no voting option whatsoever. It's almost like "their opinions/feelings/etc dont matter." Thousands of registered posters are not pressing the sb button. Why does that not count for anything?

bnw, Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

"Again the huge flaw here is that while the board goes to great length to make sure to respect the offended 51, the unoffended are given no voting option whatsoever."

it's not the same 51 people every time, y'know? I get that 51 people is a small number out of however many thousand, but there's not been a huge amount of sbans, and it's not really been directed by any one clique against another or anything.

Louis Cll (darraghmac), Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

1) Not really a great option if, say, somebody in your community is attacking you personally among your friends.
2) Allow yourself to be bullied away, basically?
3) Allow yourself to be hounded out of town entirely
4) "Why don't you just hit that kid back?"
5) This isn't a million miles away from what SB is

This is all about people who can't get along together. But there's only one side who can really do anything positive about the situation. The options for the victim are pretty much "accept this behaviour or gtfo", while the options for the attacker are "stop doing this, or we'll throw you out". I'm not sure why the onus should be on the victim to change their behaviour to accommodate, especially if the reasons are "there's a silent majority who get lolz watching" or "yeah, but the rest of the time they're great!" If the attacker stops, on the other hand, then both can stay.

Thousands of registered posters are not pressing the sb button. Why does that not count for anything?
This reads to me just like the arguments saying "it's only a minority who care about racism/sexism/whatever-ism and thousands of people don't mind, why doesn't their opinion count?". I'm not sure it's true, either. There are very few posters who haven't given out any SBs, and that includes people who say "I haven't ever used SB".

stet, Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm not sure why the onus should be on the victim

eh not sure that you can simply allocate 'victim' status on anyone who presses sb, though?

Louis Cll (darraghmac), Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

5) Report the poster to a moderator.

5) This isn't a million miles away from what SB is

but it is - reporting to a moderator means that someone gets to actually check out the behaviour and find out whether or not it is actually offensive. Of course that might be an onerous and task and involve tricky judgement calls. But SB seemingly involves no judgement, no enquiry, no discrimination.

George Mucus (ledge), Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

True, you can't, but SBs are mostly given for people being dickish, and the majority of that is them being dicks to other posters. Behaviour that gets SB'd is mostly directed at other people or at the community in general. If someone is offended/hurt enough to SB, then I don't think the onus should be on them to suck it up.
xp

But SB seemingly involves no judgement, no enquiry, no discrimination.
It definitely did it in its first incarnation where it operated almost blindly, but now we see the posts that people are SBing on, and the ban doesn't happen automatically. We also expire old SBs by hand. There's mod intervention at virtually all points of it, now.

stet, Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

fair enough.

Louis Cll (darraghmac), Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah, although still hard to see how some of the recent bans have gone through, given that. but then i don't know the posts in question, eh, what can y'do.

George Mucus (ledge), Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

The options for the victim are pretty much "accept this behaviour or gtfo", while the options for the attacker are "stop doing this, or we'll throw you out". I'm not sure why the onus should be on the victim to change their behaviour to accommodate, especially if the reasons are "there's a silent majority who get lolz watching" or "yeah, but the rest of the time they're great!" If the attacker stops, on the other hand, then both can stay.

You are presenting the board as if moderators do not exist. The large majority of suggest banned posters have not been involved in bullying or personal attacks afaik.

If the suggest ban system is so thoroughly vetted then why not remove the automated action it takes? Why not make it purely a notification system? The attempt at self-moderation is admirable/cool but because of the amount of variables the system doesn't incorporate, it forces mods into more work then they would normally do (Assuming they carefully vet each vote as we are being told which is pretty hard to believe.)

bnw, Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

The large majority of suggest banned posters have not been involved in bullying or personal attacks afaik

assuming that 'bannable' behaviour is limited to these traits.

Louis Cll (darraghmac), Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

That is the assumption stet is presenting; I've been here 8+ years and have seen that extreme what 2 or 3 times, maybe?

bnw, Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think part of the problem is because they last for six months; so ppl get banned despite having been "good" for the previous few weeks (and this is sometimes tricky, like the last LJ situation was) or other posters only lash out viciously and occasionally, but that builds up.
xp

You are presenting the board as if moderators do not exist. The large majority of suggest banned posters have not been involved in bullying or personal attacks afaik.
I don't think the set of SB'd people so far is big enough to draw conclusions from, but it is definitely the case that the things they get banned for are things they can stop doing, and are things that upset other posters.

If the suggest ban system is so thoroughly vetted then why not remove the automated action it takes?
It doesn't take any automated action any longer. A mod manually puts each ban in place, when it hits 50, and after looking at the history. Not so much to make a judgement call, but to check for spuriousness. There's precious little evidence of it in any of the people SB'd so far.

Another thing is that the system has actually changed a lot since it started. I was saying to the mods earlier that it might be an idea if we actually let it run for a straight six months without meddling, so we can see if these changes have addressed any of the problems. For instance, the first really big crop of six-month-old SBs are about to expire, and I think we'll see a difference in counts and frequency after that. We won't learn much if we keep changing the rules mid-game.

stet, Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think we've already learnt that people are trigger-happy tbh.

George Mucus (ledge), Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

I've been here 8+ years and have seen that extreme what 2 or 3 times, maybe?
Yeah, another thing is that SB gives a voice to posters who aren't strong enough or brave enough to speak out in public about attacks on them, so there's going to be more reported that doesn't come on the general radar xp

stet, Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

1) Press SB
2) Smoke a fat doob

Pol-Icey Academy 6: City Under Deej (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

whiney is why ilx can't have nice things

Bob Saget's "Night Moves": C or D (WmC), Thursday, 26 November 2009 17:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

SBs are mostly given for people being dickish, and the majority of that is them being dicks to other posters

how is this evenly remotely true - the poster who has accrued the most sbs so far is basically a mensch i mean i understand y dude picks up sbs but its not for the fabled "being a dick". mb like three or four counting gabbnebs deliberate flameout of the 51'd have been for them being dicks 2 others

its p obv that just being a dick doesnt get you sb'd & that u only get got for having opinions that a bunch of ppl dont like or being a weird dude or w/e

¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨ (Lamp), Thursday, 26 November 2009 17:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

6) nut up or shut up

history mayne, Thursday, 26 November 2009 17:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

i still say we should utilize a "suggest ban from thread" function instead. if kate had gotten, say, ten of those in the p4k thread or jordan had gotten ten of those in the G4 thread, they'd (1) be provided with a more instant and helpful feedback and (2) be spared a site-wide lengthy ban for something they did to piss off a few people over a relatively short peroid of time

either that or put in place some kind of SB density system in which you're warned once if you've gotten a certain number of SBs in the past week (or month), and the second time you pass that number you're banned for a certain amount of time (sort of like a ratio system on a torrent site)

we be emmy robin' (k3vin k.), Thursday, 26 November 2009 17:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

1) Ignore the offensive poster.
2) Exit the thread.
3) Exit ILX. (As the banned are told, ILX is not the end all of the internet after all.)

Right. So, all somebody has to do is be a total dick to me and the onus is on me to "deal with it." They can piss in the pool all day; after all, I don't have to swim there if I don't like it! All power to everybody aggro enough to totally ignore their effect on the community & others! As to the "that's what mods are for," we used to have plenty flameouts over even the suggestion of unilateral mod activity. After all, shouldn't the community decide? By which anti-ban ppl seem to mean "shouldn't I be allowed to tell people to just take however much abuse I feel is funny?"

Fuck that imo. I dig Kate and frankly think ppl sb'ing her are being dicks but I hate this "cope with all destabilizing influences yourself, it's the right of anybody to turn as many threads as they like into personal 'but answer my question!'-fests" too. as for Lamp's "it's 'weird dudes' who get the SB" - you're kidding right?

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 26 November 2009 17:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

thats not really what lamp said at all

max, Thursday, 26 November 2009 17:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

its p obv that just being a dick doesnt get you sb'd & that u only get got for having opinions that a bunch of ppl dont like or being a weird dude or w/e

actually yes max it is.

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 26 November 2009 17:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

the "unpopular opinions" thing is a fake-persecution canard too which is no more demonstrable than what I'd claim about use of the sb i.e. that ppl use it when they feel offended

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 26 November 2009 17:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

"it's 'weird dudes' who get the SB"

versus

"having unpopular opinions or being a weird dude are far more likely to earn posters suggest bans than just being a dick"

max, Thursday, 26 November 2009 17:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

you are missing the crucial 'or whatever'

thomp, Thursday, 26 November 2009 17:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

so when i keep showing up and saying "the majority of suggest bans come from when people attack other posters out of the blue" over and over again, you dudes just think im lying to you or what

NAKES HAVE THE STAPLES IN THEM (jjjusten), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

am willing to argue that "having unpopular opinions or being a weird dude" can comfortably, in the thread in which the assertion was made, be elided to "it's weird dudes who get the SB." if I end up at a press conference about this thread I will quote Lamp's post in full rather than referring to it.

xpost jjusten the anti-sb ppl don't believe you because they like the idea of sb as some evil villain striking down the creatives

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

this is just a natural progression--we worked our way thru all the ppl who were just dicks, we did ppl who register strong opinions in a less-than-graceful way, now we're just gonna do ppl who post a lot and aren't sweet and cheerful 100% of the time.

omaha deserved 311 (call all destroyer), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

fuk u if u disagree or w/e

velko, Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

I have a hard time believing that j0rdan or kate were malicious to another poster out of the blue more than the majority of 51 times

unban everyone tbh (Curt1s Stephens), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

"more than the majority" - excuse my english

unban everyone tbh (Curt1s Stephens), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

anti-SB ppl need to come up with something better than "let the moderators moderate!" (since old-timers know that back when it was just mods making the call, the howling over the moderators not having the right to make choices that impact the community was just as loud, and would be again) as a solution imo

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

as for Lamp's "it's 'weird dudes' who get the SB" - you're kidding right?

deeznuts - annoying mb tried zinging ppl but more of punchingbag than some1 who attacked other posters
lou jagz - lol show your belly
t-dawg - lol sb debates
and what - sure, altho i think weve been told its for image bombing (rip dom passantino)
gabbneb 1.0 - lol yuppies
gabbneb 2.0 - yes, being a dick
cpt lorax - lol mental illness
cankles - racism; being a dick
doc morbius - lol leftist blogaments
bimble - well i mean
masonic boom - british chick
nrq - okay hes a dick but also one of the best posters
whiney - lol self-loathing
j0rdan - lol killing hippies

this is a list of ppl with difficult opinions and/or weird dudes (<3 but i mean) some of them could be dicks but realistically so can A LOT of posters including a # of our mods and u yourself

jj weve been told over and over that we dont deserve any transparency into what gets sb'd or by who because "it should be obv". and then u keep saying this "its about being a dick" stuff anytime someone gets banned - these two statements contradict each other imo

¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨ (Lamp), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

booming post

unban everyone tbh (Curt1s Stephens), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

jj weve been told over and over that we dont deserve any transparency into what gets sb'd or by who because "it should be obv".

this is total bullshit, and if you don't stop making shit up to further some weird non-argument I'm going to ban you from this thread.

mu-mu (Pashmina), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

lamp breakin it down

plaxico (I know, right?), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

uh lamp kinda otm imo but whatevs

plaxico (I know, right?), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp - would it be more accurate to say that the people that have been sb-ed have all had a combination of dickishness/aggressiveness and an over the top posting style - in differing proportions, obviously.

sarahel, Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

i like sb as it is pretty much but it would be cool if there was a write-in thing where you could put a description of why you hit sb, which could eventually be made public or at least disclosed to the sb'ed while the sb'er remains anonymous. might also force people to think about it and maybe even change their mind about sb'ing that person

harbl, Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

^^ heh, it could be like facebook's options for why you don't like an ad:

offensive
unintertesting
overly repetitive
irrelevant

sarahel, Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah it could have radio buttons with common reasons and then maybe one for "other" like, i just think this person is a cockfarmer

harbl, Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

this is total bullshit, and if you don't stop making shit up to further some weird non-argument I'm going to ban you from this thread.

dude i dont even no u but HI DERE and jjusten have said a couple of times that it should be clear to any posters getting 51'd what they do that annoys so many ppl w/o resorting to giving them specific examples - ive always agreed with that i just dont think that what say l.jagger does that gets under other poster's skin is "being a dick"

lol "making shit up" tho a+++ response v. constructive

¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨ (Lamp), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

Show me an example of either JJ or Dan telling anyone they don't "deserve" any transparency.

mu-mu (Pashmina), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

most schools don't give multiple plusses after an a u kno, u may want to revise that

plaxico (I know, right?), Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

xxp - i think more people sb-ed L0uis for having one - and going on about related issues, er, at length, than being one.

sarahel, Thursday, 26 November 2009 18:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

anti-SB ppl need to come up with something better than "let the moderators moderate!" (since old-timers know that back when it was just mods making the call, the howling over the moderators not having the right to make choices that impact the community was just as loud, and would be again) as a solution imo

howbout 'let the mods moderate but in a very laissez faire manner where banning is a last resort'? - I mean of the above posters, how many would have been banned on any msg board with traditional moderation? probably...cankles?

imo the sb system has been a pretty big failure and it seems like everyone but the mods is beginning to accept this.

this whole thing is just getting so patronizing. the poor silent majority can't protect itself? mods might let you back after 30 days and maybe even twice but maybe not it depends whether you learned your lesson? if somebody should be banned, they should be banned - if we really decide that 51 anonymous people is the best way to go about that, fine, but at least have consistency about it.

iatee, Thursday, 26 November 2009 19:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

part of the reason there's no consistency is because we've wanted to make it work, and people have seen obvious flaws, so we've been chopping and changing as we go. that's why I'm saying we should leave it running unmeddled for a period till we can work out what's actually useful and unquestionably bust about it.

stet, Thursday, 26 November 2009 19:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

gd to see history mayne back from the land of monochrome, even if his 'white ribbon' review made me want to SB him

Ward Fowler, Thursday, 26 November 2009 19:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

hell is other posters

鬼の手 (Edward III), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol that would be awesome!

harbl, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

xxp - that would be the opposite of no exit though - it would have to be two other posters chosen for you by a mod with a sick sense of humor.

sarahel, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

your fellow posters are: Tuomas and Deeznuts

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

can you guys get working on this, should take about 10 minutes

鬼の手 (Edward III), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

Shd be an option like the "Random threads" -- you can get two random posters but you gotta keep it for...24 hrs? A week?

WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

I wish there was a killfile that would hide all posters except yourself + two others of your choosing
just read aeon flux

stet, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh that is way better than the convoluted "Thunderdome!" joke I was trying to construct

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

Maybe that could be what happens when you're sb-ed?

sarahel, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

'suggest thunderdome'

mookieproof, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

this is the last great SB thread, RIP

a. cole, u thic (acoleuthic), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

that would basically be a poll where the prospective sb-ee is put up against another poster and the winner/loser actually gets sb-ed.

sarahel, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

was there a first great SB thread

angels we have heard while high (Curt1s Stephens), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

your fellow posters are: mayor jingleberries and harbl

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

your fellow posters are: Captain Lorax and Gabbneb

sarahel, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

your fellow posters are: cankles and masonic boom

mookieproof, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

nah pretty sure it would involve me & j0rdan sargent annoying each other for all eternity.

sarahel, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

Captain Lorax has sent you an ILX Chat invite. Do you accept?

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

asking ppl stop this now

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

mayor jingleberries! oh boy!

harbl, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

omg que

brutt fartve (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

this is why we can't have nice things

鬼の手 (Edward III), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

not to take this back (lol yeah right) but i read jaymc's post as a response to john d.'s post but hey what do i know

omaha deserved 311 (call all destroyer), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 23:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

code in "sb all" button plz should only take 10mins thx

ice cr?m, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 17:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

It wasn't a response to anyone specific -- just throwing it out there as part of my general unease with the system.

Nuyorican oatmeal (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

this thread is still going?

sarahel, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

nah pretty sure it would involve me & j0rdan sargent annoying each other for all eternity.

― sarahel, Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:23 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

omaha deserved 311 (call all destroyer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

^^ that post of mine could very well belong on posts very much in character thread.

sarahel, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

no, but that one could

a. cole, u thic (acoleuthic), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

get a board you two

ice cr?m, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

i have sb'd sarahel for her own good.

history mayne, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

she needs a break

鬼の手 (Edward III), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

needin' some of this:
http://pagels.teamexpansion.org/sqjtaipei/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/ohyea3.gif

sarahel, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

save it for your comeback

鬼の手 (Edward III), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

Haha, that nabisco post about Tristram Shandy and How I Met Your Mother is funny and insightful. I wonder if there are any other examples like that in contemporary pop culture.

This is a terrible time to be a mod, and I'm glad I'm not one. Not that any one poster is just completely insufferable, but the idea of reading so much of ilx is almost upsetting.

bamcquern, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

Not that I ever would be elected to be one or want to be one.

bamcquern, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

hint hint

Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

As a mod you can post as different user names. I envy mods this ability.

sarahel, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol

sarahel (not), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

Awesome!

sarahel, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

No, not even for twatson, forks.

bamcquern, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

i cannot parse that?

Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

Oh, I thought you meant - never mind.

bamcquern, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

"Deleting unused users and clearing old suggest bans"

cantus in memory of benjamin bratt (omar little), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 22:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

ayo can i get a list of unused users?

harbl, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 22:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

needin' some of this:

COOL AIDMAN NEEDS YOU BABY

KOOL-AID MAN, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 22:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

Kool Aids Man Day

Drama Mama's and Papa's too! (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 22:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

cool aidman???

harbl, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 22:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

cool aidsylangston

Santa Boars (winshit@burgerfuel.co.nz) (sic), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 23:27 (nine years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.