Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 85

Thread: "How to cure tanking"

  1. #21
    Raptors Republic Superstar planetmars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,412
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Letter N wrote: View Post
    I may be wrong but I think the "Fun As Hell Tournament" was actually for the 8th spot in the playoffs rather than the draft order. But damn that's a good idea that needs to be implemented.
    Yeah it was for 8th seed.. but the biggest deterrent for doing something like this is the west coast/east coast matchups and schedules.

    As a fan this would be awesome.. but as a player I would hate it.. why would I want to play in a "who sucks the worst" tourney just so the team could draft someone that could potentially replace you. Most players would (I assume) rather just start their summer vacation.

  2. #22
    Raptors Republic Veteran Nilanka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,000
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Isn't the purpose of the lottery to help shitty teams climb out of the cellar? To help establish parity?

    If we award more ping-pong balls to teams who win more, then shitty teams continue to remain shitty....thus completely defeating the purpose of the lottery.
    "I don't lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation." - Fox Mulder

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    744
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Nilanka wrote: View Post
    Isn't the purpose of the lottery to help shitty teams climb out of the cellar? To help establish parity?

    If we award more ping-pong balls to teams who win more, then shitty teams continue to remain shitty....thus completely defeating the purpose of the lottery.
    This is why my tournament idea works though. Only the worst teams in the league would be competing for the top picks. Playoff teams would be entirely exempt from the process.

    I realized an issue with it though... traded draft picks. Why would a team compete hard just so another team can take their pick and pick higher? I'm not sure what a solution would be for this though...

  4. #24
    Raptors Republic Superstar planetmars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,412
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    This is why my tournament idea works though. Only the worst teams in the league would be competing for the top picks. Playoff teams would be entirely exempt from the process.

    I realized an issue with it though... traded draft picks. Why would a team compete hard just so another team can take their pick and pick higher? I'm not sure what a solution would be for this though...
    The best workaround for this would be money.. give players money (their incentive) for winning in this tournament. The money can come from sponsors of the tourney itself so everybody wins

  5. #25
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    This is why my tournament idea works though. Only the worst teams in the league would be competing for the top picks. Playoff teams would be entirely exempt from the process.

    I realized an issue with it though... traded draft picks. Why would a team compete hard just so another team can take their pick and pick higher? I'm not sure what a solution would be for this though...
    Aren't most traded picks lottery protected? They'd be trying to win in the tournament for the same reasons some Raptors fans wanted the team to tank hard to not hand over their pick to OKC this year. Shouldn't be a problem for the Entertaining as Hell tournament.

  6. Like Xixak liked this post
  7. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    744
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote TRX wrote: View Post
    Aren't most traded picks lottery protected? They'd be trying to win in the tournament for the same reasons some Raptors fans wanted the team to tank hard to not hand over their pick to OKC this year. Shouldn't be a problem for the Entertaining as Hell tournament.
    True I didn't think about that. Most teams have enough sense to put some protection on their picks so it would be up to you to play your way into keeping it.

    Man this could have some fun story-lines lol. Say Detroit and Charlotte missed the playoffs, Charlotte has Detroit's pick top 9 protected and they play each other in the first round. If Charlotte wins they guarantee themselves 2 lottery picks, if they lose, Detroit retains their pick and can continue playing to try and increase it.

    Would be interesting to watch a Finals match with the Knicks and Nuggets if they miss the playoffs in 2016 (we get the worse of those two picks). They'd be playing to keep their pick with the winner selecting #1 overall and the loser handing the #2 overall to Toronto lol

  8. Like TRX liked this post
  9. #27
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Craiger wrote: View Post
    ...

    The problem is the economics of players within the game of basketball, compounded by the economics of the sport (ie. CBA and teams), makes the draft too valuable for some. Unlike other sports a single (or a few) players make all the difference to the productivity of the team as a whole. Maybe a goalie in hockey or a QB in football can be comparible, but thats one position vs any of the 5 in basketball.

    So every team wants or needs 1, 2 or 3 of those extremely productive players.

    Then on the macro level, there is a significant inequality in the access to resources. First from the actual ability spend, and secondly from the ability to attract labour (although these two are often related). Factor in how valuable the cost of production is from that small labour pool of elite labour (superstar contracts and superstars on rookie scale/rfa contracts), and we have the core reason for tanking (and going to the draft) being so valuable.
    This is the entire problem, in my opinion. Every sport plays more players than basketball. In baseball, they literally take turns. In hockey, even the most durable players only play half the game and can't exactly just hold onto the puck. Football puts twice as many on the field and switches off offence and defence. (I think? I don't watch football at all, haha) Superstars cannot make their true worth on the field and amazing rookies are prevented even further with four-year rookie deals. The only way you get the most bang for your buck is with superstars (who are coincidentally top ten picks, for the most part).

    I completely agree with you. The only way to fix parity/tanking is not to create a better process for who gets the #1 picks, but to create a better system in which a great pick is not such a game-changing asset. Let superstars actually get paid like superstars (whatever that equilibrium is when the "market" settles).

  10. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    744
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote TRX wrote: View Post
    This is the entire problem, in my opinion. Every sport plays more players than basketball. In baseball, they literally take turns. In hockey, even the most durable players only play half the game and can't exactly just hold onto the puck. Football puts twice as many on the field and switches off offence and defence. (I think? I don't watch football at all, haha) Superstars cannot make their true worth on the field and amazing rookies are prevented even further with four-year rookie deals. The only way you get the most bang for your buck is with superstars (who are coincidentally top ten picks, for the most part).

    I completely agree with you. The only way to fix parity/tanking is not to create a better process for who gets the #1 picks, but to create a better system in which a great pick is not such a game-changing asset. Let superstars actually get paid like superstars (whatever that equilibrium is when the "market" settles).
    The only solution I can think of besides the tournament would be contracting teams. What you're suggesting with "superstars get paid like superstars" sounds to me like you want no cap? The NBA would turn into pro soccer except without the vast number of teams to balance things out. Prokhorov, the Knicks and Lakers would just buy everyone... There would be even less parity.

  11. #29
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,214
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Nilanka wrote: View Post
    Isn't the purpose of the lottery to help shitty teams climb out of the cellar? To help establish parity?

    If we award more ping-pong balls to teams who win more, then shitty teams continue to remain shitty....thus completely defeating the purpose of the lottery.
    The lottery rarely works in the way you describe. The shitty teams remain shitty for the most part lottery after lottery (Bobcats, Raptors, Wizards, Kings, Magic, Pelicans, 76ers). I know there are lottery success stories like OKC and now perhaps Cleveland but there are more examples of NBA success of teams built outside the lottery like the Heat, Celtics, Spurs, Lakers, Grizzlies, the Mavs a few years ago and perhaps the Rockets now.

  12. Like Xixak liked this post
  13. #30
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I think you need to start by asking what tanking behaviour you want to prevent:
    Are you most concerned about teams that have been pretty good for a few years, then attempt to tank hard to do a quick rebuild (probably Boston this year);
    Are you concerned about teams that lose a star player for a bunch of games and so decide to tank the remainder of their games (Cleveland last year);
    Are you concerned about teams that are just perpetually at the bottom of the standings and no number of high draft picks seem to make a difference (Charlotte, like forever)? Arguably, this one isn't tanking, it's just being bad at basketball. But perhaps it should also be punished rather than rewarded.
    Are you more concerned about not having games between crappy teams in April where neither team wants to win, or where a crappy team doesn't show up in a game against a contender that they were probably going to lose anyway?
    Are you concerned about stretches where a team puts their best players on the court, and loses all their games through bad basketball, or are you more concerned about stretches where a team loses because they keep injured players shut down longer than medically necessary?

    I think you need to start with the assumption that players on the court are not going to tank, and coaches are rarely going to tank. It's tanking on a managerial level that you want to prevent; manipulating a team's roster to structure it to lose. The problem with many of the proposed solutions (wins after elimination, end of season tournament, etc.) is that they actually make it easier for a team to 'manage' its way to a top draft pick. So what are the symptoms of managerial tanking? Losing streaks late in the season, especially those where the team doesn't show up for any of the games (Portland last year is a perfect example). A lot of loses to other non-playoff teams. A drastic drop-off in a team's performance from one year to the next.

    I think this is a decent start:

    Quote rap wrote: View Post
    A more radical approach would be to award lottery balls to teams based on meeting certain goals.
    - 1/3 of the balls are awarded on standings (as is)
    - 1/3 of the balls are awarded on fan satisfaction (shown by year over year growth/shrinkage in tickets and ratings)
    - 1/3 of the balls are awarded on the "effort" in upgrading the team personnel through UFA/trades (this is subjective and maybe not be possible but if a team is under the tax and makes smart trades as opposed to tank trades)
    I like the second category. Third category not so much (too subjective), but it's attempting to address the correct issue.

    One potential solution would be to have a number of different ways that teams can achieve 'lottery points', and the ways that teams can earn points are ways that tend to go against management level tanking. You can earn points from close loses, from wins against other non-playoff teams, etc. And lose points from factors like a long losing streak, or late season loses, etc.
    But the key element is that while the factors that go into the equation for lottery points are known at the beginning of the season, the exact formula changes from year to year, is decided by the head office at the beginning of the season, and kept secret (just filed with a law firm) until the end of the season. So GMs can't intentionally tank because they don't know exactly what factors affect their rankings. A long losing streak might hurt them, a blowout loss might hurt them, a significant drop-off in wins or attendance from last year to this year might hurt them.

  14. #31
    Raptors Republic All-Star Letter N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    The only solution I can think of besides the tournament would be contracting teams. What you're suggesting with "superstars get paid like superstars" sounds to me like you want no cap? The NBA would turn into pro soccer except without the vast number of teams to balance things out. Prokhorov, the Knicks and Lakers would just buy everyone... There would be even less parity.
    Not necessarily. Keep the soft cap as is, but take away this ridiculous idea of player maximum salaries.

    LeBron James is worth $30 million, that's just a fact.
    If Lebron gets 30 that means a team can't go out and get two other $20M superstars without bleeding money through the tax.

    When you force a cap on how much players get you get situations like you have today in Miami, Lakers (last year), NJ, etc.

  15. #32
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    @ Xixak: Nope. Keep the cap. The way their salaries are capped below what they're worth makes the path to a championship accumulating as many as possible and fill out the roster. If you uncap superstar salaries but keep a salary cap in place, I see a few benefits. If you've ever played a salary cap fantasy league, you'll kind of know what I'm talking about (obviously things are a lot simpler in fantasy basketball, but I digress). The thing is, I don't think the union would ever allow it because it punishes teams hard for overpaying non-superstars and the salary disparity would be a lot greater between the have and have-nots talent-wise.

    I think it also makes it a lot more viable to try to win a championship with no superstars. If you have a superstar on your team, he may very well eat over half your cap. One, it'd be near impossible to have more than one superstar and two, you'd have a much harder time getting quality players to surround him with since the superstar would hypothetically no longer be underpaid.

    My thoughts are a bit scattered and I'm probably not expressing them well, but I hope some of it got across the way I intended, lol

    EDIT: Well, Letter N said a lot of the same things as I did already, haha

  16. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    744
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Letter N wrote: View Post
    Not necessarily. Keep the soft cap as is, but take away this ridiculous idea of player maximum salaries.

    LeBron James is worth $30 million, that's just a fact.
    If Lebron gets 30 that means a team can't go out and get two other $20M superstars without bleeding money through the tax.

    When you force a cap on how much players get you get situations like you have today in Miami, Lakers (last year), NJ, etc.
    Quote TRX wrote: View Post
    @ Xixak: Nope. Keep the cap. The way their salaries are capped below what they're worth makes the path to a championship accumulating as many as possible and fill out the roster. If you uncap superstar salaries but keep a salary cap in place, I see a few benefits. If you've ever played a salary cap fantasy league, you'll kind of know what I'm talking about (obviously things are a lot simpler in fantasy basketball, but I digress). The thing is, I don't think the union would ever allow it because it punishes teams hard for overpaying non-superstars and the salary disparity would be a lot greater between the have and have-nots talent-wise.

    I think it also makes it a lot more viable to try to win a championship with no superstars. If you have a superstar on your team, he may very well eat over half your cap. One, it'd be near impossible to have more than one superstar and two, you'd have a much harder time getting quality players to surround him with since the superstar would hypothetically no longer be underpaid.

    My thoughts are a bit scattered and I'm probably not expressing them well, but I hope some of it got across the way I intended, lol

    EDIT: Well, Letter N said a lot of the same things as I did already, haha
    This is a really, really good idea... Why the hell didn't they do this during the CBA discussions? Although Letter N, I'd make an adjustment to what you said. They'd need a hard cap not a tax threshold.

    Say they set a 60M Hard Cap. A team like the Lakers would have to choose between signing LeBron for 40M and surrounding him with mostly garbage. Or maybe getting two lesser stars for 15M a pop and filling out the rest of the team quite nicely.

    I think you would need to keep the minimum salary though or some guys might be playing for like 40K a season lol.

    This would make building through the draft impossible though, because if you were a team like OKC there's no way you'd be able to afford to re-sign Westbrook AND Durant w/o having complete crap surrounding them.

  17. #34
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,119
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    This is a really, really good idea... Why the hell didn't they do this during the CBA discussions? Although Letter N, I'd make an adjustment to what you said. They'd need a hard cap not a tax threshold.

    Say they set a 60M Hard Cap. A team like the Lakers would have to choose between signing LeBron for 40M and surrounding him with mostly garbage. Or maybe getting two lesser stars for 15M a pop and filling out the rest of the team quite nicely.

    I think you would need to keep the minimum salary though or some guys might be playing for like 40K a season lol.

    This would make building through the draft impossible though, because if you were a team like OKC there's no way you'd be able to afford to re-sign Westbrook AND Durant w/o having complete crap surrounding them.
    Simple answer - some owners are willing to take stupid risks (pay players who don't deserve it even more ridiculous sums than they already do), and things out of their control will happen (eg. injuries), so they wanted to limit the risk threshold.

    This way you don't cripple the franchise with a 30+ mil dollar player who can't play due to injury (think Gilbert Arenas), and Ernie Grunfeld can't give established sub superstar players contracts well above real superstars and drive up the price of those other sub superstars (think Gilbert Arenas again lol)

  18. #35
    Raptors Republic All-Star ezz_bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kigali, Rwanda
    Posts
    1,685
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    Bill Simmons had a great idea to fix tanking during the lockout, iirc it was something like this:

    Take all the non-playoff teams at the end of the season and put them in a Sweet 16 tournament. Single-elimination. The winner would get the #1 pick, 2nd place would get #2, etc. This basically gives a team 0 incentive to tank games. They're going to want to have a good roster available for the tournament so that they have a chance of winning. And the last place team would have just as good of a shot of getting the #1 pick as the 16th last team, because of the single-elimination, any team could get the better of another on any given night.

    This would also increase revenue for the league as well, and make for some very entertaining basketball so doesn't hurt in that respect either. The playoffs would just end later.

    Imagine a Toronto team finishing in 9th (I pray to God we're not actually 9th lol) during the regular season. Heading into the tournament as the top seed in the East and wasting Philly, Charlotte and Milwaukee on their path to playing the Lakers in the finals. A triple OT game, winner takes Wiggins. Raptors down 1, 5 seconds on the clock. Rudy Gay has the ball in his hands, dribbles past Kobe, pulls-up for the J...... BANG RAPTORS WIN RAPTORS WIN! Rudy Gay has just cost himself his starting spot!

    K got a bit carried away...
    I also love this idea for draft picks. Was going to suggest it myself if no one else did.

    Quote Letter N wrote: View Post
    I may be wrong but I think the "Fun As Hell Tournament" was actually for the 8th spot in the playoffs rather than the draft order. But damn that's a good idea that needs to be implemented.
    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    This is a really, really good idea... Why the hell didn't they do this during the CBA discussions? Although Letter N, I'd make an adjustment to what you said. They'd need a hard cap not a tax threshold.

    Say they set a 60M Hard Cap. A team like the Lakers would have to choose between signing LeBron for 40M and surrounding him with mostly garbage. Or maybe getting two lesser stars for 15M a pop and filling out the rest of the team quite nicely.

    I think you would need to keep the minimum salary though or some guys might be playing for like 40K a season lol.

    This would make building through the draft impossible though, because if you were a team like OKC there's no way you'd be able to afford to re-sign Westbrook AND Durant w/o having complete crap surrounding them.
    It wouldn't make building through the draft impossible it just means that you'd see more teams trading their dollars for 4 quaters (as bill simmons would say). Basically there'd be more Melo type trades.

    I don't think you need to change much other than start a draft tourney. Teams that are poorly managed will still suck, but I think that it incentivizes owners to demand more from their gms. They won't be able to put shit together and then hope to land a superstar in a draft that will bring them money for 5-7 years, and then be terrible again until they land the next player they can market.
    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

  19. Like Xixak liked this post
  20. #36
    Raptors Republic All-Star ezz_bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kigali, Rwanda
    Posts
    1,685
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I also think you'd see more teams jump from the middle to the top, making the playoffs even that more exciting. More instances of the number 8 seed beating the number 1 seed. Like what happens in hockey.
    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

  21. #37
    Raptors Republic Starter imaginelino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    This is why my tournament idea works though. Only the worst teams in the league would be competing for the top picks. Playoff teams would be entirely exempt from the process.

    I realized an issue with it though... traded draft picks. Why would a team compete hard just so another team can take their pick and pick higher? I'm not sure what a solution would be for this though...
    If that is the case, you still have the scenario of the worst teams still being the worst because they will never get closer to the top picks.

    Imagine Charlotte having to go through but never winning the first round, thus getting the worst pick.

    Imagine the 9th place team in the West winning the tourney, now the advantage is flipped to those teams who are just good an not good enough.

    I see the potential but I think the weaker teams will never get that break they need.

    I came across an idea that I thought was pretty good. The last place team doesn't get the most balls , the most balls would go to the 3rd worst team, followed by the 2nd worst team getting team, then the worst team, then 7-16th get the usual picks. The rational behind this is that at the end of the season the teams will be scrambling for wins and not losses.. something to that effect... only things is adjusted is who gets how many balls.

  22. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    744
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote ezz_bee wrote: View Post
    It wouldn't make building through the draft impossible it just means that you'd see more teams trading their dollars for 4 quaters (as bill simmons would say). Basically there'd be more Melo type trades.

    I don't think you need to change much other than start a draft tourney. Teams that are poorly managed will still suck, but I think that it incentivizes owners to demand more from their gms. They won't be able to put shit together and then hope to land a superstar in a draft that will bring them money for 5-7 years, and then be terrible again until they land the next player they can market.
    Very true with the dollar for a quarter statement. That would create a lot of balance as well, I think almost every team would either have a star caliber player and a good supporting cast, two stars and a bad cast, or just a very very strong all-around squad.

    Quote imaginelino wrote: View Post
    If that is the case, you still have the scenario of the worst teams still being the worst because they will never get closer to the top picks.

    Imagine Charlotte having to go through but never winning the first round, thus getting the worst pick.

    Imagine the 9th place team in the West winning the tourney, now the advantage is flipped to those teams who are just good an not good enough.

    I see the potential but I think the weaker teams will never get that break they need.

    I came across an idea that I thought was pretty good. The last place team doesn't get the most balls , the most balls would go to the 3rd worst team, followed by the 2nd worst team getting team, then the worst team, then 7-16th get the usual picks. The rational behind this is that at the end of the season the teams will be scrambling for wins and not losses.. something to that effect... only things is adjusted is who gets how many balls.
    Well if you keep putting out an unbelievably bad team then yes you could probably expect to be picking 16th for the foreseeable future. That's unlikely to happen though. There's no incentive for teams to field pitiful rosters. Also it's single-elimination not a 7 game series. Any team could get the better of another on any given night.

    EDIT: I also really don't like that idea you proposed at the end. Teams would just tank their way to the bottom 6, I don't see how that stops them... Even if you finish last you still are most likely to pick 7th or higher.

  23. #39
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    @imaginelino: You'd have to be severely mismanaged to stay the worst team in the league year after year after year, I would think. Why should the worst team in the league, both on the court and off, get the best pick? They're never incentivized to get better and people continue to confuse just plain bad management with a viable tanking/rebuilding strategy. The whole point is to incentivize teams to try to stay out of the basement and build smarter.

    As valuable as draft picks are, to incentivize bad teams to get even worse seems counter-intuitive to a lot of people. It's not like teams end up last, despite making smart moves; they're last year in and year out because they make terrible moves and figure they'll get a good draft pick anyway. The way this tournament would work, you would have to get smarter/better and help yourself to get a helping hand, which makes a lot more intuitive sense to a lot of people.

    I'm all for giving teams a break, but they have to be well managed teams that just need a short term boost.

  24. Like Xixak liked this post
  25. #40
    Raptors Republic All-Star Letter N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The Fun As Hell Tournament doesn't work well for lottery, it gives the high draft picks to teams that don't deserve it. It works brilliantly for the 8th spot in each conference though (the number of teams is even perfect for a tourny for each conference).

    I think the idea suggested by the youtube link in the OP message is a pretty solid concept. The only change I would make is that it counts elimination from playoffs based on the league rather than the conference, so that just because the Suns are eliminated in the West they don't get to start, they have to be eliminated from coming 8th in either conference.

    Ties would go to team with the crappier record. And theoretically there would be a lot of ties.

    I think it's a very good system and exploiting the system would be very tough as it would usually only leave even the worst team in the league with less than 20 games to go on their winning streak and get the 25% chance of drafting first (which still doesn't guarantee first overall).

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •