Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Threads from before the Dec 15, 2023 migration.

Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Rogue » Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:11 pm

Greetings Everyone!

First of all i would like to apologize for some of the mistakes i personally made at the beginning of my term as moderator.
I made several mistakes that i shouldnt have made and have learned quite a bit from them!

Now as promised we hereby present the first new changes in the rules in the form of Release One. In this release we worked on the following:

Release One:

- Behaviour Policy
- Inactivations / Reactivations
- The GRA
- Minor changes regarding the GRC
- GRC Mediation Process
- Mod Powers: Clearer Boundaries
- Appointment Transparency
- Culturally Open Nations
- New Foreword




FOREWORD

So lets start of with the new foreword!
This is the foreword we propose to implement!

Welcome to Particracy! Here you can find the rules to the game and surrounding sites. (‘Particracy’ is used throughout to refer collectively to the game itself, the forums, the discord, and the wiki). They are in no way a constitution but are intended to act as the general mandate for Moderation and the primary guide for the players. Moderation does however reserve the right to make the final decision regarding interpretation of the rules, make exception to the rules in exceptional circumstances and make the final judgement on any area not covered by the below rules . However, Moderation will generally be following and enforcing these rules unless genuinely exceptional circumstances arise.

Wouter’s word is the final authority on any matter and supersedes both the rules and Moderation.

Have fun and enjoy the game! :D


As you can see some things have remained the same regarding the foreword and only slight adjustments have been made to better address the current situation of the game.
We are also proposing two additions to Section 1. The additions we are proposing are the following:

1

i. Public discussion of Sanctions and/or warnings is prohibited throughout Particracy. All queries regarding such sanctions should be made in private to Moderation or Wouter if necessary.

J. Moderation and Wouter reserve the right to determine the sanctions/warnings necessary for rule violations





CULTURALLY OPEN NATIONS

The next thing well discuss is culturally open nations. Now this may be one of the more drastic changes in Release One. For a long time culturally open status has been a fear of some players for nations they have played in for a long time. Until now players could just get a 2/3rd majority of players with seats and change the culturally protected status to open which would basically result in a countries entire RP history with a specific culture being flushed down the toilet.
With this new approach and additions we hope to solve these issues and create a friendly environment where culturally open status is something that cannot happen easily.

I would urge everyone interested in this to leave suggestions and opinions on this system as it is one of the more drastic changes of this draft and we as moderation hope to streamline the idea and hear your opinions on it. Also comment on the wording if you can. As some of you may know i am not a native english speaker and so my grammar can be off at times. That is why we would appreciate if you could pay attention to that as well!

o. A nation can determine its culture using Cultural Protocols. These documents describe in detail the cultural (ie. ethnic, religious, linguistic….) makeup of each nation. Nations that have a Cultural Protocol are therefore "Culturally Protected" and bound by this section of the rules. The Cultural Protocols Index should be consulted for more information about the cultural situation of each nation.

i. To install a new Cultural Protocol or replace a current one, users should pass a bill with the support of a two-thirds majority of players with seats and then post a link to the bill on the Cultural Protocols Approval Thread. Following this Moderation will leave the submission pending for 48 hours, so that any community member with an objection can raise them, Moderation will also review in detail the proposal. Once Moderation approval has been given a player should then post a copy of the bill in the “bills under debate” section of their nation, with a link to the original bill.

ii. Moderation reserves the right and discretion to approve or deny new cultural protocols.

iv. A proposal for a new cultural protocol must have the support (voting “yes”) of one party that has been continuously active (ie: no inactivations) there for at least 30 days

V. After 200 Ingame years a Cultural Protocol will expire. Before it expires a player that has been present in the nation for at least 30 days (in total, not consecutive) can request the renewal of the cultural protocol which will add another 200 Ingame years to the Cultural Protocol.

Vi. Moderation has to approve a renewal request if the conditions in rule 6v have been met.

Vii. If a Cultural Protocol expires without a player asking for a renewal the nation in question will become Culturally Open and will regain its Culturally Protected status if a player passes a new Cultural Protocol according to rule 6i and 6iv.


The rules regarding the implementation or change of cultural protocols will remain the same (reference: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8088#p137060 (Section 6: i. ii. iii.)



CHANGES TO THE GRC (MEDIATION/CHAIR)

For the next part of Release One we will look at 3 new additions to the Roleplay section of the rules that we plan to implement specifically regarding the GRC.
The next 3 new rules that i will show you in a second all have to do with the GRC and the GRC chairman.
Moderation is of the opinion that we should give the GRC the ability to actually do its job. Until now the GRC has had little (or at least to little) authority of their own concerning unrealistic RP and managing their own structures. They should be able to do their job and monitor RP, judge RP and managing their own ranks etc.

With the following additions to Section 6 (Roleplay) we hope to solve these issues. Feel free to comment on them!

6Q. The GRC will have a chairman that acts as the face and head of the GRC for a period of 3 months. Moderation will appoint the chairman and will pick between the CRC’s of the GRC


6R. The GRC Chairman has the right to request the removal of a GRC member if there is sufficient motivation to do so. This removal request has to be either approved or denied by moderation



6S. The Continental Roleplay Coordinators (and other non-CRC members of the GRC) will have the authority to review and make changes to RPs ("retcon") in their respective areas, that are considered to be unrealistic or otherwise unfeasible due to provided evidence. Nations or players who are having their RP reviewed should/will be included in the process and steps to rectify the situation OOCly should be discussed prior to the RP being changed or invalidated.





GENERAL ADDITIONS/CHANGES TO SECTION 6

As we told in the feature list of Release One changes to the GRA would also be implemented.
We have tried to figure out a way how to change this accordingly and discourage sudden changes in GRA membership.
Hereby the changes we propose (especially l and m)

k. The Global Role Play Accord (GRA) is an opt-out index of nations. Membership in the GRA allows the Global RP Committee (GRC) to determine the nation’s economic and military characteristics. To opt-out of the GRA a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of players with seats voting in favour. Opt Outs will only be accepted if the following conditions are met:

l. At least one party voting in favour has been continuously active (no inactivations) in that nation for a period of 30 days;
m. A reason is given for exiting the RP Accord deemed reasonable by moderation.


n. To Opt Back In a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of players with seats voting in favour.


In addition to these changes to the GRA we propose the following changes/additions to several rules of Section 6. which i will list below now.

g. Moderation appoints players to be members of the GRC with roles at its own discretion and with or without consultation of current members of the GRC.
(Above rule should be reconsidered, more authority to the GRC)

In order to be appointed as a member of the GRC. An account on the forums is necessary. The player is also expected to be active both when being considered for a position and when in that position.

Members of the GRC can all be identified on the forums as having a burgundy coloured name.


h. As a collective the GRC shares responsibility for world RP as a whole. Because of their nature as a committee, information shared with one member of the GRC, such as private messages to a GRC Member on a contentious issue, are considered to be shared with the GRC as a whole by default: as such members of the GRC are entitled to certain necessary and relevant confidential information, and sharing such information outside of the GRC will result in a permanent ban from Particracy.

i. The RP Committee has the right to intervene and mediate in difficult RP situations if contacted by a relevant player (examples may include claims of unrealistic RP, large disagreements over an RPs future, disagreements over retcons, allegations of “nation raiding” -- see 5.c.v -- and more), and their decisions must be respected. Failing to do so could result in sanctions from Moderation. If the players involved, or the RP Committee member asked to mediate, disagree strongly with the ruling or wish to gain a second opinion, Moderation can also be asked to intervene in the process. Moderation’s word is final. The GRC is not involved in rulings on RP Laws unless conditions listed in rule 6S are met and Moderation reserves the right to overrule any judgement if they deem it necessary. The RP Committee also welcomes feedback from players across the community, so don’t be afraid to offer them some friendly feedback.





INACTIVATIONS/REACTIVATIONS

And now to come to another important point. The rules regarding inactivations and reactivations. As some of you may have seen there has been a heated debate regarding this on several threads. We had decided to push through rule changes regarding this without a public consultation (reference: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8088#p137060 under Section 5) which was a mistake. We are ready to correct this mistake however after private consultations with the GRC and expecially with James.

I would like to note and personally thank James for his contribution in rewriting our previous changes to the inactivation and reactivation rules. I would like for everyone to carefully read the new proposed changes and give us your feedback on them!

5.

a. Moderation will inactivate a player's in-game account if they have not logged in to it for 4 days.

b. Moderation reserves the right to inactivate any user who has committed an offence against the Game Rules serious enough to warrant their inactivation, such as failing to conform to a nation's Cultural Protocols within four days of being told or multi-accounting.

c. In certain circumstances, players can request the early inactivation of another player's in-game account. For this to be approved, the user must meet at least one of the following conditions:
  1. They have not logged in for at least 3 days (72 hours).
  2. They have not logged in for 2 days (48 hours); they have not filled out their party description; they have not changed the name of their party and they have not voted on more than one bill.
  3. They are deemed to be "party sitting". "Party sitting" is defined as logging in to an account without voting on bills, for a period of at least five days.
  4. They are deemed to be "dodging inactivation". "Dodging inactivation" is defined as meeting the minimum criteria to avoid inactivation without actively attempting to play the game, by logging in and/or vote on bills every 3 days.
  5. As a matter of last resort, when the player has not been contributing to role-play to the extent that is expected by the majority of players in the nation. Understanding and respectful dialogue must be attempted before this point and Moderation should be consulted throughout the process


d. A user who has had their party inactivated, or who has inactivated their party of their own accord, may request reactivation in the Reactivation Requests Thread. Inactivation will not be granted if any of the following conditions apply to the user's in-game account:

  1. They have the "log-in bug", a problem in which a user's "last activity" is stated as "not recorded" and which makes it difficult for Moderation to make decisions on activity.
  2. They are in breach of some aspect of the Particracy Game Rules.
  3. They have been inactivated for "party sitting" (see 5.c.iii for more information) on at least three previous occasions.
  4. They have shown insufficient willingness to contribute to role-play to the extent that is expected by the majority of players in the nation in the past and have failed to commit to doing so. Moderatio reserves the right to make a judgement on this matter.




Hereby we come at the end of the draft for Release One of the rule changes. I thank all of you for reading them and encourage you to leave and feedback, proposals and questions on this thread. Moderation will do its best to answer all of your questions in a orderly fashion.

This public consultation will be open for 3 weeks and will end on the 11th of january!

Thank you all!
Playing in:

Istapali
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Doc » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:44 pm

I see nothing in these changes that address the pernicious issue of reactivations, both directly before an election, and the problem that reactivating parties automatically get all their positions and visibility back from when they deactivated. Is there ever going to be anything done about this?

I also see nothing about political protocols. Am I to assume then that this issue is completely dead?
Primary: Institutionalist Party of Kalistan (IPoK), 5146-

Inactive:
Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), 2591-
Hizb Al'Sultan حزب السلطان 4543-4551
Parti des Frères Lourenne, 4109-4132
Gaduri Brethrenist Movement (MHdG), 4481-4485
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Location: Kaliburg, Kalistan

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby cm9777 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:16 am

Doc wrote:I see nothing in these changes that address the pernicious issue of reactivations, both directly before an election, and the problem that reactivating parties automatically get all their positions and visibility back from when they deactivated. Is there ever going to be anything done about this?

I also see nothing about political protocols. Am I to assume then that this issue is completely dead?


This is release 1 and does not cover political protocols. The plan is for them to be included in about release 3. Wouter will be implementing a visibility penalty for reactivation so we may consider adding that to the text of the rules.
cm9777
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Auditorii » Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:28 am

D.A user who has had their party inactivated, or who has inactivated their party of their own accord, may request reactivation in the Reactivation Requests Thread. Inactivation will not be granted if any of the following conditions apply to the user's in-game account:

They have the "log-in bug", a problem in which a user's "last activity" is stated as "not recorded" and which makes it difficult for Moderation to make decisions on activity.
They are in breach of some aspect of the Particracy Game Rules.
They have been inactivated for "party sitting" (see 5.c.iii for more information) on at least three previous occasions.
They have shown insufficient willingness to contribute to role-play to the extent that is expected by the majority of players in the nation in the past and have failed to commit to doing so. Moderatio reserves the right to make a judgement on this matter.


As much as I have always been a proponent of this in some form; I think the removal of the "too many inactivations" was a step in the right direction because I could name several players, mostly veteran players, who have been inactivated a dozen times for numerous reasons. I applaud Moderation for such a change.

What I'd like to see added is a provision to stop election sniping, which has been an issue in the past. I feel that a party shouldn't be able to be reactivated if an election is to be held within the next game tick. It's a cheap tactic that players have used as a means to grief, harass and otherwise impede the gameplay of others and it's something numerous players have experienced at some point. Obviously, if decay were implemented, that would help but with the soft release of the new PT Alpha, I feel that might never happen.
Image Dorvik | Image Zardugal | Image Ostland (FBC)
Moderator
-- Particracy Game Rules
-- Moderation Requests
-- Game Information
-- Particracy Discord
Auditorii
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Rogue » Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:20 pm

That is actually a very good suggestion. First of all i would like to thank you for giving the suggestion.
I will first discuss the possibility of adding your suggestion to the moderators. After that i will contact you and potentially work on the details.

Thank you!
Playing in:

Istapali
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby jamescfm » Mon Dec 24, 2018 1:56 am

Apologies in advance if these comments are confusing or poorly organised. I'll expand this response in due course but I thought I would try and get these comments in as early as possible to allow as much time as possible for them to be considered. A general thing I would like to suggest is that the Game Rules are broken down further. For example, split the "role play" section into a section on the Global Role-Play Committee, a section on Cultural Protocols etc.

Foreword
In my view, this can be condensed considerably while maintaining the meaning. For example:
Below are the Particracy Game Rules, which provide a general guide for Moderation and players to follow. Moderation reserves the discretion to make exceptions in special circumstances, and also to make amendments to the rules as deemed appropriate. The ultimate authority on all matters is the game's creator, Wouter Lievens.


Section One
The two additions are unnecessary in my opinion. The first is likely to cause issues with the player base not knowing if and why players have been sanctioned and I don't see any benefits to it. The second is widely understood and implicit in the foreword.

Cultural Protocols
I'm going to suggest (again) an overhaul of the cultural protocol system. I have proposed a complete overhaul of the cultural map in the past but I no longer feel that is a priority. Instead, I think that Moderation should utilise a system which is a combination of earlier "cultural eras" system and the previously proposed "base cultural documents". Moderation should maintain cultural protocols for all nations and review these every 3-4 months. If this is something that Moderation would consider, I will expand on the details of how it might work.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Rogue » Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:27 am

Hi James!

To react to your first thing on the foreword. It can indeed be condensed and we will look into ways of doing so.

Your second point about Section One. We think it actually is necessary due to some players in the past using the forums to reveal private conversations with moderation or voice a opinion on moderation mistakes before adressing it to moderation themselves. So we believe having these in place is necessary to prevent that in the future. Most of the time a problem can be solved through private conversations with Moderation and we would like to encourage that.

And your last point. Before i respond to that i would like to ask you what your opinion is on our current proposal? We would like some feedback on that first so i can compare your idea and opinion to that of moderation and break it down one by one.

Thank you in advance!
Playing in:

Istapali
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Aquinas » Mon Dec 24, 2018 11:40 am

I have a number of points I could make in response to these proposals, but before I think about getting into that, I would like to ask the simple question of whether Moderation intends to actually follow whatever the new rules are that emerge from all this. I ask this because, as others will be aware, there has been a general pattern of Moderators casually (ie. not just in unusual/special circumstances) just doing their own thing and not following the procedures laid out in the Game Rules. If Moderation treats the next set of Game Rules as seriously as they have the current set, then honestly I would rather we just abolished this consultation, abolished the Game Rules entirely and just said "The rules at any one time are whatever any particular Moderator says they are".

On a related question, can I ask whether the rule changes proposed in this consultation have already been brought into force?

One of the proposals here is to make it possible for early inactivations to be requested by anybody, not just by a player in the same nation as the party that is being proposed for inactivation. To quote the current Game Rules:

Users can request the early inactivation of another party in their nation, using the Party Inactivation Requests Thread on the following conditions:

i. They have not logged on for 3 days (72 hours)
ii. They have not logged on for 2 days (48 hours) and have not filled out their party description, changed the name of their party or voted on more than one bill.
iii. They are “Party-Sitting,” which involves logging on occasionally but not voting on bills. A user will generally be considered party sitting if this behaviour lasts for at least 5 days.
iv. They only log in or vote on bills every 3 days without giving a reason for any behaviour, usually attempting to dodge inactivation due to the above rules.
v. Similar offence not covered by the above rules, but do not contribute to the gameplay to the satisfaction of other players. Communication must be attempted with the player before discussing with the Moderation over this.


d. An inactive user can request to be reactivated using the Reactivation Requests Thread, they will not be reactivated if they have the log-in-bug or are in breach of the rules or have repeatedly been inactivated as a “party-sitter.”


And to quote the new proposed rules:

In certain circumstances, players can request the early inactivation of another player's in-game account. For this to be approved, the user must meet at least one of the following conditions:
  1. They have not logged in for at least 3 days (72 hours).
  2. They have not logged in for 2 days (48 hours); they have not filled out their party description; they have not changed the name of their party and they have not voted on more than one bill.
  3. They are deemed to be "party sitting". "Party sitting" is defined as logging in to an account without voting on bills, for a period of at least five days.
  4. They are deemed to be "dodging inactivation". "Dodging inactivation" is defined as meeting the minimum criteria to avoid inactivation without actively attempting to play the game, by logging in and/or vote on bills every 3 days.
  5. As a matter of last resort, when the player has not been contributing to role-play to the extent that is expected by the majority of players in the nation. Understanding and respectful dialogue must be attempted before this point and Moderation should be consulted throughout the process


There have been cases lately where Moderation has disregarded the rule that early inactivation should only be requested by a player in the same nation as the party that is being proposed for inactivation. As examples, see here and here. To be clear, I'm not trying to be hard on the players doing this, since I'm sure they're just trying to be helpful (particularly with the recent technical issues going on re: inactivations) but I would have expected Moderation to either follow the procedure laid out in the rules or, if they deem those procedures inadequate, to announce they have been adjusted. But in any case, if Moderation is not going to follow its own procedures, then frankly there is limited value in any of us expending our time and energy in giving feedback about what we think those procedures should be.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Rogue » Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:57 pm

Hi Aquinas!

Thank you again for highlighting the many flaws of the moderation team publicly. In the future though it would be very much appreciated if you could do this privately first, since it is not very appropriate to do this in the open like this especially on a public consultation of the first release. Since you are pointing out these issues, i am sure you are happy that Moderation has pledged (several times) to address all of these issues in the 3 rule releases of which release One is the first. In release two. as i stated before. we will be including a reform to the Nation Renaming Guide and in both Two and Three we will be looking to include any other problems with the rules to fix.

Thanks and have a nice christmas!

Mr.God
Playing in:

Istapali
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Maxington » Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:58 pm

Aquinas wrote:I have a number of points I could make in response to these proposals, but before I think about getting into that, I would like to ask the simple question of whether Moderation intends to actually follow whatever the new rules are that emerge from all this. I ask this because, as others will be aware, there has been a general pattern of Moderators casually (ie. not just in unusual/special circumstances) just doing their own thing and not following the procedures laid out in the Game Rules. If Moderation treats the next set of Game Rules as seriously as they have the current set, then honestly I would rather we just abolished this consultation, abolished the Game Rules entirely and just said "The rules at any one time are whatever any particular Moderator says they are".

On a related question, can I ask whether the rule changes proposed in this consultation have already been brought into force?

That entire comment has little to no timing. In almost every instance where moderation has deviated from their responsibilities they have apologised accordingly and moved towards correcting/rectifying the issue. One cannot expect perfection in a system that isn't perfect. Whilst i recognise what you're saying, it's important to also recognise as previously mentioned in another thread, that these are new moderators, a lack of experience and knowledge for how things work is expected. They have not been in their position for 2 years +. Perfection of the system and how it works did not come at first try. All moderators who came before us and will come after us did not and will not perfect the system in the early stages of their tenure. You didn't, I didn't and those before and after us didn't and won't. It's hypocritical and unjust that certain individual still beat that dead horse of the fact that the moderators slipped up in some instances. It's even more unjust when certain individuals continue to lay down criticism on moderation's handling on the same issue despite their efforts to rectify it. The fact that certain individuals are not recognising this confuses me. Yes moderation has made mistakes, but lets be the adults we all purport to be and recognise that we can't put that amount of pressure at people who are new to such a gigantic and omnipresent role. As the moderators develop they become accustom to how things are done and how the community expects it to be done. It is on the community to help them instead of acting as though its open seasons to criticise the moderators. Instead of criticising moderation for the things they have done, why don't we start at helping them in identifying where they went wrong. The tone at which certain individuals are displaying their criticism in can be easily decoded as unfair to the moderators. Let's try to be constructive, supportive and mature. Like the adults we all purport to be.

(Note: The moderators shouldn't be repetitive upon correcting themselves. They should try to make active attempts not to repeat the same act that got them in trouble. Let's be honest and real about what we're doing here folks.)'

Aquinas wrote:There have been cases lately where Moderation has disregarded the rule that early inactivation should only be requested by a player in the same nation as the party that is being proposed for inactivation. As examples, see here and here. To be clear, I'm not trying to be hard on the players doing this, since I'm sure they're just trying to be helpful (particularly with the recent technical issues going on re: inactivations) but I would have expected Moderation to either follow the procedure laid out in the rules or, if they deem those procedures inadequate, to announce they have been adjusted. But in any case, if Moderation is not going to follow its own procedures, then frankly there is limited value in any of us expending our time and energy in giving feedback about what we think those procedures should be.


As you so rightfully highlighted, the players were assisting moderation who had called upon the community to assist them in identifying inactive accounts due to the technical issue in the automated system. To come across in this discussion (specifically on this) as though previous moderators have not done it before yet no criticism had been laid upon them in the prior and up to now to hypocritical. You have, I have and all the moderators who came either before or after us respectively. I believe that the "rule" that players should only be able to inactivate parties within their nation is ridiculous and one of the main reasons as to why there were so many inactive parties who were 7 days + inactive. In nations where the players are not on the forums where they could access the reactivation or inactivation threads, parties are allowed to sit for up to 9 day + inactive until a player from another nation points it out because sometimes the automated systems which tells moderation that a party is over 4 days inactive doesn't pick up on all parties and those with the log in bug. In instances where players who nation raid and create proxy accounts to block new players from making any progress, the ability for a player from another nation to pick up on this enables fluidity in the system. You can't rely on players to report certain things, you can't rely on nations which are usually filled with parties that play the game mechanics and don't interact on the forums to report these things to say, "there is a party in my nation that is inactive." For someone to think that they could rely on that, they have to be extremely detached from the reality and the mindset of the players of this community. Thus i think players from other nations should be able to request the inactivation of another party in another nation. And if moderators spot maliciousness in an inactivation request they could deal with it accordingly as i am also recognising that the system can and always will be abused, but it doesn't mean that everyone will.
"The future of the Nation is in the children's school bags" ~ Dr. Eric Williams
President of the Trond Henrichsen Institute for International Affairs.
User avatar
Maxington
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: Look Behind you.

Next

Return to Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

cron