| 0 |
Subject: Gurupie 24 2007 Off-Season Discussion
Posted by: Ref
- Donor [539581218] Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 16:51
Previous Thread
We have our "Competition Committee" formed.
The Committee consists of TB, bj21, Peter N, Great One and skinneej along with Cards and myself.
Feel free to discuss anything here. The committee will be corresponding via email and we will report here as we go along. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 111 | mjd
Sustainer
ID: 501381415
Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 20:44
|
Thanks
|
| 112 | THK
ID: 1657522
Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 15:52
|
1) I don't like the scoring of IDPs set forth. It would just add position without benefit in my mind. That said, I am used to working with IDPs so I really wouldn't mind using them...
2) I am firmly against double headers. I hate the idea. I like the H2H matchup...one week one game. It is more like football when you are hyped up to play one squad. Realignment is up to what is best for the league. Double headers - NO
8) Agreed
|
| 113 | THK
ID: 1657522
Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 15:53
|
Looking to deal Cooley for a draft pick or package him with Jones for a slight upgrade. I really have high hopes for Brandon Jones, so I want to keep him.
If anybody can come up with a fair deal for Cooley - offer away.
|
| 114 | StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 16:18
|
This whole thing with IDP's has been a mess. What we were hoping was that someone would step up and take charge. We weren't really looking for a bunch of thoughts sent out in emails and then for Ref and I to assemble them into something coherent for the league to vote on. What we were wanting was for someone else to do that. Obviously interest in football hasn't ramped up to that point yet and of course everyone has real lives as well.
In the end we all agreed to get online and hammer it out, and that is exactly what we did. Not everyone will like what we came up with, but everyone had the opportunity to be there and now the time for discussion on major changes has passed. We spent hours discussing every possible thing we could think of based on emails and stats and what we know about how the league works and we don't care to cover that same ground again.
If IDP passes and there are tweaks that need to be made to the scoring, positions, bench slots, etc, I'm sure someone will propose them. We tried to come up with a way to implement IDP while at the same time keeping the league full of decisions and tradeoffs to make.
If it were not for Ref the whole IDP option would have just slowly faded away. Thanks for pushing this through ref. I think we've done all we can do on it and should just vote on it as it stands. I haven't seen any major objections to doing that unless I've missed something.
|
| 115 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 12:00
|
Well there has been nothing more added, so we might as well get on with the vote. Obviously, some aren't well informed--as evidenced by thk's post--but waiting isn't going to improve things when people aren't paying attention.
THK--for the record, realignment was only considered as a necessity for the Double Header proposal. My proposal would require 6 four-team divisions that would allow you to play your own div. twice and every other team once. Each Div champion would mak the playoffs along with one Wild Card team.
Once I figured out the re-aligning teams (based on rl geography with one exception per league), that rule is pretty basic to understand.
In my proposal, I was going to have each team play their three div. foes once in the first half of the schedule and then again in weeks 11, 12 and 13--where it rally mattered. CBS refused to allow us to have more than 4 divisions.
Both Doug and Twarpy wanted to go ahead with my plan but simply leave off two interdivisional games. Never heard from Doug again. Twarpy ran with it and put some time into scheduling. One thing I don't like about Twarpy's schedule is that the last 3 weeks, you play 5 divisional games. One bad week, and you lose two Div. games. But if you spread them out, you're playing Div games 10 of 13 weeks and then you're going to hit bye weeks, so it's hard. Just too many teams in the division, but CBS' cooperation forced our hand to choose. If DH does pass, then obviously this is a bridged solution to get to what the original plan was should we get to six divisions, but I have no faith in CBS to add our suggestion.
CBS said no one (even 30 team leagues) had ever asked them to go to more than 4 divs. How much sense does that make? My guess is that we are the largest league on their site with 24.
My idea with IDP was based on my experience in the RIFC series last year. I started thinking there is a whole new avenue we could explore to add value to teams who were stuck with their current teams to build trade partners and find alternate scoring possibilities. Problem is that teams who don't do their due-diligence in research or not going to do well. Bad teams who fall into that category are going to be much worse. Will IDP make matters worse? Will it create a wider gap between good and bad?
There are several reasons we are looking for input and active participation on happenings in the league. First, we want to be sure that members cna throw out issues that the rest of us may not have thought about. They may have experiences in another league that could help us. There may be a particulat cat. where someone is so against they'd nix the whole proposal while that number may not be a stickler for others. But if someone just says Yes or NO or worse yet--nothing at all, that doesn't give us a whole lot to go on.
Why did we start talking so early this year? Well there is a LOT of work to do--especially behind the scenes. Not only did we have to formulate the scoring with our history and unique depth involved, but had to present it to the league and massage it to where the league felt comfortable with it. We have to go through every position in the rules and set the scoring--then test it. That will take some time. Scheduling already takes some time how it is. If DH goes in, this will be a real nightmare for us. But we can live with that if that's what the league wants. Then we have to have our vote. Time for people to familliarize themselves with IDP and research. Our IDP draft. Our extended Supplemental Draft. A little longer time between the draft and supplemental draft and supp draft and opening day if possible so people can figure out their IDP and allow any trading options with that.
Each week we have to go through every game and check for negative yards gained and other abnormalities. I go thorugh and update the franchise overall standings, H2H overall records and the record book. This year that would even be more work and I don't even know how many people even pay attention to that.
Bottom line is that these rules will cause the commishs a LOT more work. To be honest, I am not even positive how I am going to vote at this time except I plan on voting for Prop #8. I don't want major rules changes unless the league as a whole truly wants them. I definitely don't want to go through a bunch of extra work and then be criticized at the same time because of it.
|
| 116 | StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 15:09
|
I started looking my team over and realized with the retirement of Jake the Snake I will only have 1 player remaining from my original draft in Jeremy Shockey.
I think I should be in decent shape this year as long as Garcia has a good year in TB. Westbrook should be a stud RB again, Owens a top tier WR, Shockey a top tier TE, Panthers among the best DST's, and Wilkins a solid K. Hopefully training camp will tell me which other players to keep and I could come up with 1 or 2 RBs and a WR that lets me get to the playoffs again.
I'm certainly a few notches down from a few teams talent wise but hopefully the Cards will align right for another Championship Season. Of course the real question is whether I can manage to beat Promize's Seahawks who has derailed my season more than once! I haven't forgotten!
|
| 117 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 16:15
|
I think you need to put a hex on Chris Simms... or trade for him.
|
| 118 | StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 16:19
|
I think he's already been Hexed and I'm not sure he could survive any more!
|
| 119 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 16:42
|
I should have kept Garcia!
|
| 120 | deepsnapper
ID: 366132419
Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 20:43
|
I can going forward with #105 as it's stated above. I can't say I've paid a lot of attention on football here lately.
What started with a fall my dad had 6 weeks ago breaking his shoulder in 6 places, ended up with him having a quad bypass yesterday. I'm out of town for at least the next week and have limited PC access. Plans are to be home 8/5 at the latest . TB Perm Dude and several others have my cell phone if someone needs to call.
Can't believe my luck on the lottery. I wasn't even sure I was in until Peter N confirmed it. I do like white truffles. ;)
|
| 121 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 15:32
|
OK working on this vote. Please be absolutely certain your email address on the CBS site has been updated. If it is not current, you will not get your vote notice. I had to email several managers individually after they didn't respond to their invitation to continue with the league. If you don't get the vote, contact me. I will post after it has gone out. Your email on the site is the address correspondance from the commish, league, cbs and other managers will use and it must be kept current.
Here is what we're voting on:
1. The addition of IDP and the rules contained as stated in post 26 of this current thread. (Ref, et al)
2. Double Headers. Teams would play two games per week instead of one. Realignment put on hold because of CBS disallowance to let us go to 6 Divs. of 4. Amended proposal is in post 85 in which you would play own Div twice and all but two teams in the opposite conference once. Twarpy's schedule would be used as a guide and coule be used precisely after randomization. (Ref, amended Twarpy)
3. Passing of commish-deemed major rules. This would mean that any rule proposal that goes for a vote would need 2/3 majority (16) in order to pass. Amended so this rule needs 2/3 (16 votes) to pass. All non-major rules would still need simple majority (13). (mbj, amended TB).
Proposal 3 needs 16 yes votes to pass. Rule 1 and 2 need 16 if Rule 3 gets 16 or else it needs 13 to pass.
|
| 122 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 15:51
|
The vote has been sent.
|
| 123 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 17:47
|
I vote yes to all three rule changes.
|
| 124 | Promize
ID: 55223275
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 18:14
|
Yes to all 3
|
| 125 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 18:19
|
Don't need to vote in this thread. If there aren't objections, I will post what people voted. Please note though that there were objections in G20 Baseball. I got emails from both TB and Promize as well as several others and they have been counted.
|
| 126 | AZ Cardinals
ID: 37262119
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 18:24
|
Yes, Yes, Yes
|
| 127 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 19:34
|
To clarify, The 3rd vote needs 2/3 vote. If for whatever reason we can't get all 24 votes, than it wouldn't be 16 votes to pass, but 2/3. We've always either hit the required number or everyone has been able to vote in all leagues and votes before.
|
| 128 | Perm Dude
ID: 386132511
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 19:51
|
So for proposal #3, you need 16 yays for it to pass, regardless of the number of people voting, or are you saying you would accept 2/3 even if, say, 15 managers replied?
I would say that we should probably keep it at 16 flat votes to pass. Major rule changes should have major participation, and even if a couple of guys don't vote I'd say we still should shoot for 16 to pass.
|
| 129 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 19:56
|
PD, the proposal was for 2/3 vote. Which is 16 of 24. Just if for some reason let's say DS could not be reached and only 23 voted. Do we wait 2-3 weeks to see if a measure or two or even three passes if we have 15--even though that is 2/3 vote? Probably not. I really don't think that will enter into it--just trying to cover our bases.
Weird this year as I have had people vote multiple times, reply to all and email and post on the boards. Usually don't try to influence other's votes. Also just had someone vote and then ask me to sway him why he should vote yes on one of the votes. Obviously I just accepted his vote and referred him to this thread.
|
| 130 | Perm Dude
ID: 386132511
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 20:03
|
No, ref, the rule proposal is:
3. Amending Major Rules passage to a minimum of 16 votes (mbj, amended TB)
I understand how the 16 was arrived at. And I understand the nature of sometimes people not voting (which makes the percentage needed to pass higher).
But the rule proposal was 16 votes. Not 2/3. Not 2/3 with a quorum. Not some other number provided the voting is held within a certain time period. Etc, etc. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you are "interpreting" the proposed rule change by changing it, after the vote has begun on it and before it is completed.
I don't think that is permitted at this point. I certainly would not have voted for 2/3 without a clarification as to what 2/3 means if not 2/3 of the whole league. My strong suggestion, at this point, is to cease making these interpretive gestures until the proposal passes, and then suggest interpretive language for the league to also vote on if you feel 16 votes is too high a threshhold for major rules changes.
|
| 131 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 20:05
|
PD, why don't you be the commish of all of our leagues as you always seems to know what is best. That is my suggestion to you.
|
| 132 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 20:08
|
52 Myboyjack
ID: 5410242711
Wed, Nov 29, 2006, 10:26 I am formally proposing a rule that any major rule change (deemed major in the discretion of the commissioners) that is subject to a league vote be passed only upon a favorable vote by 2/3 of the league mamagers.
|
| 133 | Perm Dude
ID: 386132511
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 20:31
|
PD, why don't you be the commish of all of our leagues as you always seems to know what is best. That is my suggestion to you.
Quit if you want. But don't blame me for asking for a clarification. And don't spend scads of posts whining about the lack of feedback on the rules changes and then complain that I'm somehow doing something wrong here. If you messed up with the wording of the proposal rule that's fine, but don't insist that they are the same. They aren't.
I, for one, have no trouble with a 2/3 mininum vote so long as there are some sort of quorum numbers (for example, if only 12 people vote this probably wouldn't be acceptable. Likewise if the voting is taking a lot of time).
But that isn't the proposal before us. The proposal was 16 votes to pass major rules changes.
|
| 134 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 20:41
|
Well let's call a spade a spade here PD.
Where are you as someone who has been in all our leagues from the beginning and should know our rules and issues? Where and when do you chime in when we are trying to discuss things? No you'd rather wait and find something to nitpick and cast stones after the fact. You have missed votes. You ask questions on rules that are not only in the rules but have been around since we've started. Maybe you just forget. And let's not even talk about all of your competitive teams throughout the years. I tried having you as a co commish for hoops and you did nothing. You couldn't even get the payouts right. Yet you want to play your politics-forum-like notpicks on everything. Why don't you be part of the solution instead of trying to be the one who tries to follow the Roberts Rule of Orders.
My post probably wasn't necessary. I'll give you that. But I have not had a good day in rl and you're posts in baseball and here have hit a nerve and when that happens, it's probably time to move on.
|
| 135 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 20:50
|
FWIW, my original proposal was pretty explicit and self-explanatory; it required a "yea" vote of 2/3 of the league managers. That would be 16, regardless of participation level in the vote.
|
| 136 | Perm Dude
ID: 386132511
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 21:03
|
You have missed votes
When? I'm certainly not aware of any lately, and while I will often vote late in the process after hearing people's ideas I'm not aware of actual missed votes. Of course, you're bringing it up at this point..well, you know. Same as the others. I made what I thought (and what you and RFS and others seem to accept at the time) as an innocent mistake regarding payments owed across different leagues. But there you go. Any other things about me you are holding back? Might as well get it all off your chest. A spade and all.
:)
Why don't you be part of the solution instead of trying to be the one who tries to follow the Roberts Rule of Orders.
Well, this clarification seems pretty important to me, and since MBJ's #135 seems to match my own thinking (as well as the wording of the actual proposal) I think we should just let the proposal stand and see how people vote.
I can see it both ways, but it seems to me that major rules changes should have a 16 vote minimum regardless of the number of people voting.
|
| 137 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 21:13
|
Also, I'll add, by thestated terms of the emailed current vote, "abstaining" is counted as a "no" vote. Right?
If that's so, then it would seem that the rule would always require 16 votes, regardless.
|
| 138 | Action Figure
ID: 420372221
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 09:19
|
I am firmly against double headers. I hate the idea. I like the H2H matchup...one week one game. It is more like football when you are hyped up to play one squad. Realignment is up to what is best for the league. Double headers - NO
I'm with you. I like this league because it is so much like the real NFL. If we go with double headers I feel it cheapens that.
|
| 139 | Perm Dude
ID: 32642268
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 09:50
|
I can see that, AF. But isn't the doubleheader 2 H2H games? That is, games H2H against two different opponents?
I guess I voted for it because I like the idea of more games.
|
| 140 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 09:55
|
Yes, 2 different games. And you can set 2 different lineups (which is what I was worried about) allowing you to maximize matchups (i.e. you have the go-to WR, your opponent has his QB).
|
| 141 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 11:28
|
First of all let me apologize for acting out of character last night. Several things are not going as expected in rl the past couple weeks and it is very frustrating.
mbj, An abstention is different than a non-vote. But in the past the people who have failed to vote didn't have an impact. The times it has we've waited for those people to get their vote in. My point is that we couldn't wait say 3 weeks to get all the work in it's going to take to get it done. But it's probably a non-issue.
GO, we were told you'd have two lineups going by CBS, but Cards and I set up DHs last night again to test it and we can't figure out how to set two different lineups. Go to your team's lineup page and see if you can find anything.
Would have been nice to have these discussions on these rules before the vote, but I digress.
14 votes are in.
|
| 142 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 11:40
|
mbj, An abstention is different than a non-vote
For what purpose? I don't understand how there could be different categories of "non-votes" for any practical purpose.
|
| 143 | Perm Dude
ID: 32642268
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 11:41
|
You're right--the schedule shows doubleheaders but there is only one lineup.
In RIFC we had a small button "Game 1" and "Game 2" but I don't see anything at all on the lineup page like that.
|
| 144 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 18:14
|
First of all, we can drop the whole issue with minimums as DS was able to vote. I know what is going on with his personal life and wanted to give him every chance to have his voice heard--but August 5th was too long to wait. As a general rule, I agree 100% with what mbj is stating.
I beleive these managers have yet to respond to the vote: Dan, Toral, SW, Twarpy, Yokel, skinneej. It's only been a day and I'm not worried about it as we didn't have to put a 24 or 48 hr clock on this for timliness issues. Perhaps I will forward them another vote to the email address I have in my gmail to make sure they get it. I had to resend about this many people re-invites to come back so perhaps they have yet to update their email or it went to spam, etc. If you see them around, you might want to have them check their email.
|
| 145 | Promize
ID: 55223275
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 21:05
|
Sooo, on a lighter subject... What are the Vegas odds that Ricky Williams and Priest Holmes would bring any joy to my team this year if I kept them? LOL
|
| 146 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 10:18
|
Can't see Ricky playing at all. Priest is probably getting paid to kick start LJ and end his holdout.
Still need votes from Dan, Toral, Yokel and Skinneej.
|
| 147 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 10:19
|
Still need to hear from Dan and Toral. Probably should htink about setting a deadline for them to vote. I need to count the votes to see where we stand.
|
| 148 | Perm Dude
ID: 1625288
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 11:49
|
How about we give them until Wednesday? That'll be a week.
Unless the proposals already have enough votes to pass, of course.
|
| 150 | Toral
ID: 575542418
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 14:50
|
My e-mail on the G24 site was wrong. I have corrected it. Have I missed anything relevant to the rules discussion? The invitation to vote did get through -- ref must have used the right e-mail on that one.
I'm looking for clarification on #3, 2/3 vote on commish-deemed major rules. If there has been any discussion on what criteria the commish is expected to follow in deciding what are "major rules", or on what criteria the commish will follow, and you can point me to it, and I can understand it, I should be able to vote today.
Toral
|
| 151 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 15:46
|
Pd, I am currently wrting out each person's vote. Some emailed or voted more than once and I've come up with a couple different counts. Should have the exact count in a few. BUt will wait for Toral's count even if the thresholds have been hit/impossible to hit just to not influence his vote.
Toral, basically, anything we deem as a major rule change will need two-thirds of the league's votes. These two votes (third one has to get 2/3 but its very proposal). IMM, it seems pretty obvious, but if it is ever a question, we'd want input for discussion.
|
| 152 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:11
|
OK, Cards and I have confirmed that we each konw how to count now and we have a total. There are two votes left with Toral and Dan. I will wait for Toral to vote since he posted here, but we do have enough votes to tell you that we do have an outcome on all three votes. Either we have/or can't hit 16 votes or more on all three issues.
|
| 153 | Toral
ID: 575542418
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:12
|
Toral, basically, anything we deem as a major rule change will need two-thirds of the league's votes. These two votes (third one has to get 2/3 but its very proposal). IMM, it seems pretty obvious, but if it is ever a question, we'd want input for discussion
I don't want to be a nitpicker, but I want to avoid future problems, particularly avoidable procedural ones. I do not think it will always be obvious whether a proposed rule change is major or not. Most of the time, I think that most managers will have the same intuition as to whether a change is major or not -- but not all the time. So, just to see if I have it clear...the decision whether a rule change is "major" will be made by the commissioner(s) (NOTE: it's still the commissioner who decides, right? or is it the competition committee?) ; if there is any division among managers, the commissioner(s) will invite input on these boards and then rule.
And if the commissioner decided that a rules change proposal was major, and the league wished to challenge his decision, what number of votes would it need to overrule him? 50% 2/3%
If you think this is all too nitpicky I don't mind if you just say so and ignore the questions; but I have seen too much damage to leagues from too-ambiguous rules not to want to see as much detail as I can.
Toral
|
| 154 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:15
|
I was asked by one manager to post the votes. We've done that once before here w/o objection, however in G20 baseball there were objections to it. It doesn't matter to me.
|
| 155 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:21
|
Toral, I'm not bothered by it, but I don't see it being an issue. It will be decided by the commissioners as mbj/tb had in their proposal. In this league, there is a system for the league to overrule a commissioner's decision that is detailed in the league rules. Can't imagine it getting that far.
|
| 156 | Toral
ID: 575542418
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:23
|
I didn't see 152 before I posted. Since it's over, my vote will be in soon. :) ref, feel free to answer or ignore the questions in 153 depending on whether you feel it would be useful to state a policy now or not.
Toral
|
| 157 | Toral
ID: 575542418
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:27
|
In this league, there is a system for the league to overrule a commissioner's decision that is detailed in the league rules.
That's good, I had forgotten that. The odds are there won't be any major problems with the rule. But if there are, I'll be saying "Don't blame me; I voted No." ;)
Toral
|
| 158 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:28
|
Ok 23 votes in. I don't konw what happened to Dan, maybe he's away w/o access for the week.
Anyhow, 23 votes were cast.
#1 IDP: 19 Yes 4 No
#2 DH: 18 Yes 5 No
#3 2/3: 22 Yes 1 No
All three proposals pass.
|
| 159 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 16:31
|
LOL: 157!!!
Well thing is, by voting no, all rules would still need just simple majority of 13. And since you outed yourself, I can say that you broke up the unanimous vote! ;)
|
| 160 | THK
ID: 106322819
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 20:37
|
Boooooo on double headers.
Anyway, trade thoughts.
Looking to trade Chambers and Cooley for a better WR or KJ and Cooley for an upgrade at RB.
Or will trade Chambers + picks OR KJ + picks for an upgrade as well. ANY PICKS AVAILABLE!
Want to make my run this year. Since KJ did not turn out like I planned - I need a slight upgrade somewhere outside of CJ and Smith!
|
| 161 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Jul 29, 2007, 12:42
|
Heading to a new thread here for the rest of the preseason discussions.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|