Jump to content

Modding Rules Discussion


Chris

Recommended Posts

This started as a dispute between the XNT and the Xenophobia teams, but other modders have since expressed an interest in / concern at the situation. The specific issue was this quote:

Also, I will continue to make compatibility patches for XNT and changing the data. It's going to happen and something you're going to have to get used to. XNT team can either be friendly and civil about it or not, either way, there's not much you can do about it.

Basically, the issue is exactly what you can and cannot do with other people's mods. Perhaps this issue needs some discussion?

The basic rules are currently as follows:

  • You cannot claim to be responsible for producing a mod you did not make yourself.
  • You cannot host mods that you did not make yourself without permission.
  • You cannot include assets from other people's mods in your mod download without getting their permission.

However, at present, I also don't believe that you can prevent people modding your mod, just like I can't prevent people making a mod for Xenonauts that I don't like (the most I could do would be to deprive them of official hosting).

Therefore, releasing optional balance patches and so forth for other people's mods is allowed without their permission provided the following conditions are met:

  • You do not claim you are responsible for creating the mod you are patching.
  • You credit the previous mod team and do not claim to be associated with them.
  • You link to the original download thread for the mod you are modding, and do not attempt to host their mod yourself.
  • You do not include any of their assets in your patch (modified or not). Your work must remain a separate download from theirs unless you have their permission to merge the mods.

The important thing is that people are not allowed to steal other people's work and claim it is their own, but other people are allowed to use your mod as a requirement for their own work provided the above conditions are met. You cannot stop a user installing one mod, then installing a second mod afterwards.

Do people agree that those rules are fair, or are there objections from the modding community?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a new modular system being worked on for the Community Edition to more easily merge mods. Using this system there is no reason to use another persons modified files. It is perfectly possible to create a balance patch or additional content for the vanilla game, or any specific mod, using this system. It might take a bit of effort to learn how to use it but I think it will be worthwhile.

Edited by Gauddlike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the term "assets" could stand to have a little clarity, because I know that's going to be a sticking point. Does the term "assets" refer to any and all files modded as well as any new files introduced (for example, music or images), or does it just refer to new files introduced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, some clarification on the asset stuff. This is a bit of a grey area, actually. Bear with me here, because it gets a bit complex.

1) Custom assets are not part of the base game and are created entirely by a community member and cannot be included in your download or modified into something new without permission (an example would be Max's paintings, Skitso's maps or Jsleezy's armour images). Goldhawk doesn't own these, the creator does.

You can still use these as a requirement for your mod using the rules in the original post, and potentially you could "modify" them by adding another image on a layer on top of them. For instance, you could "modify" one of Jsleezy's armours by drawing a backpack on the image provided the backpack was a separate image placed on top / below the armour image in-game. That would change the game, but not actually change his image file.

However, you couldn't draw the backpack onto the armour and merge it into a single image without permission from Jsleezy, because that would be directly modifying the source image that he has created. You need his permission to do that.

2) Custom Writing (etc) also may not be taken without permission. For example, if you've written a new research project description in the game then people cannot just include that in their mod without your permission. These are modifications to a Goldhawk file, such as xenopedia.xml, but contain your own intellectual property.

They can take the idea, but not the name or writing - so if you create a grenade launcher in your mod, people can take the idea of a grenade launcher (and even create one with the same stats) but they can't take your research description text or the name or any special images you've created and include it in their mod download without permission.

3) Game Balance - I'm afraid you've got no rights to protect your game balance or mechanics. If you create a mod where rifles do 500 damage per shot, everyone else is allowed to take that 500 damage change and use it in their own mods without credit if they want. Think of it like X-Com and Xenonauts; you are protecting your images and names and intellectual property, but not the actual game mechanics.

So if your mod makes the player buy the starting items instead of getting that free, people can just integrate that into their own mods without asking or crediting you if they want to. Nobody has any way of proving that they took the ideas (or the execution) from you, so nobody knows if they stole your mod or just recreated it from scratch themselves using the basic Xenonauts files.

That said, please be nice to each other - just because you *can* take these mechanics without crediting the original modder doesn't mean that you should. If you were inspired by someone else's work then please do the honourable thing and mention them in your post. We can't force you to do it, but it makes the community much nicer for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a big old dollop of grey area. Hopefully, this thread can go someway to clarifying things.

Basically, the issue is exactly what you can and cannot do with other people's mods. Perhaps this issue needs some discussion?

Ah, sub-mods. From my experience in other modding communities, they're fine - up until a point. As long as there is the permission of the original mod-makers (MM), then there's not a problem. However, I think that if, or when, the original MM decides that they no longer feel the sub-mod is respecting the values of the original mod, then the sub-mod should be pulled. Sub-mods tend to outgrow themselves, and evolve into something different. At this point, it's a better idea to make a standalone mod, an original, from scratch....modifying vanilla files instead of the mod, and not requiring anything from the original mod. If the MM say don't use our stuff, then that's the gospel.

Also, I will continue to make compatibility patches for XNT and changing the data. It's going to happen and something you're going to have to get used to. XNT team can either be friendly and civil about it or not, either way, there's not much you can do about it.

If someone said that to me about my mod, I'd be livid. I'm disappointed it was said to anyone, and it's not the kind of thing I want to read, or even be involved in a forum where stuff like this would go on. That breaks any respect in a modding community - anyone joining up after reading something like that...what would they think? That this behaviour is the norm? That it's ok to disrespect the work and wishes of other people?

Now, as someone who has made a sub-mod which eventually grew to standalone status, I can say it doesn't have to happen like the above example. The MM found himself involved in commercial projects and didn't have the time to devote to the original mod, so they were never in direct competition - which is a pretty rare situation. However, if at any point he'd have said "that's it", I'd have stopped it and started another mod - from scratch - involving none of the work from the original mod. That's respect, and that's what a modding community needs in order to function smoothly.

Assets themselves are a grey area too. For me, in this game, it's mostly artwork. Code is code, it's all based on vanilla anyway, just changing numbers in a file. That can't be "protected" - and even if it's not, that's not an excuse to rip off ideas from other mods. For me, modding is about creativity. Like something in another mod, and want to include it? Find a new way of doing it. I'm sure there are concepts in M'nauts that are similar to other mods here, but done differently. One example would be between kabill's enhanced crash sites mod - in M'nauts, I've brought back power core explosions to make crash sites more crashy. The same as what kabill is doing in his mod - similar end result, two different ways of doing it. But that's just me, I value creativity highly - I haven't actually played any Xeno mods, as I want my ideas, and the execution of them, to be my own. If xml's and the like were to become grey area's, it can create paranoia and uglyness. On another forum, there was one guy who was convinced I had "stolen" code from his mod. This guy was all kinds of wrong - he admitted openly to not being able to make sense of the file in question (it was LUA), and that he'd had his code-guy check over it and found nothing, but he still persisted in frequently making accusations and derogatory remarks to anyone and everyone who'd listen. Why? Who knows. In all likeliness, it was due to ambiguity in the modding "code of conduct" regarding text files (coupled with the fact he was also an obnoxious pr...). That's a good example of why text files, are, essentially, a free-for-all. But, again, this doesn't mean that they have to be ripped-off. That ain't modding, Jim.

Edited by Mikhail Ragulin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a mod-maker should have ultimate control over whether other people can make changes to their mod or not.

We've intentionally made Xenonauts an open game where players can change things to their own preferences. Modders are using this to create bundles of these changes which they share openly with other players to create an experience they think is better than the original game. This is a good thing, no?

Provided the original mod is credited appropriately and not repackaged, I don't see why people should not be allowed to make their own changes to other people's creations and make them separately available for download. Why does this open process suddenly become totally closed when a modder packs his changes and puts them on the forum?

I mean, would you complain if someone played Magnum-nauts and without seeking your permission changed some of the weapon stats on their own computer to make it more enjoyable for them? I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that, would you? Can they play it alongside a second mod? Or are people only allowed to play your mod in exactly the way you specify?

If you wouldn't complain, then what's the problem with them sharing those changes with other people? If they're not pretending they created the base mod or taking credit for your work, it just seems like you're trying to totally control people's game experience - which seems like the complete opposite of what modding should accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am delighted to see Chris' opinion about the modding process.

As i have written (where, when and whom to i leave on the person addressed whether to publish this info or not):

I was talking about Slayerjerman making his compilation:

"He did provide proper credit, he did not steal any of the work or made appear it to be of his own, he openly and clearly stated all the changes and his ideas regarding the modification. And he did not overruled, so to speak, any of the choices available to the player, regarding what to choose or install over their vanilla Xenonauts.

Therefore, anyone who would want to use XNT would use XNT, anyone who would use Xenofobia over XNT would do that."

This i why i have engaged in the conversation/dispute in the first place in Xenofobia thread (message already deleted).

From my point of view, despite being, ewww, rough? in his manners (see the quote Chris presented), Slayerjerman's intentions were not to steal any of the XNT-team work, nor to present the compilation as the creation purely of his own.

My plea to all the modders stands as follows:

"Understand, that by publishing the mod to a game, you, in the first place provide us (the player community) a way to enjoy that game more and in different way, than the original authors. If you have created a mod just for yourself, you could have left it be of your own, without publication. You must also understand, that not everyone may find all ideas of the mod presented be of their liking. And that those who are capable of, might modify any and some of those ideas, just to become the way they like, AND that some other people might find these new ideas more appealing to them, than those original.

By imposing any kind of limitation (above reasonable request to provide info on the author and links to originals) to the modded files, you, in the first place hurt us (the player community), because you limit our choice, that would have been presented by other modders otherwise. Please, restraint yourselves from doing so. Xenonauts is one precious jewel nowadays, among hundreds of vague and simple games, that can become so much more with the modding community."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Provided the original mod is credited appropriately and not repackaged, I don't see why people should not be allowed to make their own changes to other people's creations and make them separately available for download. Why does this open process suddenly become totally closed when a modder packs his changes and puts them on the forum?

It doesn't - so long as the original modder is ok with the person using their work. If it is just changes, chances are it'd be a download of a few mb. The issue to me looks like Xenophobia is way more than that (>100mb is more than a tweak or two), which is obviously going to impinge on the design of the original mod. Sub-mods of that size aren't sub-mods. An interesting analogy would be patches and dlc. A few balance changes would be like a patch, whereas the dlc is (or should be!) more game-changing - and Xenophobia, for example, would firmly fall into the camp of the latter. Would you let someone release dlc for Xenonauts without your permission, as long as they credited it appropriately? Although the question could be what counts as appropriate credit? Does the original maker need to be informed/on-board? If you'd decided to make Xenonauts a dlc update for the original X-com, which required the original game to play instead of being the standalone version it is, surely one would need the permission of Gollop? And without this permission, would you then carry on making it as a dlc (and going so far as to publicly state that the wishes of Gollop are worthless, and you'll carry on disrespecting said wishes for as long as you damn well please, and there's not a hoot he can do about it), or would you respect his decision (even if not agreeing with it) and make it as a standalone instead?

I mean, would you complain if someone played Magnum-nauts and without seeking your permission changed some of the weapon stats on their own computer to make it more enjoyable for them? I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that, would you? Can they play it alongside a second mod? Or are people only allowed to play your mod in exactly the way you specify?

I wouldn't complain - and haven't. There's a few guys who have stated, in the M'nauts thread, that they use their own mods/alterations on top of it. I wouldn't dream of telling someone how to play it (thou must play it this way, or not at all!), I'm not into that.

If you wouldn't complain, then what's the problem with them sharing those changes with other people? If they're not pretending they created the base mod or taking credit for your work, it just seems like you're trying to totally control people's game experience - which seems like the complete opposite of what modding should accomplish.

There wouldn't be a problem. The issue with XNT/Xenophobia is that those changes had gone too far for the XNT guys, and when they requested Slayerjerman to stop, they were greeted with accusations of aggression, bullying and harassment. None of which was visible from the XNT guys in anything I read; the lack of respect was coming from Slayerjerman and other Xenophobia users. This is the main issue for me - the lack of clear rules/code as to what can be done with other peoples work without their consent. I don't want to read crap like what was being levelled at the XNT guys, when all they asked was for their content to be removed. I'd rather see respect for fellow forum users, which surely isn't too much to ask for. It's a big grey area, and it's clear that for such projects to work, there needs to be communication between the parties. Without that, it just degenerates into shit-slinging. I don't think a system of letting people use the work of others as long as they says thanks in a thread, without actually having the consent of the guys who have spent a lot of time and energy (and in XNT's case, money) on the project, is a good idea - it could cause resentment. For me, it's a morality issue. What can be done about it? Not much probably. It's just not nice to see.

Edited by Mikhail Ragulin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not make this into a thread about who did what and why they did it - it's a thread about the official Xenonauts modding rules and whether people would be able to live by them.

Much agreed, count my post as backstory only (apart from the plea). Proper credits and respect goes to the whole XNT team for their hard work.

I don't think a system of letting people use the work of others as long as they says thanks in a thread, without actually having the consent of the guys who have spent a lot of time and energy (and in XNT's case, money) on the project, is a good idea - it could cause resentment.

Whole open-sorce community works this way for years, counting millions of man-days worth of work. Many even take the work of others, modify it and resell. In case you use windows, half of your operating system uses parts derived from these works and still costs money to obtain, being paid to one single entity.

There is nothing bad or wrong with sharing, modifying and redistributing as long as proper credit is given to the original author. Moreover, it should be encouraging to the author that someone did find it's work as interesting, as to go and modify and build upon it.

And by proper credit i mean clear message in the log, or any place else used to denote all the sources, stating name(nick-name of a person) or a team with a link to the original source, here being forum thread, and long enough description to depict the source.

And i repeat, as long as the original mod (or whatever source) is presented and available, as the choice to the player. It is up to the player to use it's own decision-making-process. No one, in this particular case, orders, calls to, or makes the choice being done without free will, anyone to use Xenofobia over XNT or vice versa.

Taken from the other angle. What if someone would want to add to XNT additional features, like the Skitsos' maps, but lacks proper skill to do it? And yes, not everyone who wants - can do diff-merge of xml files, and not everyone who can - wants to.

This person would have to ask the XNT team to do it. Must they? No.

So this person seeking this modification would turn to someone else. And this "someone" would eventually modify the original mod and make it available to someone other than himself, thus making it public. Should this be forbidden too?

Edited by deghost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modding ethics did not appear with Xenonauts and are not new. General ethics for modding games, and more generally for working on open-source software (which has many similarities), have been around for a long time. And what has been proposed here for Xenonauts is no different. The basic rule of thumb being, give credit where credit is due.

It is good manners to ask a mod team before building further on their mod, but their consent is not required for that. Distributing a mod made by someone else without their prior consent is very bad manners (and potentially a copyright violation, depending on the type of mod). For people who make mod packs consisting of other peoples' mods, it's common courtesy to first ask everyone involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whole open-sorce community works this way for years, counting millions of man-days worth of work.

I think the question, really, is whether the Xenonauts modding community *is* an open-source community or not.

Obviously, by their very existence, such communities can and do work. However, I think that's to be expected in a context where everyone knows what they're getting into in advance. If you make something accessible to an open-source community, then that's because you're happy for it to be used. If you're not, then you won't.

In contrast, there's been nothing here which explicitly states that this is the case. As such, I don't think what Mikhail's saying is unreasonable under the current circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi. :)

First of all, apologies all around for kicking up this dust storm, thankfully this situation will strengthen the community, so it wasn't entirely bad ordeal. Secondly, it's my fault for not calling out more clearly that Xenophobia was a compilation mod. I had used the term "add-on" (I dont believe I never called it a "sub-mod") during the early versions and that definitely confused people, including the XNT team. For that, I am sorry.

Thirdly, consider this my formal apology to the XNT team for being brash and knee-jerk reacting to their requests. Both them and I could have been more civil, but what is done is done. Yes, I should of directly asked for permission, but by allowing me nearly 4 weeks without denying permission it seemed reasonable to assume that permission had been indirectly given...

I also have permission from XNT, btw. I'm not trying to be a dick by posting this, but this is to cover my butt if they come asking to remove XML data or their text content:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20763616/Xeno/XNT_permission.jpg

I deleted my post stating that the XNT team was very helpful and kind up until I released v1.2.2, I have always been a fan of XNT and wanted to help them succeed, so to have this conflict with them definitely made me sad, especially with how it spiraled downward.

I hope that in the future we can ALL get along, make great mods and have fun.

Thank you.

Slayerjerman

Edited by Slayerjerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Xenonauts mod community is not open source. If it were, the assets of any mod would most likely be allowed to be freely repackaged and distributed by any other mod maker. I don't suggest we go that far.

@Mikhail - I also agree having clarity is a valuable think and I think having set rules on what is and what is not allowed would prevent some of these arguments developing. Let's not get into a debate about what did or did not happen with XNT and Xenophobia though. Bundling the contents of XNT along with Xenophobia without express permission from XNT would be forbidden under these rules so hopefully such a situation will not arise again.

Regarding your broader point about DLC / Julian Gollop, I would say that large-scale conversion mods like XNT and Magnum-nauts pretty much are free DLC for Xenonauts. They make all sorts of changes I wouldn't necessarily put in my own game, but I don't interfere because they're clearly marked as unofficial products. I think in this case we already are practising what we preach.

The Julian Gollop question would be more interesting in the inverse. What would have happened if, halfway through the development of Xenonauts, Gollop had come out and said he thought Xenonauts was terrible and didn't like us changing and using something he'd created in a way he himself would not, then asked us to stop development?

That would have saddened me - I'd rather Julian considered our work a tribute rather than a rip-off - but if he did think that way I wouldn't have abandoned my work or my dream just because the original creator didn't like me doing it. Would you do in that situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On TotalWarCenter submods are subject to the original mod's author's good will.

Most modders don't restrict submods but a few demand to review the submods first before they allow them to be publicly shared and a few don't allow any submods.

However it should be noted that on TWC mods get their own sub-forum and sub-mods are shared on that same sub-forum which is controlled by the original mod's dev team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Xenonauts mod community is obviously not open-source, but the point should not be dismissed outright - it so happens that ethics among modders, which are pretty well established over the last decade+, are in many ways similar to the ethics that exist in the open-source community. This applies to submods to a large extent - the idea of some mods disallowing submods exists and is accepted in various modding communities, even though it is merely a matter of respect and mutual agreement, as such a restriction cannot be made on legal grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was way way way way back when Selgald engaded you in discussion whatever you have permission to use assets for Corporation Weapons Expansion for XNT because you used that art assets without artist permission and you also removed them temporary before you got permission.Also TD there stated that you have "his permission to use those assets" even if he didn't have rights to write in order to counter Selgald .

Conclusion:don't twist facts and beside version of mod back then was v 4.3 or v5.1. I don't want to take part into this no longer,what's done it's done.

Edit:Sadly I can't provide evidence because I didn't screenshot conversation and that thread is gone,however I will leave this so people draw conclusion themselves.

Also Chris I didn't demand anything by this.I decided to play by rules now however I couldn't resist not to say something when I've saw that.

Edited by Sentelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's enough from both of you, please - slayerjerman, posting that image doesn't help matters. I'm not interested in what has already happened, I'm interested in what is going to happen in the future. Having an argument about who did what won't achieve anything.

As long as slayerjerman complies with the rules in my post, he is allowed to produce separate patches for XNT if he wants to. However, equally the XNT team are allowed to ask him to remove their content (defined in my post about "assets") from his mod Xenophobia too. Even if they've given him permission to use the assets in the past, they can also withdraw it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mikhail - I also agree having clarity is a valuable think and I think having set rules on what is and what is not allowed would prevent some of these arguments developing. Let's not get into a debate about what did or did not happen with XNT and Xenophobia though. Bundling the contents of XNT along with Xenophobia without express permission from XNT would be forbidden under these rules so hopefully such a situation will not arise again.

Regarding your broader point about DLC / Julian Gollop, I would say that large-scale conversion mods like XNT and Magnum-nauts pretty much are free DLC for Xenonauts. They make all sorts of changes I wouldn't necessarily put in my own game, but I don't interfere because they're clearly marked as unofficial products. I think in this case we already are practising what we preach.

The Julian Gollop question would be more interesting in the inverse. What would have happened if, halfway through the development of Xenonauts, Gollop had come out and said he thought Xenonauts was terrible and didn't like us changing and using something he'd created in a way he himself would not, then asked us to stop development?

That would have saddened me - I'd rather Julian considered our work a tribute rather than a rip-off - but if he did think that way I wouldn't have abandoned my work or my dream just because the original creator didn't like me doing it. Would you do in that situation?

Looking at the inverse situation, I'd do the same as you - carry on. Can we go as far to say that he's asking development to stop via a facebook message? In which case I'd carry on, and ignore the fb message!

This is because Xenonauts is using none of the original UFO stuff that JG made. Here, he'd just be kicking up a fuss over nothing (in reality, I'm sure he's a nice guy) - with Xeno not using any elements of the original game (code, graphics, anything). I don't think, in this situation, that it would even be a question of morals for whoever's making Xeno - the only thing in question is non-material (the inspiration to make a similar game, something that's been lacking from the marketplace for a while), as the new game is a tribute to a genre and does not require anything from the OG to function. I'd tell him of my disappointment at his views on my project, and inquire as to what he thinks he is trying to achieve, and then plough on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Xenonauts mod community is not open source. If it were, the assets of any mod would most likely be allowed to be freely repackaged and distributed by any other mod maker. I don't suggest we go that far.

...

The Julian Gollop question would be more interesting in the inverse. What would have happened if, halfway through the development of Xenonauts, Gollop had come out and said he thought Xenonauts was terrible and didn't like us changing and using something he'd created in a way he himself would not, then asked us to stop development?

That would have saddened me - I'd rather Julian considered our work a tribute rather than a rip-off - but if he did think that way I wouldn't have abandoned my work or my dream just because the original creator didn't like me doing it. Would you do in that situation?

(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. So I may be completely wrong on this. I however do have some experience with Open Source licences, so unless there is an actual lawyer here, I'm probably not more wrong than a random person here sharing his personal view on the matter.)

Xenonauts may have nothing to do with Open Source, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to learn from it. One should usually try to use common sense first and try for both parties to find an agreement if there's a problem, but if that doesn't work out, there should be rules for dealing with that. And both Open Source and the Julian Gollop case have that - Open Source has licences that say what is and what is not allowed, and if you continued Xenonauts despite Julian Gollop not wanting that, there's laws for that.

There's nothing like that for Xenonauts that I'm aware of - or have I missed any licence, EULA or similar? That's what ultimately matters - either there's a contract, licence or similar, or there's some law that should cover the situation. But here it seems that it's implictly implied that everything is done in good faith, and there's nothing for when that's not the case. I think in that case some laws would apply, and strictly speaking probably almost every mod is actually technically illegal, because of shipping copyrighted material (i.e. a modified copy of Xenonauts content, such as .xml files) without permission. Similarly, I think it's been said somewhere that XNT is under Creative Commons license, which would be all well if it was all new content, but they do not actually have the permission to re-license Xenonauts content to those licensing terms (moreover, I think Xenophobia actually complies with CC terms).

As I said, what should ultimately matter is the terms for the content, whether that's a license or applicable law. Anyone can state terms for the use of their work, as long those terms do not conflict with terms of any possible work this content if the derivative work of. If I make a mod that says people can use it only if they send me 10 euros and stand on their head for 10 seconds, I have every right to make such a demand as long as it's not in conflict with other terms that apply to that mod (such as terms of content I included in it).

So if there are any problems with what is and is not allowed when modding, I think what should be done that everybody just states terms for their content. I.e. GH should say something like that people are allowed to redistribute and modify content included with the game as long as it's used for modding the game, and maybe that any mod should allow the same terms for further mods based on it (or whatever exact terms GH wants), and modders should specify what terms come with their mod (which should presumably be similar in tone to GH terms, especially since it needs to comply with it - something like having a template for those who don't really care would be probably a good idea). Creative Commons actually might be a good fit for this.

Without this, I consider the whole issue just a gray fuzzy area where everybody hopes it'll work out somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...