Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

    Originally posted by foretaz
    and this is why there is a fan problem in the usa....the underlying resentment that these youngsters havent 'earned' the right to make all these millions...
    You can try and make that the issue if you'd like, but it seems to me there exists a resentment on this forum against owners trying to protect themselves from throwing money away on kids that aren't ready to contribute.

    If, as a business owner, you can construct safeguards against wasting money, wouldn't you do so?

    Originally posted by foretaz
    as long as eddie gill and half the atlanta roster is in the league...not too mention at least 2 players on every roster that is just not that good....there should be no problem with a handful of the very best teenagers in the world joining the league....
    And there will STILL be plenty of 18 and 19 year olds in the league. That's not going to change. They will just have to have proven themselves somewhere else besides high school first.

    Originally posted by foretaz
    but then jealousy and resentment are funny things...
    Especially when directed towards those who pay your salary

    Originally posted by foretaz
    some evidently feel they should earn that right....well, my friend....its based on talent...not on years served or a persons age....
    If that's the case, then why have a rookie salary cap at all?

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

      Originally posted by foretaz
      [COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=3]
      as long as eddie gill and half the atlanta roster is in the league...not too mention at least 2 players on every roster that is just not that good....there should be no problem with a handful of the very best teenagers in the world joining the league....
      Eddie Gill and players like him are not getting paid a million dollar salary most of the time. They know there role and no one expects much out of them. I don't see the point in trying to compare the 2.

      EDIT: Also just because these HSers are more talented doesn't mean that they know how to play in the NBA. Fact is there basketball IQ usually won't be as high.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

        Originally posted by rommie
        Eddie Gill and players like him are not getting paid a million dollar salary most of the time. They know there role and no one expects much out of them. I don't see the point in trying to compare the 2.
        oh really????? maybe u should take a closer look at some of the salaries...u realize that eddie gill will make close to 900,000 this coming year?????? please, please dont tell me about salaries....and eddie is at least on teh bottom rung of salaries....some of the salaries in this league are ridiculous...and its not those of the highschoolers..

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

          Originally posted by foretaz
          oh really????? maybe u should take a closer look at some of the salaries...u realize that eddie gill will make close to 900,000 this coming year?????? please, please dont tell me about salaries....and eddie is at least on teh bottom rung of salaries....some of the salaries in this league are ridiculous...and its not those of the highschoolers..
          Gill's salary will be almost 900,000. Shaun Livingston will get paid 3 million.

          And how many of these veterans like Gill are getting a 4 year contract? Don't forget to consider that factor.

          Lets not forget that these veterans have had to prove themselves. Unless High School upgraded the competition being 6'6+ and dominating players 6 foot isn't to impressive. Now some of these HSers have faced some good competition in HS, but in the end there is a huge gap between HS ball and NBA ball.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

            Originally posted by foretaz
            youre right.....id much rather have had eddie gill than telfair or livingston....dude seriously, do u have any idea how ridiculous some of the stuff is ur typing?? im trying to stay quiet...but dude...ur soo far off its not even funny....

            but u are right about one thing....the owners do have some people advising them....its their accountants....and this is all about money....and has nothing to do with the product....they would rather pay eddie gill 750,000 than a livingston or a telfair millions....but more than that....a decent size of their fanbase-evidently ur a part of this chunk-doesnt relate to the highschoolers and has a certain resentment regarding them, feeling they dont deserve the millions....ud rather see scott pollard and eddie gill in the league versus a handful of high schoolers that have far more talent than these type of guys ever dream of having.....so please....dont talk to me about product, and the quality of such...

            First, I wasn't aware that Telfair and Livingston was on the Pacers. Second, in terms of being a player last year, there wasn't much of a difference between the three. I absolutely can't stand Eddie Gill so the other two were probably somewhat better than him last year, but it's not like I look at Eddie Gill against Telfair and think that he's going to be any worse than usual. In 3 years, that may be a different story. Then again, in 3 years, nobody may remember much of any of them. But hey, they got their cup of coffee in the NBA so that should make you happy.

            The only thing you said that I agree with is that these high schoolers have more talent than most of the rest of the league. HOWEVER, talent alone does not make a player. It's becoming increasingly evident that most NBA fans are all about talent and athleticism.
            Can we get a new color commentator please?

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

              Originally posted by foretaz

              and this is why there is a fan problem in the usa....the underlying resentment that these youngsters havent 'earned' the right to make all these millions...

              bottom line is they are more talented than many playing in the league....there are many players, as scot pollard would tell u, that get paid alot of money to suck....

              as long as eddie gill and half the atlanta roster is in the league...not too mention at least 2 players on every roster that is just not that good....there should be no problem with a handful of the very best teenagers in the world joining the league....

              but then jealousy and resentment are funny things...

              some evidently feel they should earn that right....well, my friend....its based on talent...not on years served or a persons age....and if u dont believe for a second that sebastian telfair and sean livingston arent more talented and better players than eddie gill and at least another dozen players in this league, then im sorry....but u must be watching something different than what im watching....
              Both are probably more talented and athletic than John Stockton too, but that doesn't mean that they'll be anywhere near the player Stockton was. Talent isn't everything. When you start to factor in the other stuff, that's when we can start to discuss this seriously.
              Can we get a new color commentator please?

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                Originally posted by A-Train
                I would much rather see a 10 year vet making millions as a garbage player than an 18 year old kid who's never done anything in his life but dominate at the high school level.
                And this explains why you and other twist yourself in weird forms to make a case where there is none.
                All you are saying is: A. it is better garbage time vets make the money and B. the owners save themselves a lot
                then giving a talented kid a chance to get rich of his talent.

                It is generally known as "jealousy".

                I can understand people being jealous of those kid making all that money, fully, but that doesn't prevent you from seeing what it (the age limit) really is, because if it does, then you have a problem.
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                  Originally posted by Reggie4Three
                  Both are probably more talented and athletic than John Stockton too, but that doesn't mean that they'll be anywhere near the player Stockton was. Talent isn't everything. When you start to factor in the other stuff, that's when we can start to discuss this seriously.

                  oh, puhlease.....now ur telling me stockton wasnt talented? or athletic??? lol...ok....but either way....if they are more athletic and more talented than a top 50 and hall of famer....then yea....they belong in the league....u gotta problem with that...so be it...

                  discussion is over as far as im concerned....

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                    Originally posted by able
                    And this explains why you and other twist yourself in weird forms to make a case where there is none.
                    All you are saying is: A. it is better garbage time vets make the money and B. the owners save themselves a lot
                    then giving a talented kid a chance to get rich of his talent.

                    It is generally known as "jealousy".

                    I can understand people being jealous of those kid making all that money, fully, but that doesn't prevent you from seeing what it (the age limit) really is, because if it does, then you have a problem.
                    I'm not "jealous" of these kids making the money. What I don't like is they are getting paid on talent. Talent doesn't mean you belong in the NBA.

                    What have these guys done to show that they deserve the money?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                      Originally posted by able
                      And this explains why you and other twist yourself in weird forms to make a case where there is none.
                      All you are saying is: A. it is better garbage time vets make the money and B. the owners save themselves a lot
                      then giving a talented kid a chance to get rich of his talent.
                      That kid will get his chance, just like every other NBA player before him got theirs. What is this obsession with giving teenagers millions and millions of dollars before they've done anything?

                      Again, does the Major League Baseball business structure trouble you? How about the NFL?

                      Originally posted by able
                      It is generally known as "jealousy".
                      Yes, it's all about jealousy. You got me!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                        Originally posted by able
                        henceforth the math: savings on guaranteed contract 3.5 mio for the top 1.5 for the bottom, avg 2.5 mio for 7 years (duration of the cba) = 17.5 mio savings on getting the draftpick of next year (HS kid) into the NBDL:slary 150 thousand tops, 2 - 3 year contract when "called" up minimum payment schedule NBA = avg 650 thousand, if player had been 1st round pick : (we are talking second year earliest here) 1 mio minimum savings over 2 years = 3.5 mio per year after the 1st year hence 5 times 3.5 mio = 17.5 mio including a failure or two the total savings come down to 30 mio per team = 900 mio for the league.
                        The major flaw in this theory is this: For your theory to be correct, you must assume that the owners aren't paying anyone the salary they would have paid that high schooler. But, that's not the case. If they're not paying a high schooler that money, they'll still be paying someone. Removing high schoolers from the equation doesn't remove the still intact rookie salary structure and the subsequent money those rookies will make on down the line.

                        You can argue that the age limit rule takes money out of the high schooler's pocket (for one year), but the owners will still be shelling out the same amount of money as before, just to someone about whom they know a little more.

                        And THAT, my friend, is the crux of the age limit rule.... the money is going to be spent either way, why can't they (the owners) allow themselves the best chance at knowing what it is they're getting?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                          Originally posted by foretaz

                          oh, puhlease.....now ur telling me stockton wasnt talented? or athletic??? lol...ok....but either way....if they are more athletic and more talented than a top 50 and hall of famer....then yea....they belong in the league....u gotta problem with that...so be it...

                          discussion is over as far as im concerned....
                          Everyone is the NBA is talented and athletic to some extent so I'm not claiming he wasn't talented or athletic. Tell me this. If you line up an 18 year old Stockton and an 18 year old Telfair this year and ask 100 scouts who they'd take, who do you think they pick? Telfair has more raw gifts and is the better athlete. A vast majority would pick Telfair.

                          That's the only point that you need to recognize to figure this out. There is far more to being a good basketball player than just having raw physical skills and talent. You want to see the most talent and I just want to see the best basketball players. They are not always the same. There are alot of talented players that never pan out and there are hall of famers with marginal levels of talent.
                          Can we get a new color commentator please?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                            Originally posted by A-Train
                            The major flaw in this theory is this: For your theory to be correct, you must assume that the owners aren't paying anyone the salary they would have paid that high schooler. But, that's not the case. If they're not paying a high schooler that money, they'll still be paying someone. Removing high schoolers from the equation doesn't remove the still intact rookie salary structure and the subsequent money those rookies will make on down the line.

                            You can argue that the age limit rule takes money out of the high schooler's pocket (for one year), but the owners will still be shelling out the same amount of money as before, just to someone about whom they know a little more.
                            Thank you.
                            Can we get a new color commentator please?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                              Originally posted by Reggie4Three
                              Everyone is the NBA is talented and athletic to some extent so I'm not claiming he wasn't talented or athletic. Tell me this. If you line up an 18 year old Stockton and an 18 year old Telfair this year and ask 100 scouts who they'd take, who do you think they pick? Telfair has more raw gifts and is the better athlete. A vast majority would pick Telfair.

                              That's the only point that you need to recognize to figure this out. There is far more to being a good basketball player than just having raw physical skills and talent. You want to see the most talent and I just want to see the best basketball players. They are not always the same. There are alot of talented players that never pan out and there are hall of famers with marginal levels of talent.
                              i said i was done....and i apologize....but this has to be one of the most stupid comments i have ever seen....

                              u appear to have watched the movie hoosiers far too many times....its the players with the most talent that end up being the greatest players....here...let me help u.....magic, jordan, bird, jabbar, chamberlain, erving, stockton, malone

                              if u dont think these are some of the most talented players to ever play the game....then i cant help u....they all had unbelievable talent and gifts when it came to basketball.....

                              u can take eddie gill and send him to college for fifty years...it doesnt matter....i suppose u take the child genius and make him go thru all of high school...just because hes not old enuff to go to college...nevermind the fact hes smart enuff...

                              ur ignoring the obvious....talent is first and foremost....if u dont have talent, ur not making it to the nba....period...if u believe anything else...then,,,im sorrry...ur nuts...

                              like i said...this isnt high school...and its not 'hoosiers'

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                                Originally posted by Reggie4Three
                                Thank you.
                                There is no major flaw in that theory, you carefully took out the base premises for it and decide to ignore facts:

                                1. the guaranteed term for the rookie contracts goes down to 2 years.
                                2. bet on the 2nd round being less and less interesting, players there will be shipped off to the nbdl for (as reported last night on tv) 50K yearly salaries.
                                1 year (first year of the cba) + at least one year per year on the duration of the cba is no longer guaranteed.
                                3. HS players that are no longer eligible for the draft will have to do somewhere, in a lot of cases college is not an option (nor advisable anyway) and therefore they will be offered a place in the nbdl (min contract 2 years) @ 50 thousand dollar. savings on that?

                                If you want to sink a theory filled with fact, come with facts, not assumptions.

                                The fact you agree is found in the grounds that it is not "decent" for these young kids who have proven nothing except that they excel in talent for a sport, to get millions of dollars, henceforth you support the owners "using" these same youngsters for a rgeatly discounted pay, so the "can prove themselves".

                                You know what? being drafted is proof.
                                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X