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

Stern on the changes that are coming

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

  • #16
    Re: Stern on the changes that are coming

    I would suggest that the economic downturn will also affect overseas markets so there is nowhere to go. The teams with big contracts on the books over the next few years will be hurt the most. There might be a mad dash to avoid players who command big salaries. That would be irony.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Stern on the changes that are coming

      Originally posted by d_c View Post
      The NFL, with stuff like a hardcap and non-guaranteed deals? You would see more NFL like turnover from year to year, as players are just playing for their next contract more and more often. It would affect continuity and, eventually, quality of play.

      You'd see more guys headed to Europe for sure. The NFL doesn't have to worry about this probem. If the players don't like playing for the NFL, well, too bad....because they won't find any other league organizing their particular sport while paying them anything near that type of money anywhere else.

      I could also see more guys (particularly the big ticket guys) having a bigger preference to play in the big market because with smaller salaries from the league, they'd be looking to make some more scratch on endorsements.

      Also in the NFL mode (with hard cap and no Bird rights), the home team like Cleveland can't offer more money in free agency to keep one of their own guys (like Lebron for instance) than any other team in the league that has cap room (like the Knicks for instance).

      An NFL like collective bargaining agreement would be a huge victory for the likes of the Knicks, Lakers and most other big market teams. They would get all the superstars while paying them less money. It would be win-win for them.
      This is definitely the first time I've heard someone claim non guaranteed deals would be bad. I see your point, just strongly disagree.

      I disagree for a few reasons.

      1) It wouldn't benefit the larger markets because of the hard cap. That would cancel out their advantage in appeal to players. You can only sign so many guys under that cap. The larger markets don't have an advantage in the NFL. Actually the NBA's system already favors large markets more than the NFL does.

      2) It wouldn't affect quality of play. Teams would have more flexibility to make moves. Imagine if the Colts had to Harrison his 13 million this year. That means they would have not been able to keep Saturday or Hayden, and the team would've taken a step back. Actually if the Colts couldn't have cut people they would've probably never made it to the SB in the first place. This would improve the play.

      The Pacers could let go of a guy like Murphy and his albatross deal to land a better fit for them to improve their defense. And some team out there would be able to pick up Troy Murphy that is more in need of his abilities. Let's say we could let Troy walk, and then Orlando picked him up. Orlando would be a better team, and we would have the flexibility we need to continue to rebuild ours. It's a win win. Teams also wouldn't go through these long droughts of bad basketball. In the NFL you can go from the basement to the SB in a couple of years. In the NBA the same 4-5 organizations have won all the titles over the last 10-15 years. It would also take some pressure off of coaches. They would be able to assemble a team that fit their style.

      3) You might lose some mid level guys overseas, but the top guys wouldn't go anywhere. There is much more marketing opportunity here. And as far as the mid levels, it will be out of sight out of mind to NBA fans after a while.

      4) You could still give home teams the advantage in keeping their own prized pieces by giving them the upper hand in the amount of guaranteed money they can offer. The signing bonus will just become the new emphasis over the total value.

      I think this is exactly what the NBA and MLB need. It is why the NFL is a huge success and they are struggling. Think of all the money NFL teams save themselves every year when they start releasing guys that the other two leagues are forced to honor. It's draining them dry.
      Last edited by Taterhead; 03-11-2009, 10:41 PM.
      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Stern on the changes that are coming

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        ....as opposed to the NFL, where the vast majority of player cuts are due to salary reasons...
        LoL yeah, poor guys!
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Stern on the changes that are coming

          Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
          I think the best way for the NBA to operate efficiently is for the players to re-negotiate contracts. I mean less money is better than no money.
          You mean like the banks did with loans? Won't happen!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Stern on the changes that are coming

            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
            This is definitely the first time I've heard someone claim non guaranteed deals would be bad. I see your point, just strongly disagree.

            I disagree for a few reasons.

            1) It wouldn't benefit the larger markets because of the hard cap. That would cancel out their advantage in appeal to players. You can only sign so many guys under that cap. The larger markets don't have an advantage in the NFL. Actually the NBA's system already favors large markets more than the NFL does.

            2) It wouldn't affect quality of play. Teams would have more flexibility to make moves. Imagine if the Colts had to Harrison his 13 million this year. That means they would have not been able to keep Saturday or Hayden, and the team would've taken a step back. Actually if the Colts couldn't have cut people they would've probably never made it to the SB in the first place. This would improve the play.

            The Pacers could let go of a guy like Murphy and his albatross deal to land a better fit for them to improve their defense. And some team out there would be able to pick up Troy Murphy that is more in need of his abilities. Let's say we could let Troy walk, and then Orlando picked him up. Orlando would be a better team, and we would have the flexibility we need to continue to rebuild ours. It's a win win. Teams also wouldn't go through these long droughts of bad basketball. In the NFL you can go from the basement to the SB in a couple of years. In the NBA the same 4-5 organizations have won all the titles over the last 10-15 years. It would also take some pressure off of coaches. They would be able to assemble a team that fit their style.

            3) You might lose some mid level guys overseas, but the top guys wouldn't go anywhere. There is much more marketing opportunity here. And as far as the mid levels, it will be out of sight out of mind to NBA fans after a while.

            4) You could still give home teams the advantage in keeping their own prized pieces by giving them the upper hand in the amount of guaranteed money they can offer. The signing bonus will just become the new emphasis over the total value.

            I think this is exactly what the NBA and MLB need. It is why the NFL is a huge success and they are struggling. Think of all the money NFL teams save themselves every year when they start releasing guys that the other two leagues are forced to honor. It's draining them dry.
            this is what I was thinking. good post
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Stern on the changes that are coming

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              This is definitely the first time I've heard someone claim non guaranteed deals would be bad. I see your point, just strongly disagree.

              I disagree for a few reasons.

              1) It wouldn't benefit the larger markets because of the hard cap. That would cancel out their advantage in appeal to players. You can only sign so many guys under that cap. The larger markets don't have an advantage in the NFL. Actually the NBA's system already favors large markets more than the NFL does.

              2) It wouldn't affect quality of play. Teams would have more flexibility to make moves. Imagine if the Colts had to Harrison his 13 million this year. That means they would have not been able to keep Saturday or Hayden, and the team would've taken a step back. Actually if the Colts couldn't have cut people they would've probably never made it to the SB in the first place. This would improve the play.

              The Pacers could let go of a guy like Murphy and his albatross deal to land a better fit for them to improve their defense. And some team out there would be able to pick up Troy Murphy that is more in need of his abilities. Let's say we could let Troy walk, and then Orlando picked him up. Orlando would be a better team, and we would have the flexibility we need to continue to rebuild ours. It's a win win. Teams also wouldn't go through these long droughts of bad basketball. In the NFL you can go from the basement to the SB in a couple of years. In the NBA the same 4-5 organizations have won all the titles over the last 10-15 years. It would also take some pressure off of coaches. They would be able to assemble a team that fit their style.

              3) You might lose some mid level guys overseas, but the top guys wouldn't go anywhere. There is much more marketing opportunity here. And as far as the mid levels, it will be out of sight out of mind to NBA fans after a while.

              4) You could still give home teams the advantage in keeping their own prized pieces by giving them the upper hand in the amount of guaranteed money they can offer. The signing bonus will just become the new emphasis over the total value.

              I think this is exactly what the NBA and MLB need. It is why the NFL is a huge success and they are struggling. Think of all the money NFL teams save themselves every year when they start releasing guys that the other two leagues are forced to honor. It's draining them dry.
              Winner winner chicken dinner

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Stern on the changes that are coming

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                This is definitely the first time I've heard someone claim non guaranteed deals would be bad. I see your point, just strongly disagree.

                I disagree for a few reasons.

                1) It wouldn't benefit the larger markets because of the hard cap. That would cancel out their advantage in appeal to players. You can only sign so many guys under that cap. The larger markets don't have an advantage in the NFL. Actually the NBA's system already favors large markets more than the NFL does.

                2) It wouldn't affect quality of play. Teams would have more flexibility to make moves. Imagine if the Colts had to Harrison his 13 million this year. That means they would have not been able to keep Saturday or Hayden, and the team would've taken a step back. Actually if the Colts couldn't have cut people they would've probably never made it to the SB in the first place. This would improve the play.

                The Pacers could let go of a guy like Murphy and his albatross deal to land a better fit for them to improve their defense. And some team out there would be able to pick up Troy Murphy that is more in need of his abilities. Let's say we could let Troy walk, and then Orlando picked him up. Orlando would be a better team, and we would have the flexibility we need to continue to rebuild ours. It's a win win. Teams also wouldn't go through these long droughts of bad basketball. In the NFL you can go from the basement to the SB in a couple of years. In the NBA the same 4-5 organizations have won all the titles over the last 10-15 years. It would also take some pressure off of coaches. They would be able to assemble a team that fit their style.

                3) You might lose some mid level guys overseas, but the top guys wouldn't go anywhere. There is much more marketing opportunity here. And as far as the mid levels, it will be out of sight out of mind to NBA fans after a while.

                4) You could still give home teams the advantage in keeping their own prized pieces by giving them the upper hand in the amount of guaranteed money they can offer. The signing bonus will just become the new emphasis over the total value.

                I think this is exactly what the NBA and MLB need. It is why the NFL is a huge success and they are struggling. Think of all the money NFL teams save themselves every year when they start releasing guys that the other two leagues are forced to honor. It's draining them dry.
                I'm arguing against the hard cap moreso than about guaranteed deals.

                The hard cap would affect continuity, as it has in the NFL. Critics have pretty much said that free agency has diluted quality of play in the NFL, particularly in areas such as offensive line play, where continuity and chemistry is a big deal. Not only are the Troy Murphys of the NFL cut all the time, but quality players still within the primes of their career who have played vital roles with their teams are cut due to the hard cap.

                Also, if you follow the NFL's model completely, you'll have 1st round picks instantly making as much or more than 5 year vets, and in some cases they'll be among the very highest paid at their position. So under an NFL model, Kwame Brown in his rookie year would have entered camp as one of the highest paid PFs in the league.

                The NBA's system does not favor large markets more than the small markets as compared to the NFL. Tim Duncan is still with the Spurs, Dwight Howard is still with Orlando and Chris Webber (even though he didn't even want to be there) spent the prime of his career in Sacramento. On the flip side, the biggest impact free agent signing that a team in New York ever made since David Stern took over has been Allan Houston.

                I too would like to see some of the guaranteed deals nixed, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure Stern will have the leverage to put things more in favor of the owners when the next CBA comes up for negotiation, but I fully expect that the current system of guaranteed deals isn't going to change much.

                The reason the NFL has so much success is that American football is the biggest sport in the country at every level (HS, college, pro). It's the game to watch. The reason college football is bigger than college baseball isn't because of a better bargaining agreement. It's off topic, but the number of thugs/bad guys in the NFL far outnumber those in the NBA/MLB, but the public doesn't care as long as those guys strap on a helmet on Sundays. Steroids? Nobody gives a damn that NFL players take steroids. Nobody. It's big because it's the most popular game.

                The NFL's costs are also much lower simply because there are only 16 games a year as opposed to 82 or 162. The logistics (especially travel) and costs of production are lower simply because they produce less events, yet they still secure the biggest TV deals. Basically, they get paid more for doing less. That's ALWAYS going to be a successful model, if you can pull it off.
                Last edited by d_c; 03-12-2009, 01:09 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Stern on the changes that are coming

                  Hmmmm or is it because the CIB RUNS the lucasoil, has more to pay towards the build and has to pay a healthy percentage of the gross income outside of the NFL games of the Lucas Oil, with or without positive results, and then still have to bail out the Colts?

                  Quick estimates:

                  Pacers 15 mio , Colts 47 mio (yearly)

                  "tax" cost to stadiums (parts financed by)
                  Pacers 87 mio Colts 600 mio ?


                  And now we have to cut players, change the contract structure and so forth? why no go one further and declare the union unwanted as well
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Stern on the changes that are coming

                    Shut down for a year or two.....ask players like Reggie how they would have liked that to happen during their mid to late thirties. They'd never get back into game shape. Then again, two years off and we'd forget they ever existed. We'd be out of the habit of watching them and really into watching Dance Marathon, or whatever it's called, and American Idol.

                    As for caps........bleeech. Every team is allowed to spend X numbers of dollars. How they choose to do so is their business but I don't like Bird rights, caps, tax thresholds, etc etc ad infinitum. Perhaps this could lead to the sliding scale I have proposed in the past. Different starting ranges based upon years in college or D-league...like real buisnesses do, pay for experience.
                    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Stern on the changes that are coming

                      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                      The thing is they won't get no money. They will play overseas.
                      If, indeed, the economic situation is global why do you think that option would be open?
                      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Stern on the changes that are coming

                        Heeey let's really go global and put teams in hot spots like Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Sudan to name a few. Then once they get a taste of kicking *** and winning trophies they'll be too busy hating their coaches to hate us!!

                        'Course those games against Tel Aviv might get a bit contentious.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X