Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/02/28 05:02Proposal 1: Crown Qualifications A&S Revision Change 18.A.d.1. 18.A.d.2, 18.A.d.3 from 18.A.d.1. For the Imperial Crown Qualification Tourney, entrants will be required to enter in at least nine Crown Qualification categories and must qualify in nine by achieving a score of three or higher. As many as three events may be qualified for by winning two individual fights in a particular war event or by passing a Test of Heraldry by achieving a score of 75% or higher. No more than three qualifications can be gotten from the combination of test and war events, but no limit is placed on the number of cultural categories that may be used to qualify. In addition, candidates must have passed the reeves test for the upcoming reign as per 11.A.a., and must have passed a corpora test within the same timeframe as required for reeves tests. These tests do not count as qualifying categories. 18.A.d.2. For the Ducal Crown Qualification Tourney, entrants will be required to enter in at least seven Crown Qualification categories and must qualify in seven by achieving a score of three or higher. As many as two events may be qualified for by winning two individual fights in a particular war event or by passing a Test of Heraldry by achieving a score of 75% or higher. No more than two qualifications can be gotten from the combination of test and war events, but no limit is placed on the number of cultural categories that may be used to qualify. In addition, candidates must have passed the reeves test for the upcoming reign as per 11.A.a., and must have passed a corpora test within the same timeframe as required for reeves tests. These tests do not count as qualifying categories. 18.A.d.3. For the Baronial Crown Qualification Tourney, entrants will be required to enter in at least seven Crown Qualification categories and must qualify in seven by achieving a score of three or higher. As many as two events may be qualified for by winning two individual fights in a particular war event or by passing a Test of Heraldry by achieving a score of 75% or higher. No more than two qualifications can be gotten from the combination of test and war events, but no limit is placed on the number of cultural categories that may be used to qualify. In addition, candidates must have passed the reeves test for the upcoming reign as per 11.A.a., and must have passed a corpora test within the same timeframe as required for reeves tests. These tests do not count as qualifying categories.
To 18.A.d.1. For the Crown Qualifications Tourney, entrants will be required to achieve a certain number of different qualifications to be eligible to run for office based on their group size; nine qualifications are required for Imperial office, seven for Ducal, and five for Baronial. An entrant can receive up to three qualifications per Arts and Sciences category, and as many as three qualifications can be earned by winning two individual fights in a particular war event. Items entered must be significantly different from one another, e.g. you cannot make and enter three swords and receive three separate qualifications. An entrant can alternately receive one qualification by providing a good and valuable service to the club as determined by a majority of the tournament judges. In addition, candidates must have passed the reeves test for the upcoming reign as per 11.A.a., and must have passed a corpora test within the same timeframe as required for reeves tests. These tests do not count as qualifying categories.
And remove 18.B.a. in its entirety and replace it with. 18.B.a. Arts and Sciences part No item may be entered in more than one crown qualification tournament at any level. The arts and sciences part of crown qualifications shall include the following categories: 18.B.a.1. Cooking includes any food or beverage. 18.B.a.2. Worn items includes anything that is worn in an Amtgard setting, excluding armor. Examples include field, court, and monster garb, garb accessories, jewelry, etc. 18.B.a.3. Performance includes anything that is intended to be performed in front of an audience. Examples include recitation, singing, instrumental music, dance, etc. Must have a time limit of five minutes. 18.B.a.4. Constructed Items Includes items such as furniture, constructs with moving parts, armor, siege equipment, non-Amtgard legal weaponry, etc. 18.B.a.5. Artwork includes anything that is artistic in nature; 2D or 3D artwork, needlework, heraldry, photography, digital art, etc. 18.B.a.6. Written includes anything that is intended to be read; stories, poems, factual entries, etc. All written entries must be 2500 words or less. 18.B.a.7 Weaponry Includes Amtgard legal field equipment, such as weapons, shields, throwing weapons, arrows, etc.
Rationale Currently, there are 23 different categories in the A&S portion of Crown Quals and Dragonmaster. Many of these categories are rarely utilized, and can be used to flood categories in an attempt to artificially inflate ones final score based on the standard scoring system. This system attempts to consolidate the A&S system into 7 major categories based off of type of usage that entries regularly see and difficulty of implementation. This system also allows for a broader range of entries, since it does not over-define the categories available, thereby allowing for greater creativity. The rose entry is removed as an A&S category, but is still allowed as a method of gaining a qualification for office. This system allows for people to receive three different qualifications per category, thereby allowing greater flexibility for qualifying, while still requiring items to be sufficiently different so that someone cannot merely duplicate items to receive easier qualifications. Per the current wording of 18.D, the tournament autocrat would be acting as the final arbiter for what constitutes a significant difference in items as well as any other issues.Casca Eruoy
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Casca
User
Posts: 328
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/02/28 15:31This is a radical change from what we are used to, but after thinking on it for a bit, I think I like it considerably. It does foster creativity, it does allow for less restrictions in what type of entries get submitted into crown quals, but it doesn't substantially change how crown quals is run or the requirements for becoming crown qualified. And the tourney organizer in me likes how much harder it would be to flood to inflate scores.Casca Eruoy
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Hannibal Finvarra
User
Posts: 410
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/02/28 23:28I like the idea of it, I feel it is a solid thought. I do see a few issues in it I would like to discus at the althing meeting.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Casca
User
Posts: 328
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/01 00:15Why wait for a meeting? The interwebs are now! Casca Eruoy
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Hannibal Finvarra
User
Posts: 410
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/01 01:17Ok, but I'll bring em up at the meeting too.
18.A.d.1. For the Crown Qualifications Tourney, entrants will be required to achieve a certain number of different qualifications to be eligible to run for office based on their group size;...
I'm assuming entrants is singular and not plural based on how we have always done things, I'd prefer to see individuals in place of entrants, and group size replaced with monarchy level, yes I'm looking at something grammar related...
...nine qualifications are required for Imperial office, seven for Ducal, and five for Baronial. An entrant can receive up to three qualifications per Arts and Sciences category...
How does this effect Champion, who currently only has 3 quals at imperial level, is there number now 9? ether way the numbers should be correctly list under althing or the office which is not part of the proposal sadly.
Where did the shires go?
...Items entered must be significantly different from one another, e.g. you cannot make and enter three swords and receive three separate qualifications.
I'd like "significantly" to be defined, so I make 3 tunics off the same or similar patterns, say one tunic has sleeves, ones sleeve-less, and the 3rd sleeve-less with a square neck, is that significantly different enough, or is it one "field" tunic and done? I get that 3 identical items are a no go, and I like the fact that it stops people from making 3 swords with 3 different covers and saying they are all different. I'd just like a clearer line.
...An entrant can alternately receive one qualification by providing a good and valuable service to the club as determined by a majority of the tournament judges.
I love that, but I'm sad to see rose go away on the same hand.
Over all I really like the idea.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Korderellin
Admin
Posts: 546
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/01 02:07Hannibal Finvarra wrote: I'm assuming entrants is singular and not plural based on how we have always done things, I'd prefer to see individuals in place of entrants, and group size replaced with monarchy level, yes I'm looking at something grammar related...
Actually, neither of these are grammar related. The use of group size is consistent with other usage in the corpora, whereas monarchy level would be introducing new verbiage that could have different connotations than what is current understood. Individuals would also fail to refer specifically to people who are participating in crown quals, whereas entrants is easily understood in that vein, and is also consistent with current verbiage.
How does this effect Champion, who currently only has 3 quals at imperial level, is there number now 9? ether way the numbers should be correctly list under althing or the office which is not part of the proposal sadly.
Champion's qualification requirements are listed in the champion section, under 8.A.e.2. Champion's requirements are unaffected by this proposal, although this does bring up an area we may want to clean up in the future.
Where did the shires go?
Shires have never been required to do crown qualifications under the IM corpora. Nothing has changed there.
I'd like "significantly" to be defined, so I make 3 tunics off the same or similar patterns, say one tunic has sleeves, ones sleeve-less, and the 3rd sleeve-less with a square neck, is that significantly different enough, or is it one "field" tunic and done? I get that 3 identical items are a no go, and I like the fact that it stops people from making 3 swords with 3 different covers and saying they are all different. I'd just like a clearer line.
The more definition we provide, the more inclined some people are to try and game the system. There was actually a large amount of debate among the people who worked on this proposal about what level of definition we should provide. Any definition that we attempted to apply turned out to be easily exploitable, and so it was determined that the best way to ensure that this was not abused without recourse is to have a subjective decision on what constitutes significant. If an entrant feels they have been wronged by a particular autocrat's decision, they have recourse to take their appeal to the althing.
I love that, but I'm sad to see rose go away on the same hand.
Why? I guess I'm a bit unclear on why rose, which is a service oriented category, should be included in an A&S tournament. It also has the benefit of meaning that rose is not rated on the same sort of subjective scale as everything else, but rather is considered on a pass/fail basis, which seems much more appropriate to me. It is still applicable as an option; the only place where it is no longer available is Dragonmaster, where it's inclusion as a category seems rather inappropriate anyway.Kord
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Lumpy
User
Posts: 78
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/02 04:25I worry that the proposed system might over simplify things. What happens to the potential qualler who cannot sew, perform, cook, write, etc. to save their life but are quite proficient in several categories within one or two of the proposed blocks?
The current system allows a prospective qualler with a narrower skill set to select the categories which they excel but the proposed system runs the risk of hosing people who are not quite in the jack of all trades spectrum.Yes, hate me, hate me with all your being and let the hate flow through you!
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Kota
User
Posts: 195
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/02 06:44Actually it doesn't, if you look each cattagory has a broad spectrum with in itself, you just have to figure out which cat your item belongs in as well as ask the tounrament autocrat for help.Kota Bloodmoore
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Casca
User
Posts: 328
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/02 13:50When this idea first came up, I tried to figure out where everything fit. All categories currently in the corpora, with the exception of rose, are represented here. Rose has not gone either, just been fitted in somewhere else that's not the categories section. Additionally, I was able to think up a large number of items that were never allowable under current 23 category system, such as: dance, musical composition, digital art, photography, and non-Amtgard-legal weapons. You can now get 3 quals from food, you can now get 3 quals from weapon/shield construction, you can now get 3 quals from other construction, etc. as well. This actually makes it easier to qual as an entrant can focus on their strengths and be less well rounded than they are required to be under the current system, which only allows for 1 qualifiable entry per category. Meaning 9 different categories must be entered if they are running for Imperial office.
So, let's say you are good at weaponmaking and not much else. Whereas now you would make your single sword entry into weapon construction and your wad is blown, with this change, you could do a sword, a polearm, and a flail. This definitely allows an entrant to focus on their strengths.Casca Eruoy
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Medryn
User
Posts: 241
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/04 06:47An entrant can alternately receive one qualification by providing a good and valuable service to the club as determined by a majority of the tournament judges.
This is a clusterfuck. If you want to get rid of rose as a category, just get rid of it.
How long does good and valuable service remain available for use in crown quals?
It's not an entry, so can the same service be reused?
What kind of documentation is required? "Hey guys I picked up trash for the last 3 weeks, and let me tell you, y'all are messy bastards."
I've got like 13 Roses, so we know I've done at least 13 distinct acts of good and valuable service in my career, shouldn't each of those count?
This is far too subjective and open to abuse. It raises more questions than it answers.
I'm not opposed to the rest of the changes really, but I dislike that it moves us out of line with the majority of other Kingdoms. The service bit is just silly.
ETA: This also may have unintended consequences for Dragonmaster. It will at a minimum require a complete reworking of how Dragonmaster is run. While the Corpora does not define how DM is to be run, it has been run using the same basic methodology for the past 12 or so reigns. This concentration of categories will require a complete reworking of the scoring methods. As far a Dragonmaster is concerned it also has the unfortunate side effect of forcing competition between items that are traditionally judged on different standards.
While this reduces shotgunning, it will actually decrease competition in certain areas. For quals purposes I can see it making sense, since the focus is less on hardcore competition, but from a competitors stand point the combining of categories actually limits your choices of what to enter and will change the focus. There is a reason court garb, field garb and garb accessory are separate categories, as there is a reason that passive construction and armor are separate. These things are judged on different standards, and comparison and ranking across these categories is limited. You will see fewer accessories and field garb entries in garb, and fewer passive construction entries in construction because they are less likely to win against the other sub categories.
At a minimum there needs to be acknowledgment and discussion as to the ramifications of this change for competitions outside of quals.
Post edited by: Medryn, at: 2011/03/04 07:05
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Casca
User
Posts: 328
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/04 15:24Personally, I was in favor of just getting rid of the Rose category altogether, but was in the minority of the people who worked on this proposal in that regard. Instead compromised was reached that removed Rose from cultural considerations. Your questions posed, with the exception of one (that being "It's not an entry, so can the same service be reused?" which I think was just an oversight and can easily be fixed in the future if this proposal passes.), are all ones that could be asked of rose under the current system. So a suggestive pass/fail would become in place of a suggestive number picked between one and five. That is a judge training issue. No competitive system can turn a bad judge into a good one or vice versa. It is a matter that is fixed by ensuring that judges are educated and experienced. The current system does not impose documentation or time period requirements, so no change here. I've always felt the service bit was silly (which is why I've made a point of never utilizing that category whenever I've entered a tourney) so I'm certainly not going to disagree on that account, but it is a problem that has always been a problem.
I had a math bit for you, but the forum logged me out and now I'm having to rewrite and don't have time before work to put the math back together for you. Needless to say, I will post it when I get time. It was giving actual scores from actual tourneys in a compare and contrast format using a straight average scoring system and the b.t.a. scoring system. I happened to have a number of statistical analyses of Amt tourneys lying about for an unrelated project and will put them together so you can see for yourself the effect.
"These things are judged on different standards, and comparison and ranking across these categories is limited."
I wholeheartedly disagree. We already face this issue regularly under the current system and see no issues with it when judging. For instance, a while back, I came across three entries in 3d art. One was a woodcarving in that flattened perspective medieval-style of art, the second was a clay sculpture in a high art classic Renaissance style, and the third was a kitschy crocheted toy figure. The techniques used in these three art-forms are entirely different, the challenges faced are utterly different, and even the artistic styles are unable to be objectively directly contrasted, and yet they are currently together in a category without issue.
And on the flip side of that, garbs of various types have far more in common than these art-forms did and yet we separate them out. I pose that court, field, and monster garb categories exist not because of the reasoning you gave, but because of the same reasoning we have in this Althing and in the last Althing a proposal to divvy up the cooking category. That being, to make crown quals easier for those with certain skill-sets and the same goes for Dragonmaster. I also do not see the differences you point out between passive and armor. For instance, the techniques I use in making a leather mug (measuring, shaping, hardening, sewing, rivet setting, edge beveling, coloring, etc.) are the same as the techniques I use in making a piece of leather armor. The only thing that has changed is what the container holds. Also, it's been a few years, but the techniques I used to dish a steel spaulder are the same as what I used to dish a salad bowl. The techniques my mom taught me for making bookshelves and chairs have served me in the past at making a trebuche.
Also, I don't know what you are basing your assumption on that people are going to decrease production of accessory items in favor of garb item on. I certainly am not. Accessory is obviously currently my bread-and-butter, go-to category, and even given direct competition between my items of this ilk and others' (or even my own) garb entries, I know I still have great odds of beating the pants off of many garb entries out there. These are all issues that aren't problems with any given system, but with the judging itself. Judges shouldn't be judging entries against one another within a tourney to establish their scores anyways. They should be establishing their scores based off how far the given entry deviates from average when average for an entry is defined as what the average Amtgarder, game-wide, can accomplish given an average input of effort. As I said earlier, this is only corrected through education and experience in a judge.
Post edited by: Casca, at: 2011/03/04 15:26Casca Eruoy
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Korderellin
Admin
Posts: 546
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/04 15:35Medryn wrote: This is a clusterfuck. If you want to get rid of rose as a category, just get rid of it.
How long does good and valuable service remain available for use in crown quals? There is currently no time limit imposed by the corpora for a current rose entry, and it hasn't been deemed enough of a problem in the past to take care of it, so I don't think this is as big an issue as you are making it out to be. If this is still a major concern, we can add further clarification language such as "service must have been performed for the Empire within the past six months" on the next altering.
It's not an entry, so can the same service be reused?
Good question. It was not intended to allow multiple uses of the same entry. Luckily, we have another altering before we have more than one Crown Quals, so we can fix this relatively minor item before it becomes an issue. What kind of documentation is required? "Hey guys I picked up trash for the last 3 weeks, and let me tell you, y'all are messy bastards."
The same kind of documention that is required now, i.e., whatever is necessary to convince the judges that the service was good and valuable. I've got like 13 Roses, so we know I've done at least 13 distinct acts of good and valuable service in my career, shouldn't each of those count? would you have been able to use those acts of service in crown quals previously? This is far too subjective and open to abuse. It raises more questions than it answers. No more so than it is now. Like I said, if this one is an issue, we can correct it with another proposal. But I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here, since the change isn't straying significantly from what we currently already do. I'm not opposed to the rest of the changes really, but I dislike that it moves us out of line with the majority of other Kingdoms. The service bit is just silly.
This is a take-off of an idea that was put forward for the Olympiad standardization project. While the project was never actually completed, it has been reviewed and received positive responses from a number of the premier artisans of the game. I think much of the rest of the game is interested in whether or not this proposal will work. We've already gotten inquiries from a number of kingdoms about this proposal, so if it works out the way we anticipate, I expect we may see a number of kingdoms following suit. ETA: This also may have unintended consequences for Dragonmaster. It will at a minimum require a complete reworking of how Dragonmaster is run. While the Corpora does not define how DM is to be run, it has been run using the same basic methodology for the past 12 or so reigns. This concentration of categories will require a complete reworking of the scoring methods. As far a Dragonmaster is concerned it also has the unfortunate side effect of forcing competition between items that are traditionally judged on different standards. I can see it requiring a reworking of the extra placement points, perhaps. But again, I think you're overstating the case on the amount of work that will be required to adjust how the tournament is run. While yes, it does force competition between items that are not traditionally matched against one another, the categories were selected to try and give the most similar item types comparable competition items. Yes, court garb and field garb are different, but judges should still be able to rate something based on how it fits it's own particular niche, not necessarily how it compares directly to another item. For instance, a piece of garb for use on the field should be rated more heavily on durability, while court garb more heavily on appearance. You seem to be assuming that all items within a category would be rated the same; we already have subjectivity in the rating of different items within the categories we have. While this may require a higher degree of judging competence, I don't think the consolidation of categories automatically means that items within a category have to be compared side-by-side. The experience of the Best of the Best tournament indicates that it is possible to judge items based on themselves, not how they compare to other items in that they are being paired against.
While this reduces shotgunning, it will actually decrease competition in certain areas. For quals purposes I can see it making sense, since the focus is less on hardcore competition, but from a competitors stand point the combining of categories actually limits your choices of what to enter and will change the focus. There is a reason court garb, field garb and garb accessory are separate categories, as there is a reason that passive construction and armor are separate. These things are judged on different standards, and comparison and ranking across these categories is limited. You will see fewer accessories and field garb entries in garb, and fewer passive construction entries in construction because they are less likely to win against the other sub categories.
This is conjecture on your part that this is the way things are going to go down. I disagree that it will decrease competition in certain areas; frankly, if there is only one item in that category, that doesn't constitute competition at all. If someone is looking to game the system, I can see how this would be a discouragement. But frankly, that's kind of the point, so I don't really have a problem with it. Again, items should be judged according to how well they implement their function, not how they compare to one another. The comparative aspect comes in when comparing scores together, which means that ultimately, items ARE compared to one another across categories in our current system. Otherwise the concept of Best in Show is utterly useless. The score should be an indication of how well a particular item fulfills it's intended purpose, not how well it compares to other items in it's category. Overall, I think this proposal will likely increase competition, as it also opens the categories significantly rather than keeping them with their current narrow definition.
While some of the concerns you raise are valid, I think they can be handled with a little bit more clean-up in future althings. The remainder of the doom and gloom prophecy seems heavily overstated in my estimation.Kord
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Medryn
User
Posts: 241
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/04 17:33Your comparison of service to the rose category fails for a host of reasons. Primarily because things like picking up trash, running a tournament, or bringing water to the park, all of which could easily be considered good and valuable service are not things that can currently be entered. I have always thought the Rose category was poorly defined and included for precisely the reason you guys say it was, to make quailing easier. Incidentally thy appears to be the same reason you have included the service component.
Almost nothing I have received a service for could be entered under the current rose category. And the current category at least has some standards, discarding all standards and limitations beside "good" and "valuable" is a step in the wrong direction.
As for the Dragonmaster issues, dismissing the problems as "judging issues" is fine and dandy, but the proposed system increases subjectivity, which compounds poor judging. The criteria you list as the differences between field and court garb are your opinion, and under the proposed system no guidance is offered to judges as to what criteria an item should be judged on. In fact under your proposed system a judge has to not only apply subjective standards (the usual "judging issue" you refer to) but now the judge has to subjectively decide what standards should apply. Should that piece you are judging be judged under court garb standards? Or field garb standards?
These are issues that compound judging problems, not alleviate them. Further, while Casca's comment that the skills needed for various categories are applicable to other categories is true from an artisans perspective, the same is not said for the standards on how you judge an item. Yes, the execution uses the same skill, but in judging an item execution must be weighed and balanced against form and function. A perfectly dished bowl which might score fantastically as 3d art or passive construction is likely to be scored very differently if it was intended to be a helm and entered in to an armor category.
This is why juried competitions have detailed categories. Categories that are defined not only by media, but by form and function. That abstract piece may be fantastic, but if you were trying for a landscape you failed.
I'll say it again, increasing the subjectivity of judging will not result in better judges or more consistent results.
If the reasons you guys forward are true (namely that items should be judged only against themselves as to how they relate to other similar items across Amtgard, and judges are qualified to not only evaluate the item, but to determine by what standard an item should be judged) to what end do we have categories at all? Why not reduce it to 3 categories, Dragon, Owl, and Garber? Why not ditch the categories all together. Quals requires 9 items, period. (which also brings up the question of under your new system who decides if two items are duplicative for quals purposes?)
I understand what you're trying to do from a quals perspective, and can even sort of agree with it, but from a competition perspective removing subjective standards is a bad idea. Don't get me wrong, our current standards suck, but I'd argue our categories need better standards and better deliniation, not poorer. Better delineation would actually solve the shotgunning problem as well. If you can't enter the same type of item, created with the same techniques and skills as garb accessory and as jewelry, or as 2d art and needlework you actually encourage breadth of talent.
If you want to mess with quals that's fine, but if you're looking to improve A&S competitions take a look at how real world competitions work. You'll find more standards and more categories, not fewer.
Eta: and Kord, you know better. "we can fix it later" is a horrible way to support a proposal. In fact you've argued against proposals in this current Althing for similar reasons. They sky isn't falling, take the time to get the proposal right.
Post edited by: Medryn, at: 2011/03/04 17:37
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Garik
User
Posts: 21
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/04 17:45To offer a different perspective...
Historically, the purpose of crown qualifications was to give the candidates a chance to demonstrate their commitment to their group. The competition side of it was secondary. The category of the Rose was put forward as a way for candidates to do that in a way outside of the realm of A&S. It may now be an anacronism, but it did have a purpose beyond simply making it easier to qualify.
Garik
Edited to correct a minor typo.
Post edited by: Garik, at: 2011/03/04 17:46
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Medryn
User
Posts: 241
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/04 21:32Along the lines that Garik mentioned, the CK and WL used to have a required quals category called Statescraft. It included event, battlegame, quest, or activity write ups. Not how to do x, but a plan or detailed description of of the event or activity, much like a bid packet. It was one of the few categories that I felt belonged in quals, as it very much related to a candidates ability to plan and execute the things which their office required. That was way cooler than the nebulous Rose category that could be anything from a game write up to loaner swords.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Home 
