AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

You have an Edit button. Fix it!

I'm fine with the rules as is.

My level 10 has just under a million gold due to an auction of old thayvian items. Someone really wanted that soul stone. At the time I told Tormak of this, and that I my low level character would be coming into that gold, and I had no issues hence forth.

I think one of the issues is complete ignorance at knowing if you can tell a DM your doing this, and get the okay. My case is a bit different then gifting, but still of note as an example.

Yarp. I also cleared with DMs when I as Reinard bought a Book of Transmutation from a lowbie for 150k. We'd just removed the CRs so I had no clue he was only level 5 who'd just nicked it from Tristana for like 5 GP. Explained to the rest of the them and told them about the dude, and everything was hunky dory.

There is a difference between being a revolutionist in the classic sense of the word and breaking rules in a computer game community that only works because there are rules that we all follow. In the classic sense of the word, overthrowing rules means giving the killing blow to the old community and creating a new one. I don't fancy being called conservative or pro-rules in a roundabout manner when it has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Here's a very simple reason for the No Muling rule.

Who wants to see Earylduil possessing -all- of the things I've earned/acquired on my other PCs?

That means Airais Alanein's 100mil Gold Hoard + Epic Loot Supply including 6x Flawless Mythas + 4x Perfect Mythals + 2x Divine Mythals, Purity/Filth Blades, Wonderforged Weapons, old True Strike daggers, Stormwalker Kukri, etc...
Telia Amoline's old Deepwood Sniper Longbow (A +6 Longbow that was removed from the server years ago, but not inventory wiped)
Decandiel Ceranai's Epic Loot

All on characters that have an extremely easy time acquiring such things, other than Eary.

The other context it's used is unsupervised Self Rebuilds

Who wants to see Eary turn into a Paladin/Rogue/Sorcerer powerbuild overnight, with complete gear?

Thus - DMs have to supervise.

Isn’t the bottom like that Amia is a RP server? Keep the OOC and IC things separated, mulling is completely OOC and has no place in a RP server, I think all agree on that one. Twinking however is not as cut and dry, it can be IC or OOC. From what I have read here the DMs are concerned with the OOC side of twinking not the IC side, as they have stated many times just in this thread just contact a DM about the RP and gifts to enhance that RP. Why is such a issue that separates IC actions from OOC ones so heated?

On the same note however, if a DM catches someone twinking then they should look at it for its intent. Players can not and should not pause their RP just because a DM is not around to monitor it. If the DMs found evidence of twinking then they should politely ask the ones involved how they came to own such a item, the player should be able to generalize the IC events leading to get it and I am sure the DM would then take it into account. If it is still a item the DMs do not feel that character should have then remove the said item, not strip all items if the intent was for RP and had IC reasons. If the player comes up with a obvious OOC reason that leaves no doubt then hey, their own fault.

DMs can and should go by the spirit of the rules rather then cling to the letter of them.

We do, but in the end the reason tends to come down to "Sorry, I just wanted to get past low levels faster" or "It's my girlfriend OOCly."

We do ask.

I am against levying separate punishments because the rule is simple and easy to understand for anyone. There's no catches, there's no stipulations. Don't do X or we punish you by Y.

TormakSaber wrote:

ITT: I remind the DMs that the 20k gift limit was abolished and is even in the changed rules and has been that way for quite some time, and was in fact one of the very first rules I wrote up when Disco said "Here's this fancy webtool application for the rules, go write some.". I'll also remind you that you all agreed with me, and a bunch of you plain didn't comment. No giving items more than 2 levels over the character's current level. This provides a sliding scale of useage (unlike the 20k cap) and naturally caps out when characters hit low epic since our highest item use levels are 20-22.

I didn't even know that ... thanks Tormak.

TormakSaber wrote:

Yarp. I also cleared with DMs when I as Reinard bought a Book of Transmutation from a lowbie for 150k. We'd just removed the CRs so I had no clue he was only level 5 who'd just nicked it from Tristana for like 5 GP. Explained to the rest of the them and told them about the dude, and everything was hunky dory.

Do we need permission for things like that? I've had lowbie characters buy greater mythals and sell them for 40k before (so ten thousand times their value) ... was I at risk of getting the other person in trouble?

I think the factthat I as a DM went and cleared it with other DMs is the answer to the question, no?

What can't we sell as lowbies, then, without DM permission? Mythals, blank scrolls, bone wands, BoTs, BoT pages?

No, the point is that I gave 150k in purchase to a lowbie. That's what needed clearing. If you're level 4 and selling Greater Mythals for 40k then yes you should probably do the same.

Okay, I just thought we were allowed to sell them at reasonable market prices ... I'll be sure to ask a DM first. Thanks Tormak.

Edit:A thought on the same matter occurred to me ... does that mean it's okay t sell a Greater Mythal to a Lowbie for 4 gold, since that's what the shop sells them for? Or to sell it to a shop and have a lowbie buy it?

ticket wrote:

Partial stripping? Or something like a proportional punishment.

Full strip of a years-old character does seem rather harsh when he only gave a lowbie friend a ring.

Or one belt.

Nekhy wrote:

The trick is, that you can give items to others, within reason. Just check with a DM and it's fine.

That's all there is to it, really. Takes a few minutes of time, some nice RP and maybe you'll even get a DC for rewarding your younger members with something nice they deserved.

It's a bit of a strawman to say "I can't give gifts because of this rule", but also quite incorrect. Because you can.

A year ago, there was absolutely no mentioning of this keen little alternative for avoiding the twinking rule. No mentioning at all.

And, in fact, the posts you've made here Nekhy, are the first ones I get to see at all that even mention it.

If you're going to do something that may be questionable, asking a DM seems the common sense thing to do. "Hey, I know the rules say this but..."

MoshingChris wrote:

The General Draw of epic gifting is that its an easy way to Power-Faction.

I'll use you and Darth as an example.

With your epically huge amounts of epic (yes i know you guys did the work to get them) without the twinking rule, you may aswell change Amia Islands name to Amia: Banites. Your draw isn't your RP, its your items, which makes little sense on an RP server.

They still get huge amounts of help with their equipment (not epic equipment though, in general)... but they have to wait until they reach level 25.

Then... BAM!

Which is also why the twinking rule is poorly implemented and written.

EDIT:

I should probably mention that I'm not against having a twinking/muling rule. I'm rather supporting having such rules in place.

But I believe that the way Amia has implemented it, hastely, after it was discovered that more or less the -entire- server was twinking/muling a few years back, is just poor not thought out in the very least. Not to mention that the rule itself is so vague on such a complex issue it can be quite hard to know when you've actually stepped over the line.

For example, I've bought tons of blank scrolls, epic items, reality potions etc with Darth from characters whom I haven't got the slightest clue of what level they are.

But to me, that seems like a no-brainer. I actually purchase an item from them, and they are payed accordingly (50k for a greater mythal, for example - aka, market prices).

According to Torin (in this thread), that's something that needs to be checked with the DMs.

And according to Nekhy, that's something which would be perfectly OK if you just get a DM to supervise. Which works excellent... with 0 DMs currently online on Amia.

I might be heavily subjective when discussing this those, for reasons Tormak has likely already speculated in.

But from past knowledge and experiences, I think I'm likely more entitled than anyone else to point out the rather disturbing and uncertain flaws of the current twinking/muling rules.

Wyjyn: Loving all of you (and above all Disco) since 11 Jan 2007.

In my experience, DM responses to any requests fall roughly between minor irritation and outright hostility. I mean requests like "Can I please change my deity? I mispelt it and am now past 10."

To hell with asking them to check over minor trades! My view is far simpler, if my character would do it he does it.

EDIT: Also, I have given away epic gear and sold epic gear for prices below 1000 gold because my character would have. I don't know what level the people that got them were.

Well, then don't blame us if you break a rule and we have to mete out a punishment as a result. You consciously chose not to involve us in a process that could have prevented it, and seem to disregard the rule entirely on top of it.

Wyjyn: Loving all of you (and above all Disco) since 11 Jan 2007.

TormakSaber wrote:

Well, then don't blame us if you break a rule and we have to mete out a punishment as a result. You consciously chose not to involve us in a process that could have prevented it, and seem to disregard the rule entirely on top of it.

I will tell you precisely how the conversation will go with the person I sell/give the item to:

DM: We are stripping you of gear for twinking.
Player: WHAT!?
DM: You have unfairly been given good gear.
Player: My character bought it though and I worked for it in character.
DM: Even so, you shouldnt get other people to give you gear.
Player: I DONT EVEN KNOW THE GUY!
*Gear gets stripped*
Player: (*%#$#( you, im leaving.

Seriously, I don't even know where this rule starts and begins truly. I dont know the gold value of all my items, and I care even less. Also, why should I ask for OOC class information when selling/giving gear to people? I actively avoid that information so that baddies/lowbies could potentially trick my character. A lowbie could go around pretending to be a great hero and potentially trick my char, but if I ask "what level are you?" that would ruin it. So yeah, I will follow the spirit of the rule but I am not following the letter. No way.

I'm sorry, that is not how the conversation would go.

If you choose to purposefully follow your own interpretation of the rule, one that isn't the interpretation of the rule as set forth by the DM team, then you open yourself to punishment should the interpretations clash and it is found the DM team ruling is the correct one.

Quote:

I dont know the gold value of all my items, and I care even less.

Every time you go to a shop, you see item gold value.

TormakSaber wrote:

Every time you go to a shop, you see item gold value.

You don't see it for mythals, BoT pages, boss items (FGK belt, Maxi's Bone wand, etc)... and some epic boss loot doesn't reflect their shop value.

Fair enough. Except for mythals and BoT pages, this is where item level restriction comes in. If the character cannot equip it, you ask what level they are and what the item is.

If you're feeling bold on the boss items, you could recreate them in the toolset, or, ask a DM and we can tell you the exact base GP value as well as the required level to use the item as a guideline for selling/gifting/whatever term you'd like to use, to other characters.

Everything in the epic lootbin I conside rfairly obvious, but yes, there's things like say the Ioun Stones that don't immediately reflect their value. I'd consider an "Amian Ioun Stone", that is, what you'd find in the +5 bin, a "level 22 item" meaning a level 20 would be the lowest to have it.

That's another problem.

What item value should players refer to? The value in the shops (60% of base value + merchants discount) or the value in the toolset?

The shop values are not the same as market values, if you want to truly make Amia a player run marketplace then market values should over ride shop ones. Again it is the intent that matters most, not the letter of the rules.

We can not tell other players levels for a reason, a good reason at that and its been made that way on purpose, to say your twinking based off of levels then that is not the players fault but the servers. To have to constantly ask what level are you ruins the ambiance on the RP and in itself is detrimental to said RP.

Godo acquired, through a quest in case you are wondering, a perfect Mythal. I am not sure what its market value or shop value for that matter is so Godo asked around what its value is. Characters told Godo it is worth 1.5 mil on the market depending who needs one. My character set out to try and get 2 mil for it, he’s greedy, and found a buyer then bartered with him for 1.8 mil instead. There is no intent whatsoever at twinking, instead its IC RP based on knowledge gained IC. Will Godo be punished for Twinking when he actually finishes the deal in selling this Mythal? If so I can not understand why because the spirit of the rule is being followed and the intent is far from twinking.

I do hope you DMs can recognize the difference and not become so ridged in the rules that it becomes black and white, that would be a sure way to chase away the good RPers.

As I've said three times in the topic now, we speak with players and determine intent and context. Many, many times it is simply black and white and the player admits that they broke the rules because of wanting to level faster, or OOCly help a friend, or etc.

Mr Mago wrote:

That's another problem.

What item value should players refer to? The value in the shops (60% of base value + merchants discount) or the value in the toolset?

I use Hil'rash or N'bril as my own measuring sticks ... to be safe I've recorded down the items at what Hil'rash / N'bril is wiling to buy them for +10%, s that I'm not in danger of selling them too cheaply, but mythals etc. are always a problem.

The thing is... when you have a rule with a penalty that can result in tens of millions of gold and several years of accumulated and gathered epic artifacts, equipment and plot items being removed - without any form of leniency depending on the circumstances, there can not be the slightest doubt as to how the rule is applied and under what exact terms the rule would be broken.

Amia's twinking / muling rule fails miserably at that.

On top of that, the penalty is just... extreme.

That penalty is worse than a time-based ban.

Regarding twinking and muling, there is one question that has always lingered with me.

How is it that I, having no experience with persistent worlds and very little with rules-based online roleplaying, can come to a server (Amia), never actually read its rules (I never have, tbh), and yet never have a question about what is right to give and what is wrong to give and do it without penalty?

If I can navigate those waters alone and without a map, I should think that everyone can. I'm not any better than anyone else.

Quote:

Amia's twinking / muling rule fails miserably at that.

Nope. Muling: Don't pass items between your alts.

Twinking: Don't give items to PCs beyond the legal limit as stated in the rule itself.

Quite clear.

I might add that Darthion was regeared within 48 hours of your coming back ffom your self imposed exile so I don't think it was that much of a punishment for you at all... considering if you hadn't left for some months, I imagine it would have gone very different if you'd have just been regeared in 48 hours.

There's in general a standardized ruling against twinking / muling on most servers.

But most servers also apply it within reason and common sense.

Giving a newly arrived player, who's an OOC friend of yours tens or hundreds of items, a fair amount of gold etc, to help him get started, is an obvious violation in regards of twinking / muling.

However. Giving items as rewards or trading / merchandising between characters of various levels is a common thing, and in reality, the basics of a player economy.

Due to Amia's incorporated twinking / muling rule, it can become difficult to uphold common and normal trading between characters whilst at the same time making sure not to break the rule.

I know of characters who RP a lot, stay at low levels for a long time, yet receive great wealth and rewards from other PCs due to their RP and merchantism. Those characters would pretty much have to have constant DM supervision, in order to make sure that they're not breaking the twinking / muling rule. If they've had no DM supervision at all, and a DM would stop by and see all of those items and equipments, and high quantities of gold, that character would immediately be suject of being penalized due to how the rule has been written, incorporated and enforced.

I made a huge effort to try and abide by the twinking / muling rule, and I still got caught.

How? By rewarding a faction member an exceedingly common and low valued item for their RP and IC achivements.

Again. It's a poorly implemented rule, in all aspects.

A nessecary rule, that would need to be revised.

Quote:

If they've had no DM supervision at all, and a DM would stop by and see all of those items and equipments, and high quantities of gold, that character would immediately be suject of being penalized due to how the rule has been written, incorporated and enforced.

Ur... but... we talk to the people... we've explicitly made agreements with low level merchant characters and even set some of them up with bags of holding so they could carry their merchandise without being STR hounds. Specially descripted and OOCly tagged, single purpose boxes, mind you.

You guys act like we march in and go "no way you suck *strip*" and we don't.

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

Amia's twinking / muling rule fails miserably at that.

Nope. Muling: Don't pass items between your alts.

Twinking: Don't give items to PCs beyond the legal limit as stated in the rule itself.

Quite clear.

I might add that Darthion was regeared within 48 hours of your coming back ffom your self imposed exile so I don't think it was that much of a punishment for you at all... considering if you hadn't left for some months, I imagine it would have gone very different if you'd have just been regeared in 48 hours.

The punishment for Darthion wasn't related to the ability of becoming regeared.

I was immediately offered new epic fatz by friends of Darthion once it became known of what had happened.

The punishment was in the large quantity of plot items and no longer attainable equipment which was lost.

Along with the 32 or so million gp.

All in all, 3 years of dedicated playing with a character and its materialistic achievements down the drain.

But the greatest penalty of all, was the punishment for having unintentionally and without being aware of it broken a rule that has so many uncertainties about it that it makes me vomit.

In regards of the uncertainties and poor implementation of the rule, I refer to the other recent posts I made.

TormakSaber wrote:

You guys act like we march in and go "no way you suck *strip*" and we don't.

Perhaps you're not doing that any longer, but that's how I've come to learnt that it's been done before, both from my own experience and others.

Mr Mago wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

You guys act like we march in and go "no way you suck *strip*" and we don't.

Perhaps you're not doing that any longer, but that's how I've come to learnt that it's been done before, both from my own experience and others.

I am the one who stripped you. I seem to recall regretting having to do so, and even going to the length of carrying your goods around on my DM Avatar for three or four months in the hopes there would be an appeal because although it was a clear cut case to me, I still didn't like the punishment. For purely selfish reasons: I imagined how crappy it would make me feel, and I'm just as much of a packrat as you.

Regardless, there's a lot of valid discussion on the topic of this rule, so what I would like to see is an alternative suggestion for handling twinking and muling.

One caveat: zero opportunity for a player's "explanation of events" to a DM. In other words, when coming up with an alternative suggestion for a rule to handle muling and twinking, operate under the assumption that every player is a liar and will falsely report details to get out of trouble.

It's a rule that is, unfortunately, generally best implemented and enforced under the terms of "common sense", due to players often lacking ability to scrutinize the rules (which Yoss kind of confirmed, stating that he never actually really read the rules).

But since Amia has chosen to make the rule more precise and more or less written in stone (including its penalty), the only option is to make the rule even more precise and even out the injustice which the penalty can become in relation to the rulebreaking.

Basically, I would suggest adding steps to it.

Aka, you're not allowed to give gifts worth more than 20k to characters below level 10. You're not allowed to give gifts worth more than 40k to characters between level 11-20, and you're not allowed to give gifts worth more than 100k to characters between level 11-25.

Also adjust the penalty, and make it relate to how sincere the rulebreaking is.

Was it intentional? Was 50 items given to a total value of 4 million or was just one item given which exceed the value limit with 5k?

For what reason was the item given? RP reward, bought, or just plain OOCly traded?

Have more than one appliceable penalty. Just not "You broke the rule, irrelevant of how it was broken, and there's one penalty: -All- items and gold on both characters will be taken."

Aka, have a penalty which removes x% of the characters gold. Or if there's been a huge number of items twinked between characters, remove all of the items + x% of the characters' gold.

More or less increase or decrease the extent of the penalty relative to the sincerity of the rule breaking.

Rather than having one absolute penalty that's black and white, and rather overwhelming in relation to some cases.

Last edited by TormakSaber on Fri, Oct 16 2009, 3:41 AM, edited 1 time in total.

ITT People don't read my first post that says:

Quote:

ITT: I remind the DMs that the 20k gift limit was abolished and is even in the changed rules and has been that way for quite some time, and was in fact one of the very first rules I wrote up when Disco said "Here's this fancy webtool application for the rules, go write some.". I'll also remind you that you all agreed with me, and a bunch of you plain didn't comment. No giving items more than 2 levels over the character's current level. This provides a sliding scale of useage (unlike the 20k cap) and naturally caps out when characters hit low epic since our highest item use levels are 20-22.

Quote:

Rather than having one absolute penalty that's black and white, and rather overwhelming in relation to some cases.

A sliding scale encourages players to plead for leniency on the scale to a lighter punishment. I don't believe there should be any: The rule is clear, you broke it and now this happens.

I'll talk to you, I always will, but if you broke the rule, you deserve getting the hammer on you in the same way the other 3 dozen people do. No special treatment for good or ill.

Mr Mago wrote:

Was it intentional? Was 50 items given to a total value of 4 million or was just one item given which exceed the value limit with 5k?

To know, we would have to ask. And then, would be lied to. Violates caveat.

Quote:

For what reason was the item given? RP reward, bought, or just plain OOCly traded?

Ditto.

Yossarin wrote:

Mr Mago wrote:

Was it intentional? Was 50 items given to a total value of 4 million or was just one item given which exceed the value limit with 5k?

To know, we would have to ask. And then, would be lied to. Violates caveat.

You have tools to determine who gave what item to whom.

You don't have to ask that. You can't be lied to in that regard.

Yes we can. We have the tools, but the players will lie anyways. And lie again. Then you conront them with everything and they lie again, then you just tell them to drop the bullshit and spit some truth or it's going to get hairy. Then sometimes they fess up.

Other times we strip them, knowing they lied the entire time, but they simply won't admit it.

EDIT: Not every player does this. Not by a long shot. It's a minority. But it happens.

TormakSaber wrote:

ITT People don't read my first post that says:

Quote:

ITT: I remind the DMs that the 20k gift limit was abolished and is even in the changed rules and has been that way for quite some time, and was in fact one of the very first rules I wrote up when Disco said "Here's this fancy webtool application for the rules, go write some.". I'll also remind you that you all agreed with me, and a bunch of you plain didn't comment. No giving items more than 2 levels over the character's current level. This provides a sliding scale of useage (unlike the 20k cap) and naturally caps out when characters hit low epic since our highest item use levels are 20-22.

You still need to know what the level of the intended receiver, and the level restriction on the intended item to be given.

As a higher level character, you'll need to ask the receiver if the item is out of range.

Also, the rule kind of works like this:

You're guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.

You're suppose to take screenshots should there be uncertainties if it's appropriate to give the item or not. If you don't take screenshots, a DM might discover the item 5 months later, and since you didn't have the screenshot, you have nothing to prove that the item was payed for or whatever.

It's a shitty system.

For that reason, I'm personally employing the principle of "You're below level 25? Sorry, you don't get shit from me. Doesn't matter if you've slayed 3 epic paladins with your level 12 aspiring Banite character, you're still not getting anything."

That's the principle we employ within the Banite faction these days, or at least, I try to encourage.

Don't give -anything- to each other before you're level 25. Just to avoid being punished for a potential unintentional rule breaking.

Xaviera wrote:

Did I see somewhere that playing members of the same family was discouraged?

Below, it is taken from my personal experience.

I was told such many times before but I think that the issue is not only with twinking and muling, but also the risk of metagaming information assuming they would be shared by both PCs played by you, whether or not the metagaming was intentional.

As long as you know where to draw the line about what one character genuinely knows by his/her own effort (AKA, make sure informations known were brought by PCs played by other players and not your Alt PCs), I think there is no issue.

Mr Mago wrote:

A year ago, there was absolutely no mentioning of this keen little alternative for avoiding the twinking rule. No mentioning at all.

And, in fact, the posts you've made here Nekhy, are the first ones I get to see at all that even mention it.

It's been always in the revised rules and I've been mentioning it many times on the forums in several, varying contexts. It's been crystal clear to all those people I've helped, and to all those people other DMs have helped. I'm sorry that you haven't noticed.

Twinking is a touchy subject for two reasons:
1. Being something enforced by gift one makes gift giving dangerous...especially for newer players.
2. Most of my characters BUY loyalty.

Since you have a way of tracking trade offs, maybe you should apply that rule to SECOND gifts(at that point IT IS twinking), because Quar'agh has given powerful gifts to complete strangers(ooc and ic), to curry favor, since he is NOT a powerbuild and depends upon others.

So you keep for every item a history of its former possessors?

Then I would implement the following:

MULING COUNTER:
Each time a character obtains an item that was in the possession of another character of the same player account, said item is deleted and a message is displayed: "Sorry, you may not possess any item, that belonged to another PC of yours before."

I think the game already has a decent counter for twinking. You can not equip items that are above your lvl range. People say, powerful items give you an unfair advantage but I can't follow that arguement because a lvl 3 just can not use a wonderforged scimitar.

But then, he could sell said item for a large amount of gold and buy always the best gear for his level. But that is allowed atm, too. The high level just has to sell the epic item himself and then buy the level appropiate gear for the lowbie. Since he can give any items that are not more than two lvl powers higher than the lowbie, he can make sure the lowbie always has the best equipment.

Or did I get the rules wrong?

So, our twinking rules are weird... Perhaps, who knows? Who can give me a version that's better worded (this includes 'short'), doesn't generate more overhead, and has the same result?

The suggestion Clock makes about muling is nice, but impossible. I don't know what characters a player has except for the one currently played, so I can't check for that.

Can't you log PC name and account on the item. Like

Burb(NwnManiac)
Greta(SexyBabe55)
Boris(NwnManiac)
BOOOM item desrtroyed!

You can display it in the Messenger.

I keep the data as compressed as possible. If people only had short names and accounts, fair enough, but they haven't.

ClockworkRed wrote:

Can't you log PC name and account on the item. Like

Burb(NwnManiac)
Greta(SexyBabe55)
Boris(NwnManiac)
BOOOM item desrtroyed!

You can display it in the Messenger.

Lets not forget some people have multiple accounts also.

ClockworkRed wrote:

So you keep for every item a history of its former possessors?

Then I would implement the following:

MULING COUNTER:
Each time a character obtains an item that was in the possession of another character of the same player account, said item is deleted and a message is displayed: "Sorry, you may not possess any item, that belonged to another PC of yours before."

Would be a nice thing, but not possible as Disco said. We can't track every bit of information, people change their names as they rebuild (sometimes even without rebuilds) and they have multiple accounts.

That's why we want folks to ask for a DM when they want to gift others. When a DM does the item transfer, it gets tagged as well, which will tell other DMs it's been legally transferred.

Twink, twank, twunk!

Who is online