SR3R Project Forum

Discussion and debate for the SR3R Project
It is currently Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:34 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:56 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
So, I was thinking that maybe the way to keep agents from taking over the world is to make them more human. I mean, agents/IC/pilots are supposed to be proto-AIs, right, programs that act and think much like human beings?

So, maybe they need to dream, like humans do. But, unlike humans whose wetware programming has gone through a few hundred million years of brutal Darwinian testing, an Agent's AI programming just isn't as stable, and so it needs to be monitored during its dreams by--and this part is important--a very skilled programmer, to prevent it from degrading or going nuts.

Now, an agent/IC/pilot is designed to be more specialized than a human brain, and doesn't take as much input as a human, and doesn't need non-REM sleep, so how about requiring say one four-hour session per week with a programmer with both a programming skill and a Frame Core Knowledge skill equal to or greater than the agent's rating? You think that might be enough to prevent abuse?

Failure to upkeep will likely result in the agent simply crashing. Say, every week the agent/IC/Pilot goes without "sleep" it degrades by one rating point; rating points can be restored by a longer "sleep" cycle. If the Rating goes to zero the agent/IC/Pilot will simply crash, but the accumulation of errors in an SK-sized agent would have a small chance of causing it to go crazy in a good way (eg. hello true AI).

Good idea? Bad idea? Other ideas?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:15 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:50 am
Posts: 827
Location: DeeCee
Wow, full points for ingenuity!

My concern is a decker might say 'well, my character makes enough money doing runs I don't need to work. I sleep 8 hours a day, 52 hours a week, that means I can maintain 28 agents, and just let them all degrade a little during a job.'

Although obviously he'll be buying, not programming all his own stuff. Since I use the main book in my game though, my deckers generally don't suffer much of a time crunch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:35 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
The team mage can also make orichalcum all day too.

A guy maintaining 28 agents all week long won't have time for a day job flaw, a matrix addiction flaw, hobbies, time for skill improvement, time to program utilities, time to eat or go to the bathroom, etc. I think that's a fair trade. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:39 am
Posts: 875
Location: Boston
This would require us to make stats for electric sheep.

~J

_________________
Failure: when your best just isn't good enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:11 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
So, does this sound like something worth bothering with? The three ways I can see dealing with Agent Smith are:

-Agents require dedicated hardware. (DOESN'T WORK--this is how SR4 attempts to deal with Agent Smith, and, although it does help in some ways, it doesn't eliminate the exploit sufficiently well.)
-Frank's abstraction principle (you can't have more than one Agent, period. Basically, Agents make copies of themselves by default in order to do their jobs, which is reflected in their having a rating in the first place. Higher rating Agents == more copies running around.)
-My electronic dreams rule.

Which do you think works best for SR3R?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:49 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:50 am
Posts: 827
Location: DeeCee
It's ultimately a question of price.

Should we charge a set amount of money (require hardware, since each unit is equal price)?
Should we charge a graduating amount of money (each additional agent requires other upgrades, making it more expensive than the last)?
Should we charge time (agents require a time investment)?

Frank's idea seems more in the spirit of Shadowrun so far - one version of the program means one agent, forever. You can run two agents, if you have enough memory allocated and a second copy of the Agent software.

I fear the problem with charging time is deckers will either a) buy agents, not run them at all, then when they need it for a run spend a week getting them all "dreaming" and back up to spec, deploy them, then drop them again when they're done, or b) they just 'rent' agents from a dedicated 'agent rancher, who keeps them maintained and rents them out only when required (then again, given the price of this, it may still work).

We could also figure out another cost, such as saying every agent after the first decreases your detection factor by 1. That means the only people with lots of agents will be those waging all-out war on the host anyway :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:46 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
nezumi wrote:
It's ultimately a question of price.

Should we charge a set amount of money (require hardware, since each unit is equal price)?
Should we charge a graduating amount of money (each additional agent requires other upgrades, making it more expensive than the last)?
Should we charge time (agents require a time investment)?

Frank's idea seems more in the spirit of Shadowrun so far - one version of the program means one agent, forever. You can run two agents, if you have enough memory allocated and a second copy of the Agent software.
Well, that's the problem; for Frank's idea to work, the idea of "two Agents" just doesn't work, as in Frank's world Agent is a mass noun. It's like asking if you're breathing one air or two air; the word doesn't make sense without a unit of measurement (a liter of air). Further, since SR3 abstracts away from individual actions in the Matrix, in this case the only measurement that makes sense is Rating; you can't order around specific instances of an Agent any more than you can change the order of the commands the decker uses to make an attack using the Attack program.

There is much to commend this idea, but I don't like it for two reasons:

a) It's intellectually difficult to explain and understand.
b) I... kinda want to have multiple Agents. :)

Quote:
I fear the problem with charging time is deckers will either a) buy agents, not run them at all, then when they need it for a run spend a week getting them all "dreaming" and back up to spec, deploy them, then drop them again when they're done, or b) they just 'rent' agents from a dedicated 'agent rancher, who keeps them maintained and rents them out only when required (then again, given the price of this, it may still work).
A likely won't be a problem simply because the amount of time you'd need to "dream" an agent back from dead (rating 1) to usable (rating 5-6) would be 16-20 hours per Agent, and that's if we don't assign a penalty (like you have to pay off all the accumulated "sleep debt" before rating points are restored). That's a pretty hefty amount of time when gearing up for a run; you'd only be able to get 3-4 back before the week is up and you'll have to set up a dreaming session for you first set of Agents. If you think it's a problem we can say that a rating 1 agent that doesn't dream crashes completely and must be recompiled from source code.

The "agent rancher" bit would be fine; it's basically the same as hiring a backup decker.

Quote:
We could also figure out another cost, such as saying every agent after the first decreases your detection factor by 1. That means the only people with lots of agents will be those waging all-out war on the host anyway :P
One reason I don't like this is that it assumes that the Agent is tied to the decker (and likely his deck). What happens when you want to have independent Agents? Are those just not allowed?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:39 am
Posts: 875
Location: Boston
Eyeless Blond wrote:
Well, that's the problem; for Frank's idea to work, the idea of "two Agents" just doesn't work, as in Frank's world Agent is a mass noun. It's like asking if you're breathing one air or two air; the word doesn't make sense without a unit of measurement (a liter of air).

"A fountain holds water, as does a lake. But we do not look at a fountain and say 'oh look, a water' or at a lake and say, 'Gads, there go seven water.' Certainly we measure water, a cup here, a barrel there, but those measurements are arbitrary standards we place on water.

In this way Ristul is like water."

I'll admit that it has been some time since I gave this problem deep thought, but are we sure this issue actually exists in SR3, at least in a form distinguishable from the general issue of Monkeyright? I was under the impression that it was SR4's dispensing with memory and other such resources that resulted in Agent Smith.

~J

_________________
Failure: when your best just isn't good enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:05 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
In a word, no. According to SR3 you can do the same thing provided you have the Active Memory for it, but seeing as how Active memory can be purchased for cheap--and can be built from OMCs even cheaper if you have even a passable Computer B/R--makes the problem just as real in SR3. Nobody ever bothered doing it because no one played deckers with Agents in SR3, and the ones that did were smart enough RPers to know better than to try something like Smith.

It was the fact that people started actually playing deckers and reading the rules that caused Agent Smith in SR4. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:31 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:50 am
Posts: 827
Location: DeeCee
So then wouldn't the simplest solution be to address the active memory issue? Either increase the cost of upgrading active memory (or more specifically, apply the rule of diminishing returns, as we do for everything else in SR and even for real memory you buy at the store today)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:56 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
nezumi wrote:
So then wouldn't the simplest solution be to address the active memory issue? Either increase the cost of upgrading active memory (or more specifically, apply the rule of diminishing returns, as we do for everything else in SR and even for real memory you buy at the store today)?
Yes, and that may be a good idea anyway. The problem is that it basically makes decking impossible. No matter how cheap or expensive active memory is for a decker, it will be cheap for a corporation, which means that corps will always be able to swamp a host with always-on IC and freeze out all deckers, and Matrix battles would consist of botnets attacking server clusters (as we see IRL, by the way).

Time requirements are different. The truism for SR is that, while stuff is cheap, skilled people are expensive. Thus skillwires, thus consultants, thus shadowrunners. And, with this requirement, thus deckers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:33 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:39 am
Posts: 875
Location: Boston
It should be noted that for that to matter, we'd first need to make hard rules for memory on hosts.

~J

_________________
Failure: when your best just isn't good enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:31 am 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
What we need are comprehensive customization rules for hosts, similar to customization rules for decks. I mean, SR3 gives you cost/availability ratings for frickin' hospitals, but you can't buy yourself a webserver... how dumb is that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:30 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:50 am
Posts: 827
Location: DeeCee
Indeed, even corporations are hesitant to buy the latest and greatest, and run it solely on high-security mode. I assume that, like everything else, corporate purchases of active memory are also cases of diminishing returns, which means prices get very high, very fast, and ultimately the majority of that active memory should be used on actual business anyway, not on security.

In other words, I'm not too worried about corporations abusing a possible hole in the rules :)

It sounds though like the simplest solution to implement (i.e. - with the fewest rules changes and explanations) is just to adjust active memory costs to a reasonable value. Once we have either that, or another solution for agents (such as dreaming), and we've sorted out our other decking things, THEN we should consider making host creation rules.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:46 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
Once we get into numbers this'll make more sense, but let's put it another way: corps spend millions of nuyen annually in IT, which is inevitably going to be dozens if not hundreds or thousands of times more than the resources of any lone shadowrunner. Given that hardware costs, whatever we decide them to be, must scale linearly with the number of Agents you employ, that translates to dozens if not hundreds or thousands of Agents per decker, an impossible situation. Again, this comes down to the simple fact that stuff is cheap, people are expensive; otherwise more shadowrunners would have butlers. :D

On the flip side, I don't want to overburden the decker with monetary requirements, pushing to make skills the primary cost for decking rather than cash. Part of this gets back to my desire to eliminate the million nuyen as a necessary prerequisite for a decker, with the future goal of eliminating the million nuyen chargen option entirely. Agents costing in hardware rather than time pokes that plan right in the eye.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:10 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:50 am
Posts: 827
Location: DeeCee
Eyeless Blond wrote:
Given that hardware costs, whatever we decide them to be, must scale linearly with the number of Agents you employ,


No they don't. Most costs in Shadowrun scale geometrically, or even exponentially, but linearly is pretty uncommon.

The way I see it, imagine you have 1,000 employees. These employees are going to need a few hosts. Each of these hosts will be hosting probably about 1,000 or so applications, more or less, solely for the purpose of maintaining whatever it is your business does precisely. That's the baseline, which will take up the bulk of your $1M IT budget - supporting 10 programs per person. On top of that you have the costs for running the system as blue, green, orange or red, which itself is very expensive, plus the cost of the host security value, which would also increase geometrically. Once that's taken care of, you'll have space for a few spiders or stationary IC. When security concerns go up, you can run more IC and agents, but only by taking actual profit-generating systems offline to free up processing power (or just slow them down, like your system does when you run a virus scan).

Granted, if you're a megacorp where your budget is in the billions, buying a $500k setup for a decker is pretty trivial - but that decker has a lot of space to cover, so if he's running four agents, it doesn't change a lot from our perspective.

Do remember that IC does run just like an agent, so having a given host, which perhaps has ten times the processing power of a deck able to run ten times as many agents seems pretty fair (and keep in mind again, a deck is a very specialized computer - you don't use it to run word processors and accounting software. You use it to crack hosts. A host, meanwhile, is a generalized system, which means even if it has more processing power, its ability to host agents may lower, pound per pound.)

Quote:
Part of this gets back to my desire to eliminate the million nuyen as a necessary prerequisite for a decker, with the future goal of eliminating the million nuyen chargen option entirely. Agents costing in hardware rather than time pokes that plan right in the eye.


I don't think having an agent, muchless two or three, is a requirement for a decker. It is, however, one of the things that separates a successful decker from a VERY successful decker.

I wonder if maybe agents should require karma to get them running properly - it takes hard work to customize them to your environment and needs, work that could otherwise be spent training in new skills.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:13 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
nezumi wrote:
Eyeless Blond wrote:
Given that hardware costs, whatever we decide them to be, must scale linearly with the number of Agents you employ,


No they don't. Most costs in Shadowrun scale geometrically, or even exponentially, but linearly is pretty uncommon.

False. an AK-97 costs $500. Ten AK-97s cost $5,000. A hundred cost $50,000. One MPCP-8 chip capable of running at least one Agent/IC, costs... ~$64,000, IIRC (not including other deck-related costs). Ten--and thus ten Agents/IC--cost ~$640,000. A hundred: $6,400,000. Stuff costs increase linearly; personnel costs (higher skills/abilities) increase quadratically or exponentially.

Leaving aside whether or not it's realistic for a decker to be randomly carrying around a piece of technology that would set him up practically for life if he sold it, it stands to reason that gear a decker can randomly carry around could be far more easily produced en masse by a corporation. That is, unless it required skilled labor to product/maintain it, in which case the situation changes dramatically. Then it suddenly becomes expensive to maintain dozens of Agents, because you need skilled, expensive people to maintain them.

Quote:
Quote:
Part of this gets back to my desire to eliminate the million nuyen as a necessary prerequisite for a decker, with the future goal of eliminating the million nuyen chargen option entirely. Agents costing in hardware rather than time pokes that plan right in the eye.


I don't think having an agent, muchless two or three, is a requirement for a decker. It is, however, one of the things that separates a successful decker from a VERY successful decker.

I wonder if maybe agents should require karma to get them running properly - it takes hard work to customize them to your environment and needs, work that could otherwise be spent training in new skills.
Hm, so you see agents as similar to Ally Spirits? Ehh... not that I disagree, exactly, but what you're basically arguing for here is Frank's plan, essentially allowing decks, hosts, etc. to only run one Agent/IC apiece.

Also I don't happen to think it should be unreasonable for a decker to start play with an Agent, though it may be unreasonable to have a mage start with an ally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:08 am 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:50 am
Posts: 827
Location: DeeCee
Eyeless Blond wrote:
False. an AK-97 costs $500. Ten AK-97s cost $5,000. A hundred cost $50,000. One MPCP-8 chip capable of running at least one Agent/IC, costs... ~$64,000, IIRC (not including other deck-related costs). Ten--and thus ten Agents/IC--cost ~$640,000. A hundred: $6,400,000. Stuff costs increase linearly; personnel costs (higher skills/abilities) increase quadratically or exponentially.


The difference is that your one PC can't use 10 AKs - he can only use one (or maybe two). He can't use two MPCP-8 chips either - a deck without a decker is apparently pretty useless. He could get an agent, but then that goes back to geometric or exponential increases in prices.

I suppose, in the end, what I'm saying is we need to tie each agent to either a single decker, or multiple agents to a single host. I'm not sure the best way to do that. Your idea was on the right tangent, in that it limited agents based on the availability of deckers, but I feel like we could make a simpler mechanic than that.

Quote:
Hm, so you see agents as similar to Ally Spirits? Ehh... not that I disagree, exactly, but what you're basically arguing for here is Frank's plan, essentially allowing decks, hosts, etc. to only run one Agent/IC apiece.


I wouldn't be making it like Frank's plan, and I don't know if I myself like the idea. However, the idea is just that, if you want a rating 8 agent, you have to pay say 32 karma for it. If you want a second agent, you can get it, but you need to pay another 32 karma. The decker who has 4 agents has them because he's put out a TON of karma to get them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:05 pm
Posts: 57
Location: chillin on my couch
I like the idea of the decker having to constantly tinker with the delicate programing, keep it realistic that they have to spend a time each week making sure that their equipment is gonna function how its supposed to.

_________________
If you see this, this thread will probably wither soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:26 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
nezumi wrote:
Eyeless Blond wrote:
False. an AK-97 costs $500. Ten AK-97s cost $5,000. A hundred cost $50,000. One MPCP-8 chip capable of running at least one Agent/IC, costs... ~$64,000, IIRC (not including other deck-related costs). Ten--and thus ten Agents/IC--cost ~$640,000. A hundred: $6,400,000. Stuff costs increase linearly; personnel costs (higher skills/abilities) increase quadratically or exponentially.


The difference is that your one PC can't use 10 AKs - he can only use one (or maybe two). He can't use two MPCP-8 chips either - a deck without a decker is apparently pretty useless. He could get an agent, but then that goes back to geometric or exponential increases in prices.
Re: guns. That's kinda my point. Buying twice as much stuff costs you twice as much nuyen, but in most cases doesn't get you twice as much power, because you can't use it properly without spending an exponentially increasing amount (in the firearm case karma for Ambidexterity, plus upgrading the appropriate firearm skill).

There are only two archetypes where you can get a linear increase in abilities for a linear increase in cost, and for roughly the same reason: drone-using riggers, and Agent-using deckers. This is in fact what makes drone riggers so powerful: they can spend X nuyen buying 5 drones, and later they can spend 2*X nuyen buying 10 drones, having twice as much power for twice the cost. Agent-using deckers get this same benefit from linear investment: the Agent-loving decker can easily offload the processing power of another Agent for the low cost of grabbing a second MPCP chip*, meaning you can double your Agent power for double the nuyen cost. For the sam, "buying" twice as many firearms dice costs a quadratically-increasing amount of karma.

*-Really I'm being a bit tight-fisted in even requiring the extra MPCP per Agent; per the rules you can actually load Agents onto a host/LTG and run them for free, running them completely autonomously from your deck. Per the canon rules there is literally nothing stopping you from loading thousands of agents onto every LTG, RTG, and host and brute-force owning the Matrix. Note that this is not all that farfetched; it's basically what is currently happening with the Conflicker worm, and other industrial-strength viruses, today.

Quote:
I wouldn't be making it like Frank's plan, and I don't know if I myself like the idea. However, the idea is just that, if you want a rating 8 agent, you have to pay say 32 karma for it. If you want a second agent, you can get it, but you need to pay another 32 karma. The decker who has 4 agents has them because he's put out a TON of karma to get them.

Tracking Karma expenditures for multiple agents is simpler than telling a decker he has to spend 4*X number of hours maintaining his agents?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:38 am 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:50 am
Posts: 827
Location: DeeCee
You don't have to track it any more than you have to track karma for anything else - it would be a flat karma cost per agent (rating), like what mages spend on ally spirits. Not ideal, but it's more inline with current SR rules.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:41 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
In some ways I suppose, but I have reservations about requiring karma expenditure for what is essentially a piece of gear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:05 pm
Posts: 57
Location: chillin on my couch
I'm also against the idea of paying karma to keep agents running.

_________________
If you see this, this thread will probably wither soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:26 am 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
Any new thoughts on this? My opinion is this dovetails nicely with making deckers skill-based, because it makes deckers relatively rare, special, and prized in corps, and IC similarly rare and difficult to maintain, thus explaining why there isn't a flood of it running everywhere. We cure Agent Smith too, as a bonus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:12 am 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:50 am
Posts: 827
Location: DeeCee
I don't think my position has changed very much. It's an elegant answer, but it's pretty divergent from the current SR rules, and I'm very fearful of unintended consequences. However, my game runs solely off the main book, so agents aren't an issue for me at all (and really, never have been). Has anyone encountered real problems with deckers making tons of agents (in SR3?) I've just never heard of it happening.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:46 pm 
Offline
Forum Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 903
nezumi wrote:
I don't think my position has changed very much. It's an elegant answer, but it's pretty divergent from the current SR rules, and I'm very fearful of unintended consequences. However, my game runs solely off the main book, so agents aren't an issue for me at all (and really, never have been). Has anyone encountered real problems with deckers making tons of agents (in SR3?) I've just never heard of it happening.

It really doesn't happen, for two reasons:

1) Nobody really plays deckers in SR3. :) Or, rather, nobody likes deckers enough to really dive into the rules and exploit them as much as, say, Magic.

2) Agent Smith occupies a very limited utility space in SR3, because decking in general occupies a very limited utility space in SR3. There is no combat utility in having a hundred Agents running around. A hundred Agents really doesn't help all that much in decking runs, either, even if according to the rules each Agent would carry its own tally around, because generally speaking there wasn't a whole lot to do in the Matrix beyond disable security measures and steal data. Agents are godlike in information gathering operations, as you can send thousands of Agents off into the wild green yonder to pick up information for you, but that's really about it, and generally speaking the GM will usually give you all the information you need for a given run anyway.

It's really the fact that SR4 made decking so much more important and ubiquitous that made Agent Smith so useful and so threatening. If SR3R decking is going to follow suit and become more useful, then Agent Smith will similarly become more useful, unless we head it off early.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group