Ian Kelly wrote:
On 9/9/06, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: High-Power Deference
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 1482 (Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power) by
appending
this text:
If the Rule with the higher Power explicitly says of itself
that it
defers
Would anyone like to be CotC for a while? I can continue to maintain
the database, since it's non-trivial to relocate. It'd also be nice
to get a Speakership out of this win (R402), which would require my
giving up the Clerkship (R1450).
H. Promotor OscarMeyr, are you still out there? There
http://www.geocities.com/koljag/cn/indexcn.htm
Would there be an interest in having Agora explicitly recognize
these as subgames?
Also, http://www.itsyourturn.com/ supports non-real-time chess
and a number of other board games, if we feel like putting up a
points-based framework around that or
Michael Slone wrote:
(I would MTFO for Garden
Nomic III.)
There's a Garden Nomic III?
Not that I can find, hence would.
OscarMeyr wrote:
As I understand R1789, the CotC commands the deregistration as part of
posting the WoF; the command is not directed AT the Registrar. Only the
order to note the method of deregistration is directed at the Registrar.
Correct, but CFJ 1594 hinges on the argument that this is
Sherlock wrote:
R2110 (Win by Paradox) limits the number of wins to one person, but
does not limit the number of wins that individual may achieve for
noting a paradox. Murphy therefore was eligible to receive any
number of wins that the Speaker decided to award.
Rule 2110/0 (Power=3)
Eris wrote:
That's ridiculous. Standard usage is that A, B, C are mutually
exclusive X for {A, B, C} \subset X. Doesn't makes sense otherwise.
Rules that don't make sense are nothing new. :)
OscarMeyr wrote:
On Dec 16, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
H. Speaker Sherlock, can you please confirm the following?
Proposal 4876
FOR: Murphy, Goethe, OscarMeyr
PRESENT: Eris
Decision: FAILED QUORUM
Did this ever get finalized?
Sherlock confirmed it on December 18, albeit in a-d.
Goethe wrote:
ps. if you like the new rule 101, want to try to gut the judicial
system... I ran out of steam on that one and we still need judicial
reform (reform the mechanics to match R101 and the rest).
Something along the lines of this outline?
i. Every person has the right to
Sherlock wrote:
4879 | Dishonor Rolls, redux | Murphy| 1 | 16Dec06 | O
I love this... FOR
I feel obligated to remind folks that I didn't write this rule, just
proposed to patch it in from a previously adopted proposal that
accidentally didn't have its full intended effect.
4882
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
YAFI, YGI.
What does that expand to?
You asked for it, you got it.
The Clerk of the Courts may, without objection, unlink one or
more of the linked CFJs from the others by announcement. If e
unlinks more than one as a set, then those CFJs
Zefram wrote:
The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule
should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE
or FALSE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the
Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question accordingly. If
Zefram wrote:
H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following Proposal, entitled hoopy:
---
Be it therefore resolved that a Rule be created with title Sass That
Hoopy and text:
When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Judgement as required
by Rule 591, e must accompany the
With the definition of Unanimity in question, would someone like to
cast AGAINST votes as needed to prevent any of the proposals currently
in their voting period from passing unanimously?
I'd propose a fix to the definition, but I need to head offline now
(and it's time someone else had a chance
Zefram wrote:
Even after the fixes proposed for Rule Changes, it's still possible
for a Proposal to be adopted with AI 1 and take effect with Power=0.
That allows anything *except* Rule Changes to be done by an unpopular
Proposal.
Nope, Rule 955 prevents it:
If the voting index
Eris wrote:
On 1/12/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that
# they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all
# its properties shall cease to exist.
So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of
Eris wrote:
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood,
but so do some other rules.
If a rule says X is a Y., under what circumstances does it then define X?
When X does not exist independently of the rules.
Eris wrote:
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When X does not exist independently of the rules.
What if it says This Rule defines X. X is a Y.?
If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either
lying, or using This Rule defines X as a gloss for This Rule
defines
Eris wrote:
On 1/13/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either
lying, or using This Rule defines X as a gloss for This Rule
defines a property of X. In either case, repealing the rule
does not cause X to cease to exist.
How
Goethe wrote:
proto-CFJ
Proposal 4882 (The Lady, or the Tiger?) can have no effect on
Goethe's registration status.
Arguments
R594/8, no longer in effect, contained the following text:
For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted
Proposal is a legal
In addition to the Rule 1450 issue, it occurred to me that Rule 2110's
awarding of the Patent Title of Champion might be interpreted as not
synonymous with winning the game (despite the rule's title), hence
failing to activate Rule 402. Fortunately, I have a Plan (tm) to
sidestep this mess:
1)
Jacob Sutton wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Jacob Sutton wrote:
Rule 1868 states that a CFJ is open if it has not been judged and
closed
if it is not open
So, if a case has been judged, there is no rule keeping it from still
being considered open.
Correct. So it's not open. (Assuming
Eris wrote:
On 1/31/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby appeal Sherlock's judgement of CFJ 1594.
I also appeal this Judgement, because I've always wanted to try this.
This is explicitly allowed by Rule 101, but contributes nothing toward
Rule 1564's prerequisites for initiating an
Michael Norrish wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Let's say, in this case, the decision is OVERTURN AND REVERSE.
Did that OVERTURN AND REVERSE apply to Goethe's FALSE or
Sherlock's TRUE? There's no legal distinction the appeals court can
make to distinguish them.
I don't imagine the Appeals
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
What's this supposed to mean? Sounds like a barbecuing procedure.
cause a player to become turned, then.
It's the whole thing that I have a problem with, not the verb turn.
I really can't make head or tail of it. What's it for?
Shortly after you last
I will increase by 5 the VLOP of the next player who is installed
as CotC according to the Agoran Consent procedure in Rule 1006.
Michael wrote:
4904 | some deeming| AGAINST
4905 | Cleaning up after myself| FOR
4906 | Deem deemed harmful | FOR
4907 | Timing without Orders | FOR
4908 | No Silly Orders | FOR
4909 | broaden annotations | FOR
Not to the PF.
Quazie wrote:
Is anyone else defiantly inactive?
^
Is this typo intentional or merely serendipitous?
Anyway, some players may reasonably fit the English definition of
inactive. There are five things that depend on activity:
1) Requirement to receive PFs
2)
Goethe wrote:
How about something more radical and simple? Leave persons as
referring to all types of persons (not just natural), but insert
a single sentence persons consisting of the same set of natural
persons are the same person. This would limit the arbitrary
issue, and puts partnerships
Quazie wrote:
This is exactly the type of change I was talking about, I just have
never understood the CFJ system enough to write it myself.
Eris, may I publish that short list of bullet points you sent me
about a conceptual revamping of the judiciary?
Eris wrote:
On 3/9/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quazie wrote:
This is exactly the type of change I was talking about, I just have
never understood the CFJ system enough to write it myself.
Eris, may I publish that short list of bullet points you sent me
about a conceptual
Michael wrote:
I hereby deregister.
Well, crap. Would anyone else (preferably already familiar with CVS)
like to be Rulekeepor?
Goethe wrote:
as for bringing back the Assessor, ADoP, and the Registrar, do we
really need that sheer weight of offices when we don't care enough to
contest the ones we've got?
We already have the weight of their duties, and under the current
regime they're locked together in twos and
Goethe wrote:
I'd suggest the following record for R105:
History:
Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994
Amended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994
Renumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 3445
Zefram wrote:
H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following proposal, entitled
reorientation:
---
Amend rule 889 (The Clerk of the Courts) by deleting the text
The CotC's Bi-Weekly Report shall include the following:
(i) Each Player's Orientation.
---
(Orientation isn't defined
Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Zefram 1 1 0
I should have a VC for delivering judgement, and I expect several other
players should too. Since 2007-01-22, R2126 includes:
A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period
gains one VC. A
Goethe wrote:
It is not clear to me if eligibility in terms of Appeals judges
includes turning:
As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the
Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to
replace em.
clause (iv) of R911:
iv) E is ineligible to
Maud wrote:
On 3/23/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assign CFJ 1608 to Maud. Text is here:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-January/002784.html
I (proto-)judge the statement of CFJ 1608 to be TRUE.
Actually, this may be trivially true due
Maud wrote:
On 3/28/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, this may be trivially true due to Rule 2034.
If I understand the argument you intend, this would depend on Agorans
agreeing not to challenge the vote collector's announcement of
results.
Yes, that's what I had in mind.
Levi wrote:
Attempt at cleaning up the Excess CFJ rule. I've used the following
as a basis for this change
1. The use of 'dismiss' is unclear, due to DISMISS being a valid
judgement for a CFJ, but dismissal through a CFJ being an
Excess CFJ should be different to dismissal under rule 1565
Maud wrote:
On 4/3/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to make Maud Herald by Agoran Consent.
You're doing this for the pun, aren't you?
What pun? Now if your nickname was Lloyd...
Zefram wrote:
as I do only structural markup and not visual design, if someone wants
to produce a CSS stylesheet that might be a useful addition.
http://www.oswd.org/
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Repeal Rule 2126 (Voting Credits).
Not going to turn pre-existing VCs into beads?
Hey, you're the one who was complaining about VC inflation. :)
* One Green Bead to bar a player from judging a CFJ.
This would be a nightmare in a crisis
Goethe wrote:
Rule 2128 allows you to specify a contest to determine the next winner.
It doesn't say you have to run the contest. If I come up with a good
contest and offer to run it, would you be willing to invite players to
enter to win as per R2128?
I don't see why not.
In any case,
Goethe wrote:
The second point, though, is plain old critical mass. At the time
I joined, the game peaked at perhaps 15 players who were actively
participating plus another 10 who were semi-active. That's
a vastly different dynamic the current ~10 players. When we
dismantled the currency
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
you're standing, then you must wait till you're assigned something
(switching you to sitting) before opting out of further judicial work.
Sounds unwise. I think one should be able to opt out at any time.
The concept of a standing court suggests
Maud wrote:
4932 AGAINST -- (I've missed some discussion. Aren't these
4933 AGAINST -- attempting to do basically the same thing?)
The difference is whether an Excess CFJ that gets assigned may
still be refused.
4935 FOR (Why ``contentiousness''? I mean, I know why, but why?)
quazie wrote:
4930 | Simple VC win | Goethe| 1* | 02Apr07 | D
FOR
Not to the PF.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
An Oligarch may refuse a proposal by announcement. A refused
proposal ceases to be a proposal.
Nice try, but I don't think this will work at Power=1. Rule 106
at Power=3 calls for a proposal to be adopted if the vote on it is
favourable, which I
quazie wrote:
I'm not sure if the rules allow me to do this or not. I request to not
judge the above linked CFJs.
You're allowed to make the request, but it doesn't actually make
you ineligible. Eris, now that you're back (well come!), can you
comment on the [bracketed] portions of my
Goethe wrote:
Fair enough. But the point was, when Zefram and I were looking at if
we could block Murphy et al.'s proposal, we noticed that a CotC could
legally mint an unbounded number of VCs, by an as-long-as-you-want
list of linked, trivial CFJs. Instant, overpowering voting, worse
than
Zefram wrote:
Eep, here's another message with datestamps crossing midnight. (I just
CFJed about this concerning Quazie's VC spending.) Headers:
I think the normal domain of technical control argument should
continue to hold.
I remove Proposal Racket from the pool.
It was titled
OscarMeyr wrote:
On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Zefram wrote:
Oh, this seems a good time to point out: the would-be Oligarchs could
have avoided the whole VC race by simply distributing the Oligarch
proposal last week, so that it would be contested under that week's
unchangeable VLOPs. We
Roger Hicks wrote:
Well...let's see. I'm off to a good start.
Triggering a CFJ while joining the game is a fine Agoran tradition.
How about:
I hereby register for Agora Nomic.
Alas, this is ineffective because it wasn't sent to a Public Forum. You
had the right idea the first time with
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
I could swear that some variation or other of this issue has been
judged in the past, but darned if I can find it.
It was the opposite. The rules required that new players
request registration. I tried to register by announcing
I register.
The CFJ was around
Goethe wrote:
CFJ 1630:
We're all mad, here.
Levi judged:
I issue a judgement of DISMISSED as irrelevant to the rules.
I call for appeal of CFJ 1630. The truth of CFJ 1630 tells us
everything we need to know about the rules.
Not to the PF, but it's not clear that Rule 1564 cares.
Maud wrote:
On 5/4/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I struggled with making it sufficiently generic and yet clear. The
intent is that at any point, the voting limit is one less than it
would be if the voter was not a natural person.
I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual
The validity of BobTHJ's votes only affects the outcome of Proposal 4953,
which has null effect anyway since Proposal 4952 failed.
Additional note: The validity of my 8th and 9th votes per proposal
did not affect any of the outcomes.
Proto-Proposal: Return of switches
(AI = 3, please)
Create a rule titled Switches with this text:
A switch is a property that the rules define as being a switch,
pertaining to a type of entity, and having one or more possible
values.
Each switch has exactly one value.
Proto-Proposal: Beads and Wins
Rename Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) to Beads, change its Power to 2,
and amend it to read:
Beads are property, but cannot be traded.
The Jewelor is an office. The Jewelor's report shall include
each player's beads.
Create a rule titled Earning
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Loose switches may be changed by announcement.
So anyone can change a loose switch at will? Why would you ever want
one of these?
I think we used to have some, though I forget what they were.
Activity is a player switch with values Active
Zefram wrote:
5) 2 beads to ban a player from judging a CFJ to which e is not
already assigned.
Does banning make em ineligible for assignment, or only oblige em to
not return a judgement?
This should be bar (R897) rather than ban.
A player with 42 or more beads is
Maud wrote:
Each switch has a collection of possible states, is attached to
a specific host entity, and has the power to modify a specific
property of the host, called its feature. An entity is a switch
only if the rules say it is. The default state of a switch is,
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it costs something tangible to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to creating
artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in that
way, but it sounds like quite a lot of extra work
Eris wrote:
On 5/7/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In an earlier draft, I limited the capacity to flip certain switches
to certain entities. I decided that people would complain about that,
so I changed it to the current version, where people can but may not
flip certain switches.
Proto-Proposal: Mother, May I?
(AI = 3, please)
Create a rule titled Mother, May I? with Power 3 and this text:
The following terms are defined:
1. CANNOT (syn. IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID) Attempts to
perform the described action are unsuccessful.
2.
BobTHJ wrote:
I vote as follows:
Not to the Public Forum, hence ineffective (Rule 683 requires
votes to be published, Rule 478 defines publishing).
This also seems like a good opportunity to clarify TTttPF = this
time to the Public Forum.
Zefram wrote:
Michael Slone wrote:
*An* action, just as I wrote.
Any action? This is such a strange reading that I'm still not convinced
I've understood you correctly. You're placing a restriction on which
executors have the power to perform actions on behalf of their executees.
The
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I interpreted it as equivalent to a given action.
Still not specifying which action.
Nor does it need to. Okay, here's a third re-phrasing which is
hopefully unambiguous:
(original)
If an executee is prohibiting from performing an
action, each of its
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
If an executee is prohibiting from performing an
action, each of its executors is prohibited from performing the
action on behalf of that executee.
That's not the sentence I have trouble with. I was talking about
Holding executorship of another entity
Maud wrote:
For the Agoran decision of whether to adopt and ecumenical
^^^ an
proposal, the eligible voters are all legislators, the quorum is
what it would be if only active players of Agora were eligible
voters, the
quazie wrote:
Create a rule entitled Roll Call with the folowing text
Cambot!
Gypsy!
Tom Servo!
Croow!
I should point out that the multi-level partnership scam was
originally Quazie's idea; I launched it solely because I was
available to do so just before the end of the Agoran week.
Maud wrote:
Persons have certain rights and privileges. Those rights which
are enumerated in the rules or recognized by the Agoran courts
may not be abridged, reduced, limited, or remove by Agoran law,
^^ removed
and
BobTHJ wrote:
Create a rule called Certification with Power 1 that reads:
{
A Player must be certified to perform any of the following actions:
* Submitting a ballot for distributed proposals
* Supporting or opposing a dependent action
* Submitting a proposal for distribution
If a player who
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Human Point Two and I have made a R1742 binding agreement, the text of
which is:
I believe this doesn't work. Obligations on HP3 are translated, by
that agreement, into obligations on HP2 and Murphy, and then by HP2's
agreement into obligations on Quazie
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
If a partnership contains exactly the same members as
another registered partnership, then it is prohibited
from registering.
You haven't constructed such a situation, so this limitation is
insufficient. You need to determine the ultimate
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
If such an agreement is registered, then as soon as possible
after its membership changes, it shall announce which players
have joined and which have left. This requirement is satisfied
if the information is published by a member of the
Goethe wrote:
I can't keep up right now. Need to enforce a break in myself, otherwise
RL will suffer more (already is, can never seem to not get sucked in).
Sincere apologies for leaving the CotC office so far behind. I'll continue
to watch the (encouraging) developments with interest.
I
I wrote:
I intend, with Agoran consent, to make the Pineapple Partnership
the holder of the Office of Registrar.
I intend, with Agoran consent, to make Human Point Two the holder
of the Office of International Associate Director of Personnel.
I'm holding off on these until we come to a
comex wrote:
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Primo Corporation the holder of
the office of Clerk of the Courts.
I object. IMO partnerships aren't stable enough to hold office yet.
BobTHJ wrote:
A Property Owning Entity (hereafter POE) is a type of entity. POEs may
Why not just Owner?
To point out the potential problem more explicitly:
If CFJ 1668 is judged true, then Primo-the-player ceased to exist when
comex became a Shareholder. I strongly urge that we install a natural
person as Clerk of the Courts until the statement of CFJ 1668 is
confirmed false, either by judgement
comex wrote:
I execute a Timing Order directing the Clerk of the Courts to select a
Trial Judge for CFJ 1659.
I assume you intend to activate the last paragraph of Rule 1006,
but I'm not sure whether it works when the office in question
is vacant.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Due to Rules 1006 and 1450, the office of CotC is currently
vacant. Or, under a different interpretation, I am being
continuously assigned by 1006 and removed by 1450, which is
no better.
R1006 says that an office that would otherwise be vacant is held
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Unless the Speaker cannot hold that office.
Which R1450 doesn't prevent. R1450 only triggers when the Speaker is
already CotC.
It depends whether you interpret mutually exclusive as a prohibition
(with the next clause amounting to if someone pushes me, I
quazie wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
4970 FOR
4971 FOR
4972 FOR
4973 PRESENT
4974 PRESENT
4975 FOR
I vote in the following manner:
If Murphy has voted on a proposal as of 5/16/07 @ 9:50pm (PST), I vote
in the same manner as e has.
Alas, not to the PF.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
On behalf of Human Point Two:
On behalf of Human Point Four:
HP2 isn't a partner in HP4, is it?
It purports to be, at least. From the announcement in which HP4
was allegedly registered: Human Point Two, Human Point Three,
and I have made a R1742 binding
comex wrote:
On Sunday 13 May 2007 7:09 pm, Ed Murphy wrote:
Second-System Effect registers.
I call for judgement on the following statement:
Second-System Effect registered on or about Sun, 13 May 2007 16:09:28 -0700
Arguments:
Without knowledge of the agreement that defines SSE
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
e) A player may, with Agoran consent with a consent index of
H/L, perform an action and cause a rule with Power L to take
precedence over a rule with Power H with regard to that
action. E must be otherwise permitted to perform
quazie wrote:
his is a mostly complete report from the IADoP.
Because we have more than enough CFJs as it is, you should
probably state explicitly that you're publishing the report
on behalf of IADoP Human Point Two.
While I'm at it, I state under penalty of perjury that the
membership of
comex wrote:
On Thursday 17 May 2007 11:41 pm, Ed Murphy wrote:
While I'm at it, I state under penalty of perjury that the
membership of the HP2 agreement has not changed since its
registration, thus HP2's existence as a registered player
is not contingent on the outcome of CFJ 1668.
I state
Maud wrote:
In this proto, I attempt to average dependent actions and actions with
Agoran consent.
I can't help but feel that a proto to adopt proposals with Agoran
consent is right around the corner.
Zefram wrote:
You use the term Speakership in several places where strictly you
should say Speaker. (Speakership is not defined; in your terminology
Speaker refers to the office.) You also speak of a player *being*
the Speaker, where you should apply the strict distinction that a player
Zefram wrote:
That's all the yin/yang activity we have planned. For the record,
all changes of membership of both partnerships have taken place in the
public forum. The present membership is:
* of Yin Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
* of Yang Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
Or at least, that's the
comex wrote:
I assign CFJs 1666-8 to The Hanging Judge. E is still turned.
Text at:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-May/006418.html
I encourage Zefram and Murphy to submit psuedojudgements.
I interpret a partnership's identity, not merely as the set
Ambiguous eligibility can be resolved by making the relevant players
turned (lying down) without 2 objections, and/or inactive without
objection. (This does nothing for the bug pointed out by fix
judicial turns, though.)
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
4965 | The Standing Court | Murphy| 1 | 06May07 | O
4969 | fix judicial turns | Zefram| 1 | 08May07 | O
Aside from failing quorum, both of these passed by a large margin.
I presume you'll repropose The Standing Court; if so, you
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I'll do that later when I have some time. We're interpreting quorum
as calculated when the Assessor resolves the Agoran decision, right?
Nearly. It's when the Assessor performs the calculations to determine the
results, which appears to be a distinct step
Maud wrote:
I'm not convinced any nomic would agree to such a ``deal''.
It might if you scammed it. Didn't we once plan to saddle Rishonomic
with a Governor General or something?
1 - 100 of 3133 matches
Mail list logo
