Servers as a karma ladder?

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-03 00:26:22

Alleria wrote:

There's two glaring problems of the permanent lineage ban that nobody seems to be addressing.
1. Jason's maths doesn't account for off-peak, which is about 30-40 players and lasting for a few hours. This already "culls" the less desirable civilisations from the world, as a much smaller playerbase is born to the same amount of cities. Also, how many of these players have been hit with that civs lineages "ban"? I doubt we'd ever see a dynasty last more than 18 hours ever again.
2. This would make migration or forking the population an inherently bad thing. I personally like to splinter off if my civ is in a suboptimal location and I think I can find a better place. However, this would mean that my new civ would be in direct competition with the old civ for babies. This means we'll be cycling through the potential players at double the speed as before. No longer will I be able to tell girls to migrate out of the city and form new settlements, and instead when it comes to population management, my only options will be either to murder, or create conditions in which they'll starve to death. There'd be no longer a means to pleasantly solve overpopulation... A new "grief" will emerge where when born as a girl, you migrate and waste that dynasties babies.
One pro is that if Eves did coord track and find their way back to the civ, it'll mean there's an incentive to keep around non-dynastic members. I think there'd be great RP value to running around your village seeing the Smith family and the Deatherages coexisting. The problem with the current meta is that bell towers would not enable this, since a dynasty will no longer survive long enough to complete a

Yeah, I believe these are very valid concerns. Personally me, I'm okay with civilizations not lasting forever, but I understand if many are not. I don't like the idea of being born into a generation that has survived hundreds of years, it's more than likely you're not progressing anymore. You're just maintaining the status quo, or I guess you're just endlessly expanding until the whole server is in one city...then you start maintaining a status quo or just keep expanding for the sake of. It reminds me of the argument against immortality, that it inevitably ends in boredom.

And I definitely see this as a potential grief far greater than someone else's concern that someone would run off into the woods and let their kids die. You could start your own "new civilization" and then you'd be competing with their "child resources". But is it really a new civilization? Or someone else's civilization that you partially hi jacked because you thought you could do it better? Why not just die if you don't like it, spawn as an eve, then truely set up your own civ in a location you deep "optimal" Maybe this could turn into a kind of battle between the the main civ and the traitors, and you have to wipe one of the other out for the sake of your future. I think that's interesting...the problem is, how would you know that it's happened? You're probably not keeping tabs on everyone. Lot's of stuff to think about, thank you for adding to the discussion.

YAHG · 2018-05-03 00:26:56

FeignedSanity wrote:

YAHG wrote:
Just because villages are not lasting longer that doesn't mean they shouldn't.
The game shouldn't make it so that it isn't possible to survive, hard is fine but not possible removes the challenge and just makes it dumb..
Well judging by the actual data, is seems that we haven't even come close to reaching the limit this sort of system would set. If the data showed that the current player base couldn't possibly support this kind of thing, then I'd see you point. But it's right there. Now I give you, his numbers are kind of "best case scenario", but if you even half it, it still reaches the standard set by the unreasonable 111 generation.
Also I don't see the logic in making something impossible taking away the challenge. Arguably, if it was impossible, it couldn't get any more challenging, no? Besides, surviving wouldn't be the impossible part. Surviving indefinitely for as long as time stands, would be impossible with an outright ban.

Challenges are things you can overcome.. Impossible things can not be overcome by definition.

The math he used isn't the right numbers, you don't want 20 people an hour to sustain a 20 person population.

You want 60/(average lifespan) * 20 people an hour, and not only that you want the lifespan of people who live in towns.
I don't know how he detailed he tracks the census but a good way to see if someone was civilized is if they watered
or picked crops at least once in their life.

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-03 00:28:56

Alleria wrote:

111 generations is not an unreasonable standard, we could have gone on indefinitely, we just got tired and none of the public wanted to play with our city. I was in a civ that reached about 70 generations (rough estimate, I hope Jason could tell us the 2nd longest generation) on the main servers but it died out largely due to underpopulation. Jason's figures are a rough estimate. We'd never even reach 50 generations if people were banned from dynasties for 24 hours. The way 70 generations was reached was through the eventual settlement of 4 neighbouring cities. This meant that if one civ got griefed, the others could resettle later on. Settling multiple cities would be tantamount to griefing if this goes through.

I was meaning unreasonable in the context of the base game. Something you can go off and accomplish outside of the intended game, okay that's cool beans and all that. But I'm talking about unreasonable as far as the base game goes, which is what the game should be balanced around.

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-03 00:39:43

YAHG wrote:

Challenges are things you can overcome.. Impossible things can not be overcome by definition.
The math he used isn't the right numbers, you don't want 20 people an hour to sustain a 20 person population.
You want 60/(average lifespan) * 20 people an hour, and not only that you want the lifespan of people who live in towns.
I don't know how he detailed he tracks the census but a good way to see if someone was civilized is if they watered
or picked crops at least once in their life.

Yeah, I can see your logic now. I agree. Now the question becomes should it be impossible to survive indefinitely? I think that all good things should come to and end so that something new can start. I can definitely see the appeal of keeping the same thing going forever, and ever, and ever. That just seems boring to me personally.

But let's set that aside, you said it would be impossible to survive, and I argue that it wouldn't be. I wouldn't be impossible to get through the entire tech tree or even make a metropolis, but it would have to end eventually. Surviving indefinitely would be impossible, but indefinitely is the keyword here.

Now I want to take into consideration something I don't think we have. What about the bell? Sure maybe you're lineage couldn't last indefinitely, but as it stand right now, your city could. Maybe you use the bell as a last ditch effort to keep your metropolis alive even if your lineage wont be in it. Then, hypothetically, you could be reborn into your city.

As far as the math goes, I'll take your word for it, cause it's getting late and I got to sleep. Thank you for the intelligent discussion.

breezeknight · 2018-05-03 01:09:38

Drakulon wrote:

Better to reward good play than punish bad play.

my thinking

the solutions focus too much on catching & punishing bad behaviour
it's easier to record & reward good, constructive behaviour, actions supporting a settlement

Auner · 2018-05-03 01:53:05

jasonrohrer wrote:

The more people that participate in the curse, the stronger it becomes. Maybe it takes three people to ward the person away for 30 minutes, and each additional person who joins the dogpile will add an additional 30 minutes. A whole village could ward someone away for half a day or more.

Love the karmic ladder idea but I think the baby limbo needs a better solve.

Here's an idea for you: Why not create "Curse words" -- you could pull up olden day curse words, use modern ones- or have fun and have like "Comcast" be a curse word. Basically if you say a curse word, it's a negative point against you and the person you cursed. So you legitimately want to be careful with them. But if multiple people take the hit to curse on one person- that individual can be subjected to a 30 min- 12 hour ban.

I know you don't like the idea of black magic being in the game- but hey why not make some content to learn some white magic - like maybe a recipe for a blessing that makes weapons jump out of your bag or something.

I mean a lot of people believed in it for thousands of years- why not make it real until we no longer need it.

YAHG · 2018-05-03 02:10:58

I don't magic except for my dream of Highlander mode, where you kill people to steal the rest of their life..

kubassa · 2018-05-03 04:42:22

FeignedSanity wrote:

Kubassa, are you really trying to sit here and say that "solving griefing issues" only applies to people that play with friends? Where is the sense in that? The people you're most likely to grief ARE random strangers, because you don't know them

I never even implied that. Way to read into things. Your reading comprehension skills are terrible. You just made the exact same point I made. You are not to bright.

Last edited by kubassa (2018-05-03 04:47:14)

Artarda · 2018-05-03 05:08:10

jasonrohrer wrote:

Thinking more about the problem of griefers.
Part of the problem is that, even if you kill them, they can keep coming back at you. They can bypass server assignment and keep coming back to your server, and they can baby suicide until they are born in your village again.
Killing them slows them down, but not by enough. Let's assume, though, that this will always happen to a griefer in the end. They will always be discovered and killed (assuming that I keep tweaking things to make that more and more likely, if it's not likely enough already).
One problem with any further punishment of "murder victims" is that it hurts the good guys along with the bad. A griefer may be running around killing people, and we don't want those people being punished any further.
However, I realized that if we compare the average griefer to the average non-griefer, assuming that non-griefers outnumber griefers, then the average griefer's life will be way more likely to end in murder than the average non-griefer. Essentially, the griefer's life will always end in murder, while the average non-griefer will be the unfortunate victim every once in a while.
So, some kind of further consequence for dying by murder might actually be okay. Someone really didn't like you... that should mean something. Even if it was a legit dispute between two benevolent monarchs, the one that was guillotined is special.

I already have 15 servers running. If I had mandatory server assignments, at least for the top half of the servers (so that there still are some free servers around for people who want to play solo or collab on voice or whatever), then those servers could be a kind of karmic ladder.
Going down one rung is pretty obvious: if your life on the previous rung ends in murder, down you go.
Climbing back up though? My initial thought is that you climb up if you live to old age on the previous rung. That would definitely slow griefers down. A full hour down there, at least, before they can get reborn in your village.
It also seems like it would be a harsh purgatory for the innocent victim of murder, but maybe it's okay and kinda fitting.

Another idea is that the ladder could be used for everything, not just murder. Living until old age lets you go up, dying young sends you back down. If you're on server1 and you have a baby, you know that baby is special. The advanced players are already making up their own filters to decide which babies to keep. The idea of having a "city of gold" at the top of the ladder where only the best players ascend is compelling.
However, it would also spread players out, trap new players in purgatory levels filled with griefers, etc. Maybe all new players start on server1 for their first game and fall down from there. You get a chance to play with the best and stay with the best, assuming that you can listen to advice, learn quickly, and contribute without dying.

I regularly starve to death at 58 due to the starvation twang going away.

happynova · 2018-05-03 06:33:59

If we're considering the possibility of enacting a curse at someone's grave, does that mean we might also get a way to tell whose grave we're looking at? Because right now, that may be my most desired feature in the game, so whether it'd actually be effective in deterring griefers or not, I'd be for it.

The karmic ladder idea sounds really intriguing, but I'm finding it impossible to predict with any certainty at all whether it would make my gameplay experience (as a non-griefer who's been murdered a couple of times) better or worse. Might be interesting to implement it on a trial basis and see what happens. Or would it be too much coding work for something that might or might not actually pan out?

As for the lineage thing... Maybe a sort of compromise could be interesting. Like, you can't get born to the same lineage for a certain number of generations? No spawning in as your own grandkid a few minutes after you die, but if your descendants are doing well, you might just be able to rejoin them a few hours later and see what they've done with the place in the last few centuries, which seems like a nice thing to hope for. (Edit: whoops, I somehow missed, like, two pages of posts. I see this possibility has already been addressed at length.)

Last edited by happynova (2018-05-03 06:45:00)

Lavea · 2018-05-03 07:55:43

Maybe there should be some point system on what you do.

Every productive thing raises your karma one point i.e. harvest, plant, water, chop, craft. Etc.

Every thing you eat past the age of say 5 lowers your karma one point. Murder is a big hit.

So, in your life, you'd want to come out more productive than harmful. To help new players, perhaps karma doesn't kick in till your 20th life say?

TrustyWay · 2018-05-03 08:32:20

The problem is that most of people here doesn't know how to deal with griefers and ask for too extreme mesures because they don't try to defend themselves. Murderers aren't even a problem you can't count them as griefers since it is super easy to kill back. I haven't seen people complaining about griefers since 2 two days. So should we really put a system that put you in ladders ? It will separate new players and old players. You wont give birth to a random person and griefers will always be able to dodge the system more easily than average players.

Alleria · 2018-05-03 08:53:38

Lavea wrote:

Maybe there should be some point system on what you do.
Every productive thing raises your karma one point i.e. harvest, plant, water, chop, craft. Etc.
Every thing you eat past the age of say 5 lowers your karma one point. Murder is a big hit.
So, in your life, you'd want to come out more productive than harmful. To help new players, perhaps karma doesn't kick in till your 20th life say?

Sounds nice in theory, but it'd be difficult to regulate and balance. For example, if you had tons of thread around, someone could "craft" it all into rope. Or someone seeing an axe, could chop down all the trees (easy fix though, could make it a karma hit to chop useful trees). It'd also incentivise people into "high karma" jobs like carrot farming, even though it's not a very useful job.

Last edited by Alleria (2018-05-03 08:54:28)

Drakulon · 2018-05-03 10:07:51

The best karma system i can think of:

You only get rewarded for the life spawn of your kids and grand kids, grand grand kids, and so on.
For example, if you have a kid that gets to the age of 30-40, you get 5 points, if it gets to the age of 40-50 you get 10 points, 50-60 you get 15 points.
You get also points depending on how many points your kids get. So if you have a kid that got rewarded 30 points during its life, you gain maybe 10 points for that. (30%)
This system would reward you not for specific tasks, but for helping building a village that lasts long. (points would need to be calculated long after you died)

There would need to be a way to lose karma points aswell.
And males would need to be able to have kids. (which they should anyways in my opinion)
Implementing a very simple sex mechanism would solve many problems and would create a good foundation for future game mechanics.
Males become useful and you finally have birth control. (we would also need Adams spawn next to Eves in order for this to work)

But i know nothing of this is going to happen, but i still like to write about it and have dreams

Last edited by Drakulon (2018-05-03 10:10:26)

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-03 13:54:30

kubassa wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
Kubassa, this isn't a game that is meant to be played with friends.
Yet you are posting about how to solve 'griefing issues'.

Damn it Kubassa, your idiocy just knows no bounds, does it? For fucks sake, if you misspoke, then just admit it. But allow me to break down the English language for you.

You quote Jason as saying this isn't a game that is meant to be played with friends. Then you respond by saying "yet you are posting about how to solve griefing issues" YOU. LITERALLY. JUST. SAID. THAT. HIS. POST. ABOUT. SOLVING. GRIEFING. WAS. CONTRADICTING. HIS. INTENTIONS. FOR. A. GAME. THAT. IS. NOT. MEANT. TO. BE. PLAYED. WITH. FRIENDS. In other words, you are saying that that solving the griefing problem has nothing to do with playing with people who aren't your friends. I can spell it forwards and backwards, but that's all I can do. I can't explain water to a fish.

If that doesn't explain it, then I don't know what will. And quite frankly, I'm done wasting my time with you. You've effectively become a troll at this point. Also, congrats on responding to this post and not the explanation I gave you after you "called me out". Like I needed any more reason to not waste my time with you. Although I suppose it is nice to know that you crumble when you can't just throw baseless accusations and when anyone actually responds to your bullshit with a detailed and thought out explanation. So I suppose I wont be expecting a response from this either, which suits me just fine.

Roolstar · 2018-05-03 13:54:48

jasonrohrer wrote:

Thinking more about the problem of griefers.
Part of the problem is that, even if you kill them, they can keep coming back at you. They can bypass server assignment and keep coming back to your server, and they can baby suicide until they are born in your village again.
Killing them slows them down, but not by enough. Let's assume, though, that this will always happen to a griefer in the end. They will always be discovered and killed (assuming that I keep tweaking things to make that more and more likely, if it's not likely enough already).
One problem with any further punishment of "murder victims" is that it hurts the good guys along with the bad. A griefer may be running around killing people, and we don't want those people being punished any further.
However, I realized that if we compare the average griefer to the average non-griefer, assuming that non-griefers outnumber griefers, then the average griefer's life will be way more likely to end in murder than the average non-griefer. Essentially, the griefer's life will always end in murder, while the average non-griefer will be the unfortunate victim every once in a while.
So, some kind of further consequence for dying by murder might actually be okay. Someone really didn't like you... that should mean something. Even if it was a legit dispute between two benevolent monarchs, the one that was guillotined is special.

I already have 15 servers running. If I had mandatory server assignments, at least for the top half of the servers (so that there still are some free servers around for people who want to play solo or collab on voice or whatever), then those servers could be a kind of karmic ladder.
Going down one rung is pretty obvious: if your life on the previous rung ends in murder, down you go.
Climbing back up though? My initial thought is that you climb up if you live to old age on the previous rung. That would definitely slow griefers down. A full hour down there, at least, before they can get reborn in your village.
It also seems like it would be a harsh purgatory for the innocent victim of murder, but maybe it's okay and kinda fitting.

But take this average case: a griefer kills 3 people than gets killed.
They all spawn in a "lower" server together, now they have a very high chance to give birth to the griefer.
What do you think that griefer would do once old enough? So he kills and gets killed again, and again.

In fact his griefing is even worse now since he's technically burrying his victims in lower and more deserted servers, for ever.
Why implement torture as a feature??

Give it some time and you'd have 10 victims stuck with 10 griefers on the lowest server. While the highest server is a land filled with blissful colonies and abundance?
Are you literally creating heaven and hell??? "cause if you are, well people have come up with much better systems than yours, while equally dangerous. inherently ignorant and fundamentally flawed.

And even worse, I was an innocent victim, but cursed the same as my perpetrator!! "but maybe it's okay and kinda fitting"?

jasonrohrer wrote:

Another idea is that the ladder could be used for everything, not just murder. Living until old age lets you go up, dying young sends you back down. If you're on server1 and you have a baby, you know that baby is special. The advanced players are already making up their own filters to decide which babies to keep. The idea of having a "city of gold" at the top of the ladder where only the best players ascend is compelling.
However, it would also spread players out, trap new players in purgatory levels filled with griefers, etc. Maybe all new players start on server1 for their first game and fall down from there. You get a chance to play with the best and stay with the best, assuming that you can listen to advice, learn quickly, and contribute without dying.

Effectively implementing a ranking system in OHOL is a very very very bad idea.
Cooperation is already a strain sometimes, and now you have a grandma spending her last 10 mn at the farm eating carrots 'cause why would she risk a nope rope encounter?

And more importantly, sacrificing yourself is a strategic decision that wise players would make in some situations. I see my hunger bar size at 7 bars, a lack of berries, only one seed plot and 2 rooting carrots in a colony of 3 women and 1 baby? I get my gear off and start running east until death. They stand a much better chance now. Doesn't have to be that specific of a situation but happens more than you might think. I've even seen streamers doing that. And nobody wants to die from old age as much as a streamer with live viewers, trust me.

Last edited by Roolstar (2018-05-03 14:05:52)

Drakulon · 2018-05-03 14:10:36

@FeignedSanity kubassa was just pointing out how he feels about this, there is no reason to insult him like that

Roolstar wrote:

Effectively implementing a ranking system in OHOL is a very very very bad idea.
Cooperation is already a strain sometimes, and now you have a grandma spending her last 10 mn at the farm eating carrots 'cause why would she risk a nope rope encounter?

Not if its implemented how i described 2 posts above yours, but after thinking over it some time, i think ranking/ladder just doesnt fit the genre of the game.

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-03 14:18:03

@Drakulon

Yeah, I actually just got back on to apologize for resorting to name calling. I had gotten frustrated and slightly mishandled it. You should never resort to name calling. But I was not referring to him voicing his opinion. I was talking about his misuse of the English language. Maybe he meant to say that griefing is a more prevalent issue with people you don't know, but he was saying the contrary. Anyway, apologizing for insulting, I will continue to work on not letting frustrating people, or even trolls, get the best of me. Please do mind that I've been dealing with him for the past couple of days and have had him personally insult my character and make insulting accusations along the lines of being a coward and not having friends. So I can be excused if I wanted to retaliate slightly. Again, I know I shouldn't have.

Last edited by FeignedSanity (2018-05-03 14:24:21)

Drakulon · 2018-05-03 14:23:56

Ok i was just reading this one post you quoted, but i know kubassa can be difficult some times

jasonrohrer · 2018-05-03 15:59:58

Lots of good points here.

The thing about needing to let babies die to avoid overpopulation is true, so aren't you "wasting" babies if there's a lineage ban? Well, with this change, the influx of babies to your village would change too, because the same people wouldn't be getting born to you over and over. I.e., way less "baby spam" in general. Especially later in the life of your village, a baby being born might be a special thing that you're waiting for.

I am worried that this would make long-term civilization much harder than it already is... that's not the point of this change, so I'm trying to avoid that.

I thought that I maybe did the math wrong for maintaining a pop of 20 and how many new people you need per hour. But I'm pretty sure it's right. If you want to maintain exactly 20 people, there will be 20 people dying every hour, which means you need exactly 20 babies born during that hour to replace them. When grandpa dies, a new baby is born. So you cycle through 20 new people per hour to maintain your population.

Everyone wants to play in the big city, sure. And that means that people suicide to escape from primitive life, which means that no other cities develop. No one has to help build other cities, if the big city is always available through baby suicide. Why do so many fledgling camps die instead of growing? It's impossible to get something off the ground if your babies keep killing themselves.

The idea here is not that everyone will be stuck in a primitive life forever, but instead that multiple cities will be growing in parallel, all at different stages of development. The very best players will be working in all the cities, over time, instead of all focusing on the top city only.

Forking is a problem.... I do want people to be able to walk out and start a new village. I'll think about that more. Could be based on location instead of family line. You simply can't be born too close to where you were born before.

I think I'm going to use the "boiling a frog" approach here, and start by testing out a small lineage cool-down. Even a few hours would work wonders to stop repeat griefing of the same village and make baby suicide spam less effective. Also, I'll have it scale with population, so this will have no effect on low pop servers, and also won't be a great burden during slow times late at night. For the time being, coming back tomorrow will mean you get to live in the same villages again.

Anyway, if it works well, the cooldown can grow over time as people get used to it.

FeignedSanity and kubassa, stop fighting please.

YAHG · 2018-05-03 16:10:54

But I'm pretty sure it's right. If you want to maintain exactly 20 people, there will be 20 people dying every hour, which means you need exactly 20 babies born during that hour to replace them. When grandpa dies, a new baby is born. So you cycle through 20 new people per hour to maintain your population.

This assumes that we all live to 60 which I doubt your data on our demographics shows. At the very least the cool-down will stop chain griefing so that is nice.

jasonrohrer · 2018-05-03 16:13:57

Also, this doesn't affect friends' ability to play together, even on the main servers.

One person gets born somewhere, the other person waits a bit, and then baby suicides until getting born in the same place.

The only change here is that the person who is suiciding is burning through potential places to play later, but if all they care about is playing with their friend, it doesn't matter.

I.e., two friends can still suicide until they find each other.

Now, as far as making new friends goes, of course that can happen during a life. Not sure how you are maintaining that friendship in the next life even if you are in the same village (I guess you confirm that you knew each other in a past life in the same village once you are both old enough to talk?)

I want to make this part of the game more interesting, and make you work to find each other in the next life. Like, near death, you can talk to each other and make a plan. "How will I find you in some other village?"

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-03 16:15:00

Yeah, I feel like that's a good approach to take. And I'm done fighting, bygones be bygones, agree to disagree and all that. Sorry if I was a nuisance.

Kinrany · 2018-05-03 16:15:30

jasonrohrer wrote:

Negatives:
1. Every city is always dying through lack of new blood. Once every active player has played in that city, the city will have no more babies. This concern might be imaginary, given the ebb and flow of the player pool, time zones, etc.
2. Seems to subvert the "two tribes" emergent competition. Villages are supposed to be competing for a greater share of incoming babies based on how good they are at producing food, warmth, etc. The youngest village automatically has an unnatural, insurmountable advantage. (Though currently, a young village has no chance if all babies are suiciding there, even if they are better at taking care of babies.)
3. The longer a player plays in a given day, the less and less interesting the game becomes. Perhaps they start in some of the biggest cities, but each life is in a less established city, until finally they are stuck being Eve over and over again.

Soooo let players spawn as their own descendants?

As a bonus, children of people who later turned out to be griefers will be shunned through no fault of their own.

jasonrohrer · 2018-05-03 16:20:41

Also, for those who say that griefing is not a problem anymore, or is not a serious or overwhelming problem, or that only a few vocal players are worried about it, or that it can be dealt with through a culture of shaming griefers, or whatever.....

....one of my friends said, "Can't you just ask them to stop?"

If the game allows this, it's part of the game, and people are going to do it. It IS part of the game, but having ways to deal with it is also supposed to be part of the game. Every civilization needs to figure out how to deal with this, both inside and outside the game.

Currently, in the game as it stands, I know that I could destroy every village, and I know there would be no way for them to stop me in the long run, even if they were paying attention and killing me whenever they caught me. I'd just keep coming back.

This is a problem. It doesn't matter what happens in practice, or what people will actually do. It matters that it is possible.

If it's not a huge problem now, there is potential for it to be a huge problem in the future. I'm not going to wait until it's a huge problem before I fix it.

One Hour One Life Forums

#76 2018-05-03 00:26:22

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#77 2018-05-03 00:26:56

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#78 2018-05-03 00:28:56

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#79 2018-05-03 00:39:43

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#80 2018-05-03 01:09:38

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#81 2018-05-03 01:53:05

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#82 2018-05-03 02:10:58

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#83 2018-05-03 04:42:22

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#84 2018-05-03 05:08:10

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#85 2018-05-03 06:33:59

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#86 2018-05-03 07:55:43

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#87 2018-05-03 08:32:20

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#88 2018-05-03 08:53:38

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#89 2018-05-03 10:07:51

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#90 2018-05-03 13:54:30

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#91 2018-05-03 13:54:48

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#92 2018-05-03 14:10:36

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#93 2018-05-03 14:18:03

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#94 2018-05-03 14:23:56

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#95 2018-05-03 15:59:58

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#96 2018-05-03 16:10:54

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#97 2018-05-03 16:13:57

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#98 2018-05-03 16:15:00

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#99 2018-05-03 16:15:30

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#100 2018-05-03 16:20:41

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

Board footer