Hierarchies

Spoonwood · 2019-12-08 03:22:35

DiscardedSlinky wrote:

God these ideas are terrible.
What if the leader is an idiot? They have no idea what they're doing? You being the only person against them is going to result in you being murdered. People are fucking stupid as fuck, and they'll follow people just cause they asked them to. Also what if they threaten you? Follow me or I stab you? Just yuck.
This is such simple stuff dude. I can't handle it anymore.

I doubt I could put it better. The problem isn't kinrany proposing it. Fine, he likes it and all, and his latest post seems to realize it will have bad consequences. He gets his opinion, no matter how poor it is. But, what in the world is Jason doing here actually considering it instead of some of the other many constructive suggestions around that don't have a terrible downside like this one? I'd rather see him explain why the problem of fatherhood hasn't seemed at all compatible with a game about parenting and counter-argue karltown or DestinyCall, or other ideas of Pein than to consider something like this which would result in disasters. Or come up with something better to motivate trading than silly, unrealistic race restrictions while calling it 'family' specialization when it's really race specialization. Or fix bugs.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-08 03:24:13

jcwilk wrote:

DiscardedSlinky wrote:
God these ideas are terrible.
What if the leader is an idiot? They have no idea what they're doing? You being the only person against them is going to result in you being murdered. People are fucking stupid as fuck, and they'll follow people just cause they asked them to. Also what if they threaten you? Follow me or I stab you? Just yuck.
This is such simple stuff dude. I can't handle it anymore.
I mean, what you're describing sounds a lot like how political systems work in real life xD

I don't agree. The game has a greater proportion of griefers messing things up than politicians who mess things up in real life.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-08 03:29:18

Kinrany wrote:

It's purely symbolic. It's a way for the leader to communicate to his followers that he disapproves of the exiled player.

So, it's about shunning family members, so that intra-family violence will occur to them. People playing for the sake of their lineages this is not! It's just an excuse to hate on someone and kill them. There exist plenty of games that have as their primary object to kill other characters, and it's justified in the context of the game. In a game where players get expected to care for their offspring, that sort of stuff just doesn't fit.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-12-08 03:29:33)

Sopbucket · 2019-12-08 03:59:11

jcwilk wrote:

I think having more coded mechanisms for communicating ideas like this is great imo... It's important to remember that because time is so sped up there would presumably be many, many more interactions in the analogous full length life so things like keeping everyone in sync about direction and values and such would be happening many times every second. A second is basically a bit less than a week so imagine trying to communicate as many things as need to be communicated across the span of a month in 5 seconds or so... It's just not possible, so it makes sense to have the game facilitate some of that data syncing between humans to bring it slightly closer to how in sync humans would be at normal speed

I think this is a good point - one reason at least we haven't seen complex societies arise in the game is the time and effort it takes to communicate relative to everyone's life span. As cool as it is to see social systems develop organically, I don't think there's anything wrong with using game mechanics to help facilitate some of the interactions, so long as it's handled well. That's basically what private property and fences do at the moment.

Toxolotl · 2019-12-08 04:24:25

Sopbucket wrote:

jcwilk wrote:
I think having more coded mechanisms for communicating ideas like this is great imo... It's important to remember that because time is so sped up there would presumably be many, many more interactions in the analogous full length life so things like keeping everyone in sync about direction and values and such would be happening many times every second. A second is basically a bit less than a week so imagine trying to communicate as many things as need to be communicated across the span of a month in 5 seconds or so... It's just not possible, so it makes sense to have the game facilitate some of that data syncing between humans to bring it slightly closer to how in sync humans would be at normal speed
I think this is a good point - one reason at least we haven't seen complex societies arise in the game is the time and effort it takes to communicate relative to everyone's life span. As cool as it is to see social systems develop organically, I don't think there's anything wrong with using game mechanics to help facilitate some of the interactions, so long as it's handled well. That's basically what private property and fences do at the moment.

How would this be done though. Kinda makes no sense. Every second is a little over 6 days. I like your hat but its time to buy some cattle jcwilk.

jcwilk · 2019-12-08 04:44:48

Toxolotl wrote:

Sopbucket wrote:
jcwilk wrote:
I think having more coded mechanisms for communicating ideas like this is great imo... It's important to remember that because time is so sped up there would presumably be many, many more interactions in the analogous full length life so things like keeping everyone in sync about direction and values and such would be happening many times every second. A second is basically a bit less than a week so imagine trying to communicate as many things as need to be communicated across the span of a month in 5 seconds or so... It's just not possible, so it makes sense to have the game facilitate some of that data syncing between humans to bring it slightly closer to how in sync humans would be at normal speed
I think this is a good point - one reason at least we haven't seen complex societies arise in the game is the time and effort it takes to communicate relative to everyone's life span. As cool as it is to see social systems develop organically, I don't think there's anything wrong with using game mechanics to help facilitate some of the interactions, so long as it's handled well. That's basically what private property and fences do at the moment.
How would this be done though. Kinda makes no sense. Every second is a little over 6 days. I like your hat but its time to buy some cattle jcwilk.

How indeed. It just depends on which compromises Jason is cool with really. My point is just that relying on on-screen communication alone is insufficient for society building given the speed of life. Stuff like this threads idea of having ways of marking people using coded mechanics is a good direction to start exploring more of, imo.

I explored an idea for taking credit for contributions to society buried in another thread but it seemed too big an ask in terms of how much effort it would be to code so I didn't end up dedicating a thread to it as a proper suggestion but eg, irl people would gossip about who's putting in work on things that matter and who isn't but there isn't time for that in ohol... So it would be nice if there was a system that scored people based on how much their work is utilized.

Basically just saying let's try to individually keep in mind that there are certain functions of society which are not possible to duplicate organically with such a scaled up pace, so if we want them then we need to think up and suggest simplified, abstract models to fill in the gaps and be candidates for future features

Toxolotl · 2019-12-08 06:23:50

jcwilk wrote:

I explored an idea for taking credit for contributions to society buried in another thread but it seemed too big an ask in terms of how much effort it would be to code so I didn't end up dedicating a thread to it as a proper suggestion but eg, irl people would gossip about who's putting in work on things that matter and who isn't but there isn't time for that in ohol... So it would be nice if there was a system that scored people based on how much their work is utilized.
Basically just saying let's try to individually keep in mind that there are certain functions of society which are not possible to duplicate organically with such a scaled up pace, so if we want them then we need to think up and suggest simplified, abstract models to fill in the gaps and be candidates for future features

I recalls the thread. Was solid stuff but was probably too ambitious to implement given the level of structure and risk of bugs/exploits.

That being said it could make for an interesting dynamic if structured around the hierarchy business. If kings and queens where chosen because of their contribution to society instead of random people saying i follow you there would be less risk in its ability to be griefed. If someone does a number of things that are deemed sketchy they would be at the bottom of the totem pole. Perhaps referred to as an outcast. A king could only exile outcasts, protecting the rest of the group from abuse.

Perhaps instead of a loyalty structure based on an individual you are instead loyal to a society. Within that society you are ranked depending on your contributions. Outcasts(griefers) could be easily distinguished and players would be given further ability to mark(exile) them as such so they may be cursed.

The issue with it being text bubbles is that a griefer or exiled individual could just not speak and would likely go unnoticed. An alternative would be something similar to the /yoohoo or kill "!". Someone who is an outcast would walk around with a permanent "?" Above their head. Someone who is an exile would walk around with a permanent black speech bubble "!".

Last edited by Toxolotl (2019-12-08 06:45:05)

DestinyCall · 2019-12-08 09:04:49

Kinrany wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
Is your title symbolic or is it something more?
It's purely symbolic. It's a way for the leader to communicate to his followers that he disapproves of the exiled player.
The code-less alternative is to tell each follower individually, and that takes a lot of time.
The exact meaning of this "disapproval" is up to the players who use this system. The most obvious meaning is that the exiled player is a griefer.

Btw, thanks for the questions. I think I understand it better now myself!

Okay, I think I have a better grasp of your proposal now. I was getting distracted by my own ideas for how being a "king" could work, but your idea is headed in a different direction.

I feel like there's kind of two aspects at play here. Leader selection and follower exile. The idea is to provide a method for selecting trusted people to be the "leaders" and then to allow those leaders to decide if any of their followers deserve to be "exiled" from the group. If I have it wrong, please correct me.

There are two major problems that I can see. The first problem is that developing trust takes time and interactions with other players. Many players play the game with a very limited view distance and don't necessarily have the ability or desire to hang out and learn about the inner character and trustworthiness of other villagers. You might spend a little more time with your mother or your children or, if you are lucky, you might find a teacher to show you how to do stuff as a new player, but many times you will find yourself working alone or traveling outside of town or otherwise spending your early years doing stuff that doesn't provide many opportunities for learning about your neighbors or getting to know the rest of the village. Most of the time, if you do learn more about your fellow villagers, it is because something is going wrong, not because they are doing a great job and can be trusted with responsibilities.

From a practical standpoint, how do you expect people to find trustworthy players to fill leadership roles each life? How much time do you anticipate it will take to determine if someone is qualified for this kind of position? Does it even make sense to spend your time looking for "worthy" players or will you just pick someone at random and hope they are not a hidden psychopath or a complete idiot?

The second problem I see is that this kind of a system depends on a high degree of inclusion. In order for exclusion from the group (exile) to be meaningful, most people need to be considered part of the same group. If everyone is part of different sub-groups, exile essentially becomes meaningless since it has no practical significance. But if the whole village is one big cohesive group ... and you get banished from that group .. suddenly you are an outsider. Worse than an outsider - an exile! This changes your relationship with anyone else who follows the same leader, potentially leading to you being unable to live in the same village any longer or maybe even getting killed. But if there are ten people in your village and only two other people follow the same leader, does it really matter if you get "exiled" from that group? You can just find a different leader or ignore the grouping mechanic completely.

I think if it is too hard to form groups, there is a good chance that many people won't bother. Especially since they are purely symbolic. There are no special features or character buffs to encourage everyone in the village to join the same group, so they probably won't. Villages will probably splinter into several groups or not have any groups at all. And we just don't have that many people in a typical village. Five or six adults, three our four kids, maybe a couple elders. A decent sized village might have less than fifteen active players. Many villages have less than ten. Some have barely even five players. That's not really enough manpower to justify forming a legitimate "kingdom" or complex hierarchy with dukes, counts, and barons.

I see a couple ways to address these issues, but it depends on which part is most important - leader selection or follower exile. If having a leader is most important, I think the goal should be to always have a village leader. The title could be inherited, starting with the Eve, and passed down from mother to daughter, skipping to closest female relative, if you have no daughters. There could be an option to pass the title on to another female relative voluntarily, if you don't want the role, and a way to move the mantle of authority on to the next available candidate, if the current leader is deemed unsuitable by enough villagers (or maybe you just kill the tyrants). In this way, every village would have an official leader. Someone who has the job of organizing and caring for the town as a whole. I think this could potentially be a good thing, if players learned to treat this role as a distinct job and actively work to coordinate activities.

As the village leader, you could have the power to exile anyone from your family. This would mark them as an exile. This mark would be visible to everyone in your family and also to outsiders. Everyone who encounters that player would know they were exiled from their home village. Banishment lasts for the rest of the person's life, even if the village leadership changes. When the marked character dies, the slate is wiped clean and they are no longer marked. It is up to the individual villagers to decide how they will interact with banished players. They might drive them out the the village or threaten to kill them or worse. Or maybe they will ignore the banishment and treat them like any other villager.

The major difference with this system would be that people don't spend that much time choosing a leader. Most of the time, they will be born into a village with an established leader and they will just go about their lives as normal. They only have to focus on village leadership when they find themselves in the role of leader or if the current leader sucks so bad that they are forced to intervene in order to change the leadership to someone else.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2019-12-08 15:52:22)

Kinrany · 2019-12-08 10:10:46

Yeah, the most immediate problem is that these networks may be falling apart faster than they form.

Jason already chose to include one fix: you follow your mother's leader. This makes sense as the default because someone who is a leader is a little bit more trustworthy than average.

The other critical point is what happens when a leader dies.

The dead guy's leader should probably inherit his followers. This way the network simply loses an intermediate link.
Then a king can just follow a duke before his death as a way to name the successor.

Sometimes a king will die without naming a successor. The dukes then need to find each other and negotiate a way to merge the networks. Not sure how much time this would waste in practice.

You could say that the function of these networks is to centralize trust. The total effort becomes N instead of N^2. And the network can use this trust for self-healing.

Kinrany · 2019-12-08 10:31:50

Wait. Can we just have social networks?
"I TRUST ALICE", plus more sane defaults?
Would there be a difference between a social network and a rigid hierarchy?
I guess a social network is not a tree, so it's not as simple.

Toxolotl · 2019-12-08 10:42:32

I can wait for him to implement this so we can spend six months balancing this, meme score, tool slots, and biome restrictions with no real content updates. Good stuff.

DarkDrak · 2019-12-08 14:18:37

Hold up. If the whole point of this is to facilitate communication and not to diversify social structures of towns... can't we just have people learn to speak with 60-character bubbles by the age of 16? Then, if you got someone you need to warn your village of, just run around the place and repeat the same text with the up arrow key. Make sure that everyone reads it. it should take no more than a minute every time you got a major emergency, as opposed to countless lifetimes needed to estabilish a working social chain

Bowser · 2019-12-08 15:11:17

While interesting I see this getting abused, and being a great way for people to die off until they get a 'good' family.

I'd still support it to see how it plays out, but I can't see it being entirely successful without any form of griefing. I can see this play into the "lol let's enslave all of [skin color]" griefing roleplay that people do constantly.

Frankly, if I had someone being rude to me or demanding I perform certain roles in a town (especially a small, non-bell town) I would just leave. I don't need anyone's help, and many others who know the basics will feel the same. But for someone I respected, I could do that. This feels more like a way to roleplay royalty, and it sounds kind of fun on the surface. If that's your thing, I am all for it.

In a real society, however, a successful town would have elected officials, not self-appointed royalty with trolls/inexperienced players being born as 'princes' and 'princesses'. That said, the random anarchy really does not help bell towns and we do have a real problem there. What can we do to stop it? Would this help, or hinder even more? It's difficult to say.

Last edited by Bowser (2019-12-08 15:13:46)

Kinrany · 2019-12-08 16:21:53

DarkDrak wrote:

If the whole point of this is to facilitate communication and not to diversify social structures of towns... can't we just have people learn to speak with 60-character bubbles by the age of 16?

That would double the speed at best, even assuming that people can read that fast

Cutting down on the amount of people you need to talk to to establish trust is an order of magnitude improvement. Or, to be more precise, you'll need to talk to one person instead of talking to the whole village.

DestinyCall · 2019-12-08 17:02:50

I don't see the point of having dukes and barons in a village the size of the average OHOL town. In Jason's post, he mentioned that you would need something like 31 people to form a kingdom. That's roughly half the average server population. You would need to have several different towns under your control to reach the title of "king". Who could even manage that? And why would you even bother? From the perspective of your followers, what is the point of having a "king" who lives in a different village, thousands of miles away, and doesn't have time in his life to travel to your village or have any influence over your life or village?

Most villages might benefit from a SINGLE leader to help organize workflow and coordinate individual workers. But how many villages are big enough to need TWO leaders? Or three or four or five? At that point, you basically have anarchy again. Everyone is following different people and activity is not centrally coordinated. At best, multiple leaders would cancel each other out. At worst, it would generate a lot of wasteful in-fighting as they compete for control over the town population.

Also, if anyone can follow anyone, it creates some really weird situations ... Let's say you have six adults in your village. Alice follows Bob. Bob follows Mary. Mary follows Steve. Steve follows John. John follows Cassandra. Cassandra follows Alice. Who is in charge?

...

If the goal is simply to help people keep track of trusted PLAYERS, it sounds like we need some kind of blessing system. A positive counter-point to the cursing mechanic. If you meet someone in this life who is a really great villager and you like him a lot, you give him your blessing, "I trust you." And this marks that guy as someone who you personally feel is pretty decent. There are various ways that this blessing could translate to something positive in-game. One possibility is that it literally works exactly like the cursing system, but in reverse. Cursing makes that person less likely to be born close to you. Blessing could increase your chances of having that player born to you in the future. Cursing would blacklist players and blessing would whitelist players. When looking for potential mothers, the spawning system would check for mothers who have blessed you in a past life first and give them priority over normal mothers. The effect would last for thirty days.

Alternatively, blessing could have a visual effect in-game, using a karma system. If a player accumulates multiple blessing across multiple lives from multiple players, then he will gain the status of "Trusted" in their next life. Your total blessings are tracked by a karma score which tracks blessing from unique players - being blessed multiple times by the same person does not stack. Curses would decrease this score. Each unique curse lowers your score by one point. Being cursed multiple times by the same person does not stack. If you happen to bless someone in one life and curse them in the next life, they cancel each other out - no net change. Both curses and blessing expire after thirty days.

Let's say the threshold is ten blessings. That means that at least ten different players over the last thirty days thought you were worthy of being blessed.

In practice, this means that if you encounter a villager who is marked out as "Trusted", then they are probably a pretty good villager. You can probably ask them questions and they are probably going to work hard. There would be the possibility that some people would try to game the system by asking for blessings or blessing random people. Not everyone who is gets blessed would be worthy of the blessing, just as not everyone who ends up cursed really deserves to be cursed. But it might help to give you useful information about the nature of individual players in your current village and steer you toward responsible leaders.

And if you really want to take it all the way, you could add the same thing for curses. If you have accumulated a large number of unique curses over the last month, not only are you unlikely to be born to any of the players in active towns, you are also marked as "Exiled". Blessing an exiled player would raise their karma score and potentially remove the title in their next life. If you encounter an exiled player (which should be a pretty rare occurrence due to the way the curse system works), you can be assured that they are most likely a trouble-maker and should be watched very carefully. They have upset a lot of different players and you will want to be careful not to become one of their victims. You might want to kill them on sight ... or maybe you will be merciful and give them the chance to earn your forgiveness and a new blessing.

Kinrany · 2019-12-08 17:21:53

If the goal is simply to help people keep track of trusted PLAYERS, it sounds like we need some kind of blessing system.

No, it's not just about keeping track of trust. It's a way to trust people you never met before.

Karma is too easy to abuse. As soon as being a Trusted becomes a marginally good thing, people will game the system.

DestinyCall · 2019-12-08 18:10:49

I don't really see how a blessing system is any more vulnerable to abuse than your original idea. If being a leader is desirable, people will seek to accumulate followers by any means necessary. Having a bunch of supporters would not be a good indicator that someone was worthy of your trust. It would be an indicator that they were good at amassing followers.

We can look to the real world for abundant examples of untrustworthy people who have managed to convince people to follow them. I don't see things working any better in a game.

Kinrany · 2019-12-08 18:41:18

There's no disconnect between text on the screen and it's supposed meaning, so there's nothing to game. You can't buy it the same way you can't buy money.

You can trick people into trusting you personally, of course. That's an orthogonal problem. But you can't trick people into believing that someone they trust, trusts you, unless the third person already betrayed you.

Last edited by Kinrany (2019-12-08 18:44:10)

DiscardedSlinky · 2019-12-09 22:15:15

Welp Jason is adding this.

So glad we're getting "EPIC RP" instead of fixes for the racial restrictions. We can't have a town live without a bell? Here's some RP for you guys. Thanks a lot.

jcwilk · 2019-12-09 22:22:23

DestinyCall wrote:

We can look to the real world for abundant examples of untrustworthy people who have managed to convince people to follow them. I don't see things working any better in a game.

If it matches real-world broken behavior then isn't that an argument for it being added? I think it's fun and interesting to explore fucked up aspects of life in OHOL, and it lets us leverage our instincts when things in the game are consistent with things in life.

Thaulos · 2019-12-09 22:53:19

What is instead of trying to force specific titles you just gave the option to self-title to leaders and the ability for leaders to title their servants.

This way you could potentially have different branches of hierarchy.

King
Marshal => Guard
Master Smith => Smith/Forge Helper
Master Cook => pie cook, kitchen helper, stew maker
Explorer => Scout
Master Farmer => Farmer
Master Pen
etc

Players could come up with their own titles which hopefully wouldn't be too much 18+. But if someone started giving themselves offensive titles chances are rest of community would deal with the offenders.

Last edited by Thaulos (2019-12-09 22:53:59)

jcwilk · 2019-12-09 23:07:42

Thaulos wrote:

Players could come up with their own titles which hopefully wouldn't be too much 18+. But if someone started giving themselves offensive titles chances are rest of community would deal with the offenders.

If it was my town I'd exile anyone who didn't use 18+ titles

DestinyCall · 2019-12-09 23:37:02

jcwilk wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
We can look to the real world for abundant examples of untrustworthy people who have managed to convince people to follow them. I don't see things working any better in a game.
If it matches real-world broken behavior then isn't that an argument for it being added? I think it's fun and interesting to explore fucked up aspects of life in OHOL, and it lets us leverage our instincts when things in the game are consistent with things in life.

Personally, I think that's a terrible reason to add a broken system into the game. But I guess everyone has different opinions on what sounds like "fun".

DestinyCall · 2019-12-09 23:47:53

Thaulos wrote:

What is instead of trying to force specific titles you just gave the option to self-title to leaders and the ability for leaders to title their servants.
This way you could potentially have different branches of hierarchy.
King
Marshal => Guard
Master Smith => Smith/Forge Helper
Master Cook => pie cook, kitchen helper, stew maker
Explorer => Scout
Master Farmer => Farmer
Master Pen
etc
Players could come up with their own titles which hopefully wouldn't be too much 18+. But if someone started giving themselves offensive titles chances are rest of community would deal with the offenders.

I'd be happy to see professional titles added to the game, but I'd prefer if it came along with some kind of system that encouraged people to actually specialize in their chosen profession, instead of just granting yourself a title that is effectively meaningless. So if you were a "Baker" it was because you actually intended to bake some pies at some point in your life. Or if you were a "Master Smith" you maybe actually knew a few things about using the forge. If anyone can grand themselves the tile of "Super Amazing Guy Who Just Likes to Farm and Not Kill Random People", I'd have a hard time believing that the title really means anything about the person and their skills or in-game goals.

....

I proposed an idea for professional titles a while back as an alternative skill system (instead of the limited tool slots). But implementing it properly would require adding certain profession-related skills, so it will probably never happen. In short, my idea was that a self-proclaimed "baker" would be better at baking than a non-baker. And that holding the title of baker for a long time would eventually grant you the title of "senior baker" and even better baking skill. So you would pick a profession that would match your work aspirations and might stick with a particular career to get even better professional bonuses. You didn't have to pick a profession and you could change your profession at any time. But changing professions too much might mean you don't have enough time to reach the higher rank before you die of old age. You could technically still be a baker that never bakes pies, but it would be an objectively poor choice.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-10 01:38:14

jcwilk wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
We can look to the real world for abundant examples of untrustworthy people who have managed to convince people to follow them. I don't see things working any better in a game.
If it matches real-world broken behavior then isn't that an argument for it being added?

No, because people are more likely to kill and abuse systems in a game than in the real world. Also, it doesn't mean that it will dovetail with the spirit of the game all that well, purportedly being a multiplayer survival game of parenting and civilization building. In the right hands, I can see it working out ok. But often enough the relevant power will end up in the wrong hands. And we're talking about absolute power, or something to it. It will corrupt.

Also, I don't believe it all that consistent with real life. I don't think that people had monarchies and such with very small population sizes.

One Hour One Life Forums

#76 2019-12-08 03:22:35

Re: Hierarchies

#77 2019-12-08 03:24:13

Re: Hierarchies

#78 2019-12-08 03:29:18

Re: Hierarchies

#79 2019-12-08 03:59:11

Re: Hierarchies

#80 2019-12-08 04:24:25

Re: Hierarchies

#81 2019-12-08 04:44:48

Re: Hierarchies

#82 2019-12-08 06:23:50

Re: Hierarchies

#83 2019-12-08 09:04:49

Re: Hierarchies

#84 2019-12-08 10:10:46

Re: Hierarchies

#85 2019-12-08 10:31:50

Re: Hierarchies

#86 2019-12-08 10:42:32

Re: Hierarchies

#87 2019-12-08 14:18:37

Re: Hierarchies

#88 2019-12-08 15:11:17

Re: Hierarchies

#89 2019-12-08 16:21:53

Re: Hierarchies

#90 2019-12-08 17:02:50

Re: Hierarchies

#91 2019-12-08 17:21:53

Re: Hierarchies

#92 2019-12-08 18:10:49

Re: Hierarchies

#93 2019-12-08 18:41:18

Re: Hierarchies

#94 2019-12-09 22:15:15

Re: Hierarchies

#95 2019-12-09 22:22:23

Re: Hierarchies

#96 2019-12-09 22:53:19

Re: Hierarchies

#97 2019-12-09 23:07:42

Re: Hierarchies

#98 2019-12-09 23:37:02

Re: Hierarchies

#99 2019-12-09 23:47:53

Re: Hierarchies

#100 2019-12-10 01:38:14

Re: Hierarchies

Board footer