Jump to content

Gaming disorder is to be recognized by WHO in 2018 as a mental disorder


DisobeyedCargo
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

43 minutes ago, Michelaar said:

I can kinda see the point, but kinda not? Putting this disorder in the same boat as something like DID is kinda ridiculous tbh.

Sorta? Whether or not this deserves to be put in the same category as DID isn't something I'm going to argue, but hopefully recognising it as a separate condition can lead to a more specific treatment plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Purple Mage said:

I think you are more likely to lose your mind than your vision due to overexposure to mathematics.

There was an article about an old lady who lost her vision because she spent like 64 hours on a mobile game. So my bad if it sounds false.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harvey said:

There was an article about an old lady who lost her vision because she spent like 64 hours on a mobile game. So my bad if it sounds false.

 

If it can help those kind of people i'm all for it, but I feel like it will get misused a lot.

Edited by Michelaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a lot of people need to actually read up on this and stop saying nonsense

 

there is precedent for non-physiological addictions being categorised as disorders (gambling) and it's in no way condemning video games or labelling them a cause for concern

 

hilariously enough the misinformation and panic in this thread are reminiscent of the kind of anti-video game 80s spiel they seem to think this is

 

edit: as a disclaimer i'm not saying this is really a necessary addition but for completely different reasons. be reasonable.

Edited by fartboi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see this getting discussed in health circles. Things related to mental health aren't talked about nearly enough, and gamers as a group are extremely defensive about anything seen as a criticism of their hobby (see: this topic) which makes it even harder for them to admit when they have a problem.

I've personally known people who have become addicted to gaming to the point where it has seriously impacted their lives in a negative way (including loss of relationships and jobs). Folks in this thread dismissing are either blissfully unaware of such situations or are in denial. Just because you personally haven't become addicted doesn't mean that nobody has a problem with it. (Much like just because many people can enjoy a drink every now and then doesn't mean that alcholism isn't a real issue.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I may of said this before. But I think that the WHO needs to look up the definition of disorders. I would say that Gaming addiction isn't a disorder. I think the WHO is doing that to make people paranoid for the same reason that they say that violent video games causes violence in people. I think that is kinda dumb to put gaming disorder which is NOT a thing on the disorder spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John Denver Fan said:

I know I may of said this before. But I think that the WHO needs to look up the definition of disorders. I would say that Gaming addiction isn't a disorder. I think the WHO is doing that to make people paranoid for the same reason that they say that violent video games causes violence in people. I think that is kinda dumb to put gaming disorder which is NOT a thing on the disorder spectrum.

The medical definition of a disorder includes mental conditions, which an addiction absolutely falls under.

Also, you're missing the entire point of the this; it's not to say that everyone who plays games is addicted, but to recognise that people can become addicted to games to such a degree that it has a detrimental impact on other aspects of their lives.

It amazes me how the internet gaming community has just come of complaining about how loot boxes are gambling and that features like it are designed in a way to get people addicted, but when the WHO wants to talk about adding gaming to a long list of addictions, it's right back to scaremongering about people trying to 'ruin the vidya gaems' for nebulously defined reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, John Denver Fan said:

I know I may of said this before. But I think that the WHO needs to look up the definition of disorders. I would say that Gaming addiction isn't a disorder. I think the WHO is doing that to make people paranoid for the same reason that they say that violent video games causes violence in people. I think that is kinda dumb to put gaming disorder which is NOT a thing on the disorder spectrum.

 

Phillius already set the record straight, but really... why do you cares what it's called? Video games can be addictive and that's a problem. Let's acknowledge that and do what we can to help people who suffer from it, not quibble about semantics.

 

On 12/28/2017 at 9:39 AM, Florete said:

As for me, I'm unsure what to think for now. On one hand, it could be great for the people who really do need the help. But if things go wrong, it could revert gaming back to the awful stigma it once had (which is still somewhat here, but far less prevalent).


As someone who has plenty of non-gaming friends and family... I think gaming still has a stigma, but it's one that's more to do with the behaviour of gamers than the games themselves at this point. People who neglect their relationships due to games aren't nearly as rare as I'd like. Same with people who let a hobby dominate their lives (even in this thread, we have "gaming is my life"... hyperbole I hope, but...). People who regularly show up to work/school tired because they were gaming until the early hours of the morning. People who think it's perfectly fine to create insulting or threatening videos in response to calling a video game sexist, or even just giving it a poor review.

The stigma will persist as long as behaviour like this is normalized within the gaming community. Most other hobbies don't have these problems to nearly the same extent. I have many friends who love skiing. Not one of these behaviours I just described is something I associate with them, or skiers in general.

I also do think it's a problem that self-identifed gamers have chosen to embrace games which are extremely violent on average with non-violent games often dismissed as being for "casuals" (sports games, farm/town simulators, puzzle games, just to name a few).  I love Fire Emblem! It's a series about killing soldiers (and occasional monster); it's violent. And yet it's not considered particularly violent by video game standards. Which says a great deal about what those standards are, I think, and that's not a good thing IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do question why things like video games seem to get so much attention. I agree that a lot of the time it is the person and not the content. I can't think of anything that makes it worse than watching television or eating junk food. At the end of the day it is a persons decision and it is often led by them and not the content they are taking in. For example, someone can get very angry over something like a movie or show. I'm probably just over thinking this, but oh well. Those are just my thoughts on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, LaserDuda said:

I'm probably just over thinking this, but oh well.

yes

6 hours ago, John Denver Fan said:

I know I may of said this before. But I think that the WHO needs to look up the definition of disorders. I would say that Gaming addiction isn't a disorder. I think the WHO is doing that to make people paranoid for the same reason that they say that violent video games causes violence in people. I think that is kinda dumb to put gaming disorder which is NOT a thing on the disorder spectrum.

i give up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I also do think it's a problem that self-identifed gamers have chosen to embrace games which are extremely violent on average with non-violent games often dismissed as being for "casuals" (sports games, farm/town simulators, puzzle games, just to name a few).  I love Fire Emblem! It's a series about killing soldiers (and occasional monster); it's violent. And yet it's not considered particularly violent by video game standards. Which says a great deal about what those standards are, I think, and that's not a good thing IMO.

Video games are currently stuck in the weird state where the medium is, broadly speaking, accepted as a valid form of artistic expression but still lags behind when it comes to mainstream diversity of artistic creativity and criticism. It's probably the thing that annoys me the most about the gaming community; when large groups of people who would rage virulently if someone said that video games aren't a valid artistic medium, but dismiss 'walking simulator' games, complain about wanting their games to be free of political messages/relevance, and respond to more nuanced critiques of gaming in the most comically over-the-top and toxic ways *cough cough* Anita Sarkeesian *cough cough*.

1 hour ago, LaserDuda said:

I do question why things like video games seem to get so much attention.

It's a multitude of things. Part of it that GamerGate, while absolutely no longer relevant as a movement, blew the lid off on just how bad a lot of circles in the gaming community can be, part of it is due to the prevalence of video games in online culture, and part of it is due to the fact that the medium makes it much easier to be a dickhead as per the G.I.F.T theory (Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad).

Edited by Phillius the Crestfallen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2018 at 5:36 AM, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

Video games are currently stuck in the weird state where the medium is, broadly speaking, accepted as a valid form of artistic expression but still lags behind when it comes to mainstream diversity of artistic creativity and criticism. It's probably the thing that annoys me the most about the gaming community; when large groups of people who would rage virulently if someone said that video games aren't a valid artistic medium, but dismiss 'walking simulator' games, complain about wanting their games to be free of political messages/relevance, and respond to more nuanced critiques of gaming in the most comically over-the-top and toxic ways *cough cough* Anita Sarkeesian *cough cough*.

It's a multitude of things. Part of it that GamerGate, while absolutely no longer relevant as a movement, blew the lid off on just how bad a lot of circles in the gaming community can be, part of it is due to the prevalence of video games in online culture, and part of it is due to the fact that the medium makes it much easier to be a dickhead as per the G.I.F.T theory (Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad).

It's kinda the opposite, though. Given how Anita is a hateful and toxic person, I don't see how anyone would think  the response to her was anything but fair and nuanced.

Edited by Achelexus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Achelexus said:

It's kinda the opposite, though. Given how Anita is a hateful and toxic person, I don't see how anyone would think  the response to her was anything but fair and nuanced.

I don't see how a constant, never-ending stream of rape and death threats are 'fair and nuanced', but I'm just going to assume that you literally know nothing about her other than what 4chan and Reddit told you.

As for Anita yourself, how about you watch this video and then we can have this discussion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

I don't see how a constant, never-ending stream of rape and death threats are 'fair and nuanced', but I'm just going to assume that you literally know nothing about her other than what 4chan and Reddit told you.

As for Anita yourself, how about you watch this video and then we can have this discussion.

If the best you can point in her defense is linking reactionary videos, then you should really know better about the subject before saying anything. Anyone who even knows anything about her knows she's just a regressive person who caused a lot of damage towards gaming's image as an art form and stirred a lot of vitriol in the industry, so it's understandable why a lot of people don't like her and want her to stay forgotten in oblivion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Achelexus said:

If the best you can point in her defense is linking reactionary videos

Or it could be that I just really, really, really don't want to be having THIS discussion in the year of our lord 2018.

Also, I love how you've come in here throwing out some very slanderous accusations and when I say 'Could you watch this video and then we can talk about this', you explicitly refuse to watch it and then have the fucking gall to call me the ignorant one on this subject.

11 minutes ago, Achelexus said:

Anyone who even knows anything about her knows she's just a regressive person

Fucking where? Show me anything Anita has said that could be considered hateful or regressive? I'm not the biggest fan of Anita myself, I consider some of her critiques to be somewhat gender existentialist, but hateful and regressive she most certainly is not.

11 minutes ago, Achelexus said:

who caused a lot of damage towards gaming's image as an art form and stirred a lot of vitriol in the industry

By offering feminist critique of the medium? Leaving aside the fact that critique is a necessary part of any artistic medium, you do realise critiquing the medium beyond 'the gameplay is good, the story is a bit bland, ETC' actually elevates the medium, right? Because she's treating it as something other than something kids and teenagers play around with? As for the 'vitrol' bit, are you really going to blame her for the online hate-mob she's recieved the wrath of purely because she, at the very worst, offers criticism that people don't like? I don't particularly enjoy Jim Sterling's criticism either, but I don't send him messages telling him I wish he'd kill himself.

Edited by Phillius the Crestfallen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking that video offers any sort of evidence is being on the same level of people who think that the Flat Earth Society offers proof that the Earth isn't round.

Also, she never offered any valid criticism, just wanted to lead a hate mob on gaming, even serious developers recognized that and mocked her for it. Her channel doesn't get any more views because the people that watched her in 2014 are past their teenage edgy years and realized that they were heading to a pretty miserable and lonely life by idolizing someone like that. It's just a really weird hill to die on, I'm not sure why anyone would still defend Anita on this year, it just makes places you on the wrong side of history. Peace.

Edited by Achelexus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you taking the fucking piss? I'm being serious, are you pranking me?

4 minutes ago, Achelexus said:

If you think that video offered any sort of evidence, you're on the same level of people who think that the Flat Earth Society offers proof that the Earth isn't round.

First of all, nice ad hominem. Second of all, you're judging a video that you haven't even watched yet. Lastly, if my views are on the same level as the Flat Earth Society, they should be pretty easy to disprove, no? So I'll ask again;

5 minutes ago, Achelexus said:

Also, she never offered any valid criticism, just wanted to lead a hate mob on gaming, even serious developers recognized that and mocked her for it. Her channel doesn't get any more views because the people that watched her in 2014 are past their teenage edgy years and realized that they were heading to a pretty miserable and lonely life by idolizing someone like that. It's just a really weird hill to die on, I'm not sure why anyone would still defend Anita on this year, it just makes places you on the wrong side of history. Peace.

Give me a fucking source! Give me anything you want! I'll take Sargon of Akkad/Stefan Molyneux/Thundef00t/youtuber of your choice videos, I'll take KiA posts, I'll even take a meme you find on fucking /pol/, just give me something!

This is your last chance, if all you can give me is more of your other posts I'm just going to report you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2017 at 7:29 AM, Anacybele said:

I don't believe you. You don't die from breaking your legs. People have broken their legs all the time and are still alive. Hell, some people lose their legs entirely and live.

Now if you don't eat or sleep, that's due to not eating or sleeping, not video games. And like you said, that's very rare. And people can be addicted to other habits to the point of doing the same thing. It's not the fault of video games or whatever the habit is. It's people not being responsible.

I have heard/read similar articles before. IIRC, one man in China ignored his health for 3 days straight because he played video games and passed away. His lack of proper care did him in, and it's what should be emphasized, imo. But he did it because he was addicted to video games. I agree with your sentiment that it ultimately falls to a lack of responsibility for oneself, and not necessarily the subject of addiction, since video games aren't made with the intention to cause addiction. However, it can be seen as an additive.

And in Japan, there's also the hikikomori syndrome, more commonly known as NEETs, where the individuals stays in their room all day, often playing video games. However, I have yet to hear any death-related news about NEETs, just the side effects such as a lack of socialization and Vitamin B deficiencies. These cases are problems of addiction in general, but it should be noted that other factors may have also influenced them (especially NEETs).

I would also like to point out that these death of addictions are very rare. There's millions of gamers around the world, and yet there's very few news stories relating to these matters. So the matter is serious, but small in scope.

And usually addictions are considered "disorders" mainly because a disorder is defined by a mental abnormality, which covers addiction.

So yes, the cause of death is often due to malnutrition/lack of eating and sleeping. But video games is what distracted them from their health. You just don't arrest the thief, but the accomplices as well.

But what I find BS about this is that they've listed no treatments. There are treatments, they just seemed lazy to list them here.

Also, the WHO isn't condemning video games, it's just pointing out that people get addicted to them.

TL;DR: There have been video game-related deaths, but it mainly falls to the person not taking care of themselves properly due to their addiction. The WHO was lazy with their definition, especially in regards to treatments.

Edited by Dandy Druid
add more info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Achelexus said:

Thinking that video offers any sort of evidence is being on the same level of people who think that the Flat Earth Society offers proof that the Earth isn't round.

Also, she never offered any valid criticism, just wanted to lead a hate mob on gaming, even serious developers recognized that and mocked her for it. Her channel doesn't get any more views because the people that watched her in 2014 are past their teenage edgy years and realized that they were heading to a pretty miserable and lonely life by idolizing someone like that. It's just a really weird hill to die on, I'm not sure why anyone would still defend Anita on this year, it just makes places you on the wrong side of history. Peace.

My word, that's a lot of assumptions, and less evidence than the Flat Earth Society gives.

If you're not here to give an honest listen to the other side, which may include watching a video you don't agree with, don't bother posting in this subforum.  It's Serious Discussion, not Serious Blanket Statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

I don't see how a constant, never-ending stream of rape and death threats are 'fair and nuanced', but I'm just going to assume that you literally know nothing about her other than what 4chan and Reddit told you.

To be fair, Anita does have a reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth.

I did watch her videos, and I remember in one she claims that female NPC characters bodies disappearing after a brief time was an example of sexism, or as the video was titled 'women as background objects'. Nevermind, that male NPCs in the same game do the same thing. (the game was The Godfather II)

Whoever's doing the gameplay footage also has a habit of recording the camera in a way to make it the most sexually explicit way possible to prove the videos point, such as the Hitman part where they assassinate as many strippers in a strip club section just to show you can do it, not that the game encourages doing so (it actually does the exact opposite considering you lose ranking for unnecessary civilian kills outside of your targets generally).

If thunderf00t does cherrypick, and he probably does, then Anita almost certainly does as well. Her videos are edited well, but have very few sources backing them up, because she's just another person giving an opinion on the internet. I like some of her videos or points, like that video praising Jade from Beyond Good & Evil, but there's a lot more to criticise her videos on more than just giving her threats, and the people doing that are just dumbasses. But I don't necessarily think they are 'nuanced' as a whole - nor are most of the videos from people constantly criticising her, either.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

<Snip>

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you.

3 hours ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

Fucking where? Show me anything Anita has said that could be considered hateful or regressive? I'm not the biggest fan of Anita myself, I consider some of her critiques to be somewhat gender existentialist, but hateful and regressive she most certainly is not.

Gender essentialism isn't the only thing I dislike about her critiques, by my general points were thus;

1. Anita is absolutely not hateful or regressive. The worst thing you can accuse her of is getting some of her critiques wrong, which by internet standards is the norm rather than the exception. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that getting some things wrong is the norm of artistic criticism in general, but that's a discussion for another day.

2. The response to her is ludicrous in both how disproportionate it is and in terms of it's toxicity.

I'd also add that some of the people who don't fall explicitly in that crowd would've had their opinions of her coloured by the vitriol.

On that note, can you give me the video source for the Godfather one? It's not that I think you're wrong necessarily, I've just long since learnt to always double-check things when it comes to Anita.

Edited by Phillius the Crestfallen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you.

Gender essentialism isn't the only thing I dislike about her critiques, by my general points were thus;

1. Anita is absolutely not hateful or regressive. The worst thing you can accuse her of is getting some of her critiques wrong, which by internet standards is the norm rather than the exception. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that getting some things wrong is the norm of artistic criticism in general, but that's a discussion for another day.

2. The response to her is ludicrous in both how disproportionate it is and in terms of it's toxicity.

I'd also add that some of the people who don't fall explicitly in that crowd would've had their opinions of her coloured by the vitriol.

On that note, can you give me the video source for the Godfather one? It's not that I think you're wrong necessarily, I've just long since learnt to always double-check things when it comes to Anita.

Anita might not be hateful, but I don't think she really understands why anyone would disagree with her views on the medium. For better or for worse, Anita was one of the ones that got attention and popularity from doing this. I find this unfortunate, because I think in general she does a pretty poor job of representing a lot of issues that fellow feminist critiques might bring up.

Some people are also not the brightest, and don't realise that by directing threats towards her you give her the legitimate opportunity to prove her points as gaming communities not liking anyone coming into their club and trying to mess things up.

Alright, so it wasn't just necessarily the Godfather. Those games there usually promote some sort of freedom as sandbox-type games, and as far as I know don't really make any distinction between treating male or female NPCs like objects. I find the claim that the game encourages you to pick up specifically female bodies pretty ludicrous.

I do remember I did have a lot of problems with this particular video when I originally watched it, but don't have the time to go through it right now and watch it again.

 

But now, that's a little bit off the initial topic. :)

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Alright, so it wasn't just necessarily the Godfather. Those games there usually promote some sort of freedom as sandbox-type games, and as far as I know don't really make any distinction between treating male or female NPCs like objects. I find the claim that the game encourages you to pick up specifically female bodies pretty ludicrous.

I do remember I did have a lot of problems with this particular video when I originally watched it, but don't have the time to go through it right now and watch it again.

As usual, she's partly right and partly wrong. The specific point you're talking about is something she gets wrong, but the game does encourage violence against women in some ways. GTA is used as an example, wherein prostitutes (which I'm fairly certain are always women as an added 'bonus') drop more money than normal civilians if I remember correctly. In some games, if not all of them, they also drop the money that you spend on them if you hired them. This absolutely incentives specifically killing women in some cases, since you can hire the prostitute for some cringe-worthy fanservice, and then immediately kill them to get your money back and then some

There's also the fact that in Red Dead Redemption you get an achievement for hogtying a woman and placing her on train-tracks to get run over and that hogtying prostitutes in the same game results in them making sexual innuendo instead of any reasonable dialogue.

Also, I remember this video and for the most part, it's mostly talking about female NPCs who are prostitutes, strippers, and the like being used as nothing more than cheap sex-objects. Thus, the point is less based around the inherent disposability of NPCs, and more-so based around the fact that such characters are given more traits that make them stand out from regular NPCs, but still remain disposable in that their only use is as objects in the background for the player's sexual gratification, often in incredibly sleazy and misogynistic ways, and that some games outright give you incentives to kill them specifically.

EDIT: I started watching the second part because I remembered that there was something relevant to this in there and I found it, she outright defines what she sees as 'Women as Background Decoration'

"The subset of largely insignifcant non-playable female characters whose sexuality or victimhood is exploited as a way to infuse edgy, gritty, or racy flavouring into game worlds. These sexually objectified female bodies are designed to function as environmental texture while titillating presumed straight male players."

Edited by Phillius the Crestfallen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

As usual, she's partly right and partly wrong. The specific point you're talking about is something she gets wrong, but the game does encourage violence against women in some ways. GTA is used as an example, wherein prostitutes (which I'm fairly certain are always women as an added 'bonus') drop more money than normal civilians if I remember correctly. In some games, if not all of them, they also drop the money that you spend on them if you hired them. This absolutely incentives specifically killing women in some cases, since you can hire the prostitute for some cringe-worthy fanservice, and then immediately kill them to get your money back and then some

There's also the fact that in Red Dead Redemption you get an achievement for hogtying a woman and placing her on train-tracks to get run over and that hogtying prostitutes in the same game results in them making sexual innuendo instead of any reasonable dialogue.

Also, I remember this video and for the most part, it's mostly talking about female NPCs who are prostitutes, strippers, and the like being used as nothing more than cheap sex-objects. Thus, the point is less based around the inherent disposability of NPCs, and more-so based around the fact that such characters are given more traits that make them stand out from regular NPCs, but still remain disposable in that their only use is as objects in the background for the player's sexual gratification, often in incredibly sleazy and misogynistic ways, and that some games outright give you incentives to kill them specifically.

EDIT: I started watching the second part because I remembered that there was something relevant to this in there and I found it, she outright defines what she sees as 'Women as Background Decoration'

"The subset of largely insignifcant non-playable female characters whose sexuality or victimhood is exploited as a way to infuse edgy, gritty, or racy flavouring into game worlds. These sexually objectified female bodies are designed to function as environmental texture while titillating presumed straight male players."

Fair on the Red Dead Redemption point (which I never went ahead and played), but I've played the other games there and Deus Ex, Dishonored, Godfather II, Fallout: New Vegas really don't have any affiliation for that other than having sex workers or scantily clad women exist. Which, y'know, if that's her problem, fine, but there might actually be quite a few feminists that disagree with her in that regard. I remain unconvinced that the average background male character has any more traits than a female one or vice versa, really - unless you consider showing sexuality as a trait. You could say that sexuality is a lazy way to portray a gritty setting, and I'd probably agree, but I also don't see anything inherently wrong with that.

In GTA, drug dealers will usually drop the most money out of any civilian, to my recollection. The added benefit of the whole 'hire a prostitute and then kill her to get your money back' meme that is often cited about GTA is that they actually have a gameplay implication, but it isn't exactly the greatest incentive to spend your time doing. GTA is part social commentary to begin with, really, and is somewhat a satire of a hyperaggressive American-like society.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...