Go Back   Pojo.com Forums > Yu-Gi-Oh! > Yu-Gi-Oh! Forbidden/Limited List Discussions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-07-2010, 05:45 PM   #1
Shining Blue-eyes
Pojo Veteran
 
Shining Blue-eyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,999
iTrader: 0
Default A Theory of Yugioh - Part 3 (Floaters)

The original definition of a floater as far as I understand it is "a card that has already replaced itself". But what does this mean?

We will begin with a hypothetical card unit. Each card unit is worth one other card. If your opponent manages to get rid of two of your card units with his single card unit then he has gotten a +1. That is he has gotten rid of two cards for the price of one giving him a profit of one. Of course this is a drastic simplification of the game but it is a good one to understand.

Under this model then. A card like a flipped Dekoichi has already replaced itself in that it has already gotten you another card. The Deko you have on the field is a bonus, it is the frosting on top of the cake. This was known as a floater.

But this definition is thoroughly unhelpful. A La Jinn that has killed 3 monsters in battle is no more nor less valuable than a La Jinn that has killed no monsters in battle, ceteris paribus. They are both 1800 ATK monsters without effects. The belief that a La Jinn that has killed more monsters in battle is somehow more or less valuable is known as the sunk cost fallacy.

But the term floater is too valuable not to use. But what do we use it for? Well, the majority of cards that have been called floaters in the past must still match the definition of floater. A flipped Deko must still be a floater.

It turns out that the term floater does have a use. It is a very important one.

The flipped Deko, once on the field, is nothing more than a Celtic Guardian and surely no one would run Celtic Guardian. Why not? Because he sucks. He is not worth the opportunity cost of running him, I could be running a better card that gives me a better chance of winning.

This means that Celtic Guardian is worth less than this hypothetical Card Unit we began this chapter on and a Deko face-up on the field, being a Celtic Guardian is also worth less than this hypothetical card unit.

Therefore, Deko is a floater and the term can now be defined as "a card that is worth less than the hypothetical card unit". But surely, we cannot define Celtic Guardian as a floater, that would go against all tradition and understanding of what a floater was. And so the definition becomes "a card that has replaced itself and is worth less than the hypothetical card unit".
__________________
http://antikonami.wordpress.com/

"The real “intellectual property crime” is that Nintendo, with the help of coercive enforcement of monopoly privileges by the state, is able to charge an enormous sum of money for a game whose marginal cost of reproduction is twenty cents." - Kevin Carson
Shining Blue-eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 06:02 PM   #2
Personofsecrets
!!!Monarch User!!!
 
Personofsecrets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oneida (Central) New York
Age: 24
Posts: 2,765
iTrader: 0
Default

But deko is a card! its no different than a call of the haunted face up on the field, you plus 1!!!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel H. Stinkmeaner
Oh yeah! Look at ya! You was poppin' all that good **** a second ago, then you got kicked in yo chest!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deck Box View Post
Is it seriously called "ROFLCHESTER"?
Soul Exchange + Thestalos = OTK
Personofsecrets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 06:23 PM   #3
Delphy
Registered User
 
Delphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 483
iTrader: 7 (100%)
Default

Floater just means those cards that instantly pay for themselves by giving you a +1 with an effect. So a gadget, Stratos, Boggart Knight, Ryko, GK Spy etc. It's not hard to understand.
Delphy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 06:34 PM   #4
Serotonin
A Dark Favor
 
Serotonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a dark place
Age: 30
Posts: 27,402
iTrader: 0
Default

Now if you just explained that just because a Monarch has a plus one effect does not make it a floater because the card it gets a plus one off of is just replacing the card you tributed making monarchs not floaters.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WazzaGorz7 View Post
I totally see the connection between Soul Charge and Marijuana
Serotonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 07:53 PM   #5
XENOCIDEX
Damnation Dragon
 
XENOCIDEX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: East coast
Posts: 1,134
iTrader: 2 (100%)
Default

an odd debate.

i would say it is a card that has already provided advantage by its effect to offset its cost/activation, or has led to a gain in advantage by its effect while keeping the card itself.

I put in the "by its effect" line to discern from the archaic form of advantage generated by battle.

Battle value is something no one wants to associate with card advantage, as it will drive most people insane trying to contemplate it with all its clauses and exceptions based on circumstance.
__________________
Trades

Team ProAgressive
Linky!
V V V V V


XENOCIDEX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 08:12 PM   #6
Serotonin
A Dark Favor
 
Serotonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a dark place
Age: 30
Posts: 27,402
iTrader: 0
Default

It is still my opinion that most decks have stopped using battle as a way to gain card advantage and therefore can not be counted in the card advantage argument.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WazzaGorz7 View Post
I totally see the connection between Soul Charge and Marijuana
Serotonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 09:22 PM   #7
The Crowing
turntechGodhead
 
The Crowing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Age: 21
Posts: 11,735
iTrader: 0
Default

Every card floats by battle, some do it better then others.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinstonShnozwick View Post
March 2014 konami will ban wind up factory.

Because they have a hateboner for wind ups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Dragon View Post
"But what if Yu-Gi-Oh! was playable in a magical kingdom where everyone got free candy and Kevin Tewart was there judging while dressed as a pink bunny rabbit?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinstonShnozwick View Post
Counters exist?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!?!?! ??!
The Crowing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 09:58 PM   #8
Serotonin
A Dark Favor
 
Serotonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a dark place
Age: 30
Posts: 27,402
iTrader: 0
Default

Exactly correct which in turn means that if you count everyone monster as a floater because it floats from attacking it then becomes harder to figure out which monsters are problematic because you can counter argue any floater effect by saying X card can attack and kill a monster.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WazzaGorz7 View Post
I totally see the connection between Soul Charge and Marijuana
Serotonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 10:46 PM   #9
Personofsecrets
!!!Monarch User!!!
 
Personofsecrets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oneida (Central) New York
Age: 24
Posts: 2,765
iTrader: 0
Default

it may become harder but it still isn't hard.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel H. Stinkmeaner
Oh yeah! Look at ya! You was poppin' all that good **** a second ago, then you got kicked in yo chest!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deck Box View Post
Is it seriously called "ROFLCHESTER"?
Soul Exchange + Thestalos = OTK
Personofsecrets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 10:49 PM   #10
Serotonin
A Dark Favor
 
Serotonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a dark place
Age: 30
Posts: 27,402
iTrader: 0
Default

If attacking is just a good as effect floating then we both agree that B Gorilla and Goblin attack force are the best cards in the game because then have infinate potential against the field because of there high attack power?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WazzaGorz7 View Post
I totally see the connection between Soul Charge and Marijuana
Serotonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:05 PM   #11
Personofsecrets
!!!Monarch User!!!
 
Personofsecrets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oneida (Central) New York
Age: 24
Posts: 2,765
iTrader: 0
Default

totally not
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel H. Stinkmeaner
Oh yeah! Look at ya! You was poppin' all that good **** a second ago, then you got kicked in yo chest!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deck Box View Post
Is it seriously called "ROFLCHESTER"?
Soul Exchange + Thestalos = OTK
Personofsecrets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:08 PM   #12
Serotonin
A Dark Favor
 
Serotonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a dark place
Age: 30
Posts: 27,402
iTrader: 0
Default

Well this would conclude then attacking doesn't contribute to card advantage.

Additional Comment:

not enough to be a factor anyway
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WazzaGorz7 View Post
I totally see the connection between Soul Charge and Marijuana

Last edited by Serotonin : 05-07-2010 at 11:08 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Serotonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:08 PM   #13
Lurker07
ritual vet
 
Lurker07's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,472
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Asher View Post
If attacking is just a good as effect floating then we both agree that B Gorilla and Goblin attack force are the best cards in the game because then have infinate potential against the field because of there high attack power?
deep sea diva and rescue cat can pull out bigger things with no advantage loss ...
Lurker07 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:10 PM   #14
Serotonin
A Dark Favor
 
Serotonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a dark place
Age: 30
Posts: 27,402
iTrader: 0
Default

Both of those cards are ban worthy
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WazzaGorz7 View Post
I totally see the connection between Soul Charge and Marijuana
Serotonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:24 PM   #15
Personofsecrets
!!!Monarch User!!!
 
Personofsecrets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oneida (Central) New York
Age: 24
Posts: 2,765
iTrader: 0
Default

The chances of guerrilla and gaf floating rly isn't that great.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel H. Stinkmeaner
Oh yeah! Look at ya! You was poppin' all that good **** a second ago, then you got kicked in yo chest!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deck Box View Post
Is it seriously called "ROFLCHESTER"?
Soul Exchange + Thestalos = OTK
Personofsecrets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 01:23 AM   #16
Kestral287
The Anti-Troll
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,674
iTrader: 0
Default

Asher, that argument failed in the Cyber Dragon thread and it doesn't apply here either. Floating-by-battle is not necessarily the preferable means of floating, but it is a potential way. Further, presenting two sub-par monsters and then claiming that they prove battling doesn't matter is a horribly flawed argument. Further, your argument that battling doesn't matter is just as false as it was before-- and my counterargument is just as irrefutable as it was for the seven posts in the other thread where you failed to address it. At the risk of sounding incredibly arrogant by quoting myself,

Quote:
And the "Every monster people use in competitive play creates a plus one with out attack and therefore attack becomes irrelevent to card advantage." is completely false. Just looking over the rough Blackwing skeleton I happen to have open in another window, we have Siricco, Shura, Bora, Kalut, and Gale as non-floater monsters. The only floaters I see are Blizzard and Dark Armed Dragon; although Vayu could be considered a delayed floater of sorts. Of the 17 monsters listed, only 4 are floaters, again counting Vayu. Even assuming 3 more monsters are added and all are floaters, that would be 7/20 floaters, which means roughly two-thirds of the deck does not float. (Obviously this does not take into account Whirlwind, but in its case it is not the monster that is generating advantage so it doesn't meet your definition of floating).
And now onto the real point of this thread. From the OP, we have:

Quote:
If your opponent manages to get rid of two of your card units with his single card unit then he has gotten a +1
Quote:
A La Jinn that has killed 3 monsters in battle is no more nor less valuable than a La Jinn that has killed no monsters in battle, ceteris paribus. They are both 1800 ATK monsters without effects. The belief that a La Jinn that has killed more monsters in battle is somehow more or less valuable is known as the sunk cost fallacy.
Granted that the two La Jinns are inherently identical, but so are a pair of Judgment Dragons. The fact that the first one generated advantage by using its effect while the second was merely dropped as a follow-up to attack for game doesn't mean that the first didn't effectively "pay for itself"; it merely means that either one is now equally capable of activating its effect. In your scenario, the La Jinn that has killed three monsters has generated a +3 as per the initial quote. The second, at the moment, has not generated any advantage. They are both equally valuable in terms of what they can do in the future, but it is the past that matters just as much as the future.

The first La Jinn has already generated advantage for you by destroying those three monsters. It's true that either one can now gain a +1 through battle and the difference between the two would be moot, but that is still advantage gained and that advantage still must be taken into account. Ignoring it fundamentally undermines the entire system.

Further, you define a floater as "a card that has replaced itself and is worth less than the hypothetical card unit". Well, the first La Jinn has paid for itself-- it has destroyed three monsters (which in card advantage theory is fundamentally identical to adding three cards to your own side, and unless you're going to argue that Ryko doesn't float you're basically forced to concede this). According to your logic of what a "card unit" is, the La Jinn is quite likely to be destroyed in the near future and as such isn't a card, so La Jinn fits that part of the bill too. Thus, a La Jinn that has managed to destroy a single monster by battle is a floater. Or, more generalized, killing something through battle is a valid form of floating according to your own logic.
Kestral287 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 07:07 AM   #17
SubtleShadows
Lord of the Scrubs
 
SubtleShadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 737
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delphy View Post
Floater just means those cards that instantly pay for themselves by giving you a +1 with an effect. So a gadget, Stratos, Boggart Knight, Ryko, GK Spy etc. It's not hard to understand.
Errrrrrrrr.......
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stardust_Guardian View Post
And God said to Darius "Books and Holes will achieve perfect resurrection of your allies".
SubtleShadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 09:23 AM   #18
Shining Blue-eyes
Pojo Veteran
 
Shining Blue-eyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,999
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestral287 View Post
but it is the past that matters just as much as the future.
This is incorrect. The past is wholly and entirely irrelevant.
Quote:
The first La Jinn has already generated advantage for you by destroying those three monsters. It's true that either one can now gain a +1 through battle and the difference between the two would be moot, but that is still advantage gained and that advantage still must be taken into account. Ignoring it fundamentally undermines the entire system.
No, it must not. There is no difference between the two hypothetical La Jinns. To treat them any differently is to be foolish.

Quote:
Further, you define a floater as "a card that has replaced itself and is worth less than the hypothetical card unit". Well, the first La Jinn has paid for itself-- it has destroyed three monsters (which in card advantage theory is fundamentally identical to adding three cards to your own side, and unless you're going to argue that Ryko doesn't float you're basically forced to concede this). According to your logic of what a "card unit" is, the La Jinn is quite likely to be destroyed in the near future and as such isn't a card, so La Jinn fits that part of the bill too. Thus, a La Jinn that has managed to destroy a single monster by battle is a floater. Or, more generalized, killing something through battle is a valid form of floating according to your own logic.
A card doesn't replace itself by destroying a card that is worth less than a card unit by definition. Of course, you may argue that three non-card units may be worth a card unit. In which case it would still seem awkward to call La Jinn a floater but that is irrelevant as the past is irrelevant. The point is that La Jinn is worth less than a card unit in most situations.
__________________
http://antikonami.wordpress.com/

"The real “intellectual property crime” is that Nintendo, with the help of coercive enforcement of monopoly privileges by the state, is able to charge an enormous sum of money for a game whose marginal cost of reproduction is twenty cents." - Kevin Carson
Shining Blue-eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 10:07 AM   #19
hinotama
Glowing Guitar Man
 
hinotama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 11,027
iTrader: 0
Default

The present is all that matters.
hinotama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 10:31 AM   #20
invincible13matt
Yama da!
 
invincible13matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Back at Pojo, apparently
Age: 23
Posts: 1,124
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shining Blue-eyes View Post
This is incorrect. The past is wholly and entirely irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hinotama View Post
The present is all that matters.
This is completely and entirely bogus. To suggest that what-has-happened is irrelevant is completely ludicrous. What-has-happened has and always will control what-will-happen by virtue of dictating what-can-happen. As in, the past dictates what cards you have lost, and what cards you can therefore no longer use. This is just as important to the game state as what is on the field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shining Blue-eyes View Post
No, it must not. There is no difference between the two hypothetical La Jinns. To treat them any differently is to be foolish.
To treat them differently in the present, yes. But when you go to look at why you lost that duel, you say "That La Jinn killing three of my monsters killed me." because he was the one responsible for much of the damage. The same cannot be said about the second hypothetical La Jinn, and has directly altered the outcome of each individual game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shining Blue-eyes View Post
A card doesn't replace itself by destroying a card that is worth less than a card unit by definition. Of course, you may argue that three non-card units may be worth a card unit. In which case it would still seem awkward to call La Jinn a floater but that is irrelevant as the past is irrelevant. The point is that La Jinn is worth less than a card unit in most situations.
Each and every card on the field is worth exactly one card unit. Each card in the hand is worth one card unit. Until the game-state action occurs of placing the card into the graveyard or removed from play zone (being destroyed by battle, card effect, whatever), that card still exists as a card unit. It can still be utilized, even if it is only to be tributed and synched with.

Allow an example. I have a facedown Quillbolt Hedgehog, my opponent controls a Vampire Lord. By your definition, Quillbolt is no longer a card, because Vampire Lord can crush it. Why then, can I summon Junk Synchron and utilize that non-card in my actions? It does not follow. I can't synchro with something that is not a card!

I must therefore conclude that you confuse raw card advantage with something else entirely, similar to the idea of "hidden advantage" (i.e. Necro Gardna) or "delayed advantage" (Mezuki, spell counters on Citadel of Endymion), which I should dub "field superiority advantage." A Vampire Lord on the field is obviously worth more than an on-field Quillbolt. However, this advantage does not negate the existence of Quillbolt as a card, as I am still able to utilize it for my whims, at least until the card advantage interaction of battle occurs.
__________________
I'm pretty much just an angry old guy shouting "GET OFF MY LAWN YOU CRAZY KIDS!!!"

If you go to my channel, you might learn something. Or I might just rant.
invincible13matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 11:03 AM   #21
Reapex
Eats People
 
Reapex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,436
iTrader: 0
Default

My opponent has 3 monsters.
I have a British, Honest in hand, and Shrink on the field.
I attack the strongest, drop Honest, attack the second, SS a token, then Shrink the 3rd monster and attack with the token.

Did I +2?
__________________
Hi.
Reapex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 11:30 AM   #22
invincible13matt
Yama da!
 
invincible13matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Back at Pojo, apparently
Age: 23
Posts: 1,124
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reapex View Post
My opponent has 3 monsters.
I have a British, Honest in hand, and Shrink on the field.
I attack the strongest, drop Honest, attack the second, SS a token, then Shrink the 3rd monster and attack with the token.

Did I +2?
By card advantage theory... yes. Yes you did.

Card advantage theory is not concerned with individual card worth at all. It cares only about the cards that exist. As far as card advantage theory is concerned, Goblin Calligrapher is equivalent to Judgment Dragon so long as both still exist in the hands/on the fields. Obviously, anyone can tell you that JD is going to smash Calligrapher pretty quickly, and it is only at this point that Calligrapher ceases to be worth as much as JD in card advantage theory's eyes.

Card advantage is not a perfect theory. That is reserved for the theory of actual advantage, which factors in whose cards are superior. This is the theory with which we make gameplay decisions.
__________________
I'm pretty much just an angry old guy shouting "GET OFF MY LAWN YOU CRAZY KIDS!!!"

If you go to my channel, you might learn something. Or I might just rant.
invincible13matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 11:53 AM   #23
Serotonin
A Dark Favor
 
Serotonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a dark place
Age: 30
Posts: 27,402
iTrader: 0
Default

There is no point in arguing this you guys think a soul eater that kills three tokens is just as important and a JD that rocks your opponents field and this is the worst was to look at card advantage because this is not how yugioh is really played and you guys are just teaching people bad cards.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WazzaGorz7 View Post
I totally see the connection between Soul Charge and Marijuana
Serotonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 05:27 PM   #24
Shining Blue-eyes
Pojo Veteran
 
Shining Blue-eyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,999
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by invincible13matt View Post
This is completely and entirely bogus. To suggest that what-has-happened is irrelevant is completely ludicrous. What-has-happened has and always will control what-will-happen by virtue of dictating what-can-happen. As in, the past dictates what cards you have lost, and what cards you can therefore no longer use. This is just as important to the game state as what is on the field.
This is false. The past is the past and is sunk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs

Quote:
To treat them differently in the present, yes. But when you go to look at why you lost that duel, you say "That La Jinn killing three of my monsters killed me." because he was the one responsible for much of the damage. The same cannot be said about the second hypothetical La Jinn, and has directly altered the outcome of each individual game.
Looking back at the duel and deciding which cards were more important is an entirely different thing.

Quote:
Each and every card on the field is worth exactly one card unit.
This is patently absurd. A sheep token is not worth a Colossal Fighter.

Quote:
Each card in the hand is worth one card unit.
This is also absurd. A Shapesnatch is not worth a Smashing Ground.
__________________
http://antikonami.wordpress.com/

"The real “intellectual property crime” is that Nintendo, with the help of coercive enforcement of monopoly privileges by the state, is able to charge an enormous sum of money for a game whose marginal cost of reproduction is twenty cents." - Kevin Carson
Shining Blue-eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 05:36 PM   #25
The Crowing
turntechGodhead
 
The Crowing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Age: 21
Posts: 11,735
iTrader: 0
Default

A floater is a card that earns more advantage then it took to summon it. Stratos takes no cards to summon it, but it fetches another monster or destroys s/t's. Thus it floats.

BEWD takes two tributes to summon, it needs to kill 3 monsters by battle before it floats, or less if brought out by some other means.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinstonShnozwick View Post
March 2014 konami will ban wind up factory.

Because they have a hateboner for wind ups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Dragon View Post
"But what if Yu-Gi-Oh! was playable in a magical kingdom where everyone got free candy and Kevin Tewart was there judging while dressed as a pink bunny rabbit?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinstonShnozwick View Post
Counters exist?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!?!?! ??!
The Crowing is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

 
Advertisement


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.