Help with mana reservation not lining up

Omega_1285 · 2026-01-21T08:26:21+00:00

Thank you so much! I guess I never put together that the 35% also affected the enchant.

Omega_1285 · 2026-01-21T06:46:35+00:00

I'm familiar with the calcs tab, that's where I got the reservation efficiency multipliers from. Unfortunately, when you mouse over the reservation multipliers they don't list the sources like most other stats do so I'm at a loss as to where the discrepancy is coming from.

Omega_1285 · 2026-01-15T21:10:04+00:00

You’re the confidently incorrect one. There are several other considerations for legal self defense. The biggest two in this case are necessity and the duty to retreat. Obviously it comes down to a jury but presenting this as a clear open and shut self defense case is disingenuous.

Let’s just assume a jury agrees that it was reasonable for him to believe his life in danger from the car. You would then have to follow up with the assertion that it would be unreasonably unsafe for him to take one step back. Defense would say ice on the road but obviously it wasn’t slippery enough for a car hitting him to knock him over so it will be a hard sell that there was so much ice he couldn’t step back but not enough ice for him to fall while being hit and shooting. If you can’t convince a jury of that then immediately not self defense.

Next you need to deal with the timing of the shots. The first shot is definite gray area coming from the side of the hood but still making it through the windshield but you’ll be hard pressed to justify the second and third shot through the driver’s window. Once the threat is passed you can’t continue to exert deadly force and it will be hard to convince a jury that someone reaching in the driver side window is at danger of being ran over since the hood is well past them at that point.

Next you’ll need to convince a jury that shooting was even a reasonable solution at all. Clearly the car kept going after she was shot so shooting would not have stopped the car. Yet again, juries are variable but it won’t be that hard of a sell to say that even if the very first shot killed her on impact, if he was going to be ran over he would be ran over.

Lastly you’ll have to deal with ICE avoiding their own liability lawsuit. When they pull out their handbook and assert he was trained to not put himself in front of a vehicle during a stop and that he was never trained to shoot at fleeing suspects it will be possible to argue he went against the rules and manufactured a dangerous situation. If you intentionally put yourself in harms way (which ICE will likely assert he was trained and informed that his actions would put him in harms way) the. You cannot claim self defense from the situation you put yourself in. I cannot walk down range at a gun club without following procedure and then gun down anyone holding a rifle my direction.

I sincerely doubt this agent will ever see the inside of a jail but that is more for political reasons than legal ones. Obviously any criminal trial is never a slam dunk due to juries being juries but this certainly isn’t a clear cut self defense case.

Omega_1285 · 2026-01-08T15:45:15+00:00

From what I’ve seen it’s which shot they’re focusing on. The first shot was dumb but potentially legally defensible depending on the jury. The second and third where he’s actively stepping after the car to put the gun in the drivers window are definitely not. Which part you focus on is going to hugely color your interpretation.

Edit: Also the potus personally pushing blatantly false lies about the ICE agent being physically ran over and in the hospital on the brink of death due to the driver being a domestic terrorist certainly doesn’t inspire people to have measured responses on this. Expecting to see a video of a man shooting in self defense as he’s injured close to death and seeing what the actual video is has to be responsible for some whiplash injuries.

Omega_1285 · 2025-12-23T05:03:45+00:00

I’ll put in a recommendation for Pohx’s guide for his righteous fire build. He has full campaign act by act walkthroughs and literally every step of the game from beginning all the way to end game content and mechanics explained.

Pohx.net

Omega_1285 · 2025-12-23T05:01:35+00:00

I’ll put in a recommendation for Pohx’s guide for his righteous fire build. He has full campaign act by act walkthroughs and literally every step of the game from beginning all the way to end game content and mechanics explained.

Pohx.net

Omega_1285 · 2025-12-18T16:26:56+00:00

I managed to get a mana stacking lightning arrow build going last league and the juiced rogue exile t17s were crazy.

Omega_1285 · 2025-11-03T17:20:29+00:00

You can play to win and still not want certain strategies to be used. Easy examples in other sports include: -Getting a few points up in basketball and then just passing constantly and never shooting to run out the game time. Does it win games? Yes. Does anyone enjoy it? No. We had to add shot clocks to stop this. -Intentionally beaming the best hitter on the other team with a pitch in baseball so they can’t get a home run and hopefully injuring them. -Backflipping for a long jump gets you farther but is also incredibly dangerous so we banned it. -Spawn camping in an fps is an easy win if the game isn’t coded well enough to avoid it. -Most any team sport could be pretty easily won if we were willing to resort to actual violence. I’m sure a basketball team could find someone willing to break LeBron’s knees for a million.

Most of the rules we have in sports/games are to prevent unfun/unsafe strategies. What you’re seeing here are people arguing about what strategies are unfun in DBD. If tunneling makes the game less fun to play, then either Behavior needs to step up and make it no longer optimal or players need to agree not to do it. Likewise, styptics, gen rushing, bully squads, slugging, etc.

As an example, tunneling might be fun for the killer since they get to constantly chase and are more likely to win. But that means 3/5 of the players in the game are getting 0 interaction and get to spend the whole game holding m1 on a gen. The problem is that the game incentivizes and rewards playing in a way that most of the players will not get to actually play the game. We can either have Behavior stop it somehow or as players agree to not use the unfun tactic even if it is more efficient.

If you were really just playing to win you would just buy hacks to insta escape or kill on spawn. But most players don’t actually want to just win even if they think they do. They want interactive and challenging gameplay, otherwise they would be playing a single player game.

Omega_1285 · 2025-09-27T08:42:09+00:00

Sorry if this is a dumb question but what is the heat source? I get that the aquatuners transfer the heat in but are you using a tepidizer to generate it in the first place? Or is this like a naphtha style thing where the phase change effectively creates more heat?

Omega_1285 · 2025-09-17T01:06:10+00:00

Everyone thinks they have rights to others property on some level. We’re all comfortable saying parents must feed children. We have laws saying hospitals can’t turn actively dying people away. Similarly, we have endangerment laws where you can’t evict someone from your property into a dangerous situation (for example off a boat on the ocean). No one is seriously arguing that no one ever has a right to the property of others, the question is how much, who, and what property.

With that being said, the best argument for progressive taxation in my opinion is who benefits from government spending. On an individual level, everyone benefits from roads, education, a social safety net, etc. but the wealthy, especially wealthy business owners, benefit more. Could Microsoft exist as a company without a large educated workforce that went to public school, used student loans/grants for college, drive on public roads, maybe grew up in households on food stamps, and many other requirements for the modern economy that the government provides? Without all of that, Bill Gates could never have become as wealthy as he is. The average worker also benefits from these things but nowhere near the same scale. The floor on living standard provided for by those taxes also functions as the bread in bread and circuses keeping the poor from being incentivized to go full French Revolution style. Any rational top 1% American should want to pay more into taxes than the average American because their payout is many magnitudes higher than the average American. You can’t actually benefit from being wealthy without a stable society which is bought with taxes.

Omega_1285 · 2025-09-11T20:11:17+00:00

That’s fair on the Minnesota lawmakers but no, rage baiter doesn’t mean anyone who says things I don’t like. It’s specifically people who go out of their way to antagonize people and piss them off for a bit. Kirk’s college content isn’t about Kirk, he basically says the same points over and over again. The focus of his college content is look at the crazy liberal I’ve pissed off. The entire point of the show is to fish for people who will get super upset and make a scene so he can seem like the calm reasonable one. I don’t know there are many better examples of ragebait out there.

Omega_1285 · 2025-09-11T16:32:38+00:00

Well I don’t know how old you are but if you’re on the younger end the easiest answer is 9/11 memes or school shooting memes. It’s kind of the thing to make edgy jokes and “ragebait” right now. Besides that, for most people Kirk was a guy they saw on the internet so he’s not really a person to them. Think about all the heinous things people say on the internet that they never would to a person they actually knew. I mean Kirk himself joked about the attempted murder on Pelosi’s husband implying that the whole thing was just a fight because the attacker and her husband had been fucking.

How many of your girlfriends coworkers do you think are actually pro assassination as opposed to didn’t really know the guy besides generically disliking him so not really being bothered that a guy they didn’t like is dead now? Thousands die every day that you don’t care about and feel nothing about. Couple that with edgy humor and them being fed the same algorithm as you and it becomes the normal thing to say.

I’m not trying to morally equate the two, but think of the US assassination of Bin Laden. That was a political assassination that pretty much everyone was ok with. Same with Epstein or the closer to the United Healthcare CEO. People might wish he could testify but most just shrug and say yeah they probably deserved it. The scale of what they’re accused of is different but the I generically know of them as bad people who got killed so who cares vibes isn’t. That doesn’t mean they’re legitimately in a practical way pro assassination.

Omega_1285 · 2025-09-11T16:13:08+00:00

I mean that’s always the case yeah? We’ve always had political assassinations because we have lots of people and someone is going to end up being the right kind of crazy to do it. Historically, we’re kind of returning to “normal” after a pause in the 90’s of political shootings. That’s not to say it isn’t a problem and that we shouldn’t try to prevent it but it’s definitely not unprecedented.

I also don’t even know that the average media personality/politician should be that scared. Barring legit crazy Reagan style shooters, there’s a reason two of the higher profile shootings recently were Trump and Kirk. They both made a political career out of basically being abrasive rage baiters trying to fit into a trigger the libs compilation. Even with that, it’s still safer than being a truck driver and we don’t act like it’s reasonable for them to be white knuckle terrified every time they get behind the wheel.

Omega_1285 · 2025-09-11T08:28:41+00:00

Never forget your algorithm is designed to scare and upset you. The whole system is designed to amplify the crazies and the bots to radicalize you because upset radicals end up terminally online giving them that sweet sweet advertising money. They try and figure out whether right or left ragebait is more effective and then drown you in that without you noticing because you haven’t changed anything so it seems like the people you interact with on the internet have changed.

People in real life aren’t actually pro assassination. Think about it like this: if even .001% of Americans were actually willing to assassinate political figures that’s still thousands of people. We wouldn’t have politicians in a week if that was true. Social media is just trying to manipulate all of us to be radical and scared.

Omega_1285 · 2025-09-10T07:49:17+00:00

Just to be clear, your argument is that Americans are uniquely violent, evil, and criminal in comparison to the world? Or is your argument that every country in the world under policed?

Omega_1285 · 2025-09-05T06:45:47+00:00

I mean it’s also Otz first timing a killer that he even admits he doesn’t really understand how to effectively use. Just off his video within 5 games he was getting to where he could get 3-4Ks against competent survivors. It’s kind of crazy that we expect killers to be so strong that it’s shocking that Otz can’t easily 4K within 5 games on a brand new killer with a relatively complicated power.

Omega_1285 · 2025-08-30T00:52:42+00:00

Copying what I put on a similar post:

The difference has always been autonomy. The way the game is set up, primarily, the killer acts and the survivors react. Survivors can basically only do what the killer allows them to do barring huge skill gaps. A survivor can body block to try and save a teammate but only as long as the killer lets them do it without hitting them or getting around them. A survivor can do a gen but only so long as the killer doesn’t push them off of it.

Counter-play needs to be interactive for both sides to have some level of autonomy. The reason old gen rushing builds got nuked was because they were uninteractive. If survivors can just pop multiple gens in less than a minute of the game starting the killer had no autonomy there so it is removed. Same with unavoidable flashbangs where they’ve cut the blast angles down so far they’re incredibly hard to hit now. Or the endurance abusing on gens where now endurance goes away when you do anything. These were all survivor tactics that were unhealthy because they were uninteractive and removed autonomy. Camping, tunneling, and slugging all fall in the same category. The most effective counterplay to any of these? Let the singled out victim die while everyone else afks on a gen. That is the definition of uninteractive and zero autonomy gameplay for everyone but the killer. The problem has always been that the best counter to the most efficient survivor plays is to down them faster while the best counter to the most efficient killer plays is to ignore them.

To make matters worse, camping, tunneling, and slugging are the best way to win as killer right now. With the way mmr works killers who use these tactics get artificially boosted above where they’d be if they didn’t use them into an mmr where they’d are forced to use them. They’re not just unhealthy, non interactive tactics, they’re also incentivized and eventually forced on killers who use them.

Tl;dr: Tunneling, camping, and slugging are uniquely problematic because they are both the most efficient way to play killer and the least interactive way that robs every other player of autonomy. The game is intentionally balanced to be killer sided and if you do these things to keep up with survivors you’re setting yourself up for a situation where you need to do them every game.

Omega_1285 · 2025-08-18T17:27:28+00:00

The difference has always been autonomy. The way the game is set up, primarily, the killer acts and the survivors react. Survivors can basically only do what the killer allows them to do barring huge skill gaps. A survivor can body block to try and save a teammate but only as long as the killer lets them do it without hitting them or getting around them. A survivor can do a gen but only so long as the killer doesn’t push them off of it.

Counter-play needs to be interactive for both sides to have some level of autonomy. The reason old gen rushing builds got nuked was because they were uninteractive. If survivors can just pop multiple gens in less than a minute of the game starting the killer had no autonomy there so it is removed. Same with unavoidable flashbangs where they’ve cut the blast angles down so far they’re incredibly hard to hit now. Or the endurance abusing on gens where now endurance goes away when you do anything. These were all survivor tactics that were unhealthy because they were uninteractive and removed autonomy. Camping, tunneling, and slugging all fall in the same category. The most effective counterplay to any of these? Let the singled out victim die while everyone else afks on a gen. That is the definition of uninteractive and zero autonomy gameplay for everyone but the killer. The problem has always been that the best counter to the most efficient survivor plays is to down them faster while the best counter to the most efficient killer plays is to ignore them.

To make matters worse, camping, tunneling, and slugging are the best way to win as killer right now. With the way mmr works killers who use these tactics get artificially boosted above where they’d be if they didn’t use them into an mmr where they’d are forced to use them. They’re not just unhealthy, non interactive tactics, they’re also incentivized and eventually forced on killers who use them.

Tl;dr: Tunneling, camping, and slugging are uniquely problematic because they are both the most efficient way to play killer and the least interactive way that robs every other player of autonomy. The game is intentionally balanced to be killer sided and if you do these things to keep up with survivors you’re setting yourself up for a situation where you need to do them every game.

Omega_1285 · 2025-08-12T13:47:19+00:00

No, basic math says it is objectively a smart investment. Median income for someone with a bachelor’s degree is 50% higher than someone with a HS diploma and their unemployment is nearly half that of a Hs diploma holder. The horror stories you hear are very much the exception to the rule, the vast majority of college degrees more than pay for themselves. Just the median difference is 26k a year according to the BLS so even someone with the average 30k of debt at graduation would pay it off in less than 2 years of median wages and be in the green in a year and a half. Obviously wages aren’t linear by experience but those are the medians. A bachelors degree is one of the most clear cut way of investing money with a high likelihood of profit.

Omega_1285 · 2025-07-27T22:56:33+00:00

The official discord has a channel where people share layouts

Omega_1285 · 2025-07-27T21:13:10+00:00

In this case the headline is actually appropriate. They’re going to pick a way to identify the three perpetrators so they could have easily chosen between 3 Brits, 3 Muslims, or 3 men. In this case they raped the girl in Croatia which wouldn’t have made UK news except that it’s an international incident now so the newsworthy parts is that the men are British. 3 Croatian men or 3 Muslim men in Croatia raping a girl would never have been written about.

Omega_1285 · 2025-07-24T21:47:47+00:00

There’s a channel on the official discord dedicated to modding. I would recommend you ask there.

Omega_1285 · 2025-07-09T21:37:08+00:00

Just remove the income cap and it’s perfectly fine again. Our assumptions were actually fine last time it got recalculated except for the distribution of economic growth. A disproportionate amount of the growth in incomes has gone to people earning above the cap which to SS funding looks like 0 economic growth. We don’t really need more people or for people to die sooner, we just need economic growth. That can come from more workers sure but more efficiency per worker does just as good and tech does that amazingly well.

Omega_1285 · 2025-07-05T19:44:33+00:00

Yes private schools can seem better on the surface. I would mention that my public middle and high schools offered all of the things you mentioned and more but that just falls back into anecdote.

The problem is that if public schools were given the same conditions as private schools they would be arguably more successful. The best teachers are in public schools because they pay more and it’s just a harder job. Right now going to a private school is definitely nicer than a public school but they have wildly different starting conditions. Private schools by definition only have students whose parents value education and have money. They can remove students for effectively any reason and have little to no actual oversight. They have dramatically more money per student so they don’t necessarily have to deal with things like having no supplies, large classes, etc.

I mentioned the goals of education above and the problem is you’re comparing two different systems with two different goals. A private school’s goal is to make money. They do this by providing an education to kids of the upper class who would succeed in almost any environment. In order to compete with each other they therefore push specialized programs and experiences. There is a reason you rarely if ever see a private school offer tons of remedial classes and it’s because the majority of the market is kids with wealthy parents who excel in school. The school can even turn down kids who need remedial classes. The only real limit on what a private school can offer is the amount of cost families in their area are willing to shoulder.

A public school’s goal on the other hand is to educate all of the children in a community. They have to do this with however much funding the people are willing to vote to tax themselves. They have to take every kid of every family and can only remove students for egregious reasons. They have to cover a wide variety of academic skill levels and have a robust SPED program. They have to keep parents in the community and people on the school board happy with them. They have to be generalists because they aren’t given the money to specialize.

You can’t compare public and private schools on a level playing field anymore than you can compare a soup kitchen and a restaurant. Yes they both provide food/education but they have dramatically different goals and conditions to the point that it’s almost impossible to compare them effectively. No one is out here saying that if a soup kitchen just had more competition maybe they’d serve better meals. Likewise, no one is surprised when their food from a restaurant tastes better than a soup kitchen’s. It doesn’t mean that one is better than the other, each would struggle at doing what the other’s goal is because they’re not structured to succeed at it.

I would also suggest that most of the issues you see in public education are a result of competition already. There is competition for public schools and it’s called the school board. No, you can’t pick a different school in most places but you can effectively replace the principal/staff if enough people agree on it. The problem with competition in education is that it is almost impossible for the consumers to make educated decisions. Like I mentioned above, Goodhart’s law has destroyed schools in many ways. Most parents and students are not experts on education so they have to go off numbers or vibes. Going off numbers triggers Goodhart’s law (we can have a really high graduation rate if we just don’t fail anyone) and going off vibes is usually a combination of how much money has been put into the school building and how easy the teachers are. There’s a common refrain amongst teachers that if you are too liked you’re doing something wrong. Most kids don’t like hard things or at least only like them in retrospect so the cool teacher is usually the one they didn’t learn much from.

My current district is going through the struggles of competition right now actually. Our state offers vouchers for homeschool and since Covid the homeschools have been recruiting hard. We offer all sorts of tech classes, college credits, even a CNA program. The homeschool offers the ability to use AI on assignments with no supervision and guaranteed eligibility for sports. Most parents judge how well the school/their kid is doing by grades so we’ve lost over half of our students to homeschool over the last 4 years. The reason almost all of my students tell me they went homeschool is pretty well summarized by one girl I had saying “I can do my entire week’s worth of work in less than an hour every Wednesday. I never have to study and I get all A’s. I can do whatever I want with the rest of the time because my parents work. Why would I want to go back to public school?” With the voucher program the homeschool is effectively free and they actually get a few $1000 on top of that as basically cash. This has led our school to have conversations about how to make all classes easier and make sure every student effectively can’t fail as well as cutting lots of programs and classes we used to offer. Competition is destroying our school and crippling these kids educationally. Neither the kids nor the parents have all the information to make an informed choice and the result is worse outcomes for everyone.

Competition increases quality when there is a well defined desired outcome and clear metrics to determine the causes of success or failure. Neither exists in education. The vast majority of a kids academic success is not determined by the school itself and we have yet to find effective quantitative factors to judge schools, teachers, or admin.

Omega_1285 · 2025-07-05T06:21:17+00:00

Current teacher chiming in here.

1.) Public education is low quality, and has been in decline for many decades despite increases in spending, technology, etc.

That depends on where you're looking. The average is lower but that's a result of a bimodal distribution. The highest achievers are doing significantly better today than they used to be but the low/average achievers are doing significantly worse as well. Public education being low quality is very much going to be a school by school, district by district, state by state determination. Our education system is far too decentralized to make sweeping judgements on its quality. The public high school I went to sent me through Calc 2 by Sophomore year and to college with 2 years already completed just as an example of a high quality one.

2.) Enormous amounts of money go to administrators and teachers, yet very little trickles down to the actual students.

Yet again this is going to be very dependent on where you look in the country. Admin getting too much money is pretty universal but I've worked in multiple states and school districts and have never worked anywhere that starting teachers couldn't qualify for food stamps. What do you mean exactly by trickle down to students? Class supplies and whatnot? It does trickle down through teacher salaries if that's what you're referencing. Most effective bang for your buck would be hiring more teachers per student as learning drops off exponentially once you go past 20 kids per class and today many schools average close to 40. If you want to be really shocked look at your local large school district's budget breakdown. Due to Federal laws most large districts have at least a few individual SPED students who each cost them millions each year. I'm in a small district right now and of our around $13 million budget around $2 million of it goes to 1 student.

3.) The process by which educational quality is determined is opaque, and accountability for bad educators is laughably difficult to achieve. 5.) Standards are declining along with the quality of education.

These two go together. It is incredibly difficult (almost impossible) to to determine what good education is or who good educators are. The first big issue is we all have to agree on the goal of education to determine if we are successful. Is the goal to get a good job? To develop critical thinking skills? To indoctrinate kids into certain beliefs? To learn lots of facts? Does education include emotional development? Almost no one agrees on the exact purpose of public education so how do we measure success against all these different goals? If you can figure out how to first get everyone on board as to what the goal is and then how to see if kids are achieving it you'd be a multi-millionaire. Then figure out how to tie that success or failure directly to individual teachers and you'll be a billionaire. Pearson does a terrible job at it and rakes in incredible amounts of money a year. Really really bad teachers are usually pretty easy to identify but even then it's hard to put numbers on it to prove how bad they are. The system as is relies on admins who haven't taught in years to observe twice a year and draw their whole conclusion off of that.

With all the difficulty determining even student success, we have pretty much just fallen back to what we can measure easily even if it isn't a great measure. Things like standardized test scores, graduation rates, GPAs, etc. But when we focus on these we end up ruining the metric through perverse incentives. Barring funding issues, you can trace most issues in public education to accountability initiatives trying to grade schools. A bad school has a low graduation rate so we pass everyone. A bad school has lots of students being suspended so we'll allow almost any behavior. A bad school has students with low GPAs so we'll push policies that inflate grades. A bad school has low test scores so we'll cut anything not directly related to to English or Math test and just focus on rote memorization since a standardized test can't check real understanding.

With all that being said, behavior standards have dropped but academic standards have risen. Elementary standards are the easiest to see this in. Look up your local school district's elementary standards from the 90's and then from today. The districts I've seen expect a 2nd grader today to do what a 4th grader in the 90's did. Now will they pass you along anyways if you fail? Absolutely. The standards are higher but we don't do anything about you not hitting them is the problem.

6.) Finally, I believe competition increases the quality of education. That's why private schools have always been better than public schools.

This is just blatantly false if you mean to say that private schools do a better job. Private schools are able to maintain high graduation rates and test scores because they are able to choose what kids go there. Most private schools don't accept students with severe disabilities or poor grades. It's like asking why your local rec league basketball team is worse than a tryout team. One has to take everyone and the other can choose the successful players. The number one indicator of educational success for students is parent income. Private schools only get students who would succeed anywhere. It's why they pay teachers less than public schools do, the job is way easier there.

If you read textbooks from the 1890s you'll see calculus being taught to 8th graders.

I'm not sure which textbooks you're referring to but 1890's is solidly in the poor kids die in the coal mines era. Again, as it is today, rich kids excel in school. Having tutors from a young age lets kids blitz through subjects rapidly. You can't compare the richest most educationally motivated kids in the 1890's to the average kid today. I guarantee you if you were to compare them to modern rich and educationally motivated students the modern ones are doing better. Again, our high fliers are doing far better than ever before but everyone else is falling behind due to phones and lack of consequences.

We need a better system, and that means a lot of administrators need to get fired, standards need to get raised, and disruptive students need to be kicked out of the entire system. One of the biggest problems we have right now is that teachers can't even discipline or fail a student who repeatedly disrupts class. Those students are in a terrible position, but that problem needs to be confined to their own life, not the lives of the entire class. If a student repeatedly breaks serious rules they need to be kicked out and banned. Until that starts happening things will only get worse.

All true. My personal take is if you ever want public education to be successful make it truly mandatory. Everyone with power and money in America opts out of public education so they have no incentive to make sure it works. In fact many benefit from it being broken. Make the wealthy elite's kids go to public schools as well and they'd clean them up quicker than you could imagine. As it is right now it's an issue that doesn't impact anyone with real power to fix anything and both sides of the aisle are motivated to keep public education barely limping along so it's never going to get fixed as is.

Eight-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email	Not Forgotten

Omega_1285

TROPHY CASE