Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 21, 2017, 01:43:09 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Cadet Programs  |  Cadet Programs Management & Activities  |  Topic: Those "Pesky" Cadets, and their Parents: Yes, I plan on coming back
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All Print
Author Topic: Those "Pesky" Cadets, and their Parents: Yes, I plan on coming back  (Read 6248 times)
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,129

« Reply #40 on: May 04, 2017, 06:16:22 PM »

^^ We don't "non-renew" anyone.  It has long been determined to be a morale busting implement which CAP has made clear it should not be used. That said, I really think it is the Sq. Commander's responsibility to insure clear lines of communication and support for Cadets.  We have a Chaplain Corps and CDOs who are there to help cadets with problems dealing with choice.  There is also the cadre of cadets in a unit which should help each other with each other's progress and advancement.

 Most members are well aware of the choices cadets must make.  We should help them, and encourage them to make the best decisions possible.  We all make choices in life, and must be accountable for them.  Isn't this part of what life is all about? 
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 860

« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2017, 08:58:14 PM »

I think some people spend way too much time trying to convince themselves that "mentoring" is a cure-all for every teenager that "fails to perform."

The CAP Cadet Program is a youth leadership program, not a program to aid troubled youths. Sure, maybe we can reach into some of them and change what kind of person they are/mold who they become, but that's not the overall intent of the program. We're not trained therapists and we do what we can with what we've got.

At some point, though, you need to recognize when there's a cadet who doesn't really want to be a part of this. If we try to make contact and they decide not to engage us, carry on. There's other stuff that needs tending to. We can't chase after every situation and try to find a way to solve it.

A cadet who shows up sporadically, we can explain consequences via the review/feedback process. We can withhold duty positions. There are a number of ways to address that. But with a cadet who doesn't show up for 90 days plus, there needs to be a limit to chasing after them.

I've had the discussion with people as to what they think the end point is, and been responded to "once we've exhausted all efforts." Frankly, if the cadet staff sends the email and makes the phone call, and I send the email and make the phone call, that suffices to me that this person isn't interested, or perhaps their parents don't want them in the program. I'm not going to call them again and start ringing their doorbell.

Most people who "drop" from CAP don't want to be hunted down.
Logged
Brit_in_CAP
Seasoned Member

Posts: 354
Unit: MER-VA-002

« Reply #42 on: May 11, 2017, 08:38:55 AM »

I think some people spend way too much time trying to convince themselves that "mentoring" is a cure-all for every teenager that "fails to perform."

The CAP Cadet Program is a youth leadership program, not a program to aid troubled youths. Sure, maybe we can reach into some of them and change what kind of person they are/mold who they become, but that's not the overall intent of the program. We're not trained therapists and we do what we can with what we've got.

At some point, though, you need to recognize when there's a cadet who doesn't really want to be a part of this. If we try to make contact and they decide not to engage us, carry on. There's other stuff that needs tending to. We can't chase after every situation and try to find a way to solve it.

A cadet who shows up sporadically, we can explain consequences via the review/feedback process. We can withhold duty positions. There are a number of ways to address that. But with a cadet who doesn't show up for 90 days plus, there needs to be a limit to chasing after them.

I've had the discussion with people as to what they think the end point is, and been responded to "once we've exhausted all efforts." Frankly, if the cadet staff sends the email and makes the phone call, and I send the email and make the phone call, that suffices to me that this person isn't interested, or perhaps their parents don't want them in the program. I'm not going to call them again and start ringing their doorbell.

Most people who "drop" from CAP don't want to be hunted down.

Sums up my view.  There's a point beyond which you're wasting effort.  I think SkyHornet has it right - cadets staff try, you try, and in the end you need to cut your losses for the benefit of all concerned.  I always aim to get back anything we've loaned on signature to a cadets - or SM - and they usually do that.  In the end, save your strength for those who will really benefit from the help.
Logged
pselig
Newbie

Posts: 4

« Reply #43 on: May 20, 2017, 07:45:40 PM »

Why not actually use the checkbox in the Cadet record for "active participant"? If the squadron/group/wing commander unchecks the box then the cadet isn't included in any of the NHQ reports. That way we can put inactive cadets into an inactive status without transferring them to a 000 squadron or even 2B-ing them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Logged
Using Tapatalk
Shieldel
Member

Posts: 84
Unit: PCR-NV-802

« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2017, 10:49:37 AM »

In NVWG Cadet or senior, if you're not active/all of a sudden go poof we put them in I believe it's the triple 0 squadron. We refer to it as "Ghosting". Granted I'm a new senior (Flight Officer) but I would NEVER EVER 2B a cadet for failure of attendance. 2B's are a LAST RESORT. I would say a 2b should be used as a disciplinary tool when all other options have been exhausted, similar to expelling a student from school. Progressive discipline.

This is coming from a former cadet who successfully fought 2 wrongful 2B Attempts (thank god my dad was IG to help me through that process, it is NOT easy appealing a 2B....)

I understand hurting metrics and percentages and all that (trust me I know, my dad is NVWG RRO I get tired of hearing stats all the time LOL), but that's no reason to 2B Them. Ghosting them gets them off your roster, problem solved.
Logged
Flight Officer Michael D. Scheidle
Jack Schofield Cadet Squadron
ES Officer
ES Training Officer
FEMA Corps Class 23 Alumni - FEMA-4277-DR-LA Deployment to Baton Rouge FEMA JFO August - October 2016
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,075
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #45 on: May 22, 2017, 10:56:14 AM »

In NVWG Cadet or senior, if you're not active/all of a sudden go poof we put them in I believe it's the triple 0 squadron. We refer to it as "Ghosting". Granted I'm a new senior (Flight Officer) but I would NEVER EVER 2B a cadet for failure of attendance. 2B's are a LAST RESORT. I would say a 2b should be used as a disciplinary tool when all other options have been exhausted, similar to expelling a student from school. Progressive discipline.

This is coming from a former cadet who successfully fought 2 wrongful 2B Attempts (thank god my dad was IG to help me through that process, it is NOT easy appealing a 2B....)

I understand hurting metrics and percentages and all that (trust me I know, my dad is NVWG RRO I get tired of hearing stats all the time LOL), but that's no reason to 2B Them. Ghosting them gets them off your roster, problem solved.


There's so much wrong here...
Logged
Shieldel
Member

Posts: 84
Unit: PCR-NV-802

« Reply #46 on: May 22, 2017, 02:43:09 PM »

In NVWG Cadet or senior, if you're not active/all of a sudden go poof we put them in I believe it's the triple 0 squadron. We refer to it as "Ghosting". Granted I'm a new senior (Flight Officer) but I would NEVER EVER 2B a cadet for failure of attendance. 2B's are a LAST RESORT. I would say a 2b should be used as a disciplinary tool when all other options have been exhausted, similar to expelling a student from school. Progressive discipline.

This is coming from a former cadet who successfully fought 2 wrongful 2B Attempts (thank god my dad was IG to help me through that process, it is NOT easy appealing a 2B....)

I understand hurting metrics and percentages and all that (trust me I know, my dad is NVWG RRO I get tired of hearing stats all the time LOL), but that's no reason to 2B Them. Ghosting them gets them off your roster, problem solved.


There's so much wrong here...

Please do enlighten me then sir. Nevada Wing ghosts their members as a way to get them off the squadron's rosters, so they can focus on things such as the Quality Cadet Unit Award. If they're in the ghost squadron, it doesn't affect squadron metrics. Your wing may have a method, we have ours.

I don't agree with the idea of 2Bing personnel for lack of attendance for the aforementioned reasons. It's detrimental and...."counter-intuitive" (counter-purpose? I couldn't think of a better word so I used intuitive) when a 2B should be used for progressive discipline, as the last tool and the last level of said discipline.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2017, 02:52:27 PM by Shieldel » Logged
Flight Officer Michael D. Scheidle
Jack Schofield Cadet Squadron
ES Officer
ES Training Officer
FEMA Corps Class 23 Alumni - FEMA-4277-DR-LA Deployment to Baton Rouge FEMA JFO August - October 2016
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,075
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #47 on: May 22, 2017, 04:59:54 PM »

In NVWG Cadet or senior, if you're not active/all of a sudden go poof we put them in I believe it's the triple 0 squadron. We refer to it as "Ghosting". Granted I'm a new senior (Flight Officer) but I would NEVER EVER 2B a cadet for failure of attendance. 2B's are a LAST RESORT. I would say a 2b should be used as a disciplinary tool when all other options have been exhausted, similar to expelling a student from school. Progressive discipline.

This is coming from a former cadet who successfully fought 2 wrongful 2B Attempts (thank god my dad was IG to help me through that process, it is NOT easy appealing a 2B....)

I understand hurting metrics and percentages and all that (trust me I know, my dad is NVWG RRO I get tired of hearing stats all the time LOL), but that's no reason to 2B Them. Ghosting them gets them off your roster, problem solved.


There's so much wrong here...

Please do enlighten me then sir. Nevada Wing ghosts their members as a way to get them off the squadron's rosters, so they can focus on things such as the Quality Cadet Unit Award. If they're in the ghost squadron, it doesn't affect squadron metrics. Your wing may have a method, we have ours.

I don't agree with the idea of 2Bing personnel for lack of attendance for the aforementioned reasons. It's detrimental and...."counter-intuitive" (counter-purpose? I couldn't think of a better word so I used intuitive) when a 2B should be used for progressive discipline, as the last tool and the last level of said discipline.


For starters, gaming the QCUA criteria pretty much defeats the purpose of the QCUA program. Outside of that, moving dead weight around hits a number of metrics no matter what, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a C/Amn Noshow is 000ed, but C/TSgt Lostinterest is kept on the books for the sake of the game. Other wings specifically prohibit the use of 000 for such purposes for this reason as well.


As for CAPF2Bs for cadets, refer to CAPR 52-16 and the form itself. You may have an opinion on the matter, but it's neither correct, nor what the intent is.
Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 885
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #48 on: May 22, 2017, 08:24:16 PM »

Do any of you old timers remember CAP-MAP? The "CAP Management Analysis Program", upon which unit citations, unit of the year awards, funding allocations and many, many other decisions were based?

This is exactly the sort of gamesmanship with stats which caused most of us working at unit level at the time to lose any shred of respect for the CAP-MAP system, and to stop playing the "CAP statistics" game. Every year we'd see the same units win "awards" which the rest of us had ceased to care about, because many of the frequent "winners" were masters at juggling the numbers.

Juggling the numbers to "win", "awards" can become the end in and of itself for many people of a certain mind set, to the detriment of actually caring about WHY the members are inactive, WHY they've quit or lost interest, and HOW we can actually reinvent ourselves to remain relevant and serve our members/customers. Rearranging the deck chair on the Titanic may win awards, but doesn't save the ship.


V/r
Spam

Logged
Jester
Forum Regular

Posts: 193

« Reply #49 on: May 22, 2017, 10:45:55 PM »

I've terminated several cadets over attendance over the last year. It's not that big a deal, if they wanted to be there they would have responded to the multiple communication attempts I made to advise them of where they were headed.

This bunch of crap about how you should NEVER, oooohhh mercy sakes NEVER 2B a cadet for attendance is silly, and that's the most polite way I can put that.  There's carrots and sticks, and you need to be willing to use both as appropriate. Enough with the "woe of the busy teenager" ballad.

Also, I was under the impression that cadets couldn't be "ghosted"; they're either in or their out. Seniors, though, can be placed in patron status.
Logged
Blanding
Recruit

Posts: 18
Unit: MER-VA-108

« Reply #50 on: May 23, 2017, 07:42:23 AM »

I've terminated several cadets over attendance over the last year. It's not that big a deal...

Your opinion differs from the organization's:

https://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2704/

Quote
Commanders do have the ability to terminate a cadet's membership if they fail to "progress satisfactorily" in the program. This should be a highly unusual situation and under normal leadership it would only take place as a last resort after an escalating series of mentoring conversations, formal contracts and lesser consequences proved ineffective. As a rule, we want young people to join our program and we believe that they will benefit from the lessons they learn. It's counterproductive to remove this positive influence from a cadet who could benefit from it. Of course, if there are disruptive behaviors or other factors involved, those should be addressed proactively. We would discourage termination in the face of a simple failure to promote on the part of an otherwise motivated cadet.
Logged
Jester
Forum Regular

Posts: 193

« Reply #51 on: May 23, 2017, 08:43:23 AM »

I've terminated several cadets over attendance over the last year. It's not that big a deal...

Your opinion differs from the organization's:

https://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2704/

Quote
Commanders do have the ability to terminate a cadet's membership if they fail to "progress satisfactorily" in the program. This should be a highly unusual situation and under normal leadership it would only take place as a last resort after an escalating series of mentoring conversations, formal contracts and lesser consequences proved ineffective. As a rule, we want young people to join our program and we believe that they will benefit from the lessons they learn. It's counterproductive to remove this positive influence from a cadet who could benefit from it. Of course, if there are disruptive behaviors or other factors involved, those should be addressed proactively. We would discourage termination in the face of a simple failure to promote on the part of an otherwise motivated cadet.


That's spectacular and all, but these vaunted mentoring sessions can't happen if you can't get them to come back in the first place. Trust me, I'm not cutting them willy-nilly, but I don't have the time to go tracking them down like they went AWOL or something.

Also, I don't work for the help desk. The reg is the governing document here.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,830

« Reply #52 on: May 23, 2017, 09:04:31 AM »

We're also not, or you weren't, talking about non-progression , which is always on the table.

You were discussing not showing up, which the 2b clearly defines as 3 meetings with no valid excuse.

It's difficult to mentor people who don't come to meetings and / or don't respond to their last contact information.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Blanding
Recruit

Posts: 18
Unit: MER-VA-108

« Reply #53 on: May 23, 2017, 09:22:57 AM »

I've terminated several cadets over attendance over the last year. It's not that big a deal...

Your opinion differs from the organization's:

https://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2704/

Quote
Commanders do have the ability to terminate a cadet's membership if they fail to "progress satisfactorily" in the program. This should be a highly unusual situation and under normal leadership it would only take place as a last resort after an escalating series of mentoring conversations, formal contracts and lesser consequences proved ineffective. As a rule, we want young people to join our program and we believe that they will benefit from the lessons they learn. It's counterproductive to remove this positive influence from a cadet who could benefit from it. Of course, if there are disruptive behaviors or other factors involved, those should be addressed proactively. We would discourage termination in the face of a simple failure to promote on the part of an otherwise motivated cadet.


That's spectacular and all, but these vaunted mentoring sessions can't happen if you can't get them to come back in the first place. Trust me, I'm not cutting them willy-nilly, but I don't have the time to go tracking them down like they went AWOL or something.

Also, I don't work for the help desk. The reg is the governing document here.

I respect the nuanced difference between non-progression and non-attendance; I'm simply suggesting that if you don't have the time to keep track of your people, you might as well leave them as members. Certainly terminating their membership isn't going to inspire them to return, right? My argument is that doing nothing would be preferable to a membership action.

And to your second point, the help desk answer doesn't contradict the regulation. It gives insight that (to me) is more valuable than my own opinion regarding how to conduct the corporation's business.
Logged
Jester
Forum Regular

Posts: 193

« Reply #54 on: May 23, 2017, 10:21:51 AM »

The way I look at it: I juggle a full-time course load, a part-time job, a wife and 2 kids, and a leadership position in CAP. I'm there 99.9% of the meetings and probably half of the extra activities if not more. I go to encampment.

If Cadet Snuffy just decides he doesn't want to do CAP anymore and decides to use his crushing varsity kickball schedule as justification, I'll talk to him about it and help him try to figure it out.   I'll work with him as much as I can because I know that like most coaches, Coach Kickball thinks the world revolves around him and his epic contest of skill and guts. I really try, and I do my best.

But if they just stop coming, I'm pretty limited in what I can do. Initially I have the cadet's first line supervisor attempt contact, since they need to learn to get accountability of their people. Then I'll get involved. I never cut them at 3, so technically I'm more lenient than the regulation. Maybe I should get a job at the help desk.

My last step is an email to every address I can associate with that cadet advising them of their status and giving them 30 days to think about it and contact me. I include references to the regulation, and make sure they know that they can contact me at any time and we'll figure out how they can continue if they want to contribute. At the end of the 30 days I make the decision for them. 

They're dragging down the unit with metrics. They're dragging down the cadet leaders who are struggling to keep track of them and the ones who show up. And they're dragging down their teammates who contribute.  The juice isn't worth the squeeze. It's an easy decision at that point.

They get more than enough rope. We have another thread about demotion and how it doesn't really work.  So what's the answer?
Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,075
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #55 on: May 23, 2017, 10:21:57 AM »

I've terminated several cadets over attendance over the last year. It's not that big a deal...

Your opinion differs from the organization's:

https://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2704/

Quote
Commanders do have the ability to terminate a cadet's membership if they fail to "progress satisfactorily" in the program. This should be a highly unusual situation and under normal leadership it would only take place as a last resort after an escalating series of mentoring conversations, formal contracts and lesser consequences proved ineffective. As a rule, we want young people to join our program and we believe that they will benefit from the lessons they learn. It's counterproductive to remove this positive influence from a cadet who could benefit from it. Of course, if there are disruptive behaviors or other factors involved, those should be addressed proactively. We would discourage termination in the face of a simple failure to promote on the part of an otherwise motivated cadet.


That's spectacular and all, but these vaunted mentoring sessions can't happen if you can't get them to come back in the first place. Trust me, I'm not cutting them willy-nilly, but I don't have the time to go tracking them down like they went AWOL or something.

Also, I don't work for the help desk. The reg is the governing document here.

I respect the nuanced difference between non-progression and non-attendance; I'm simply suggesting that if you don't have the time to keep track of your people, you might as well leave them as members. Certainly terminating their membership isn't going to inspire them to return, right? My argument is that doing nothing would be preferable to a membership action.

And to your second point, the help desk answer doesn't contradict the regulation. It gives insight that (to me) is more valuable than my own opinion regarding how to conduct the corporation's business.


Quote
CAPR 52-16 a. Expectations of Cadets. Cadets are required to participate actively in their local unit if they are to progress in the Cadet Program. Excessive, unexcused absences may be cause for termination from CAP (see CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination). Any school-related activity is considered an excused absence. Cadets are responsible for informing their leaders in advance if they expect to be absent. School-related absences do not excuse cadets from promotion requirements.


Quote
CAPR 35-3 c. Lack of interest demonstrated by failure to attend three successive regular meetings without an acceptable excuse.
Logged
Blanding
Recruit

Posts: 18
Unit: MER-VA-108

« Reply #56 on: May 23, 2017, 11:03:14 AM »

They're dragging down the unit with metrics.

I agree with everything you said and are doing; and I really appreciate the effort you put into the program! I guess my only pitch for you would be to not worry so much about metrics.

In my opinion (which I encourage you to ignore, if you disagree) metrics set leadership up to lose focus on the mission and narrow their concentration down to meeting the requirements of the metric.

For example, we used to have an award that was given to units who went without a mishap during the course of a year. The intent of the award was clearly to recognize units who were operating safely; however, it resulted in unit safety programs which focused on "zero mishaps" instead of "reduced risk". Units who focused on earning the award were the ones who reported none of their mishaps.

Quote
They get more than enough rope. We have another thread about demotion and how it doesn't really work.  So what's the answer?

What's my answer? Give them a reason to prioritize CAP above kickball. If they don't agree with the reason and aren't motivated, don't force it. Telling a cadet they picked the wrong thing, and then punishing them for it with demotion or termination is certainly not going to motivate them to attend.

With a termination they have probably... what... 0-5% chance of returning? Would you agree the percentage chance is the same or higher if you don't terminate? If so, I would argue that no inactive cadet should be terminated simply because they're inactive. CAPR 52-16 does not require us to terminate an inactive cadet. My opinion is (again, ignore away!) that we should focus on providing cadets the option of experiencing a top notch program, vs. dedicating labor to figuring out who to terminate.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,830

« Reply #57 on: May 23, 2017, 11:33:41 AM »

Ignorance or failure to act on metrics is, and has been historically, one of CAP's biggest problems.

The data is right there, but math is hard and makes people was, so just ignore the numbers and hope it gets better.

This is an organization which purports to be a ready asset to the nation, yet doesn't track participation and has literally no idea how many "active" members it actually has.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Jester
Forum Regular

Posts: 193

« Reply #58 on: May 23, 2017, 12:20:23 PM »

They're dragging down the unit with metrics.

I agree with everything you said and are doing; and I really appreciate the effort you put into the program! I guess my only pitch for you would be to not worry so much about metrics.

In my opinion (which I encourage you to ignore, if you disagree) metrics set leadership up to lose focus on the mission and narrow their concentration down to meeting the requirements of the metric.

For example, we used to have an award that was given to units who went without a mishap during the course of a year. The intent of the award was clearly to recognize units who were operating safely; however, it resulted in unit safety programs which focused on "zero mishaps" instead of "reduced risk". Units who focused on earning the award were the ones who reported none of their mishaps.

Quote
They get more than enough rope. We have another thread about demotion and how it doesn't really work.  So what's the answer?

What's my answer? Give them a reason to prioritize CAP above kickball. If they don't agree with the reason and aren't motivated, don't force it. Telling a cadet they picked the wrong thing, and then punishing them for it with demotion or termination is certainly not going to motivate them to attend.

With a termination they have probably... what... 0-5% chance of returning? Would you agree the percentage chance is the same or higher if you don't terminate? If so, I would argue that no inactive cadet should be terminated simply because they're inactive. CAPR 52-16 does not require us to terminate an inactive cadet. My opinion is (again, ignore away!) that we should focus on providing cadets the option of experiencing a top notch program, vs. dedicating labor to figuring out who to terminate.

I'm not against tracking and using metrics as an indicator for whether a unit is doing what they're supposed to be doing.  CAP gets overly worked up about them, and I'm just feeding that beast the minimum amount possible so it leaves me alone to actually work.  It's not THE factor regarding if a cadet gets sent on down the road, it's A factor.

Improving our program has led to greater participation, and I've been able to have one return to the fold and be productive.  One out of maybe 5.  Another responded and voluntarily resigned.  The rest were administratively terminated.  It doesn't mean they can't rejoin at a later date, as it's not a punitive measure (such as a misconduct termination).  "Some folks, you just can't reach."

It's a last resort, after a considerable amount of effort (usually not on the part of the cadet in question).  I'm not opposed to letting a cadet expire if they're right on the bubble of expiring by the time this process has played out, since the end result and impact of them rejoining at a later date is the same.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 761

« Reply #59 on: May 23, 2017, 04:44:01 PM »


..... doesn't track participation and has literally no idea how many "active" members it actually has.

Would be an interesting study, trying to figure all out.  So much is seasonal. You would need to make the assessment 4 or 5 times in a year and then average it out.

Someone who is very active for 10 months out of the year, except for baseball season. Do we consider them inactive as an average or do we celebrate the 10 months of good service? 

Isn't it just part of the game, in this volunteer service?
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Cadet Programs  |  Cadet Programs Management & Activities  |  Topic: Those "Pesky" Cadets, and their Parents: Yes, I plan on coming back
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.524 seconds with 20 queries.