Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 18, 2018, 06:20:22 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Cadet Programs  |  Cadet Programs Management & Activities  |  Topic: Shuttle Run Moratorium
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All Print
Author Topic: Shuttle Run Moratorium  (Read 19430 times)
dwb
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,336

« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2015, 10:53:02 AM »

^ All good points. Keep in mind that this is temporary. We're talking about getting through one winter until NHQ publishes the new CPFT in 2016. Winter-banking is not a new permanent thing.
Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,072
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2015, 03:08:12 PM »

^ All good points. Keep in mind that this is temporary. We're talking about getting through one winter until NHQ publishes the new CPFT in 2016. Winter-banking is not a new permanent thing.


Well it kinda-sorta-is.


If the new program will have a quarterly testing schedule with a 6 month currency period, then banking will be the norm.




I would also consider a no PT requirement for Achivements 1-3, with the first "Pass" being necessary at WBA. I've noticed that we get a lot of cadets who are overweight/out of shape, and if they are stuck as C/AB for a year, chances of renewal are VERY slim.


There's already exceptions that can be applied for medical/obesity reasons temporarily, and I fully support that becoming the norm for all cadets. Of course they are encouraged to work on weight/fitness to get to the standard, and milestone tests can't be waived on a temporary situation, so the integrity of the milestone is there, but the morale of cadets is kept up.
Logged
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,873
Unit: of issue

« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2015, 03:34:03 PM »

^ All good points. Keep in mind that this is temporary. We're talking about getting through one winter until NHQ publishes the new CPFT in 2016. Winter-banking is not a new permanent thing.


Well it kinda-sorta-is.


If the new program will have a quarterly testing schedule with a 6 month currency period, then banking will be the norm.




I would also consider a no PT requirement for Achivements 1-3, with the first "Pass" being necessary at WBA. I've noticed that we get a lot of cadets who are overweight/out of shape, and if they are stuck as C/AB for a year, chances of renewal are VERY slim.


There's already exceptions that can be applied for medical/obesity reasons temporarily, and I fully support that becoming the norm for all cadets. Of course they are encouraged to work on weight/fitness to get to the standard, and milestone tests can't be waived on a temporary situation, so the integrity of the milestone is there, but the morale of cadets is kept up.

If it takes you a year to be able to run a mile in 11 minutes, there is a bigger problem.
Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,192

« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2015, 03:45:43 PM »

Tell ya what...

I visited another squadron yesterday. What a great bunch of people, but my criticism is the number of out-of-shape cadets I saw. I won't be specific, other than to say some were very heavy, well beyond the point their belt's tension strength.

The uniform and your appearance in it based on weight standards is one subject in itself. But since this is regarding PT and the shuttle run, which the seniors did mention the cadets performing the shuttle run at PT yesterday, I would highly suspect that these cadets are doing a lot of the same acts as other squadrons I've seen, namely using the shuttle run as an alternative to the mile. There's no way some of these kids could run a mile, let alone a football field if I was to put money on it.

There really isn't any excuse for that physical condition other than the staff and leadership allowing it as a cop-out. The shuttle does not build, maintain, nor measure physical fitness.

If an alternative to a mile run is to come in replace of the shuttle, it needs to be an alternative that provides a measurable, sustainable fitness standard that has the same benefit as the mile run. As far as I see it, running is sufficient. I'm not an expert on physical education and fitness, so maybe there's an age range in there that shouldn't be susceptible to running a mile, but I'm just not visually seeing the physical performance of some of these cadets based on current standards.

Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,072
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2015, 04:32:48 PM »

^ All good points. Keep in mind that this is temporary. We're talking about getting through one winter until NHQ publishes the new CPFT in 2016. Winter-banking is not a new permanent thing.


Well it kinda-sorta-is.


If the new program will have a quarterly testing schedule with a 6 month currency period, then banking will be the norm.




I would also consider a no PT requirement for Achivements 1-3, with the first "Pass" being necessary at WBA. I've noticed that we get a lot of cadets who are overweight/out of shape, and if they are stuck as C/AB for a year, chances of renewal are VERY slim.


There's already exceptions that can be applied for medical/obesity reasons temporarily, and I fully support that becoming the norm for all cadets. Of course they are encouraged to work on weight/fitness to get to the standard, and milestone tests can't be waived on a temporary situation, so the integrity of the milestone is there, but the morale of cadets is kept up.

If it takes you a year to be able to run a mile in 11 minutes, there is a bigger problem.


It all depends on their start weight, age, physical condition.


Some kids come in "chubby", but hit that 13-14 year growth mark, and it normalizes itself. Others struggle more, or are more "behind".


3 stripes is 6 months, and is the range of command authority to allow an obese cadet to get into shape with improvements and progress along the way. If we're going to expand further into what may or may not be a shape of the next version of the Physical Fitness Program, then I'd decouple PT from the initial "learning phase", with emphasis on preparation for the Wright Brothers Award PT test during those monthly PT days.
Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,072
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2015, 04:34:21 PM »

There really isn't any excuse for that physical condition other than the staff and leadership parents allowing it as a cop-out.


Fixed that for you.
Logged
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,615

« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2015, 04:44:27 PM »

I would also consider a no PT requirement for Achivements 1-3, with the first "Pass" being necessary at WBA. I've noticed that we get a lot of cadets who are overweight/out of shape, and if they are stuck as C/AB for a year, chances of renewal are VERY slim.
Strong non-concur.   

If running a mile was the reason for not staying in the program or progressing, they came to the wrong place at the start.   PT is key component of the cadet program.  If anything, I'd argue it should be emphasized more (which aligns with why the standard is being re-evaluated), not de-emphasized.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2015, 04:48:14 PM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,184

« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2015, 04:54:19 PM »

We are looking at aligning ourselves with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, including the FITNESSGRAM Assessment.  This is the "state of the art" evidence-based youth fitness program put out by the experts.

They assessment (which we are looking to adopt as our CPFT) uses the Pacer test as an alternative to the mile run, which remains the gold standard for determining cardiovascular fitness (in terms of VO2 Max).

The Pacer is related to the old shuttle run, but involves running as long as possible back and forth across a  20 meter (65 feet, 8 inches )space at a specified pace that gets faster each minute.  It sounds tricky, but is relatively easy to administer and score.  I'm still concerned about how long it might take to administer the test to a larger squadron, which is one of the questions we will address during field testing.

You can check out the PYFP here.

Our goal is still to have the draft materials out for comment and extensive field testing this fall, with projected finalization in the spring, and made mandatory next summer.  Until then, the old / current CPFT will work just fine, as it has since 2003.

Finally, to address concerns about newer cadets, we will have different (read somewhat lower) standards for Phase I cadets.  Starting with Phase II, all cadets will be expected to be in the Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ).   We need to do a better job of explaining the new concept.  Come see me at the National Convention in Orlando, and I'll buy you a diet soda and do my best to explain.

(We will also talk about it during the CP workshops.)

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager
Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,072
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2015, 05:06:55 PM »

I would also consider a no PT requirement for Achivements 1-3, with the first "Pass" being necessary at WBA. I've noticed that we get a lot of cadets who are overweight/out of shape, and if they are stuck as C/AB for a year, chances of renewal are VERY slim.
Strong non-concur.   

If running a mile was the reason for not staying in the program or progressing, they came to the wrong place at the start.   PT is key component of the cadet program.  If anything, I'd argue it should be emphasized more (which aligns with why the standard is being re-evaluated), not de-emphasized.


Try reading the message next time.


I'm talking about the requirement, not participation.


We've got a problem with fitness in this country. Why limit the pool of potential cadets because of their baseline?
Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,072
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2015, 05:08:42 PM »

We are looking at aligning ourselves with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, including the FITNESSGRAM Assessment.  This is the "state of the art" evidence-based youth fitness program put out by the experts.

They assessment (which we are looking to adopt as our CPFT) uses the Pacer test as an alternative to the mile run, which remains the gold standard for determining cardiovascular fitness (in terms of VO2 Max).

The Pacer is related to the old shuttle run, but involves running as long as possible back and forth across a  20 meter (65 feet, 8 inches )space at a specified pace that gets faster each minute.  It sounds tricky, but is relatively easy to administer and score.  I'm still concerned about how long it might take to administer the test to a larger squadron, which is one of the questions we will address during field testing.

You can check out the PYFP here.

Our goal is still to have the draft materials out for comment and extensive field testing this fall, with projected finalization in the spring, and made mandatory next summer.  Until then, the old / current CPFT will work just fine, as it has since 2003.

Finally, to address concerns about newer cadets, we will have different (read somewhat lower) standards for Phase I cadets.  Starting with Phase II, all cadets will be expected to be in the Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ).   We need to do a better job of explaining the new concept.  Come see me at the National Convention in Orlando, and I'll buy you a diet soda and do my best to explain.

(We will also talk about it during the CP workshops.)

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager


Ned,


I know the pacer is used as a possible alternative to the mile, especially in the winter months in the "weather" states, but I don't think most can find a space with a 25 meter path...
Logged
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,615

« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2015, 05:28:35 PM »

We are looking at aligning ourselves with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, including the FITNESSGRAM Assessment.  This is the "state of the art" evidence-based youth fitness program put out by the experts.

They assessment (which we are looking to adopt as our CPFT) uses the Pacer test as an alternative to the mile run, which remains the gold standard for determining cardiovascular fitness (in terms of VO2 Max).

The Pacer is related to the old shuttle run, but involves running as long as possible back and forth across a  20 meter (65 feet, 8 inches )space at a specified pace that gets faster each minute.  It sounds tricky, but is relatively easy to administer and score.  I'm still concerned about how long it might take to administer the test to a larger squadron, which is one of the questions we will address during field testing.

You can check out the PYFP here.

Our goal is still to have the draft materials out for comment and extensive field testing this fall, with projected finalization in the spring, and made mandatory next summer.  Until then, the old / current CPFT will work just fine, as it has since 2003.

Finally, to address concerns about newer cadets, we will have different (read somewhat lower) standards for Phase I cadets.  Starting with Phase II, all cadets will be expected to be in the Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ).   We need to do a better job of explaining the new concept.  Come see me at the National Convention in Orlando, and I'll buy you a diet soda and do my best to explain.

(We will also talk about it during the CP workshops.)

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager
If I understand the explanation of the Pacer correctly, and I think I do, I share your concerns Ned - they're pretty legit.  That being said, why offer the Pacer option at all? Why not just stick to a mile run?  More to that point...

I looked at the PYFP site since I wasn't real familiar with it.  Agreed there appears to be some significant thought put into the development of measures but (and I say this with full disclosure of only looking through their site for about 30 min and not having gone through the assessment process) it also appears extremely complex!  This is great stuff for fitness geeks, not so much for everyone else. 

Example:  They use Health Fitness Zones (HFZs) from FITNESSGRAM to determine assess aerobic capacity...Hmmm.  Get one test to baseline so you can compare to subsequent tests.

Also, from their documentation (bold is my emphasis):
"Do the PACER, One-Mile Run, and One-Mile Walk Tests Give the Same Classification of Fitness?

The PACER, One-Mile Run, and One-Mile Walk tests are all designed to estimate VO2max, but due to differences in the nature of the assessments and means through which they are converted into an estimate of VO2max, they may not always yield the same classification of fitness. This is because there is error in predicting directly measured (actual) VO2max with each of the field tests. Thus, it is possible a child could be classified as being within the Healthy Fitness Zone by one test, but in the Some-Risk or High-Risk Needs Improvement Zones by another test. Summary data from schools may also vary depending on the choice of assessment that is used. It is not possible to determine the exact pattern of agreement since it would vary by age and gender and would be influenced by other variables such as the degree of motivation as well as environmental conditions. Teachers and school officials should be aware that the results from the three assessments cannot be directly compared."

Huh?!

I'll have to read through the info in a lot more detail than I have to understand how they compiled their measures and what they mean. Sorting through that is a whole new member qual!  ;)  Where/how will squadrons get the tools to perform administer a valid and consistent FITNESSGRAM tests?

My request/feedback is that whatever we come up is a more simplified assessment/measure than what PYFP put together; we don't need more bureaucracy/time sucks.  On initial review, PYFP seems a bit Rube Goldberg.

As a leader, parent, participant, etc., I want an easy to understand/reconcile "report" of my physical assessment.  PYFP, while perhaps trying to do the "right" things, doesn't meet that need.  I have to be intimately familiar with every measure to know what it means and where I stand.  The complexity will lead to issues.

Just my $.02.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2015, 06:03:14 PM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,615

« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2015, 05:31:38 PM »

I would also consider a no PT requirement for Achivements 1-3, with the first "Pass" being necessary at WBA. I've noticed that we get a lot of cadets who are overweight/out of shape, and if they are stuck as C/AB for a year, chances of renewal are VERY slim.
Strong non-concur.   

If running a mile was the reason for not staying in the program or progressing, they came to the wrong place at the start.   PT is key component of the cadet program.  If anything, I'd argue it should be emphasized more (which aligns with why the standard is being re-evaluated), not de-emphasized.


Try reading the message next time.


I'm talking about the requirement, not participation.


We've got a problem with fitness in this country. Why limit the pool of potential cadets because of their baseline?
I read your words just fine. 

PT should be a part of every achievement.  You said it should not be a consideration for Achievements 1 - 3 and I strongly disagree with that view.

Maybe your words don't say what you intended.


« Last Edit: August 05, 2015, 06:04:18 PM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
dwb
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,336

« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2015, 06:15:12 PM »

The CPFT is tricky, because it's the one promotion requirement you can't master in a short period of time. You can spend a week reading L2L and then pass the test. But if you're 2+ minutes off your mile, and you're huffing and puffing and aching with shin splints... you're not fixing that in a week or two.

Let's go back to CAPR 52-16 and read what the purpose of the fitness component of CP is: "to develop in cadets a habit of regular exercise". The purpose is not to pass CPFT every two months, although we certainly need a good CPFT as our measurement for whether we're succeeding.

If a cadet comes in to our program and they are way out of shape, it might take them months to work on that. Months they're not able to even pin on C/Amn and get their Curry Blues Voucher. I don't want to lose that cadet. I want to develop in that cadet a habit of regular exercise.

I strongly disagree with the sentiment A.Member implies, that out-of-shape cadets are not welcome. They certainly are welcome, and a supportive environment to learn fitness might be just what they need.

The good thing about the language in PYFP is that you can chart a path from "needs improvement" to "healthy fitness zone". I'm actually okay with a cadet pinning on a couple stripes while they make their way to that, as long as they make measurable progress and get there before they complete Phase I.

And I say all this as a former cadet who averages 80-90 mi. per month of running, along with occasional bicycle commuting, using a standing desk, and generally trying to eat well.

The PYFP web site has a good pamphlet about monitoring fitness if you're interested. Assessment is only one component of a wide-ranging fitness education program. It shouldn't be the sole focus of CAP's program.
Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,184

« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2015, 06:24:09 PM »


Ned,


I know the pacer is used as a possible alternative to the mile, especially in the winter months in the "weather" states, but I don't think most can find a space with a 25 meter path...

I'm pretty sure it was designed with a typical school gym in mind, which most units probably don't have at their meeting sites.  It can be done outside of course, but that tends to defeat the inclement weather incentive / alternative use.  They appear to have data for a 15m Pacer as well.  But that is certainly something we are going to look at very, very closely when we actually start testing this using real cadets in a real unit with real CP leaders and see how it goes.

You may be right that we can't make it work.  In which case we will certainly look at simply using the run and "run banking" during inclement weather.

But we are going to try to make the full boat version work if we can.
Logged
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,615

« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2015, 06:27:01 PM »

Let's go back to CAPR 52-16 and read what the purpose of the fitness component of CP is: "to develop in cadets a habit of regular exercise". The purpose is not to pass CPFT every two months, although we certainly need a good CPFT as our measurement for whether we're succeeding.
This is a valid argument.

I strongly disagree with the sentiment A.Member implies, that out-of-shape cadets are not welcome.
This is neither what I stated nor implied. 

What I did imply is that any cadet that is unwilling to put in effort related to PT (or any other aspect of the CP for that matter), selected the wrong organization.  PT is part of our program.  If a cadet is "not able" to run 1 mile, especially after a few months, they're simply not putting in the effort.  To this point, I've seen overweight, out-of-shape cadets come in, put in the work, and make SIGNIFICANT fitness/lifestyle improvements.  That's something we want to encourage.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2015, 06:37:23 PM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,072
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #35 on: August 06, 2015, 12:11:03 AM »

Let's go back to CAPR 52-16 and read what the purpose of the fitness component of CP is: "to develop in cadets a habit of regular exercise". The purpose is not to pass CPFT every two months, although we certainly need a good CPFT as our measurement for whether we're succeeding.
This is a valid argument.

I strongly disagree with the sentiment A.Member implies, that out-of-shape cadets are not welcome.
This is neither what I stated nor implied. 

What I did imply is that any cadet that is unwilling to put in effort related to PT (or any other aspect of the CP for that matter), selected the wrong organization.  PT is part of our program.  If a cadet is "not able" to run 1 mile, especially after a few months, they're simply not putting in the effort.  To this point, I've seen overweight, out-of-shape cadets come in, put in the work, and make SIGNIFICANT fitness/lifestyle improvements.  That's something we want to encourage.

No one said they can't/won't run a mile. But if a kid comes in with a 12-13 minute mile, and needs a 9 minute mile, that's not a quick turnaround.

The idea is to allow them to be active in the cadet culture, while working on their physical conditioning, instead of stagnating.

Logged
jdh
Forum Regular

Posts: 129

« Reply #36 on: August 06, 2015, 01:19:36 AM »

Let's go back to CAPR 52-16 and read what the purpose of the fitness component of CP is: "to develop in cadets a habit of regular exercise". The purpose is not to pass CPFT every two months, although we certainly need a good CPFT as our measurement for whether we're succeeding.
This is a valid argument.

I strongly disagree with the sentiment A.Member implies, that out-of-shape cadets are not welcome.
This is neither what I stated nor implied. 

What I did imply is that any cadet that is unwilling to put in effort related to PT (or any other aspect of the CP for that matter), selected the wrong organization.  PT is part of our program.  If a cadet is "not able" to run 1 mile, especially after a few months, they're simply not putting in the effort.  To this point, I've seen overweight, out-of-shape cadets come in, put in the work, and make SIGNIFICANT fitness/lifestyle improvements.  That's something we want to encourage.

No one said they can't/won't run a mile. But if a kid comes in with a 12-13 minute mile, and needs a 9 minute mile, that's not a quick turnaround.

The idea is to allow them to be active in the cadet culture, while working on their physical conditioning, instead of stagnating.

They are walking the whole thing if that is their mile time, they are not running. Most teen aged people can walk near a 10 minute mile. What is needed in time spent training the cadets, help them run by pacing them, teach them the right way to run, encourage them as they improve. Maybe set up a weekly or twice a month get together with the cadets on a Sat and help them with their PT, dont just sit back and watch them fail and blame the test or expect them to improve with no input.
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,342
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #37 on: August 06, 2015, 01:53:51 AM »

Walking a mile in 10 min is a bit of a stretch. That's my steady running pace - 6 mph. I can do 4 miles in about an hour at a steady walk, and I'm more fit than the problem cadets we're talking about.

The Olympic race walkers go faster than 8-9 mph, to give more perspective.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,615

« Reply #38 on: August 06, 2015, 02:00:02 AM »

No one said they can't/won't run a mile. But if a kid comes in with a 12-13 minute mile, and needs a 9 minute mile, that's not a quick turnaround.

The idea is to allow them to be active in the cadet culture, while working on their physical conditioning, instead of stagnating.
Again, disagree.

A 12 -13 minute mile is only slightly better than a brisk walking pace and well below the 50th percentile for all cadet ages.  Regardless, there will be and indeed are cadets with fitness levels well below the 50th percentile.  However, if a cadet is truly putting forth the effort and has the correct guidance, noticeable PT improvements will not take long - several weeks. 

There will always be outlier exceptions but considering the absolute quickest a cadet is allowed to promote is every 2 months (most take longer - 3 to 4 months), there is more than ample time for noticeable improvement.  This should not at all be an excuse for stagnation.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2015, 02:16:19 AM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,615

« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2015, 02:09:32 AM »

Walking a mile in 10 min is a bit of a stretch. That's my steady running pace - 6 mph. I can do 4 miles in about an hour at a steady walk, and I'm more fit than the problem cadets we're talking about.

The Olympic race walkers go faster than 8-9 mph, to give more perspective.
Concur that a 10-min mile pace would be a very aggressive walk.  That said, FWIW, the youth U.S. 1500m (just under a mile - .93) race walk record for 9 -10 year old girls is 7:30, boys is 7:13.  For 11 -12 yr olds it's 6:44 and 6:53, boys and girls respectively.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2015, 02:12:49 AM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Cadet Programs  |  Cadet Programs Management & Activities  |  Topic: Shuttle Run Moratorium
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.123 seconds with 25 queries.