Proposals to ISU Congress 2018-2019 Season | Page 12 | Golden Skate

Proposals to ISU Congress 2018-2019 Season

Sam-Skwantch

“I solemnly swear I’m up to no good”
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Country
United-States
There are some things I can see being good in the proposals, but the rule about a variety of quads (no repeat quads rule) just doesn't sit well.

So I went and played with numbers, for 3 hypothetical skaters, A, B, and C. I'm using the men's FS here, since the no repeat quads rule doesn't impact anyone else that much right now. For now, A is a guy with 4 quads (4Lz, 4F, 4S, 4T stable, hi Nate!), Skater B is a guy with no quads but a good 3A, and skater C is a guy with 4S and 4T but no other quads (hello Javi!). The calculations below assumes 1) no falls; 2) +5 full GOEs (tied to % of BV and factorized); 3) 10% bv reduction on all quads, no reduction on 3A (I can argue why later); 4) that assuming everyone only backloads 4 jumping passes in the bonus half (I've yet to see guys do differently and stamina wise any more with quads is crazy).

For the +5 GOE bit: I've tied each +1 GOE to 10% of BV, and factorization means that same as right now, all triples other than 3A gets x0.7 of the GOE.

For below calculations, I only factored in jumps, since spins etc aren't really won't effect BV that much (it's pretty fixed)
Layouts:
A: 4Lz 4F 3Lz//3A3T 4S3T 4T1Lo3S 3Lo BV: 79.16 +5GOEs: 117
B: 3Lz 3S 3Lo//3A2T 3A1Lo2S 3Lz3T 3F BV 54.22 +5GOEs: 76.43
C: 3F 3Lo 3A // 4TLo3S 4S3T 3A3T 3Lz BV 70.64 +5GOEs: 103.28

Difference in BV between A and B: 24.94; A and C: 8.52; C and B: 16.42
Difference after GOEs between A and B: 40.57; A and C: 13.72; C and B: 26.85

The difference, without mistakes between having 4 quads (4Lz and 4F especially) is over the BV of 2 3As. Even having just a 4T and 3S would give an advantage of 1 3A. After you factor in GOEs, it gets bigger. So conclusion-having no quads would hurt you a LOT, in fact even having just a 4S and 4T is not enough (the BV diff is the value of a 3A).

Can PCs help? Actually, again NO. Assuming that the PCS factorization goes to 2.4 for the free. Let's say Skater A gets an avg of 8.5 PCs, B an avg PCs of 9.5 and skater C an avg PCs of 9.
A: PCS=102. TSS= 219
B: PCS=114, TSS=190.43
C: PCS=108, TSS=211.28
A-C: 7.72
A-B= 28.57
C-B: 20.85
By the way, for C to surpass A with just 2 quads, assuming all the above applies, skater C would need an avg PCs of 9.75.

Realistically...poor B, poor triples and poor skater C. So far, at least in men's, I don't recall seeing many perfect GOEs being given out for triples (other than 3As). Second, the guys I've based on skater A off of, usually are rewarded higher PCs, so the actual difference is greater. And skater B to a degree does not exist (the closest is Jason Brown, but he barely gets PCS in LP higher than 90). So if anything, not being able to repeat quads, but still triples, doesn't really curb the BV difference between the have-quads and have-no-quads. And actually exacerbates the differece between the have 4T-4S and have-many-quads guys.

I also then added a hypothetical skater D, who has a 4Lz and a 4F (not in combo) but no other quads:
Layout: 4Lz 4F 3Lz//3ALo3S 3A3T 3Lz3T 3Lo
BV: 74.52
with GOE+5: 108.34
PCS avg of 9.25: 111
TSS: 219.34

See-in short, if you only have time for 2 quads, just get the 4Lz and 4F, at least you have a fighting chance if you get your PCS avg up to 9.25. So unless ISU is really looking for a proliferation of 4Lz and 4F being standard fare (and guys splatting and injuring themselves left and right), limiting the ability of guys to min/max with the quads they are capable of doing is going to make it harder for smaller fed and lower technical skaters to do well. And even if a guy has quads, it matters more what quads he has-as illustrated above, get the 4Lz and 4F or go home. If a skater is injured and can still do quads, just of the lower BV type, he won't win unless he gets some amazing +10 PCS scores across the board (above example skater C has to avg 9.75 to beat A). If the idea is limiting quads and so to prevent injury...I'm not sure how a rule that promotes the training of 4Lz and 4F above even other quads, to be exactly a good idea.

This is a great post and shouldn’t sit as the last post on a page and potentially overlooked ;)
 

mau

3Lz3Lo3Lo3Lo3Lo
On the Ice
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
There’s no meaning in banning the repetition of quads. This will only make boys go for quads that aren’t consistent enough for competition (it’s already happening under the current rules :confused2:), resulting in more splatfests.

About raising the age limit, imho it’s nothing but politics. Figure skating is an expensive sport and junior skaters don’t make money, don’t have big sponsors and don’t get invited for shows (unless you’re japanese), how we will keep our juniors motivated then? Denying them the right of competing on the big stages and achieving goals? Skaters like Stephen Gogolev and Alysa Liu won’t be eligible for Beijing and are going to be 20+ in 2026, who knows where they'll be until then. Why spend your whole life training for an uncertain Olympic dream if you can go to college and have a comfortable life? I hope this proposal won’t pass.

And “protect children’s health” is just an excuse. Raising the age limit is not going to stop them from jumping 100 times every practice.
 

cohen-esque

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
The calculations below assumes 1) no falls; 2) +5 full GOEs (tied to % of BV and factorized); 3) 10% bv reduction on all quads, no reduction on 3A (I can argue why later); 4) that assuming everyone only backloads 4 jumping passes in the bonus half (I've yet to see guys do differently and stamina wise any more with quads is crazy).

For the +5 GOE bit: I've tied each +1 GOE to 10% of BV, and factorization means that same as right now, all triples other than 3A gets x0.7 of the GOE.
Why did you do this? The proposal is for a flat 10% per base value, with no factorization. It's severely skewing your results against Skater B.

Using the same assumptions and layouts, but without the reduced triple GOES, you get quite different numbers. (I got slightly different base values, as well, by a few tenths.) As you can see, it helps Skater B out a lot in comparison (but slightly hinders Skater C, interestingly.)

A: 4Lz 4F 3Lz//3A3T 4S3T 4T1Lo3S 3Lo BV: 79.71 +5GOEs: 119.57
B: 3Lz 3S 3Lo//3A2T 3A1Lo2S 3Lz3T 3F BV 54.77 +5GOEs: 82.16
C: 3F 3Lo 3A // 4TLo3S 4S3T 3A3T 3Lz BV 70.29 +5GOEs: 105.44

Difference in BV between
A and B: 24.94
A and C: 9.62
C and B: 15.52

Difference after GOEs between
A and B: 37.41
A and C: 14.13
C and B: 23.28

To be honest, these numbers look fine to me. Skater A is not too far ahead of Skater C for the difference to be totally insurmountable, but they are way too far ahead of Skater B. But Skater B does a very weak layout: only one triple-triple, and because of it no 2A to recoup some points, and they're throwing points away with the 3A+1Lo+2S combination. They don't even max out their no-quads layout; of course they should be far behind Skater A with 4 quads and Skater C with 2 quads.

Plus, the GOE is played down: you gave everyone straight +5 GOE, so any advantage of quality that Skaters B and C could have had has been lost. They have literally no advantages over Skater A at all to warrant closer scores. And the point of the system is for differences in GOE to play a greater role, so with that in mind, I don't think it makes sense to examine it by giving your test skaters exactly the same GOE.

Can PCs help? Actually, again NO. Assuming that the PCS factorization goes to 2.4 for the free. Let's say Skater A gets an avg of 8.5 PCs, B an avg PCs of 9.5 and skater C an avg PCs of 9.
...By the way, for C to surpass A with just 2 quads, assuming all the above applies, skater C would need an avg PCs of 9.75.

A: PCS=102. TSS= 221.57
B: PCS=114, TSS= 196.16
C: PCS=108, TSS=213.44

A-C: 8.13
A-B: 25.41
C-B: 17.34

Actually, the higher PCS factor does help Skaters B and C. Under current rules, Skater B has a 10 point advantage over Skater A; here he gets 12. That's two points less TES to worry about. Skater C has a 6 point advantage; it was previously 5. It's not much at all, true, but it does help them. Skater C, who did far superior content to Skater B, still has a chance to overcome Skater A on PCS, however slim. And this is against Skater A who does well in PCS: 8.5 isn't bad.

(Skater C would need an avg PCs of 9.68, with these numbers, to overtake Skater A.)

So far, this mostly just looks like how the system should work: the best combination of TES and PCS wins, then the next best. Skater B, who has a very outsized gap between the two, loses to competitors who are strong in both. Skater C, who is slightly stronger in PCS, loses to Skater A, who is much stronger in TES.

Seems fair to me.


But, since the point of the new rules is to allow quality (GOE) to play a bigger role, let's try this again using different GOE. Say Skater A averages 15% (+1s and +2s), skater B averages 45% (+4s and +5s) and Skater C averages 25% (+2s and +3s).

A: 4Lz 4F 3Lz//3A3T 4S3T 4T1Lo3S 3Lo 91.67
B: 3Lz 3S 3Lo//3A2T 3A1Lo2S 3Lz3T 3F 79.42
C: 3F 3Lo 3A // 4TLo3S 4S3T 3A3T 3Lz 87.87

Difference after GOEs between
A and B: 12.25
A and C: 3.80
C and B: 8.45

Using the same PCS, our order becomes:
1) Skater C: 195.87
2) Skater A: 193.64
3) Skater B: 193.42

Suddenly, this is neck and neck. Had skater B upgraded his layout slightly to do...
3Lz, 2A, 3Lo//3A+2T, 3A+1Lo+3S, 3Lz+3T, 3F
...than he could have won on the strength of his much superior GOE and PCS, without doing a single quad.

Which casts the system in a different light, I think.
 

zebobes

Final Flight
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Suddenly, this is neck and neck. Had skater B upgraded his layout slightly to do...
3Lz, 2A, 3Lo//3A+2T, 3A+1Lo+3S, 3Lz+3T, 3F
...than he could have won on the strength of his much superior GOE and PCS, without doing a single quad.

Which casts the system in a different light, I think.

Thank you for your post! I saw some of the same things you were pointing out, and was considering writing a post, and dreading doing the math, when I saw yours.

This layout could still be upgraded Zagitova style, if a 2A, 3Lo// 3A-2T was changed to a 2A-3Lo, 3A// 2A.
 

cohen-esque

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
^^I made some pretty flexible scoring sheets in Numbers a few seasons back that make this a piece of cake, although I have to add in the base values manually, so it’s not perfect.

Actually, that’s my complaint with these rule changes: I’m going to have to completely overhaul my sheets. Right now I just add in the factored GOE value myself from memory, but for the 10% increments I’ll have to set up a formula. :gaah:

Stupid ISU, not basing rule changes around my own personal convenience...
 

Xen

Rinkside
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Suddenly, this is neck and neck. Had skater B upgraded his layout slightly to do...
3Lz, 2A, 3Lo//3A+2T, 3A+1Lo+3S, 3Lz+3T, 3F
...than he could have won on the strength of his much superior GOE and PCS, without doing a single quad.

Which casts the system in a different light, I think.

Hi, thanks for the clarification about factorization, wasn't aware that they would stop factorization on triples-in which case, great, since factorization would affect the GOE too much on triples.

I went around and changed skater B's layout to be a bit more, by swapping around the 3Lz and 3F positions.
Layout: 3F 2A 3Lo//3A2T 3A-1Lo-3S 3Lz3T 3Lz
BV: 56.6, with 45% GOE: 82.07
With 114 PCS: 196.07

Skater A has in the end a TSS of 193.04, and Skater C has in the end a 199.62 TSS. Skater C would win, in this case by a combination of GOEs and PCS. Which I suppose in the end we can say is fair. However, that presupposes that judges will in fact mark the difference in GOEs the way you mentioned.

Frankly, I don't see that happening. I think in GS someone mentioned how the +4/+5 GOE can be earned, and it doesn't seem that simple. Nor do judges normally reward perfect+3GOEs in men's right now for triple jumps (hence I'm skeptical it would happen after +5 GOE comes).

If skater A goes to 20% for GOEs (which is more likely), then it's possible for TSS to be 200.95. This would win over skater C with 25% GOE, and even skater B with +5GOEs (total TSS at 198.9). So it still depends too much, for me at least, on Skater B being perfect (no GOEs under +5), and C and A not able to score GOEs above +3.

What did disturb me though when doing these hypos was a scenario where I still only had 2 quads, just 4Lz and 4F. Skater D as mentioned (BV 74.52). In this case Skater D only needs +2.5 average GOE, and avg about 9 PCS (108 PCS) to get a TSS of 201.15. So in the end, it's fine to go with 2 quads, just make sure it's a 4Lz and a 4F. Which begs the question what's the point of training 4T and 4S when you start seniors as a male skater? You might as well go for 4Lz and 4F, which if you tie GOE with BV, takes on even more importance. Having just 4Lz and 4F makes you almost as competitive as skater A. This I find ironic, since the reason for the quad repeat rule was to increase variety of quads-what it shows me numbers wise, is how pivotal having 4Lz and 4F becomes.

The greater issue though, is like Sam above mentioned- the issues of PCs inflating with quad presence, and that GOEs tend to be handed out more generously with the presence of quads.

In reality, majority of the top 10 male skaters are going to be closer to a skater C scenario, with the top 3-4 being a scattering of skater D and A since those are the scenarios to beat skater C.
 

NoNameFace

GS given name - Beatrice
Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Reading the urgent matters proposed I notice

- ISU Council proposing to ban Federation Presidents to act as Judge, Referee, Technical Controller, Technical Specialist, Data and Replay Operators at Worlds/Olympics/Euros/4CCs/GP Final:

c) Persons who serve as president of an ISU Member at any time in the course of a competition season (July 1st – June 30) shall not act as Judge, Referee, Technical Controller, Technical Specialist, Data and Replay Operator, OAC member, Starter or Competitors Steward at ISU Championships, World Cups in Speed Skating or Short Track Speed Skating, the ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final, the ISU World Team Trophy in Figure Skating and the Olympic Winter Games during the course of the same competition season. As to ISU Members that control both Branches of Skating (Figure Skating and Speed Skating) within their country, this restriction applies equally to the person holding the senior-most position in the governance of the respective Branch of the ISU Member
d) Persons appointed by the ISU or by their ISU Member to act as an Official at the Olympic Winter Games shall not act as an Official at the national championships of another ISU Member during the period beginning July 1st of the same competition season as the Olympic Winter Games and up to the start of the Olympic Winter Games.


- Single and Pairs Technical Committee proposing to increase to 20 the Pairs making the FS at Worlds

God bless bolded, better later than never...:drama:, keep Pairs discipline rolling!
 

cohen-esque

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
^^Well, the same could be said of any time under IJS (at least, during the quad-heavy seasons). Why do men now bother with 4T and 4S when 4Lz/F/Lo are worth even more points? Because they can actually do them. I mean, what if Skater D decides to go for the hard quads and keep screwing up? He’ll lose badly to Skater C.

Anyway, the proposed scale would be likely be more than a 10% quad drop: I saw a very early version on here that brings the quads down dramatically, to I wanna say around 9.5 for a 4T and something like 11 for a 4Lz. That’s a much smaller difference than we see now, so the influence of the 4Lz/F/Lo wouldn’t be quite so outsized, in either BV or the GOE scale.

As for your points about the +4/5 GOEs I gave to Skater B, I chose those specifically to emphasize how dramatic the impact of superior GOE could theoretically be, considering how much lower Skater B’s content was. In reality, for the medals, you’re right that it will probably be more of a battle between Skaters A, C, and D. In real life, Skater B would probably never factor in but I don’t mind: their content is so much lower than the others that I think even perfect GOE shouldn’t be enough, or should only barely be enough. (If he is competing against Skater A earning straight +2’s across 4 quads, for instance.) At a certain point, the difficulty gap will always be able to overcome the execution, and I think these numbers tell us that it’s probably harder to do under the changed system, which is the goal.

I suppose I just don’t really understand why you’re worried about the Skater C/D placements when you give them the same GOE and PCS. If you give Skater C and D the same GOE and the same PCS, which it looks like you have (25% both and 9’s), then of course Skater D wins: all you’re left with is the fact that his skate was harder. And then if you give Skater A lower GOE and lower PCS, at a certain point he’ll have to fall below them because of his weaker execution— to me, a -0.50 point margin in every component coupled with generally lower GOE sounds reasonable.

The thing to note is that all of these scores have been fairly close once we bring them into a more realistic range GOE— no one is running away with a victory— and we’ve been giving all the skaters very similar GOE for doing completely clean skates. That will never happen in a real competition. Account for that, and there’s room for a lot of variability.

If we work by a corrupted judging panel where the multiple quads automatically earn higher PCS and GOE, then the wider skill set does help Skater A, because they’re losing on the PCS, not the TES. I’m actually slightly more optimistic than you and Sam about the +GOE candy on quads, though. I was basing Skater A in my scenario on Nathan Chen, Vincent Zhou, and Boyang Jin: the current so-called “jumpers,” none of whom tend to earn particularly high GOEs compared to, say, Javi or Yuzuru or even Shoma

Anyway, I don’t think it does much good (in regards to things like the GOE scale or quad rep rules) to worry about the judges. The system is designed so that if they do their jobs properly, any of our scenarios could happen on the right day, which I think is a good thing. If the judges don’t apply it correctly, then the solution isn’t to throw out a perfectly good system... and besides, you can’t add checks on the judges into the base values, or the GOEs, or the PCS when the judges are the ones giving them out.

I’d rather have a functional system with dysfunctional judges than a dysfunctional system *and* dysfunctional judges.
 

Xen

Rinkside
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Anyway, I don’t think it does much good (in regards to things like the GOE scale or quad rep rules) to worry about the judges. The system is designed so that if they do their jobs properly, any of our scenarios could happen on the right day, which I think is a good thing. If the judges don’t apply it correctly, then the solution isn’t to throw out a perfectly good system... and besides, you can’t add checks on the judges into the base values, or the GOEs, or the PCS when the judges are the ones giving them out.

I’d rather have a functional system with dysfunctional judges than a dysfunctional system *and* dysfunctional judges.

Thanks for the clarification. Actually I wonder if it would make more sense to not tie GOE as percentage of BV? That way the difference between a 4T and a 4F for example, would be smaller than if GOEs both get multiplied based on BV. Regarding that chart you mentioned-that also decreased the value of the 3A, no? Personally I really don't like that, because GOEs will just get exponentially larger between quads and triples if you tie GOE to BV. So in the end, a good 3A is potentially the best triple against multiple quads, even more so if you limit repetition of quads. =) And I kind of miss the days when a clean, beautiful 3A was the marker between men and boys...

As for skater C/D and the reason why I brought in skater D, is since I was playing around with "what if" scenarios if I were a junior male skater going into seniors in a year or so. I know I have to do quads, but which do I prioritize to be competitive. In which case the numbers from skater D means I should focus on stablizing 4Lz and 4F first, since skater D can overtake skater C (the more common type in men's top 10). I also have a chance to potentially overtake skater A if skater A makes mistakes. So I guess my "beef" is that rather than reward variety, the rule would actually reward prioritizing 2 specific quads.

This then begs the question of health-since I would then as a junior skater need to train 4Lz and 4F very early. And for senior men, it may also mean I would have to do 4Lz and 4F if I want to place, even if I have injury since I would need variety and quantity simultaenously to be top 3 (or top 6 depending). This would probably encourage injury.

Skater A's PCS btw, is more likely Boyang. Skater B is well...none, Jason Brown hardly gets those GOEs or PCS even when he skates beautifully. And Skater C is more a reference strategy for older skaters who have stamina to backload their 4T and 4S.

As for the last bit: yes, the majority of the propositions I see now is more of "using BV, GOE, PCS" changes to check judges. But due to the injury concern mentioned above, and the dominance of 4Lz and 4F possibly, I guess I'm not that enthusiastic about this check. And to a degree, I don't see the IJS system right now as fully "dysfunctional." The judging on the other hand....I mean, we are suggesting removing the steps before solo jump rule because "it's not applied consistently."
 

cohen-esque

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
I’m not sure it did include the 3A, actually... it didn’t include the 3ATh in the pairs’ table, which I remember because it would’ve been worth the same as a 4Lz/4FTh!

I don’t necessarily disagree that the Junior Men (and women) are probably going to take risks and get injuries... but, well, they do that already.

If skaters do want to prioritize higher quads, they’ll be risking GOE penalties or lesser consistency in competition if they are not so good at it. But if it’s a jump they like— Boyang with the lutz or Krasznozhon with the loop, for example— it might be a reasonable choice. But if they do that, I think the system and their own competitive mindset will work to encourage them to learn more quads.

I think we’ve seen in the past that they don’t to be Skater D. They want to be Skater A and control their own destiny. Skater A doesn’t need anybody to mess up in order to win. I think we see this mindset more often with the junior men and the newly senior men; they decide to add in more quads to push their results as high as they can. It’s why the quad explosion in recent years has happened like it has: Patrick then Javi then/and Yuzuru then Boyang then Shoma then Nathan then Vincent. Yuzuru didn’t just do the 4Lo, he mastered the 4T and 4S that Javi was doing. Boyang didn’t just do a 4Lz, he learned the 4S and 4T, too. Shoma didn’t just do the 4Lo and 4F, he learned the 4T (and recently, the 4S). Nathan didn’t just rely on the 4Lz and the 4F, he also learned the 4S and 4T first (and recently, the 4Lo). And they incorporate those harder quads into their programs alongside their other quads, not instead of them.

You might very well be right that the skaters are going to prioritize the 4Lz/4F (and 4Lo which is worth basically the same) first but I don’t think it will prevent them from developing a wider jump arsenal to go along with them much more than it does now. I mean, those are hard— if they can’t do them, skaters aren’t going to give up on the easier quads that might be within reach. And hopefully, the harsher GOE penalties coupled with lower base values will stop them from trying the harder jumps until they’re reasonably consistent, and they can work with being Skater C in the meantime. (Worked for Javi, after all.)
 

LRK

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
There’s no meaning in banning the repetition of quads. This will only make boys go for quads that aren’t consistent enough for competition (it’s already happening under the current rules :confused2:), resulting in more splatfests.

About raising the age limit, imho it’s nothing but politics. Figure skating is an expensive sport and junior skaters don’t make money, don’t have big sponsors and don’t get invited for shows (unless you’re japanese), how we will keep our juniors motivated then? Denying them the right of competing on the big stages and achieving goals? Skaters like Stephen Gogolev and Alysa Liu won’t be eligible for Beijing and are going to be 20+ in 2026, who knows where they'll be until then. Why spend your whole life training for an uncertain Olympic dream if you can go to college and have a comfortable life? I hope this proposal won’t pass.

And “protect children’s health” is just an excuse. Raising the age limit is not going to stop them from jumping 100 times every practice.

And they will pretty much have to if they want to stay relevant, because with more skaters in juniors, the competition will become even more cut-throat.
 

Shayuki

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
And they will pretty much have to if they want to stay relevant, because with more skaters in juniors, the competition will become even more cut-throat.
Not just that. The juniors will be more competitive -> It'll be more difficult for skaters to establish themselves. If they don't get the SBs(juniors don't get enough points for world standing rankings), they'll be only doing challengers at 18. Might debut at senior GP at 19. Probably won't establish themselves properly then, so they'll only be competitive at 20. Kind of rough.
 

xeyra

Constant state
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
I hadn't seen this one yet:

Medal Ceremonies – proposal to align the ISU medal ceremony with the International Olympic Committee protocol by awarding athletes in the following order bronze, silver and gold

In the grander order of things this is fairly at the bottom but I agree. Probably the only thing I 100% agree with, alongside increasing Pairs spots at championships.
 

Danny T

Medalist
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
They want to show who is against certain proposals ? :dev3:

Interesting :popcorn:

Maybe we should come back to this thread and do PBP :popcorn: Who needs competition when you have feds fighting each other? Instead of speculating is the fed backing this skater, does the fed prefer this style of skating, etc., we can actually hear it from their mouths. Good times.

One question: will we see who votes for what? We'll hear who argues for what, but do we get to see actual votes? Not sure how the ISU Congress even does voting ~
 

anonymoose_au

Insert weird opinion here
Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Country
Australia
Top