Weaves Library Overhaul
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Admin Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1819
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:31 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

sakredchao wrote:
i don't see too much of a difference between "armor / jewelry / sculpture" and "sheet / chain(rope) / block". that's just nomenclature, to me.


For names, me neither.

The difference...

E4-1 is "Good for jewelry".
E4-1 is "Rigid for sculpture".
E4-1 is "Good for fabric".

None of those describe what kind of weave it is.

E4-1 is a 2D weave. It's a sheet weave. That's a property. Being good for fabric, is an opinion. Under this system, E4-1, a sheet weave, could even be considered "Bad" for fabric, depending on opinion.

Two issues:

1) There is no way to search for the physical property of how many dimentions the weave expands in. Something I think is very useful.

2) We have 3 attributes based entirely on opinion, and, even then, are only very loosely defendable. "Rigid for sculpture" for example. Rigidity is based on AR. Some weaves hold up better, or are easier to make hold up in sculpture, but, that is a fabrication concern, not an attribute. We're also stating that some rings are "good" for a genre of products. Another thing completely subjective.

I think the 3 terms (and their criteria) there right now should go away, and the 3 terms (and their criteria) that I suggested be put in their place. .. but it's two issues, that happen to be similiar. Regardless of whether Chain/Sheet/Block get implemented, Jewelry/Fabric/Sculpture should be removed.

Joined: November 20, 2003
Posts: 2561
Submissions: 77
Location: Northbrook, IL

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:31 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I didn't like those when I put them either. If kim made that post... who wanted them? I'm pretty opposed to having any opinionated criteria whatsoever in the system. I would include a 1D, 2D, 3D expansion thing too. I think the thing behind rigidity is that some weaves even at tight AR are still flexible as the rings rotate like hinges. Others just dont budge at all.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4373
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:59 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

e4 can be a rope or a sheet or a block.

chains can be useful in sculpture and be made more rigid easier than most blocks.

there is a weave that is effectively 2 3/4persian chains sewn into each other with an e4 stitch. is that a block or a rope or a sheet?

it looks like a rope (long and thin). it acts like a block (one of the most rigid weaves i've encountered where you don't have to force the rings into place). it holds properties of a sheet (ropes sewn together).

getting rid of all of the options is certainly easier. i'm not stuck with using them. 1d, 2d, 3d is just as nebulous as the other suggested names. changing nomenclature doesn't really change the problem.

after thinking about it, the "good for" lists (wouldn't include all weaves in the library) would probably make a better article than inclusion into the weave library. my thought was that it would be a useful way to browse for ideas, exactly where on the site it is located doesn't really matter that much to me.

most weaves that expand in various dimensions have seperate entries for those variations. if we used consistant naming then j4 would show up right next to j4cube.. euro4 would show up next to euro4 - roundmaille while browsing alphabetically, showing the various forms the weave can take.

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1819
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 30, 2005 8:37 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

sakredchao wrote:
e4 can be a rope or a sheet or a block.


E4-1 is a sheet, only. It's a 2D pattern.

You can make it into what appears to be a chain by making a sheet that is very thin and long, but it's still a sheet. You can make it a tower that looks like a block by coiling it and weaving opposite edges together, but it's still a sheet.

E4-1 does not have 1 dimention to expand to.
E4-1 does not have 3 dimentions to expand to.

It only has 2.

By definition.

Quote:
there is a weave that is effectively 2 3/4persian chains sewn into each other with an e4 stitch. is that a block or a rope or a sheet?

it looks like a rope (long and thin). it acts like a block (one of the most rigid weaves i've encountered where you don't have to force the rings into place). it holds properties of a sheet (ropes sewn together).


Well, point it out and I'll figure it out.

As an offshoot tangent, I think a lot of weaves we have are really more mini-projects that actually new weaves, but I can't quite quantify at what point they become that.

Back on track.. I'm not sure on this.. maybe you or Tess knows the answer... Isn't each weave, by definition, 1d, 2d, or 3d?

I.E. To accept a weave, as a weave, you have to understand how it expands. What makes any weave a weave, is the "base unit" of repetition.

Doesn't each weave expand in a specific amount of dimentions only, with only size and amount being manipulated by the weaver?

Ex) A chain weave, *only* expands in one dimention (from either side, but grows only in length). There is no way to continue the base unit into a 2nd or 3rd dimention. The weaver choose how *LONG* to make the chain.

Ex2) A sheet weave, *only* expands in two dimentions. There is no way to continue the base unit into a 3rd dimention. The weaver chooses how *LONG* and *WIDE* to make the sheet. They may choose to make it square, or short length with long width, long length with short width, or any combination thereof.

Ex3) A block weave, *only* expands in three dimentions. The weaver choose how *LONG, *WIDE* and *DEEP* to make the block.

In the case of your 2 3/4 persian weave.. it depends on how the weave is defined. However, if it *can* be repeated, using existing internal structural patterns, into two dimentions, it's a sheet. The particular sample may show it as a very narrow sheet, but that would be a bad picture to use and a bad thing for the weave admin to approve like that.

*Most* combination or mini-project weaves in my opinion, would be very difficult to define as a chain... because you can continue an existing pattern in two dimentions.

Byzantine on the other hand, you cannot. There is no pre-existing internal structure to denote expansion in two dimentions. Well.... hrm. It's tricky, because it's actually a rolled up conjoined version of some sheet, but it's so small it has eliminated an width-wise pattern. Or.. has it? I suppose you could look at the way it expands *around* the chain, as opposed to down the length, and see a pattern.

But, again, it's so small you wouldn't know. Turkish Round might be a point at which you can discerne a width pattern. Whatever an 8-ring version would be, I think is a sheet.

That's my general rule of thumb. Pairs and triplets of rings at a time can still be a chain. Quads, and it's just a narrow conjoined sheet.

So, to me.. Byzantine (2 rings wide) is a (chain) weave. Turkish Round (3 rings wide) is a (chain) weave. A 4-ring version of the same pattern is *not* a weave. It's.. some kind of conjoined Byzantine sheet.

Same for Box and Round. Box is a chain weave. Round is a chain weave. A 4-ring version is not a weave at all. It's just a sheet of E4-1, 4-wide and conjoined. If it has unique enough properties to warrant explanation, someone could add a picture of it to the E4-1 page and the explanation, as an internal variant. Same as say, a flat E4-1 bracelet.

Quote:
1d, 2d, 3d is just as nebulous as the other suggested names. changing nomenclature doesn't really change the problem.


Well, I'll have to admit I don't know many weaves.. but I still disagree. There is a difference between whether a weave is expandable in a certain dimention (by definition, as defined by evidence in sample), and how far a weaver *chooses* to expand the weave in any particular dimention.

3-wide x 50-long E4-1 is *not* a chain. It's just a narrow sheet of E4-1.

Quote:
after thinking about it, the "good for" lists (wouldn't include all weaves in the library) would probably make a better article than inclusion into the weave library.


*nod*. Or, to be included in the weave's page as part of a description. You can toss in all kinds of tips and tricks about how to make certain weaves do certain things, and how manipulating the weave a certain way makes it have different properties.

People can always look at a sheet and say "Hey, 1 itteration wide of that would look great as a bracelet."

Quote:
most weaves that expand in various dimensions have seperate entries for those variations. if we used consistant naming then j4 would show up right next to j4cube.. euro4 would show up next to euro4 - roundmaille while browsing alphabetically, showing the various forms the weave can take.


That is also true, but may conflict with "classical namings". Though.. maybe not. "E4-1: Sheet." "E4-1: Boxchain" "E4-1: Round" would be perfectly acceptable. Searching by name and returning "close" spellings would be cool too.

As a final thought....

You guys have probably come across this before, but it just occurred to me.. Isn't Inverted Round a japanese weave?

Joined: November 20, 2003
Posts: 2561
Submissions: 77
Location: Northbrook, IL

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:20 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Wow that's a bubble burst. I'd never challenged the idea before. The closest thing to real inverted round is Groovy, but that seems to alternate between a rolled up euro 4-1 and a gridlock. The rolled up gridlock (in roundmaille / box fashion) is Mizu. There is nothing as far as i can tell that really is euro4-1 rolled in the wrong direction. It looks spiky.

As for inverted round, it's sort of like a gridlock variant being rolled in the wrong direction. It's like if you take each vertical row and force it outward like gridlock does, but instead of going back the other way to continue the sheet, you just keep doing that until it completes a circle. To see what I mean take a strip of E4-1 and use your thumb to pull the last vertical row to the opposite direction and make a gridlock style V. Now keep this going around a circle.

I'm not sure how to define the family since it would require a stretch of either definition. Neither weave category is defined to be all encompassing yet. There is no eye per say since it was opened, but there's no 90 degree angles either. If I had to throw a guess I'd go with euro.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4373
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:22 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

i view box as a sheet curled on itself.

i view "windmill" as a curled sheet, also.

i view them both as e4. what i look at with a weave is ring interactions. how does this ring interact with these other rings. i had to start looking at maille like thes when i made the tree, there is no other way to decide if a weave has persian attributes. some, like lobelia, look like they could be a part of one family or another (persian in this case).. but when i made it i couldn't find any persian interactions, only european and japanese.

hmm. you know, i haven't inspected "windmill" in a few years. even though it's just E4 curled on itself, grain perpendicular to box, it may not be european.

i think cynake might be right about IR. tess, remember what happens if you make IR with 4 rows instead of 6? however, it does not have a lot of the typical japanese properties, like the 90* ring orientation. it -is- related to gridlock, but gridlock isn't necessarily european. family is defined by ring interaction, not what weave you used to get to where you are.

a good illustrative example for this is my weave "zigzag". i found this weave by allowing hp3 to unfold after the second stitch, and following the pattern. hp3 is pure persian. zigzag is a european/japanese hybrid with no persian in it.

folding a ring (or rings) a different direction can change the family.

this is why the "1 step removed from" pandora web tess was working on would be such a great addition to the library. in the list of info we're adding to each weave description, having e4 "related to: gridlock, et cetera" would allow us to classify weaves in the proper family based on ring interaction, and still have relations available for people who think that way. (most folks).

this might be confusing at first.. we may have to decide between "old school comfort" and "accuracy".

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: November 20, 2003
Posts: 2561
Submissions: 77
Location: Northbrook, IL

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:02 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Ah yes the 4 row IR is 4-2 chain. So yea if you abandon the 90 degree thing it's japanese. I can deal with that. Is windmill the IR I was looking for?

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1819
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 31, 2005 7:13 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Tesserex wrote:
Ah yes the 4 row IR is 4-2 chain. So yea if you abandon the 90 degree thing it's japanese. I can deal with that. Is windmill the IR I was looking for?


Well, it's 90 degrees when flat. If I take a sheet of jap, and curl it half-way around my arm.. is it not jap anymore, because the rings aren't at 90 degrees?

When crushed into IR, the 60 degrees is just the 90 degrees.

A different way of defining it could be something along the lines of saying they have to be as opposed as possible. Like.. mollecular shapes with respect to electron pairs, and how the atoms orient themselves as far away from eachother as possible. Which is not always 180 or 90 degrees, sometimes it's 60, (or 120 into the third dimention). When flat, repulsion is 90 degrees. When in the case of inverted round, since the weave coils on itself, it doesn't have that 90. It's max repulsion is 60. Or, actually... from the outside, I guess it's 120.

Make sense?

Joined: November 20, 2003
Posts: 2561
Submissions: 77
Location: Northbrook, IL

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:18 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

yes. Also you could just say there are no eye connections. Euro uses TE, Persian is TE and AE, jap is neither. (There's no AE only because the eye falls apart, just like IR).

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1819
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:36 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

A few other things that come to mind after browsing the weaves area (which I haven't done in like, two years).

1) There are a few pictures that have their thumbnails, huge. But they're always grainy. I believe it's because they fit the file-size requirements. There should be size requirements too. They should be shrunk down to a normal size. Especially because they're just blowups of grainy thumbnails anyway.

2) There are a bunch of weave pictures with advertising on them. Hockeyweirdo has one with a weblink I think, Grace's has her name on them, etc. Okay, so we're a friendly group who knows eachother.. but.. what happens if I submit a weave picture that has "Ebay - Shop Today. www.ebay.com!" at the bottom? Or, a Nike logo? Advertising is advertising, and in my opinion we should ban it. This is different than having text on the image that helps describe it, ("Top", "Bottom", "Side", etc).

Part two of this issue is copyrighting. We've given people at this time, complete control over their submissions. When people host an image of their work online, I can see why they'd want a watermark of it, to say they made it and so it's more difficult to thieve and use elsewhere.

I think it's okay to have people leave their name on an image, for copyrighting protection, etc. But that's it. Their real name, not handle. No weblink. No comments. Just the name and a copyright C.

3) There are a lot of spelling mistakes, double-the's, missing punctuation, etc in weaves. I don't know what Tess's standards are and have been, compared to Lorenzo's and others in the past.. but we need to have that cleaned up a lot, at least going forward. Eventually, back-edits will be required. There's also a lot of poor english, "Basically, the weave is made by".. when it should just be "The weave is made by". Much of the excess information can also be cut, but, I suppose for now, history of "how I was sitting around with extra rings one day, and decided to play with this weave, and then tried that, and ended up with this" .. can stay. Things like "Made by me" then "Made by Me" on the next line should be cleaned up, sometime.

4) In your re-org, I think we should have a web/net option. One of the most common modifications to chain weaves is webbing/netting them. I wouldn't call most of those new weaves, just, things you can do with those weaves. When the weaves area gets its big shakedown after the redesign, I think many of these can get combined into the parent chainweave's page.

5) In your re-org, would you see a need for a checkbox for "Tutorial"? So people can only see weaves with tutorials with them.

6) In your re-org, is "Box/Round" really a property? Isn't almost every chain weave a conjoined-sheet of *some* other weave? (A bunch of which may not exist yet, but, only a few of which don't actually exist).

7) In your re-org... how about a property of "multi-ringsizes required"? I'd like the option to filter out (or in) weaves I can't make with only a single ring size.

Uber A little useless to fix now... but Kim put the @'s at the top of some weaves, right? Well, there are weaves that start with #'s now. "2Di" or something. In ASCII, #'s come before @, and, have not bumped them to the top. No big deal, depends how far we are away from the re-org or gut-a-thon.

9) In your re-org, mobius balls© should be an aesthetic property, not a subfamily. Correct me if I'm wrong, but *all* Mobius weaves are possible without Mobiusing, right? If Mobiusing rings is required, that must mean that the 2+ rings aren't treated as a single ring, they have something different done to each of them, and thus, it's actually not mobius.

10) In your re-org.. I'm not sure the Spiral Family is an actual family. Hard to define it as such in my head. Also, almost all weaves inside it are hybrids. I'm not sure how to define spirals if not as their own family.. but they seem to be some sub-category.

11) There are a lot of weaves, like I said before, that are more like mini-projects. There are a lot of weaves that don't even seem to be well researched.. their pictures aren't of extendible patterns (they used poor rings sizes), and I highly suspect have never been built by anyone except the creator. There are some weaves that are just monsterous. There are some weaves that don't show a significant enough sample to show the weave. Most of these are experimental weaves in my opinion.

I think all those should be shoved into a "basement" category or somesuch. Criteria being the opinion of the admin. No quantifiable criteria. Maybe criteria being "We can't understand/define what this weave is". Some of Kim's weaves are pretty close to the line on this I think.

12) We should at some time make a push for better samples of weaves. I.E. For chains, not 3 or 4 itterations, but, 30 or 40, so you can see what an actual chain of it looks like. But, I guess we'll have samples coming out of the woodwork when we do the gutting.

----

That's all that comes to mind right now. Let that bubble and boil.

Joined: November 20, 2003
Posts: 2561
Submissions: 77
Location: Northbrook, IL

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:54 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Remember when I said weaves were restricted to one subcategory? That's because I drew the line there for new weaves vs. mini projects. There's your solution. At least it's mine.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4373
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:30 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

#1, the grainy image is due to not rotating the image so that it is wider than it is long, it has nothing to do with the size of the submitted image.

#2, in the past we have not allowed advertising in -any- image submitted to MAIL.. a name has been okay, but not a business name. (as long as it is not distracting, ie running through the center) of course, new admins are added and not indoctrinated.. and sometimes when you've gone through 20 images that day things slip by. we have recently had issues with people stealing from the MAIL site and selling the contents. people need a way of proving that it is theirs if they want to protect their property from this.

is #3 something that you have time for, cynake, if tesserex doesn't mind? we would need to keep the basic content the same, and not include personal opinions.

in #4, i am generally opposed to combining weave submissions into parent/child. ask tess how his pandora web went. it was not anything remotely displayable or unified, which the library needs to be, to be usable. another mailler, "knotlinks" also tried making a weave "family tree" once.. and this was back when we had 30 or so weaves, not over 500. he gave up and decided it was impossible. see the discussion below about "parent weaves". the only way the pandora web can be displayed accurately is if every weave is seperate and can link to seperate, related weaves. maille is made of circles, not lines.

the tutorial idea is a good one..

"box/round" describes a significant number of weaves in the library. being able to search for, or exclude them, could be useful to a person "mucking about in cyberspace".

i renamed a lot of weaves to put letters before the numbers when i did what i did. i guess i wasn't clear on why, when i described my system to my successor. 2di can be renamed to "di-2" or "twoDI"... but i don't think that stuff is really important if we're reorganizing the database and how it's accessed.

spiral family can be identified by ring orientation, and is demonstrable in a simple chain. tess linked to his CGI rendition of the main families based on ring orientation in a simple chain earlier in this thread. spiral 4-1 belongs to no other family. the mobius ball© belongs to no other family. there are other examples. it is not a very flushed out family because not as many people have experimented in those waters as persian or european.

basement weaves, who makes that judgement call? i have used most of my weaves in application. does that make them 'real weaves'? or, if i were to use all the the ones i haven't put in to application in some piece of art, are they real weaves then? i thought we wanted to remove judgement calls from the library. some people not having the comprehension of a weave is not exactly something you can quantify. if you've made more weaves, you understand more weaves, exponentially. whose understanding do we go by? coyote? then we're all in trouble.....

i am generally opposed to "gutting the library"... and i don't really know where you got the idea that this was the plan. a lot of weaves are pretty silly. hp10 is a pretty silly weave, the AR required is ridiculous, but who are you or i to say that it is unusable. one could make an earring with a hp10 center and taper it on either end by AR and by connection to hp8, hp6, hp4. it could look really nice. does that make it an acceptable weave... if it has application?

or what about triple half persian? it looks like a pretty funny weave, but i think i have a wonderful use for it that could make me some money.. and i probably wouldn't have made it had it not been in the library. i certainly wouldn't have thought of it.

what about spiral web? yes, it's a combination of spiral4 and j6. but, have you ever made it? there is a unique ring interaction happening at the 3-way junction.. there was a hp3 web similar to this that also had a unique ring interaction at the intersection using a 3 ring mobius ball©. maybe it's not a "mobius ball©" anymore, but you probably knew what i meant just then...

what about boxchain, should it be gutted because it is e4? it is a popular chain.

would you combine things because they are "based off of" a parent weave, despite ring interactions? that breaks down the entire family structure. what happens if a weave is based off of a weave that is based off a weave that is based off of... or what happens when a weave is based off of 2 seperate and distinct weaves? do you arbitrarily pick one? that's the system we use now and it's static and incomplete.

the whole point for making this database accessing system is to allow for massive numbers of submissions. we have over 550 now. this new search would make 5000 weaves managable.

weave submissions should remain seperate, but interlinked.. not "filed together". it is easy to have the "basic weaves" search include "root weaves". just show "hourglass unit" instead of all the hourglass variants. tao3 (or tao2 if it's stable enough) instead of all the tao variants. this makes it possible to search and only return roots. find a root you like and show all of the weaves using that subfamily

again, we simply need good instructions on how to use the search... and make the search powerful enough (and expandable enough) to handle the library and all of the additions that will pop up in the future.. when MAIL started i don't think anyone had any idea what would happen to the weave library. i kept thinking, "there are only so many weaves people can come up with." i keep being proven wrong....repeatedly. i am now of the mind that there is no ceiling.. we need to plan for that.

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: November 20, 2003
Posts: 2561
Submissions: 77
Location: Northbrook, IL

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:45 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I started gathering data, and I have a slight discovery.

I included a "Dragon" subfamily, to mean a property of having two separate pieces trapped inside each other. This basically meant dragonscale and its variants. I'd like to eliminate that and just use the captive/orbital property, since helm chain has this, and ds is a sheet of that, and DS is basically just an entire sheet captured. Thoughts?

Joined: August 16, 2003
Posts: 2143
Submissions: 10
Location: PA, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:14 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

But isn't the point of a captive ring that no rings necessarily go through it, just around it? In dragonscale, all of the rings are connected with the rings that pass through them. Did I miss something here?

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4373
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:30 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

lorenzo had described the captive / orbital family as "containing rings which are held in place without other rings passing through them." now, with the more recent orbital weaves submitted, this is no longer the case, the "orbital" rings often have other rings passing through them.

personally, i use ring interactions to define families.

we have euro, japanese, spiral and persian well defined with your cgi.

to me, a simple japanese chain, with an orbital ring, demonstrates what "orbital" is. this can be done with 3 rings.

"captive" is a little trickier to demonstrate, and this is why i have never considered them to be the same "family", wlthough it makes sense to group them. cir, c-byz, c-box, c-fp6.. all of these are examples of the captive ring interaction, but i don't know the "simplest" way to demonstrate it.

dragon, or scale, i would define as having 2 rings of different sizes arranged concentrically. the easiest way to demonstrate this is with 2 rings arranged like a bulls-eye.

i guess, to me, it depends on how many scale/dragon weaves we think we will aquire over time. we have probably 20 now (a hazarded guess). this would include 4-1 thrice, dragon/tiamat scale. and all of the various weaves that people have made "scaled".. i know someone recetly added some persian ones, i believe it was loke, but i could be mistaken about that.

i feel like the scales weaves are different enough in ring interaction to use a seperate option, but you're the weaves guy. you should decide if we are basing the library and descriptions on weave relation or ring interaction.

personally, i would base the library search off of ring interaction, and have each weave description have a list of 1 step away weave relations.

also, i would aquire pictures of all the various techniques, in their simplest form, and use them on a "help" page for this new search engine, so people can easier understand what the heck we're talking about with all the weave techniques. that will make it easier to learn and navigate for a new user.

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 3 of 4. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sun Dec 21, 2014 8:50 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Admin Discussion
Display posts from previous: