It is currently Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:52 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 720 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 36  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #401 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:52 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 45
Liked others: 31
Was liked: 18
Rank: 2kyu
I still find myself struggling to see the point of expending time and effort towards trying to create an anti cheating system for online Go games. Who would want to spend time doing that? Who would pay for it? Would it really prove anything? The worst case scenario is that it would legitimize cheating. A cheater can work out a way to beat the system and then proudly proclaim that his results are honest.

I find the lengthy discussion of cheating methods and cheat detection systems somewhat distasteful. It has some academic interest but the practical meaning is doubtful. It is truly sad that this situation has come up.

Regarding players caught red handed cheating, for example by using a hidden device in a live tournament. They should not be allowed to play another tournament game ever again.


This post by Gobang was liked by: zermelo
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #402 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:02 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 102
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 82
Rank: 5 dan
Hello jlt,
thank you for constructive contribution to this topic.

jlt wrote:
A few observations on Bojanic's analysis. For the game Carlo Metta – Reem Ben David, he analyzed middle game tenuki moves 51, 59, 65, 87, 97, 101.

Just to note - fighting sequences in between are also analyzed.
Tenuki moves are interesting for research because they are not forced.

Quote:
[*] I still have Champion Go 1.1.4 on my smartphone. This program is quite weak compared to Leela or to the two players, probably at most 5k EGF. Among these 6 moves, it found move 65, so we can assume that Carlo Metta could easily find move 65 by himself.

It is possible, of course, but we are taking into account several tenuki moves and fighting sequences.
He could have found one (although in WAGC he failed to find any), but almost every move to be similar to top choice is too much of coincidence.

Quote:
[*] If we want to make Bojanic's method more scientific, we should give a precise definition of tenuki that a computer could check. I don't know if this has already been done, but in any case I am not able at the moment to provide such a definition.

It is certainly a bit subjective, but I think that definition that it could be a move that is played without a contact with previous group of stones.

Quote:
[*] Find at least 100 random online games played before the existence of strong AI, with sufficiently long time settings (no blitz), and with both players being mid-dan. For each of these games, determine the number of "non obvious moves", and how many of these are Leela's suggestions.

Finding a good sample of games would be a problem, especially if player is improving.
In last year, for Metta we have only records of 2 live games, and less than 10 internet (of which half could not be used in analysis).

Quote:
[*] More important than solving this particular case is to design a scientific method to prevent future cheating. We don't know for sure if cheating has already occurred in online or OTB tournaments, but we know that cheating will occur in the future. Cheating discovered by statistical methods can justify at least that a match be replayed and monitored, while someone found guilty of using a hidden electronic device should be banned from tournaments for several years.

Please note that in this situation we have two games where there are almost complete similarities in middle game with Leela, and it is very difficult to prove without reasonable doubt.
How could you prove if someone used program only for one fighting? Or to analyze his moves. It is impossible.

Quote:
[*] In online tournaments, if matches are not monitored or recorded by webcams, it will always be possible to cheat in a subtle way, like using a strong software just once or twice during the game. This will be undetected by statistical methods, just like when athletes are injected just enough EPO/growth hormone/testosterone/whatever so that their blood or urine analysis looks normal; these athletes should be considered innocent until material proof is found.

I don't think that camera is enough, esp if player has help. We have seen player in China who cheated in live game, which is substantially more difficult.
Player could open window, or on his phone, and watch online game analysis.
Or receive moves via message system.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #403 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:23 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1070
Liked others: 63
Was liked: 226
My gut feeling is that it is so difficult to detect cheating in PGETC, that putting in place complex and costly measures is just not practical, nor perhaps even possible.
Probably it, and all other online events, will become unrated again.
We rely on honour in the preliminary stages, just as we always did.
In the finals, the team which finishes last will not have any cash prize.

_________________
North Lecale


This post by Javaness2 was liked by 3 people: Gobang, tapir, zermelo
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #404 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:47 am 
Oza

Posts: 2171
Liked others: 13
Was liked: 3138
Quote:
I still find myself struggling to see the point of expending time and effort towards trying to create an anti cheating system for online Go games. Who would want to spend time doing that? Who would pay for it? Would it really prove anything? The worst case scenario is that it would legitimize cheating. A cheater can work out a way to beat the system and then proudly proclaim that his results are honest.


It may not be the main focus here, but many pro games are played online. E.g. China is so big that it makes sense to play some games that way.

Quote:
I find the lengthy discussion of cheating methods and cheat detection systems somewhat distasteful. It has some academic interest but the practical meaning is doubtful. It is truly sad that this situation has come up.


Some of the length of the discussion is explained by the need to counter those who rushed to judgement based on intuitive suspicions and flimsy statistics. Preserving standards of justice is rather more than academic.

Quote:
Regarding players caught red handed cheating, for example by using a hidden device in a live tournament. They should not be allowed to play another tournament game ever again.


There is an ambivalent attitude towards cheating. I think there may be a biological explanation. Cheating among primates seems to be a way that (say) physically weaker individuals can overcome physical stronger ones. So we recognise the need to cheat and can even applaud especially clever scams. Against that we have notions of fair play that seem to be imposed by moralists from outside and which can vary from culture to culture. All this, plus the threat of legal action, seems to put a severe brake, in various sports, on how harsh sanctions should be.

Personally, I would like to see very harsh sanctions, but what follows from that is a need to get the decision absolutely right in the first place.

For whatever reason, the history of cheating shows us that the typical response is to set up elaborate and expensive mechanisms to combat it - just look at the huge international bureaucracy of the anti-doping organisations in athletics and other sports. Even in go, it is believed that Chinese rules were changed in Ming times just to combat the cheaters who were making the number of captured stones increase or decrease. In Japan, the wide use of coded comments by which strong bystanders could help weaker accomplices win huge sums in gambling games led to harsh penalties (which have occasionally been enforced) that prevent pros from playing games for stakes. Even a non-go oriented country like Argentina has applied the full force of their law against Korean immigrants gambling at go.

Yet none of this stops cheating. We have had a case in recent times of a 9-dan team captain sanctioned because of match fixing.

So we can expect in go the further rise of measures we are already seeing - e.g. phone lockers and doping tests.

The huge changes and inconveniences that cheaters cause for the honest participants are in some ways akin to terrorism.

But the "honest" people are just as much terrorists if they base their reactions on mere suspicions. If the usual trajectory is followed without resistance, we'll be seeing highly regrettable mutations of the suspicions about one player become "all Italians are cheats" or "all AI programmers are cheats." Then it becomes hard to look a cheat in the eye and tell him what he is doing is despicable.


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by 2 people: Bill Spight, Charlie
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #405 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:13 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 45
Liked others: 31
Was liked: 18
Rank: 2kyu
John Fairbairn wrote:
The huge changes and inconveniences that cheaters cause for the honest participants are in some ways akin to terrorism.


+1. I could not agree more.

In a way I guess I have been living in "cloud cuckoo land". I am new to serious Go and the Go tournament scene. I was under the illusion that it was more important to Go players to treat the game, themselves and their opponents with dignity and respect than it was to simply win games.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #406 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:52 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 245
Liked others: 62
Was liked: 122
Rank: OGS 7 kyu
Bojanic wrote:
Quote:
[*] In online tournaments, if matches are not monitored or recorded by webcams, it will always be possible to cheat in a subtle way, like using a strong software just once or twice during the game. This will be undetected by statistical methods, just like when athletes are injected just enough EPO/growth hormone/testosterone/whatever so that their blood or urine analysis looks normal; these athletes should be considered innocent until material proof is found.

I don't think that camera is enough, esp if player has help. We have seen player in China who cheated in live game, which is substantially more difficult.
Player could open window, or on his phone, and watch online game analysis.
Or receive moves via message system.

One solution would be to have those matches organized at the local Go club. So there would be up to three computers available for such event, and an internet connection would be necessary. There would be a club representative (club president if he is not part of the team) that would act as a scrutineer, in charge to monitor the event. Ideally, all matches would be played at the same time, so one scrutineer can oversee all of them in one shot. If players from the same country are not from the same club/city, then that means organizing having two events and two scrutineers.

_________________
I am the author of GoReviewPartner, a small software aimed at assisting reviewing a game of Go. Give it a try!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #407 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:35 am 
Judan

Posts: 7679
Liked others: 2058
Was liked: 2695
John Fairbairn wrote:
There is an ambivalent attitude towards cheating. I think there may be a biological explanation. Cheating among primates seems to be a way that (say) physically weaker individuals can overcome physical stronger ones. So we recognise the need to cheat and can even applaud especially clever scams. Against that we have notions of fair play that seem to be imposed by moralists from outside and which can vary from culture to culture. All this, plus the threat of legal action, seems to put a severe brake, in various sports, on how harsh sanctions should be.


To illustrate how the questions of cheating and fairness are biologically or culturally "hardwired" in our brains, there is a cognitive test, the Wason Task (see https://www.socialpsychology.org/teach/wason.htm ) which, when presented fairly abstractly using cards, numbers, and letters, is not so easy, a lot of people get it wrong. However, when presented as a problem of detecting cheating, almost 100% of people get it right.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins


This post by Bill Spight was liked by: Charlie
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #408 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:47 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 27
Liked others: 1
Was liked: 9
Rank: 3d
pnprog wrote:
One solution would be to have those matches organized at the local Go club. So there would be up to three computers available for such event, and an internet connection would be necessary. There would be a club representative (club president if he is not part of the team) that would act as a scrutineer, in charge to monitor the event. Ideally, all matches would be played at the same time, so one scrutineer can oversee all of them in one shot. If players from the same country are not from the same club/city, then that means organizing having two events and two scrutineers.


This sounds like a nice idea. This should drastically reduce the chance that cheating is attempted. Even if cheating occurs and is tolerated, at least there are multiple people involved, which is an important hindrance.

On the other hand, not everyone lives near a Go club that also has a laptop and internet. I, for instance, have for a long time lived an hour apart from the nearest club.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #409 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:03 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 245
Liked others: 62
Was liked: 122
Rank: OGS 7 kyu
maf wrote:
pnprog wrote:
One solution would be to have those matches organized at the local Go club. So there would be up to three computers available for such event, and an internet connection would be necessary. There would be a club representative (club president if he is not part of the team) that would act as a scrutineer, in charge to monitor the event. Ideally, all matches would be played at the same time, so one scrutineer can oversee all of them in one shot. If players from the same country are not from the same club/city, then that means organizing having two events and two scrutineers.


This sounds like a nice idea. This should drastically reduce the chance that cheating is attempted. Even if cheating occurs and is tolerated, at least there are multiple people involved, which is an important hindrance.

On the other hand, not everyone lives near a Go club that also has a laptop and internet. I, for instance, have for a long time lived an hour apart from the nearest club.

This is true. I think that requesting the local go club to have an internet connection is difficult. Of the two go clubs I visited in France, one would meet in a café, the other in a local provided by the city... An alternative would be to play at the scrutineer place, or some place he choose.
On the other hand, if one consider than the players in PGETC are amongst the best in their country, and that they are all affiliated to their national Go federation, then it is very likely they are located near one Go club. Otherwise, there are still the possibility to have a second scrutineer move to that player location and overview the match on the behalf of the first scrutineer.

But ideally, one scrutineer, one place, one time, club's computers, and eventually additional club members that happen to be there to watch the game would make cheating quite difficult.

_________________
I am the author of GoReviewPartner, a small software aimed at assisting reviewing a game of Go. Give it a try!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #410 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:53 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1234
Liked others: 556
Was liked: 359
Rank: AGA 4k KGS 2k
GD Posts: 61
KGS: dfan
Bill Spight wrote:
To illustrate how the questions of cheating and fairness are biologically or culturally "hardwired" in our brains, there is a cognitive test, the Wason Task (see https://www.socialpsychology.org/teach/wason.htm ) which, when presented fairly abstractly using cards, numbers, and letters, is not so easy, a lot of people get it wrong. However, when presented as a problem of detecting cheating, almost 100% of people get it right.

Thank you for the reference! I knew about the Wason task but not about experiments with variants of it. There is some very interesting discussion of the various experiments here and it sounds like people still have different ideas about how to interpret the results.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #411 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:01 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 769
Liked others: 133
Was liked: 153
I believe the ideal of no false positives is really unhealthy. It almost guarantees there will be a lot of false negatives (i.e. only a few cheaters are caught). Since so few are caught, they receive the whole ire of the community and likely exemplary (harsh) treatment. Since the treatment is so harsh, the pressure that false positives are avoided increases further. The whole control regime also ends up expensive and invasive. But since everyone knows most get away with cheating this completely undermines trust, increases pressure to cheat yourself (think cycling) despite having an expensive and invasive control system in place.

I would much prefer unsound evidence (not too unsound, but the 98% in the case), occasional false positives and lenient punishment, that keeps the control systems simple and overall trust (we catch most cheaters + few innocents) higher.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #412 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:35 am 
Judan

Posts: 7679
Liked others: 2058
Was liked: 2695
dfan wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
To illustrate how the questions of cheating and fairness are biologically or culturally "hardwired" in our brains, there is a cognitive test, the Wason Task (see https://www.socialpsychology.org/teach/wason.htm ) which, when presented fairly abstractly using cards, numbers, and letters, is not so easy, a lot of people get it wrong. However, when presented as a problem of detecting cheating, almost 100% of people get it right.

Thank you for the reference! I knew about the Wason task but not about experiments with variants of it. There is some very interesting discussion of the various experiments here and it sounds like people still have different ideas about how to interpret the results.


Thanks for the reference. :) I note that the supposed cheat detection task which was discussed still involves turning over cards, which is still to some degree abstract. Perhaps that is why only ¾ of people get it right. The cheating detection research I heard of years ago where something like 98% of people got it right involved actual social simulations in which they played the role of cheat detector. We need to remember our Piaget. Most people have not mastered abstract operations.

The Wason Task is also pertinent to our current discussion because it shows how people look for confirmatory evidence, believing it to be relevant. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #413 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:36 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 27
Liked others: 1
Was liked: 9
Rank: 3d
tapir wrote:
I would much prefer unsound evidence (not too unsound, but the 98% in the case), occasional false positives and lenient punishment, that keeps the control systems simple and overall trust (we catch most cheaters + few innocents) higher.


I understand your sentiment, but this will never be accepted. It is literally against a core value of Western society.

Also, realize that 98% means we would 'catch' 100 (one hundred) honest people at the EGC. That's around 500 people playing around 10 games each, and 2% of these would be 'detected'. That sounds impractical, at least unless being marked as a cheater loses all (rightfully) associated stigma and consequences.


This post by maf was liked by: Charlie
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #414 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:54 am 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1954
Location: Groningen, NL
Liked others: 195
Was liked: 1061
Rank: Dutch 4D
GD Posts: 645
Universal go server handle: herminator
tapir wrote:
I would much prefer unsound evidence (not too unsound, but the 98% in the case)


IMO, this 98% number should never have been published. Many people seem to interpret it along the lines of "there's a 98% chance the player was cheating in this game", which is not at all what it means.


This post by HermanHiddema was liked by: Charlie
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #415 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:02 am 
Judan

Posts: 5134
Location: Cambridge, UK
Liked others: 276
Was liked: 2684
Rank: UK 4 dan
KGS: Uberdude 4d
OGS: Uberdude 7d
HermanHiddema wrote:
tapir wrote:
I would much prefer unsound evidence (not too unsound, but the 98% in the case)


IMO, this 98% number should never have been published. Many people seem to interpret it along the lines of "there's a 98% chance the player was cheating in this game", which is not at all what it means.


At least it should have been accompanied by the even more scandalous fact that Carlo played 100% of his moves on the intersections of the board, just like Leela did too!

P.S. I got the Wason test right, I suppose I'm an analytical/logical type, plus it was as a break from refactoring a giant mess of if-then-else spaghetti code which probably counts as priming.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #416 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:21 am 
Judan

Posts: 7679
Liked others: 2058
Was liked: 2695
tapir wrote:
I believe the ideal of no false positives is really unhealthy. It almost guarantees there will be a lot of false negatives (i.e. only a few cheaters are caught). Since so few are caught, they receive the whole ire of the community and likely exemplary (harsh) treatment. Since the treatment is so harsh, the pressure that false positives are avoided increases further. The whole control regime also ends up expensive and invasive. But since everyone knows most get away with cheating this completely undermines trust, increases pressure to cheat yourself (think cycling) despite having an expensive and invasive control system in place.


If people cheat on an online server in casual play, even if the games are rated, I am afraid that not much will be done, either in cheat detection or punishment, because nobody cares that much. Chess players, please correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that that is pretty much the case now with casual online chess games, even though cheating detection using engines is quite well developed in chess.

However, I doubt if lessening the punishment for online cheating in tournaments, such as simply by forfeiting a single game, would be acceptable by the community. True, if we accepted a number of false positive results, so that people were punished because they were probably cheating, then that punishment would probably lessen. But that could also lead to long standing enmity between those who believed that a person cheated in a particular game and those who believed that he was unjustly convicted. Also, having, say, three or four games per tournament forfeited because of suspicions of cheating would be disruptive of tournament play itself. Honest players might fear playing too well, lest they lose a game because they are accused of cheating.

Quote:
I would much prefer unsound evidence (not too unsound, but the 98% in the case), occasional false positives and lenient punishment, that keeps the control systems simple and overall trust (we catch most cheaters + few innocents) higher.


IMX, accusations of wrongdoing (cheating included, OC) do not improve overall trust. To the contrary, they erode it. Accepting more false positives would lead to more accusations, simply because they would be more likely to work.

As for the 98% matching evidence, you must understand that matching one of a bot's top three choices was chosen in order to generate impressive matching numbers, not through any theory of how a player might have cheated. (This motive may have been unconscious.) And restricting the possible matches to the fifty moves between moves 51 - 100 is also suspicious. In addition, it is confirmatory evidence instead of disconfirmatory evidence. IOW, it is not just unsound, it is crap.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins


Last edited by Bill Spight on Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

This post by Bill Spight was liked by: Charlie
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #417 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:24 am 
Judan

Posts: 7679
Liked others: 2058
Was liked: 2695
Uberdude wrote:
P.S. I got the Wason test right, I suppose I'm an analytical/logical type, plus it was as a break from refactoring a giant mess of if-then-else spaghetti code which probably counts as priming.


Even professors of logic have gotten it wrong. :shock:

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #418 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:27 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 102
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 82
Rank: 5 dan
Uberdude wrote:
At least it should have been accompanied by the even more scandalous fact that Carlo played 100% of his moves on the intersections of the board, just like Leela did too!

Actually, as Italian statistical analysis showed, it is few percents less.
And if we have even 2% uncertainty, 100 players would be wrongfully accused and sanctioned on EGC, as another statistical analysis showed.

PS I would be very interested to know if there is some statistical analysis if 4d player could play entire game like 7d?
Not like, few moves well spotted in one game, but every move. In two games.

BTW
When I was first time on WAGC, Kato Masao analyzed my game against player from Taipei.
Since I am crap at remembering moves, I wrote them on paper, and it was difficult to find where next move would be. (ah those tenukis...)
And while I was looking for move, Kato would point out where move should be played. My opponent's moves were usually there, mine nowhere near.
I realized that my opponent might be somewhat stronger than me.
If you wonder about result, opponent made mistake in late middle game, that even I saw, I attacked him and managed to narrow difference, and lost only by komi (Kato said I maybe had some chance of winning).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #419 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:38 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 102
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 82
Rank: 5 dan
Bill Spight wrote:
As for the 98% matching evidence, you must understand that matching one of a bot's top three choices was chosen in order to generate impressive matching numbers, not through any theory of how a player might have cheated. (This motive may have been unconscious.) Also, restricting the possible matches to the fifty moves between moves 51 - 100 is also suspicious. In addition, it is confirmatory evidence instead of disconfirmatory evidence. IOW, it is not just unsound, it is crap.

So you think we should also include in analysis opening phase, which could easily show 100% similarities to Leela in many games?
BTW, opening usually lasts up to move 30, not 50 as you claim.
And why include endgame in analysis? (which in analyzed games started around move 120).
So it is not 50 moves, rather around 90.
And I am curious, what method would not show that Metta's two online games are very different to his two live games?

Theory how player might cheated is very simple:
- players plays his moves into program (Leela) at the same time as they are played.
- there is no need to use it in opening, so fuseki can be played on own,
- middle game is played with help of program, since it is most important part of the game.
Move is selected among top suggestions.
- after securing lead in middle game, endgame is played more leisurely, with more own moves, while lead is monitored and maintained by watching computer play.
Good enough theory?


This post by Bojanic was liked by 3 people: Gobang, Hidoshito, tapir
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: “Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A
Post #420 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:48 am 
Tengen

Posts: 4653
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 627
One unjust sentence of murder is too many. One unjust sentence of doping is too many. One unjust sentence of cheating is too many. The former means loss of freedom (and somewhere death). The latter two can mean a lifelong destroyed reputation.


This post by RobertJasiek was liked by 2 people: Bonobo, Charlie
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 720 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 36  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group