Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Production bump to Open: stuck declaring minor


twodownzero

Recommended Posts

IPSC doesn't have Limited-10. We do.

If your gear is appropriate for L10 but you attempt to shoot it in Production and get bumped to Open, why should you be coddled for making bad choices?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You just indicted your own argument. There is no difference between production and other divisions. All divisions have equipment requirements. All divisions have minimum scoring. Some divisions have another OPTIONAL level of scoring. Production is not different and not a special case. It's against the spirit of the rules to change them to allow production only bumps to redeclare major.

Heres another. I'm shooting single stack minor and my gun peuks. By rule and the approval of the rm I can switch guns. I have a 45 commander carry gun as a backup and the change is approved. Should I be allowed to redeclare major as I'm shooting it now? Why not? I am allowed by the divisional requirements? If you do it for bumps to production why can't I get the advantage as, unlike a production shooter with an illegal gun violating a rule - I'm a legitimate shooter with a bytherules problem. How unfair is it to make me shoot 8 rounds scored minor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course SS ≠ Production. The shooter in that Division who declares Minor despite being able to meet the Major PF floor is indeed playing to a (perceived) advantage in this decision, by being able to load more rounds in his magazine as a trade off.

Well, the competitor declaring minor power factor as part of the requirements for playing in Production, while shooting major PF ammo is also playing to a (perceived) advantage -- otherwise he'd enter a different division. AAMOF, that competitor would be perfectly at home in L10......

One of the foundations of the sport is the elusive concept of freestyle -- which stands in opposition to being reined in by rules. Clearly we need rules -- to see to safety concerns, to frame the competition, to address competitive iniquity, to allow for resolution of conflicts that will naturally arise. Really those last three all deal with ensuring some semblance of equity for the competitors. I see nothing patently unfair about requiring a competitor to retain his declared power factor when he is moved to open division mid-match for violating the requirements of his prior division. That move is supposed to hurt; and depending on the strength of the competitor, that person might be a contender in Open. (Keep in mind, we're all of a sudden adding another competitor to the open pool mid-match, thereby changing the field, and potentially the HHF on some stages.)

Keeping freestyle in mind, I believe firmly in rules stability, and especially when it comes to rules that affect division requirements. I'm not likely to support a rule change that will make a tiny handful of competitors (possibly) slightly happier with a move to open that results from their inability to comply with division requirements. I truly don't see this as as large of a problem, as the frequent rules changes that have driven both members and clubs out of the sport over the years.....

If a proposed rules change addresses a newly identified safety problem -- yep, always on board with that. If it addresses a problem of competitive equity, yep, on board with that. This hasn't been a problem (anywhere but here) in the 11 years I've played the game -- and I've seen a fair number of folks moved to Open division at everything from local matches to Nationals. All of those competitors accepted the move gracefully and filled their mags..... :D :D

And Sin, no worries about me taking something personally....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IPSC doesn't have Limited-10. We do.

If your gear is appropriate for L10 but you attempt to shoot it in Production and get bumped to Open, why should you be coddled for making bad choices?

There's a valid point for the difference in rules for IPSC....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just indicted your own argument. There is no difference between production and other divisions. All divisions have equipment requirements. All divisions have minimum scoring. Some divisions have another OPTIONAL level of scoring. Production is not different and not a special case. It's against the spirit of the rules to change them to allow production only bumps to redeclare major.

Heres another. I'm shooting single stack minor and my gun peuks. By rule and the approval of the rm I can switch guns. I have a 45 commander carry gun as a backup and the change is approved. Should I be allowed to redeclare major as I'm shooting it now? Why not? I am allowed by the divisional requirements? If you do it for bumps to production why can't I get the advantage as, unlike a production shooter with an illegal gun violating a rule - I'm a legitimate shooter with a bytherules problem. How unfair is it to make me shoot 8 rounds scored minor?

Especially if in SS minor you're shooting a .40 loaded with Major PF ammo, but are declaring minor so you can get another round of capacity -- because the match favors those conditions -- and you've already rolled through chrono and generated a 170 pf. Clearly all your rounds have been major...... :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your gear is appropriate for L10 but you attempt to shoot it in Production and get bumped to Open, why should you be coddled for making bad choices?

If a guy wants to compete, and no one at his home club shoots L10, is it a bad decision for him to shoot Production instead?

I'm not sure how "bad decisions" in terms of (not) having a specific competitive edge have any bearing on the rules in the first place-- other than of course to be limited by them in certain Divisions. Otherwise, why are so many guns allowed to play in so many different Divisions? If making the correct choice of "where to shoot" were actually part of the spirit of the rules/sport, why isn't it simply dictated by what equipment you bring? (I know the answer to that question-- just pointing it out.)

Slight tangent/aside here-- don't we have L10 in USPSA because of Kalifornia-like laws on magazine capacity restrictions? (And isn't that why Production is 10 rounds in the mags?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just indicted your own argument. There is no difference between production and other divisions. All divisions have equipment requirements. All divisions have minimum scoring. Some divisions have another OPTIONAL level of scoring. Production is not different and not a special case. It's against the spirit of the rules to change them to allow production only bumps to redeclare major.

ALL other Divisions have another *optional* level of scoring. By definition, that makes Production (the one that does not) different.

As does the equipment restrictions that separate them all, the list of Production-legal guns, the rules of mag capacity (and length in terms of Limited, L10 and Open), etc.

The only difference that matters for this discussion is the denied PF option to Production-- which, being available to Open, ought to still stand when a Competitor is moved there... At least, IMHO. :cheers:

Heres another. I'm shooting single stack minor and my gun peuks. By rule and the approval of the rm I can switch guns. I have a 45 commander carry gun as a backup and the change is approved. Should I be allowed to redeclare major as I'm shooting it now? Why not? I am allowed by the divisional requirements? If you do it for bumps to production why can't I get the advantage as, unlike a production shooter with an illegal gun violating a rule - I'm a legitimate shooter with a bytherules problem. How unfair is it to make me shoot 8 rounds scored minor?

That rule seems fair to me for 3 specific reasons:

1) You could have declared and shot Major in your backup gun from the jump, but chose not to.

2) You have actually shot at least one stage with Minor ammo, under the associated rules for SS. (We already established that Reshoots in this case are WAY out of the question.)

3) You are, AFAIK, still permitted to put 10 rounds in your gun-- so long as it fits the box. The stipulation is "Minor-10 rounds", not by caliber. If you don't have 10 rounders available... that's on you. There's no unnecessary restriction, IOW. The inability to switch to Major is more of a clerical one at this juncture-- and important to prevent potentially match-altering Reshoots.

This is of course another purely-SS issue, although your question of fairness (addressed above) does in that way reference Production. HOWEVER... as the example revolves around staying in the original Division, and not being bumped to Open... I'm having a hard time seeing how it's fully applicable to the intended purpose. In your example, as noted in #3, you could keep on chugging without a hitch if you had 10 round mags (that fit the box). Heck, you could even have .45 Minor loads available-- as a smart competitor very well might. Most importantly, you're NOT shooting a gun that's way outclassed by the rest of them in a new Division (Open)-- you're only slightly screwed, and in this case, by a very necessary rule it would seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Especially if in SS minor you're shooting a .40 loaded with Major PF ammo, but are declaring minor so you can get another round of capacity -- because the match favors those conditions -- and you've already rolled through chrono and generated a 170 pf. Clearly all your rounds have been major...... :devil:

But your mag capacity has been Minor, by the rules. Key distinction here.

LOL-- how about this...

You could shoot the very next stage with your equipment readjusted (or 11 rounds in a magical SS mag) and get bumped to Open-- at which point you COULD declare Major, under the Sin-ster Rule Change. :roflol:

Actually, I may have found an example that DOES invalidate my suggestion (with your help, of course). That seems like a lot of gaming going on, and indeed since that is barred by the current rule book, it WOULD be unfair to allow a Production shooter to declare Major when this particular SS shooter could not...

ETA-- thinking about it more, I'd probably advocate a change to the SS rules as well to reflect this, instead of excluding both it and Production from that type of change. Technically speaking, neither were violating the rules of their NEW Division.

IOW, if their ammo meets the Major PF floor, they can declare it once bumped to Open. In the case of Production, I don't see that as ever being too lenient on the shooter-- had he not been caught for the infraction, for instance. Here, in SS... it's borderline. If I sleep on this situation a few days... I may change my tune again!

Edited by Sin-ster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course SS ≠ Production. The shooter in that Division who declares Minor despite being able to meet the Major PF floor is indeed playing to a (perceived) advantage in this decision, by being able to load more rounds in his magazine as a trade off.

Well, the competitor declaring minor power factor as part of the requirements for playing in Production, while shooting major PF ammo is also playing to a (perceived) advantage -- otherwise he'd enter a different division. AAMOF, that competitor would be perfectly at home in L10......

Ooh, I like that-- good thought! I'm not sure what perceived advantage they might have... bigger holes, more forgiving on perforations? :cheers:

I'll restate the case in which the guy wants to compete against someone and there's simply no one else at his club that shoots L10. But if indeed we can make a case for even a perceived advantage, this is a great point.

One of the foundations of the sport is the elusive concept of freestyle -- which stands in opposition to being reined in by rules. Clearly we need rules -- to see to safety concerns, to frame the competition, to address competitive iniquity, to allow for resolution of conflicts that will naturally arise. Really those last three all deal with ensuring some semblance of equity for the competitors. I see nothing patently unfair about requiring a competitor to retain his declared power factor when he is moved to open division mid-match for violating the requirements of his prior division. That move is supposed to hurt; and depending on the strength of the competitor, that person might be a contender in Open. (Keep in mind, we're all of a sudden adding another competitor to the open pool mid-match, thereby changing the field, and potentially the HHF on some stages.)

Keeping freestyle in mind, I believe firmly in rules stability, and especially when it comes to rules that affect division requirements. I'm not likely to support a rule change that will make a tiny handful of competitors (possibly) slightly happier with a move to open that results from their inability to comply with division requirements. I truly don't see this as as large of a problem, as the frequent rules changes that have driven both members and clubs out of the sport over the years.....

If a proposed rules change addresses a newly identified safety problem -- yep, always on board with that. If it addresses a problem of competitive equity, yep, on board with that. This hasn't been a problem (anywhere but here) in the 11 years I've played the game -- and I've seen a fair number of folks moved to Open division at everything from local matches to Nationals. All of those competitors accepted the move gracefully and filled their mags..... :D :D

And Sin, no worries about me taking something personally....

Well said all the way around.

I suppose the only reason why I see it as an unfair condition is that the Production shooter really has no other option for declaration in the first place, as do the other Divisions. And if a super-competitive Production shooter gets bumped to Open along with a super-competitive L10 shooter, the latter has a clear advantage in the new Division by way of being scored Major-- even though the two might (in an unlikely scenario) have been shooting the exact same ammo.

Indeed, the bump is intended to be a punishment-- at least as it's been explained to me, and thereby in my opinion as well. I definitely appreciate that in all circumstances, although... I disagree with the spirit of the "unloaded start" situation, but that's splitting hairs and totally off topic... :lol: I just feel as if the extra PF punishment is unnecessary-- even extreme.

Freestyle being the name of the game, I assume that applies to a competitor's ability to choose a Division-- whether it makes sense to us or not. The IPSC rule exists because L10 does not (for them)-- so the USPSA rule exists because a competitor didn't choose (freestyle) L10? Seems tenuous-- but maybe just to me. :D

I wasn't terribly worried about you taking it the wrong way-- you've been very cordial, thoughtful and helpful in the discussion. There were a lot of emotions swirling around at times, and I didn't want anyone else (especially a mod) to perceive the conversation as falling into personal attacks or getting out of hand. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slight tangent/aside here-- don't we have L10 in USPSA because of Kalifornia-like laws on magazine capacity restrictions? (And isn't that why Production is 10 rounds in the mags?)

That's how the divisions originated -- during the 1994-2004 "whatever the crime bill was called that forbade the manufacture of >10 round mags." As it turned out, that's been good for the sport, not just for the ~ 6 states that still have restrictions, but also by creating a group of divisions in which virtually every gun platform fits somewhere. (One notable exception: Browning Hi-Power in 9mm.)

As far as not wanting to be the only competitor in L10 -- no, the shooter can choose to compete in Production, but then he owns the consequences of that choice....

At small matches I strongly encourage the posting of "unofficial" combined results for just that reason -- comparisons are especially interesting on a stage by stage basis....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your gear is appropriate for L10 but you attempt to shoot it in Production and get bumped to Open, why should you be coddled for making bad choices?

If a guy wants to compete, and no one at his home club shoots L10, is it a bad decision for him to shoot Production instead?

If his gun isn't compliant? Absolutely. In fact, I'd call it idiotic (look up the definition before you take offense).

Everyone was sent a Rulebook when they joined USPSA (and if they're not members, they're just shooting for fun anyway, so why would they care where they land in the match?). It's incumbent on each individual to ensure their gun is compliant with their declared Division. In the more restrictive Divisions of Production and Single Stack, there's a higher standard to comply with.

In Production, your ammo either makes the single power factor or it doesn't. If you want to put yourself at a "disadvantage" (however erroneous that perception is) in Production by shooting what would be Major loads in Open, Limited, and L10, that's your choice.

I'm not sure how "bad decisions" in terms of (not) having a specific competitive edge have any bearing on the rules in the first place-- other than of course to be limited by them in certain Divisions. Otherwise, why are so many guns allowed to play in so many different Divisions? If making the correct choice of "where to shoot" were actually part of the spirit of the rules/sport, why isn't it simply dictated by what equipment you bring? (I know the answer to that question-- just pointing it out.)

And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. You're the one that brought up "competitive edge", whatever that is.

I'm talking about gun, gear, and ammo. It's in the Rulebook. What combo of gun and gear one chooses to utilize is what should dictate what Division one chooses to declare. What guns and gear are allowed in each Division is relatively clear from the Appendices to the Rulebook and associated materials on the USPSA website, and will be even clearer come 1/1/2013.

Slight tangent/aside here-- don't we have L10 in USPSA because of Kalifornia-like laws on magazine capacity restrictions? (And isn't that why Production is 10 rounds in the mags?)

Apparently you weren't around before September 14, 2004.

And California is spelled with a "C", thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The benefit to the sport *is* the benefit to the rare individual. They *are* the sport, not the Rule Book.

No sir, I refused to be ruled by the tyranny of the minority. That's a road to chaos and the end of our sport.

The sport is not the minority, certainly not an incredibly small minority of 5- it is in fact the majority and their collective agreement that the rules are the best for how they want to shoot. Your position falls apart under this truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is another aspect of this that would be affected by a new Sin-ster rule, should one come about.

Consider:

6.2.5 Where a Division is unavailable or deleted, or where a competitor fails to declare a specific Division prior to the commencement of a match, the competitor will be placed in the Division which, in the opinion of the Range Master, most closely identifies with the competitor’s equipment. If, in the opinion of the Range Master, no suitable Division is available, the competitor will shoot the match for no score.

With the number of production shooters most clubs are seeing, it's unlikely for the Production division to be deleted during a match, there is still the possibility. With the current rule as it stands, if a shooter declares to be shooting production, and production gets deleted, he is stuck being scored minor. With a change in the rules, if production is deleted and he gets moved to Limited or Limited 10, there would be an opportunity to be scored major if the shooter had been shooting a major power factor all along.

I'm only pointing out this rule because whereas before the discussion centered around the shooter choosing to shoot production, and choosing to shoot it with a major PF load, or choosing to break a division requirement that bumps them to Open, in the case of this rule, the choice is taken out of the shooters hands. It's the RM who makes the choice about what division the shooter gets moved to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is another aspect of this that would be affected by a new Sin-ster rule, should one come about.

Consider:

6.2.5 Where a Division is unavailable or deleted, or where a competitor fails to declare a specific Division prior to the commencement of a match, the competitor will be placed in the Division which, in the opinion of the Range Master, most closely identifies with the competitor’s equipment. If, in the opinion of the Range Master, no suitable Division is available, the competitor will shoot the match for no score.

With the number of production shooters most clubs are seeing, it's unlikely for the Production division to be deleted during a match, there is still the possibility. With the current rule as it stands, if a shooter declares to be shooting production, and production gets deleted, he is stuck being scored minor. With a change in the rules, if production is deleted and he gets moved to Limited or Limited 10, there would be an opportunity to be scored major if the shooter had been shooting a major power factor all along.

I'm only pointing out this rule because whereas before the discussion centered around the shooter choosing to shoot production, and choosing to shoot it with a major PF load, or choosing to break a division requirement that bumps them to Open, in the case of this rule, the choice is taken out of the shooters hands. It's the RM who makes the choice about what division the shooter gets moved to.

Interesting.

Once again, how often does a Division get deleted.

I am interested in protecting shooters against unfortunate decisions beyond their control (deletion of a Division). Putting some responsibility on the match staff in that event would seem acceptable.

I'm not interested in creating work for the match staff, more work for the match staff, when a shooter breaks the rules. To get caught violating division requirements means match staff already engaged in a lot of work. I don't want them now having to argue appropriate Division. I like a simple, "Welcome to open." Same PF. Walk away. Just a mouse click or two in WinScore. I don't think we should create a rule which creates additional work for the match staff when a shooter can't follow the rules. In the long run, the Divional requirement might be ignored because it creates so much work for the staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how "bad decisions" in terms of (not) having a specific competitive edge have any bearing on the rules in the first place-- other than of course to be limited by them in certain Divisions. Otherwise, why are so many guns allowed to play in so many different Divisions? If making the correct choice of "where to shoot" were actually part of the spirit of the rules/sport, why isn't it simply dictated by what equipment you bring? (I know the answer to that question-- just pointing it out.)

And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. You're the one that brought up "competitive edge", whatever that is.

I'm talking about gun, gear, and ammo. It's in the Rulebook. What combo of gun and gear one chooses to utilize is what should dictate what Division one chooses to declare. What guns and gear are allowed in each Division is relatively clear from the Appendices to the Rulebook and associated materials on the USPSA website, and will be even clearer come 1/1/2013.

Essentially I'm referencing the "Freestyle" nature of the game, as Nik pointed out earlier.

If some of the rules are geared towards promoting this (including the ability to shoot a Major PF in Production), why does this particular rule exist in contradiction of that? IOW, if the rules are so intent on placing shooters in the optimal Division based upon their equipment... why isn't that directly specified, so that said person would be in L10 by default and have this issue avoided? If indeed the intention is for a double-punishment for violating Production rules, that question is answered.

I think L10 is a cool Division and a great idea, regardless of how it came about. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The benefit to the sport *is* the benefit to the rare individual. They *are* the sport, not the Rule Book.

No sir, I refused to be ruled by the tyranny of the minority. That's a road to chaos and the end of our sport.

The sport is not the minority, certainly not an incredibly small minority of 5- it is in fact the majority and their collective agreement that the rules are the best for how they want to shoot. Your position falls apart under this truth.

Point of fact-- being ruled by the tyranny of the majority can easily be just as bad... as a quick glimpse around the US can illustrate in certain cases. (Definitely not touching that one!) Mob rule or minority rule-- the validity of the decisions should be based on a case-by-case basis, with the merit of the results being the focus as opposed to how they come about.

That said, I agree with you 100% just the same-- that's why I'm here trying to change minds, and not out campaigning for a spot on the BoD or NROI. :cheers:

Although I have to point out-- that particular quote of mine is taken slightly out of context. I was merely trying to point out that the Rules don't make the sport, but the competitors do. As per the proposed 5# trigger weight in Production, the majority in many cases disagrees with certain rules. In many cases (this one included it would seem), the Rules and the Competitors are representative of each other, but to simply reference one without mentioning the other can be problematic in regards to proving/disproving a claim. Had that same trigger weight restriction been passed, we could not invalidate an argument against it by simply saying "because it's in the rules."

And I'm still on the fence as to whether or not this type of change to the rules would be problematic. In regards to the SS examples we've come up with, it seems that it might-- if they were left unchanged as well, at any rate. In light of the issue that Skydiver just raised... maybe not so much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like a simple, "Welcome to open." Same PF. Walk away. Just a mouse click or two in WinScore. I don't think we should create a rule which creates additional work for the match staff when a shooter can't follow the rules. In the long run, the Divional requirement might be ignored because it creates so much work for the staff.

If the procedure were a simple:

"Welcome to Open", with just one more mouse click in the PF drop down... Would you reverse that position?

Although admittedly-- it may not be much of a chore to update EZW to allow for this, but making sure that every club had the updated software and put it into use might very well be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're mixing up your peanut butter, tuna, and mustard.

The governing principle is DVC. That's what makes it "Practical".

Freestyle is in regards to the course of fire. It allows the competitors to solve the shooting problem.

Divisions are about competitive equity in terms of comparable equipment. Why are you stuck on making this about fitting each gun into only one box? Where does that even come from? The competitor knows his equipment, can reference the Rules to ensure compliance with a Division's requirements, and choose from a variety of options. Why is that a bad thing?

It really seems like you're throwing darts, trying to get something to stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I have to point out-- that particular quote of mine is taken slightly out of context. I was merely trying to point out that the Rules don't make the sport, but the competitors do. As per the proposed 5# trigger weight in Production, the majority in many cases disagrees with certain rules.

Just to clear something up since you've mentioned it incorrectly a couple times. There never was a proposed 5lb trigger pull in USPSA. IPSC has a 5lb first shot rule now. The USPSA BOD voted in and a month later rescinded a 3lb rule. The BOD thought it was in the best interests of Production. After it was put in place and the vast majority of shooters who contacted BOD members said they didn't think it was a good thing the BOD voted to remove that limit. In this case there are two guys, (well really just you anymore) arguing that this change needs to be made.

I've stated my opinion along with several others as to why this is a rule change that should not and doesn't need to be made. We can continue to make rules and add to the rule book, trying to cover every little item. Right now the rule is pretty easy to remember and very easy to implement. If you declare minor, you're minor for the match. If you declare major, you're major for the match, unless you blow it at chrono. I can explain that rule to someone in about 10 seconds. You are proposing a rule that would not be easy to maintain, and could very easily lead to cheating, whether intentionally or unintentionally. And it's a rule that doesn't make the sport any more "fair" in my opinion (I know your opinion is different).

I don't think the rule on popper calibration is fair. It might be out of calibration but once you shoot it down it can't be calibrated. That's not fair. I bet I can come up with an 8 page rule that would cover every eventuality and make everyone happy and sing Kumbaya at the end of the match. But no one would remember it, and it doesn't really add to the sport. The rules aren't perfect. They never will be. I don't want a sport that has an encyclopedia for a rule book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're mixing up your peanut butter, tuna, and mustard.

The governing principle is DVC. That's what makes it "Practical".

Freestyle is in regards to the course of fire. It allows the competitors to solve the shooting problem.

Divisions are about competitive equity in terms of comparable equipment. Why are you stuck on making this about fitting each gun into only one box? Where does that even come from? The competitor knows his equipment, can reference the Rules to ensure compliance with a Division's requirements, and choose from a variety of options. Why is that a bad thing?

It really seems like you're throwing darts, trying to get something to stick.

The ability to play in multiple Divisions is not a bad thing. I'm not advocating against it. I was simply pointing out that if the rules punish someone for exercising those options in one specific case, and if "being idiotic" is subsequently frowned upon by them... why allow them the option to begin with? Making competitor equipment fit into one box wasn't my point-- it seemed to be yours, in fact...

Having the competitive equity removed by a bump to Open *from only one Division* very well might be a bad thing, when only in that Division did you never have the opportunity to be scored Major PF. (Indeed, folks from any other Division might still be scored Minor after the bump despite shooting ammo that could make Major-- but they were at least given the option from the jump to declare Major, and subsequently be scored that way in Open. In essence, I'm proposing we extend that option to the one case in which it's denied-- although after the fact, by necessity.)

I'm returning fire on darts that are coming from several different positions-- I can see how it may appear as if they're being chucked at random. :lol:

Edited by Sin-ster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...