Go to Post Use sensors to collect data about the surrounding environment, then discard it and drive into walls. - Jared Russell [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Other > FIRST Tech Challenge
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-11-2010, 23:07
wilsonmw04's Avatar
wilsonmw04 wilsonmw04 is offline
Coach
FRC #1086 (Blue Cheese)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Midlothian, VA
Posts: 1,888
wilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond repute
[FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

Greetings Folks,

I have been scanning Youtube to see how the new game is playing out in the regionals when I stumbled upon this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2yAqQNiWns

in this clip 3539 is herding the rolling goal before the end game buzzed. Is this Possession defined in the Q&A?

Quote:
Possess / Possessing a Rolling Goal - Controlling the position and movement of a ROLLING GOAL. A ROLLING GOAL shall be considered in POSSESSION if, as the ROBOT moves or changes orientation (e.g. backs up or spins in place), the ROLLING GOAL remains in approximately the same position relative to the robot.
Source: http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...wfull=1#post93

Since they did two 90 degree turns and the goal stayed in roughly the same position, I would have to say they should have earned a penalty for this.

Clearly, the Refs decided it wasn't so in that match/regional it wasn't. Have other regionals been run with such a loss definition of "possession"? Have others been run with a more "letter of the law" approach? Has this been clarified?
__________________
Currently: Coach FRC 1086/FTC 93
2006-2011 Coach FRC 2106/FTC 35
If you come to a FRC event to see a robot competition, you are missing the point.
Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-11-2010, 09:33
Andrew Remmers's Avatar
Andrew Remmers Andrew Remmers is offline
Registered User
AKA: Andrew Remmers
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Orlando
Posts: 390
Andrew Remmers has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Remmers has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Remmers has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Remmers has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Remmers has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Remmers has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Remmers has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Remmers has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Remmers has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Remmers has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Remmers has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Remmers
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

According to my understanding the new definition of possession is you have to be able to back off the goal without the goal following you... If it does then that is possession.

Spinning in place causes the goal to spin out of the robot because it moves so easily (most of the time at least), You have to learn how to drive a certain way with a goal inside your bot. If designed incorrectly it will be very difficult to do just about anything with it (legally).

I have seen a team in FL that swallows the goal as well however they were just a little bit to narrow so lining up was very difficult and when ever they actually did it they had to remain still on the field because sometimes they possessed it sometimes they didn't.
__________________
Exploding Bacon 2007-2011

Built and Dangerous (B.A.D) 2011-2012

Community Mentor / School Break 2012-2014

North American Robotics: The MooseEagles Founding Member 2012-Present (VEX U)


Last edited by Andrew Remmers : 26-11-2010 at 09:38. Reason: missing information
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-11-2010, 09:59
Joachim Joachim is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Corning NY
Posts: 52
Joachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura about
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 View Post

.... they did two 90 degree turns and the goal stayed in roughly the same position, I would have to say they should have earned a penalty for this.

Clearly, the Refs decided it wasn't so in that match/regional it wasn't. Have other regionals been run with such a loss definition of "possession"? Have others been run with a more "letter of the law" approach? Has this been clarified?

3539 has been in at least one other event (a PA qualifier with one of the game designers in attendance) without being called for a "possession" violation, as far as I am aware. From the video, it seems that they keep the goal inside a "cave" in the robot, but the "cave door" is always open, at least until the end game.

The answer to your last sentence may depend on your definition of clarified, but the topic of goal possession has certainly been addressed in the official Q&A in the Game Definitions thread:

From post #5 (http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post128)

[Answer] The ability to "posses" a Rolling Goal will not be something that the inspection process will test.

The referees will assess possession dynamically, on the field. The referees will be watching for situations that, in their opinion, represent control of all directions of motion of the Rolling Goal.

One way to understand is to visualize the following tests. If a robot can be pushed or pulled away from the Rolling Goal, while still in contact with the playing field surface, without causing the Rolling Goal to come away with the robot, the robot is not in possession of the Rolling Goal. Conversely, if the Rolling Goal can be pulled away similarly, without cause the robot to move/come away with the Rolling Goal, the Rolling Goal was not possessed.


From Post #7 (http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post136)

[Answer] [This] is the test that the referees will use when assessing possession ...
i.e. is there a way to pull either the robot or the goal, without lifting either, that cause them to come away from each other freely.


From post #9 (http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post138)

[Answer] ... if there is a way to visualize pulling away either the rolling goal or the robot, without lifting either, and have them come away from each other cleanly, the goal is not in the possession of the robot.

From post #15 (http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post261)

[Question] Ruling #7 above uses the term "freely" and ruling #9 uses the term "cleanly" when describing how the robot and moving goal are pulled away. Can you confirm that so long as the robot and rolling goal can be pulled away from each other, with or without friction between them that the goal is not possessed?

A: Yes, it is confirmed.


From post #16 (http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post297)

As long as the robot grasping the Baton does not use it to pull/push the Rolling Goal and releases it to finish the scoring activity, the robot would not be in possession of the Rolling Goal....

From post # 17 (http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post366)

[Question] Does the "push" or "pull" mentioned in the above statement [in Post #5] have to be in a straight line? If not, can it include a dog leg or other sharp bend?

[Answer] It is not possible for us to rule on every possible form of possession. The test described in earlier posts is one method for assessing possession.

The final determination of possession will be made by the referees at the field, based on the situation at the time the call is made.


From post#23 (http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post496)

. . . Rolling Goal and Baton possession is clearly defined and will be interpreted appropriately by the referees. The Head Referee will be trained and certified for each of the competitions and will train his/her referees as well.

If the Rolling Goals or Batons are contained and controlled on all sides by a robot at any time they will be considered "possessed". A robot that has the appearance of possessing the rolling goal will be watched closely by the referees, so please be careful in your designs....


From post #24 (http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post496)

The attached diagram of examples possession scenarios is a taken from the referee training materials and demonstrates the principals that apply to Rolling Goal possession. It is not an enumeration of all of the possible legal configurations.

Be aware, even if the Rolling Goal is only constrained on three sides, if there is excessive friction that holds/squeezes the Rolling Goal, the robot would still be in violation of the possession rule.


From post #25 (http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post626)

[Question] You say "if there is excessive friction." What constitutes "excessive friction"? Would something that allows the goal to be pulled out, but doesn't allow the goal to roll out freely be allowed?

[Answer]This will be a judgement call by the referee. In general, the Rolling Goal must roll out freely. Robot designs that may cause the Rolling Goal to bind, stick, become wedged, trapped, etc. risk violating the possession rule and should be avoided.


From post #26 (http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post839)

[Question] Ruling #7, #9, and #15 affirm that the pull test is the primary method of determining goal possession. For clarity, is the pull test still satisfied when the rolling goal freely separates from the robot by changing directions two times? Keep in mind that in this situation the rolling goal is still removed cleanly without moving the robot. Ex. The rolling goal is constrained on three sides and the fourth side has a tab with a remaining opening larger than the rolling goal such that it rolls out freely.

A: No, this is not allowed. The robot or rolling goal must be pulled on a single vector. The fourth side tab should fail inspection.


Based on these answers from the official forum, I would say that the Game Manual version of the definition of possession is gone, and the pull test is in its place. Teams relying on the Game Manual alone will likely be suprised by what is allowed. Post 17 is overruled by 26 (to avoid possession, the goal must be able to roll out in a straight line). The one issue that still seems unclear is whether or not the inspection process will include an assessment of the legality of goal managing mechanisms under the possession rule.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	possession.jpg
Views:	51
Size:	19.9 KB
ID:	9444  
Reply With Quote
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-11-2010, 10:19
Joachim Joachim is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Corning NY
Posts: 52
Joachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura about
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

Slightly off topic:

I happened to see that in FLL this year, the official Q&A was replaced with a short list of "official rulings". I am not sure how often the list was edited, but as of a few weeks ago it was short and relatively easy to read and understand in comparison to the typical official Q&A.

I hope this will become the practice in FTC also.

As it is now, by late in the season, you have to read the entire Game Manual, then read the entire official forum (maybe a couple hundred official forum posts), then study the and interpret the relationships between the various statements in order to arrive at a good understanding of the game. Makes it tough to actually "know the rules" as Ken urges in his recent blog post http://firsttechchallenge.blogspot.c...ing-rules.html.

A short repeatedly updated list of official rulings, with version numbering and dating for each update, would be really nice.
Reply With Quote
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-11-2010, 11:07
wilsonmw04's Avatar
wilsonmw04 wilsonmw04 is offline
Coach
FRC #1086 (Blue Cheese)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Midlothian, VA
Posts: 1,888
wilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

I find it a bit irksome that this "separation" rule has come about after we have designed our robot. It seems that they have changed a scoring/penalty rule substantially. For my team, this is going to change our entire approach to the game. What's interesting is that the old definition and the new definition are both on the official Q&A in two different threads making finding the new updated rules harder to find.

Sadly, this makes batons that less important and the see-saw that much more necessary. This will make the game more one dimensional with more teams lining up for the ramps well before the end game. Oh well, we'll do the best we can in this changing game environment.
__________________
Currently: Coach FRC 1086/FTC 93
2006-2011 Coach FRC 2106/FTC 35
If you come to a FRC event to see a robot competition, you are missing the point.
Reply With Quote
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-11-2010, 11:33
Joachim Joachim is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Corning NY
Posts: 52
Joachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura about
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 View Post
What's interesting is that the old definition and the new definition are both on the official Q&A in two different threads making finding the new updated rules harder to find.
The orginal rules for handling the goals outside of the end game were hard to interpret, so they made rule revisions including a definition of "possession" and put them out in revision 2 of the game manual--and splashed the new "possession" definition across all of the the Q&A threads so that everyone would be sure to know the manual was revised.

That revision 2 definition of "possession" is the definition in the official forum post you linked--what you call the old definition--and is still the definition in the manual--so it is not old, in that sense.

The "new definition" or the "pull test" evolved only in the game definitions thread in response to teams' questions on the "possession" definition. The pull test is the only easily understood or practical version of the possession definition given to date, but it is different than what many teams will think from reading the possession definition alone.
Reply With Quote
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-11-2010, 11:43
Joachim Joachim is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Corning NY
Posts: 52
Joachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura about
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 View Post
Sadly, this makes batons that less important and the see-saw that much more necessary.
If you can bring a mobile goal along with your robot without "possessing" it and put batons in it, batons are important.
Reply With Quote
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-11-2010, 12:22
team F.T.C 4240's Avatar
team F.T.C 4240 team F.T.C 4240 is offline
Two cookies, one robot, all awesome
AKA: Derrick Maust
FTC #4240 (Techno Clovers)
Team Role: Driver
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 94
team F.T.C 4240 has a spectacular aura aboutteam F.T.C 4240 has a spectacular aura about
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
If you can bring a mobile goal along with your robot without "possessing" it and put batons in it, batons are important.
I agree because what will you do besides defense in the driver control period then in the end game you can get a max of 40 points (most likely 30 because it will be very hard to get both robots and both goals on the one seesaw).
__________________
"Like" us on Facebook to get info and updates on the team: http://www.facebook.com/FTCTechnoClovers
2008-09: MD Finalist Alliance Captain, MD Inspire Award Winner, Worlds Division Finalist.
2009-10: MD Winning Alliance Captain, MD Think Award Winner, OH Winning Alliance Captain.
2010-11: MD Finalist Alliance Captain, MD Innovate Award Winner, DE Winning Alliance Captain, Worlds Edison Division Finalist Alliance Captain.
2011-2012: MD Annapolis Qualifier Winning Alliance, PTC Design Winner.
DE State Inspire Award Winner.
MD State Winning Alliance Captain, PTC Design Winner.
World Championship Franklin Winning Alliance, Thanks Landroids and Cougar Robotics!
Reply With Quote
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-11-2010, 13:43
wilsonmw04's Avatar
wilsonmw04 wilsonmw04 is offline
Coach
FRC #1086 (Blue Cheese)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Midlothian, VA
Posts: 1,888
wilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
If you can bring a mobile goal along with your robot without "possessing" it and put batons in it, batons are important.
That is what I thought the rules were trying to eliminate. This just becomes Quad Quandary all over again.
__________________
Currently: Coach FRC 1086/FTC 93
2006-2011 Coach FRC 2106/FTC 35
If you come to a FRC event to see a robot competition, you are missing the point.
Reply With Quote
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-11-2010, 13:53
Joachim Joachim is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Corning NY
Posts: 52
Joachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura about
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 View Post
That is what I thought the rules were trying to eliminate. This just becomes Quad Quandary all over again.
Yes I thought so too, at the beginning. The Get Over It game now looks something like Quad Qunadary but with dispensers, like Face Off. I was surprised when the answers in the official forum were given allowing three-sided containment of the goals.
Reply With Quote
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-11-2010, 17:30
normalmutant's Avatar
normalmutant normalmutant is offline
Registered User
AKA: Nathan
FTC #3539 (Say Watt?)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Edison, NJ
Posts: 126
normalmutant has a spectacular aura aboutnormalmutant has a spectacular aura about
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

Man, did we have trouble with this one. At most of the events we've been to so far, the referees told us that our robot doesn't meet the official definition requirements, which has led to a lot of discussion about the forum posts. I think that the forum has made their intentions clear as to what a robot should look like, but both we and the refs weren't sure whether the pull test overrules the definition. This has proven to be a problem for us, because we pass the pull test but don't quite fit the definition.
Concerning the game's similarity to Quad Quandary, I say it's okay. There's still the possibility of stealing the goals or putting them in the corners to make them inaccessible. The good thing is that everybody can have a goal; there's not going to be one robot doing all the work while their alliance partner sits and twiddles their thumbs. I also think that batons will play a big role in state and world championships. At scrimmages, most people won't have effective dispensing or scoring mechanisms. The matches will get much more exciting as the season progresses and the robots have the potential for more points.
__________________
SAY-WATT.ORG
Reply With Quote
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-11-2010, 21:02
Joachim Joachim is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Corning NY
Posts: 52
Joachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura about
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by normalmutant View Post
we pass the pull test but don't quite fit the definition.
The problem with the definition and forum posts may be more obvious for your robot than for others, but the problem is there for any robot, because the problem is in the definitions, not the robots.

The definition in section 2.3 of the manual goes like this:

Possess / Possessing a Rolling Goal- Controlling the position and movement of a ROLLING GOAL. A ROLLING GOAL shall be considered in POSSESSION if, as the ROBOT moves or changes orientation (e.g. backs up or spins in place), the ROLLING GOAL remains in approximately the same position relative to the robot.

The short version of this definition apparently is that "possession" is "controlling the position and movement of a ROLLING GOAL." Every robot capable of controlled movement is capable of possession by that standard, such as in the case of a short, straight-line push of the goal.

The longer version says that the goal is considered possessed if the goal remains in approximately the same position relative to the robot as the robot moves OR changes orientation (with backing up and spinning given as examples of moving and of changing orientation, respectively). If you read this literally, all you need is one linear move, such as a short, straight-line push, OR one spin, where the goal remains in approximately the same position relative to the robot, and you are possessing the goal during that move.

This is pretty obviously not what was intended, even without the forum posts, moreover, the pull test in the forum responses cannot be harmonized with any literal reading of these definitions from the manual.

Ideally, the manual would be revised to reflect the forum posts, rather than be left as-is, to mislead teams and officials alike.
Reply With Quote
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-11-2010, 12:39
normalmutant's Avatar
normalmutant normalmutant is offline
Registered User
AKA: Nathan
FTC #3539 (Say Watt?)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Edison, NJ
Posts: 126
normalmutant has a spectacular aura aboutnormalmutant has a spectacular aura about
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

I suppose the problem is that the definition is a lot more vague than the pull test and can be interpreted many different ways. I think the purpose of the definition was to say, "the robot cannot constrain the goal's movement to the movement of the robot, i.e. the robot cannot enclose the goal." But that came across a little differently. The GDC is handling it fairly well, but I think that maybe a little more organization on the forums would help teams, as you guys said earlier.
__________________
SAY-WATT.ORG
Reply With Quote
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-11-2010, 08:42
Joachim Joachim is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Corning NY
Posts: 52
Joachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura aboutJoachim has a spectacular aura about
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by normalmutant View Post
I think the purpose of the definition was to say, "the robot cannot constrain the goal's movement to the movement of the robot, i.e. the robot cannot enclose the goal."
You may be right that the pull test (a functional test for grasping and/or enclosure) was the intent or purpose of the definition all along, and I know the GDC has nothing but good intentions--there is zero intent to mislead.

But confusion and misleading is the result of the current definition. There would not be so many questions on the point in the forum otherwise. People trying to understand the definition are asking questions in the forum, or are reading the answers. People who read the definition alone and think they understand (or who miss the "definitions" thread in the forum) are misled.

Under the circumstances, the definition would ideally be updated, rather than just interpreted in the forum. Alternatively, an official rulings list would be useful, one that lets teams (and officials, who often have one reading to get it right) get the needed information without reading many posts, sometimes conflicting. (Compare 27 to 17, and 27 to 5, for example.)
Reply With Quote
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-11-2010, 18:46
normalmutant's Avatar
normalmutant normalmutant is offline
Registered User
AKA: Nathan
FTC #3539 (Say Watt?)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Edison, NJ
Posts: 126
normalmutant has a spectacular aura aboutnormalmutant has a spectacular aura about
Re: [FTC]: Possession of Rolling Goal Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
People who read the definition alone and think they understand (or who miss the "definitions" thread in the forum) are misled.
Under the circumstances, the definition would ideally be updated, rather than just interpreted in the forum. Alternatively, an official rulings list would be useful, one that lets teams (and officials, who often have one reading to get it right) get the needed information without reading many posts, sometimes conflicting. (Compare 27 to 17, and 27 to 5, for example.)
Or maybe they should just put the pull test in the game manual along with the definition. It might help a little to make sure people know it's official.
A list of ruling examples, like you said, would be great, or maybe teams could have the ability to discuss designs that you're unsure about with your state's head ref; by now, they know what's going on and can give official rulings.
__________________
SAY-WATT.ORG
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[FTC]: FTC rolling scoring johncap100 FIRST Tech Challenge 6 22-09-2010 17:05
[FTC]: 5 or 10 point goal? Chris is me FIRST Tech Challenge 5 19-11-2009 18:03
[FTC]: FTC Center Goal Structure in Solidworks 2008 Madison FIRST Tech Challenge 0 14-09-2009 14:23
pic: FTC Scrimmage - Duel on the Delaware - Bot & Goal Mr MOE Extra Discussion 4 21-12-2007 16:38
Question about the goal archiver 2001 1 24-06-2002 00:24


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:30.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi