| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
KwarK
United States42490 Posts
On February 24 2025 02:03 micronesia wrote: Employees who follow that order to submit the e-mail (from their chain of command) would be complicit in what? The genocide of Gazans is generally what people end up complicit in. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23118 Posts
On February 24 2025 02:03 micronesia wrote: Employees who follow that order to submit the e-mail (from their chain of command) would be complicit in what? LibHorizons: Trump/Musk/DOGE's agenda/government/commands. On February 24 2025 02:03 Acrofales wrote: + Show Spoiler + Do some nonsense paperwork is kinda the standard for most jobs. Government or not. There being some new nonsense paperwork to comply with is not unusual. What is unusual is that this does not come down the normal channels and has the threat of "resignation" for non-compliance. If my boss asks me for bullshit paperwork, and I don't comply, he'll remind me. If it's some kinda shithole organization where the bureaucracy is more important than the actual work, he will then tell me that if I don't do it promptly he will have no choice but to fire me, at which point I will do the nonsense paperwork or get fired. But there's a hierarchy for this kinda bullshit and some random email from some other department is not the way it works. Now, if you're saying that makes you complicit with the fascist government, well, obviously. Doing anything other than quitting is making government workers complicit with the fascist government. + Show Spoiler + But sending bullshit paperwork up the food chain makes you no more or less complicit than just going about the usual day-to-day of your government job in the fascist regime. LibHorizons: Yeah. I wouldn't include sabotage and/or striking under complicity though. Fascist regimes need a lot of people doing "regular" jobs going about their usual day-to-day tasks in order to accomplish their agenda. Filling those roles doesn't negate one's complicity. Nonetheless, the point was that it wasn't really a mystery. There isn't really a reason for most government workers not to accede to this demand from Musk, unless they see their complicity as crossing a line, like the many people across a variety of parts of the government that have already resigned. As you and micro point out, there isn't really reason to believe this crosses some line ethically or with regards to their dignity. DPB sounds like it would bother them, but still not cross the dignity line. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42490 Posts
On February 24 2025 02:28 oBlade wrote: DOD and intel are allegedly not under OPM whereas the email was blanket sent to everyone. 5 bullet points a week averages one a day. The leader of DOGE says it should take 5 minutes. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1893507929493643451 Anyone who has worked for a private company and written a daily or week log understands this isn't a request to show you cracked Fermat's theorem every week, it weeds out people who can't even lie about doing work and encourages a culture of thinking about what work you're really doing. People aren't as self-starters as they think, like "of course I'm doing the best I can," but when you actually organize it, it weeds out the self-delusion if you have to write something that goes by a superior's eyes. Nah, time logging is actually quite difficult for people in management roles because so much of it is “solving random bullshit that comes across my desk”. If you’re manual labour then it’s just “I made x widgets”. If you’re management it’s “checked voicemails, listened to one from vendor, called vendor to work out why they think they weren’t paid, then called AP to work out why vendor wasn’t paid, then called IT to work out why the guy who DOGE fired last week was still in the approval queue, then called my boss to let them know DOGE fired IT and ask what we’re meant to do because I told the vendor I’d call them back with a timeline but I don’t have one”. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24660 Posts
On February 24 2025 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote: LibHorizons: Trump/Musk/DOGE's agenda/government/commands. No, I don't think so. That would be victim blaming. There's nothing immoral about documenting your accomplishments and routing it within government channels (outside of certain risks like spilling sensitive information where you shouldn't). Just because the request for information from DoGE/OPM was immoral in its rollout doesn't mean the workers who follow their chain-of-command's directive to submit the e-mail are necessarily complicit in immorality, and certainly not the entire DoGE agenda. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5502 Posts
On February 24 2025 03:11 Gorsameth wrote: I love how you had to remove all context in order to even begin to defend this. This isn't Bob and Bob having performance interviews with employees and asking them what they do in a week, this is a mail to 19 million people that no one is actually going to read because your not checking 19 million diverse responses. You're about an order of magnitude over the size of the federal government there. It is CCed to their direct bosses as well, meaning they are reading it. But it seems pretty transparently intended as a net for people whose even employment itself is suspicious - like can't or don't respond, or response doesn't reflect reality at all. Not a you didn't cure enough cancers this week thing. Like Kwark's post there that took a minute to write is a passing grade, formatted in bullet points. Not an itemized affidavit chronicling every second spent. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17959 Posts
On February 24 2025 04:02 micronesia wrote: No, I don't think so. That would be victim blaming. There's nothing immoral about documenting your accomplishments and routing it within government channels (outside of certain risks like spilling sensitive information where you shouldn't). Just because the request for information from DoGE/OPM was immoral in its rollout doesn't mean the workers who follow their chain-of-command's directive to submit the e-mail are necessarily complicit in immorality, and certainly not the entire DoGE agenda. Reminds me of a previous job where we were expected by upper management to fill in a time justification report. I literally filled it in at the end of the week with "30h on project X", "10h on project Y" because I was supposed to work 40h and spend 75% of my time on project X, 25% of my time on project Y. Anything else would be far too complicated and my boss knew and agreed. | ||
|
Hat Trick of Today
86 Posts
On February 24 2025 04:48 Acrofales wrote: Reminds me of a previous job where we were expected by upper management to fill in a time justification report. I literally filled it in at the end of the week with "30h on project X", "10h on project Y" because I was supposed to work 40h and spend 75% of my time on project X, 25% of my time on project Y. Anything else would be far too complicated and my boss knew and agreed. Same at my workplace. Boss only wanted to know the amount of time spent to accurately charge the client. The actual details of the work being done would already be known by people managing the project. No point wasting my time telling you information everyone already knows. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23118 Posts
On February 24 2025 04:02 micronesia wrote: No, I don't think so. That would be victim blaming. There's nothing immoral about documenting your accomplishments and routing it within government channels (outside of certain risks like spilling sensitive information where you shouldn't). Just because the request for information from DoGE/OPM was immoral in its rollout doesn't mean the workers who follow their chain-of-command's directive to submit the e-mail are necessarily complicit in immorality, and certainly not the entire DoGE agenda. LibHorizons: The rest of the post was also applicable to your argument. Fascist regimes need a lot of people doing "regular" jobs going about their usual day-to-day tasks in order to accomplish their agenda. Filling those roles doesn't negate one's complicity. Nonetheless, the point was that it wasn't really a mystery. There isn't really a reason for most government workers not to accede to this demand from Musk, unless they see their complicity as crossing a line, like the many people across a variety of parts of the government that have already resigned. As you and micro point out, there isn't really reason to believe this crosses some line ethically or with regards to their dignity. DPB sounds like it would bother them, but still not cross the dignity line. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24660 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23118 Posts
On February 24 2025 07:00 micronesia wrote: I'm not sure what your point is. I'm discussing what to do in response to that OPM e-mail, and why. + Show Spoiler + You are discussing a broader issue which either lacks direct applicability to this particular situation or is based on such high standards that there hasn't been a year since the beginning of the USA that you could work for the US government in a rank-and-file position without being complicit in something that necessitates immediately resigning. You are entitled to that view, but it's pretty extreme. LibHorizons: The main point was that it is/was obvious that the vast majority of government employees are going to comply with Musk's recent "bonkers" demands. Following these commands from Musk and validating his power does not cross any line ethically or with regards to your dignity. I don't think you, DPB, Acro, etc are unusual in that way. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17959 Posts
On February 24 2025 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote: LibHorizons: The rest of the post was also applicable to your argument. It's something I struggle with. Imagine you are a park ranger in a national park, and your day-to-day consists of checking the fences, making sure visitors don't get lost, and cleaning up the garbage those same visitors dumped before bears get it. Now you also have to send an email saying you did all that shit. How much more complicit in the fascist regime are you today than yesterday? Now imagine you are an IT guy in the department of health. Your daily tasks include ensuring the electronic patient dossier system is running smoothly. Now you also have to sent an email saying you do that. Are you really more complicit than yesterday? Imho these tasks have so far been described as pretty much identical regardless of the regime. The question is then whether the people should resign from standard jobs because their boss's boss's boss's boss is an unscrupulous scumbag. But tomorrow, the IT guy gets a new email from Musk, saying they should compile a list of all patients requesting hormone blockers and find their addresses. Musk wants to send them a pretty little decorative yellow patch to sew on their clothes. At this point, I think the unscrupulous scumbag part is starting to affect your tasks, and there is no doubt that continuing to work makes you complicit (unless, of course, you refuse this new task or sabotage the whole thing). On the other hand, I'm not sure it matters whether you are a park ranger, an IT guy who was asked to compile a list or just an IT guy who problem solved Trump's WiFi connection issues. All work for the same regime, and all could contribute to the regime's failure by laying down their work. How bad does an employer have to be before even doing objectively good stuff (like taking care of the nature in the national park) is tainted by the fact that your ultimate employer is evil? I guess we can draw a parallel to the ESWC. Was the epic SC2 on display worth holding your nose over the propaganda while the Saudis tried to convince you that human rights are all impeccably upheld throughout the country? So can you watch the SC2? Or boycott the event? Pretty certain there is no right answer and everybody is going to have to decide for themselves where their lines are. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24660 Posts
On February 24 2025 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote: LibHorizons: The main point was that it is/was obvious that the vast majority of government employees are going to comply with Musk's recent "bonkers" demands. Following these commands from Musk and validating his power does not cross any line ethically or with regards to your dignity. I don't think you, DPB, Acro, etc are unusual in that way. That is not obvious to me. Complying with one bonkers demand does not necessarily mean complying with other ones. In fact, my department, and many others, have been instructed not to comply with the current demand. You should generalize less, especially when questioning the integrity of the very people you are speaking with. I've only been speaking about this particular bonkers e-mail/issue. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24946 Posts
On February 24 2025 07:51 Acrofales wrote: It's something I struggle with. Imagine you are a park ranger in a national park, and your day-to-day consists of checking the fences, making sure visitors don't get lost, and cleaning up the garbage those same visitors dumped before bears get it. Now you also have to send an email saying you did all that shit. How much more complicit in the fascist regime are you today than yesterday? Now imagine you are an IT guy in the department of health. Your daily tasks include ensuring the electronic patient dossier system is running smoothly. Now you also have to sent an email saying you do that. Are you really more complicit than yesterday? Imho these tasks have so far been described as pretty much identical regardless of the regime. The question is then whether the people should resign from standard jobs because their boss's boss's boss's boss is an unscrupulous scumbag. But tomorrow, the IT guy gets a new email from Musk, saying they should compile a list of all patients requesting hormone blockers and find their addresses. Musk wants to send them a pretty little decorative yellow patch to sew on their clothes. At this point, I think the unscrupulous scumbag part is starting to affect your tasks, and there is no doubt that continuing to work makes you complicit (unless, of course, you refuse this new task or sabotage the whole thing). On the other hand, I'm not sure it matters whether you are a park ranger, an IT guy who was asked to compile a list or just an IT guy who problem solved Trump's WiFi connection issues. All work for the same regime, and all could contribute to the regime's failure by laying down their work. How bad does an employer have to be before even doing objectively good stuff (like taking care of the nature in the national park) is tainted by the fact that your ultimate employer is evil? I guess we can draw a parallel to the ESWC. Was the epic SC2 on display worth holding your nose over the propaganda while the Saudis tried to convince you that human rights are all impeccably upheld throughout the country? So can you watch the SC2? Or boycott the event? Pretty certain there is no right answer and everybody is going to have to decide for themselves where their lines are. Yeah, I think the question of complicity really only rears its head when one is being asked to do morally fucked things. Aside from earning a wage, I assume most like, bin men, or the folks who maintain parks and green areas don’t consider themselves as political employees, or even government workers. They’re doing an important job for the state, and by extension the people and some greater good as it were. Even people in more political roles, at least the ones I know in the UK think somewhat similarly. I assume it’s similar elsewhere but certainly longstanding Civil Servants sorta consider themselves a separate arm of state entirely, one that both has to shift with political winds, but also has a moderating influence by virtue of expertise. If you make the call to work in such a capacity for decades, hell you’ll see out many a crisis, many a government and many a political trend. Unless you’re going to complete topple some egregious regime thru resignations, rather than just being replaced by those who won’t object to immoral requests, may as well ride it out I guess. I’ve a friend senior enough in a particular regulatory agency and I asked him these kinda questions recently. Senior enough to be leading a briefing at 10 Downing Street in the near future. ‘Well, if they hire externally it might be alright. My direct subordinates are using the gig to springboard back into private industry. One is extremely competent but has no particular moral scruples whatsoever, and my intuition is they’d be my replacement. As someone who actually cares about what my job is meant to do, I’d rather not hand it over to that likely transition.’ Now of course, slightly different circumstances here as if anything the current government are a more receptive ear now than they were in this area, versus the US scenario where it’s the opposite, but I imagine that calculus is present in a lot of minds. EWC is an interesting one, I think our community really let itself down there, but full disclosure I absolutely let myself down there as well. I think there is a correct answer there, it’s either a boycott or it’s turning sportswashing against its intended aims and using it to shine a light on the abhorrent regimes employing it. I don’t think the World Cup should have gone to Qatar, and yay we’ve Saudi coming up. But the one positive of the former is so, so many more people became aware of some of the egregious aspects of that state because they hosted something many cherish, and it was brought into the spotlight. Ultimately I decided not to boycott EWC, despite claiming I would. Perhaps I should have. This was partially informed by a staggering collective silence from much of the community, especially those with positions of influence, or hell just getting downvoted to hell on Reddit consistently for even mild criticism. Boycotts are in the box as an effective part of the political change toolkit, but they need momentum and large numbers and publicity ideally to actually do anything. I still consider not doing so rather hypocritical, but equally without wider uptake it’s purely a gesture to uphold my own sense of moral purity rather than having any practical benefit. Which, to bring it back around to the current US government workers/US administration topic, I imagine is how many feel there. If there’s sufficient movement and agitation to actually strike back at the source of ills it’s one thing, if you’re just resigning to be replaced by someone who’ll likely accede to the bullshit, then really you’re just resigning out of some sense of moral vanity over and above doing anything useful. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23118 Posts
On February 24 2025 07:51 Acrofales wrote: LibHorizons: That's been GH's point for a long time and I happen to agree with it. + Show Spoiler + It's something I struggle with. Imagine you are a park ranger in a national park, and your day-to-day consists of checking the fences, making sure visitors don't get lost, and cleaning up the garbage those same visitors dumped before bears get it. Now you also have to send an email saying you did all that shit. How much more complicit in the fascist regime are you today than yesterday? Now imagine you are an IT guy in the department of health. Your daily tasks include ensuring the electronic patient dossier system is running smoothly. Now you also have to sent an email saying you do that. Are you really more complicit than yesterday? Imho these tasks have so far been described as pretty much identical regardless of the regime. The question is then whether the people should resign from standard jobs because their boss's boss's boss's boss is an unscrupulous scumbag. But tomorrow, the IT guy gets a new email from Musk, saying they should compile a list of all patients requesting hormone blockers and find their addresses. Musk wants to send them a pretty little decorative yellow patch to sew on their clothes. At this point, I think the unscrupulous scumbag part is starting to affect your tasks, and there is no doubt that continuing to work makes you complicit (unless, of course, you refuse this new task or sabotage the whole thing). On the other hand, I'm not sure it matters whether you are a park ranger, an IT guy who was asked to compile a list or just an IT guy who problem solved Trump's WiFi connection issues. All work for the same regime, and all could contribute to the regime's failure by laying down their work. How bad does an employer have to be before even doing objectively good stuff (like taking care of the nature in the national park) is tainted by the fact that your ultimate employer is evil? I guess we can draw a parallel to the ESWC. Was the epic SC2 on display worth holding your nose over the propaganda while the Saudis tried to convince you that human rights are all impeccably upheld throughout the country? So can you watch the SC2? Or boycott the event? I've been somewhat heartened by as many people resigning as have thus far. Even Republicans like Sassoon In 2016, Danielle Sassoon wrote a tribute to a former boss, the late US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. She praised the conservative jurist's character, and his legal approach. Such qualities were not universal, she told readers. Also those like Scotten that said: "I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me." Embarrassing that Hochul is cynically trying to stall removing Adams though.I feel like there's a parallel between the "first they came for...and I did not speak out" quote and the idea that right now they're only instructing "those people in those sectors" to violate the constitution/law/basic human decency/etc "and I just feed them lunch/work IT/build bridges/etc..." The entire government/country probably should have came to a screeching halt immediately after the first systems DOGE illegally accessed and manipulated. Every day it keeps chugging along despite the widespread blatant corruption and wildly dangerous incompetence, we get deeper into bigger trouble. The US population forgot that the check to what we see happening right now is people taking to the street by the millions to say "This *gestures broadly at everything* isn't going to work until you meet these specific demands" and meaning it. Now it's mostly a matter of whether people in the US remember that before it is too late (if it isn't already as Kwark would suggest). | ||
|
Falling
Canada11347 Posts
On February 22 2025 16:05 oBlade wrote: Falling, I appreciate you understanding that post was regarding someone else. I will just say being attacked by Russia doesn't automatically make someone infallible and right about everything, This is non-responsive to the question, really soft-footing around it. The question was not is Ukraine an infallible country and right about everything. The question was: "Is Trump correct to say that Ukraine the one to blame for Russia's invasion." I'm sure Poland was not an infallible country prior to getting carved up by Germany and USSR. Was Poland at fault for the German invasion? And there can even be nuance. US was pressuring Japan hard with their embargoes. However, would you say that US was at fault (and say nothing of Japan's role) that US started the war and ought to have negotiated a deal with Japan rather than waste all those American lives? Or are you still able to say that Pearl Harbour is 'a date that will live in infamy.' On February 22 2025 16:05 oBlade wrote: and the US managed to hold elections during every single war it was involved in. Clearly elections are preferable to the opposite and peace is better than war. This is also non-responsive. The question was not 'is elections preferable to the opposite'. The question was "Is Trump's characterization that Zelensky is a dictator correct?" (And in the context of Trump's silence on Putin's governance.) Not everyone does it the American way and America did not have a good portion of their population unable to vote due to occupation. Keep in mind with the dictator answer, Britain did not hold an election until after Hitler blew his brains out and in WWI, Canada was so concerned about national unity that the two federal parties joined together into the Unionists party, so there was an election alright... but it would be like having a Repub-democrat candidate... and then the Green candidate and a Libertarian candidate for options. On February 22 2025 16:05 oBlade wrote: Other than that I take nobody's assessment at face value since Ukraine is not something I know a lot about - once I saw there didn't seem to be a decisive swing or risk of escalation, there is no daily change to me from before. Also non-responsive. "I take nobody's assessment at face value'... okaaaay. And so then what's the rest of the thought? Fill in the rest. If Trump says 'Zelensky is a dictator' and "Ukraine is at fault for the war" (And due to his silence, Russia is not) is not taken at face value, what does he actually mean according to you? Because I would say we can triangulate Trump's meaning with his actions which is no concessions for Russia, Ukraine must surrender and US gets to loot Ukraine's minerals. Because it's not whether you rely on Trump's assessment. Trump's judgment is at question here as it is his judgment (or Musk's) that will guide American policy- now more than ever before. Summary: So I will try again: Is what Trump saying reflective of reality. I'm trying to see if you agree with what Trump is saying he sees reality as. 1) Zelensky is a dictator (Not, elections are better than not.) 2) Ukraine is at fault for Russia's invasion- and no blame or concessions put on Russia. (Not, Ukraine is fallible.) And if you do not agree with Trump, is it enough that you seriously question his judgment in geopolitical matters? *Sidenote I see you have offered a solution to Ukrainians offering themselves up as easy targets to missiles and drone strikes by standing in lines at publicly known venues at publicly known times. Your solution- 100% mail in ballots. So that draws me to another set of questions. 1) Do you agree with Trump that mail-in ballots ought to be banned because "once you have mail-in ballots you have crooked elections?" 2) Or do you think Trump's judgment is seriously compromised because he would believe clipped social media videos over his own aides (And Republican Raffensperger) who tried to show him how the videos were manipulated but he refused and went on publicly promoting fraudulent claims of voter fraud on his campaign trail? (Often within a day or two of his aides showing him why his claims were wrong.) | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44139 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12363 Posts
On February 24 2025 03:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It doesn't do any of that. The only things Musk's ultimatum does are imply that no federal workers currently have any accountability, that no supervisors are currently checking in with their workers, and that no federal workers or supervisors have any idea how to do or explain the jobs that they've already been doing and explaining. It's unnecessary, redundant, and frankly disrespectful posturing, nothing more. If employees aren't doing their jobs, then their supervisors need to fix that or fire them. If supervisors aren't checking in with their employees, then the higher-ups need to fix that or fire them. This isn't that hard, and why the heck is the Republican Party Of Small Government creating more (fake) agencies and more (fake) government oversight in the first place? It shouldn't be hard but it doesn't happen. Government has literally no competition, output/productivity measurement isn't easy, not to mention nepotism and bureaucracy. Look at UK with its almost 20% total employment being in the public sector. There had been plenty of talks about having something similar to review the public employment for years. the concept of DOGE shouldn't be that controversial, the only controversial is whether Musk should be leading it and how. The other day I saw an article about how government cannot be run like a company, and I just find the idea that people resist cutting public sector so wrong. At the end of the day, it still generates some values, it still has a cost, it must have a book to balance. As for Trump, it's always bound to happen, the world is going between deglobalisation and post-globlisation. There's a lot of blame on immigration, economic or political failure. But everyone knows the past decade has disrupted a lot of traditional values and people are wanting them to come back. you can see a lot of media that feed on nostalgic /heritage wear are more popular than ever. We going to see lots more localism in manufacturing globally. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2639 Posts
On February 24 2025 21:50 ETisME wrote: It shouldn't be hard but it doesn't happen. Government has literally no competition, output/productivity measurement isn't easy, not to mention nepotism and bureaucracy. Look at UK with its almost 20% total employment being in the public sector. There had been plenty of talks about having something similar to review the public employment for years. the concept of DOGE shouldn't be that controversial, the only controversial is whether Musk should be leading it and how. The other day I saw an article about how government cannot be run like a company, and I just find the idea that people resist cutting public sector so wrong. At the end of the day, it still generates some values, it still has a cost, it must have a book to balance. As for Trump, it's always bound to happen, the world is going between deglobalisation and post-globlisation. There's a lot of blame on immigration, economic or political failure. But everyone knows the past decade has disrupted a lot of traditional values and people are wanting them to come back. you can see a lot of media that feed on nostalgic /heritage wear are more popular than ever. We going to see lots more localism in manufacturing globally. People resist the idea of cutting the public sector because every time it has been done, it has led to enshittification. Since you bring up the UK, look no further than the NHS. Decades of 'finding' efficiencies has led it to be at the edge of collapse. A demoralised workforce and significant loss in productivity. That's what you're arguing for here. You treat the people working at these places like they aren't important and that has consequences. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany901 Posts
People don't stop being ill because the hospital now runs "for profit".. they stop getting treated because it's too expensive. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4729 Posts
Seasonality, pan/epi/demics, etc. Your comment confuses me, maybe I'm stupid. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Road to EWC
Lemon vs HeRoMaRinE
Astrea vs GuMiho
goblin vs TBD
Ryung vs TBD
BSL: ProLeague
UltrA vs Sziky
Dewalt vs MadiNho
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
BSL: ProLeague
|
|
|
EPT
