As someone who has had a long history in the league, and an even longer history of chiming in when practically no one asked or cared, I figure it would be a great time to offer my unsolicited opinion on the rule proposals for this season. There are 20 of them, between the 4 for ISFL specifically and then the 16 for universal rule proposals.
ISFL Rule Proposals
1. ISFL Teams are able to pay, either in full or partial, for their player's re-distribution of TPE against their salary cap. (HO has ruled to allow this, but is seeking to have this codified through the rule proposal process for future)
If I were voting, I would vote for this rule. This is a very simple rule that can already happen with bonuses. I see no point to not allow it at this point, and this one is not a big deal.
2. Allow regression players to be extended on projected regression totals, if a player exceeds the projected regression total tier the contract is voided.
This one is a tough one, I can see where people are coming from on this and I can see why this would be a rule, but ultimately, I don’t think this should happen. I can understand if you want to do the extra work in order to extend your regression players early, but projecting regression totals is just a very tricky thing and it’s going to lead to more trouble for all parties involved. I don’t see making this rule work at this point, and I don’t see asking multiple parties to work on a rule like this.
3. If a rule proposal is voted down, it cannot be added to the ballot again the following rules summit.
Whoever keeps proposing this should be fined, fired, and banned from whatever position they hold. This is blatant disrespect towards the process and towards all parties involved, a waste of time that has constantly been proposed and voted down. Once or twice sure, but it feels like this has been on the ballot for the past year at this point, stop trying to force it in and stop proposing it. I am not joking either, there should be a punishment for this rule being proposed once again.
4. Effective immediately, HO will create a "pre-punishment" Discord room, and will immediately begin posting punishment threads there 12 hours prior to the official punishment thread going live. GMs will be allowed to provide input on the proposed punishment, but HO will have the final say on all punishment decisions. In special circumstances, HO can forgo the 12 hour period if punishment is needed sooner, as long as they notify the GMs prior to the posting of the thread in the "pre-punishment room."
This rule just doesn’t make sense. This is just going to add more time to figuring out punishments, and for most punishments they won’t even utilize the channel because HO will have to forgo the period. This rule just doesn’t make much sense to me and just seems like a way to bog down punishments. If anything, HO and GMs should communicate during the process of figuring out the offense and the punishment, not wait until everything is decided and then ask for GMs input. HO will most likely be set, and the pre-punishment channel will end up as just the two sides butting heads. Communicating during the process would be a lot better than having one side make the decision and then asking for more input.
Universal Proposals
1. Agent costs will no longer be $10 million a season; instead agent costs will be an initial fee of $10 million for a license, followed by a payment of $3 million per season to renew their license until the agent creates a player in the league.
Agent costs are very prohibitive, most people don’t want to take part because of it. I’ve always hated agents and thought they weren’t good for the league, but at the same time if someone wants to do that then let them. Changing the cost will allow people to do something they may enjoy, so I’m all for this even if I do not like agents as a part of and as a function of the league.
2. The current pro bowl roster counts shall be amended to the following, with changes indicated
Sure, pro bowl rosters can be more representative of the way the ISFL is now, surprised this is a proposal just for the fact of it seems like a procedural change. Let this one through it doesn’t bug me at all.
3. Users may claim recruitment TPE on players that they have brought to the league. Once a recruited player is updated past 100 TPE, the recruiter may claim 2 TPE. Once a recruited player is updated past 250 TPE, the recruiter may claim an additional 3 TPE. To claim, a user must link the roster page of their recruit to their update thread. However, TPE may not be claimed if one of the following applies:
- the recruited player is a recreate and had a player less than 5 seasons ago
- the recruited player has reached their draft season +2 (ie a S31 recruit may not have TPE claimed from them following the end of S33)
- the recruiting user has retired and recreated between the time of recruitment and the time of claiming that recruitment.
A user may only claim 5 recruits per player career.
I’m going to be completely honest with this, the wording on this is atrocious. I feel like for most people this is very confusing to understand, and I don’t know if the formatting is the issue or if it’s just me being tired constantly. It’s a bit hard to understand and a bit bulky, but the biggest takeaway is the fact that it caps the amount of recruitment TPE per player and that there is now a hard timeline on how long a recruitment TPE can linger. This is fine if a bit hard to read and understand.
4. Give GM's PT Passes
Oh boy, for people that know me and my stance on this this will not be a surprise. GM PT passes are a horrible, idiotic idea that should not happen, and they should never happen. Yes, GMing is work, and I actually do think GMs should get some better compensation, but not this way. PT passes were originally created to incentivize the worst of the worst positions in which people were not applying for. Simmer and updater are the two that needed them. They were needed in a time where the league was struggling with recruitment and the league had to do things in order to make sure they could replace people who stepped down, especially at updater where you need a lot of people. When TC and I were simmers we held those positions for a while, and it was a lot of stressful work that was only on one person per league. I can’t tell you how many times I spent 6 hours before a sim having to change stuff or fix stuff to make sure the sim went smoothly, and I can’t tell you how many times leading up to a new season I’d have to spend 8 hours a day working through the sim and the slog of the process by myself, while still running the DSFL as a whole and having to be constantly around. I’m not saying all this for pity, and I’m not saying all of this to make people feel bad, I’m saying it to make people aware of why the passes first became a thing, yes, GMs do a lot of work and have more in a season, but PT passes to me should always be for the worst of the worst positions that are a lot of time and effort, and they should also not be handed out to every job that has to do work. I also need to point out the reasoning, because the reasoning makes me hate this even more. “Reasoning: The season is longer and harder now, as a result we should get more compensation. Since we can't change our salary, we can give ourselves PT passes.” All this tells me is that whoever made this proposal feels very entitled and is almost demanding to get PT passes. There’s just a huge sense of entitlement in the reasoning that just makes GMs out as pompous, deserving of every form of compensation the league has to offer. The reasoning does not give any reason for GMs to get this pass, and instead just makes it seem like they do not deserve the pass because they are all high and mighty. GMs getting PT passes is a big old no from me, and it should never happen, especially if the reasoning is we deserve more compensation and we deserve PT passes, and not a list of new duties that GMs have started doing over the past few seasons to justify the pass.
5. Give Bankers UW Passes
First and foremost, I just want to point out that the reasoning for this one is so much better than GM PT pass reasoning, like this reasoning is 100 times better than we deserve it so give it to us. I actually, for everything I said about the PT pass, do think bankers should get UW passes. They have a lot more to do at the start of the season with equipment and contracts and all, so they could end up spending a lot more time in the spreadsheets and doing everything that they do. UW pass is also a much lighter form of compensation, and I do think it’s good compensation as UW is around the time where their work picks up massively. I would vote for this rule if I was voting.
6. DSFL GMs are unable to become RMs and vice versa
I just sort of assumed this was already a thing, at least as an unwritten rule. DSFL GMs should be interacting and helping rookies already, let someone else have rookie mentor jobs, I’d vote for it.
7. Move Awards to after the ISFL Draft.
More time for awards, sure why not give those people more time to work and make sure everything runs smoothly. Give everyone more time for this instead of the like 6 days that everyone has, from the committee to make the ballots to the team creating the awards slides. Zero issue with this rule.
8. Users have an option to purchase a single use PT Pass for that week. The more passes the person uses, the more expensive they become. The cost would reset after every season and cannot be used for UW or Season/Game Predictions. The cost of each pass is below. The cost is compounding as you would need 39,000,000 to get a full PT Pass.
I honestly don’t know how to feel about this. The price is so prohibitive that no one is going to buy a full season more than once or twice and should do a good job at siphoning out a lot of money in the league, but at the same time buying a PT pass is something I’ve always been against. I would probably vote this one down honestly, for the simple reasoning of if this happens, I think the price needs to be a little bit more and it needs to start off harsher in my opinion. I would want to see at least 50,000,000 need to be used in order to purchase for a whole season, but this is a good start.
9. Unless otherwise specified in the schedule, if the schedule sets an event or deadline as the occurrence of another event (such as a sim/game), then the first event or deadline is set as the time the broadcast of the second event (eg. sim/game) is scheduled to start. If the second event is postponed with an official announcement, then the second event or deadline tied to it is also postponed.
Yeah sure procedural rule change, no big deal here. Give an exact time so that things are more clear. No issue with this rule let it through.
10. Unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary which has been confirmed by the Owner, any punishment for a member of Head Office will be double the normal amount set by precedent. If there is no precedent set, those setting the punishment must first determine what the punishment should be for a non-HO member, and then double the punishment for the HO member to be punished.
Harsher penalties for those in power, this one absolutely should happen. Breaking rules while in power is an abuse of power, especially when you’re running the league and you are supposed to be a pillar for people to look to for help, not a group breaking the rules and getting off lightly.
11. Job Heads must obtain HO approval for all new hires, including job head replacements. Approval must be sought before hiring announcements are posted. This holds Job Heads to the same standard as GMs who must by existing rule gain HO approval
Absolutely not, this is a horrible rule that will just bog down hirings and waste time. No one should have to ask HO for permission to hire someone else, especially since this can lead to blackballing certain members because HO now has final say in all hirings. Anyone who is hiring for a position should not have to seek HO approval. This just perpetuates any sort of insider club, and can lead to division and the feeling of HO exercising their power to get friends hired over others. This rule should not be passed.
12. Remove the word "active" from the before the word "account" in the definition of "Multi."
Absolutely do not agree with this, fresh start accounts have their pros and cons and people should have the ability to create a new account and have a new reputation, as they’re losing just as much as they’re gaining in the process. I also feel like banning people for an account that has no player, that hasn’t been on or active in months because they restarted is just going to force people into leaving the league entirely. The people that want to do this and want to restart should be able to, we should foster activity, not run it out because it’s under a new name.
13. Add somewhere in the rulebook: "It is strictly prohibited for one person to have multiple forum accounts. If a person needs help logging in to their account they simply need to contact any member of Head Office who can help them to regain access."
A second rule that is the same as the previous one. We should not be forcing players out because of a bad reputation but otherwise being a fine member of the league. If someone is remaking their account to have a fresh start, let them remake their account. If they are not avoiding a punishment there should be no reason why they cannot have the fresh start and there should be no reason to run them out. These people are not multis, they do not have multiple players, and they have done nothing wrong.
14. Head Office members can choose to opt in to voting for awards. If they intend to do so they need to alert the events team prior to the streaming of the first ISFL playoff game.
Didn’t y’all remove yourself from voting on awards? Pick one, you either vote on awards or you don’t. There is not a middle ground where some can and some can’t, either everyone votes on awards or no one in HO does. Stop trying to have it both ways.
15. The definition of a multi will only include the utilization of two non-retired players at one specific time. Every user is only allowed to have one non-retired player. If that user makes additional accounts and thus has multiple players that are playing in the ISFL/DSFL, that would be a multi.
This rule I am for. Multis should absolutely only be considered as players, not accounts. Having a second account hurts no one if one account has not posted in 6 months. As long as the person is not using multiple players they should not be considered a multi. Let people have their fresh start accounts, it hurts no one by having a new account. If they have multiple players, sure, punish them, that’s breaking the rules, but I just do not see any reason to outlaw fresh start accounts if they only have 1 player.
16. Decrease the maximum amount of TPE that one can reallocate per season from 50 back to the old cap of 32. Allow players an additional option to purchase a "Trait TPE Reallocation" once per season for $5M that allows them to sell back one trait from their player build and reallocate all TPE spent on that trait into other attributes and/or traits.
First this was 50, then it was changed to 32 a while back, then it was changed back to 50. Can we keep it at one or the other? I always fought for 50 TPE reallocation and think it should stay at that. That change annoys me a little if we go back again. Actually wish these were two separate rule proposals because they don’t really need to go together, and there is no reason to change the TPE reallocation amount. As for allowing the trait TPE reallocation, absolutely 100%, let people reallocate traits if they want to, this is a new feature in the new sim, so creating a rule to reallocate traits is something that should happen. Sometimes there’s an oversight, not intentional by anyone, that just needs to be fixed, and this is one of those cases. I just wish that these weren’t paired together because I still think the reallocation limit should be 50.
These are my thoughts on the rules, there’s a few procedural changes that I don’t even think need to be on the ballot, and quite a few rules that I think are extremely dumb and shouldn’t be on the ballot. All in all I feel like you could remove half the proposals on this list and no one would have ever noticed, cared, or had an issue with the rule not becoming a thing. Feel free to call me out and what not, I got no issue debating about any of these rules and offering more of my thoughts for anyone who is willing to listen or debate.
(3125 words, ready to grade)
ISFL Rule Proposals
1. ISFL Teams are able to pay, either in full or partial, for their player's re-distribution of TPE against their salary cap. (HO has ruled to allow this, but is seeking to have this codified through the rule proposal process for future)
If I were voting, I would vote for this rule. This is a very simple rule that can already happen with bonuses. I see no point to not allow it at this point, and this one is not a big deal.
2. Allow regression players to be extended on projected regression totals, if a player exceeds the projected regression total tier the contract is voided.
This one is a tough one, I can see where people are coming from on this and I can see why this would be a rule, but ultimately, I don’t think this should happen. I can understand if you want to do the extra work in order to extend your regression players early, but projecting regression totals is just a very tricky thing and it’s going to lead to more trouble for all parties involved. I don’t see making this rule work at this point, and I don’t see asking multiple parties to work on a rule like this.
3. If a rule proposal is voted down, it cannot be added to the ballot again the following rules summit.
Whoever keeps proposing this should be fined, fired, and banned from whatever position they hold. This is blatant disrespect towards the process and towards all parties involved, a waste of time that has constantly been proposed and voted down. Once or twice sure, but it feels like this has been on the ballot for the past year at this point, stop trying to force it in and stop proposing it. I am not joking either, there should be a punishment for this rule being proposed once again.
4. Effective immediately, HO will create a "pre-punishment" Discord room, and will immediately begin posting punishment threads there 12 hours prior to the official punishment thread going live. GMs will be allowed to provide input on the proposed punishment, but HO will have the final say on all punishment decisions. In special circumstances, HO can forgo the 12 hour period if punishment is needed sooner, as long as they notify the GMs prior to the posting of the thread in the "pre-punishment room."
This rule just doesn’t make sense. This is just going to add more time to figuring out punishments, and for most punishments they won’t even utilize the channel because HO will have to forgo the period. This rule just doesn’t make much sense to me and just seems like a way to bog down punishments. If anything, HO and GMs should communicate during the process of figuring out the offense and the punishment, not wait until everything is decided and then ask for GMs input. HO will most likely be set, and the pre-punishment channel will end up as just the two sides butting heads. Communicating during the process would be a lot better than having one side make the decision and then asking for more input.
Universal Proposals
1. Agent costs will no longer be $10 million a season; instead agent costs will be an initial fee of $10 million for a license, followed by a payment of $3 million per season to renew their license until the agent creates a player in the league.
Agent costs are very prohibitive, most people don’t want to take part because of it. I’ve always hated agents and thought they weren’t good for the league, but at the same time if someone wants to do that then let them. Changing the cost will allow people to do something they may enjoy, so I’m all for this even if I do not like agents as a part of and as a function of the league.
2. The current pro bowl roster counts shall be amended to the following, with changes indicated
Sure, pro bowl rosters can be more representative of the way the ISFL is now, surprised this is a proposal just for the fact of it seems like a procedural change. Let this one through it doesn’t bug me at all.
3. Users may claim recruitment TPE on players that they have brought to the league. Once a recruited player is updated past 100 TPE, the recruiter may claim 2 TPE. Once a recruited player is updated past 250 TPE, the recruiter may claim an additional 3 TPE. To claim, a user must link the roster page of their recruit to their update thread. However, TPE may not be claimed if one of the following applies:
- the recruited player is a recreate and had a player less than 5 seasons ago
- the recruited player has reached their draft season +2 (ie a S31 recruit may not have TPE claimed from them following the end of S33)
- the recruiting user has retired and recreated between the time of recruitment and the time of claiming that recruitment.
A user may only claim 5 recruits per player career.
I’m going to be completely honest with this, the wording on this is atrocious. I feel like for most people this is very confusing to understand, and I don’t know if the formatting is the issue or if it’s just me being tired constantly. It’s a bit hard to understand and a bit bulky, but the biggest takeaway is the fact that it caps the amount of recruitment TPE per player and that there is now a hard timeline on how long a recruitment TPE can linger. This is fine if a bit hard to read and understand.
4. Give GM's PT Passes
Oh boy, for people that know me and my stance on this this will not be a surprise. GM PT passes are a horrible, idiotic idea that should not happen, and they should never happen. Yes, GMing is work, and I actually do think GMs should get some better compensation, but not this way. PT passes were originally created to incentivize the worst of the worst positions in which people were not applying for. Simmer and updater are the two that needed them. They were needed in a time where the league was struggling with recruitment and the league had to do things in order to make sure they could replace people who stepped down, especially at updater where you need a lot of people. When TC and I were simmers we held those positions for a while, and it was a lot of stressful work that was only on one person per league. I can’t tell you how many times I spent 6 hours before a sim having to change stuff or fix stuff to make sure the sim went smoothly, and I can’t tell you how many times leading up to a new season I’d have to spend 8 hours a day working through the sim and the slog of the process by myself, while still running the DSFL as a whole and having to be constantly around. I’m not saying all this for pity, and I’m not saying all of this to make people feel bad, I’m saying it to make people aware of why the passes first became a thing, yes, GMs do a lot of work and have more in a season, but PT passes to me should always be for the worst of the worst positions that are a lot of time and effort, and they should also not be handed out to every job that has to do work. I also need to point out the reasoning, because the reasoning makes me hate this even more. “Reasoning: The season is longer and harder now, as a result we should get more compensation. Since we can't change our salary, we can give ourselves PT passes.” All this tells me is that whoever made this proposal feels very entitled and is almost demanding to get PT passes. There’s just a huge sense of entitlement in the reasoning that just makes GMs out as pompous, deserving of every form of compensation the league has to offer. The reasoning does not give any reason for GMs to get this pass, and instead just makes it seem like they do not deserve the pass because they are all high and mighty. GMs getting PT passes is a big old no from me, and it should never happen, especially if the reasoning is we deserve more compensation and we deserve PT passes, and not a list of new duties that GMs have started doing over the past few seasons to justify the pass.
5. Give Bankers UW Passes
First and foremost, I just want to point out that the reasoning for this one is so much better than GM PT pass reasoning, like this reasoning is 100 times better than we deserve it so give it to us. I actually, for everything I said about the PT pass, do think bankers should get UW passes. They have a lot more to do at the start of the season with equipment and contracts and all, so they could end up spending a lot more time in the spreadsheets and doing everything that they do. UW pass is also a much lighter form of compensation, and I do think it’s good compensation as UW is around the time where their work picks up massively. I would vote for this rule if I was voting.
6. DSFL GMs are unable to become RMs and vice versa
I just sort of assumed this was already a thing, at least as an unwritten rule. DSFL GMs should be interacting and helping rookies already, let someone else have rookie mentor jobs, I’d vote for it.
7. Move Awards to after the ISFL Draft.
More time for awards, sure why not give those people more time to work and make sure everything runs smoothly. Give everyone more time for this instead of the like 6 days that everyone has, from the committee to make the ballots to the team creating the awards slides. Zero issue with this rule.
8. Users have an option to purchase a single use PT Pass for that week. The more passes the person uses, the more expensive they become. The cost would reset after every season and cannot be used for UW or Season/Game Predictions. The cost of each pass is below. The cost is compounding as you would need 39,000,000 to get a full PT Pass.
I honestly don’t know how to feel about this. The price is so prohibitive that no one is going to buy a full season more than once or twice and should do a good job at siphoning out a lot of money in the league, but at the same time buying a PT pass is something I’ve always been against. I would probably vote this one down honestly, for the simple reasoning of if this happens, I think the price needs to be a little bit more and it needs to start off harsher in my opinion. I would want to see at least 50,000,000 need to be used in order to purchase for a whole season, but this is a good start.
9. Unless otherwise specified in the schedule, if the schedule sets an event or deadline as the occurrence of another event (such as a sim/game), then the first event or deadline is set as the time the broadcast of the second event (eg. sim/game) is scheduled to start. If the second event is postponed with an official announcement, then the second event or deadline tied to it is also postponed.
Yeah sure procedural rule change, no big deal here. Give an exact time so that things are more clear. No issue with this rule let it through.
10. Unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary which has been confirmed by the Owner, any punishment for a member of Head Office will be double the normal amount set by precedent. If there is no precedent set, those setting the punishment must first determine what the punishment should be for a non-HO member, and then double the punishment for the HO member to be punished.
Harsher penalties for those in power, this one absolutely should happen. Breaking rules while in power is an abuse of power, especially when you’re running the league and you are supposed to be a pillar for people to look to for help, not a group breaking the rules and getting off lightly.
11. Job Heads must obtain HO approval for all new hires, including job head replacements. Approval must be sought before hiring announcements are posted. This holds Job Heads to the same standard as GMs who must by existing rule gain HO approval
Absolutely not, this is a horrible rule that will just bog down hirings and waste time. No one should have to ask HO for permission to hire someone else, especially since this can lead to blackballing certain members because HO now has final say in all hirings. Anyone who is hiring for a position should not have to seek HO approval. This just perpetuates any sort of insider club, and can lead to division and the feeling of HO exercising their power to get friends hired over others. This rule should not be passed.
12. Remove the word "active" from the before the word "account" in the definition of "Multi."
Absolutely do not agree with this, fresh start accounts have their pros and cons and people should have the ability to create a new account and have a new reputation, as they’re losing just as much as they’re gaining in the process. I also feel like banning people for an account that has no player, that hasn’t been on or active in months because they restarted is just going to force people into leaving the league entirely. The people that want to do this and want to restart should be able to, we should foster activity, not run it out because it’s under a new name.
13. Add somewhere in the rulebook: "It is strictly prohibited for one person to have multiple forum accounts. If a person needs help logging in to their account they simply need to contact any member of Head Office who can help them to regain access."
A second rule that is the same as the previous one. We should not be forcing players out because of a bad reputation but otherwise being a fine member of the league. If someone is remaking their account to have a fresh start, let them remake their account. If they are not avoiding a punishment there should be no reason why they cannot have the fresh start and there should be no reason to run them out. These people are not multis, they do not have multiple players, and they have done nothing wrong.
14. Head Office members can choose to opt in to voting for awards. If they intend to do so they need to alert the events team prior to the streaming of the first ISFL playoff game.
Didn’t y’all remove yourself from voting on awards? Pick one, you either vote on awards or you don’t. There is not a middle ground where some can and some can’t, either everyone votes on awards or no one in HO does. Stop trying to have it both ways.
15. The definition of a multi will only include the utilization of two non-retired players at one specific time. Every user is only allowed to have one non-retired player. If that user makes additional accounts and thus has multiple players that are playing in the ISFL/DSFL, that would be a multi.
This rule I am for. Multis should absolutely only be considered as players, not accounts. Having a second account hurts no one if one account has not posted in 6 months. As long as the person is not using multiple players they should not be considered a multi. Let people have their fresh start accounts, it hurts no one by having a new account. If they have multiple players, sure, punish them, that’s breaking the rules, but I just do not see any reason to outlaw fresh start accounts if they only have 1 player.
16. Decrease the maximum amount of TPE that one can reallocate per season from 50 back to the old cap of 32. Allow players an additional option to purchase a "Trait TPE Reallocation" once per season for $5M that allows them to sell back one trait from their player build and reallocate all TPE spent on that trait into other attributes and/or traits.
First this was 50, then it was changed to 32 a while back, then it was changed back to 50. Can we keep it at one or the other? I always fought for 50 TPE reallocation and think it should stay at that. That change annoys me a little if we go back again. Actually wish these were two separate rule proposals because they don’t really need to go together, and there is no reason to change the TPE reallocation amount. As for allowing the trait TPE reallocation, absolutely 100%, let people reallocate traits if they want to, this is a new feature in the new sim, so creating a rule to reallocate traits is something that should happen. Sometimes there’s an oversight, not intentional by anyone, that just needs to be fixed, and this is one of those cases. I just wish that these weren’t paired together because I still think the reallocation limit should be 50.
These are my thoughts on the rules, there’s a few procedural changes that I don’t even think need to be on the ballot, and quite a few rules that I think are extremely dumb and shouldn’t be on the ballot. All in all I feel like you could remove half the proposals on this list and no one would have ever noticed, cared, or had an issue with the rule not becoming a thing. Feel free to call me out and what not, I got no issue debating about any of these rules and offering more of my thoughts for anyone who is willing to listen or debate.
(3125 words, ready to grade)
[div align=center]
![[Image: HzftG7t.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/HzftG7t.gif)
![[Image: YltEe9n.png]](https://i.imgur.com/YltEe9n.png)
[div align=center]
[div align=center]
![[Image: Gragg9.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Gragg9.gif)
![[Image: kZQaK3s.png]](https://i.imgur.com/kZQaK3s.png)
![[Image: mK4dAxg.png]](https://i.imgur.com/mK4dAxg.png)
![[Image: WackaWacka.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/WackaWacka.gif)
![[Image: Gc5BmXW.png]](http://imgur.com/Gc5BmXW.png)
||![[Image: dYOGZep.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/dYOGZep.jpg)
![[Image: Crvxj68.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/Crvxj68.jpg)
Jurisprudence Jones, OL ![[Image: cYhSwFY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/cYhSwFY.png)
![[Image: StarkComicCOL.png?width=1118&height=676]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/813516004993925163/969363218738872330/StarkComicCOL.png?width=1118&height=676)
