Poll: Was Sylvanas a good warchief?

Page 14 of 23 FirstFirst ...
4
12
13
14
15
16
... LastLast
  1. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    So anyone who criticislzed Horde's writing is now an Alliance fanboy eh? Talk about bias
    And now you understand the more vocal Horde posters here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex86el View Post
    "Orc want, orc take." and "Orc dissagrees, orc kill you to win argument."
    Quote Originally Posted by Toho View Post
    The Horde is basically the guy that gets mad that the guy that they just beat the crap out of had the audacity to bleed on them.
    Why no, people don't just like Sylvie for T&A: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ery-Cinematic/

  2. #262
    Ironically, had this survey been done at any point up to the last piece of BfA, it would have been the opposite with all the Horde saying she was the best warchief.

  3. #263
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    <snip>
    Conclusion?

    No, Sylvanas was not a good warchief by any conceivable metric, considering her sole goal as warchief was to get everyone killed, including the Horde. Every single one of her decrees as leader of the Horde were made with that single goal in mind. At no point whatsoever she had the good of the Horde in mind during her decisions.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  4. #264
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    19,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Lol, what? Is that what you really think?

    So anyone who criticislzed Horde's writing is now an Alliance fanboy eh? Talk about bias
    there is a big difference in criticizing horde writing and saying alliance should have dismantled or genocide the horde, because they totally could do it, and they didn't merely because the writers didn't want ti

    note on point, never once i called you a fanboy, but you did called me
    I criticized both factions. Fact is, the writers did not write the Alliance into a situation where they were going to fall, ever. The loss of Teldrassil was a tragedy, but one that united the Alliance more in a collective war effort. Meanwhile, the Horde was facing a massive internal civil war amidst a war being waged directly onto the Alliance.
    except the internal civil war amidst only start later?

    and like i said, if the original plan worked, they would have won the war, but the writers prefer to write different, again, bringing up the writer is just pointless and will not lead anywhere

    The rest of your "criticism" only take into account one faction and make the blind eye for the other, thats why i say this seems way too much like bias.

    The Horde is not the dominant force by the end of BFA. They are not in an equal position to the Alliance. Let us be clear
    they precisely said they are the dominant force, with the alliance characters stating that Sylvanas army aka, the horde army, was the only one strong enough to face n'zoth forces.

    at the gates of orgrimmar the alliance and the rebels could not take the horde, and thats the reason Saurfang had to face Sylvanas in a mak'gora.

    if you think the horde, at that time, had suffered "massive" losses(more than alliance) its just the same scenario as the spaceship capable of destroying cities at ease, mere headcanon.

    Besides, the horde didn't had many problem with the loyalists as even forsaken turn their backs to sylvanas, there isn't much to the alliance "get advantage", neither they could get much advantage with their feeble forces, because you know, they were at the ates of the enemy in less numbers and less power.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Aresk View Post
    Out of curiosity, how do you explain Anduin's statements of "Enough [troops] for one final assault. If that fails...we're done." and Alleria's statement of "Sylvanas commands what may be the only army capable of defeating N’Zoth."?
    apparently, if something does not goes the way the alliance want or in their favor is bad writing

  5. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    they precisely said they are the dominant force, with the alliance characters stating that Sylvanas army aka, the horde army, was the only one strong enough to face n'zoth forces.
    Crux of the problem.

    You are unable to criticize the writing because you fully choose to acknowledge it as gospel. I do not. That is the difference

    I do not acknowledge this as the only way the story could be written snd I criticize the story being written this way. You choose to drink the koolaid where it fits you; ie when it props the Horde on a pedestal. That's the difference. I am not the one being biased here, since I've pointed out the position the writers put the Horde in was their own choosing.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-10-30 at 10:45 PM.

  6. #266
    The Horde is nothing
    I just don't know

  7. #267
    New Kid Zaelsino's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    14,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Baroclinic View Post
    Ironically, had this survey been done at any point up to the last piece of BfA, it would have been the opposite with all the Horde saying she was the best warchief.
    I don't know about that. A lot of people never warmed to the idea of "Warchief Sylvanas", and everyone knew she wasn't long for the Horde the moment Teldrassil happened.

  8. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Conclusion?

    No, Sylvanas was not a good warchief by any conceivable metric, considering her sole goal as warchief was to get everyone killed, including the Horde. Every single one of her decrees as leader of the Horde were made with that single goal in mind. At no point whatsoever she had the good of the Horde in mind during her decisions.
    To be honest, everything can and will be retconned to serve whatever purpose the writers want.

    Orgrim was originally evil. He was the 'backstabber', a ruthless warlord who usurped control of the Horde away from Blackhand when Gul'dan was out of commision. Was her heroic or good? Was he even honorable? Not really

    Fast forward to WC3 and Thralls story, and suddenly Orgrim is honorable and had good intentions, and everything we knew was retconned as Gul'dan's POV painting Orgrim in a bad light all this time.


    Sylvanas didn't care about the Horde. For now.

    Theres a whole Sylvanas novel planned, and she gets her soul back which means we have more story for her. I wouldn't put it past the writers to suddenly plot twist things again and say 'She always cared about the Horde, everyone just misunderstood her' or some bullshit to make the whole Battle of the Gates and Saurfang death be utterly pointless, as if it was just for show for her true intentions of uniting the Alliance and Horde or some bullshit.

    Was she a good Warchief? Again, I don't think she was a warchief at all since she weaseled her way into that position. But to be honest, if everyone else respects the Warchief position, then Saurfang would have been in the wrong all this time, and so would any Horde Loyalist player for being traitors. I'm not sure why the writers want to undermine the Warchief position, but it really means there is no such thing as a good Warchief since traditionally a Warchief is seen as an evil warmongering ruler.

    Was Sylvanas a Good Warchief is kinda like asking was she a Good Villain, in a manner of speaking.

  9. #269
    Wow. Triceron you are leaving me speechless. Finally there is someone here in this forum without biased glasses who get's the point and at the same time you are talking from a fully neutral diplomatic position with actual facts. I'm not sarcastic btw. I mean it. It's a first time I enjoy a healthy conversation.

  10. #270
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Was Sylvanas a Good Warchief is kinda like asking was she a Good Villain, in a manner of speaking.
    No, not really. We're talking about her being a warchief, not a villain.

    Also, it doesn't matter how she was portrayed in the past, or how she could be portrayed in the future. We're talking about her portrayal now. With the information we have right now.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  11. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    No, not really. We're talking about her being a warchief, not a villain.

    Also, it doesn't matter how she was portrayed in the past, or how she could be portrayed in the future. We're talking about her portrayal now. With the information we have right now.
    What makes a good Warchief? Since they are the undisputed ruler of the Horde, would it not suffice to say everyone in the Horde who disagreed with her was a traitor to her Horde? There is no clause to say the Warchief has to care about the wellbeing of its people, as the Warchief position existed when the Horde was acting as agents of the Legion, and there was no concern for the wellbeing of orcs considering Necromancy and Fel magic was in open practice to use on their own army.

    So really, is it Sylvanas actually not being a good Warchief if the Warchief position itself is supposed to be undisputed ruler of the Horde?

    In terms of what Sylvanas has done as Warchief, its actually the Player who is in the wrong here, since they chose ultimately not to follow their Warchief to the bitter end, while the open challenge leaves no successor to speak of. And unfortunately Sylvanas loyalists have no choice in the matter at all, they just default back into the Horde as if nothing happened. If we're talking about absolutes, then really Sylvanas as a Warchief should have ultimate say including if she says death to the Horde. She can be challenged for her position, but if she wins then she is still Warchief, by Horde standards. And frankly, she was never openly challenged till the Battle at the Gates. So what she did was never actually wrong or bad, from a lore POV. What she is doing is bad in the POV of a Horde loyalist, but Horde Loyalist also means 'Traitor to the Warchief' so really where do we go with this? In terms of being a Warchief, Sylvanas should not be at fault for anything since her word is law. Her will becomed the will of the Horde, and if no one likes that they should challenge her directly. Blood and Honor. That is the way it works.

    That's not the way it was written.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-10-31 at 12:22 AM.

  12. #272
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    What makes a good Warchief? Since they are the undisputed ruler of the Horde, would it not suffice to say everyone in the Horde who disagreed with her was a traitor to her Horde? There is no clause to say the Warchief has to care about the wellbeing of its people, as the Warchief position existed when the Horde was acting as agents of the Legion, and there was no concern for the wellbeing of orcs considering Necromancy and Fel magic was in open practice to use on their own army.
    "The Warchief of the Horde stands as the undisputed leader. The warchief holds dominion over the entire Horde. The warchief maintains the Horde, has the power to declare war for the entire Horde, take any precaution to ensure the stability and security of the Horde's member states, and has the final say in the induction of new Horde members.

    All members of the Horde have to swear a blood oath to join the Horde and are thus obligated to follow the warchief's commands and support the warchief in times of war if the warchief calls upon them for aid.

    The position of warchief can be attained by having the previous warchief chose a successor or challenging the current warchief to a Mak'gora: a prearranged duel with deadly weapons between two people following a formal procedure in the presence of witnesses and traditionally fought until one party yields or is killed, usually to settle a quarrel involving a point of honor. Above all else, the title warchief is granted to those who display strength and decisive action. Warchiefs must be able to gain respect via combat effectiveness and martial conquests but also have enough tact to keep the Horde united and stable."
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  13. #273
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    The position of warchief can be attained by having the previous warchief chose a successor or challenging the current warchief to a Mak'gora: a prearranged duel with deadly weapons between two people following a formal procedure in the presence of witnesses and traditionally fought until one party yields or is killed, usually to settle a quarrel involving a point of honor. Above all else, the title warchief is granted to those who display strength and decisive action. Warchiefs must be able to gain respect via combat effectiveness and martial conquests but also have enough tact to keep the Horde united and stable."[/URL]
    And Sylvanas was doing that. If not for Saurfang? Sylvanas would have continued to maintain stability. No one else dared challenge her individually.

    That Saurfang and the Horde Loyalists rebelled made them traitors, from a lore POV. Sylvanas reprimanded Saurfang and detained Baine to quell the rebels, thats how a Warchief handles things. Orgrim did the same to Gul'dan and Garona. That doesn't make a bad Warchief.

    That Saurfang lived long enough to undermine her rule and work with the enemy was something beyond her control. Same with the failed assassination attempt on Thrall. From a lore POV, thats what a Warchief would do to stay in power. That is part of being Warchief, killing your enemies, potential threats and quelling the rebels and usurpers before they get a chance to challenge you. Lets remember that this role was DEFINED by the Horde of WC2, which Thrall built the legacy on and kept these same traditions. No council, no democracy. The word of the Warchief is law, and going against it is treason.

    That WoW wrote the position as peacefully as possible for Thrall doesn't mean thats actually how the position is supposed to work in the lore. People don't understand that a Warchief is literally a dictator, and if we are to consider the nature of the Horde itself has races and groups with conflicts of interest, then we should also consider that no Warchief was perfect in maintaining stability. The only one who did was Vol'jin, and only because he did nothing as Warchief, so that doesn't really count.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-10-31 at 09:17 AM.

  14. #274
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    19,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Crux of the problem.

    You are unable to criticize the writing because you fully choose to acknowledge it as gospel. I do not. That is the difference

    I do not acknowledge this as the only way the story could be written snd I criticize the story being written this way. You choose to drink the koolaid where it fits you; ie when it props the Horde on a pedestal. That's the difference. I am not the one being biased here, since I've pointed out the position the writers put the Horde in was their own choosing.
    you are again, making a strawman here

    criticizing the writing is one thing, not accepting what is canon and bringing up your own fantasy here is completely different.

    The horde being the more or less dominant force by the end of BfA makes sense, period, as this isn't something that big, this only means the alliance can't force anything on then.

    HOW, they got there was bad writing yeah, but it would be bad writing if any faction was dominant, because BFa was awful and a clusterfuck, yet, you are acting the only "good writing" would be if the alliance dismantled or genocide the horde, this is bogus.

  15. #275
    Old God Kathranis's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    10,074
    She betrayed the Horde, so no. They could have written her to be a good Warchief but nothing she did helped the Horde in the end. Even during Legion she was only on her own personal mission, bargaining with Helya.
    Last edited by Kathranis; 2021-10-31 at 09:46 AM.

  16. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    you are again, making a strawman here

    criticizing the writing is one thing, not accepting what is canon and bringing up your own fantasy here is completely different.

    The horde being the more or less dominant force by the end of BfA makes sense, period, as this isn't something that big, this only means the alliance can't force anything on then.

    HOW, they got there was bad writing yeah, but it would be bad writing if any faction was dominant, because BFa was awful and a clusterfuck, yet, you are acting the only "good writing" would be if the alliance dismantled or genocide the horde, this is bogus.
    Dude, you already lost here. You're arguing nothing because you took something I said out of context, then rambled off the next few pages when I clearly explained to you the context has nothing to do with what you're saying. You even acknowledge it and are fully backtracking. What is your point even?

    I'm criticizing the canon for having been written a certain way (leading to a poor outcome) and proposing alternatives that does not follow that shitty canon. That you personally don't like it doesn't mean I can't propose alternative suggestions to the shitty writing as a part of my criticism.

    And yes, there can be outcomes where the Horde is not a dominant force by the end of BFA, because as I pointed out it already made no fucking sense how a war Sylvanas started and utterly loses practically every battle and alienating half the Horde as rebels (including the player character) ends up with her having a more dominant force. The canon is blatantly fudging the numbers with no sensible reason behind why her Horde would ever be dominant in this situation. I even pointed out how the game never respected Garrosh's forces being so great in Siege of Orgrimmar when both Horde and Alliance are literally facing a whole new Orc army seemingly out of nowhere, numbers of Orcs that are not realistically portraying actual Garrosh Loyalist numbers. Blizzard does not respect their own canon.

    That you fail to understand that I am criticizing their lack of realistic coherency in the writing has been utterly pointed out numerous times here, even by others. So please, spare me from seeing you argue pointlessly with yourself. You're stuck talking about canon as if the canon is the only way the story could play out. There is nothing to discuss here if you take the writing as gospel. You are arguing nothing except your inability to accept my expression of an opinion, and feel the need to 'prove it wrong' with nothing but conjecture. The writers weren't forced to write a war story with a pointless outcome here, and that you think this is the only way the story has to be regarded is your own choice to regard, not some universal standard anyone has to abide to when talking about the story.

    All your replies simply out your true intentions to try and dismiss a statement I made that triggered you, and your own position as a horde fanboy considering you focused on attacking my 'Alliance bias' when literally no one else in this thread would ever read my statements in that way. You see what you want to see, and that's very telling that you wanted to pick a fight for being deeply personally offended over something I passingly mentioned as a throwaway suggestion.

    Everything you say outs you as being Horde biased and being driven to use any conjecture to try and dismiss my points. That's all that is happening here. Let's not pretend that this is a discussion about canon or the quality of writing, its all about you being triggered by 'Alliance could dismantle the Horde' and wasting my time with your inability to accept that as any possibility. Sorry to say, but whatever problem you have with how canon is being regarded begins and ends with you. I don't have to stick with any of your arbitrary rules when criticizing the writing and proposing any possible alternatives, no matter how nonsensical they may seem to you, considering I was never talking about adhering to the current canon which the writers themselves can not realistically adhere to.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-10-31 at 02:24 PM.

  17. #277
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    And Sylvanas was doing that. If not for Saurfang? Sylvanas would have continued to maintain stability. No one else dared challenge her individually.
    Baine did. Rexxar and Elisande were also really starting to doubt Sylvanas' rule.

    Also, the warchief needs to ensure the security of the Horde's member states and that is not something she was doing considering she was literally sending them to die, because she wanted them to die. Also, "tact" is a defining word here. It doesn't mean "ruthlessness" or "savagery".
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  18. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Baine did. Rexxar and Elisande were also really starting to doubt Sylvanas' rule.

    Also, the warchief needs to ensure the security of the Horde's member states and that is not something she was doing considering she was literally sending them to die, because she wanted them to die. Also, "tact" is a defining word here. It doesn't mean "ruthlessness" or "savagery".
    And she took care of Baine. What happened after? The player undermines her and frees him.


    Doubting her rule does not mean anything. Do you think everyone under Blackhand's rule did not doubt him? Orgrim doubted him. Durotan doubted him. Yet Blackhand was still Warchief and being protected by Gul'dan, and that is how power is kept. Durotan and Orgrim are kept in line through fear.

    If they want to do anything about the doubt, they need to do an open challenge. They need to time it right to do so. Orgrim timed it right when Gul'dan could not protect him.

    What did they not do? Side with the enemy and betray the Horde to do so. So really, our player character was written into being traitors to the Warchief.

    If you're going to argue semantics about tact not being about ruthlessness and savagery while we're talking about Warchief rank being effectively a dictator position, then really we have nothing to talk about. Again, the lore of this position originates with WC1 and WC2, and 'tact' does not exclude savagery or ruthlessness at all. It means dealing with a situation cleverly, and that can be accomplished with manipulation all the same just as Gul'dan did to keep Blackhand in power, without removing any of the ruthlessness or savagery to stay in power.

    Again, Thrall is not the ideal example of a Warchief, which is the common misconception people have about the position. Nothing about a Warchief requires the wellbeing of its people. It is traditionally a position of military dictator. Their primary purpose _should_ be driven by conquest, yet the writers changed that goal as soon as the Horde had any modicum of peace. Peace is a contradiction the the existence of a Warchief role. You understand what I'm getting at here?

    The writers have been moving towards a moral goal of telling everyone the Horde doesn't need a Warchief any more because their goal is driving towards peace and prosperity rather than conquest. They purposely wrote Garrosh and Sylvanas to illustrate this point. So any good Warchief for a modern, peaceful Horde is one that does not exist at all. My point is that I'm not talking about what is good for a modern Horde (which is your driving point), my point is how Sylvanas still fits the description of Warchief, and waging war and disregard of her people should not be criticized when the historic purpose of a Warchief is for the sake of conquest at all costs. Was she a good Warchief? No, because ultimately she made mistakes that undermined her goals, and forced her to out her true intentions, as the writers intend to in order to showcase how abusive the position really is and the whole shift to a Horde Council instead.


    WC1 defined the Warchief as the leader of an unstoppable force, while the Alliance was defined as being the immovable object. What WC3 and eventually WoW did was shift the definitions snd make the Horde into a second immovable object. Thrall was not commanding an unstoppable force, he was commanding an immovable object. The new unstoppable forces were being shifted on to Big Bad Threats like the Scourge or Legion or Old God forces etc.

    BFA tried to bring it back to making the Horde/Alliance conflict back to what it was like in WC1/2, but it doesn't work since the Horde is ultimately designed as an immovable object. Neither faction can truly fall because both are being played by real people. And any attempt to being back conquest is a contradiction to the pillars of gameplay that define the current WoW Horde. Conquest doesn't work between two immovable objects. The role of the Warchief had effectively never been necessary since the end of WC3. The story is just making that absolutely apparant now.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-10-31 at 05:03 PM.

  19. #279
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    And she took care of Baine. What happened after? The player undermines her and frees him.


    Doubting her rule does not mean anything. Do you think everyone under Blackhand's rule did not doubt him? Orgrim doubted him. Durotan doubted him. Yet Blackhand was still Warchief and being protected by Gul'dan, and that is how power is kept. Durotan and Orgrim are kept in line through fear.

    If they want to do anything about the doubt, they need to do an open challenge. They need to time it right to do so. Orgrim timed it right when Gul'dan could not protect him.

    What did they not do? Side with the enemy and betray the Horde to do so. So really, our player character was written into being traitors to the Warchief.

    If you're going to argue semantics about tact not being about ruthlessness and savagery while we're talking about Warchief rank being effectively a dictator position, then really we have nothing to talk about. Again, the lore of this position originates with WC1 and WC2, and 'tact' does not exclude savagery or ruthlessness at all. It means dealing with a situation cleverly, and that can be accomplished with manipulation all the same just as Gul'dan did to keep Blackhand in power, without removing any of the ruthlessness or savagery to stay in power.

    Again, Thrall is not the ideal example of a Warchief, which is the common misconception people have about the position.
    Actually, Thrall is the ideal example of a warchief, because the old Horde and the new Horde are not the same thing.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  20. #280
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Actually, Thrall is the ideal example of a warchief, because the old Horde and the new Horde are not the same thing.
    He's the ideal leader for Horde.

    He's not an ideal example of a Warchief. As mentioned, he did very little to pursue any means of actual conquest or war. He sought peace and to defend his people, which is a position befitting a higher rank of Chieftain or any number of benevolent governing positions, not a Warchief. When he first became Warchief, the Horde was absolutely in need of war to survive; against the Alliance, against the wilderness, against the Legion. By the start of WoW, they'd already established themselves and there was no real need for a 'Warchief' at all. Thrall was effectively acting more like a "High Chieftain" than a Warchief.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-10-31 at 05:30 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •