Possible Update? Role for Dogs

MCzerotacos · 2019-12-13 05:10:55

In the past of many civilazations, dogs have been instrumental to the use of mankind. Whether it be from protecting a village, used for hunting, or just as a companion to bring smiles. Many civilization would not have been able to thrive if not for the dmoestication of dogs. I would love it if dogs finally got some type of a use.

For example, German Sheperds are a protective dog species, why not let them serve as guard dogs in their town from bears.

Another example is herding dogs, dogs like the Border Collie or Australian Shepherd. With these dogs you can keep the animals safe. Although fencing keeps the animals safe, I feel like this is unatural because of the fact that throught many civlizations people would have to herd there animals to better pasture.

One example of this is the Masai people of Africa. They have to herd their animals through treachorous lands that are very hot and have many hungry predators.

I would love to see some time of gameplay mechanic that uses dogs as a "tool" of some sort that would finally give them a purpose. After all dogs are apart of the game and have no real use. It would be nice to finally see a use for mans best friend wouldn't it?

Last edited by MCzerotacos (2019-12-17 08:19:35)

Randomname · 2019-12-13 05:20:21

Even being able to rope a dog and take it for a walk would be nice. Fluffy disturbing the smith? Let take him for walkies out to the prairie to see some nice bunnies.

jcwilk · 2019-12-13 06:55:01

Or be able to turn them into clothing.

Fluffy disturbing the smith?...

DestinyCall · 2019-12-13 06:56:29

Or harness dogs to a a sledge and ride across the arctic without the need for horses.

WalrusesConquer · 2019-12-13 07:13:21

All I want is either them to follow you or be leashed, just so they are more personal

MCzerotacos · 2019-12-13 07:15:59

DestinyCall wrote:

Or harness dogs to a a sledge and ride across the arctic without the need for horses.

That would be really cool, maybe make it specific for certain ppl to? Like since gingers can only go into the arctic/snow biome maybe they can use the dogs (husky/malmute). There are just so many mechanics that dogs can be used for.

jcwilk · 2019-12-13 07:19:39

Leashed dog could be a weapon too, range of 2 tiles away

DestinyCall · 2019-12-13 07:38:02

Collies are sheep dogs. They are excellent herders. German shepherds are a great all-around working dog, useful for herding, guarding, and many other tasks. And beagles were originally developed for the sport of "beagling" which is a fancy way of saying "rabbit hunting but with small dogs". Dachshunds are another hunting breed, developed to have short legs and a long body to allow them to enter underground burrows in pursuit of prey. Airdales are the "king of terriers', the largest of the terrier breeds. Like all terriers, they have a strong prey drive and willingness to take on anything. They are a great all around farm dog as well as being capable at guard and police work. Schnauzers are similar to Airdales. Developed as ratters and farm watch dogs, they are small but tenacious. The chihuahua has a long and convoluted history. As a breed, they were mostly used for companionship, but there is some evidence that they were also raised as a food source. Sorry chihuahuas!

It would be great if we could utilize dogs to make our lives easier and more entertaining.

Bremidon · 2019-12-13 07:50:33

I agree: it would be nice if dogs would chase off bears and wolves

DiscardedSlinky · 2019-12-13 09:10:39

My idea for them has always been to use them as efficient rabbit hunters.

You equip them by holding them on a lasso and when you use them on a rabbit hole it give you a dead rabbit.

Punkypal · 2019-12-13 09:31:10

I'd say have dogs attack and possibly kill anyone who stabs or shoots their master.

With hierarchies on the way, you could also set your dogs to attack anyone (within a range) who attacks one of your followers. Makes leaders more of something people would want and need. That was the classic relationship anyway, serf pledges fealty, the lord offers protection.

Dogs would not protect you if you had just murdered someone. They should be to aid defense, not protect those that commit offense.

This alone could bring the murder griefer problem completely under control.

And how would you kill someone who has dogs and is griefing in other ways? You could require elders to mark them for death, a marked person wouldn't get their dogs to defend them. Or you could kill their dogs first, could take some coordination with others if they have more than one dog. A king or above could have some way to mark someone for death. There could be many ways. I suspect most people that just try to steal babies or horses, or hide things won't go through all the effort to get a pack of dogs.

StrongForce · 2019-12-13 15:50:41

How about scaring bears away.
Or tracking down exiled players.

Or as horses for babies that folw mum

voy178 · 2019-12-13 16:06:38

I support that dogs should keep wild animals away.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-13 16:26:15

Would dogs be useful in a future world where we had to start over from scratch to re-build civilization?

I think that dogs mostly consist of pets these days. I could be wrong about that, but I think they are mostly useless, no matter how lovably useless, these days.

I just don't see enough reason to believe that they would be useful in the future. Dogs might have evolved into a form where they become entirely useless to us.

MCzerotacos wrote:

It would be nice to finally see a use for mans best friend wouldn't it?

But would dogs living in a future on a planet some 7 times+ the surface of Jupiter be the best friend of humanity? I really wouldn't be so sure about that.

The_Anabaptist · 2019-12-13 16:49:22

Here was my two cents on the topic, back in the day...

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7908

The_Anabaptist

MCzerotacos · 2019-12-13 17:07:48

Spoonwood wrote:

Would dogs be useful in a future world where we had to start over from scratch to re-build civilization?
I think that dogs mostly consist of pets these days. I could be wrong about that, but I think they are mostly useless, no matter how lovably useless, these days.
I just don't see enough reason to believe that they would be useful in the future. Dogs might have evolved into a form where they become entirely useless to us.

Not entirely useless actually, many people around the world use dogs as "tools" in their job path whether it be ranching, protecting livestock, sheepherding etc. Also since this is the future and we are trying to rebuild civilization, it was the domestication of dogs and how we used them that allowed humanity to thrive and rise to the top of the food chain. To say dogs are useless is just not thinking of how we can use them effectively. Of course dogs are great companions but that wasn;t their main purpose. It just happened that humans found comfort in them and they turned out to be GREAT companions and I really don't see anything wrong with that. Anyways if they are so useless like how u state then, why are there dogs in the game in the first place. Its like adding another biome but not putting anything in that biome. Waste of space. What im getting to is that I wan't a purpose for these dogs or if they are getting no purpose then no dogs at all. I would prefer for dogs to be in the game and have a "job" to fill though. In any case dogs are in the game, giving them a purpose would make the game a lot more fun.

MrsDuckGirl · 2019-12-13 18:06:38

Dogs could sniff trails, to find other families.

DestinyCall · 2019-12-13 18:30:22

Spoonwood wrote:

Would dogs be useful in a future world where we had to start over from scratch to re-build civilization?
I think that dogs mostly consist of pets these days. I could be wrong about that, but I think they are mostly useless, no matter how lovably useless, these days.
I just don't see enough reason to believe that they would be useful in the future. Dogs might have evolved into a form where they become entirely useless to us.

My youngest dog is an Anatolian Shepherd. He's a huge, loyal, and willing to kill (and eat) anything that threatens those under his protection. His breed was developed as livestock guardians - they protect sheep, goats, and other prey animals from potential predators, including wolves and bears. Most importantly, he comes from working lines, so he's not just an overgrown lap dog, like your average pet dog. He has strong livestock-guarding instincts and takes his job very seriously. I live in cougar country, so I'm happy to have a good boy watching over the chickens and goats. If I was lost and alone in the wilderness, I'd be lucky to have him guarding my back.

By comparison ... my other dogs are a Labrador retriever and a doberman. The lab is a sweetheart and loves everybody equally, but she'd be largely useless in a true survival situation. She's still a decent rat-killer, but that's about all she is able to offer in terms of functionality. She wouldn't provide much protection or hunting prowess, although she'd be happy to chase some rabbits. The doberman might be able to provide some protection, but she lacks a proper double-coat. I doubt she'd be able to survive a hard winter. And she's a lot more bark than bite, when it comes to protection. These two would probably eat too much and not contribute enough to be worth keeping in a post-apocalyptic scenario.

Still ... they're very cute and would never betray me. The same cannot be said about most people when things get really desperate, I'd wager.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2019-12-14 02:23:04)

Spoonwood · 2019-12-13 18:35:07

MCzerotacos wrote:

Not entirely useless actually

Uh... we were talking about an imaginary future. And you say actually. I don't think you have a clue about what 'actually' means.

MCzerotacos wrote:

Also since this is the future and we are trying to rebuild civilization, it was the domestication of dogs and how we used them that allowed humanity to thrive and rise to the top of the food chain.

So, the notion of a food chain that you use is entirely suspicious. Were it an actual food chain, only humans would eat other beings. But, humans get eaten by animals like bears often enough. Even worse, to attribute humanity's thriving and progress to the domestication of dogs makes little sense. Archimedes ultimately caluclated pi because of the domestication of dogs, James Watt made/perfected a steam engine ultimately because of the domestication of dogs. Such notions are completely absurd.

MCzerotacos wrote:

To say dogs are useless is just not thinking of how we can use them effectively.

Dogs won't protect you from other animals in OHOL. Griefers can easily avoid them. I doubt griefers tend to think something like "oh look a dog! I'm not going to try to murder the girls in this village now!". Dogs aren't a source of food. I don't see how your OHOL children become better adapted to surviving or parenting because of dogs. They don't help to build civilization in OHOL. Dogs take up space. They run all around and can block your ability to put something done. From what I've heard, and I trust the source, there was a dogpocalypse where OHOL characters died because of too many dogs in towns making it impossible for people to drop objects to eat (dogs didn't use to die from what I understand).

And dogs aren't just useless. They are potentially dangerous in OHOL, and can be actually dangerous in OHOL. There was even a griefer a while back who made a post a while back on how to use the dog system to grief, though it wasn't the first time that such had happened.

In real life, there is no shortage of people who have dogs because they are cute or something like that. Using them also would not be in line with their code of ethics. Dogs are sentient after all.

MCzerotacos wrote:

Anyways if they are so useless like how u state then, why are there dogs in the game in the first place.

Probably some people wanted dogs in the game. So, Jason tried to satisfy those people by putting dogs into the game. Or Jason believed the game would appeal to more people with dogs in it. Perhaps the latter is more likely. But if you really want to know, you'd need to get his attention and ask him.

MCzerotacos wrote:

Of course dogs are great companions but that wasn;t their main purpose. It just happened that humans found comfort in them and they turned out to be GREAT companions and I really don't see anything wrong with that.

Some people are allergic to dogs. Some people oppose having animals as pets entirely. A quick search yielded this article: https://www.thoughtco.com/arguments-for … ets-127752 Dogs scare some people (I don't know how many times in my youth when running around the neighborhood some dog would bark at me loudly or even try to chase me). You enjoy dogs greatly. But, that doesn't mean that humanity has universally found comfort in them.

MCzerotacos wrote:

Its like adding another biome but not putting anything in that biome. Waste of space.

So, in two of my low pop villages I made dog pens where I left the dogs at the nursing stage. It was a nice visual effect. But those dogs were useless. It was merely a simple form of amusement to have them around. And they were not a waste of space.

On top of that penguins exist in OHOL. There is no use for penguins. You can't move them out of their biome also. But, I don't think that penguins are a waste of space.

MCzerotacos wrote:

What im getting to is that I wan't a purpose for these dogs or if they are getting no purpose then no dogs at all.

And I couldn't disagree more. I don't want a purpose for dogs. I don't like the thought of using animals, and try to ignore that such happens in OHOL as meaning much, because of other appealing aspects of the game. Nor do I want them removed from the game, because they do have some visual appeal to me.

MCzerotacos wrote:

I would prefer for dogs to be in the game and have a "job" to fill though.

Animals are not a tool for you to use in the real world. Real world animals get mistreated all the time in the real world, because of people that view them as a tool for their own use. OHOL already has animals as tools to a very high degree. It simply does not need more of that sort of thinking getting promoted.

MCzerotacos wrote:

In any case dogs are in the game, giving them a purpose would make the game a lot more fun.

No, it would just make the game more disgusting and morally questionable. Eating a rabbit, killing sheep, and milking cows are already in the game. Its not real life. But if OHOL instills an attitude that animals should exist for humans to use in people in the future, then the game is bad morally. And morally bad games, IF such exist, are not fun... they are de-motivating.

MCzerotacos · 2019-12-13 19:36:02

So... Spoonwood I believe you have made up your mind and I can not persuade you otherwise from what you believe about your opinion but I will say this.

Spoonwood wrote:

So, the notion of a food chain that you use is entirely suspicious. Were it an actual food chain, only humans would eat other beings.

Definition: a hierarchical series of organisms each dependent on the next as a source of food

Key word: Organisms

You say humans would only eat humans in a food chain? Im not sure you even understand what a food chain is. Like the definition says, "a hierarchical series of organisms each dependent on the next as a source of food" we ourselves are organisms. What you said in your sentence only applies to humans? Makes no sense

Spoonwood wrote:

Archimedes ultimately caluclated pi because of the domestication of dogs, James Watt made/perfected a steam engine ultimately because of the domestication of dogs. Such notions are completely absurd.

Please look into what a fallacy is. Since this is a fallacy.

Spoonwood wrote:

Dogs won't protect you from other animals in OHOL.

Actually, thats what this thread is about, allowing for dogs to protect us from other animals. Not sure why you wouldn't want to be protected from a bear or wolf, but hey man that is your choice not mine.

Spoonwood wrote:

They are potentially dangerous in OHOL, and can be actually dangerous in OHOL.

Knives and bows are dangerous yet we still have them in the game. Players are creative and will find way to adapt.

Spoonwood wrote:

there was a dogpocalypse, dogs take up space

The problem about the dogopaclypse was already fixed. Not sure how this would be a problem again? Everything takes up space. I was reading some comments on this thread and the idea of leashing a dog to a fence doesnt sound like a bad idea too. If that were the case and we would be able to leash dogs to a fence for example that would defintiely clear up some space dont u think?

Spoonwood wrote:

Animals are not a tool for you to use in the real world. Real world animals get mistreated all the time in the real world, because of people that view them as a tool for their own use.

Not so sure if you noticed the quotations around the word tool but just to make sure you see it I will show you the quote. This quote is from my first topic in this thread.

MCzerotacos wrote:

I would love to see some time of gameplay mechanic that uses dogs as a "tool" of some sort that would finally give them a purpose.

I put quotation marks around tool because I couldn't think of a word that described what animals that do work for humans are called. By reading what you said on how people view animals as tools, what I have to say is although you don't like to believe animals are used as tools, its a sad reality that they are. There are cases about animal fighting and I don't condone that type of thinking about animals but what I do support is work animals. Such as using cows to plow fields, sheep for wool which gives us warm clothing, chickens for their eggs, etc. These are but just a few of the things humans have used animals for. Right or wrong without these animals we most likely would not even be able to reach our stage of civilization.

This thread was to encourage or maybe even have the possibilty of making dogs have a use most likely work related. We are all entitilted to our own opinions and I respect yours. I would love to see the thoughts of what other people think how dogs can benefit or not be beneficial so that we can see how to improve this game overall.

MCzerotacos · 2019-12-13 19:44:06

DestinyCall wrote:

Collies are sheep dogs. They are excellent herders. German shepherds are a great all-around working dog, useful for herding, guarding, and many other tasks. And beagles were originally developed for the sport of "beagling" which is a fancy way of saying "rabbit hunting but with small dogs". Dachshunds are another hunting breed, developed to have short legs and a long body to allow them to enter underground burrows in pursuit of prey. Airdales are the "king of terriers', the largest of the terrier breeds. Like all terriers, they have a strong prey drive and willingness to take on anything. They are a great all around farm dog as well as being capable at guard and police work. Schnauzers are similar to Airdales. Developed as ratters and farm watch dogs, they are small but tenacious. The chihuahua has a long and convoluted history. As a breed, they were mostly used for companionship, but there is some evidence that they were also raised as a food source. Sorry chihuahuas!
It would be great if we could utilize dogs to make our lives easier and more entertaining.

I definitely agree with you here. All the dogs in this game have some type of hystorical use. It would be great if Jason would apply those traits for the dogs in the game.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-13 20:22:17

MCzerotacos wrote:

Definition: a hierarchical series of organisms each dependent on the next as a source of food

Well there exist plenty of organisms that humans do eat, but are not dependent on. Trying to find a necessary food in the sense that humans must eat that particular food to survive may not even exist. Additionally, according to that definition, every single organism is at the top of a food chain unless it gets eaten, I think. Thus, the whole notion of humans as being at *the* top of *the* food chain doesn't make sense.

MCzerotacos wrote:

You say humans would only eat humans in a food chain?

I did not say any such thing.

Spoonwood wrote:

Were it an actual food chain, only humans would eat other beings.

MCzerotacos wrote:

Please look into what a fallacy is. Since this is a fallacy.

Talk about a joke. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument. If you don't understand that, then you simply do not understand logic. And were it the case that proof by contradiction were invalid, there would be legions of fallacies in mathematical and logical proofs, since they are common in mathematics and logic.

MCzerotacos wrote:

Actually, thats what this thread is about, allowing for dogs to protect us from other animals.

I said

Spoonwood wrote:

Dogs won't protect you from other animals in OHOL.

My statement concerned how OHOL works. Your thread is about how you want dogs to change. No, those are not the same.

Spoonwood wrote:

Not sure why you wouldn't want to be protected from a bear or wolf, but hey man that is your choice not mine.

Well if it comes as the cost of using another sentient being, I think I'll pass, and accept the danger.

MCzerotacos wrote:

Knives and bows are dangerous yet we still have them in the game. Players are creative and will find way to adapt.

... wrote:

I killed 4 fertile girls, some old people, and a bunch of guys

Doesn't sound like they adapted to me. I'm supressing the source, because I don't want the post that it comes from to get more attention.

MCzerotacos wrote:

If that were the case and we would be able to leash dogs to a fence for example that would defintiely clear up some space dont u think?

Horses get lassoed to a fence. It wouldn't be difficult to imagine a town where all the fences had dogs on them. And that wouldn't be good for someone trying to bring a horse back to town.

MCzerotacos · 2019-12-13 21:06:10

Spoonwood wrote:

Reduction and absurdum is a valid form of argument.

Right well I will say this last thing. The difference between you and I then is that you were making an argument using absurdum. When trying to persuade someone while using a fallacy, that is not a smart idea for it can make your reasons sound ridiculous. I simply was trying to persuade you so that maybe just maybe giving dogs the ability to protect us and/or themselves would be beneficial to everyone. Remember we are supposed to be thinking about how we can benefit all players not just ourselves. Also, many people in this thread seem to like the idea of having dogs help us and I can see why they would like that. Let's not get political about this and just focus on how to improve on this game.

With that being said I hope you have a wonderful day/night/afternoon.

DestinyCall · 2019-12-13 21:10:33

I think ya'll are having a silly arguement, but regarding the question of food chains, I can share some insights.

It is common misconception that humans are at the top of the food chain. This is technically not true, even if it is a widely believed science "fact". Food chains (and food webs) are used to describe the movement of energy within an ecosystem.

Typically plants are at the "bottom" of the chain, followed by plant-eating herbivores, omnivores are found somewhere in the middle, and lastly meat-eating carnivores are at or near the "top". This is because energy enters the system via photosynthesis and travels up the food chain as each organism is consumed for energy. The relative position of an organism in the food chain can be ranked using trophic levels. This system looks at organisms and their diet to determine where they rank in comparison to other animals. It is usually used to look at animals that live in the same natural environment, but you can also compare animals across various environments based on trophic levels.

Primary producers, like plants, are eaten by primary consumer, secondary consumer eat primary consumer, tertiary consumers eat secondary consumers, and so on. Since most animals are willing to eat a variety of other organisms, it is possible for a mid-level consumer to eat (and be eaten by) other consumers at various levels. Apex predators are at the "top" of the food chain, because no one eats them, but they can and will eat the organisms in the levels beneath them. They have no natural predators. Lions, crocodiles, killer whales, and many other large predators are considered "apex predators", based on their diet and native ecology.

Humans are rarely at risk from predation, but that alone is not enough to qualify as an apex predator. Diet is a major factor. And on a global scale, human society has a diverse diet that includes a large plant component. This omnivorous diet lowers humanity's trophic level to a mid-level consumer. Richer countries tend to eat more meat, but even those countries are not primarily meat-eating. And we rarely feed off secondary or tertiary consumers. Our diet is mostly plants and herbivores - primary producers and primary consumers.

Interestingly, fishing villages that primarily consume meat-eating fish rank at much higher trophic levels, than farmers and city-dwellers. But the ocean includes a number of large predators that are willing and able to eat humans, given the chance. I'd argue we are not at the top of the food chain on land or sea.

Long story short, we are smart omnivores, not apex predators. But we can build flamethrowers and tanks, so if it comes to a fight, we will beat the killer whales.

I'm sure of it.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2019-12-14 00:37:36)

jcwilk · 2019-12-13 21:25:03

DestinyCall wrote:

I think ya'll are having a silly arguement, but regarding the question of food chains, I can share some insights.
It is common misconception that humans are at the top of the food chain. This is technically not true, even if it is a widely believed science "fact". Food chains (and food webs) are used to describe the movement of energy within an ecosystem.
Typically plants are at the "bottom" of the chain, followed by plant-eating organisms, omnivores are found somewhere in the middle, and lastly predators are at or near the "top". This is because energy enters the system via photosynthesis and travels up the food chain as each organism is consumed for energy. The relative position of an organism in the food chain can be ranked using trophic levels. This system looks at organisms and their diet to determine where they rank in comparison to other animals. It is usually used to look at animals that live in the same natural environment, but you can also compare animals across various environments based on trophic levels.
Primary producers, like plants, are eaten by primary consumer, secondary consumer eat primary consumer, tertiary consumers eat secondary consumers, and so on. Since most animals are willing to eat a variety of other organisms, it is possible for a mid-level consumer to eat (and be eaten) by other consumers. Apex predators are at the "top" of the food chain, because no one eats them, but they can and will eat the organisms in the levels beneath them. They have no natural predators. Lions, crocodiles, killer whales, and many other large predators are considered "apex predators", based on their diet and native ecology.
Humans are rarely at risk from predation, but that alone is not enough to qualify as an apex predator. Diet is a major factor. And on a global scale, human society has a diverse diet that includes a large plant component. This omnivorous diet lowers humanity's trophic level to a mid-level consumer. Richer countries tend to eat more meat, but even those countries are not primarily meat-eating. And we rarely feed off secondary or tertiary consumers. Our diet is mostly plants and herbivores - primary producers and primary consumers.
Interestingly, fishing villages that primarily consume meat-eating fish rank at much higher trophic levels, than farmers and city-dwellers. But the ocean includes a number of large predators that are willing and able to eat humans, given the chance. I'd argue we are not at the top of the food chain on land or sea.
Long story short, we are smart omnivores, not apex predators. But we can build flamethrowers and tanks, so if it comes to a fight, we will beat the killer whales.
I'm sure of it.

Sign me up to watch flamethrowers and tanks vs whales with The Wall synced to it

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-12-13 05:10:55

Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#2 2019-12-13 05:20:21

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#3 2019-12-13 06:55:01

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#4 2019-12-13 06:56:29

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#5 2019-12-13 07:13:21

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#6 2019-12-13 07:15:59

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#7 2019-12-13 07:19:39

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#8 2019-12-13 07:38:02

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#9 2019-12-13 07:50:33

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#10 2019-12-13 09:10:39

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#11 2019-12-13 09:31:10

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#12 2019-12-13 15:50:41

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#13 2019-12-13 16:06:38

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#14 2019-12-13 16:26:15

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#15 2019-12-13 16:49:22

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#16 2019-12-13 17:07:48

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#17 2019-12-13 18:06:38

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#18 2019-12-13 18:30:22

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#19 2019-12-13 18:35:07

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#20 2019-12-13 19:36:02

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#21 2019-12-13 19:44:06

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#22 2019-12-13 20:22:17

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#23 2019-12-13 21:06:10

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#24 2019-12-13 21:10:33

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

#25 2019-12-13 21:25:03

Re: Possible Update? Role for Dogs

Board footer