Jump to content
Grubdad

Behavior problems: What is expected, how to deal with?

Recommended Posts

Everyone has a list of behaviors they think they'll countenance or not. That changes over time. And as we mature as scouters (i.e., accumulate a series of regrets), how we deal with things on that list gets modified.

 

As a unit leader It is important

- for parents to tell me if they observed something that I missed,

- for the boys to be able to tell me what went on from their perspective,

- for them to reconcile with their fellow scouts,

- for all of us to be willing to change so things go better next time.

 

If that's happening most everyone will stick together. If not, someone will go home and maybe stay there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not always. There's a distinct difference between someone with learning or social disabilities and kids that are just off the rails. To those trained in working with such kids it is easy to spot.

 

Yah, always.  It's always a symptom, eh?   It just might not be da diagnosis. :)

 

I reckon a kid being "just off the rails" also isn't much of a diagnosis, eh?   More like da sort of story we make up in our heads to justify a response to a lad that's more based on our emotion than our thoughtful better nature.

 

For me, there are really only two times to remove a lad. 

 

One is when the troop lacks the capacity to deal with his issues.  This varies by troop, and it varies within a troop over time dependin' on the strength of the youth leaders and the adult leaders.   I personally like da rascals, eh?  Others, like this OP, perhaps not so much.

 

The second is when it's necessary pour encourager les autres.   Sometimes, especially in turn-around situations, yeh have to leave one body on da floor to let the rest of the lads know you're serious, and to let the good kids know you've got their backs. 

 

Both should be rare, eh?  The first because yeh should be havin' those conversations up front; the second because when things are runnin' well and youth leaders are doin' their job and adults have deeper relationships with kids yeh can steer by makin' small corrections.  Yeh don't need nuclear options.

 

Anyways, that's another reason why just goin' in and demandin' to see some punishment or to see one lad removed isn't good for a troop, eh?   Such things only work if they're done well and as part of a bigger picture.   Adults just punishin' kids sets up adult vs. kid dynamics that aren't healthy.  Just like Hogwarts, eh?

 

Beavah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, always.  It's always a symptom, eh?   It just might not be da diagnosis. :)

 

I reckon a kid being "just off the rails" also isn't much of a diagnosis, eh?   More like da sort of story we make up in our heads to justify a response to a lad that's more based on our emotion than our thoughtful better nature.

 

For me, there are really only two times to remove a lad. 

 

One is when the troop lacks the capacity to deal with his issues.  This varies by troop, and it varies within a troop over time dependin' on the strength of the youth leaders and the adult leaders.   I personally like da rascals, eh?  Others, like this OP, perhaps not so much.

 

The second is when it's necessary pour encourager les autres.   Sometimes, especially in turn-around situations, yeh have to leave one body on da floor to let the rest of the lads know you're serious, and to let the good kids know you've got their backs. 

 

Both should be rare, eh?  The first because yeh should be havin' those conversations up front; the second because when things are runnin' well and youth leaders are doin' their job and adults have deeper relationships with kids yeh can steer by makin' small corrections.  Yeh don't need nuclear options.

 

Anyways, that's another reason why just goin' in and demandin' to see some punishment or to see one lad removed isn't good for a troop, eh?   Such things only work if they're done well and as part of a bigger picture.   Adults just punishin' kids sets up adult vs. kid dynamics that aren't healthy.  Just like Hogwarts, eh?

 

Beavah

 

Sorry, @@Beavah, it is not always a symptom either. What did Mama Beavah teach you about absolutes like "always"? ;)

 

I will disagree with you on your two conditions. There are times that you have to remove a kid because of his potential to cause issues too. Part of making things safe for everyone is avoid issues before they happen. I am not about to take Powderkeg Jr., to Philmont and get in the back country with him. If he's poison at troop meetings, service projects and camp outs, imagine what he will do on a 75 mile trek in the back country.

 

One of the toughest things we as Scouters will ever have to do is give up on a kid for the good of the unit. It is a bad feeling knowing you have a kid that has a poor family life, no role models and a not-so-bright future, and you have to let him go because he's not able to be corralled. Everyone has a breaking point and for a Scouter to know when to give up on a Scout is one of the hardest things they will have to do...but it does happen even though we may not want to admit it to others...or ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey "Beavah". I'm getting a little exhausted by your mis-quoting me and making wildly incorrect assumptions.

 

In your first post you said: "First, speak to the Scoutmaster as a friend and supportive individual.  Have other parents do the same.  Lots of times it helps to be confronted with the impact a poorly behaving boy is havin' on da other boys.

The second suggestion is that yeh need a new Scoutmaster, eh?"

 

I wasn't even considering your second suggestion because it certainly did not seem to be my place to advocate this, and I think the SM is a good guy and I'd like to help him.

 

Later you paste my quote: "We decided it would be a good idea for the four former Cub dads who were on this campout to meet with the SM to talk about the experience, share what we observed, and see how we can improve."

 

And you twist that around and accuse me of: "So a group of newbies is goin' to go to the fellow who has been runnin' things for years and demand changes after goin' on one trip, eh?"

 

How do you reconcile this? My post agreed exactly with your first suggestion, but you later twist it around to accuse me of being "demanding". 

 

You then make the wild assumption: "Besides, you don't know these boys yet, eh?   What experience yeh have with troublemaker #1 is from years ago.  That's what's known as "prejudice", eh?  Kids change with time, often lots."

 

Wrong. Last fall our Cubs camped with this troop as visitors. Troublemaker #1 and his toadie went next door to a private campground in broad daylight and urinated in the middle of it to annoy the families there, which they did. He then lay down on the center line of the adjoining highway to show off. He mouthed back to several adults including myself, and terrorized many of the kids in our den and the rest of the troop. This was all in the course of about six hours. Then, a month ago he was at an activity with another troop and he and the same accomplice did something so egregious that our SM was contacted about it by their SM, resulting in a reprimand for those two and a lecture to the rest of the troop. I don't know the offense, but it was certainly unacceptable. So I have pretty current experience. And you accuse me of "prejudice"?

 

Then you said: "Yah, yah, all those new crossovers are great kids, eh?   They would never use bad language when you weren't around."

 

Is this sarcasm useful in any way? Not to mention, again, assuming something I never said.

 

You said:" Yeh need to sit back and stop rabble rousin'."

 

Again, a total contradiction to your initial suggestion, where you suggesting the extreme action of replacing the SM, which I disregarded.

 

And identifying bad behavior and looking for a way to improve it is "rabble rousing?"

 

Your input has stopped being useful in any way.

Edited by Grubdad
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@Cambridgeskip

 

My comments were never meant as a judgment of anyone.  Not everyone has the skills or background to handle difficult situations and I completely understand that.  Not all SM's are good with ADD/ADHD or Autism or any one of a number of social issues and/or even physical and mental problems that young boys are challenged with. 

 

Yet how we react to those things tells us as much about ourselves as it does about those we encounter.

 

Psychology has always taught us that there are only two options we face at times like this Fight or Flight.  Or lets put it this way, are we going to engage the problem or are we going to separate ourselves from the problem?

 

So I can put a scout on probation for 6 months and wait for him to fix his own problem (which he has had all his life) or one will officially make the separation know to the world. 

 

Or I can engage the scout for 6 months and find out what the issues are and whether or not I can help him.  Now I might not personally be able to help him, but maybe I can find others who can if I have a good handle on understanding his problem.

 

I find I drag less guilt home with me with the second option.

 

I have had a lot of experience with at-risk kids over the years and one of the first things I did for self-preservation in the program was to realize I was the "outsider"  I had to engage and understand their situation in life if I was going to be of any help in their lives.  Let's put it this way, If I couldn't get through to these kids they didn't get kicked out of the program, they got sent to jail.   I was their last chance.  The onus was on me! NOT THEM!  I had to step up my game for them!  Over the past 45 years, my perspective has never changed whether it be with at-risk kids, church group kids, scout kids or neighborhood kids, it's all the same.  I might be their own chance... and I don't know which ones they are when they come to me.

 

@@Stosh

 

It's not about the skills or otherwise to handle situations like autism or ADHD. To be blunt, been there done that. Over twenty years I've seen most forms of difficulty. In the vast majority of occasions with the right effort and program and support you can get the best out of even the most difficult. Scouting has that bit of magic to do that! The stories I could tell of that sort vastly out number those where I couldn't do anything.

 

Those two scouts who I sent home had one thing in common.

 

They didn't want to be scouts.

 

They came because their friends were there. They were there to hang around with them. Beyond that there was nothing that scouting was offering that they wanted. The outdoors. The patrol system. Service to others. None of those fundamentals held any interest for either of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last fall our Cubs camped with this troop as visitors. Troublemaker #1 and his toadie went next door to a private campground in broad daylight and urinated in the middle of it to annoy the families there, which they did. He then lay down on the center line of the adjoining highway to show off. He mouthed back to several adults including myself, and terrorized many of the kids in our den and the rest of the troop. This was all in the course of about six hours. Then, a month ago he was at an activity with another troop and he and the same accomplice did something so egregious that our SM was contacted about it by their SM, resulting in a reprimand for those two and a lecture to the rest of the troop. I don't know the offense, but it was certainly unacceptable. So I have pretty current experience. 

 

Well, based on that first incident, that Scout would get the following in my troop:

  • He would be barred from any future camp outs for six months.
  • He would be limited to service projects and troop meetings.
  • He would be forced to write a letter of apology to the park or whomever owned the facility.
  • We would have a meeting with him and his parents where we review the troop's code of conduct, the Oath, Law and expectations of him.
  • He would be told that ANY violation as profane as his recent actions would be grounds for us to recommend termination of his membership from our unit and that he would be barred from participating in ANY future unit activities. Funds would NOT be refunded.
  • We would document all of this, have him and his parents sign, a district rep would be present and we would file a copy in our unit records, give him a copy and give a copy to the district.

ANY violation approaching the level of indecency you stated above would kick in his termination. 

 

There's no place in Scouting for that behavior. Your SM has his head, well....it ain't in the sand. Cannot believe anyone would let that situation go for more than 24 hours. That's just dumb.

 

There would NOT have been the chance for a second incident in my unit.

Edited by Krampus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@Stosh

 

It's not about the skills or otherwise to handle situations like autism or ADHD. To be blunt, been there done that. Over twenty years I've seen most forms of difficulty. In the vast majority of occasions with the right effort and program and support you can get the best out of even the most difficult. Scouting has that bit of magic to do that! The stories I could tell of that sort vastly out number those where I couldn't do anything.

 

Those two scouts who I sent home had one thing in common.

 

They didn't want to be scouts.

 

They came because their friends were there. They were there to hang around with them. Beyond that there was nothing that scouting was offering that they wanted. The outdoors. The patrol system. Service to others. None of those fundamentals held any interest for either of them.

 

How can one kick a boy out of a program that might have been physically present but mentally and emotionally absent?  Those boys had already left long before you said a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, Hmmmm....

 

@@Grubdad, we're all tryin' to figure out what's goin' on in your program from afar, eh?  As you keep sharin' information, we keep updatin' our own thoughts and offerin' new suggestions.  Yeh get to take 'em or leave 'em or stew on 'em. :)

 

Yeh seem like a fellow who has some vision and leadership ability, who might make a fine Scoutmaster in a few years.   With that in mind, let me illustrate how I read your last post (droppin' all the I'm mad at Beavah parts).   Feedback can be a gift, eh?

 

Last fall our Cubs camped with this troop as visitors. Troublemaker #1 and his toadie went next door to a private campground

 

I've never in my life seen an adult who was good at workin' with youth call a boy a "toadie", eh?   That's just not what good scouters do, no matter what a boy has done.  So when yeh did this, the message I took from it was that you aren't really used to workin' with a range of youth of this age yet. 

 

in broad daylight and urinated in the middle of it to annoy the families there, which they did. He then lay down on the center line of the adjoining highway to show off.

 

What I notice is that you are inserting motives - "to annoy the families there", "to show off".  I reckon if we're honest, we really don't know the lad's motives, eh?  The actual actions were that boys peed in a field and a boy laid down on a road.   Given your first bit, I'm not sure how much is the boys' behavior and how much is your view of their behavior because they're Troublemaker #1 and Toadie in your mind, eh?  It's missing context, and the context matters.  After all, I've laid down on roads and peed in fields. ;)

 

So my question is whether the lads' Patrol Leader knew, and what he thought about it?  The SPL?  Other adult leaders who weren't visitors?

 

At some level, these are actions which could merit relatively strong response, so I'm wonderin' why the SM and other troop leaders chose somethin' less.  Was it that they had more information or were less concerned?  Or was it that they're conflict adverse when it comes to addressin' youth behavior of this sort?

 

He mouthed back to several adults including myself, and terrorized many of the kids in our den and the rest of the troop.

 

Yah, you were a visitor, eh?   It wasn't really your role to be talkin' to the lad, and he didn't really know you from Adam.   Now, boys shouldn't mouth off to visitin' adults either, though occasionally I've had Patrol Leaders ask an adult politely to mind his own beeswax so that he could handle it as a PL :unsure:.  At the same time, if you copped some attitude with the boy, then yeh invited him to do the same.

 

How do you think your lad was "terrorized?"  Lads who are truly terrorized almost never return, eh?

 

Then, a month ago he was at an activity with another troop and he and the same accomplice did something so egregious that our SM was contacted about it by their SM, resulting in a reprimand for those two and a lecture to the rest of the troop. I don't know the offense, but it was certainly unacceptable. So I have pretty current experience.

 

Nah, this isn't "experience", eh?  This is hearsay.   You weren't on the outing, and you don't know the offense.  In the grand scheme of things, it's really very unusual for a new parent in a troop to be bringin' up stuff about a boy that is second hand that way.

 

Now, it does concern me that someone was lecturin' the whole troop about the behavior of two boys (unless da rest of the troop was in on it, too?). 

 

-----

 

So you're sendin' up some red flags, eh? 

 

I'm just askin' yeh to take a deep breath and reflect for a bit.

 

Overall, it sounds like the Scoutmaster might be a bit conflict-adverse, and not quite up to doin' what he should in terms of respondin' to the boys' behaviors.  Scoutmasters who are good at addressin' boys' behaviors tend to Praise in Public and Reprimand in Private, eh?  Not lecture da whole group. Keep in mind that there's not much yeh can do about that as a new fellow, eh?  Folks don't really change their personalities or approaches just because a new guy talks to 'em.  So yeh can give polite feedback and let him know he has your support in shiftin' more to quiet consequences and less to riot acts.    

 

It also seems you've got expectations that might not quite fit what troops are about, and that yeh might have it in for this one lad.  That can cause as much or more grief for a troop as a boy who behaves poorly.   So if on reflection yeh think that you've got it in for this boy a bit because of past history, then I think yeh have to step back.  Let one of the other parents who has less history with the boy meet with the Scoutmaster.   Spend your time helpin' your lad practice his knots or get his pack together for da next campout, eh?  It's much more rewardin'.

 

Or yeh can just ignore cute old furry critters, eh?  Da choice is always yours. :eek:

 

Beavah

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can one kick a boy out of a program that might have been physically present but mentally and emotionally absent?  Those boys had already left long before you said a word.

To be clear, I didn't kick them ( it was one boy and one girl by the way!) out. In specific occasions I sent them both home, which is a big difference. It's the short sharp shock which, on vanishingly rare occasions, is what is needed to demonstrate that no, you are not going to get your way here. The up shot on both occasions was that they left of their own volition.. They left not because of being sent home as such but because of what it represented, that the movement was bigger than they were and they were not going to be allowed to have their own way if it meant that they disrupted it for others.

There was something that was bigger than they were.

 

On that point of how can you kick someone out who's heart isn't in it? Seems to me quite easily if I was ever forced to. Thankfully I never have had to. If they are physically there though then yes, in all practicalities, you can remove them if necessary.

Edited by Cambridgeskip
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... How do you think your lad was "terrorized?" Lads who are truly terrorized almost never return, eh? ...

Beav, you are knawing the wrong end of the tree here.

"Harangues", "bullied", "terrorized" have nothing to do with how the victim feels. They have to do with the goals of the perpetrator.

How lads respond depends on their upbringing, I and my buddies were brought up to "get big" and "don't get mad, get even" and as a result any perpetrator was roughly three strikes (in our little minds,that rounded up to 7 times 70) away from recieving leveling punches. And when that happens, the SM's troubles doubled.

 

Likewise, with 'skip's reply, it's clear to me that he disciplined by removing the perpetrators from the event, not scouting in general. Should he question himself for overreacting? Sure, but the Bonnie and Clyde should have done some soul-searching as well. A simple "Mr. Skip, can we apologize to the troop and ask them to invite us back?" would have been in order. Happens all the time with youth who really care to be scouts.

 

Finally, regarding the psychobabble armchair ADHD diagnoses ... Ignoring the possibility of conduct disorder in these instances does great harm. You can reform your community around one and not the other.

 

Blaming the victim undermines the value of any reply.

 

The unit leader sets the tone one way or another. He/she trains the SPL/PL on how to react and what deserves a reaction. Any unit leader worth his/her salt welcomes feedback from newbies. Heck the one who gives the best feedback gets on the short list of his replacements. :)

Edited by qwazse
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How, if anything, is done "up-front" before any of these issues have a chance to start?

 

Before the boys actually join the unit, while there is one last chance for "adult-led", I always give a SM orientation to the troop.  The three rules of the troop are announced, boy-led, patrol-method is clarified, discipline procedures are outlined, and parent's are informed of their role in the troop.  Once this is done and everyone agrees that we are all on the same page, the registrations are turned in and the boys take over the operation of the patrols.

 

If an issue gets to the attention of the SM, it has been a serious infraction and has happened only once.  The boy came close to loosing his Eagle without a major shift through the appeals process which would have been a major headache for the boy, not me.  Otherwise everything seems to run smoothly enough that the PL's can handle the discipline issues by themselves.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming the boy wants to be in scouts and assuming he has some 'issues' then it is more than fair for a parent to come along on campouts 'just in case'. I was asked to do that and rarely needed to step in and help/re-direct my son; but when I did at least he was not knocking the whole event off the rails and I freed up other scouters to help with what was needed. I also could help 'coach' the PL and SPL on how IMHO to handle my boy (some of them were just great)

 

What you don't want to do is have a Dad who jumps in and defends his kids bad behavior and blows up the event either. So it is a dicey balance. This can be somewhat avoided by making sure the parent is trained up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with those who said that the most troublesome scouts are the ones who don't want to be there. And looking back at those scouts, they come in two categories;

 

One, the scout isn't interested in scouting at all, but is forced to be there.

 

Two, the scout's situation at home is the issue, not the troop program. But the scout is so distracted that they still don't want to participate.

 

These discussions tend to go off in generalities that would suggest are the solutions to all mishavior situations. But our troop has experiences dangerous aggression from scouts in both categories above.

 

Several times the behavior rose above the expectations of Patrol Leader's ability to control and parents had to be ask to help solve the escalating problem. In one situation, the scout had just turned into an out and out bully at home and school and was attacking scouts (in other troops at summer camp) for sport. Yes really, for sport. Something was going on at home, I don't know what, but the mother was hoping the troop would change her son's behavior. In another situation, the scout was so desperate for attention from his parents that he threatened a scout with his knife on a campout until the victim broke down from the fear. The threat went farther than it should have because the youth leaders tried to take care of the situation. But it quickly became obvious that it was above their ability. That scout, by the way, earned Eagle two years later (different troop in a different state) after considerable family therapy. 

 

So I think we have to be careful how we answer specific situations on the forum. We can certainly give generalities in how we approach misbehavior, but we shouldn't imply that all troops have the same ability to deal with all situations. I think it is naive to suggest that troops even pretend they can deal with all situations. Troop programs are not homes away from homes. The program may be the most stable and positive influence in a boy s life, but that doesn't mean it will fix the scouts struggle because he still spends most of his life away from the troop. Midnight calls from the police have taught me that. The abuse of one scouts parents was so bad that the family literally packed their car and left town in the middle of the night in fear of intervention by the authorities. My wife and often question what happened to the sad situation. 

 

I advised the Scoutmaster who replaced me to never hold secrets about a scouts behavior from the parents unless he thought harm would come from it. He admitted I was right when a parent brought a lawyer to threaten litigation. The Scoutmaster was only trying to be a nice guy and protect the scout from the parents discipline. He thought he could change the scout's behavior by himself. But these weren't abusive parents and they were upset that their sons misbehavior had gone on for several months. It took a threat with a knife by their son to bring everything to light and the parents weren't happy. 

 

I tell leaders at training to imagine that a mother approaches the troop holding a  box of puzzle pieces on her son's first day in the troop. The picture on the puzzle is her dream of her future son as an adult. Under each puzzle piece is the name of one person she hand picked to help contribute in developing her son into the ideal adult  pictured on the puzzle. On the back of one puzzle piece is his soccer coach, another is his piano teacher, another is her son's sunday school teacher and on the back of another piece is the Scoutmaster. See, we are not the total solution to building the mothers dream, we are just one part, one puzzle piece. We are a small part of her whole team that mom is using to build the kind of man she dreams about for her son every night.  When we leaders start to think of ourselves as more than that (and many scouters do), then we set up ourselves and the scouts for trouble.  

 

The best way for a troop to handle misbehavior is to develop a culture where all the scouts few free and responsible to proactively point out boundaries of behavior before a scout pushes past the boundary. A culture of of nipping it in the bud. But there will always be that one scout who even leaves the adults scratching their head and learning from that experience for the next time. Be prepared for that one unknown.

 

One last thing, these questions come up often and don't surprise me. The two most difficult discussions I have watched debated in my Scoutmaster Specific CLasses are Uniforms and dealing with misbehavior. Misbehavior is tough for all of us.

 

Barry

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something that should be addressed BEFORE the activity!  Too often we assume everything is okay, never ask if there might be any problems, and then just wing-it and find out it's a bust.

 

BE PREPARED.  Ask your parents if they have special needs children BEFORE they make a scene.  Let the PL's know what is necessary to take care of his boys.

 

It is amazing how many people just sit around waiting for the inevitable train wreck and then start running around like Chicken Little blaming everyone but themselves for not being prepared in the first place.

 

"I know everyone here in this room has perfect children who are all well versed in exemplary behavior, but are there anything that we ought to know about up-front?  We've dealt with bed-wetting, ADD/ADHD, Aspergers, Allergies, home-sickness, you name it, we've had it, so your child isn't going to be any big deal, but it would help if we had a heads-up on any issues so we can make sure your son has the best possible scouting experience...."
 

If parents don't speak up in the group, they are encouraged to call me at home to discuss privately. 

 

If the parent wishes to come on the outing they can do so as an observer, and if things go majorly wrong they will be available to help out.  Out of all the years of scouting, I have never had to have a parent step in and help out.  The PL was informed up-front in private and usually does well.  On rare occasion have I as SM had to assist him.  Never got beyond that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... SM orientation to the troop.  The three rules of the troop are announced, boy-led, patrol-method is clarified, discipline procedures are outlined, and parent's are informed of their role in the troop.  Once this is done and everyone agrees that we are all on the same page, the registrations are turned in and the boys take over the operation of the patrols. ...

I agree this is critical.

 

With venturers, where it's a trickle-in process (rarely do I get more than two at a time, but it's every month of the year when I get them), to avoid repeating myself, I ask them to read the application -- especially the oath and law but also the fine print. I also point out that I will hold them to their religious preference or that of their parents if they are agnostic.

 

Still, that second day of hiking in bear country can bring out the worst. So, months of building trust prior is essential. That way the behavioral disorder kid knows to come to me before he/she blows his/her stack. Usually at this age, the signs are obvious ... e.g. an officer has had to ask "him/her" to turn it down a notch more than once.

 

I think some of what we observe in boy scouts is that they haven't learned what is expected of them. We haven't coached PLs well enough to let us know when a scout is getting out of hand in a small task (e.g. a patrol meeting). Which means we haven't had the chance to tell a scout we expect them be a little more disciplined on the upcoming campout. Then, on the high-country or open-plain, the kid is under a microscope without realizing it, doesn't grasp the importance of any warnings, leader yells, tears, discouragement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×