Worldcon 76 Program Troubles

When Worldcon 76 program participants were sent their schedules over the weekend such controversy resulted that the schedule was taken offline this morning, Chair Kevin Roche issued an apology, and the committee now is reviewing the participant bios, asking to hear from Hugo nominees who haven’t been put on the program and, presumably, filling the vacancies left by writers who have now dropped out.

Three issues drawing the most fire in social media have been —

  1. Respect for people’s chosen pronouns (and related concerns about LGBTQAI+ and POC participation);
  2. Whether new writers are being accepted onto programming (with skepticism fueled by the realization that several newer writers who are Hugo nominees are not on the program); and
  3. Dissatisfaction with responses by the Worldcon 76 program division.

Lighting off the social media cycle was Hugo nominee Bogi Takács’ call for an apology after seeing eir bio in the program database. (The thread starts here.)

Takács also pointed to undeserved criticism from Worldcon 76 Program Division Head Christine Doyle for going public:

Takács received an apology from Chair Kevin Roche:

Unfortunately, Roche’s general apology was preceded by another one based on some wrong information, leading to this exchange:

Hugo nominee JY Yang voiced concerns for POC as well:

Another comment:

Yang later wrote another thread (starts here) to make such points as these –

Michi Trota, in a thread that starts here, reminded programming why these creators are Hugo nominees in the first place —

In other thread, Trota wrote:

Amal El-Mohtar did this roundup of the issues —

For the record, the email Program Division Head Christine Doyle sent to program participants yesterday said in part:

We had over 2000 people ask to be on the program, and unfortunately there was no way to accommodate everyone. Similarly, we had over 2000 program items submitted, with lots of duplication in some areas, and we couldn’t schedule them all.

We realized that many people didn’t receive our initial communications, because they were either blocked without us getting notice (i.e., earthlink), or filtered into the promotions bin (gmail).

We may contact some people for headshots and bios. If the headshot and/or bio that we have for you is not to your liking, please contact us with suggested edits or replacements. A note about names: for consistency and fairness, we are not using any prefixes (honorifics) or suffixes for your name unless it changes who you are (Sr/Jr/III). That said, we fully expect all of those details to be in the bios. Let us know if we need to edit the bio to get this included.

The present controversy has cost Worldcon 76 some of its best-known participants.

N.K. Jemisin dropped out of Worldcon 76 programming:

Mary Robinette Kowal is going to the con but is getting off the program:

Several writers say they are dropping off the program to (in effect) leave room for newcomers.

John Scalzi, in “Being Seen at Worldcon”, sums up what he terms to be —

A Twitter thread on the recent contretemps at Worldcon 76, where many newer writers (including some Hugo finalists) were not represented on the initial programming slate

Including this comment:

David Gerrold said on Facebook:

Re: Worldcon.

There are program items I cannot step out of (specifically the memorial panel for Harlan Ellison), but I have written to the Worldcon Committee and asked them to cancel my reading and slot in a Hugo nominee or a person of color or a woman into that spot instead.

I will be taking a second look at a couple other panel assignments as well.

David D. Levine also offered to vacate his place on Worldcon 76 program.

(This is unlikely to be an exhaustive list, just the ones I found.)

Worldcon 76 Chair Kevin Roche has announced on Facebook (with a parallel Twitter thread):

(From the Chair)

I directed the Program Division to take down the preliminary program information that was released yesterday evening. There were too many errors and problems in it to leave it up.

I am sorry we slighted and angered so many of the people we are gathering to meet, honor, and celebrate. This was a mistake, our mistake. We were trying to build a program reflecting the diversity of fandom and respectful of intersectionality. I am heartbroken that we failed so completely.

We are tearing the program apart and starting over. It was intended to be a reflection of the cultures, passions, and experiences of Worldcon membership, with room for both new voices and old. What we released yesterday failed to do that; we must do better.

Many of you have offered to help us do a better job. Thank you. We cannot accept all those offers, but yes, we will be turning to some of you to help us do it better this time.

We will continue to reach out to the Hugo Finalists we have missed connections with, to ensure any who wish to be on the program will have a place on it.

Kevin Roche
Chair, Worldcon 76 in San Jose

An additional complaint about how the bios seem to have been created:

More dissatisfaction about program from two Hugo nominees.

Suzanne Palmer (thread starts here).

K.M.Szpara (thread begins here)

Alexandra Erin responded to the latest social media cycle with these thoughts about the application of lessons from the culture wars to the science fiction community. (Thread starts here.)

Furthermore, Alexandra Erin has decided what is needed is a “Queer Rapid Response Team for WorldCon 76”.

So, this is one of those posts that’s going to be mystifying to a lot of people but make perfect sense to others. It’s a busy day and I don’t have the time or wherewithal to go into the background. The short version is: WorldCon 76 is fudging up quite badly in how it treats attendees, up to and including finalists for its crown jewel Hugo Award. Multiple genderqueer, non-binary, and non-conforming members have spoken up about feeling unsafe and disrespected, and WorldCon’s safety team is not inspiring a lot of confidence.

Accordingly, I am taking one of my standing offers at WisCon and expanding and formalizing it for the larger WorldCon: I am forming a Queer Rapid Response Team. Before the convention next month, I will set up an automated channel that will text any messages onward to everybody on the team. The idea is that if anybody in the family needs an escort, needs a friendly face, needs emotional support, or whatever, we can form up on them like queer Voltron.

94 thoughts on “Worldcon 76 Program Troubles

  1. JJ on July 24, 2018 at 3:45 pm said:

    Okay… so is there a place we can send those questions or programming requests?

    JJ, the W76 Program Participant Suggestion form has been removed from the W76 web site. But the Program Item Submission form is still there.

    Committee member contacts are here.

  2. Lin McAllister on July 24, 2018 at 4:47 pm said:
    3) The panels are a whole different bag of awful.
    Me, I strongly believe that every nominee who plans to be in attendance ought to be on, at the very least, one appropriate primetime panel.
    Preferably more.

    This means that if Vox Day and Co. ever get their act back together that would mean putting people like John C. Wright and Tank Marmot on Worldcon panels. Although depending on what other panelists there were (and assuming a moderator who could do the job of keeping them all herded) that could be interesting.

    Yeah, that is a problem.
    We’re hoping, of course, not to have to be in that particular hard place again.
    … and, at need, one could put them all on the same panel, and let people decide how to deal with it.
    Not ideal, of course.
    But I’d say that not giving new nominees access is worse.

  3. But I’d say that not giving new nominees access is worse.

    I don’t think the word you’re thinking of is “access”. It’s actually “sinecure”. IOW, that being a Hugo finalist (not just a nominee!) is a guarantee of being on a panel. I’m assuming there was a period of time where people could suggest panel topics and for programming to act as a matchmaker. Given that some of the Hugo finalists weren’t known until a fairly late date, maybe it’s a bit unfair for programming to anticipate who to put where on what?

  4. @David W–

    I don’t think the word you’re thinking of is “access”. It’s actually “sinecure”. IOW, that being a Hugo finalist (not just a nominee!) is a guarantee of being on a panel. I’m assuming there was a period of time where people could suggest panel topics and for programming to act as a matchmaker. Given that some of the Hugo finalists weren’t known until a fairly late date, maybe it’s a bit unfair for programming to anticipate who to put where on what?

    Nice logic, except for the awkward fact that some of those first-time finalists were told that while they might be exciting to Hugo nominators, “many” WorldCom attendees don’t know who they are and wouldn’t be interested to see them on program. As, you know, the explanation for why they weren’t on any programming.

  5. ULTRAGOTHA: the W76 Program Participant Suggestion form has been removed from the W76 web site. But the Program Item Submission form is still there.

    Thank you for that. Neither page shows a form for me in Chrome or Edge so I figured that both have been removed, but your comment made me check in IE, and the Item form does show up there.

  6. JJ: Huh. I saw it earlier today via Chrome and just before I posted via Opera.

  7. @David W: Given that some of the Hugo finalists weren’t known until a fairly late date, maybe it’s a bit unfair for programming to anticipate who to put where on what? I’m not sure I understand you correctly, but my immediate response based on what I think you’re saying is that the nominees were known some months ago — long before Program should have had any panels filled. Roughed out and with maybe a couple of panelists, maybe — but not filled.

    @Hampus: I don’t go to lectures; they’re rarely original, and even less likely to have enough material to hold my interest. A well-moderated panel OTOH can be synergy.

  8. David W.: Given that some of the Hugo finalists weren’t known until a fairly late date, maybe it’s a bit unfair for programming to anticipate who to put where on what?

    They’ve been known since March 31st. That’s almost 4 months ago. The earliest tweet I could find from Worldcon 76 asking people to use the Program and Participant Suggestion Forms was February 8. In fact, that’s the only tweet I could find from them before the current flurry of tweets about it. There was a blog post and a Facebook post last September, but no other call for Program panel or participant suggestions that I could find. So it seems as though they fell down on the job in asking for input… making me wonder whether they didn’t feel as though they needed much input. 😐

  9. David W.: I don’t think the word you’re thinking of is “access”. It’s actually “sinecure”.

    What an incredibly insulting and offensive thing to say about Hugo Finalists. A sinecure is “a position requiring little or no work but giving the holder status or financial benefit.”

    People who do panels, readings, or kaffeeklatsches have to do advance preparation — in the case of panels, even research, perhaps extensively so. It’s no more a sinecure for them than it is for any of the other people who appear on the program, and certainly much less so than for the jerks who show up and say “I don’t really know why I’m on this panel”.

    What a rude and offensive thing to say. 🙁

  10. Clip Hitchcock:

    ” I don’t go to lectures; they’re rarely original, and even less likely to have enough material to hold my interest. A well-moderated panel OTOH can be synergy.”

    Then we have different preferences. With several thousand visitors, it doesn’t surprise me that different people want to see different things.

  11. JJ, the basic thought is that a Hugo finalist is somehow owed a panel slot, somewhere, sometime, someplace at Worldcon. Given how panels work (or ought to work), that can be problematic. A reading or a kaffeeklatsch isn’t the same thing because those are focused on the individual, while a panel is a group effort. IMO, it’s Programming’s baby to sort out the most interesting panel topics and then herd panelists to be on them.

    Your point about Programming not asking for input early and often is a good one. Maybe they got all they thought they needed?

  12. I don’t see people saying that finals are owed panels, but that putting them on panels should be a very high priority for programming, being good both for the panelists and for the con-goers. You can make this some sort of entitlement if you want, but it’s a lot more congruent with everyone else’s comments to say that Hugo finalists on panels is a good thing for the con as a whole.

    That is, “desirable” is the word many of us mean, not “owed”.

  13. Bruce Baugh: Your comment prompted me to think about how to solve the problem of getting Hugo nominees on program. It’s all very well if the nominees who are coming are already on some database inherited from a previous Worldcon or conrunning organization (like W76’s parent corp) that I can research. Or take the initiative to apply to be on program themselves. What about the rest. Somebody needs to have the idea to do all these list matches and identify who they need contact info for, etc. Perhaps several dozen of the nominees fall into program’s lap without a special effort. Of course, the Hugo admin is supposed to be getting acceptances from the nominees, so will have to develop a set of contact info that could be shared with program. [Unfinished thought…]

  14. I got my single program item a couple of days ago, and it was a topic I have no interest or knowledge about: Hugo nominating algorithms. I wonder if someone put me on this because I used to publish Algol (later Starship).

    So nothing based on nearly 60 years in fandom, being publisher of Science Fiction Chronicle, a Richard Powers collector, being a past Worldcon GoH, my long sometimes adversarial relationship with Harlan Ellison, etc., etc…

    Just heard back yesterday that they might put me on something else. So we’ll see.

  15. And I might not be right that the Hugo admin’s info is shareable (for various reasons), though program ought to be able to route a message to nominees via the Hugo admin in those cases.

  16. Andrew Porter: A thought for the future. Has anyone ever done a cancer survivors panel at a Worldcon? A number of people have taken that public over the past few years. Why go public, the benefits and detriments, lots to think about there.

  17. On the (admittedly rather smaller than Worldcon) concom with which I have the most familiarity, there is a Guest Liaison whose responsibilities include getting bios and photos and coordinating with Programming to make sure that 1) the guests of honor are on appropriate panels and 2) they are not over- or under-scheduled.

    Now, I fully recognize that wrangling a half-dozen or dozen people is a far cry from wrangling over a hundred people, but it seems not unreasonable for their to be a Hugo Finalist Liaison who can work with Programming to determine who is and who is not going to Worldcon, who, in the subset going to Worldcon, wants to be on panels, and what sorts of panels would be appropriate to put them on….

    (I’ve never been on a Worldcon concom, so it’s also entirely possible that such a position already exists, and I’m reinventing the wheel…)

  18. David W. on July 25, 2018 at 6:39 am said:
    …the basic thought is that a Hugo finalist is somehow owed a panel slot, somewhere, sometime, someplace at Worldcon. Given how panels work (or ought to work), that can be problematic. A reading or a kaffeeklatsch isn’t the same thing because those are focused on the individual, while a panel is a group effort. IMO, it’s Programming’s baby to sort out the most interesting panel topics and then herd panelists to be on them.

    David W. on July 24, 2018 at 6:16 pm said:
    I don’t think the word you’re thinking of is “access”. It’s actually “sinecure”.

    It isn’t ANYTHING like a sinecure – it’s deserved recognition of a hard-earned status, and – frankly – respecting the desires of WorldCon members.
    It is important to remember that these finalists are the people the WorldCon voters have chosen to honor this year, chosen out of all the eligible possibilities.
    This should, by rights, make it a priority to get them onto appropriate panels.
    And NO, not just readings and coffee klatches either.
    Put them in the interesting stuff.
    If there is a real problem fitting the year’s finalists into the panels as they have been proposed, then, just maybe, the panels themselves were poorly conceived and need to be re-worked.
    After all, what is “interesting” in a panel is a pretty subjective thing.
    I know, it’s a kind of alchemy making the mix work, having a good topic, all that.
    But – hey – the voters have gave us a huge hint as to what they actually find interesting when they selected this specific group of candidates.
    It seems odd to assume they’d necessarily be a drag on programming.

    But I don’t know that it was any kind of conceptual a problem.
    I think they just got hung up on the logistics of it all.
    But it’s not as if it is a mystery that there will be nominees to be determined later, so you have to ensure that there will be space for them.
    You scatter unfilled spaces throughout the programming as you are setting it up, enough to provide flexibility once the actual candidates are known.
    And proposed panel topics can be nudged a bit to accommodate to specific availability – I’m pretty sure this happens all the time anyway.
    It just has to matter to you to make it work.

  19. Perhaps it’s time for Sputtering Kittens to organize and take back fandom from the evil dominators who are ruining it.

  20. Mike: a cancer survivors panel would be fascinating. Likewise, I think, one on aging and the woes thereof where some of the panelists had healthy childhoods/teens/20s/30s and others didn’t.

  21. Lauowolf: You scatter unfilled spaces throughout the programming as you are setting it up, enough to provide flexibility once the actual candidates are known.

    This would involve a radically different programming style than the one I use (insert disclaimer: there is more than one successful programming style). I’m always looking at the available participants and trying to think (1) what can they do, (2) what shows them to the best advantage? I would make especial effort to be intentional about anyone (not just Hugo nominees) who isn’t a big name with their own following (which, honestly, means at least 80% of the people I’m working with) because I can’t throw people out there at random and expect them to make it work.

    However, you may be thinking that the jello of programming has been poured and is already firming up before the Hugo nominations are announced, and I’m confident a typical Worldcon is still coming up with ideas and corralling the names of who they get to work with on that date.

  22. Mike Glyer on July 25, 2018 at 12:37 pm said:
    However, you may be thinking that the jello of programming has been poured and is already firming up before the Hugo nominations are announced, and I’m confident a typical Worldcon is still coming up with ideas and corralling the names of who they get to work with on that date.

    Yeah, I think I was bouncing off someone who was positing that the nominees were named so late that they couldn’t really be considered as part of the process.
    Which does indeed seem to be arguing for things getting all wound up awfully early.

  23. Laouwolf: But – hey – the voters have gave us a huge hint as to what they actually find interesting when they selected this specific group of candidates.

    I’d think those interesting ideas would already be floating out there then, given how social media and fans work together. Whether Programming has a clue about them is another matter, but I’d think that a Worldcon programming crew would be pretty well informed in that regard.

  24. JJ, I did not see that tweet from RJB. I’ll follow up with Kathleen, who I have had other communications with not related to WorldCon..

  25. David W.: the basic thought is that a Hugo finalist is somehow owed a panel slot, somewhere, sometime, someplace at Worldcon.

    Who’s basic thought?

    My basic thought is that it’s the Worldcon Programming division’s job to program panels and readings that satisfy the membership as well as enhance and complement Worldcon’s awards, which are the Hugos — not to program just what the Programming staff themselves want to see. I mean, “none of us on the Programming staff know what #ownvoices is, so we figure that no one will want programming on that” — really??? WTF.

    I was shocked that Bennett had not been programmed, because seeing him talk was the one thing I was especially excited about. It never occurred to me that I should have to send Programming a request form for that because he’s a Hugo Finalist, and it should have been bloody obvious to them. Insert [Hugo Finalist name] here for all of the other members of Worldcon who had someone they were really exciting about seeing.

    The fact that it was not bloody obvious to them indicates a critical failure in how they’ve been trained, and in the message they were or were not given as to their purpose in that division. I suspect that the con chair took it for granted that the Programming Division Head was already aware of the bloody obvious, and he didn’t have to spell it out for them. Obviously, he was wrong.

  26. In the letter quoted above, Christina Doyle says: “We had over 2000 people ask to be on the program.” According to the Worldcon 76 website, there are, as of today, 4,630 attending members — meaning at least 43% of those planning to attend wanted to be on programming. Is this a typical figure for a Worldcon, or any large con?

  27. JJ, Things are definitely in progress for RJB.

    Robert, yes, lots of fans want to be on program as well as the pros. a large amount of the typical worldcon program contains fan oriented panels which are a mixture of fans and pros.

    Unfortunately, there is a lot of reinventing the wheel since Worldcon is a different team each year. That’s also the case for most local cons as well. It is also a different level of magnitude a jigsaw puzzle. compared to a local con.

    For an example/comparison, as the person in charge of author programming at our local comic con, at the peak, just for my area, I had roughly 70 participants with five rooms over 3.5 days. Worldcon 76 will have roughly 1000 participants, with (it appears) 12-16 rooms for panels, over roughly four days (1/2 day on Thur and Mon). There are also additional rooms dedicated to readings,kaffeklatches, filk, film, blood drive, and the academic track. .

    Going forward, a programming liaison team for the hugo nominees would definitely help with getting them more involved. In looking at the database information, there are a number of nominees who appear to never have responded to the invite emails sent. There may have been direct contact outside of the program system that doesn’t show up.

    As a disclaimer, I am a lower level part of the program team, and came on board midway through. I am scheduled for one program item, a fan panel proposed by another attendee celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Babylon 5 from the fan perspective. I’m not part of the MRK tiger team, but will offer assistance as needed and plan to make sure some things I’ve seen mentioned get brought up. I was part of the program team for the CascadiaCon Nasfic, but have not been part of a Worldcon team before. But I have done programming and chaired local and regional conventions in addition to running the Phoenix ComiCon author programming for several years. I’ve always been an advocate of making sure authors (guests, locals and others) get good panels to be on at a convention.

  28. @Lee Whiteside – I was a nominee who didn’t reply to the survey sent because it didn’t have an obvious way of saying “Sorry, I can’t make it to Worldcon this year”. I get why the survey didn’t have that option because it was a generic one for people who had already volunteered. I didn’t have any particular expectations about what contact I’d get, so I can’t say if it was too much or too little but the very simple response I needed to give wasn’t there.

  29. @Hyman Rosen, I don’t know who the “sputtering kittens” are. Is this some sort of passive-aggressive way of accusing Filers of being some kind of organized cabal intent on ruining Worldcon?

    Perhaps I should point out to you that many of the people posting in this forum already help run conventions (some of them have helped run Worldcons!), and/or are professional authors and artists that regularly attend them. People here are commenting from an informed position; many of us have seen train wrecks of one kind or another at conventions in the past, and I think it’s safe to say that we’re all eager to prevent them in the future. Which doesn’t make us “sputtering kittens”, or a cabal of any kind. Just a bunch of fans who genuinely care about making Worldcon as good an experience for as many people as possible.

  30. Lee Whiteside: Things are definitely in progress for RJB.

    I am so glad. Thank you very much for looking into that. 🙂

  31. Lee Whiteside:

    “Unfortunately, there is a lot of reinventing the wheel since Worldcon is a different team each year.”

    Yeah, that is one thing that kind of surprises me, that every con seem to want to use their own software and their own procedures. I mean, how much of the ways to do thing is documented instead of just hoping that someone with experience will do it or get information from someone else?

    I mean, at least it would be helpful to have a base line of what would be good to have as info about members of the Worldcon, to make it easier to see if they should be on programming or if you need to care about pronouns. To make it easy to do a search, say, for all Hugo nominees that shown interest to be on programming, all Hugo nominees that no one has contacted to be on programming and so on, all Hugo nominees that have been contacted, but no answer, and so on.

    I guess there could also have been interesting to get statistics on how minorities are placed on the program, but at least in Sweden it would most likely be illegal to store that kind of information in the database.

  32. The people the con is supposed to be honoring should be treated with respect. End of story. Also that a queerness kerfuffle is taking place in the Bay Area of all places is ridiculous.

    I am horrifyingly realizing in the middle of YA that what EPH may have done is just allow everybody to have a slot for their preferred identity instead of representing other kinds of diversity the way its creators hoped for it. That really tempts us the voters to just parcel out the votes so one of each demographic group gets something instead of thinking about what kind of common standard makes sense.

  33. 4jkb4ia: I am horrifyingly realizing in the middle of YA that what EPH may have done is just allow everybody to have a slot for their preferred identity instead of representing other kinds of diversity the way its creators hoped for it. That really tempts us the voters to just parcel out the votes so one of each demographic group gets something instead of thinking about what kind of common standard makes sense.

    Can you rephrase that so it makes sense? Thanks.

  34. @Robert J. Sawyer: To me, 2,000 programme volunteers seems on the high end. Helsinki had a bit over 1,000 programme volunteers on the same level of membership when the form was sent out (note that getting memberships is open until the con opens, while volunteering for programme usually ends four or so months before the con). In the end, I think Helsinki managed to give one programming slot to every programme volunteer.

    @Lee Whiteside: Yes and no. Most Worldcons recently have been using Grenadine for managing programming, and the software used for Hugo management and voting was also shared (though Helsinki rolled their own, which was very well received and will be used by Dublin as well). I wouldn’t be surprised if Dublin would look hard at Helsinki’s registration system, either, though that one requires a very good tech team with lots of resources.

    So there is a lot of sharing of tools, and you can see a lot of people coming back at various levels and positions in the organisation. What is happening is a constant rebuild of the organisation, but looking at long-established cons with people running in the same positions for years, they also experience issues. The difference, I think, is that Worldcon’s fails tends to happen quickly, while cons with long-established organisations can allow issues to fester in years on end.

  35. JJ: I’m not sure but I think it’s an attempt to rephrase the old “you just want to check boxes for each minority group, you don’t believe in the *real* diversity, which is diversity of thought” canard, vaguely waving at the YA award as an example.

  36. Yeah, I really don’t see how 4jkb4ia’s criticism of EPH makes any sense.

    Say I am in identity group X, and in category Y there’s one item that pushes all my group-X buttons, and 3 other items I liked but don’t identify with. Say that pre-EPH, I would have nominated all 4. Is 4jkb4ia suggesting that under EPH I’d just nominate item 1? No; the chances that item 1 could win EPH with such a bullet vote but not without are dwarfed by the chances that it either can win anyway or can’t win anyway and one of items 2-4 needs my vote to win. In fact, in order for bullet voting to help item 1, by definition one of items 2-4 must be able to win EPH with my vote.

    Is 4jkb4ia suggesting that the EPH algorithm is somehow more likely to have item 1 bubble up to the top than the previous algorithm? If that’s true, it’s only because BOTH group X was getting ignored previously AND item 1 is naturally highly popular among group X. If both of those are true, I’d say item 1 winning is a really good thing. Nobody’s “parceling out the votes so one of each demographic group gets something”, it’s just that item 1 is really good.

    Or is 4jkb4ia just making some nonsense arguments calculated to trigger people’s resentment of other groups? I can’t dismiss this theory based on the evidence I have.

  37. Pingback: Top 10 Posts for July 2018 | File 770

  38. Pingback: Worldcon 76 Program Online | File 770

  39. Pingback: Convention Programming in the Age of Necromancy – A Short Story | Cora Buhlert

  40. billy-bob: Glad RAH didn’t live to see this.

    I am sure that Heinlein, a veteran of many Worldcons, was well aware that screwups happen, and that fans do what they can to fix it and move on. I doubt that Heinlein would have blinked at this.

  41. Pingback: Pixel Scroll 8/11/18 Pixel of Steel, Scroll of Kleenex | File 770

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.