Bringing a new trainer or team member to assist in an already established group of highly focused people will create problems. Either a new member (be it Mayweather or anyone else) should have entered the training camp from day one to minimise disruption or should not enter at all. Assuming he is serious then this is not a good idea, Mayweather is a great defensive fighter but the difference in reach and power of the heavyweight division does not make his style viable at that level, do you remember a boxing fighter with a style like his? Even Muhammad Ali had to eventually learn how to take and tank hits as it was impossible to keep evading as a single shoot from the likes of Foreman could have taking him out if one slipped through his guard.
Mayweather will teach a fighter how to score and run and to be quick, I guess Joshua is not quick, well obvious because they are heavyweight fighters but if we compare him to Fury, I guess Fury has a better ring movement and a good ring IQ as well, all the edge is only Fury so let's see what preparation Joshua is doing, and I think hiring Mayweather is just another experiment, who knows it would work.  |
|
|
|
I think it is an inappropriate use of the trust system for anybody to give positive trust ratings to users just because they received negative trust that was (or could debatably be deemed as being) in breach of the trust system. I don't think it's inappropriate, but I refuse to do it nonetheless. There are a few things that could go wrong when doing so, including the original neg being removed while the counterpositive remains (for whatever reason). I also don't like leaving a positive for someone unless there's a damn good reason, and a wrongly-left negative--even though it's not right--doesn't rise to that level IMO. OP, there's a lot that's wrong with the trust system we have, and there haven't been any significant improvements in my time here. Since there aren't any hard rules telling members what they can and can't do, everyone is basically free to interpret the spirit of the trust system as they see fit--regardless of any consensus among DT members or anyone else. It's almost pointless debating stuff like this since people will likely continue leaving counter-positives and there aren't going to be any consequences for doing so (even if it were against the rules or even frowned upon). I concur, there is a lot wrong with the trust system but thankfully we have one even with all the flaws because as you say we all interpret it how we want. To a large degree it does work well but it just needs tweaking. I have to agree when you say it is almost pointless to debate topics such as this one for the reasons you stated. Having 3 votes in the poll has been somewhat disappointing... Think of it as a teaching moment. This forum has already made it's owners and friends insanely rich. I had to laugh after reading your post. Becoming rich or insanely rich, or not making it one bit is all about the timing and obviously many of us missed the boat on that one. I will take your advice and think of it as a learning curve and learn from it  There are cases where deserved or not, negative trust has been left for a user. Then another user comes along and deems that negative trust as wrong/unfair/inappropriate or as a breach of the trust system and decides to leave positive trust for the same recipient stating it is to counter previous feedback.
I think it is an inappropriate use of the trust system for anybody to give positive trust ratings to users just because they received negative trust that was (or could debatably be deemed as being) in breach of the trust system.
I disagree with this premise. If there is no fact dispute, but Sally believes Bob is "high risk", Sally will leave a negative rating against Bob. Sally gives a lot of "good" ratings, and the rating does not appear to be in bad faith, so it would not make much sense to exclude Sally from the DT network. However there is still an "injustice" against Bob. Sam wants to correct this injustice and asks Sally to remove the negative rating, but Sally refuses. The only option is for Sam to leave a positive rating on Bob's trust profile with a note saying he does not agree with Sally's rating. Anyone doing due diligence prior to trading with Bob will see both ratings, and can act accordingly. If Sally subsequently removes her negative rating, but for some reason Sam does not remove his counter rating, someone conducting due diligence would ignore Sam's rating. This is an excellent scenario but what happens if Sally decides to take further action against Bob to counter what Sam wrote and then took action against Sam too by leaving negative trust and adding Sam to her distrust list? In your scenario it is quite probable that Sam will take action against Sally by reciprocating the negative trust and the whole cycle could theoretically continue with more DT members getting involved... Now seems more apt to conclude what The Pharmacist said about it being pointless to debate issues like this, is spot on. As far as I can tell, you are both respected members of this forum, and I hold you in high regard. Given the number of potential scammers here, I really see no reason for honest members to fight each other. This kind of situation will only be beneficial to them. Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated. |
|
|
|
With great difficulty I am writing the following because maybe the misunderstanding could have been cleared via PM but you blocked me, sadly. In a nutshell, it seems you think the thread was about you when it was not. I re-iterate this thread is not about you, it is unrelated to you and the first line of the OP states: This thread is not about any member or incident but is about a general situation that exists in the forum regarding counter-feedbacksUnfortunately I never got round to starting this thread but have been wanting to for some weeks, it just so happened that I created this thread in close proximity to the thread that was created by one user to throw unfair attention on a member that simply wanted to be left alone. Maybe the two errors I made (if I can call them that) were that firstly I should have waited a week or so before starting this thread so to keep distance between that thread and this one and secondly going by your reaction I should have sent you a PM to explain the thread was not about you but about positive counter-feedbacks and their use but it never crossed my mind you would think the thread was about you. marlboroza, looking at that image and the text I wrote I would go a step further and say that I have a lot of respect for you, much more than you might think and I mentioned that on several occasions. I respect lots of members here but for me you are one of maybe just 3 or 4 users that fall in the highest respect category. Without doubt you are completely trustworthy and you yourself are one of the biggest assets in the form of a member that this forum has. I am disappointed with your reaction to something that was unrelated to you and was misunderstood by you. It is counter to negative feedback sent for trolling/spamming/I-don't-like-you/someone-said-to-tag-you-I-really-have-no-idea-what-you-did/you are newbie account who knows too much/Insert-any-other-not-related-trust-reason. Using positive counter-feedbacks is a completely inappropriate use of the trust system and from my perspective it has no justification at all because if anything a neutral rating can suffice.
Don't send inappropriate ratings and users won't have anything to counter, problem solved. Don't act like problem lies in my counter feedback, problem is your negative trust.
You know, JollyGood, it is not cool what you did here, especially because of the fact that you have never ever complained when negative feedback was countered on your profile and some other things I won't mention  marlboroza over and out. PSPlease remove this  It insults me. |
|
|
|
Interesting addition: I can indeed imagine leaving a positive feedback when an otherwise trusted member gets negative feedback for no good reason. But for other cases, I'd stick to neutral only. "If you wouldn't give them a positive trust without the need for a counter, don't give it to them using the counter" seems like a good line of thinking. I agree with this. If there is no need to give positive trust in the first place then there is no need to give positive counter-feedback trust. That rule seems simple enough for any and all members to follow. It seems like a sizeable number of members in the forum are operating as they want by picking which parts of the trust system and other forum rules to implement and accept. Then some of those members do not accept it when other members implement their own interpretation of the very same rules. Having broad consensus between members (or at least those are DT) would have given a direction to follow since the trust system is not being implement correctly by too many members. Some users would argue, it's not a bug - it's a feature, in that the (relatively) free framework of the wide-scoped DT100 system results in a large pool of members participating in a coordinated effort to organically formulate a democratic-esque system of which to operate. Others would say that the vastness of the space results in many interspersed leaks of abuse and corruption which can sometimes pool into a puddle of members. The interpretation of the trust system and its guidelines vary across users (e.g. account sales, bounty abuse) but consensus is never going to happen all at once - the pigeons need to be fed crumbs at a time before their stomachs become loaves. Pigeons, crumbs, stomachs and loaves.... Recently I completely overlooked exactly just how much of a well thought out writer you are... detailed with deep thinking and only elaborate where necessary. You could easily moonlight as an author in one capacity or another if you wanted to. My respect to you actmyname It is often quite vague, the threshold of "bad feedback" that a particular user can send before they are distrusted, yet one way we can curb a factor that may prevent users from doing so is to continually post redundant feedback such that the DefaultTrust coalition (so to speak) does not have to rely on a single point of failure for displaying negative trust/flags against a large swathe of scammers or worse* users. * worse than the DT member, however marginal. The threshold is effectively open to interpretation as much as it is open to abuse. I have seen a number of members that have pointed out feedback they find questionable by citing it inappropriate by virtue of the trust system guide but then they themselves do the same by leaving positive counter-feedback. What I do like about the trust system in general is that it effectively allows people to create policy-based (by way of representatives or themselves directly) bubbles of interaction in which users can choose the particular space they want to operate within. For any unconventional-trust users, they are allowed to distrust any relevant DT members and form their own DefaultTrust circle. You have seen this happen, you are seeing this happen, and you will continue to see this happen. That's a good thing, though: reliance upon the base trust system is, of course, only a measure by default. I just wish there was an accompanying guide for new members that join the forum. What you mentioned about DT members forming their own DefaultTrust circle and that " you have seen this happen, you are seeing this happen, and you will continue to see this happen", that assessment seems true and you make a valid point. I would further add to your comment by saying that there is no evidence of any DT members forming their own DefaultTrust circle via collusion with nefarious motives and that the default trust circles you refer to (and most of us believe exist) could have been created on more of a subliminal level between like-minded members rather than by out-and-out skulduggery. |
|
|
|
Great to see Piston back in the Ethereum thread  I think you should be here for the $2000 per ETH and not for the reasons you stated. Maybe the next time ETH hits $2000 it will not fall below it ever again  HI , IM HERE FOR THE GANGBANG...........
|
|
|
|
|
RESULTS:
Canada 5-1 Bermuda
Panama 1-0 Barbados
El Salvador 2-0 Grenada
Chile vs Paraguay postponed
Colombia vs Brazil postponed
Canada get off to a big win.
Colombia vs Brazil would have been a big game but it was postponed.
|
|
|
|
I cannot agree with what suchmoon stated though you agreed with him about "Don't neg-trust trolls so that people don't need to try to clean up your mess." Trolling is against the forum rules. Report it, and let Mods deal with it. What suchmoon is saying (and you agreed to that view) is that in your opinions it is acceptable for users to leave positive counter-feedback for those receiving inappropriate negative trust. If it wasn't clear yet: I encourage the use of neutral feedback for this Using positive counter-feedbacks is a completely inappropriate use of the trust system and from my perspective it has no justification at all because if anything a neutral rating can suffice. Agreed Thank you Loyce. Using neutral feedback is hugely underused in the forum, I think the forum dynamics would probably change for the better if it was used more. It seems like a sizeable number of members in the forum are operating as they want by picking which parts of the trust system and other forum rules to implement and accept. Then some of those members do not accept it when other members implement their own interpretation of the very same rules. Having broad consensus between members (or at least those are DT) would have given a direction to follow since the trust system is not being implement correctly by too many members. As the list in the section below shows, if we all start adding or including or excluding each other based on our opinions of the trust system then we can all basically do what we want. Having consensus would avert most issues. What I would like to see is what reasons will be provided by members that have already done or have contemplated adding users to their distrust list on the basis of making improper use of the trust system by leaving negative trust and quoting that reason yet they have not taken the same actions against members that leave positive counter-feedbacks. I will add this to the OP as well.
Last attempt to spell it out for you but I don't think you're looking for an actual answer but rather to justify your actions and/or smear your opponent. Order of preference for actions to deal with improper use of negative trust (e.g. for trolling or opinions): - Users leaving such trust ratings should not do it.
- Other users should no longer include them (not vote them into DT1 and not make them DT2).
- Other DT1 members should exclude them (remove them from DT1/DT2).
- Other DT members may counter with neutral or positive ratings where appropriate.
It is your responsibility to fix it, not everyone else's responsibility to fix your mess or penalize other users for trying to fix your mess. When I see the first three actions taken with any sort of consistency and responsibility I may consider no longer supporting counter feedbacks. Until then it's fair game, albeit neutrals would probably work better in some cases. Firstly what I surmised from your post is the presumption that I am trying to justify my own action and/or to smear an opponent that you did not name. You are wrong on both counts. After that, thank you for the list. I tend to agree with some aspects of it but not entirely. There are some other possibilities which though I might not agree with (or will not put forward) are options and possibilities nonetheless: - Users leaving inappropriate trust ratings should not do it.
- Other users should no longer include them (not vote them into DT1 and not make them DT2).
- Other DT1 members should exclude them (remove them from DT1/DT2).
- Other DT members may counter with neutral or positive ratings where appropriate.
- DT1 members that disagree with the positive counter-feedback might no longer include members leaving (not vote them into DT1 and not make them DT2).
- DT1 members could exclude members leaving positive counter-feedback (remove them from DT1/DT2).
- DT members may counter with neutral or red ratings of their own to counter the positive-feedback where appropriate.
Having 3 votes in the poll has been somewhat disappointing... |
|
|
|
I cannot agree with what suchmoon stated though you agreed with him about " Don't neg-trust trolls so that people don't need to try to clean up your mess." What suchmoon is saying (and you agreed to that view) is that in your opinions it is acceptable for users to leave positive counter-feedback for those receiving inappropriate negative trust. So the argument is simply saying " you did not use the trust system properly so I will also not use it properly either" and that argument is flawed. It is not cleaning up any mess, it is creating the mess or making it worse. If one user has received what is deemed to be inappropriate negative trust, what exactly gives another user the right to breach the trust system and give a counter-positive trust rating? Can they justify it by saying "you left inappropriate trust and broke the trust system rules so I will break the same trust system rules (I otherwise uphold) by leaving a positive counter-feedback". Using positive counter-feedbacks is a completely inappropriate use of the trust system and from my perspective it has no justification at all because if anything a neutral rating can suffice. What I would like to see is what reasons will be provided by members that have already done or have contemplated adding users to their distrust list on the basis of making improper use of the trust system by leaving negative trust and quoting that reason yet they have not taken the same actions against members that leave positive counter-feedbacks. I will add this to the OP as well. Don't neg-trust trolls so that people don't need to try to clean up your mess. Agreed! The last case of "counter feedback" I've seen lately was amongst others countering JollyGood's negative feedback (which in my opinion was incorrect). |
|
|
|
Why does one need to place counter-feedback with positive trust thus be in breach of the trust system when their premise for doing was to point out that someone else who had left negative feedback had breached the trust system? If users feels so strongly about upholding the trust system there is not justification for them to breach it even if other users have breached the trust system where negative trust has been given. Why would someone then breach the trust system themselves just to point out another user has done it? Yes I agree two wrongs do not make a right. Just because one user sees negative trust as unfair it does not mean positive counter-feedback is the correct response when a neutral could suffice. And I disagree with with about your disingenuous comment. No matter who left it, if there is negative trust for trolls and it is widely accepted as improper use of the trust system then how does that justify a different user coming along and leaving positive trust for no reason other than to post it as a counter-feedback to another user? There is no cleaning up of my mess or that of anyone else. Nobody asked anybody to clean up after anyone so that is a pointless non-entity that warrants no discussion. What does matter is why a user would come along and make improper use of the trust system by leaving counter-feedback after citing an improper use of the trust system took place and then does the same thing themselves by not following the correct process. Going further, why is leaving negative trust deemed more of an issue than leaving counter-feedback? That is how it seems. The following is based on your premise (counter to "negative trust that was [...] in breach of the trust system").
Two wrongs don't make a right and this goes both ways. One shouldn't leave positive feedback unless they genuinely believe the recipient is unlikely to scam anyone, regardless of any prior ratings etc. However it's disingenuous to paint it with the same brush as negative trust abuse. Don't neg-trust trolls so that people don't need to try to clean up your mess. Don't justify neg trust abuse with a false equivalence.
But if one does need to counter - I think a neutral is more appropriate in some cases. It's just as visible but doesn't imply "unlikely to scam". In the old pre-flag system counter feedbacks were allowed and encouraged in some circumstances but it's a bit more complicated in the new system where there is no longer a trust score that would reset with a counter rating.
Given that the vast majority of DT1 doesn't give a shit about what's written on the trust page ("high risk" and "unlikely to scam" specifically) and wouldn't use the proper solution to the problem (~), it's no great shock that some users may still resort to the counter ratings. That doesn't make it a "breach". It makes it an imperfect last resort workaround for what should have been avoided or prevented to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Investors might be enjoying the ride right now but once the fun stops and the real effects of the latest token swap kick-in then we will see lots of people with losses as the inevitable dump takes place. Too many token swaps and too many mistakes by the Pundi X management team. They have tried to save the project but to be honest what is left to save? What do they intend to actually save now when they have let investors down?
I agree with you. Most of the big updates here are token swaps. It seems whenever they want to bring in something new, a swap is here. But these are only cosmetic changes, new name, ticker, contract address and maybe a new logo. increased activity in the last month, I guess it's not because altcoin bull run but "redenomination" does not instil confidence that it is a stable currency. |
|
|
|
|
This thread is not about any member or incident but is about a general situation that exists in the forum regarding counter-feedbacks.
There are cases where deserved or not, negative trust has been left for a user. Then another user comes along and deems that negative trust as wrong/unfair/inappropriate or as a breach of the trust system and decides to leave positive trust for the same recipient stating it is to counter previous feedback.
I think it is an inappropriate use of the trust system for anybody to give positive trust ratings to users just because they received negative trust that was (or could debatably be deemed as being) in breach of the trust system.
I believe that any action of trying to counter-balance either an out-and-out breach of the trust system or a perceived breach of the trust system by giving positive trust to those who received negative trust is in itself a breach of the trust system.
I myself have received (positive trust) counter-feedback and have seen others give it too so I am not saying counter-feedback are not being used for good purposes or that it cannot be used for good purposes but as for whether it is an appropriate use of the trust system - that is not even questionable because clearly it is not, however it is widely accepted without issue.
So the thread has been created with a view to have some form of consensus in ascertaining if handing out a positive counter-feedback to users is acceptable then should or should it not also be widely accepted in the forum and not frowned upon for leaving negative trust for users by widening the criteria in which they deserve negative trust such as for trolls, spammers, alt accounts?
I see some users adding others to their distrust list just because they have left debatable negative trust for others yet to my knowledge they do not add those who leave positive counter-feedbacks to their distrust list. It is as though one breach of the trust system is looked down upon and the other is not when both are breaches.
I also know some users give warning or time to others to remove negative trust otherwise they will be added to distrust lists but to my knowledge they do not follow the same process for users posting positive counter-feedback. Again, both are breaches of the trust system yet one is accepted and the other is not.
If positive counter-feedbacks are not counter productive when they are in breach of the trust system then why are negative trusts counter-productive when used against trolls, spammers and alt accounts even though both are a breach of the trust system?
Maybe other actions that are widely accepted should not be questioned too or no deviation of the trust system should be accepted as a blanket ban so to speak.
updated 26th March 2021 What I would like to see is what reasons will be provided by members that have already done or have contemplated adding users to their distrust list on the basis of making improper use of the trust system by leaving negative trust and quoting that reason yet they have not taken the same actions against members that leave positive counter-feedbacks.
|
|
|
|
|
RESULTS:
Guatemala 1-0 Cuba
Tajikistan 3-0 Mongolia
Bulgaria 1-3 Switzerland
Israel 0-2 Denmark
Andorra 0-1 Albania
England 5-0 San Marino
Germany 3-0 Iceland
Hungary 3-3 Poland
Italy 2-0 Northern Ireland
Liechtenstein 0-1 Armenia
Moldova 1-1 Faroe Islands
Romania 3-2 North Macedonia
Scotland 2-2 Austria
Spain 1-1 Greece
Sweden 1-0 Georgia
Notable Results:
England beat minnows San Marino: 5-0
Spain are held at home by Greece: 1-1
Hungary scored in time added-on 90th minute +4 to equalise against Poland: 3-3
|
|
|
|
It was in the EURO 2004 tournament that Greece shocked the world by winning it. They never found that form again and have faded in to obscurity as a football team but 2004 was their moment when they became European champions. It is far too early to make comparisons and say that this will be the time for Turkey to shine but we will be looking at them as they compete throughout the qualifying stages. What would happen to the mood in the Netherlands camp if they lost their next game? What would that do to team morale? There has been an ongoing debate between two Turkish football players, Mesut Ozil and Burak Yilmaz. And for the Turkish people who live with their emotions, Burak gave an incredible performance last night. Moreover, this performance brought victory against the Netherlands, one of the best national teams in Europe. I do not know this win Turkey Does the move to the World Cup but the group in the future everything interesting situation. |
|
|
|
Thanks OP for new thread previously people were talking in Euro thread;) Welcome I hope this thread will be used a lot to discuss all of the World Cup qualifiers and the actual tournament when it starts in Qatar. Therefore france had to score an owngoal to make it a draw. Still france should have no problem to through in their group because ukraine was already their hardest opponent.
About French national team,France always has a really really shitty group stage start actually and even in the last big tournament they could not score and relied on,,, Oliver Giroud to score goals for them which is really funny when they have some of the best strikers in the world of club football:) Giroud won them a lot recently but maybe now time for Griezmann to step up as he did last night. Griezmann scored but Giroud did not, he had two good chances and he should have done better. Instead of France cruising to victory it allowed Ukraine to get back in to the game. If Giroud can bring his Chelsea form to the France national team then I think he will have a successful qualifying campaign otherwise he might find himself out of the squad with other younger players lining up to replace him especially after the display yesterday. I thik France, Portugal,Corotia will surprised us. Please feel free to return here and post again when you make longer and meaningful posts that the reader will feel has contributed to the essence of the thread. Thank you. |
|
|
|
@marlboroza: since all negative feedback on OP has been removed, you should probably remove your positive feedback too.
Is adding counter feedback and giving positive trust to someone an appropriate use of the trust system? I never agreed with counter-feedbacks. Even if someone is tagged in what I deem to be unfairly in my opinion, I would never give a counter positive trust rating just or the sake of it because there is no justification for it. My negative rating was left primarily because Fact Finder stated he was using an alt account to post because he did not want using his real account. I don't think that deserves negative feedback, see: I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it. I understand what you quoted from theymos (the word controversial was never defined by him so we can interpret that quote differently from person to person) but nutildah summed up the scenario very well in an earlier post in this thread: It's a low blow to hound a guy over a loan when the lender has expressly made clear that it's all good. And I definitely would not label OP's behavior of throwing shit around to see what sticks as "trustworthy."
Is Yoshie/JollyGood/Timelord's use of the trust system proper in this instance? Probably not. But its not like they are dissuading the next Vitalik Buterin from participating in the forum. This person was likely issued a red trust by Yoshie on another account and now they are trying to get revenge. It's a blind stab at retribution that is totally tactless given Yoshie's recent misfortune.
|
|
|
|
My negative rating was left primarily because Fact Finder stated he was using an alt account to post because he did not want using his real account. The rest of the comment in my rating was secondary. (For reasons I do not want to state) I have changed the feedback to neutral. ~
I think you are missing my point here. Never mind. Send me PM when (if) you and JG remove negative ratings. I think issuing a positive counter-trust to such an account is an over-reaction; perhaps worse than Yoshie's neg tag on a throwaway account.
Doh! It's not. It is counter-feedback to emotional negative feedbacks, as soon as they remove tags I will remove counter as well. This Fact Finder account was created purely to stir shit. If they had honest intentions they would have just posted from their main account.
~
This person was likely issued a red trust by Yoshie on another account and now they are trying to get revenge. It's a blind stab at retribution that is totally tactless given Yoshie's situation.
What's difference between Fact Finder speculating about Yoshie and you speculating about Fact Finder being alt account of red trust user who is doing this for revenge? Does it mean that you will also get negative feedback?  If this kind of action occurs frequently on this forum, the forum will have nothing left to do.
If someone wants to accuse, he can create 1-5 accounts and then discard.
This could happen for you and me, does that make sense.
IF? Where have you been all this time? |
|
|
|
That is life, we have to adapt and accept some things we simply do not like or understand but we get on with it. @JollyGood. The statement is not very reassuring. |
|
|
|
You are a shill for the Adkinsbet scammers therefore your posts will be deleted. All shills, trolls and signature spammers will have their posts deleted in this thread. The 1-0 victory from Portugal was not very confident. But in the end, a win is a win.
Still anything could happen after the first qualification round. France also did not managed to win.
|
|
|
|
While you tell the truth about your situation the unnamed.exchange paid shills such as ~00HasH continue to spread propaganda. Thank you for re-iterating that unnamed.exchange is a scam and that is the message that needs to be put out there so other potential victims can be saved from being scammed. They didn't fix sh*t, they manually pushed my withdraw from their small amount of funds, so they could point at me and tell me to shut up, It didn't work, I called them on it, and got banned. They've got story upon story, but no answers.
My second withdraw failed instantly. The site's broke, can't pay their users. Count your funds as gone with Gox. |
|
|
|
Well I think Turkey surprised everybody. It is just the first of their group games but Netherlands really never expected to beaten at all let alone beaten so badly. Turkey are off to a flying start. The Netherlands were favourite to win the game but Turkey won and will try to build on that win as the competition progresses. There is a separate thread for the UEFA qualifiers for 2022, and there most of the users were pointing out that the sports books were over-estimating the chances of Netherlands and under-estimating those of Turkey. And the results were also not surprising. Netherlands lost by a big margin. They are in a group along with Norway. Now there is a real chance that Netherlands will fail to qualify for the 2022 tournament, while Turkey and Norway will progress to the next stage. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
