• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Dreams Into Nightmares [Mario Cosmology Downgrade]

Status
Not open for further replies.
DarkDragonMedeus said:
4-A backgrounds just means 4-A at minimum and can be supporting evidence for Universes when other details are taken into account.
Click to expand...
I don't really agree or disagree with dreams being universes, I have no opinion on the matter. This is mainly to highlight that JT's argumentation against 4-A size isn't a strong one
 
CloverDragon03 said:
I don't really agree or disagree with dreams being universes, I have no opinion on the matter. This is mainly to highlight that JT's argumentation against 4-A size isn't a strong one
Click to expand...
While I agree he didn't word it best, he simply means having 4-A minimum showings is not a counter argument against something being a universe.
 
Late to the party:

The 'starry skies only proves 4-A at most' and similar arguments/points are an inherently fallacious argument. Saying we can 'only observe' a certain amount of a given spacetime (yes, spacetime. More on that later), and therefore we can only assume as much as we can observe is literally an argument from ignorance. And given this could apply to literally any series that hasn't shown literally the entirety of its universe and/or time, I think we should put this specific argument to bed forever.

Here's a couple facts about our own universe:
On that, and because of these facts, for 'universe' levels, this wiki recognizes:
  • 3-A (Universe level) as: "Characters who can destroy all celestial bodies within a volume at least equivalent to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a universe of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time." (more on this soon)
  • High 3-A (High Universe level) as: "Characters or objects that demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier."
  • And Low 2-C (Universe+) as: "Characters or objects that are capable of significantly affecting,[1] creating, and/or destroying an area of space qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entire past, present and future of 3-dimensional space) of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:
    A) Equivalent to a large extra dimensional space. That is, a higher-dimensional "bulk" space which embeds lower-dimensional ones (Such as our universe) as subsets of itself, whose dimensions are not microscopic / compactified.
    B) Portrayed as completely transcending lower-dimensional objects and spaces in the setting of a given work of fiction.
This has already been discussed and established in numerous threads, but even by the admission of this initial post:
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:

The Premise​

Individual dreams in Mario are treated as Universal, mainly, through Mario Party 5’s Future Dream. This is due to the English Manual stating that Future Dream contains “...the wonders of the universe in this outer-space race for the stars!”, as well as in the Japanese version of the game, where Eldstar states that Future Dream is “endless”.

There is some supporting evidence for this as well, with dreams visibly containing countless stars and what appear to be nebulae in the background. Dreams contain their own dimensions, and as shown with Dreamy Luigi merging with a dream world, they contain their own space-time as well.

...​

In a recent translation by HakanaiBlue, a trustworthy translator, and translation checking from Agnaa, someone familiar with proofreading translations on VSBW, especially within a versus context, the Japanese statement by Eldstar has been found to go as such:

“"Welcome to Future Dream! This is a world created from "dreams of space."

"Everyone holds a yearning for space. We'll have an exciting time within those unending dreams!"

("endless" is also a valid interpretation over “unending”)
Agnaa (here and here) has pointed out that while Future Dream is called “endless/unending”, it doesn't necessarily mean that in a spatial sense. While most initially believed this statement implied infinite spatial size, upon looking further into the context, he agrees that Eldstar is likely referring to Future Dream in the sense that it will last forever. Hakanai has also specified that it uses the phrase “endless/unending dream”, which uses the term “Hatenai yume (はてないユメ)”.

Hatenai yume isn’t the most frequently used phrase, and interpretation wise its usage for unending / endless dreams can be meant both in terms of it going on eternally, the dream never stopping to exist because people always dream of space, or the dream being spatially infinite. However, considering the context of what Eldstar is speaking of, the former makes much more sense. He’s speaking about a dream that’s created from many dreams, and that EVERYONE holds a yearning for space. The sentence reads much better as him saying that they’ll have a great time within the dreams that will never end, as people are always dreaming of space. If they wanted to be more clear with the interpretation of this being an infinite space spatially, it would be more clear to refer to it as an infinite world, or even infinite space. But instead he calls them unending dreams.
Click to expand...
Dreams contain space and time in this verse.

This immediately means any given dream is an entire spacetime, making it more than just any 'observable universe' and at the very least High Universe sized by the rules of the wiki. But we're talking about more than one dream. Lots of dreams, even. The cosmology isn't one 'big dream' or something. No amount of 'well we only see x amount' changes this fact.

Tl;dr: Thread starter is unsound: Founded upon an inherently fallacious argument from ignorance. Literally using the wiki's primary example of this fallacy as its structure: "There is no evidence of A, so A cannot possibly be true." But there is evidence, provided within this thread starter of all places, and that can be found otherwise discussed on this wiki. We're literally running so far back in terms of what's seemingly acceptable evidence from the series and concepts within it that we're stagnating at pre-Super Mario Bros 2 and it's dreamworld with its own distinct spacetime in it in terms of the information this post is suggesting we can know, accept, or use for a series that's been around for 40+ years.

Disagree. Don't call boiling water while stoned on thc cough syrup 'cooking. '
 
What precisely, in the view of the supporters, is the basis for the size of this realm being infinite?
 
Look, it's common sense, people; here's what I'm saying...
  1. The Dream World is called a "world". Worlds are usually depicted as either planets or universes in fiction, but seeing as how this Dream World has more than just planets, it should imply that it's larger in size.
  2. There are several different locations in the Dream World. The locations contain time, space, dimensions, galaxies, and whatnot.
  3. There are more than 2,500 stars in these starry skies, which is the bare minimum we use for starry sky creation feats.
  4. If the locations here are just the size of galaxies or starry skies, then that should make the entire Dream World bigger than only one galaxy or starry sky in size with all those galaxies or starry sky-sized locations in it.
  5. There's no proof that the dimensions or time are anywhere close to Multi-Solar System level or Galaxy level, and even if there was proof to say otherwise, then when you combine that with all the other contents that are the size of galaxies or starry skies like space and skies, then that should make these locations and/or the Dream World bigger than a mere galaxy or starry sky.
Here's what I'm NOT saying...
  1. Dreams are universes
  2. The contents in these dreams are universe-sized
  3. The dreams are only starry skies or galaxies.
  4. The dimensions and time are the size of starry skies or galaxies
You see what I'm getting at now? I'm not saying the dreams are universes; I'm saying these dreams are potentially bigger than starry skies or galaxies.

Got it? When you combine all the starry sky-sized or galaxy-sized contents of something, shouldn't that thing be larger than a starry sky or galaxy?

@Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara @Adem_Warlock69 @Kirbonic_Pikmin @SuperStar
 
Last edited:
StretchSebe said:
Tl;dr: Thread starter is unsound: Founded upon an inherently fallacious argument from ignorance. Literally using the wiki's primary example of this fallacy as its structure: "There is no evidence of A, so A cannot possibly be true." But there is evidence, provided within this thread starter of all places, and that can be found otherwise discussed on this wiki. We're literally running so far back in terms of what's seemingly acceptable evidence from the series and concepts within it that we're stagnating at pre-Super Mario Bros 2 and it's dreamworld with its own distinct spacetime in it in terms of the information this post is suggesting we can know, accept, or use for a series that's been around for 40+ years.
Click to expand...
Space-times need to be universe sized to count as Low 2-C, that's why the RoSaT in DBZ, a planetary spacetime, doesn't add anything to DB's 2-C rating
 
Adem_Warlock69 said:
Space-times need to be universe sized to count as Low 2-C, that's why the RoSaT in DBZ, a planetary spacetime, doesn't add anything to DB's 2-C rating
Click to expand...
Also, another heads up; I'm pretty sure an infinite number of pocket dimensions that each have their own flow of time would also be 2-A. Two requirements for a Low 2-C sized timelines is that it needs to be a body of space at least as being as the observable universe combined with it needing a time flow. But two dimension half sized each and have their own flows of time would rectify that and by extension 4 of them would be 2-C and 2002 would be 2-B. And Infinite of them would be 2-A because Infinity divided by Vigintillion is still infinity.

JT also mentioned galaxies as plural, which would make the minimum more like 3-B if the universe statements are excluded.
 
Deagonx said:
I gotta agree with Fuji here. The evidence for it being larger than galaxy sized doesn't really convince me.
Click to expand...
How do the galaxy-sized or starry sky-sized contents of a construct combined not make the construct larger than that? What sense does that possibly make? Multiple galaxies in one thing should at the very least make it Multi-Galaxy level, no? It's common sense. Would a galaxy-sized dream with galaxy-sized contents in it make any sense?
 
Deagonx said:
Multiple starry skies is just galaxy level.
Click to expand...
And? Even if you were to assume that all the locations in the Dream World were galaxy-sized, it doesn't mean the Dream World itself is only the size of a galaxy. The Dream World would be the size of multiple galaxies in that case. And you'd still have to account for the dimensions in these locations.
 
Well, I obviously missed a lot. Thanks to @Kirbonic_Pikmin for holding down the fort.
StretchSebe said:
Late to the party:

The 'starry skies only proves 4-A at most' and similar arguments/points are an inherently fallacious argument. Saying we can 'only observe' a certain amount of a given spacetime (yes, spacetime. More on that later), and therefore we can only assume as much as we can observe is literally an argument from ignorance. And given this could apply to literally any series that hasn't shown literally the entirety of its universe and/or time, I think we should put this specific argument to bed forever.
Click to expand...
I'm saying it's only 4-A, not because we see stars and such, but because we have nothing to indicate it's larger. So dreams are definitely at least 4-A, and I don't wholly disagree with them being 3-C either. However, we don't have any evidence that would suggest they're larger; We don't see clusters of galaxies, nobody states dreams are reflections of reality, and nobody says dreams are universes. Without that evidence, you're assuming that they're trillions upon trillions of times larger than we're ever told they are, and for no reason beyond "well it'd be ignorant to claim otherwise", which isn't how this works.

This isn't asking for anything particularly specific, either, since plenty of other verses meet the exact kind of requirements we're looking for. I can give an example if you want, but I'd rather not derail too much.
StretchSebe said:
Here's a couple facts about our own universe:
On that, and because of these facts, for 'universe' levels, this wiki recognizes:
  • 3-A (Universe level) as: "Characters who can destroy all celestial bodies within a volume at least equivalent to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a universe of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time." (more on this soon)
  • High 3-A (High Universe level) as: "Characters or objects that demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier."
  • And Low 2-C (Universe+) as: "Characters or objects that are capable of significantly affecting,[1] creating, and/or destroying an area of space qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entire past, present and future of 3-dimensional space) of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:
    A) Equivalent to a large extra dimensional space. That is, a higher-dimensional "bulk" space which embeds lower-dimensional ones (Such as our universe) as subsets of itself, whose dimensions are not microscopic / compactified.
    B) Portrayed as completely transcending lower-dimensional objects and spaces in the setting of a given work of fiction.
This has already been discussed and established in numerous threads, but even by the admission of this initial post:

Dreams contain space and time in this verse.

This immediately means any given dream is an entire spacetime, making it more than just any 'observable universe' and at the very least High Universe sized by the rules of the wiki. But we're talking about more than one dream. Lots of dreams, even. The cosmology isn't one 'big dream' or something. No amount of 'well we only see x amount' changes this fact.
Click to expand...
This is insane to me, because it's just copy/pasting a bunch of tier descriptions and going "so obviously dreams are High Universal at minimum" without explaining why? You haven't debunked the parts explaining why dreams aren't infinite in the OP

I think what everyone here needs to understand is that being a space-time doesn't make you low 2-C by default. You need evidence of being spatially large enough, which even the low 2-C description you copied confirms:
  • And Low 2-C (Universe+) as: "Characters or objects that are capable of significantly affecting,[1] creating, and/or destroying an area of space qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entire past, present and future of 3-dimensional space) of a universal scale.
See? Universal scale, right there. Until you prove that dreams have space equivalent to that of the universe - which may I remind you, is trillions of times larger than a starry sky or galaxy - you have no right to claim that dreams qualify for low 2-C. They simply aren't big enough.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Well, I obviously missed a lot. Thanks to @Kirbonic_Pikmin for holding down the fort.

I'm saying it's only 4-A, not because we see stars and such, but because we have nothing to indicate it's larger. So dreams are definitely at least 4-A, and I don't wholly disagree with them being 3-C either. However, we don't have any evidence that would suggest they're larger; We don't see clusters of galaxies, nobody states dreams are reflections of reality, and nobody says dreams are universes. Without that evidence, you're assuming that they're trillions upon trillions of times larger than we're ever told they are, and for no reason beyond "well it'd be ignorant to claim otherwise", which isn't how this works.

This isn't asking for anything particularly specific, either, since plenty of other verses meet the exact kind of requirements we're looking for. I can give an example if you want, but I'd rather not derail too much.

This is insane to me, because it's just copy/pasting a bunch of tier descriptions and going "so obviously dreams are High Universal at minimum" without explaining why? You haven't debunked the parts explaining why dreams aren't infinite in the OP

I think what everyone here needs to understand is that being a space-time doesn't make you low 2-C by default. You need evidence of being spatially large enough, which even the low 2-C description you copied confirms:
  • And Low 2-C (Universe+) as: "Characters or objects that are capable of significantly affecting,[1] creating, and/or destroying an area of space qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entire past, present and future of 3-dimensional space) of a universal scale.
See? Universal scale, right there. Until you prove that dreams have space equivalent to that of the universe - which may I remind you, is trillions of times larger than a starry sky or galaxy - you have no right to claim that dreams qualify for low 2-C. They simply aren't big enough.
Click to expand...
So, by your logic, a dream with multiple galaxy-sized locations with dimensions and time in it... is only a galaxy-sized dream rather than a dream the size of multiple galaxies?
 
JTGamer96 said:
And? Even if you were to assume that all the locations in the Dream World were galaxy-sized, it doesn't mean the Dream World itself is only the size of a galaxy. The Dream World would be the size of multiple galaxies in that case. And you'd still have to account for the dimensions in these locations.
Click to expand...
1. The Dream World being multiple galaxies large still would not make it universe level. LIke, from an objective point of view, the universe is made up of two trillion galaxies; Simply saying "there are multiple galaxies in the Dream World" is not even close to that size. It is like the difference between a single brick wall and the entire earth in terms of scope, or the difference between a single grain of sand and an entire beach. I need you to understand just how vast the difference in scale is here, JT.
2. How big are those dimensions, JT?
JTGamer96 said:
So, by your logic, a dream with multiple galaxy-sized locations with dimensions and time in it... is only a galaxy-sized dream rather than a dream the size of multiple galaxies?
Click to expand...
Well if it has multiple galaxy sized locations, it'd be 3-B. But that still isn't universe level.
 
Kirbonic_Pikmin said:
Im pretty sure it would take tens of thousands of starry skies to be galaxy level as well
Click to expand...
It would take 25, using the same formula used to calc destroying 2 starry skies and 3-C's 1.053e66 baseline.



Other than that, I do vote for dreams being 3-B, as some kind of actual (though small) contribution to this thread instead of waltzing in and being "ummm, ackthually" to some guesstimate.

Edit: Calc was actually more relevant than saying my opinion on the Mario thread, should've expected that
 
Last edited:
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
The Dream World being multiple galaxies large still would not make it universe level.
Click to expand...
See? You're still not getting it. I'm NOT saying the dreams are universes! I'm saying they're larger than starry skies or galaxies. And where's your proof that the dimensions or time are also simply the size of galaxies or starry skies, like I repeatedly asked?
 
JTGamer96 said:
See? You're still not getting it. I'm NOT saying the dreams are universes! I'm saying they're larger than starry skies or galaxies. And where's your proof that the dimensions or time are also simply the size of galaxies or starry skies, like I repeatedly asked?
Click to expand...
JT, this thread is about whether or not dreams are universes. Can we please focus on that?
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
JT, this thread is about whether or not dreams are universes. Can we please focus on that?
Click to expand...
Well, obviously you're not getting what I'm saying. I'm not saying the dreams are universes; I'm saying they're bigger than starry skies and/or galaxies.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
How big are those dimensions, JT?
Click to expand...
Well, they're certainly NOT the size of starry skies because I don't see any stars in the scan. And where's the proof that time is the size of a galaxy? What if it's bigger? Like I said, it's a metaphysical concept.
 
JTGamer96 said:
Well, obviously you're not getting what I'm saying. I'm not saying the dreams are universes; I'm saying they're bigger than starry skies and/or galaxies.
Click to expand...
...Okay, but that isn't the point of the thread. So please stop talking if you're just going to keep derailing with this.
JTGamer96 said:
Well, they're certainly NOT the size of starry skies because I don't see any stars in the scan.
Click to expand...
Okay, so their size is undefined. Which means that statement is completely unusable. Cool.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
...Okay, but that isn't the point of the thread. So please stop talking if you're just going to keep derailing with this.
Click to expand...
No, the point of your thread is to downgrade the dreams to the petty Multi-Solar System level or Galaxy level again, but you keep ignoring the contents of the dreams and how big in size they are.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Okay, so their size is undefined. Which means that statement is completely unusable. Cool.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, how exactly is a statement that doesn't go over the size of something unusable?
 
Maizesoup said:
It would take 25, using the same formula used to calc destroying 2 starry skies and 3-C's 1.053e66 baseline.



Other than that, I do vote for dreams being 3-B, as some kind of actual (though small) contribution to this thread instead of waltzing in and being "ummm, ackthually" to some guesstimate.
Click to expand...

Isn’t this a calc for destruction/ blowing up rather than just, the starry skies existing? I don’t see how a dream would be 3B simply for having a starry sky / nebula within it. Again, that’d be 4A.

I think something like this could be used for say, the Dream Stone though, considering it contains a multitude of dreams within it, hence why I noted in the thread that they could potentially get higher. I imagine 3C / 3B could be appropriate for Dream Stone related feats when a more definitive number is given for that.
 
Maverick_Zero_X said:
What tier are you arguing for then?

Because if they’re not Universes then Fuji’s proposal would be correct.
Click to expand...
Look, at the very least, the dreams should be Multi-Galaxy level due to the fact they can contain multiple galaxies in them and whatnot. But with the time and dimensions taken into account, maybe I would argue and be fine with a "possibly 3-A" if we're not convinced that the dreams are Universe+ sized.
 
James_Plays_4_Games said:
If the dream worlds aren't universes, then it's important to discuss what they would be considered as instead.
Click to expand...
We should at least decide on whether or not the basic premise of this thread is correct first, though.

Anyways, JT keeps repeating the same points, so I recommend we just ignore him and move on. If nobody can bring evidence of dreams being universal in size, then stay quiet, please.
 
Kirbonic_Pikmin said:
Isn’t this a calc for destruction/ blowing up rather than just, the starry skies existing? I don’t see how a dream would be 3B simply for having a starry sky / nebula within it. Again, that’d be 4A.

I think something like this could be used for say, the Dream Stone though, considering it contains a multitude of dreams within it, hence why I noted in the thread that they could potentially get higher. I imagine 3C / 3B could be appropriate for Dream Stone related feats when a more definitive number is given for that.
Click to expand...
Ah, fair enough. I'm just going to be neutral on the side topic of the thread and agree with the core argument of dreams not being Tier 2.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Anyways, JT keeps repeating the same points, so I recommend we just ignore him and move on. If nobody can bring evidence of dreams being universal in size, then stay quiet, please
Click to expand...
So, the dreams in Mario Party 5 being comparable in size to the Future Dream which is a universe doesn't make those dreams universal in size? Again, if I had to, I'd argue that the time and dimensions combined with the galaxies could possibly make them universal in size. But you keep saying the dimensions and time are only 4-A without evidence otherwise
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
JT
My man
My brother in Christ
Over half of the OP is dedicated to explaining why Future Dream isn't a universe, and why no other dreams would scale to it anyways.
Click to expand...
So, just because Future Dream is called a universe in the manual doesn't make it universal?
 
StretchSebe said:
Anyways, Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara keeps repeating the same points, so I recommend we just ignore her and move on. If nobody can bring evidence of dreams not being space-times, then stay quiet, please.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how do we even know the dreams aren't space-times, anyway, Fuji? Based on what?
 
StretchSebe said:
You're not even sure about the premise of your own thread? What are you even waffling about then?
Click to expand...
The person wrote that the first step should be determine whether or not the dream worlds are universes, and if they aren't, then the next step would be to determine what they would be considered as instead. The person meant it as in the agreement of others in the thread, not as in uncertainty.
 
James_Plays_4_Games said:
The person wrote that the first step should be determine whether or not the dream worlds are universes, and if they aren't, then the next step would be to determine what they would be considered as instead.
Click to expand...
The contents of the dreams except for the dimensions and time are 4-A or 3-C. How does this not make them higher than galaxies or starry skies and potentially maybe even universes? Don't universes have their own dimensions and time?
 
StretchSebe said:
You're not even sure about the premise of your own thread? What are you even waffling about then?
Click to expand...
That's not up to me man, that's up to staff. If staff decide that the OP makes sense, then we can move on to discussing exactly where dreams land in the tiering system if not universe level.
StretchSebe said:
Anyways, Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara keeps repeating the same points, so I recommend we just ignore her and move on. If nobody can bring evidence of dreams not being space-times, then stay quiet, please.
Click to expand...
You think you're so clever, don't you?
JTGamer96 said:
Yeah, how do we even know the dreams aren't space-times, anyway, Fuji? Based on what?
Click to expand...
Based on the 2200 words in the OP explaining this to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

CloverDragon03
Super Mario Revision: What to Do About Dreams?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Iamunanimousinthat
Iamunanimousinthat
SuperMarioGamers3
  • Locked
Super Mario Bros. 2-A CRT
2 3
Replies
111
Views
7K
Omnificence
Omnificence
Ar1216789
  • Locked
Possible 1-C Upgrade for Cookie Run - Dream Transcendences
Replies
4
Views
858
Ar1216789
Ar1216789
Teach1121
Wanna go over jinwoo revision before i post a thread
Replies
29
Views
2K
Digital_Franz
Digital_Franz
Dust_Collector
Dreamy Bowser Existence Erasure Justification
Replies
14
Views
1K
Dust_Collector
Dust_Collector
Back
Top