pretty much everyone who played this server in the Good Old Days™ is brawl. this community is defined by the fact that a lot of people here have been around for years, rather than coming and going like other servers
Sooo, just a couple of idiots posting in this thread is the entirity of brawl? Even though the current admins and such view the current state as a "reconstruction era"?
Damn, lol.
(3022)
I don't see War, Wildwest, or fpsHG, m8. :L But since I don't know the actual player counts we're getting or what success Party 2.0 has had, it might be more accurate to say that we're what's left of the forums.
(3023)
Party Deluxe (2.0) has atleast increasted playercounts as far as I can tell, so it’s a step in the right direction. It’s nothung compared to the thousands who played in the old days though...
Not exactly, no. I'm only going off of what I see when I log in (theres probably some way for me to see but too lazy to figure that out). Party usually averages 30-40 players on peak and 20 or a bit less at other times. Compare that to what I believe was around 10ish players before the update. For Brawl as a whole, it's usually somewhere 100-170 when I'm on.
Who are we seeking attention from? Because if your answer isn't @Lord_Roke, I couldn't care less. :v
(hi Rokie, I know you read these messages. <3 u bb)
(3044)
idk, I am sure there are some people around who still can join in on the convo occasionally... that or we're literally just the only people still posting on here.
(3045)
Same lol. But, I like seeing all the old faces. Maybe one day I'll go back through and read all my old stuff. Reconstruct the Randy lore and all. I hardly remember what exactly was going on so long ago.
(3049)
Mine are cringey, but I'm still proud of some of them. I was the guy who came up with the idea for an intro section. I was also one among a few who made a thread asking for the removal of negative ratings (which to this day I believe was for the best given how they were abused and the problems they led to. Our community was toxic enough without them.)
(3051)
I disagree. Sure, some have used these as negative ratings, but they have the benefit of being ambiguous. Even if they are used to express contempt, it's not as clear when this is the case. Also, since using them as negative ratings can only be discerned in the context of a specific post, one can't tell how many "disliked" posts a person has by looking at the chart on their profile.
(3054)
I think that it's telling that nobody, at least that I saw, got upset about ratings after that point, especially when people were getting upset about the before.
(3055)
I really disliked the removal of negative ratings. I never saw anyone abuse them and if you were smart and just acted reasonable, you wouldn't get any negatives. Not to mention, if a person does abuse negative ratings in some way, then the mods could just... idk, punish them instead of removing them completely? Also, why remove the goddamn disagree option?! It was so much easier to just have it as it was.
(3056)
Yeah, I know it was a controversial issue. Still, people weren't uniformly reasonable in their use of the ratings, so even if you were reasonable, you could still get hit with some. For example, people used to dislike people's posts wishing a clan success back in the day.
(3057)
As for the reasoning behind removing them, aside from their abuse, they contributed little to nothing meaningful to the conversation. It's better to encourage a post stating one's reasons for disagreement. That's more beneficial to everyone.
(3058)
Also, may I mention that Xenforo lacks an option to batch-remove ratings? There were cases in the past where I had to go through 30 posts individually to remove spammed ratings.
Tbf, I remember having... 2 or 3 negative ratings even though I was a twat most of the time. Also, sometimes it was just easier to show support/disapproval through a swift rating instead of having to make a pointlessly short post.
(3063)
Comments on Profile Post by iMacro