-1 There are ways, as mentioned above, to get past your own lack of creativity to use someone else's idea for a name.
Forum > Suggestions > Retire all dots for agents inactive since 2010
Originally posted by 8th Wonder
+1. I'd rather just put the name in and not have to do alt 225 because I'm just lazy like that.
+1. I'd rather just put the name in and not have to do alt 225 because I'm just lazy like that.
PhillyFossil
offline
offline
+1 I say, if for no other reason than to free up some extra server space. I couldn't care less about the names.
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
Originally posted by Myd
-1 There are ways, as mentioned above, to get past your own lack of creativity to use someone else's idea for a name.
-1 There are ways, as mentioned above, to get past your own lack of creativity to use someone else's idea for a name.
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Originally posted by Myd
-1 There are ways, as mentioned above, to get past your own lack of creativity to use someone else's idea for a name.
Originally posted by Myd
-1 There are ways, as mentioned above, to get past your own lack of creativity to use someone else's idea for a name.
Greywolfmeb
offline
offline
Originally posted by Kyūbi
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Originally posted by Myd
-1 There are ways, as mentioned above, to get past your own lack of creativity to use someone else's idea for a name.
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Originally posted by Myd
-1 There are ways, as mentioned above, to get past your own lack of creativity to use someone else's idea for a name.
Novus
offline
offline
Originally posted by PhillyFossil
+1 I say, if for no other reason than to free up some extra server space. I couldn't care less about the names.
This. Only truly valid reason to really consider this idea. Otherwise, it's just silly.
+1 I say, if for no other reason than to free up some extra server space. I couldn't care less about the names.
This. Only truly valid reason to really consider this idea. Otherwise, it's just silly.
Originally posted by Novus
This. Only truly valid reason to really consider this idea. Otherwise, it's just silly.
You'd think the world would've had enough of silly love songs... I look around me and I seeee... it isn't so. Oh No. So people wanna fill the world with silly love songs... well what's wrong with that?
+1
This. Only truly valid reason to really consider this idea. Otherwise, it's just silly.
You'd think the world would've had enough of silly love songs... I look around me and I seeee... it isn't so. Oh No. So people wanna fill the world with silly love songs... well what's wrong with that?
+1
We_Rule
offline
offline
Every time I see one of these thread titles, I'm like fuck yeah +1........ right up until I read the OPs reasoning. It isn't because it would free up server space, it isn't because it would better reflect how many real users there are here, it isn't to get a better gauge on how many active players there are on a team, etc.
It is because every one of these OPs are not creative enough to come up with a unique name.
If it is only because you want to be the 4001st Adrian Peterson, then big -1...... use some imagination, get a clue. If it is because of the reasons above, or maybe a better one I can't think of, then big +1........
It is because every one of these OPs are not creative enough to come up with a unique name.
If it is only because you want to be the 4001st Adrian Peterson, then big -1...... use some imagination, get a clue. If it is because of the reasons above, or maybe a better one I can't think of, then big +1........
Originally posted by We_Rule
Every time I see one of these thread titles, I'm like fuck yeah +1........ right up until I read the OPs reasoning. It isn't because it would free up server space, it isn't because it would better reflect how many real users there are here, it isn't to get a better gauge on how many active players there are on a team, etc.
It is because every one of these OPs are not creative enough to come up with a unique name.
If it is only because you want to be the 4001st Adrian Peterson, then big -1...... use some imagination, get a clue. If it is because of the reasons above, or maybe a better one I can't think of, then big +1........
You, sir, are my new forum hero
As for OP, -1 for reasons above.
doobas™
Every time I see one of these thread titles, I'm like fuck yeah +1........ right up until I read the OPs reasoning. It isn't because it would free up server space, it isn't because it would better reflect how many real users there are here, it isn't to get a better gauge on how many active players there are on a team, etc.
It is because every one of these OPs are not creative enough to come up with a unique name.
If it is only because you want to be the 4001st Adrian Peterson, then big -1...... use some imagination, get a clue. If it is because of the reasons above, or maybe a better one I can't think of, then big +1........
You, sir, are my new forum hero
As for OP, -1 for reasons above.
doobas™
daryls61
offline
offline
Originally posted by We_Rule
Every time I see one of these thread titles, I'm like fuck yeah +1........ right up until I read the OPs reasoning. It isn't because it would free up server space, it isn't because it would better reflect how many real users there are here, it isn't to get a better gauge on how many active players there are on a team, etc.
It is because every one of these OPs are not creative enough to come up with a unique name.
If it is only because you want to be the 4001st Adrian Peterson, then big -1...... use some imagination, get a clue. If it is because of the reasons above, or maybe a better one I can't think of, then big +1........
Using the search function, there seems to be over 400,000 dots who are over 639 days old, are not even remotely usable and their agents are inactive. Some reasons to mass retire these:
- None are on teams. I selected show only free agents
- Not sure what already active exactly means when you create a player but I would think these dots are included in that calculation and throw off the neediness of a position.
- These dots are basically useless. Retiring them and returning flex to the agent does not seem to do any harm.
- From a business standpoint I doubt this is a positive. Companies purge inactive users all the time. I am only proposing purging useless dots. The agents can remain even if they seem to not be coming back.
- I do not believe Bort ever said this was NGTH. I know he said he was not going to delete inactive agent accounts but I do not believe he ever mentioned his thoughts on this topic.
I do not know if these are good enough reasons for you to get on board with this but using the same process, I estimate there are about 88,000 active dots. These are dots that are not in decline and presumably being managed by active agents. The issue seems to be worse that I first thought.
Every time I see one of these thread titles, I'm like fuck yeah +1........ right up until I read the OPs reasoning. It isn't because it would free up server space, it isn't because it would better reflect how many real users there are here, it isn't to get a better gauge on how many active players there are on a team, etc.
It is because every one of these OPs are not creative enough to come up with a unique name.
If it is only because you want to be the 4001st Adrian Peterson, then big -1...... use some imagination, get a clue. If it is because of the reasons above, or maybe a better one I can't think of, then big +1........
Using the search function, there seems to be over 400,000 dots who are over 639 days old, are not even remotely usable and their agents are inactive. Some reasons to mass retire these:
- None are on teams. I selected show only free agents
- Not sure what already active exactly means when you create a player but I would think these dots are included in that calculation and throw off the neediness of a position.
- These dots are basically useless. Retiring them and returning flex to the agent does not seem to do any harm.
- From a business standpoint I doubt this is a positive. Companies purge inactive users all the time. I am only proposing purging useless dots. The agents can remain even if they seem to not be coming back.
- I do not believe Bort ever said this was NGTH. I know he said he was not going to delete inactive agent accounts but I do not believe he ever mentioned his thoughts on this topic.
I do not know if these are good enough reasons for you to get on board with this but using the same process, I estimate there are about 88,000 active dots. These are dots that are not in decline and presumably being managed by active agents. The issue seems to be worse that I first thought.
fogie55
offline
offline
+1 not because of names, but for the other reasons that have been stated. most likely won't happen since GLB can claim to have 400,000 more players than really exist.
Like Chysil said, we're still waiting to see if it's still deemed as NGTH.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
