|
| 28 Jul 2015 12:38 PM |
I've seen so many groups that I would love to have due to their names, but the previous owners made it so that no one could join the group
There should be a feature that allows BC to claim the group anyways regardless of non-public joining, as long as there is no group leader
We need to start recycling groups more instead of making new ones, and when people do this stuff it really doesn't help |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
SpliTech
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Feb 2013 |
| Total Posts: 11407 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
TypicaIly
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Oct 2013 |
| Total Posts: 115 |
|
|
| 28 Jul 2015 12:49 PM |
Support, I guess.
ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノraies ur dung0rz!!1one!ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2015 12:53 PM |
'Support, I guess.'
im open to criticism of this idea
if there is something different about it that you think should be done, say so |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
rec32
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Dec 2013 |
| Total Posts: 942 |
|
|
| 28 Jul 2015 01:04 PM |
support when I see ODers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tg707l98yU |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 28 Jul 2015 07:54 PM |
| No support. People don't want their group to have a different legacy. And they don't want to hold on to it due to wasted group space. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Jul 2015 11:00 PM |
'No support. People don't want their group to have a different legacy. And they don't want to hold on to it due to wasted group space.'
while that is understandable, a majority of the groups that were abandoned were done so more or less because they were failures, as in they didnt get any members other than the owner, and the owner decided "if i cant have it, no one can" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|