Search Results

Now all you gotta do is somehow lose premium so WE can match.

Women are fine, you just shouldn't waste your time on ones that aren't interested.

The whole ditching you thing was your first clue.

Joined as Luxord.

That implies that everyone chooses to be invisible. I know you said "most" but since that doesn't cover everyone, resorting to a "solution" that effects everyone doesn't seem like the best move.

Removing members online eliminates the option of being EITHER open or private. If most users want to be private, that's a reflection of their individual desires. Changing something based on individual choices (which while they are making identical choices) doesn't mean that's what the rest of the users want.

Couldn't agree more.

I see this as a potential problem avoided.

I (personally) would vote to keep the option available. While you may not see the point in the option being there, many users have different reasons for potentially using it. In the past (especially when the site was busy) I used it to prevent an onslaught of messages, simply because I didn't have to time to rely to everyone. So to prevent being rude to various people, I simply didn't appear at all.

Just like how skype, other messaging services, and some game platforms utilize this feature.

Spoiler: potential rambling

Also unless you have hard statistics (and even that can be unreliable) of long term "invisible vs not invisible" you simply cannot know if that would have anything to do with someone joining or not.

I remember the only reason I joined many years ago (this isn't my original account, but it's also not an alt) I joined because I wanted to post requests for codes. I can't do that as a guest, so I joined. In fact a majority of the people who joined through the code vault also had that reasoning. As you can see that has nothing to do with "seeing a more active community" via the "who is online section." That may seem like a drop in the bucket, but as one of the more active sections (when the site was busier) it's something to consider.

That's my way of segueing into the "well why was this feature removed" point, but many thanks for being my springboard regardless of that.

On that note: why was the feature removed?

How is he the one who screwed up when he had nothing to do with a harmless option being removed?

Surgeries in the double digits (a fairly large percent being some gross back problem thats genetic, don't really wanna talk about it) and it has never been the fuel for any real depression. Keep in mind each of them (specifically the back surgeries) had a 6-9 month recovery period which involved me basically doing nothing but lay down on my stomach. I remember when I was a kid, almost forgetting what my downstairs was like, because I was essentially staying on the second floor until the recovery was finished (you never want to risk opening up a wound that is healing). Does it suck? Yes. Are operations hard? Yes. Does that mean that you are doomed, and are going to go through a literal hell? Absolutely not. Struggle is simply a part of life. Some of us deal with medical issues, others have family issues, etc etc etc. There are a countless amount of struggles to be had in this existence. This will just have to be another one you'll beat.

Yeah there are those redbox machines that let you rent games. But at 3-4 dollars a day, it's not even close to worth it as an investment if the person plays a lot of games

yup and if you rented every game you were mildly interested in, it would easily pile up to be enough to buy a game.

Which is also fundamentally flawed because to many, these reviews determine if a game is worth buying or not. Low risk is the key to a good investment. So "play it before you judge it" doesn't always work.

Now I understand what you are saying as I've enjoyed many things (games, movies especially, etc) this year that was just completely crapped on by reviewers. I feel like it is important to understand what a review has to offer and to not expect anything more from it. It also sucks that nowadays (and I'm sure this has been going on since the dawn of time) people feel the need to dehumanize or belittle those who share differing opinions or strong opinions. I've seen reputable reviewers give 2-3/10's, and to that I ask what's the difference? A person who isn't paid to do a review (or rather isn't paid to DO reviews in general) isn't going to put nearly the amount of effort in as those who are. Granted, there will always be outliers, as there are people who put effort into writing reviews on various sites who are not paid or rewarded in any traditional way.

It's just odd to say "this person is an idiot because they said this or that". Truthfully, who are you to judge? Specifically user submitted reviews (by design) are a reflection of the opinions of users. This isn't a hard concept to grasp, and I am not doubting your capability to do so. I just have a problem when somebody attempts to eliminate the credibility of a review, simply because it doesn't make YOU happy. It isn't supposed to. If somebody writes an essay about how great a game is, that is just as useful as those who write three sentences about how "x" game sucked in their eyes. It's their opinion, you don't have to like it, but to not respect its existence is a bit petty.

That's not true at all. To many reviews are of an extremely vital importance. The usefulness in reviews (believe it or not) lies in the opinions (that you apparently loathe). If "user a" writes a review based on how he/she doesn't like how mechanically solid a specific game is, those who value solid in game mechanics can find value in that review. Its up to you to find the usefulness in these reviews, and if you haven't yet, that doesn't mean that reviews are a useless tool.

Not to mention how reviews help a large majority of the world financially. If I can save 60 dollars because a game I wasn't sure about got bad reviews, then I am SUPER thankful for the reviews being there.

One day I hope to be that savage.

That sounds magical. I'm jealous.

It's not that big of a deal tbh. I've been wearing two rings (one on each ring finger) every day for probably 6-8 years. Granted some people have found it to be a bit weird that I wear two rings on each finger, one of which obviously occupies the traditional location of an engagement/wedding band.

Spoiler: For those who are curious is to why I wear two rings

Both were given to my grandfather when he was in the navy. Around the time before he passed away, my grandmother (and to an extent my grandfather, but his mind was fading quickly) wanted me to have them. He was one of the strongest people I've ever met (survived two heart attacks, a stroke, and around a week or two with his lungs gradually filling with fluid) and it was only after we told him that it was okay to go and that we would take care of my grandmother (his wife) did he die. This was after years of scary hospital trips, and with little to no medical explanation he survived more than most people would. So I decided that wearing those rings would be my way of keeping his memory alive, and to try to be a great person like he was (granted I failed at that more than a few times, but still). Those two rings mean more to me than most if not all of my possessions. It will be hard having to give up wearing one when I eventually get married one day.

But no, after a while it actually feels normal to wear a ring(s). Whenever I don't wear them, or travel (generally don't bring them when traveling) my hands feel so weird and off. The only other time I don't is if I am playing games for an extended period of time because they can interfere slightly. I got used to it crazy fast though when I first started wearing them.