Small Groups or Custom Names give us one please!

Did everyone see the new announcement, they tried to take down our small groups once before but I thought they had changed their minds when they said they'd let them stay, now with the new release it looks like they plan to do it again.

I thought ok cool when i was reading it because I figured they would also say and now you can create custom titles or names, since they obviously understood why we were upset last time, but no nothing about it...


Errr Lindens .... Please?

JV

Mabye once someones rating reaches 100, they can choose a Surname.

I think that would be cool

Just get together in groups of 3, each person in the group creates 1 Group.

Person A creates "Blahblah" Group.
Person A is the only Officer of Blahblah and sets the officer title to whatever.
Person B and Person C both join Blahblah as members.

Person B creates "Yada" Group.
Person B is the only Officer of Yada and sets the officer title..
Person A and Person C both join Yada as members.

Person C creates "YadaBlah!" Group
Person C is the only officer of YadaBlah! and sets officer title..
Person A and Person B both join YadaBlah! as members.

It's a PITA, yes...

[edit: removed unworkable 2 person scheme -- all I can say is I haven't had enough caffeine today]

#!

Yes of course this will work.


SO WHY DON'T THEY JUST LET US KEEP OUR 1 MEMBER GROUPS!?!?!?

Do they want us to game the system like you have suggested?

Or why don't they let us have nicknames?

oh well... who wants to join my group?

JV

*blink*

Do you really think what I suggested is a "game the system" thing? I certainly didn't intend it in that manner --

Why won't they let us have our small / 1 person groups... I dunno. My guess is to keep that particular database from growing out of control with too many rarely used groups?

Hey, I want this as badly as everyone else does -- I had to ask Steller and Mac to join my "my own lil group" as members so I could keep my "She Who Lags" title.

Hmmm... there must be some good reason why they're going ahead with the "groups must have 3 or be dropped" and not giving us titles outside of groups... and they know we want this... so perhaps a compromise solution could be agreed upon to sway them?

Here's my suggestion:

In the Create Group window, put a checkbox for "title only" -- if checked, then the "group" has no name, no charter, no way to add or invite members or call a vote -- all there is, is a text box into which your title/nickname can be entered. Now, since there's no name for the group, to activate it you would choose "none" as your current group, and when in your "none" group your custom nickname would be the one showing. Now to sweeten the pot, because I believe this could be quite a bit of coding... say the first time you create your nickname for your "none" group, you are charged L$500. Only that first time -- after that, you can change the nickname any time you want without further charges.

So there's my idea. Got a better one (besides just telling them to give us what we want, that is <s>?

#!

I never meant to imply anything devious on your end of course....

But i think there plan to cut out the 1 and 2 member groups was to cut down on all the random groups yes, but if we just all make random 3 member groups now that won't do what they want.... so it is in effect a workaround what they are trying to do... though i will do it if forced to as well

Your idea sounds good, by wouldn't it be so much easier just to make a title or nickname we could use? It would get rid of all the groups... make finding valid groups for newbies much easier... and we could all of fun with it....

oh well... looking for 2 more group members.

JV

I'm too lazy to do two seperate quotes right now, so that's why I cut out the middle section the way I did above =)

random 3 member groups vs. random 1 member groups will cut down on the number of groups because we are still limited in the total number of groups we can be in at one time (thank goodness & the Lindens that we're no longer limited to just ONE group!), which leads me to the second bit of your post that I quoted --

I'd join your group for you, but I am currently at that max number of groups :/

#!