- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Posted by: KneeChee27
Well, seeing as this is actually my first post in the Septagon, I would have to say that the group forums are definently my preference (being where 98% of my posts occur). Sometimes, when bored, I'll surf around the larger forums, though; even if it's just to see what others have to say.
Hi KneeChee. Path of War is almost dead if you didn't know.
Posted by: Vinnie13
Posted by: natedogr
Posted by: Piggyfool1
Hell no.
All groups are pathetically inactive conpared to the main forums. 75% of the time (and I've been oin groups with over 1,000 members) I'm the only one posting, and have to check back an hour later.
I would say that about 98 percent of groups are too inactive. There are a few active ones that I think are active enough. I do agree that inactivity is the major flaw with private groups.
I'm in two very active groups, which hold my attention perfectly well. 98%? Any basis for such a figure? Sure a lot of people make groups just for kicks, but there must be thousands of groups that are so active, they never bother posting in the public domain ever again. If I wasn't at work, bored out of my mind, I wouldn't be in here either.
I take it inactivity is a major flaw with private groups in your experience. Otherwise that is an incredibly sweeping (and probably incorrect) statement.
I'm no Veteran, but I've been in my fair share of groups. I've been in MBT, (quit) am a Commander in ODST Recon (completely dead) and used to be in Popular Fusion and Pro. Comm.
I've been in all the large (which, in theory, should be more active) groups (well, most) here on B.Net., and they're all inactive overall.
Small groups, or groups with a moderately-sized amount of members, are also just not active. It could be only me, but I couldn't name one group (I've been in at least fourty-five) that was as active as The Maw (inactive main-forum) for more than a month.
It is generalizing, but most groups aren't active for long, if they were at all. Or it could be me.