Ring Mag sticky
Ring Mag sticky
Shouldn't be there. This is the commissioners domain and it should be he who decides as to whether something like that warrants being a sticky.
Considering it's a title only a few people endorse, it should not be at the top.
Considering it's a title only a few people endorse, it should not be at the top.
-
glittermonkey
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2658
- Joined: 28 Feb 2004, 18:03
Re: Ring Mag sticky
Let Ben have his fun. He's bigger than most of us put together!
Re: Ring Mag sticky
So, what your saying is that it represents mischief and Tom foolery? You are impuning the names of two of the finest management teams in BRS history?
Well, Ben put it up there, perhaps he just wanted to advertise a bit of honesty and integrity. In the end he'll need to make that decision, however perhaps your's could be stickied as well. It does represent a bit of good work in behalf of illuminating the masses.
I would have no objection if you wanted your good work equally prominent.
Well, Ben put it up there, perhaps he just wanted to advertise a bit of honesty and integrity. In the end he'll need to make that decision, however perhaps your's could be stickied as well. It does represent a bit of good work in behalf of illuminating the masses.
I would have no objection if you wanted your good work equally prominent.
Re: Ring Mag sticky
The deed is done temporarily. You make a good point, we don't want the sticky section to get too cluttered. It may well be reaching critical mass.
Re: Ring Mag sticky
Having notified the Powers that be ie Comissioner. It will stay there. So stop your bitching, It is the only true Hall of Fame 
Re: Ring Mag sticky
It being stickied gives the false impression that this is title that holds clout amongst the masses. It doesn't. It only matters to 3 people.
Noobs.
Noobs.
Re: Ring Mag sticky
which is only about a dozen less than the amount the BRS matters to.jBacca wrote:It being stickied gives the false impression that this is title that holds clout amongst the masses. It doesn't. It only matters to 3 people.
Noobs.
Re: Ring Mag sticky
False Impression
No false impressions here, It is as stated the ONLY TRUE HALL OF FAME
No false impressions here, It is as stated the ONLY TRUE HALL OF FAME
Re: Ring Mag sticky
I agree MatthewS. It will only upset the Managers like JBacca who will never be good enough to have a fighter in there.MatthewS wrote:which is only about a dozen less than the amount the BRS matters to.jBacca wrote:It being stickied gives the false impression that this is title that holds clout amongst the masses. It doesn't. It only matters to 3 people.
Noobs.
Re: Ring Mag sticky
Erm, doesn't that prove my point?MatthewS wrote:which is only about a dozen less than the amount the BRS matters to.jBacca wrote:It being stickied gives the false impression that this is title that holds clout amongst the masses. It doesn't. It only matters to 3 people.
Noobs.
Re: Ring Mag sticky
My fighters are above this standard. They regularly look down and laugh at your fighters.ben k wrote:I agree MatthewS. It will only upset the Managers like JBacca who will never be good enough to have a fighter in there.MatthewS wrote:which is only about a dozen less than the amount the BRS matters to.jBacca wrote:It being stickied gives the false impression that this is title that holds clout amongst the masses. It doesn't. It only matters to 3 people.
Noobs.
Re: Ring Mag sticky
If that was the case. You would not have started this thread. Your NOOBness has shown through, And you have been exposed as the Crease Wannabee that you really are

Re: Ring Mag sticky
I started this thread because of the inadequacy of your title.
Re: Ring Mag sticky
im no taking sides, especially not with a mate of Buzz...
Re: Ring Mag sticky
It's an abuse of Mod powers, plain and simple. Should be taken down post haste!
Re: Ring Mag sticky
Why is it only the scousers who are complaining.
Re: Ring Mag sticky
Its pure nonesense
This will enrage many sims. Interesting that there is no commish endorsement.
Lets remember that this title was created when #2 fought #4. No ''ring'' credibility there. I'm all for a title like this, but it has to be true to what it claims to be. ''A Bum A Week'' after number 2 fought number 4 rendered the title only slightly above worthless.
This will enrage many sims. Interesting that there is no commish endorsement.
Lets remember that this title was created when #2 fought #4. No ''ring'' credibility there. I'm all for a title like this, but it has to be true to what it claims to be. ''A Bum A Week'' after number 2 fought number 4 rendered the title only slightly above worthless.
Re: Ring Mag sticky
Cos wer de boys n wha we say mattersben k wrote:![]()
![]()
![]()
Why is it only the scousers who are complaining.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
:P
Re: Ring Mag sticky
Is right lad.jBacca wrote:Cos wer de boys n wha we say mattersben k wrote:![]()
![]()
![]()
Why is it only the scousers who are complaining.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
:P
Re: Ring Mag sticky
A bum of the Week never HappenedJDC wrote:Its pure nonesense![]()
This will enrage many sims. Interesting that there is no commish endorsement.
Lets remember that this title was created when #2 fought #4. No ''ring'' credibility there. I'm all for a title like this, but it has to be true to what it claims to be. ''A Bum A Week'' after number 2 fought number 4 rendered the title only slightly above worthless.
It was mentioned to upset the Masses. as is the Hall of Fame. And it seems to work time and time again.
Re: Ring Mag sticky
But 2 vs 4 cannot be considered ring credible none the less 
Re: Ring Mag sticky
1st vs 2ndJDC wrote:But 2 vs 4 cannot be considered ring credible none the less
Raf was the man at the time, he was on top of the rankings
Re: Ring Mag sticky
1 RAFAEL MARQUEZ 18-2-0 (14)
2 AZUMAH NELSON 15-4-1 (10)
Need i add any more, Raf at the time was on top of the rankings, As he was for 99% of the season.
2 AZUMAH NELSON 15-4-1 (10)
Need i add any more, Raf at the time was on top of the rankings, As he was for 99% of the season.
Re: Ring Mag sticky
Maybe I've remembered it wrong, but I thought it was 2 vs 4 at the time. I don't think this title should be attainable until atleast week 12 in future to allow the rankings to sort themselves out. Also CPU opposition should be limited to <25%.ben k wrote:1st vs 2nd or 3rdJDC wrote:But 2 vs 4 cannot be considered ring credible none the less
Raf was the man at the time, he was on top of the rankings
Seem fair?
-
glittermonkey
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2658
- Joined: 28 Feb 2004, 18:03
Re: Ring Mag sticky
You've remembered it wrong, but not by much. Rafa and Sanchez were the top two at the time, though it's a detail that seems to have skipped past Ben's mind without being noticed.