"Requires Premium Membership" posts

[gyoza ramen & a beer]

What is the board's position on posts (by posters) which require purchase of a premium membership from the hosting sites?

I know that in at least several past instances when I (and another member) reported them, such posts were deleted.

This practice is deceitful at best and, at worst, predatory, and given the proliferation of bogus file-posts lately (which nearly always require purchase of a premium membership), I think consideration should be given to ban posts and posters of this sort.

Anyone else feel strongly about this?

 

[Ceewan]

I couldn't agree more but banning might be wrong. Most direct download uploaders are in this to make money, they just are not so transparent and greedy about it. A rule banning such practices should give the moderators the tools they need to suspend multiple offenders and give direction to uploaders as to what will not be tolerated here.

 

[gyoza ramen & a beer]

I couldn't agree more but banning might be wrong. Most direct download uploaders are in this to make money, they just are not so transparent and greedy about it. A rule banning such practices should give the moderators the tools they need to suspend multiple offenders and give direction to uploaders as to what will not be tolerated here.

Reasoned and thoughtful of you as always, Ceewan. I certainly understand that $$$ are a prime motivator for most if not all of us here, whether to make money off of posts or simply to avoid having to spend money for the actual, physical DVDs (what's that great line in that 1930s movie, "there are only thieves in this room"?)...

...but the premium-member requirement seems to be an unsavory form of double-dipping and, worse and more urgently, seems to have become an all-too-reliable kind of red-flag indicator of those who are posting empty or garbage-filled files.

I should have--and didn't--propose that the premium-membership posters be given a warning with any subsequent violations grounds for banning at the discretion (of course) of the mods and administrators.

It just seems like a problem that is only going to grow...

 

[CoolKevin]

the least thing we can do is delete the files, and will add it to the do not upload list

also please report them, thank you CK

 

[WeirdstuffYO]

VollDo posts hundreds of premium only downloads for Oron. Not only that, Oron is the WORST premium file service. Even if you pay for a premium account there is a limit as to how much you can download every 3 days.

It's basically spam.

 

[gyoza ramen & a beer]

VollDo posts hundreds of premium only downloads for Oron.

Thanks for the heads-up WeirdstuffYO.

Please report the posts as coolkevin asks above.

 

[chompy]

This has been discussed before (at least amongst the staff).

It is OK if the uploader also provides links that do not require you to be premium.
It is not OK if they only provide a premium-only link.

It is also OK if they post the premium link in a thread that already has working free links.

As coolkevin said, please use the report system.

:tea:

 

[Ceewan]

It is OK if the uploader also provides links that do not require you to be premium.
It is not OK if they only provide a premium-only link.

Since any premium member "should" be getting better download speeds than a free member I am a bit mystified as to the logic of offering both types of links. To save confusion it would seem that banning premium links altogether would be more appropriate.

Of course it is your show, run it as you well and with my blessing. Nonetheless this is my input on it:

If you are going to allow premium only links as stated than you might as well allow all cashlinks using the same loophole and amend rule #16 altogether. Premium links are the epitomy of an uploader cashing in on his downloads and serve no other real purpose.

 

[chompy]

If you are going to allow premium only links as stated than you might as well allow all cashlinks using the same loophole and amend rule #16 altogether. Premium links are the epitomy of an uploader cashing in on his downloads and serve no other real purpose.

While I agree with you for the most part on the grounds of sentiment, many members do have premium accounts with some of the filehosts and such links offer those people the convenience of having a much larger file in a single piece. Such links are arguably more convenient for those people. Removing them when there are perfectly working "normal" download links is hard to justify from where I'm standing.

Though perhaps some clarity would be in order. It could, for example, be mandatory to mark premium-only links as such.

e.g. PREMIUM-USER-ONLY LINK: http://blahblahsharehost.org/share/pornfile.avi

There would need to be staff consensus on the issue though.

 

[elgringo14]

As soon as a user provides "free user" links, it is ok for us, and we don't really have to care if he provides "premium user" links as well. It should be stated that way. Now some thoughts about the way things could be changed:

The type of links should be written in front of the links themselves, at least for premium links.

Free mirror links of a premium link must be from the same hoster, otherwise it will lead to problems.

If there is a double post issue between a free link and a premium link, the free link should get the priority. I don't like the idea that one user can post a premium mirror of another user's free link. This is definitely conflicting with rule 10. Or you have to rewrite the whole thing in terms of free links and premium links, that would be treated differently.

If you consider the average lifetime of direct downloads links (a few months), this may not be worth the efforts.

Now to ban premium links altogether, I'm not sure this is really necessary, if we state clear ruling concerning them. When you write a rule, you always have to think how it can be bypassed. :sadomaso:

 

[Ceewan]

Now to ban premium links altogether, I'm not sure this is really necessary, if we state clear ruling concerning them. When you write a rule, you always have to think how it can be bypassed.

Which is why banning premium links altogether makes the most sense. Anything else just makes more work for an overworked moderation team. Simplify the problem is always a good idea.

Since premium memberships allow simultanous downloads I am not sure that "the convenience of having a much larger file" being posted makes that much sense. I would think the download speed difference would be fairly neglible, although I am only guessing as I don't have a premium membership anywhere.

It would be nice to have a bit more input from other members on this thread though. One would think that most could not care one way or another and the status quo is just fine the way it is. It is possible that is the case for most members, I don't really know. Either way thanks for hearing my input on the issue.

Ciao

 

[mister_playboy]

I can see allowing a user to post both premium and free links in the same post. Anything else sounds like a lot of work.

People paying for premium ought to be using some sort of download manager and I don't think one versus many links will affect them.

That said, on my board we don't allow premium links. andalaugh:

 

[kineathachies]

I have made a few new posts in areas outside of FG recently, but they dont display in View your posts. At the same time, all my FG posts update there fine. What is going wrong?

 

[CoolKevin]

I have made a few new posts in areas outside of FG recently, but they dont display in View your posts. At the same time, all my FG posts update there fine. What is going wrong?

I am trying to figure out what you are telling me. it looks like you have posted in the wrong thread, or is FG some kind of filehost