-- not intended as necro-bump. this just feels On Topic... so, instead of creating a new (duplicate) thread?
I just got a "Access denied!" looking exactly like that. The Tab TITLE got the prefix
*** NO COMMON THEME ***
to the original torrent title. Would this be the reason it got removed?
It'd be a neat info-feature if this is so.
In my experience, tops tend to prefer shorter guys, and bottoms tend to like taller ones.
Personally, I like taller guys, which for an innocent :cough: little sweetie like myself fits the model. And when I find myself with someone shorter, I usually end up on top, contrary to my prefernces, and it even feels natural.
~ Neo
this does seem little problematic to me.
I mean, picture this:
you take this gorgerous litte sweetie home, do the mutual tests so you can ditch the condoms and go for broke. Only, his turns up positive, and he completely breaks down in tears. Would you be up to dealing with that situation?
Or, how about this:
you take the sweetie home and to the tests, come up clean and go for it. Then, a few weeks later someone tells you the sweetie is POZ, and your next test shows that now so are you? Could you take responisbility for your own actions instead of blaming the sweetie? Hell, did you even ask him? And, would you stop and consider if you got it someplace else?
Or, what if you had all-out bareback with someone else after that, and now the next guy also turns out POZ at his next test. Where does the blame go? It's certain to come up.
Sure, this little DIY kit does have obvious advantages. But sadly, people tend to stop using their head when there's a pill/shot/test you can take instead.
I'm just sayin…
~ Neo
Umm…
Has anyone been able to get their result without giving their email and a username/password?
First off, the 'Kinsey Scale' looks like a bored statistitian's lunch break argument for why his straight buddies should let him give them a blowjob; no mention of the 'did it / wanted to' issues, or availability of male and female offers. Ignore it.
Second: being a male porn performer is bloody hard work, and not a lot of men are cut out for the pressure of maintaining a hard-on in front of the camera and crew and constant interruptions. The ones that can perform, and reliably so, are mostly the ones who can ignore the distactions and focus on their work; meaning, doing a guy up the butt instead of a chick is merely just one more distraction to ignore and focus on whatever internal imagery gets him through the performance.
Keep in mind, I'm talking about feature porn movies, here; not the labels that spit out so many new episodes in a series every month.
The observation of more guys in straight porn going for the ass; I had a discussion about this with a straight buddy of mine, recently, and his take on it was that it comes down to 'getting noticed' in the flood of new porn productions entering the market. The trend is that things grow increasinly extreme, or fringe, or otherwise show something more than what has been shown before. Going for the ass is just one such 'something more'. It doesn't mean that straight guys in real life want to do it in the ass more than they used to; only that the ones who do want to can express it more freely, since it's become so visible in porn.
That said, I too watch straight porn from time to time; not sure why, exactly, because I always end up thinking it's bo-o-oring. If there's actually a proper story-plot, the action tends to be just lame; and if there's quality male beef, the chicks are often either limp-breasted and worn, or worse, overdoing the 'bedroom eyes' gig to the extent that they look half asleep or just plain drugged. And more often than not, the camera goes to great length to not show male anatomy any more than absolutely necessary.
And then, along comes the one that gets it all right so it just works for me, putting all my complaints to shame.
But all in all, it appears to me like gay porn is higher quality on average.
Or, does it just so happen that I tend to find the wrong titles in straight porn?
~ Neo
Lots of harness models to choose from. Would this one meet your expectations?
hxxp://www.homoware.com/harness/master-harness-xxxl-v2162
It's not exactly the same, but the one you posted might be custom-made; it's not that hard to make yor own.
From the RAW pics, number 1 (+3,4,5) is best; the direction of the cock going into the butt kinda 'points' to where the TITLE/LINK is located in the torrent listing layout. Also, it shows as straight-up as possible (the cross-theme indication to 'anal' is probably impossible to avoid) what's in the category; the number 2 pic might make a errant indication of 'something outdoors'.
Now, for the text. 1 and 3 are just flat too small, and number 5 comes too close to the edges; makes it look cramped.
Conclusion: #4 is the best. But…
The text is a different font than the rest of the category images. It's gonna stand out as an eye-sore. Fix that and it'll be as perfect as can happen within the 80/40 px limitation.
there is no point in having tags if they dont link to all the other torrents that have the same tag. otherwise they're just filler for idiots who cannot figure out from the pics or description what kind of porn it is. and what is the point of adding this sign ~ ?
There is an excellent explanation and description og TAGs (and the importance of ~ char) here:
http://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=13672.0
The issue of whether or not tags should be LINKs rather than search parameters is a topic for another, um, topic. (let's not clutter this one up)
[off-topic]
If you are the victim of someone overseeding(jumping on) let us know. I personally note a users profile when they do this. Enough times of doing it without the uploaders consent and I "deal with it".
[/off-topic]
Once more bringing us back the core problem behind this discussion. Meaning: not off topic at such.
This is dicussed at length (and at times in unfriendly vocabulary) here:
http://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=12710.0
I made my opinion on this issue crystal clear in that topic, but it appears it needs re-iterating:
A torrent site must never, ever, penalize its members for seeding
If members seeding too much (or at all, in whatever way at whatever time) is a problem, it means there's a fundamental unbalance in the seeder/leecher ratio. This should be handled in the back-end (I made a handful of suggestions in that other topic) out of view and with no ill consequences to the members.
Sorry, cumeaternc.
I don't take offence easily, but this comment did have me in 'unfriendly vocabular' state for a moment.
Replies to this post not related to 'the compromise' please in the above-mentioned topic to not clutter up an otherwise constructive discussion. (or feel free to bitch at me in PM)
I just couldn't let this one stand unchallenged.
So just to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly, the quality, resolution, etc of the video does not necessarily account for the rating of the torrent, rather the technical nature behind the way it is compiled, named, listed, etc., yes?
If the rating is purely a staff job (which is how I understand this proposal), evaluating the audio/video quality of the rip and encode would require you to download the torrented media before assigning a rating.
Sure, I suppose you could do that, but making it part of your job description to download possibly copyrighted material is just asking for trouble (I think I've said so in another topic somewhere, sometime…)
Video resolution is not a guarantee for good quality, and neither is file size, or bitrate (though, that tends to be a reasonable indicator).
And... the video (or audio) being of poor quality isn't necessarily the uploader's fault; it could be this is merely the best rip/encode available to him, or at all.
Reward the uploader for his part of the upload: that means, the data made available on the torrent page.
If the audio or video quality stinks for no good reason, it'll be in the comments from a zillion annoyed members. That's what the comments are for, isn't it?
If I may add my bit, here…
Rewarding uploaders in some way is a great incentive for keeping the new stuff coming. SB points is an obvious way to do it, so let's take a look at how this can be used.
1: grant 1 point to the uploader whenever someone snatches the torrent (other then the uploader himself, of course).
2: grant 1 point to the uploader whenever someone completes the torrent.
--> drawback: this encourages uploading mostly popular stuff rather than niche/rarity material.
3: double the SB for seeding your own uploads for a limited period (could the duration it's considered 'new').
--> drawback: this will be a drain on the server; keeping track of who gets how many SB points.
Or, looking at it backwards: the big high-speed seeders currently have bulky upload values but mostly the same SB revenue as the low-speed seeders, meaning they can't 'donate' the one thing they have in excess. So...
1: make it possible to revert upload back to SB points (by some conversion value to be decided with great care), so they can reward uploaders more generously.
2: (bypassing the SB points) make it possible to donate upload.
--> drawback: this may have unforseeen impact on the rationator (which I haven't really figured out)
An alternative to using the SB points for incentive could be to allow uploaders to maintain a lower ratio before revoking their download privileges. Could be by brute number of uploads, or snatched, or completed, or something else; and it should probably be a restricted to a limited backlog.
Or, how about a section in the forum (if it doesn't already exist; I wouldn't know) where uploaders and staff can exchange tips and tricks, and who might upload what next, or whatever the guys putting in the effort might want discuss out of view of freebies like myself. It could be the place uploaders request features and changes to the upload process.
Another thing it might be interesting to consider is letting uploaders browse the 'awaiting approval' titles; just in case someone else has beat them to it, and the second upload will be a waste of time and effort because it'll be a duplicate. No idea if this is an actual issue; feedback from uploaders on this point.
I don't know... Just tossing ideas, here...
I suppose this is where Uploaders and Staff chime in with various degrees of 'please do' and 'no bloody way'.
I'm voting no to this one; it's just one more rule to discourage potential uploaders.
I would have voted yes to strongly encouraging uploaders to offer this info, if there's a good enough tutorial at hand on how to retrieve and offer the data that even a fresh newbie will get it right.
The rating system isn't a good alternative, at least in its present form, and I doubt this software is geared to support separate ratings for original flick and the quality of the rip (which to be thorough might even require ratings for audio and video separately; you see where this is going…)
Comments also aren't the way to go, because before there's enough of them to give a reliable impression there'll be too many to read through when all you want is the porn.
And having a smaller group of trusted members 'recommend' one rip over another means those members must necessarity download possibly copyrighted material as part of their duties; and that's just plain asking for trouble.
I've no good ideas on how to reliably solve this issue. But kinda suspect that if ratio wasn't so hard to come by for some members it wouldn't be issue at all.
what's rtfm? report to forum moderator?
Read The Fucking Manual
a phrase a lot of people in tech support everywhere often need to remind themselves they aren't allowed to use.
Leecher exhaustion, I thought as much; the site needs a leecher infusion of some sort.
A quick fix that doesn't include penalizing members for seeding would be to bulk freeleech everything from, say, one year ago and older (or two years, or whatever); gives the peeps something to download for free and a crowd to upload to for ratio, doesn't cut the interest in the fresh uploads much (could even boost the interest in fresh uploads, since more peeps will have the ratio to grab it), and the old stuff might even stay seeded longer with the renewed interest. The down side is that once these items have been but in freeleech it'll cause confusion if they get turned back into regular torrents.
Another approach is to increase the seedbonus to upload value, or some measure to the same effect; this benefits members with low upload values (mostly the new members) more than members with big numbers in their upload/download scores. Downside is that it's harder to control, and it favours 24/7 seeders over uptime/downtime seeders.
Of course, you could just dish out handful of gigs upload to everyone every now and again; birthdays, calender events, your sweetie just gave you a dozen roses… This doesn't actually fix anything, but it does stave off the inevitable collapse of a strict ratio tracker where the members' upstream differ by a factor 100 or more.
Penalizing members for uploading cannot be the answer; it goes against the fundamental principle of bittorrent. whatever the solution end up at, it needs to be something else.
Coming back to this thread, 4 months later, I'd love to hear from levy or his new owner how it's worked out; call me a romantic (or call me fishing for a fantasy while staying in the safe zone of living your dreams) but I do like hearing when partnerships outside the mainstream work out for the better.
It just so happens that I do have certain details on that.
I thought you might.
And from the happy smilie I expect things have turned out just like our friend wished.
If you happen be somewhere that's appropriate for it, let him know there's at least one of us one here, and probably a small silent crowd, who just raised our glass with a "congrats, buddy. good going!"
How very strange!!!!
No, just kinda rare.
I tend to keep my mouth shut on this sort of topic unless I have something useful to contribute, or is faced with it in real life (I get around the niches enough that it's popped up a few times).
It's always a balance of figuring out if it's a real slave or just a tourist fishing for a thill; a bad guess and a helpful comment to that end tends go badly, either way. I'm kinda satisfied, though, (as satisfied as anyone can be from the limited information in these posts) that levy's the real deal; takes guts to realise to yourself (the rest of the world isn't my point) that you're a slave and need to live it. Can't help but admire that.
Coming back to this thread, 4 months later, I'd love to hear from levy or his new owner how it's worked out; call me a romantic (or call me fishing for a fantasy while staying in the safe zone of living your dreams) but I do like hearing when partnerships outside the mainstream work out for the better.
I see I'm a bit late on a topic of intense debate (been a bit busy elsewhere on the Internet these last few months).
I'm reading this topic, talk about information overload, as well as intense name-calling, massive outing of fellow members, and PMs reposted in public. I mean, guys, seriously?
That aside, I'm either missing something central in this whole debate (and yes, I've tried to look it up elsewhere in the forum and found nothing to explain it; I may have missed it), but this whole issue appears completely out of proportions. But do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I just don't get how someone else pitching in to a fresh upload can be that big a deal.
I assume (because I couldn't find data to the contrary) that 1 gb upload is worth the same to the seeder regardless of whether or not someone else is seeding the same torrent at the same time. 1 gb up = 1 gb up, yes?
I assume (because this issue centers on fresh uploads rather than aging/stale torrents) that having, say, a 50 kbps upstream connection means you can dish out 50 kbps to someone wanting the stuff, and get credit for it. 50 kbps = 50 kbps, yes?
I assume (because this is how it's stated in the FAQ) that seeding for 6 hours gets you the same amount of seed bonus regardless of whether you're the first seed, for some other reason the only seeder, or one of two or more seeders. 6 hours seed bunus = 6 hours sed bonus, yes?
If these assumptions are correct, a second seeder during first seed can only affect the torrent uploader if his presense clears the uploaders initial-seeding/powerseeding flag in the client, with low bandwith or short duation second seed (effectively making the first seed take longer).
Or, what am I missing?
I expect there's an underlying problem here; one that's a known issue on several private trackers with ratio control: Leecher exhaustion. If new members find themselves hard pressed to maintain an acceptable ratio because there aren't enough leechers to max out the new members' allotted upstream, that's a problem that should be handled in the backend, by the site admins and out of public view, either by setting a well-balanced minimum ratio or freeleeching torrents in bulk from the bottom of the pile.
A bittorrent community, or any community that functions by members serving data to other members from their own bandwidth, must never ever chastise its members for serving the expected data to other members. No exceptions.
I don't come here for the torrents (entirely different reasons, not even remotely related to this issue). But I do check in from time to time, as I do at a lot of torrent sites I don't actually visit for the torrents. And a discussion such as this one, especially with the tone it's taken, that's just sad.
So, did I piss someone off? Feel free to tell me in PM if it cannot be phrased within common forum vocabulary. I'm no stranger to being unpopular; it's cool.
On a side note (and kinda off topic) that really made my day.
somewhere up this topic, I read something kinda on these lines: "I posted this coyrighted flick, and that guy stole my upload!"
I forget who posted it, and I shouldn't care to point fingers at any one particular member, anyway. But I just found myself wondering if the poster actually read that particular complaint to himself before pressing 'submit'.
On a second side note (completely off topic) also from somewhere up this topic.
Someone suggested adding extra/dummy files to the torrent file bundle. Please, don't do that. No one (or only a rare few) keep those files. The only thing these added files do is prevent later reseeding of the flick once the original swarm has died out and the peeps who could reseed only has the flick and none of the additional files in the pack.
regards
~ Neo
@mgr:
As to the noted links in torrent definitions: It looks like there is a typo in the class definition for those links so the correct hover definition is not applied but another one
an "off the top of my head" here. it looks like missing quotation in the template rather than something a typo would produce. The generated html is
[http://tracker.gaytorrent.ru/details.php?id=86606](http://tracker.gaytorrent.ru/details.php?id=86606)
where it should have been
[http://tracker.gaytorrent.ru/details.php?id=86606](http://tracker.gaytorrent.ru/details.php?id=86606)
causing unpredictable behaviour depending on the browser. it might even have looked 'all well' to the template coder.
somewhere in the bulk template for that section there'll be a line that goes something like: (just guessing at the var names)
"[$msg]($url)"
which should be
"[$msg](\"$url\")"
or something to the same effect.
so, I'm bit of a code geek, can't help myself when there's a problem I can stick my nose in.
And just to add my bit, too.
Using this site, reading and posting in the forum, and looking at pages that present images and descriptions of porn flicks, is perfectly legal in all or most countries. The spying code can determine which pages you view (just showing an off-site image can do that and no one is the wiser), but with the standard settings in all major browsers against Cross-site scripting, the 'same origin' policy, and other security features enforced by the browsers, there's a limit to what can be sniffed out of your privacy.
I'm not saying it's okay that it happens, but there's no reason to panic, just yet.
The sharing of copyrighted material doesn't happen in the browser, or indeed at this site at all, so no amount of page sniffing can out you for breaking the law. Sharing files happens exclusively between peers in a completely different application (the bittorrent client), granted with the aid of the site's tracker, but all that does is connect the peers and maintain statistics (unless the site admins keep records they're not supped to, and I seriously doubt that).
That said, I agree that it's unacceptable to compromise the users' privacy like we see it happen here and a lot of other places. It's a different problem than most make it up to be, but is is a problem.
The issue that needs to be addressed is this: Can we trust the site admins?
I would submit that, basically we can, even if breaches like this doesn't inpire a whole lot of confidence.
Guys, fix it, please.