Forumophilia - 18 Years Online!
Never
Loui375
Never wrote:
Be careful because RS is implacable with the copyright violations
They have closed definitely and without chance of appeal my 3 premium accounts and 1 collectors
All of my links are lost
Have you uploaded porn to RS?
No, sorry for joking, that really frightens me. But maybe you annoyed some siteowner by posting siterips or special stuff. If he personally complains, maybe RS is just closing all your accounts (by IP-adress they may know them all even if you provided different emails).
We all know (and RS too) that RS makes the most money with porn, so they are only implacable when it comes to special cases. So maybe you have overdone the posting thing.
Anyway, sad to hear this, but i saw that this can't stop you
Be careful because RS is implacable with the copyright violations
They have closed definitely and without chance of appeal my 3 premium accounts and 1 collectors
All of my links are lost
Have you uploaded porn to RS?
No, sorry for joking, that really frightens me. But maybe you annoyed some siteowner by posting siterips or special stuff. If he personally complains, maybe RS is just closing all your accounts (by IP-adress they may know them all even if you provided different emails).
We all know (and RS too) that RS makes the most money with porn, so they are only implacable when it comes to special cases. So maybe you have overdone the posting thing.
Anyway, sad to hear this, but i saw that this can't stop you
hamish
I'm probably spamming
blood.lust
Poster
hamish wrote:
Been there; done that - doesn't matter. RS will err on the side of caution and delete the reported links/files anyway.
"Copyright violations" and often times "porn violations" honestly are a part of almost every reputable file host's EUA/TOS out there...but we are drifting a bit off topic.
svinto wrote:
That brings the issue to the same level as when the reward program was introduced, and that has been accepted.
More input is welcome.
Welcome back, svinto.
Much like the rewards program, this is still not a "c a s h for c l i c k s"* (or "cash for downloads") program, like some of the appropriately banned hosts offer.
For starters, RS has always imposed limitations on point accrual necessary for reward/referral redemption. The file has to be a minimum size, there used to be a restriction on PU points earned per 24hr period, now that has been replaced by a time limitation of one point per 5 minutes, etc, and there has never been a true cash payout option (that I am aware of):
A fair compromise, IMO, would be for RS to remain on the permitted host list, while disallowing the posting of RS "referral links" (advertisement).
Ok, you are right. That isn't a compromise. That is me restating the current rules. Personally, I like the current rules.
*Note: "cash for clicks" looks surprisingly like "cash for dicks" on my monitor, and I did not want to send the wrong message.
Why don't impose a new rule: the password-encription for every post made on RS?
Been there; done that - doesn't matter. RS will err on the side of caution and delete the reported links/files anyway.
"Copyright violations" and often times "porn violations" honestly are a part of almost every reputable file host's EUA/TOS out there...but we are drifting a bit off topic.
svinto wrote:
That brings the issue to the same level as when the reward program was introduced, and that has been accepted.
More input is welcome.
Welcome back, svinto.
Much like the rewards program, this is still not a "c a s h for c l i c k s"* (or "cash for downloads") program, like some of the appropriately banned hosts offer.
For starters, RS has always imposed limitations on point accrual necessary for reward/referral redemption. The file has to be a minimum size, there used to be a restriction on PU points earned per 24hr period, now that has been replaced by a time limitation of one point per 5 minutes, etc, and there has never been a true cash payout option (that I am aware of):
| Code: |
| dead link |
A fair compromise, IMO, would be for RS to remain on the permitted host list, while disallowing the posting of RS "referral links" (advertisement).
Ok, you are right. That isn't a compromise. That is me restating the current rules. Personally, I like the current rules.
*Note: "cash for clicks" looks surprisingly like "cash for dicks" on my monitor, and I did not want to send the wrong message.