Thread: Certain Tracker's in certain levels

Hi everyone!!

I've been looking around T-I the last couple of days and have been surprised by some of the invites that are being handed out in 10% levels etc.

I'm not slating this as it is good for users that are offered the invites but I believe that maybe we should have a rule for certain tracker invites to be handed at certain levels. This way we all win, people will have to contribute to get their rewards and also it's safer as we know users will be more careful and the risk will be lower of bad eggs.

For example I've noticed SCC invites going in the 10% section which I find mind boggling as I consider SCC one of the best trackers and one where you need to be quite high up to get the invite. But by having it in 10% we're kind of degrading SCC to a lower status.



Maybe we can do something along the lines of have a list where when you get to 33% you can apply to a certain type of tracker and then at 55% or VIP other kinds of trackers.

Let me know what you think, if this has been brought up before forgive me and I'll close the thread.

Thanks

_ASH_

Not a bad idea , but people in the 10% also are part of some of the leading trackers today, you cant just assume based on 10% they do not deserve it or need 33+% status. Now before people start bashing, you should see what sort of proofs people offer, types of trackers, speed, seedbox, things people do not know about. Now for the people who offer the invites, its their choices and they are more than welcomed to post it in the high %, but if they post in 10% how is it degrading the tracker?? I mean they don't just give it away, most require proofs and such. And because its posted in 10%, it degrades the tracker? So I see TL and IPT in 10%, so they are considered degrading or not good trackers? They are only good if they are in 33%+? And even my status was 33%+, I still would say the same thing, because invites are given on the individuals merits

Yeh I know what you mean. I think degrading was the wrong word to use.

I think it's more along the lines of keeping trackers happy with us too, if we keep it to high levels certain trackers won't mind us offering invites whereas in the past certain trackers have disliked us for offering invites.

I know what you mean, for instance I think IPT is one of best trackers, but people underrate this tracker because their invites are given out readily without proofs most of the time compared to TL. If IPT stopped giving out so many invites, it would be in-lines with TL. I know what you mean by having user security for the trackers and preventing the tracker from becoming less than what it is. I also think that torrent-invite.com should become more harder to get in thus coming in lines with your first post.

Originally Posted by Logan96

Not a bad idea , but people in the 10% also are part of some of the leading trackers today, you cant just assume based on 10% they do not deserve it or need 33+% status. Now before people start bashing, you should see what sort of proofs people offer, types of trackers, speed, seedbox, things people do not know about. Now for the people who offer the invites, its their choices and they are more than welcomed to post it in the high %, but if they post in 10% how is it degrading the tracker?? I mean they don't just give it away, most require proofs and such. And because its posted in 10%, it degrades the tracker? So I see TL and IPT in 10%, so they are considered degrading or not good trackers? They are only good if they are in 33%+? And even my status was 33%+, I still would say the same thing, because invites are given on the individuals merits

Just a friendly reminder, red is reserved for mods here. Please don't use that font color again.

How about my will to give anything i want on any section i want? The invites are mine and i should be the one who decide to give it to whoever i think deserves.
Also, trackers would be happier without this "level" thing, wich we also distancied ourselves months ago, it is just a trader's parameters, please don't bring it back.

I vote for a big no on this.