Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

appropriate Percentage G/A Rule.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • appropriate Percentage G/A Rule.

    appropriate Percentage G/A Rule.

    I suggest that certain invites should only be accessible for appropriate percentages.
    I can not give my TL invites away in 33% because there are so many 10% G/A's for them.
    But I don't want to give an TL invite and jeopardize my name there because someone didn't know
    how TL is, Because they didn't have to learn here . To be honest I almost did this my self back when I first got it, TL was my first invite here and I was almost banned ( Things have been good for A wail now ) But I would of caused my inviter to loose invites.
    or worse, I would like to G/A my TL and others like it in 55%
    And people will work for them if they have to. This will provide an incentive to be active and then people will learn A bit before deciding what tracker they actually want and why. Also keeping all of us safer and wiser by the time we get the invite we want.
    To me 55% was easy to get to and to be honest the hardest part is waiting 45 days with your mouth watering.

    SCC, TL, WFL and the like 55%

    Any thoughts.

  • #2
    The good thing about invites is that the giver sets its own rules, so it can choose which branch to use (10,33,55,...) as well as who to give them to. Here on T-I you have several cases:
    - The givers that set invites on a lower branch than usual.
    - The givers that set invites on a higher branch than usual.
    - The givers that check the post for the applicants and handle the invites acordingly.

    I think its better to focus on who do you give the invite to, despite the branch, than posting some trackers on higher branches. If a user for example wants to get on a tracker that its on 55%, it will probably work its way to 55% without problem, but that doesn't guarantee that the applicant would be a good one. As example of givers that checks the posts before giving an invite, I've seen several threads with lots of applications, but few invites shared despite all the applications comply with the requirements. I'm sure in this case the giver has checked all the ratio proofs or whatever has asked for the invitation and handle the invitations to the ones he/she thought where good enough.

    Comment


    • #3
      Had the invites been restricted to 33% or 55% you wouldn't have gotten that invite to TL back then, remember that. Everyone start somewhere, and a lot of new member already have good ratios on several trackers, might be using a seedbox etc. long before they knew anything about T-I, why would they have to wait to get to certain % to get to certain trackers?
      Just like [MENTION=168692]Peternack[/MENTION] already pointed out it's up to the inviter to set the rules and precautions he/she wants to take.
      Restricting giveaways to certain % may also have the negative effect of creating a ladder of trackers that you need to obtain before you can get the tracker you really want.
      This would also rank trackers and give some of them unnecessary hype for being "high level", which is totally irrelevant to the content they have.
      I don't actively visit this forum anymore, but you'll find me at #torrent-invites on T-I IRC

      They call me the Count because I love to count things...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Peternack View Post
        The good thing about invites is that the giver sets its own rules, so it can choose which branch to use (10,33,55,...) as well as who to give them to. Here on T-I you have several cases:
        - The givers that set invites on a lower branch than usual.
        - The givers that set invites on a higher branch than usual.
        - The givers that check the post for the applicants and handle the invites acordingly.

        I think its better to focus on who do you give the invite to, despite the branch, than posting some trackers on higher branches. If a user for example wants to get on a tracker that its on 55%, it will probably work its way to 55% without problem, but that doesn't guarantee that the applicant would be a good one. As example of givers that checks the posts before giving an invite, I've seen several threads with lots of applications, but few invites shared despite all the applications comply with the requirements. I'm sure in this case the giver has checked all the ratio proofs or whatever has asked for the invitation and handle the invitations to the ones he/she thought where good enough.
        I agree but unless I post them in 10% there are no applicants to choose from. Whats the point of 55% and 33% if all the desired trackers are in 10% I know V.I.P. probably has some others but almost every tracker is in 10% leaving no incentive to use the 33 or 55%'s other than PTP recruitment.

        ---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:03 PM ----------

        Originally posted by mate88
        Everyone start somewhere, and a lot of new member already have good ratios on several trackers, might be using a seedbox etc. long before they knew anything about T-I, why would they have to wait to get to certain % to get to certain trackers?
        Your point's are well taken I have not thought of that thank you.
        Last edited by SteviLGenius; May 6, 2013, 07:15 PM.

        Comment


        • #5

          Let us count the ways why we shouldn't do this.

          I understand your frustration. You'd like to give out some invites. But you don't want to do it in the 10% forum. All well and good, but I do not see it as reasonable to put artificial restrictions in place to drum up activity in the 33 or 55% forum, i.e. to enforce a scarcity of 10% invites and drive traffic to your giveaway. The end result may appear good, but the rationale is unreasonable. And it can foster unfortunate consequences as mate88 pointed out.

          The invites belong to members and they should have a much freedom as possible to invite who they think would be appropriate. They may wish to particularly help 10% members. Or they may feel more secure posting in a higher ranked GA forum. It's true that when there are a lot of invites in 10%, then less members will look to the 33 or 55% forums for that invite. But is that a bad thing? Personally, I would rather seek an invite from the higher rank forum and I doubt that I am the only one. And aesthetics or a well packaged description and review can make your 33% GA stand out above a plethora of poorly packaged 10% GA threads. So it's not impossible to hold giveaways in higher ranked forums. But it remains important to have an active 10% forum and to give inviters ownership of their giveaways.

          Is it really so bad if you don't see a huge demand for your 33%+ GA? To me the important thing is that you made invites available, that they were there should a member need one. Whether they were actually given out is of little import. If not all of my invites are snatched I think.. wonderful, there were enough invites to meet the entire demand. Not OMG, I need to give this invite away! Neither your rank nor reputation on this site depend on how may invites you give away. And iGivers are intended for record keeping, not as trophy counts.

          So, I cannot support this suggestion. Members should be able to place their invites where they like. I do not see it as a 'problem' if more common invites are in low demand in the 33%+ forums. We will have a healthier site if we refrain from making too many restrictive rules. And I hope that you see the value of having giveaways, whether all of your invites are snatched up or not.




          Fortune and love favour the brave .-. Ovid ....

          Comment


          • #6
            @Copper I understand and thank you.

            And thank you @Peternack and @mate88 as well for helping me better understand why things are as they are. And that they should stay that way.

            ---------- Post added at 10:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 PM ----------

            I feel this has been covered in good detail and is unnecessary to leave open so I am closing the thread Thanks to all of you for your thoughts and info Cheers...... S.G.
            Last edited by SteviLGenius; May 6, 2013, 11:58 PM.

            Comment

            Working...
            X