Question regarding the rules on not posting complete magazine scan archive files (.zip .rar) and or .pdf .cbr?

akayeti · September 21st, 2015, 01:34 PM

Question regarding the rules on not posting complete magazine scan archive files (.zip .rar) and or .pdf .cbr?

Why?

Why does the forum insist on posters linking to individual pic scans on file hosts when a combined effort could be made to collect, distribute and share exhaustive scans and collections per each individuals interests?

For example:

I am extremely interested in british mens magazines circa 1984-1989. The cost of trying to collect and buy (and store) all of those back issues make the idea impossible. However, by sharing and exchanging our own individual scans and collating them into an archive to be distributed via bit torrent or a file host would make a complete collection achievable.

Why the insistence on using clumsy picture hosts?

**highwayman274** · September 21st, 2015, 07:10 PM

My guess is that if VEF were to begin offering an in-house file hosting service, the forum would have to become a "Pay For Service" enterprise in order to cover the cost of an expanded server farm, sysadmin functions, etc.

Under such a scenario, VEF might also be exposed to liabilities arising from DCMA breaches by members/subscribers.

**pferdewurst** · September 21st, 2015, 07:40 PM

Sometimes it´s better to have 1 PDF instead of 400 Pictures but that´s only my opinion.

I asked some time ago what´s the problem with PDF? The answer was.

PDF = less quality

**haVEFun here** · September 21st, 2015, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akayeti

Question regarding the rules on not posting complete magazine scan archive files (.zip .rar) and or .pdf .cbr?

Why?

Why does the forum insist on posters linking to individual pic scans on file hosts when a combined effort could be made to collect, distribute and share exhaustive scans and collections per each individuals interests?

For example:

I am extremely interested in british mens magazines circa 1984-1989. The cost of trying to collect and buy (and store) all of those back issues make the idea impossible. However, by sharing and exchanging our own individual scans and collating them into an archive to be distributed via bit torrent or a file host would make a complete collection achievable.

Why the insistence on using clumsy picture hosts?

an obvious answer:

the warning:

( click on image to enlarge)

general VEF rules:

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/f6-...his-first.html

Magazine scans section rules:

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/t22...ion-rules.html

so it is only as an addition allowed:

Makes everybodies' life easy; the moderators can see easily if there are images posted / posts not obeying the rules and the members can pick whatever images / info etc. they want and members who want to collect the whole lot ,if there is not an archive posted by the poster, can use helpful tools like imagegrabber (easy to use in conjunction with the gallery option that imagehosters like imagebam and imagevenue and others provide or double clicking with left mouse button to select an individual post from a thread) .

So everbody haVEFun here ! (Regards, HFH).

**Pepper II** · September 25th, 2015, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haVEFun here

the moderators can see easily if there are images posted / posts not obeying the rules

I was on staff in the Magazine Scans section when this rule was enacted and this was the primary reason. We couldn't check what we couldn't see. And there's no way we could download every archive just to check it.

**pferdewurst** · September 26th, 2015, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepper II

We couldn't check what we couldn't see. And there's no way we could download every archive just to check it.

So u check every porn movie on this site? Nobody demand that u check everything on this site. It´s also impossible. It´s well meant for sure.

**Jism Jim** · September 26th, 2015, 07:47 AM

I can't comment on the movies section, but in the scan section we do check every image. Thanks to the use of image hosts this is possible.

akayeti · October 3rd, 2015, 02:41 PM

It is a shame. without that rule i could see people collaborating to build up and share entire archives.

**chip** · October 4th, 2015, 03:29 AM

Even with the rules some things still occasionally slip through the cracks. The staff is only human after all. As far as the classic movies section and what happens there:...I dunno. I'm not a mod so I'm not qualified to comment.

I will say this: I have reported content that is counter to the rules in both sections in the past. Either hit the report post button or send a PM to a section mod who is on at the time. That takes care of it. If it's a new member or a flagrant attempt to skirt the rules I report the post. If it's a member in good standing and reputation (no matter how long they've been here): then a PM to a mod. Once or twice I've even sent a PM directly to a member about an obvious oversight or two. No issues there either.

The rules are designed so that the staff can keep an eye on the content being shared to maintain the standard of high quality and to avoid forbidden content.

I'm guessing that most of us have no idea what does get deleted here, before most of us ever even get a chance to glance at it.

--

September 21st, 2015, 01:34 PM	#1
akayeti Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 71 Thanks: 63 Thanked 226 Times in 48 Posts	Question regarding the rules on not posting complete magazine scan archive files (.zip .rar) and or .pdf .cbr? Question regarding the rules on not posting complete magazine scan archive files (.zip .rar) and or .pdf .cbr? Why? Why does the forum insist on posters linking to individual pic scans on file hosts when a combined effort could be made to collect, distribute and share exhaustive scans and collections per each individuals interests? For example: I am extremely interested in british mens magazines circa 1984-1989. The cost of trying to collect and buy (and store) all of those back issues make the idea impossible. However, by sharing and exchanging our own individual scans and collating them into an archive to be distributed via bit torrent or a file host would make a complete collection achievable. Why the insistence on using clumsy picture hosts?

September 26th, 2015, 07:47 AM	#7
Jism Jim Sourcer of Smut Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,829 Thanks: 83,600 Thanked 341,623 Times in 8,422 Posts	I can't comment on the movies section, but in the scan section we do check every image. Thanks to the use of image hosts this is possible. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Feel free to post my scans to the relevant model threads, but do give credit

October 4th, 2015, 03:29 AM	#9
chip Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Milwaukee Posts: 1,200 Thanks: 33,660 Thanked 17,438 Times in 1,135 Posts	Even with the rules some things still occasionally slip through the cracks. The staff is only human after all. As far as the classic movies section and what happens there:...I dunno. I'm not a mod so I'm not qualified to comment. I will say this: I have reported content that is counter to the rules in both sections in the past. Either hit the report post button or send a PM to a section mod who is on at the time. That takes care of it. If it's a new member or a flagrant attempt to skirt the rules I report the post. If it's a member in good standing and reputation (no matter how long they've been here): then a PM to a mod. Once or twice I've even sent a PM directly to a member about an obvious oversight or two. No issues there either. The rules are designed so that the staff can keep an eye on the content being shared to maintain the standard of high quality and to avoid forbidden content. I'm guessing that most of us have no idea what does get deleted here, before most of us ever even get a chance to glance at it. -- __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

September 21st, 2015, 07:10 PM	#2
highwayman274 Former Staff Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: The Great White North Posts: 7,697 Thanks: 245,094 Thanked 130,613 Times in 8,119 Posts	My guess is that if VEF were to begin offering an in-house file hosting service, the forum would have to become a "Pay For Service" enterprise in order to cover the cost of an expanded server farm, sysadmin functions, etc. Under such a scenario, VEF might also be exposed to liabilities arising from DCMA breaches by members/subscribers.

September 21st, 2015, 07:40 PM	#3
pferdewurst Vintage Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,414 Thanks: 885 Thanked 25,870 Times in 1,402 Posts	Sometimes it´s better to have 1 PDF instead of 400 Pictures but that´s only my opinion. I asked some time ago what´s the problem with PDF? The answer was. PDF = less quality

October 3rd, 2015, 02:41 PM	#8
akayeti Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 71 Thanks: 63 Thanked 226 Times in 48 Posts	It is a shame. without that rule i could see people collaborating to build up and share entire archives.