[SlugFiller]

Quote

Slugfiller has some reason in what it says, but i do believe powershare is something very usefull to spread rare files.

I've never denied that. I haven't questioned the validity of PS as a usable feature. I've only questioned whether that use should go limitless and cost-free.
After all, FS is also a useful feature, I've used it myself several times. FS, though, has the decencyto have a ratio impact.
If PS had a ratio impact, I wouldn't be complaining.

I have yet to hear a single justification to people using PS without any ratio impact.
I think I've more than given justification to it requiring a ratio.

Quote

do you agree with the movie/music industry when they say that emule must be shutdown since users can use it to share copyrighted files?

eMule is designed to transfer files, any files. Regardless of what percentage of the files on the network movie/music files make out, they are not the majority of files at large, as otherwise harddrives would have to be illegalized as well. Besides, P2P is not the only way to transfer such files, and you can't completely illegalize the exchange of files at large, they are part of what a computer does.

With PS, those 10000 no-download users would exist no matter how you use it. From the moment you activate it, people get treated unfairly, regardless of what you use it for. There's no "valid mode" for it.
The only way for it to be valid is if you stop your downloads while using. What I'm asking for is even less than that. I don't see why that's a problem.

[niRRity]

@SlugFiller: I guess the next step, by your logic, is to remove the "close" function from eMule because it denies upload from users. "It is not fair for all the users that need your files that you close your client..."

What I'm trying to say is that I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that a user that uses PS can choose which content to upload as long as he uploads indiscriminately and doesn't credit shape.

[SlugFiller]

If you close your client, you also stop your downloads.
When you PS, your downloads continue full speed.
That's unfair, and that's leeching. You can't count PS as normal upload, since you're only uploading what you want, while in downloading you can still download whatever you want, not what others want you to download.

Quote

What I'm trying to say is that I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that a user that uses PS can choose which content to upload as long as he uploads indiscriminately and doesn't credit shape.

This sentence is a self-contradiction. From the moment he uses PS, his upload isn't indiscriminate. It very unfairly discriminates a very large group of people. Just review the 100/10000 example above, and you'll see what I mean.
If PS meant limited download, then I'd be fine with that - it's not discrimination if the PS user doesn't actually download.

However, I have yet to hear of a half-proper excuse to keeping your entire download while uploading only to who you want.

[Thievery]

I understand your point of the 100/10000 discrimination.

The reason why i like ed2k is that i can find mutch mutch more things than in any other network, you can consider it "rare" stuff. If there wasn't this discrimination, and taking in consideration the credit system, if i tried to download a file that just 2 users have and are also sharing some popular files it would take ages for me to get the "rare" file.

Quote

However, I have yet to hear of a half-proper excuse to keeping your entire download while uploading only to who you want.

The only excuse that i can give you is that i cannot ask the user that has the "rare" file that i want to limit is downloads just because i want to get that file quicker. With powershare he can give it to me and still have his downloads going on and when i get the file the network has the benefit of having one more source for a "rare" file.

[CiccioBastardo]

Quote

However, I have yet to hear of a half-proper excuse to keeping your entire download while uploading only to who you want.

This is your faulty view of PS: it not upload to who you want as with FS, it is upload what you want.

That's why FS is limited and PS is not.

And we return to post 2.

/edit: I mean, post 2 after your complain started.

This post has been edited by CiccioBastardo: 28 September 2005 - 11:21 AM

[SlugFiller]

Quote

The only excuse that i can give you is that i cannot ask the user that has the "rare" file that i want to limit is downloads just because i want to get that file quicker.

But you also can't ask the user to stop uploading to other people. In the first case, the user with the rare file is getting the downside. In the second, everyone but you two are getting the downside. At least the first is fair towards others.
Besides, for wanting a rare file from a single user, you have friend slots.

Quote

This is your faulty view of PS: it not upload to who you want as with FS, it is upload what you want.

And what, exactly is the difference? I mean the practical difference? In both cases you get 10000 users that you can download from but don't upload to, meaning, 10000 users that are leeched from. All that changes is the "reason"(read: excuse) for them being leeched. Being leeched is being leeched, for those being leeched the "why" makes no difference.

Besides, I fail to see why this little piece of trivia would require for you to have full download. You're not uploading to everyone equally, you can't deny that, so why should you be able to download from everyone equally? What, specifically, says you must have download?
After all, if 10000 ratio-abiding people can't take download as granted, what gives you the special right to download as you please?

[CiccioBastardo]

Quote

In both cases you get 10000 users that you can download from but don't upload to, meaning, 10000 users that are leeched from

Second faulty point of view: I owe nothing to those that upload to me as they don't to me when I upload to them. This is about sharing, not trading.
If they were using a decent enough CS my upload would decrease if they would feel "leeched". But as they prefer a credit shaping sensible one, well, they can't really complain about what I want to do with my files.

[niRRity]

@SlugFisher: You cannot leech a user, you can only leech the network. That is why it doesn't matter who you upload to as long as you upload...

edit: As I said before this is true as long as you don't use you upload in order to credit shape and as long as you treat every CLIENT (not user) equally.

This post has been edited by niRRity: 29 September 2005 - 08:23 AM

[SlugFiller]

Quote

Second faulty point of view: I owe nothing to those that upload to me as they don't to me when I upload to them. This is about sharing, not trading.

With that reasoning, you might as well use 0 upload and unlimited download. After all, you don't owe anything to those people.
Except that you do owe something. So long as you're within a wide network that gives you equal chance, you owe equal chance. You owe giving those people equal chance at the same amount of bandwidth as you download. This is why you need ratios, and this is why you can't include PS in the ratio: Because it's not equal chance if you rule out 10000 users on a criteria the user decides.

Quote

If they were using a decent enough CS my upload would decrease if they would feel "leeched".

Again with the "I can't leech if the CS works" excuse. Well, too bad, the CS doesn't work. If AR worked, I wouldn't be giving a skipping dime on what you do with your bandwidth, I'd let AR punish you. As it stands, there is no credits system that properly shuns credit shapers, community leechers, and now PS users.
However, you should be getting a pretty good hint from the fact that any credit system that would properly shun all but the PS users, would also equally punish the PS users.

[CiccioBastardo]

I think you are getting a bit confused by your anger:
1. I owe nothing to the people I'm downloading from doesn't meant I don't owe anything to the network. And infact I upload as much as I download as my global statistics say.
2. How can I know the clients I'm downloading from are not doing PS, friend slot, pushing parts or any other credit shape thing?
3. This is about sharing, not trading, and I decide what to upload. If this is a problem for you, other networks are best suited for your I-gave-you-now-you-have-to-give-me approach. This has been discussed for long times and I'm surprised you are going to the same conclusions as the TFT supporters are.
4. I'm wrong or your AR would have to promote clients by their upload independently to who they where uploading to, as long as they indeed upload something (and possibly close a circle)? If so your AR would treat me as any other uploader, unless I have missed something in all those sci-fi-babbling on tables, matrices and auto-learning algorithms based on no available data.
5. Your point of view is always the old one. The limited one. You speak great about forcing a 1:1 ratio, but then limit the user on deciding how the content has to be distributed because he has debts towards certain clients. Have I already said this is about sharing not trading?
6. CS are crap and should be banned. For the fake idea that they would have brought a small amount of upload to the network they just messed up the upload balancing. Now people do credit shaping due to faulty CS. So they upload mostly what they are download in order to get them faster and shift the network transfer on the partials. People trying to download completes or rares are at disavantage. What saves the network as it is now is the slowness of the CS reacting to the ratio. In the end, if even more upload had been brought to the network, the network has not really become better. It mostly shifted towards BT than towards the original idea of sharing is not trading .

I have thought enough about what are the limits of CS, pros and cons. They are no good. So don't come here showing your arrogance about your faulty and never working CS (or any other, for what it matters) on me. And using them as your excuse (surely not mine) to say that some behaviour are wrong because they hit CS weak points.
As I am in the right of not using a CS, as I don't have any interests in credit shaping, as I can't be credit shaped and I am free to think that in the network there are millions of people thinking like me, I am free to serve them with my provided content as I want to upload it to them. The importance is that I contribute to the network the same it is helping me.
The wrong idea is not I-gave-so-I-want-something-back, but it is I-gave-you-so-I-want-something-back-from-you. With the latter intending that if you do not satisfy the request you are going to be cut off.

Now don't get me wrong. Leechers exists. There are thousands of "clevers" that bodly show their U:D ratio. The lower the better, of course. There are even some clever that thinks that hacking the client to allow it to bettter achieve such a goal makes them "skilled and respected".
Some kind of protection has to be taken. I tried with FineCS. It may not be perfect. It is not for sure. But it really does not do any discrimination based on what someone uploaded to me. I don't care. I care about the importance of the data I want to provide. Not about the data others want to give me.

And, look at FineCS a bit better: it does not promote, nor it does punish clients using PS. What a surprise that the PS feature can be neutral to the network if a correct (or at least balanced) way of handling clients is used, isn't it? Yes, you got it right. PS is neutral with respect to the network as a whole but its a discriminating solution for CS enabled clients that expect to be rewarded back... how can it be?
And, most of all, being neutral with respect tothe network, is such a bad thing? And is the self-assumed idea that being rewarded for the given upload is correct?

Too much to think about. Starting a [/]guru meditation[/i].. for those who know what I mean.

[SlugFiller]

Quote

1. I owe nothing to the people I'm downloading from doesn't meant I don't owe anything to the network. And infact I upload as much as I download as my global statistics say.

Your glocal statistics include your PS.
If I remove the FS deduction and only upload to friends, it would also show that I upload as much as I download, but I'd actually only be uploading to friends.

Those 10000 users ARE the network. You owe them, and I don't mean just the percentage among them that upload to you, but all of them. You can't upload to all of them, but you owe them a fair chance. You owe them that, because if you've wanted anything from them, they'd give you a fair chance.
With PS, they don't get a fair chance. They don't get any chance. And they are the majority of the network, so you can't say you don't owe them.

Quote

2. How can I know the clients I'm downloading from are not doing PS, friend slot, pushing parts or any other credit shape thing?

Well, if they're using an allowed mod(and I'm branding PS without ratio as unallowed), you would know.
If they are using an unallowed mod, well, that's what anti-leecher ban-lists are for. Besides, just not being on the forum would reduce the numbers of those.
You can still be fairly sure that 80% of the 10000 are official eMule users that act fairly.

Quote

3. This is about sharing, not trading, and I decide what to upload.

Almost. You can't decide to not upload what you download. Network rules. Check every client, even Sharazaa gets that one right. Only you fail to grasp this.
Besides, you can choose what you want to share or not to share, but you can't choose what to upload via denying upload to people who don't request exactly what you want. It's not a "what" if you're hurting a "who".

Quote

4. I'm wrong or your AR would have to promote clients by their upload independently to who they where uploading to, as long as they indeed upload something (and possibly close a circle)?

Nope. It actually promotes those with the highest upload and the highest variaty of target clients.
It's not "and possibly close a circle", you have to close a circle. If you upload only to one portion of the network, your only way to get download is through them.
This is the same system that flunks community boosts - the tune down for exiting the community slows down all circles that go outside the community, making upload to the community slow as well.
You would suffer the same. Your refusal to upload to a portion of the network would cost you in the bandwidth they can provide.

Quote

5. Your point of view is always the old one. The limited one. You speak great about forcing a 1:1 ratio, but then limit the user on deciding how the content has to be distributed because he has debts towards certain clients.

It's not about debys towards clients. It debt towards client GROUPS. Or more specifically, towards the MAJORITY OF THE NETWORK!!
You're uploading to 100 clients and refusing 10000. You can't call uploading to a select 100 giving to the network, less than 1% doesn't count as the network!
The 10000 are the majority! The non-PS would always be the majority, so long as non-PS files are the majority of your shares!
If you refuse upload to the MAJORITY of the network, how is this sharing?

You might as well not upload at all. After all, that's sharing, not trading.

Quote

6. CS are crap and should be banned.

Totally agree, but this means you can't use CS as an excuse for "I cannot leech". So this point works against you.
Don't think FineCS is better. It suffers the same flaws as any direct system.

Maybe an R-chain system would be better. Too bad it's complex to make, and requires the devs' approval and network's cooperation.

P.S. I still haven't heard a pro-downloading equally argument. Not one.

[zz]

Please try to be careful with your posts and be polite towards each other. There's no need to escalate this to namecalling, and it seems to be moving towards that.

/zz

[SlugFiller]

I wouldn't have to post here at all if you'd just give your oppinion. That's all I'm looking for, some official statement on what you think of the subject.

[CiccioBastardo]

Quote

Don't think FineCS is better. It suffers the same flaws as any direct system.

Oh, I have serious doubts about this. It is not a proper CS as the other ones. Yet it can be circunvented with some efforts from the offender, but it from start is not giving the offender any chance to be treated better that the others. At max I act as if I didn't had a CS working at all (as I did for years). So no credit shaping done. Or received. No vicius circles that brings to stupid situations. And weak points.
My idea of the network is simply different than yours. I don't really bother what a client uploads as long as I can get what I need. I don't directly rewards those giving something to me. Nor I ask them.
Yet, I had clients sucking more than 1GB off me (U-D difference!) just because that file was PS. But I think that distibuting a 1.5GB file that has 3 complete sources is way better than serving other 300+ clients that have uploaded me something for the latest popular I wanted to get.
I set values to information based on its availability. It's not different in RL. What is more valuable is usually also that is less available.
I agree (as I always did, BTW) that PS is a powerful feature that can be misused. Mostly credit shaping is it most probable usage. But again I argue that to credit shape both ones have to "agree". And one has the same faults as the other one.
If you think about it, what would be the usage of PS without credit shaping? Simply being able to upload what is the most valuable content you think you can give to the network. Any other use would not have any meaning.

Just my though.

This post has been edited by CiccioBastardo: 30 September 2005 - 08:19 PM

[SlugFiller]

Quote

So no credit shaping done.

Well, nobody gets boost over a total stranger, but you do request direct reward for your uploads, otherwise you penalize. Now that I think about it, that pretty much sounds like trading.

Quote

I don't really bother what a client uploads as long as I can get what I need.

You can only get what you need if clients upload what you need. You've self-contradicted right there.

Quote

Yet, I had clients sucking more than 1GB off me (U-D difference!) just because that file was PS. But I think that distibuting a 1.5GB file that has 3 complete sources is way better than serving other 300+ clients that have uploaded me something for the latest popular I wanted to get.

I don't care about the 300+ who uploaded to you. I don't care about the guy who downloaded 1GB from you.
I care about the other 99.99% of the network, which you will never upload to.
I don't care who, personally, uploaded to you. You got download -from the network-, picked at random by a random person(unless it's an FS or PS download, in which case you can strike that, but I'm gonna assume the greater majority of your downloads aren't).
Out of fairness to the network, you have to upload to the network. And by "the network", I mean you must upload in the same way you got uploaded to - random person from the ENTIRE network. Picking out of the 0.01% that are downloading exactly what you want doesn't count.
When you upload only to PS(which is often the case), the 99.99% of the network get nothing. You can be picked by any one of them and get download, but not one of them could be picked by you.

Now I'm not saying you should upload to the same person who uploaded to you, on the contrary. You got picked at random by one of those 99.99%, you should continue to pick another(different) one of those 99.99% at random. Even if you weren't uploaded to by that specific person. Because you were uploaded to by the network of which that person is a part.
When you limit your uploads to 0.01% of the network, you're not really uploading to the network. Your uploads will not be wide-spanned across the network. They will only go to a small group which is a strong minority in the network.

Don't want to upload to everyone? Want to upload to specific people? Fine, then don't download from everyone either. It's not fair towards the network.

Quote

I agree (as I always did, BTW) that PS is a powerful feature that can be misused. Mostly credit shaping is it most probable usage.

You can credit shape by removing all files except your downloads from share. I don't particularily care, that's a flaw of CS, not of PS.
My issue is more with the files you can't remove from share without PS, but can with PS. Or rather, the users that fit that criteria.

Quote

Simply being able to upload what is the most valuable content you think you can give to the network.

The most valuable thing you can give to the network is bandwidth, pure bandwidth. You are a router for files, that's what P2P means. Sure, that description sounds a bit like one of the "3rd generation" P2Ps, in a way it is, but without the redundancy. You get, and you give, and you keep bandwidth flowing both ways.
But you have to keep it flowing evenly. If you restrict your upload to a small group, you're acting as a funnel, a bottleneck in the network. You take from everyone, and give to a small group. This causes slowdown for most people(read: everyone but that group).
To be fair, you have two choises: Either expand the range of your giving, or contract your taking.
I couldn't care less about "which files", it's not the identity of files that keeps a distributed network running, it's the flow of bandwidth.

[CiccioBastardo]

I apologize I have divided this discussion in two parts: the part on Fine CS is here.
This thread is titled "Powershare".

SF said:

CiccioBastardo said:

I don't really bother what a client uploads as long as I can get what I need.

You can only get what you need if clients upload what you need. You've self-contradicted right there.

You again got it the wrong way. Maybe it was me that didn't choose the right words. I don't care as long as I can get it from the network. I don't care if I have to wait twice the time if a client had not PS enabled. I don't care if it has the file set to low pri. It will eventually come.
There's not contraddiction.

The imposed limit that you have to share whatever you download is simple made to avoid "clevers" to unshare everything. But as long as I am PSing a file, I am already contributing to the network (providing U:D is >= 1). Even though not directly with the fie I'm downloading. That is npt required anywhere to give back what you receive (or even redistribute what you receive to other clients), but this becomes a must once you activate the PS. I can't see why.

And please stop comparing PS to FS/community boost. It seems you have still not understood the difference. The former bases its choice on the content, the latters on the container.

I can't see you reasoning being straight here. You have difficulties in demonstrating PS is no good with that. You make too many assumptions that are not true. And refuse to understand the basic difference between the way a client can make choices. Or the user's ones. You mix up everything and say the result is no good.
I have not the pretence to say my point of view is absolutely right. But I see things differently from you, and from my point of view the rules are all respected with no exceptions. And from this point of view your complaints have no validity.
You may thing the same from your point of view. But I see inconguences in it, like for instance, when making distinction between priorities and PS. PS is a priority. However you look at them, priorities make discrimination of clients based on their file choice. So either all of them are bad, or none.
From my point of view I can see the things a a whole and everything is subjected to the same law. No exception. I can't see them as being bad. Nor is PS.
As long I can gather the whole picture inside the same set of laws, there's very little you can say that is going to make me belive I'm wrong. Sorry. That's how I was born.

[SlugFiller]

Quote

I don't care if I have to wait twice the time if a client had not PS enabled.

Man, you're really underestimating PS here. With release prio you would have to wait more than twice the time. With PS, you'll NEVER get your download, EVER. You can wait all you want, PS doesn't do division.

Quote

The imposed limit that you have to share whatever you download is simple made to avoid "clevers" to unshare everything. But as long as I am PSing a file, I am already contributing to the network (providing U:D is >= 1).

You're not contributing to "the network". You are contributing to a 0.01% selectively chosen part of the network.
For the one billionth time, community boosters can also have U:D >= 1. But the fact that the majority of the network aren't given equally makes community sharing unfair.
Equally, by PSing you deny the majority of the network. Even if you have high upload, it's just like community upload or friend upload, it's not fair upload since it doesn't go into the entire network, it only goes into a small portion of the network. How that portion is selected is of no consequence.

As for forced DL sharing, it's not to prevent you from sharing nothing(session ratio could do that), it's to force you to upload to the same type of people which you download from, so you are being fair to the network. Besides, it's necessary for releasers to be able to get their work down in minimal uploads - resharing is the basis of the network, and it's what makes it superior to networks like OpenNAP and FastTrack. You can't just wave it away like that.

Quote

And please stop comparing PS to FS/community boost. It seems you have still not understood the difference.

That's because there is no difference. This:

Quote

The former bases its choice on the content, the latters on the container.

Has NO actual impact on the network itself.
What truely matters isn't how you filter, but to what. In both you filter to a small portion of the network. It doesn't matter one bit who is in that portion, what matters is who is in the other 99.99% - legit clients which you refuse to upload to, including(but not limited to) those who are downloading the same things you are.
In the only way that truely matters, PS and community boost are exactly the same.

Quote

And refuse to understand the basic difference between the way a client can make choices.

I do not refuse to see the difference in the way a client can make choises, I refuse to see the way a client makes a choise as being of any consequence when the end result is the same.
Why should I try to seperate different causes with the same effect?

Quote

You may thing the same from your point of view.

No, I don't think you mix things up, I think you simply refuse to see how your arguments match word-to-word with those in favor of other bad features.
The combination of wrong arguments does not make for a good one.

"I don't have to give back to the people I download from" - ratio breakers.
"I do upload"/"I do have a 1:1 ratio" - FS and community boost, even credit shapers.
"I can just unshare files" - part-file credit shapers.
"The CS would stop me if I'm leeching" - all of the above, and more.
etc, etc.

The only argument you've made that's originally PS is "I choose by file", yet it doesn't qualify as an excuse to get download, nor does it strengthen any of the above excuses, seeing as how "You don't choose by file" was never the argument made against any of the above in the other cases where they appeared.

Quote

But I see inconguences in it, like for instance, when making distinction between priorities and PS. PS is a priority.

A priority is capped at x9. No matter how you mess with priorities, you can't pass the x9 cap. PS is xInfinity. See the difference?
And unlike your differences, this one has actual implications on the outcome: Sure the low prio downloaders may get less, but they will get.

I would also consider a x50 priority as leeching. SF-VQB had x50, and I removed it precisely because I considered it to be a leecher feature, something I will not accept in my client.

Quote

As long I can gather the whole picture inside the same set of laws, there's very little you can say that is going to make me belive I'm wrong. Sorry. That's how I was born.

You're going to have to paint me that picture you've gathered, and more importantly the set of laws you've painted it in. I want to know what law, precisely, seperates PS from a horde of bad features which have so much in common with it in terms of excuses used to protect them.

I have a single law that works and keeps a good working network - Upload as much as you download to as wide a variaty of users as that which you've downloaded from.

[CiccioBastardo]

That's getting boring in repeating things just because you can't understand them by yourself. You seem good at math, but you really lack normal language comprhension skill. Maybe it's me that cannot write properly in English. Sorry for that.

TO make an already long story short:

Quote

In the only way that truely matters, PS and community boost are exactly the same.

No they are not the same.
Your point of view is not the only one, and you are not always right.

Quote

Why should I try to seperate different causes with the same effect?

That's because the effects are not the same.
Your point of view is not the only one, and you are not always right.

Quote

"I don't have to give back to the people I download from" - ratio breakers.

Ratio what? Because I don't directly return what I got? Hope you got a freudian lapsus here. I think you really have messed up everything in your reasoning.

Quote

"I do upload"/"I do have a 1:1 ratio" - FS and community boost, even credit shapers.
"I can just unshare files" - part-file credit shapers.
"The CS would stop me if I'm leeching" - all of the above, and more.

You'll better expand these "rules" better and see that you are going to break them when:
- you change the priority settings of your files
- you remove a file from sharing
- you decide to downlaod a certain file
I'm still waiting for the official list of files I have to share/download to keep the network balanced. Me stupid downloading rare files together with popular ones and not giving any chance to the populars to be spread even more.
Your point of view is not the only one, and you are not always right.

Quote

A priority is capped at x9. No matter how you mess with priorities, you can't pass the x9 cap. PS is xInfinity. See the difference?

Yes. With one I can make you wait 10-20 days on my queue evenwhen there's no PS active, with the other you get immediate access to my file.
And that's only because my queue is of 300 clients. Be it of 10000 clients as you wanted it to be because I now start downloading some crap popular to saturate my download bandwidth, you'll have to wait probably a year before getting a slot of a verylow priority file. Oh, I forgot... I may set my partial to that priority as well. But not the popular file, of course. i want it fast.
Your point of view is not the only one, and you are not always right.

Quote

I would also consider a x50 priority as leeching. SF-VQB had x50, and I removed it precisely because I considered it to be a leecher feature, something I will not accept in my client.

That's your choice. I have files that can be boosted to 18000x in my client if they are small enough. Does that break any rule?
Your point of view is not the only one, and you are not always right.

Quote

Sure the low prio downloaders may get less, but they will get.

Unless I unshare the file before you can reach the top of my upload waiting queue.
Your point of view is not the only one, and you are not always right.

Unless there will be a rule that enforce me to upload a file the same as I have downloaded, there's not a single rule that PS breaks.
How many mod do you know that show the ShareRatio for each and every file in the file share list?

And, did I tell you Your point of view is not the only one, and you are not always right.?

This post has been edited by CiccioBastardo: 01 October 2005 - 02:10 PM

[Atlan[GEDC]]

but still he has a point, no offense, but PS like its in zzul is too strong.

and the possibility to PS even incomlete files makes it a even stronger shaping tool.

at least these 2 facts you could accept.

This post has been edited by Atlan[GEDC]: 01 October 2005 - 09:53 PM

[SlugFiller]

Quote

No they are not the same.

In what way that effects the network are they different?
Name the actual effect on the network that changes.
Note: Since this is a con discussion, you should name a disappearing con, not an appearing pro, though even a pro can be easily refuted.

Quote

That's because the effects are not the same.

Again, name the difference.

Quote

you change the priority settings of your files

x9. A mere x9 at worst case. Second worst case is x3. A person not downloading the release file still has a pretty good chance of getting a download.
Sure, it would be nice if that feature didn't exist and all uploads would be equal, but releasers do need something. They don't need something more powerful than that, though.

Quote

you remove a file from sharing

I don't see how that violates my rule, not how it matchs with the arguments made against other leecher features.
So long as I share what I've downloaded, I let the same type of people I've downloaded from, download from me. I still share equally among those which I can.

Quote

- you decide to downlaod a certain file

Okay, you're really going to have to explain this one to me, because I seriously don't get how you get from this to violating my rule.

Quote

Yes. With one I can make you wait 10-20 days on my queue evenwhen there's no PS active, with the other you get immediate access to my file.

No, with the other I never get access to your file, even after 10 years, because I just so happen to be in the 99.99% not requesting that one file you're PSing at the moment.
I'd rather wait 10 days, then never download at all.

Quote

That's your choice. I have files that can be boosted to 18000x in my client if they are small enough. Does that break any rule?

I've already answered that before: SF push is not a boost, since the bandwidth remains the same.
90k every hour = 9MB every 100 hours.
Exactly the same bandwidth.
It's therefore an anti-boost, a balancer.
That's, of course, assuming you use VQB's full chunk transfer, which clips upload to the file's size if SF push was used, so that even if the downloader continues to another file, the downloader won't get more than the small file's size for which the boost was earned.

Quote

Unless I unshare the file before you can reach the top of my upload waiting queue.

If you're downloading said file, that would definately be an issue to accomplish.

Quote

Unless there will be a rule that enforce me to upload a file the same as I have downloaded

My rule would include "way" after "same", but I'll ignore that, because the rule your wording misleadingly creates just happens to actually be a rule inforced by the official client: You must upload the same files you download.
My rule is slightly more relaxed than that, simply requiring that you keep the same spirit of equal sharing.
However, the above rule is the very reason I've originally installed eDonkey2000 0.58 on my computer, and I won't stand by as you throw the network down the drain by ignoring it.

Quote

Your point of view is not the only one, and you are not always right

You have yet to prove me wrong, or actually refute my proof that you are wrong(though you do claim to do so, even though your arguments end up avoiding the point).