FREE LEECH - Post Here

**shipwreck** · 04-03-2011, 01:05 PM

The problem with that is that once the 'neutral leech' period is over, the same level of reluctancy will kick in and people will continue to avoid 'larger' torrents because they want to keep a 'good' ratio, despite what's rather generous ratio rules. So the "benefit" will be rather minimal, especially since not many users actually do seed long term, including those with crappy bandwidth.

I should know, since I've been seeding stuff there for years.

SoloIo · 04-03-2011, 10:04 PM

torrent damage 300% policy - 50% leech 150% upload until new gazelle version

**ca_aok** · 04-03-2011, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by shipwreck

The problem with that is that once the 'neutral leech' period is over, the same level of reluctancy will kick in and people will continue to avoid 'larger' torrents because they want to keep a 'good' ratio, despite what's rather generous ratio rules. So the "benefit" will be rather minimal, especially since not many users actually do seed long term, including those with crappy bandwidth.

I should know, since I've been seeding stuff there for years.

There is an absolutely awesome post by hawkinbj (former staff) on the subject of why this is a good thing. The fact that people continue to complain about getting free music is ridiculous to the highest degree. I'll paste it here, you can read the original at:
https://ssl.what.cd/forums.php?actio...32#post3088964

Originally Posted by hawkinbj

When one operates a site of this size, one cannot think in terms of "in the moment." Instead, one must think of long return benefits, short-term concessions (if any), and general realized global impact. Similar to a monetary economy, site-wide ratio distribution is something that must be considered when allowing any kind of "<?>leech" or altering ratio-related rules.

With this in mind, it's easier to see past the very obvious end-user benefits that accompany a traditional freeleech to the not-so-obvious-to-the-user long-term consequences.

The core motivation behind a traditional freeleech for the average user is the lure not of (or not only) unlimited download, but instead that of "unearned" upload gains. These gains are both unearned and artificial in the sense that they were not introduced into the system naturally on a 1:1 (download:upload) basis, but instead on a 0:1 basis. While sparked site/download activity is always beneficial (injects stockpiled ratio back into the economy), it's not so beneficial in this sense because of the accompanying consequences. In this case, these sorts of artificial injections over time (and taken to the extreme) result in a disproportioanlly-skewed distribution of ratio "wealth" - that is to the say the "haves" have MUCH more than the "have-nots" and the incentives of the ratio system are rendered ineffective. Thus on the high end, one need'nt worry about seeding after a certain threshold. On the low end, one might never overcome their ratio imbalance despite their honest efforts. Because of this, traditional freeleeches bring with them much hit and run; download to reap upload rewards now - not because one actually likes the music and is incentivised to seed afterwards. Herein lies the beauty of a neutral leech.

Neutral leech affords users the real luxury of downloading what he is actually interested in. Furthermore, one is more likely to seed these items over the long haul as opposed to downloading in every available format an album he'll never listen to purely for short-term gain - and delete it from his harddrive the moment freeleech is over. Coupled with the realization that these downloads are in fact future upload investments, users (on the whole) are more likely to seed their neutral leech downloads for a longer period of time because after the neutral leech ends the normal ratio system incentives come back into play. There are certainly weaknesses: users with a sizeable buffer (no real want to go on a download spree) have no REAL incentive to continue seeding during the neutral beyond warm-fuzzies or a feeling of dedication to the community. The vast majority of the community, however, will benefit and participate as seeders because the trade-off is REAL for them in that they can and will download at much higher rate than they would normally - and seeding is the future investment I referenced earlier. In this regard, should a "<?>leech" be held, it's better it be a neutral leech for the long-term health of the site.

**shipwreck** · 04-04-2011, 12:03 AM

Again, the perspective of the long term seeders is totally ignored. What motivation do long term seeders have to keep seeding their stuff when their uploads are not even counted during this period? If I were an egoistic arse, and I bet that there are a few in the huge what userbase, I'd simply stop seeding during this period for the simple reason that none of the stuff I'm uploading right now is to my benefit in any way.

But I'm not complaining because I actually couldn't care less. I don't even use the 'neutral leech' period to download stuff myself, since I never avoid downloading anything I want because the site's ratio economy is so fucked up that it would "ruin" my account for good. If that's the case, I simply don't use the site to begin with.

Neutral leech, free leech, whatever. Maybe it's about time to consider a bonus system that actually encourages seeding, long term seeding that is. Again, I'm quite sure that once the neutral leech period is over, people will be rather reluctant to download stuff again, and I'm even more sure that most of the stuff people have downloaded will not be seeded long term. Only a small minority actually does that, usually their own torrents / uploads.