80 lines
2.9 KiB
HTML
80 lines
2.9 KiB
HTML
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
|
||
|
|
<head>
|
||
|
|
<title>2009_MP3R2.nfo</title>
|
||
|
|
<style type="text/css">
|
||
|
|
@font-face {
|
||
|
|
font-family: nfo;
|
||
|
|
font-style: normal;
|
||
|
|
font-weight: normal;
|
||
|
|
src: url(nfo.eot);
|
||
|
|
}
|
||
|
|
.nfo {
|
||
|
|
padding: 12px;
|
||
|
|
font-family: nfo, courier new;
|
||
|
|
font-size: 11px;
|
||
|
|
line-height: 1em;
|
||
|
|
}
|
||
|
|
</style>
|
||
|
|
</head>
|
||
|
|
<body>
|
||
|
|
<pre class="nfo">
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I made this rebuttal because, like many others, I think some of these new rules are simply....
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
RETARDED !!
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
So this is a rebuttal of the 'Official' MP3 Release Rules 2.0 2009
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
First of all, I noticed that tons of groups didn't sign this crap and enough crap groups did.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-------------
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
It's only been going on for a few days, but there have been tons of nuke/unnuke's on the nukenets, 'requesting proof'.
|
||
|
|
Seriously what did you guys think when you made this rule?
|
||
|
|
Not everybody has global nuke access, so what they have to pre a proof?
|
||
|
|
It used to be the other way around, you'd have to prove that the release is bad.
|
||
|
|
Anyways most sites wonÆt nuke for this crap and it doesnÆt do any good.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Every release I pre is done with proof. How come you guys didn't make this a rule, because it makes more sense.
|
||
|
|
Every release can now be nuked for it and probably will because off all the nuker stat whores.
|
||
|
|
So you'll have to make the proof anyways.
|
||
|
|
And! This will already block the crap, because they'll get nuked for not having proof, which is a lot better.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Okay then the time limit, where you guys drunk?
|
||
|
|
Apart from the 0day 15d limit for new versions (which I also think is stupid, new functionality = new release), I havenÆt seen any time constraints.
|
||
|
|
Isn't it more logical to just say: you need to provide proof before another group does a proper.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
HOMEMADE, why was this removed?
|
||
|
|
Some people actually liked that stuff, it can also help a beginning artist spread his music without having a label.
|
||
|
|
If a site doesn't allow homemade it will block the releases.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
And last but definitely not least.
|
||
|
|
WEB releases, no new updates have been made for this part, while enough stuff needs to be changed (and will, believe me).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
------------
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
May be it's my Dutch logic but I donÆt understand how these rules actually got signed and spread.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Anyways, I think an update will occur soon because some groups are already thinking it was a mistake, i hope this will be the final push :)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Greetz,
|
||
|
|
A Dutch guy.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
PS: After I finished this I noticed BERC did one,
|
||
|
|
but when they made it the rules where brand new,
|
||
|
|
not active yet and well... the 'damage' wasn't created yet.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
</pre>
|
||
|
|
</body>
|
||
|
|
</html>
|