> my comparison is flawed though it is based on a monthly bill
Nope. Your analogy is fundamentally flawed because (as I strongly suspect) you're paying your power bill according to power usage, not at a flat rate. Do you really think any site would bother with DL limits if they could charge you per-megabyte downloaded (similar to power companies charging per-kW-h)? Come on.
About your test - it is completely irrelevant; as I've said before, it is not about amount you can _download_ in that hours, it is about amount of video you can _watch_ within these hours. According to my calculations, at 1MBit/s amount you can watch in 1.5*30=45 hours is about 20G, which is still higher than 10G limit, but as I really doubt somebody spends all his 'porn' time just watching videos from single site, in practice it shouldn't be a substantial limitation for most users. Still, all of these are just speculations; let's wait and see whether a poll I've submitted ("How much porn do you download per month?") is accepted and then see the results.
> On the trust rating, ask yourself this, did I post anything false in > the review? All the information about the content, quality of, was
> true.
> So what is not to trust? A number?
Exactly. As I've seen other trust ratings, it is pretty common on this site to put 'no' trust rating for people because they're (as the person who sets rating thinks) are consistently inflating or deflating their ratings, despite that nobody questioned information provided or honesty of reviewer; as I understand it, the same logic should apply perfectly to the case when reviewer consistently applies wrong (as I think) criteria to his/her reviews.
> First, I write reviews to give my opinion.
Sure. And I write replies to give my opinion.
So to re-iterate my opinion: I strongly disagree with a concept to get all you can, whether you really need it or not (which you seem to imply in "Nobody said anything about being able to watch all of it. I just want my money's worth. ").
As for your analogy with power bill - I think it is fundamentally flawed. I'd say that downloading the stuff you cannot possibly watch is much more similar to coming to all-you-can-eat buffet and taking all the food you can put on all the plates you can find (but not being able to eat it, which means that they'll need to throw it away); while I've never seen such a thing in real life, I'd expect that somebody doing it most likely will be moved away, and most likely with no refund.
The only potentially valid point you IMHO have is that they should tell about it in advance; but are you sure that you've read their Terms and conditions carefully enough? (sorry, but I'm way too lazy to do it).
About the poll - I've already suggested a poll asking how much people download per month (and those who download less than 10G, shouldn't care about the limit).
As for the 'No' trust - yes, I do think that your reviews are useless for me as they're based on criteria which as I think are completely irrelevant, so yes, I don't trust your reviews, and won't take into account your ratings when choosing the site; it is my opinion and I don't see why I shouldn't tell about it; that's what 'No' trust is for, isn't it?
Can't agree that 10GB/month is a really bad thing; ok, I can reach downloading speed of 10GB/day too, but when I will watch all that stuff (10GB is more than 20hours of video @ pretty decent 1Mbit/s, so I won't get any life besides watching porn, not even enough sleep)?
Also according to poll on Aug 9, most of the site visitors (84%) spend 1-2 hours/day or less watching Internet porn (definition is a bit vague, but most likely it also covers previously downloaded porn), which essentially means that vast majority of this site visitors most likely won't really care about this kind of limit; as the idea of the site is to make reviews useful for others, punishing site that bad for a thing which doesn't really matter for most site visitors is just plain wrong IMHO.
> i wasn't sure what you meant. sorry
No need to be sorry - thanks for noting it instead :-). I've changed wording in review a bit so it should be more clear for everybody now.
> it looks like they have well over 25 games now.
I've took a look at their current public area (home page, tour etc.) and wasn't able to see anything which I didn't see months ago; while they could make lots of new episodes without changing public areas, it doesn't look so.
On the other hand, there can be some misunderstanding regarding term 'game': when I wrote that they have only 5 games, I've meant that they have only 5 big episodes (each is 2 hours long), which represents one game played by the same 3 girls on the same day. During this episode they really play several rounds, with each of them having different 'micro-game' (like "3 Blind Skanks" or "Cunt stretching"). So we both can easily be right - they might have only 5 "big games" and 25 "micro-games".
> From signing up for ANY more sites for the next 9 months.
IMHO one site (regardless how poor it is) is NOT worth giving up completely for such a long time (after all, there are tons of decent sites out there). Just my humble opinion though.
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
