Had 2 German Shepherds, loved them for years. First one passed away because of bad store bought food as far as I know (Blue Buffalo brand, they ended up having a recall back them but notification was too late for my dog) and the other developed a very large tumor on his back. Miss them both greatly.

So the fact that we had many years together that he would not have had without me made it a little easier to accept that he was old and just not as lively as he once was anymore. Once he stopped eating completely, started losing weight rapidly, and started throwing up, but usually only liquid, I knew something was VERY wrong. The day I finally decided he had to go to the vet IMMEDIATELY was the day he turned his nose up at a strip of bacon.

@MrMazda said:

@Shepard69and now, said Pitt Bull has passed,

My sincere sympathies. (hugs)

@MrMazda said:
as someone who has had this very problem and lost several TB worth of porn a few times, usually due to a Pitt Bull

Have you solved that problem? If not, how about something like a well ventilated metal cabinet/enclosure/closet to put your computer/NAS into? You'd of course need to prevent the cables/wiring from being accessible to your inquisitive bully also...

It sucks, I know, but there isn't a whole lot we really can do about it. If there's any content that would qualify for at risk freeleech, I'd be happy to have a look and see what I can freeleech for you to help you out, but we can't really do anything out of what we normally do for anyone with a situation like this.

So just to be clear, even I as staff have had to pay the price to download content again after an unfortunate hard drive failure... So don't take it personally, as this rule applies even to us who walk among the ranks of staff. It's nothing personal. It's just the way it is.

i understand your point very well, i agree that not having this is not unfair at all, what i am saying is that if we did, it would also not be unfair, everyone would be able to benefit from this courtesy if they ever have to.

i also don't know of any private tracker that has anything similar to this, i don't think it would ever be implemented here, maybe perhaps in the 40 year anniversary when the admin decide to please everyone again.

I think you may be conflating two items, and I'm probably responsible for that with one of my examples. Sorry!

There's the issue of having to redownload stuff, for whatever reason, and therefore its availability, etc. One would face these same issues whether downloading for the first time or redownloading.

Then there's the question of whether downloading something a second time should "cost" the same as it did the first time. In my opinion it should. It's a member's responsibility, and within his control, whether his downloads are backed up, that the media he's using as storage is healthy, etc. I disagree with the basic premise that it's unfair.

And if redownloading was free, why should members store copies of files locally at all? They could just redownload them if they want them again. That's a different case? Of course it is, but how are they differentiated, other than by simply taking someone's word for it?

And even if there was a way to do so, there are other issues that are more "unfair", to use the original poster's term, such as the ones I mentioned previously where the causes are totally outside a downloading member's control. If efforts are to be expended in "righting these wrongs", surely these should sit far higher up the 2do list.

I'm interested on in the original topic: Why would someone download the same file a second time if he' already got it? In my case, I lost a hard drive and wanted to restore a dozen or so old files. Most were on here, many with a half-dozen seeders and no leechers, so I was actually given some seed bonus credit to the guy(s) who still had it. Such re-dwnloading would seem to be a problem only if:

• there are a limited number of peer-peer contacts supported by the tracker, and jerk like me who doesn't back up shouldn't take one away.

• here's some reason behind Black Veil of Site Securty the makes this a bad thing; and if told I accept the answer.

Thank you to everyone who contributes to this site is any at at..

EO

Starting the whole thing with "I don't think it's fair" followed by statements of how things "should be", rather than asking why it's as it is to me very much smacks of entitlement. In this case the opportunity, and responsibility, to mitigate the risk lies entirely with the member.

Would it be fair to allow people to redownload stuff "for free" simply because they'd deleted some items purely to free up disc space to download other things, then decided they wanted that stuff after all? If that's an entirely different case, how would you differentiate? Simply take it on trust? That, I suggest, is a primary reason why not.

I now upload at my maximum capacity most of the time. That means that if I'm uploading to someone who has downloaded before, I can't upload to someone who hasn't. Is that fair? That too, I suggest, is a good reason why not.

I've had more than one instance where I've downloaded nearly all of a torrent then been unable to complete, perhaps because of a DMCA strike, or perhaps simply because the uploader has decided to abandon his torrent for some reason. My ratio takes a hit for reasons completely outside my control. Is that fair?

I've downloaded torrents in full that I've begun to seed, to earn back the download amount I've expended, then that torrent gets removed as a duplicate, or for some other reason. So I no longer have the chance to earn back what it cost me, again for reasons completely out of my control. Is that fair?

The reality is, regardless of whether things like that are fair or not, they are as they are, and I'd imagine it would be a nightmare to try to find a way to address such issues, so I'm happy for it to be a risk I take and a cost I bear from time to time.

Am I missing some crucial point here?

@Kevin4fm said:

@frostycab Am I allowed to be offended that your gentle "there are things in life that are more unfair" is worthy of a somewhat childish response whereas my own "it's your own fault, stop complaining" doesn't even warrant a reply?

I find your question offensive. See you in court!

If the lock on your front door failed for some reason, and as a result the new TV you bought a month ago got stolen, would you consider it unfair that the shop you bought it from declined to give you a new one?

@warren2014 said:
I don't think it's fair if you've had to re-download the same batch of content

On the contrary my friend, it is nothing but fair. what you are asking for is the exact opposite of fairness, you want forgiveness. But I agree with you, it would be good if the tracker could be a little forgiving in situations like this, but it would require some thought. For example, a freeleech buffer that is equivalent to the torrent size, that expires after X many days...

That's totally doable, but many other scenarios would need to be evaluated to make sure it won't harm the tracker or make cheating easier.

As of now, what you could do in situations like this would be to talk to a staff member and see if they can make the torrent freeleech so you can actually re-download it for free. And if not, you can wishlist and wait until it becomes freeleech.

Also, it is entirely possible to upload several times the filesize of your uploads, so that doesn't really track.