| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
226
|
Incredible Pass
(0)
|
Reply of
Gray's Reply
Have you tried to call your bank and say that you tried to contact merchant to cancel and weren't able to? Usually it helps.
|
09-13-08 09:20am
|
Reply
227
|
Incredible Pass
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
Thanks. It looks that the whole industry goes downhill. "We're not cheating anymore" is now considered a good advertisement :-(.
|
03-25-08 02:20pm
|
Reply
228
|
Incredible Pass
(0)
|
Reply of
williamj's Comment
I think I've missed something :-). Could somebody tell what's all this whole story is about?
|
03-21-08 12:03pm
|
Reply
229
|
Indian Sex Land
(0)
|
Reply of
bbiillyy's Reply
I'll try, thanks.
Still I'm wondering - why some sites still try to use nonstandard codecs when standard ones (such as WMV9) provide at least the same quality? There is no need to answer - I'm just ranting :-).
|
10-29-07 04:50am
|
Reply
230
|
Indian Sex Land
(0)
|
Reply of
bbiillyy's Review
Any idea what codec they use for WMVs? I've run into 'codec not found' problem with their preview WMVs; can figure out but it's simpler to ask :-).
|
10-28-07 03:49pm
|
Reply
231
|
J Sex Network
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
Come on, there is no need to go that personal; I'm sure there are LOTS of people like me out there. See for instance review of m64bob. BTW, if being exact, it is not only cock which is covered, pussies are also covered, aren't they?
|
12-14-07 05:15am
|
Reply
232
|
J Sex Network
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
Just put it in caps so it will be obvious on the first glance at the review :-).
|
12-14-07 05:08am
|
Reply
233
|
J Sex Network
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
> If you do not like authentic Japanese porn, don't join.
While it's still possible to argue about the term "authentic", there is no point in it. What about the following: you will write in caps in your reviews of such sites: "THOSE WHO DON'T LIKE MOSAICS DON'T BOTHER", and I (and people alike) will never join such a site. Deal? :-)
|
12-14-07 03:52am
|
Reply
234
|
J Sex Network
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
Quite a difficult question. For example, if I review site with lesbianism and I like it, but I don't like the way it's shot, should I lower the rating? Probably yes. Moreover, even if EVERYBODY does it "wrong" (from my point of view), but there is one site that does it "right" - should I make the ratings different? Probably yes too. But this is exactly the case which we're discussing - there are tons of sites with "mosaics", but there are a few without; should I put higher rating for those without if I hate mosaics? I think so.
PS Not that I personally will ever knowingly join the site which has mosaics - that's what PU is for :-); the main thing is to make it clear in review, and the rest is not THAT important.
|
12-13-07 06:31am
|
Reply
235
|
J Sex Network
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
> I guess for the genitally obsessed, this would not be a good site.
For me it's not about genital obsession, it is about distraction and feeling that something is "f****ng censored". If there won't be any genitals from the very beginning (for example, using only angles with no genitals in sight) it wouldn't be a problem for me, but this mosaic drives me nuts (I hate censorship in any form; for me it's even worth than DRM :-) ).
> Material such as you mention, if produced in Japan, is a crime.
As far as I've heard, it is a crime NOT to produce, but to PUBLISH it in Japan (otherwise nobody would be able to shoot any porn or even erotic there as genitals aren't covered with mosaic when the actual thing happens :-) ).
If it is really the case, then it is perfectly legal to sell some uncensored footage to US company (maybe with a restriction "not to show/sell to Japanese users") which will be able to sell uncensored thing to the rest of the world. I've personally bought several uncensored Japanese DVDs in US (or was it in UK? I don't remember) shops (not Internet shops, but "real" adult shops), and I don't think real adult shops will deal with anything illegal when there are tons of perfectly legal things out there.
|
12-13-07 03:51am
|
Reply
236
|
J Sex Network
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Comment
On the other hand, there is pretty decent amount of Japanese-style anime out there without mosaic; to do it they just need to sell non-mosaic originals to non-Japanese company which isn't bound by Japanese publishing laws (another option is to produce Japanese-style anime outside of Japan). So from my point of view it is a definite and BIG minus (why I should be hit by Japanese laws? especially if there are perfectly legal ways to avoid it).
|
12-12-07 04:52am
|
Reply
237
|
JAV HQ
(0)
|
Reply of
David B's Review
It looks that you're shilling for the site, aren't you?
|
10-24-07 06:55am
|
Reply
238
|
Just Jannah
(0)
|
Reply of
bootiger's Comment
It's amazing how far some people can go with "protecting" content. It's even more amazing how they cannot understand that it not only doesn't make any sense technically (bypassing it is not a rocket science for sure), but how much money they lose because of these tricks. Kudos to all the sites who avoid DRM (and cheap tricks like disabling right mouse clicks), and shame to those who use it.
|
12-14-07 05:06am
|
Reply
239
|
Kedra Alliard
(0)
|
Reply of
Kedra's Reply
It's interesting that regardless of reading your reply with implied < sarcasm > ... < /sarcasm > tags around, or without them, I still like it :-).
|
06-17-09 11:01pm
|
Reply
240
|
Kedra Alliard
(0)
|
Reply of
Kedra's Reply
Wow, a REASONABLE webmaster, a rare find these days :-).
IMHO (though there can be disagreement from other members or even PU administration, I'm not sure) there is nothing wrong with posting link to PU on your site. On the other hand, for a PU review to be taken seriously, it's not enough to say something like "Kedra is the most beautiful girl on the planet", it's necessary to elaborate; the problem IMHO wasn't THAT your members wrote reviews, the problem was HOW they wrote their reviews: it looks that they've just tried to do you a favor, putting high ratings without enough explanation, which in fact lead to the exactly opposite effect, causing suspicions of dishonesty etc. And I have no idea if it's at all possible to avoid such effect when publishing a link to PU for site members :-(.
|
06-17-09 01:03am
|
Reply
241
|
Kick Ass Pass
(0)
|
Reply of
dauthie's Comment
You should start writing reviews; I'm pretty sure they will be a valuable addition to the site.
|
10-31-07 08:33am
|
Reply
242
|
Kink On Demand
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Reply
As it is not changing, I've got a feeling it is just a marketing trick aiming to make us think exactly "at these prices you really might as well subscribe for a little more".
Well, at least they're not cheating us, pricing is out there, fair and square.
|
04-13-11 05:02am
|
Reply
243
|
Kink On Demand
(0)
|
Reply of
Ergo Proxy's Reply
Let's hope that their competition (TwistedFactory) will come up with something better :-).
|
04-28-08 04:27am
|
Reply
244
|
Lady Sonia
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
It actually depends on how much you're into this kind of stuff mixed with sex; if you REALLY like it - can be not a bad choice, as finding it isn't really easy elsewhere.
|
10-31-07 08:52am
|
Reply
245
|
Lost Bets Games
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
Thanks for explanation. From my point of view (as a customer of LostBetsGames) getting old stuff which has already been eaten (oops, sorry, sold) isn't a good thing, so I'm going to keep revised rating of 72 :-).
|
02-03-10 03:50am
|
Reply
246
|
Lost Bets Games
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
What matters to me (and I think the rest) is the following: is it exclusive in the sense that this content can be found ONLY on LostBetsGames?
|
02-02-10 06:42pm
|
Reply
247
|
Lost Bets Games
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
Thanks for insight, but [beep], [beep] and once again [beep] (sorry for being rude, but I cannot help it). Obviously, reselling old content is much cheaper for them then making new one, but reselling old content using new production dates is something I can't consider an honest business practice.
BTW, maybe you can submit an error report on TBP to challenge their claim that "All content is exclusive (advertised as 100% exclusive.)."?
|
02-02-10 05:00am
|
Reply
248
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Reply
> Until M&B, I had never joined a site with a pre-checked trial or
> anything like it. I'm aware that stuff like that is out there, but
> I've never joined a site like that.
Wow, you've got REALLY lucky. I would say that from my (pretty extensive) experience at least 1/3rd of sites these days are trying to swindle users using PRE-CHECKED trials (especially typical for the sites which credit card transactions are handled by Epoch).
|
06-02-09 11:29pm
|
Reply
249
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Reply
> It's merely a ploy to hook you. It's a classic bait and switch, which results in them being *that* much more likely to get you to sign on for the full subscription.
For me it would work as an exact opposite (unlike classic "bait and switch", these guys don't have good excuse of "being out of stock" for advertised item, which weakens their position greatly). On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'm a typical user in this regard.
> We're not outside of the adult industry.
Well, if the court would ever consider such a case of deceptive practices in adult industry, it will VERY LIKELY consider common terminology and practices not only within this industry, but on much broader scale. And it is the court which ultimately decides what is fraud and what's not, isn't it?
> The bottom line for me is, I've done a lot of trials and the ones
> that are limited tell me so, so I expect that. You can say it's
> redundant, but we clearly have different expectations for trials. I > consider a trial to be limited to length of subscription only.
Well, I understand your point, but on the other hand I see LOTS of MUCH MORE deceptive practices (like PRE-CHECKED "trials" with outrageous renewal rates when subscribing) in this industry, so compared to those "pre-checked" guys unannounced trial limitations don't look that bad to me.
|
06-02-09 05:38am
|
Reply
250
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Reply
> the company has a duty to tell you what to expect.
Right. But as I've said, the question is that if the very word "trial" implies some restrictions or not. And (playing devil's advocate) IMHO it can be easily argued that it does imply at least some restrictions (number of limited trials even in adult industry is not that small, you can see it on TBP, and if we'll go outside the adult industry, trials will become obviously limited). And if it is implied, what is the need to tell it once again?
> wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain.
Come on, $2 or so they're getting is not really a financial gain (they're paying almost all of it or even more for the transaction itself). The very idea of trial is to get you to stay more, and that's one of the reasons I think that limited trials (except for DL limits during trials) are more much more "stupidity" than "fraud".
|
06-01-09 10:01pm
|
