raindance_rob wrote:

i submitted a tape from a Helter Skelter Technodrome event & i had some mod telling me that it should be on Resist label as the tape says HTID on it wtf ? the event was a festival if u like & Helter Skelter, Raindance, HTID etc hosted it together but they each had their own rooms ie Helter Skelter: Techno, HTID: Hardcore, Raindance: Old Skool etc. to cut a long story short the mod tried to tell me that HTID run the Technodrome. now anyone who knows anything about the scene know that Helter Skelter run it. i then said well shouldnt Raindance be the label also then as their name is also on the tape & i got no reply hmm. anyways the only way that i could get them to accept it was to put it as Not on Label, so i then (after it got accepted) edited it with Helter Skelter as the label (as this is correct), but this gets rejected, i even gave links to the flyer which prove what iv said. what i find unfair more then anything is that the 2nd mod just n votes it like a sheep without their own mind & i get abused by a mod: Moderator barttrumba (4 weeks ago)
:-) you cannot add release because of your ears . if i was to say that to a mod i would at least get a warning, so what makes him feel so special that he can abuse me ?

heres a link to it: http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/3324057

Kuta wrote:

It's a little hard to follow, but are you saying the casette shown in the scans is more of a generic design used for various recordings and not specific to the content of this particular release?

If that is the case it probably would've been a good idea to include the flyer as an image and provide some information under notes to explain things for browsing users. Otherwise how will you stop people from trying to update it?

raindance_rob wrote:

yes its a generic design used as u said above & i provided links for the flyer yes. i mean i provided as much info as possible & i have it infront of me so whats their problem ?

digitalchaos wrote:

their problem is hesitating to y-vote something they dont hold in their own hands to actually verify it a 100%. so they keep asking u nicely for all possible info, i dont know if flyer count ;)

raindance_rob wrote:

but when i supply images whats the problem ? also i wouldnt call saying that someone has big ears being nice would u ?

Lostsignol wrote:

since when are we allowed to add promo mixtapes like that that are not even licensed? that shouldn't have been accepted.

raindance_rob wrote:

? how are they promos & if thats the case why do mods such as Jayfive add them then hay ?

digitalchaos wrote:

lol indeed. theres all these bullshit racist nazi hate tapes on here that arent licensed either. nobody seems to care bout those! ALL unique rlses are allowed u heard ;]

Lostsignol wrote:

no shit sherlock

raindance_rob wrote:

lol what pisses me off more tho is getting called names by a mod

Lostsignol wrote:

offense was not intended, u heard :p
life is too short to get pissed of on this site.

raindance_rob wrote:

that mite be so but for all that he nos i mite find that offensive

Kuta wrote:

So what happens when customisable compilations are available to people? You think we'll need list every unique release then?!

Lostsignol wrote:

oh i thought you were talking about me slingin' names. lol

raindance_rob wrote:

Kuta whats that i aint heard about that ?

lol no Lostsignol im on about the mod

raindance_rob wrote:

Kuta whats that i aint heard about that ?

lol no Lostsignol im on about the mod

djcatfood wrote:

i like sheep.

Lostsignol wrote:

[quote=djcatfood][/quote]

they're so easy to dj for (not that all audiences are sheep BAM)

raindance_rob wrote:

lol thats funny Lostsignol but ur missing the point

Lostsignol wrote:

lol i was drinking when i posted that one

raindance_rob wrote:

lol that explains it all then hay haha

digitalchaos wrote:

explain this shite for me

http://www.discogs.com/release/1097107

:x

raindance_rob wrote:

lol i no what u mean when iv added white label images in the past djvirus (a member not a mod) moaned & got them deleted so i did the same on his white label submissions funny thing is that his where all the same image lol also since when have white labels/promos that have writing on them not been allowed ? i brought alot of my collection from a single shop (now long shut down) & they have writing on them. one djvirus made out that i was lying & had faked the images (wtf ?). why & how anyone would fake an image god only knows ? also cuz of him this: http://www.discogs.com/release/1000171 has been pending for months i mean ffs i own it & have uploaded an image. just cuz someone aint heard of a release before does not mean that it doesnt exist. its sad that some mini hitler members on here think that cuz they say that a release is fake (wtf) that it is. its sad really cuz some ppl on here seem to think that they own the place & then i get ppl having ago @ me cuz i make mistakes on my submissions. to be fair tho alot of mods have been helping me out lately, which is all that iv been after since day one & its taken me over a year to get any help from anyone. alot of ppl on here dont like me (& im meant to care ? erm like hell i do, i couldnt give a shit lol), cuz unlike some ppl on here when i own something (or i have access to a hard copy) & some muppet (who dont event own it) tries to give me shit i aint gona just say ok although u dont own this (but i do) u can tell me that its wrong (or fake) & i'll be a good member & say ok ur right & im wrong. fucking clowns

wrote:

I've added several Image's , but got the "N" vote from a mod , looks like most mods here are a bunch of sad "wankers" ;-)

V-12 wrote:

[quote=]I've added several Image's , but got the "N" vote from a mod , looks like most mods here are a bunch of sad "wankers" ;-)[/quote]

LOL! :) probably yours images didn't followed standard rulez here and why they got n-voted :)

Nostalgie90 wrote:

lol, what about the mp3 labels
discogs is getting more of the homebrew labels with no real license in their db, how comes that?

downtown.music wrote:

Discogs is full of unlicensed material and that's how it should be, IMHO, within reason.
(custom mix CDs are ridiculous of course, but mass-produced Mix CDs that aren't licensed are just as important to the collector as the legit stuff.)
I'd guess that up to 5 percent or more of the vinyl in discogs is unlicensed, pirate re-presses, exact counterfeits, and they're frequently white-labels, since it's easier for a bootlegger to press anonymously.
I think submitting white label "pre-release" versions of legitimate releases that are already in the database with artwork on the labels and maybe a jacket or sticker, is quite a stretch though, and should be reviewed on a case by case basis. One wanker-mod who has decided to make me his project has been submitting or editing his white label pre-releases as promos, when they are the exact same pressing, with a white label, that he probably bought in his local DJ shop.
It's very very common for UK dance labels to release the first batch of a given record as a white-label! These are SOLD Wholesale to shops and distributors, and they are NOT promos.
I tried to call him on his mistakes, so he did some of my suggested corrections, but made my edits and comments disappear, so that HIS shit don't stink.
What a coward.

Lostsignol wrote:

Bedroom promo mixes should never be accepted. We can accept unofficial or promo mixes only if they are mass produced and widely distributed.


This is why we have the "Unofficial" tag in the drop down menu. Records and mixes are 2 different things though. Its a hell of lot easier to record a mix at home and hand out some cdrs than it is to press a limited bootleg record.


These should be added as "White Label" then and NOT promo. We are accepting all unique releases now so that means, test press, promo, white label, full release, limited ed, etc so those should be in the db.



You can always file a complaint.

downtown.music wrote:

Thanks for your thoughtful comments Josh.

I was never part of the discussion, but I do know that the "all unique releases" decision and project is still controversial, and I threw in my belated two cents in my post up above.

===

I don't have any basis for complaint at this time and would rather not go there if possible, since the moderator in question has the upper-hand, in that I am not a moderator, but only a mere user, and he and his cohorts hide like cowards behind the cloak of anonymity.

--John