PDA

View Full Version : waffles.fm



sometimes
06-04-2011, 04:06 AM
I just got banned from waffles. When I asked the admin they said it was due to "Faking uTorrent to cheat"

I'm extremely confused because I have been using utorrent the same way I have always used it since I was a member of oink. No other torrent sites seem to have a problem with my utorrent.

This is really annoying.

Solitude
06-04-2011, 06:43 AM
Did you have any waffles torrents with double announce url?

1000possibleclaws
06-04-2011, 07:56 AM
Do you use whatcd as well? It's possible you could have been accidentally cross-seeding (which is a form of cheating), especially if you upload the same torrents to both trackers.

sometimes
06-04-2011, 04:03 PM
I spoke with the admin last night. Apparently, their script automatically banned me for using an unauthorized version of utorrent. I've always downloaded utorrent from the utorrent website. I don't know what they are talking about. No other torrent site I am a member of has had a problem with my version of utorrent. Oh well, I still have other sites for music.

ca_aok
06-04-2011, 10:54 PM
You may have downloaded the alpha.

Nonetheless, the story seems pretty fishy to me. Trackers don't ban you for using an unauthorized client, you're just unable to download/seed unless you use a whitelisted client.

Enjoy your other music trackers, personally, I'd leave it at that.

teflon05
06-04-2011, 11:28 PM
I agree...fishy. I once invited someone there & they attempted to ratio cheat, and although I lost invite privledges for 6 months, they were very civil to me. I can't see them banning you for using an unauthorized version of Utorrent. Warning, maybe. But not an outright ban.

anon
06-05-2011, 03:31 AM
It's possible you could have been accidentally cross-seeding (which is a form of cheating)

If done incorrectly. It'd be good if sometimes answered your question, as adding more than one tracker URL to the same torrent has caused plenty of bans.

sometimes
06-05-2011, 04:04 AM
I'm pretty sure the guy was trying to imply that my utorrent had been altered some way, that I must not have downloaded it from the utorrent site, but I did. He said that I was automagically banned from waffles script. He also said other trackers haven't banned me because they don't use the same script as waffles.

and no I did not add more than one tracker URL from multiple sites.

I think the word I should have used is unofficial not unauthorized.

1000possibleclaws
06-05-2011, 07:18 PM
Either way ca_aok's advice on moving on is good to follow on. I have not used Waffles in years even though my account is in good standing. Whatcd is a much better site.

Night0wl
06-06-2011, 01:12 AM
Except What uses Gaselle and bans Vuze. Ohh Nooes it's not the better site at all.

anon
06-06-2011, 01:21 AM
I can understand your dislike of the Vuze ban, but how does being Gazelle-based be a disadvantage for What.cd? I think Gazelle fits a music tracker like a glove.

Night0wl
06-06-2011, 02:30 AM
Merged comments for one. I am thanking the same idiot who made a 192Kbps in WMP and the one who went to the trouble of providing a perfect 1:1 copy of the album

1000possibleclaws
06-06-2011, 02:57 AM
You can use the log and the non-anonymity of uploading to see who uploaded what on whatcd. On waffles you have to guess who uploads the torrents, unless they are not anonymous.


edit: oh I see you're talking about leaving thanks. Well what can I say, the waffles sympathists are few are far between :rolleyes:

Night0wl
06-06-2011, 03:01 AM
Quite honestly I don't see how that's a good thing. If anonymity is an impossibility on What, how much content don't they get? you don't have to quote any torrent numbers because you never see the ones that never dare upload.

ca_aok
06-06-2011, 05:43 AM
Anonymity is idiotic in that sense anyway. If you're going to get caught by the RIAA for filesharing, it'll be by having your IP taken from an active swarm, not from a username on site (which is circumstantial). In many cases even with your IP, they won't know your username on site.

So the point of anonymity is...?

As for the rest of it, meh. The organizational features of gazelle far outweigh the loss of per torrent comments imo. But that's personal preference. I'll take the 3x more torrents and gazelle over anonymity and vuze any day.

Night0wl
06-06-2011, 01:24 PM
Anonymity somewhat protects uploaders that upload many torrents.

Let's say someone uploads something and the IP is listed while being the only seed. If the username is not anonymous, then this person will have all other uploads visible as well, while if the user is anonymous they have that one IP and that's it. In the case of anonymous they would either need access to the database to get more info or check torrent after torrent after torrent to see if this is a one time deal or a regular massive uploader. The latter of course being what interests Anti-piracy more.

ca_aok
06-06-2011, 02:30 PM
If you hide your uploads on your profile page, that'd force them to somehow sift through a million torrents by hand. Not exactly the most practical task in the world. It might be easier at Waffles since you can see the username from the browse list, but even then, without a "search by username" field it'd be a fruitless task in both cases.

I'm a pretty paranoid person when it comes to this sort of thing and even I realize it's stupid.

Edit: LOL Waffles has a search by uploader field. Well then, I suppose it's a good idea for them.

anon
06-06-2011, 03:16 PM
Merged comments for one. I am thanking the same idiot who made a 192Kbps in WMP and the one who went to the trouble of providing a perfect 1:1 copy of the album

I see. Never been much of a commenter myself.

On the discussion above, I do think that if someone doesn't want to be acknowledged for the torrents they upload, or simply wish to make the fact they were the uploaders a bit less obvious, they should be able to hide their name from the details as Waffles allows you to do. But well, as far as I'm concerned, it'd be a largely cosmetic detail, not much of a big deal.

Skiz
06-08-2011, 06:14 PM
Except What uses Gaselle and bans Vuze. Ohh Nooes it's not the better site at all.

Yes, yes it is. Nevermind that What has nearly 4 times the number of torrents; the sheer genius of their superior organization alone pushes me to be use What almost exclusively. That 'oink-ish' layout that Waffles still uses is horrific. :dabs:

IdolEyes787
06-08-2011, 11:51 PM
Surprisingly of the two I like Waffles better.But then I generally prefer Bed and Breakfasts over 4 star hotels.

Tv Controls you
06-09-2011, 12:44 AM
It's been a while since my ban from waffles, but from what I remembered it was a pretty solid site.

One feature I really enjoyed while being a member there was their waffle iron certification (not sure if this is still operational)
All content is supposed to be top of the line, but the waffle iron was an extra test to show it is cream of the crop content.

What.cd content I get is around 99% perfect, but I knew when I was getting a waffle ironed torrent it would be 100% perfect...
Also the old Oink community and waffles combined is certainly unparallelled to any other site's community experience (I personally enjoyed this, others may not)

Night0wl
06-09-2011, 12:51 AM
I haven't downloaded anything from What since I found Waffles had allowed Vuze again, which meant I could go back to using it, thank God. I will use What again the next times I can't find a CD/track I want anywhere but there. I don't feel like running two clients just for one site. Either that or when What allows Vuze again, which will probably be around the time Hell freezes over.

BTW I also preferred Waffles when both sites were normal.

IdolEyes787
06-09-2011, 02:31 AM
It's been a while since my ban from waffles, but from what I remembered it was a pretty solid site.

One feature I really enjoyed while being a member there was their waffle iron certification (not sure if this is still operational)
All content is supposed to be top of the line, but the waffle iron was an extra test to show it is cream of the crop content.

What.cd content I get is around 99% perfect, but I knew when I was getting a waffle ironed torrent it would be 100% perfect...


No offense if you are a dog or something but except for someone printing out the statics so you can see, how do you tell the difference?
I mean especially with Ke$ha.

anon
06-09-2011, 02:54 AM
One feature I really enjoyed while being a member there was their waffle iron certification (not sure if this is still operational)
All content is supposed to be top of the line, but the waffle iron was an extra test to show it is cream of the crop content.

What.cd content I get is around 99% perfect, but I knew when I was getting a waffle ironed torrent it would be 100% perfect...

Waffles has the Waffle Irons. What.cd has log scoring. What's the difference between an iron-approved rip on Waffles and a 100% log on What?

Night0wl
06-09-2011, 03:02 AM
As far as I know there have been troubles in the past with What log checker. WI approved rips are approved manually.

ca_aok
06-09-2011, 03:10 AM
A human looks at it for WI approval rather than a PHP script. There's no practical difference. There are a few minor requirements for WI that aren't checked by the log checker (they enforce accuraterip and log checksums, for example). They also check your drive offset by hand, where if I recall correctly, What's logchecker only checks for a non-zero offset.

As far as audio quality is concerned, unless someone is using the wrong offset for their drive, there's no difference. It's mostly just ensuring it's a slightly nicer package and has a few non-audio related settings used. They also ensure that people don't leave file paths in their cuesheets.

I think if you're really into this sort of thing to the point that you care about the minor differences, you should be able to read the logs yourself and the checking is a moot point.


As far as I know there have been troubles in the past with What log checker.Examples, please? We're aware you hate them because they banned your torrent client, no need to spread that sort of thing though. There was some pissiness about deductions regarding gap detection for XLD (since earlier versions didn't document it in the logs, it was impossible to moderate), but I don't recall any outright "errors", just a few controversial decisions on settings/versions.

I'd be willing to bet after looking at hundreds of logs per day the occasional WI rip has a mistake as well. Humans are, after all, only human :P

Funkin'
06-09-2011, 05:02 AM
Merged comments for one. I am thanking the same idiot who made a 192Kbps in WMP and the one who went to the trouble of providing a perfect 1:1 copy of the album

Whenever I grab a 1:1 copy over at What I always make sure to mention the uploaders name in my thank you. This way there's no confusion.

I really don't see what the big deal is about that. I wasn't a fan of Gazelle at first, but now I think it's simply brilliant for a music tracker. Having said that though, I do like the atmosphere over at Waffles much more than What(there seem to be a lot more douchebags and staff suck-ups over at What).

Night0wl
06-09-2011, 12:21 PM
A human looks at it for WI approval rather than a PHP script. There's no practical difference. There are a few minor requirements for WI that aren't checked by the log checker (they enforce accuraterip and log checksums, for example). They also check your drive offset by hand, where if I recall correctly, What's logchecker only checks for a non-zero offset.

As far as audio quality is concerned, unless someone is using the wrong offset for their drive, there's no difference. It's mostly just ensuring it's a slightly nicer package and has a few non-audio related settings used. They also ensure that people don't leave file paths in their cuesheets.

I think if you're really into this sort of thing to the point that you care about the minor differences, you should be able to read the logs yourself and the checking is a moot point.


As far as I know there have been troubles in the past with What log checker.Examples, please? We're aware you hate them because they banned your torrent client, no need to spread that sort of thing though. There was some pissiness about deductions regarding gap detection for XLD (since earlier versions didn't document it in the logs, it was impossible to moderate), but I don't recall any outright "errors", just a few controversial decisions on settings/versions.

I'd be willing to bet after looking at hundreds of logs per day the occasional WI rip has a mistake as well. Humans are, after all, only human :P

If I remembered specifics I would mention specifics. The only one I remembered was the non-zero offset one.

anon
06-09-2011, 05:45 PM
As far as I know there have been troubles in the past with What log checker. WI approved rips are approved manually.


A human looks at it for WI approval rather than a PHP script. There's no practical difference. There are a few minor requirements for WI that aren't checked by the log checker (they enforce accuraterip and log checksums, for example). They also check your drive offset by hand, where if I recall correctly, What's logchecker only checks for a non-zero offset.

As far as audio quality is concerned, unless someone is using the wrong offset for their drive, there's no difference. It's mostly just ensuring it's a slightly nicer package and has a few non-audio related settings used. They also ensure that people don't leave file paths in their cuesheets.

Thank you both for your answers once again. So a WI rip is just slightly "better" because the Irons check for small details the log checker doesn't. Personally, I don't download FLAC, but if I did, I'd take the mere fact the torrent is on one of the Ws and hasn't been deleted as a guarantee of quality. :lol:

jowa_cd
06-13-2011, 03:10 PM
Either that or when What allows Vuze again, which will probably be around the time Hell freezes over.
I'm a what.cd admin and I'd be genuinely interested in knowing why you prefer using vuze over another client. Whitelisting it again is something I've considered, and I was about to get a few people to mass-test it until one of them made me realize what a mess it would be as far as support goes because of how bloated the client is. There are much better alternatives on both windows and mac now, so if you could tell me why you (or anyone else) prefer vuze I'd be interested. thanks

Night0wl
06-14-2011, 02:15 AM
Obviously my reason will be biased since I have used Azureus/Vuze probably 95% of the time I have been torrenting, but my biggest problems with uTorrent are as follows:

1. I am a member of quite a few places, and staff on various sites doesn't seem to discuss anything regarding what uTorrent versions to allow/ban. On all trackers I'm a member of, except for What.cd for obvious reasons, as long as I don't update Vuze right away there are no problems whatsoever. This not because the newer versions won't be allowed, but rather because they aren't added that quickly to allow list.

2. For the short while I used uTorrent I had many problems with downloading errors. These errors are virtually non-existent on any Vuze (or Azureus) version I have used.

3. With Vuze I can use queuing where it works (If I remember correctly What.cd wasn't one of those places. Gave timeout error) And force seed where needed e.g. to meet 72 hour rules etc.

4. I don't know if uTorrent has this now, but Renaming folders/torrents before downloading them, to make up for bad naming schemes like "(Year) Album" or "Album" or otherwise not following proper naming scheme. Something both What and Waffles are notorious for unfortunately.

BTW I would gladly help with testing.

1000possibleclaws
06-14-2011, 03:51 AM
I've invited a real life friend to what.cd who uses a macbook. He had heard about whatcd beforehand and was thrilled to get the account, since he has a great net connection in his residence. However he never ended up putting any traffic into the account, and I know he uses Vuze. So by limiting your clients it may be limiting the potential casual userbase significantly.

Polarbear
06-14-2011, 05:49 AM
There are much better alternatives on both windows and mac now...
Sorry, but there aren't better alternatives for Mac. Both uTorrent for Mac and Transmission are way inferior clients. If you use Vuze in classic mode the "bloated" argument doesn't count because all the Vuze features are turned off.

For Mac OS X Azureus is still the best client. Brokenstones recommends it as a client of choice.

I would like to know if banning Vuze reduced cheating on What? I seriously doubt it. Besides the fact that Azureus is open source and therefore can be modified, there's no plausible reason to ban the client.

Unlike Transmission it didn't have any serious bugs for ages and announces and behaves just fine.

snake212
06-14-2011, 10:50 AM
that happened to me because some versions of utorrent are on the blacklist because of quite a few reasons. so i had to downgrade and i was able to download again.

jowa_cd
06-15-2011, 08:08 PM
thank you for your answers.

Hologram
06-16-2011, 11:57 AM
I guess you could allow Azureus to be used on MAC only?

anon
06-16-2011, 05:47 PM
I guess you could allow Azureus to be used on MAC only?

It is possible to prevent the Java and OS info from being passed in Azureus' User-Agent. It's somewhere in the settings.

Even if they didn't allow that, anyone can download the source code, edit it to report being used under Mac OS, and then run it on any platform.

Night0wl
06-16-2011, 11:13 PM
I guess you could allow Azureus to be used on MAC only?

Now you're just being mean for the sake of it :(



I guess you could allow Azureus to be used on MAC only?

It is possible to prevent the Java and OS info from being passed in Azureus' User-Agent. It's somewhere in the settings.

Even if they didn't allow that, anyone can download the source code, edit it to report being used under Mac OS, and then run it on any platform.

Rather then sabotage this thread, go do something to uTorrent so their Vuze ban reason becomes a mute point.

anon
06-16-2011, 11:51 PM
Rather then sabotage this thread, go do something to uTorrent so their Vuze ban reason becomes a mute point.

It's already been done - not by me, though. A hell of a coding work.