Pedro's BTM : Change of Rules regarding seeding (Overseeding)

[n00bz0r]

Overseeding Rule


List All new uploads are protected from overseeding for the first 48 hours they are on the tracker.

List Overseeding is defined as exceeding a 3.0 ratio on any new torrent by anyone with a 100% copy except the original uploader:
Global ratios are not considered.

List Partial downloads that are seeded to 3.0 or beyond are covered under this rule.

List All member classes, including VIPs and uploaders, are subject to the 3.0 ratio limit on protected torrents. Only the original uploader is exempt.

List When the 48-hour period has expired, the torrent is not subject to any ratio limitation.

List The original uploader is strongly encouraged to report any offenders to Staff or use the report button within the 48-hour protection period.


Reports received will be processed this way:

1st report: The overseeder will receive a PM from the staff, and will have his or her account parked
2nd report: The overseeder will receive a PM, will have his or her account parked, and a 6 hour delay to download new torrents applied to his or her account
3rd report: An additional delay of 6 hours to download new torrents will be added to the previous 6 hour delay to download new torrents.
4th report: An additional delay of 6 hours to download new torrents will be added to the previous 12 hour delay to download new torrents.
5th report: An additional delay of 6 hours to download new torrents will be added to the previous 18 hour delay to download new torrents.

At that point an overseeder will be waiting 24 hours to download any new torrents.
If he/she has not modified his/her client or behavior the staff will continue to add 6 hours per violation to the account.


Please be aware that these delays cannot be appealed.


List While the original uploader is not affected by the overseeding rule, we expect a certain degree of moderation in seeding their uploads, especially from those with fast connections.
List We expect downloaders to setup their torrent clients to stop or slow seeding speed at a ratio well below the 3.0 limit.
List Members are encouraged to restart the torrent once the 48-hour term has expired and seed it for a long term.


Also there is now an email address for banned members to communicate with staff.

[email protected] is the address.

A good move if ya ask me. :happy:

[Skiz]

So now members of that tracker have to babysit their downloads to ensure they don't share too much? :dabs:

The above listed rules would be more than enough to put me right off that tracker if I were member.

[TP635]

So now members of that tracker have to babysit their downloads to ensure they don't share too much? :dabs:

The above listed rules would be more than enough to put me right off that tracker if I were member.

Utorrent have feature to do that. No real need to babysit your download.


ps:Now I like the new rules. Could it be the result of the discussion from the other thread?

[n00bz0r]

So now members of that tracker have to babysit their downloads to ensure they don't share too much? :dabs:

The above listed rules would be more than enough to put me right off that tracker if I were member.

Well, considering the drama that unfolded over the last few weeks, i am sure it has reached the right end. (From the perspective of the uploaders. It is disheartening for them to see people make 8:1 on their uploads, while they manage to upload a single copy.)
Slow speeds at their end is a problem, but i am sure they would love to move on Gigabit lines if they could. Many of them have already taken to seeding from seedboxes.

Baby sitting the torrents is definitely a PITA. But, some people dont have any other choice considering that P's is more accessible than E, and seeding is a breeze when compared to What.cd and waffles, where it can take months for ones ratio to recover after making a small mistake.

On a personal note, Pedro's is definitely not goin to be my primary source for FLACs anymore(Till i have absolutely no other choice). I would prefer what and waffles till i manage to find a better place.

[slimdogp]

I'm OK with this rule.. I guess..........

They have always been a little funny about overseeding. This is how I feel... Overseeding is really only a problem if it discourages other people from snatching. If you're looking at a 12hour torrent and thinking "wow, I don't want to ruin my ratio because I know when I snatch this there is going to be 40 seedboxes seeding on it and I'll never get back to 1.0"

Is this the case? I can't believe that it is.. It is so easy to keep a ratio on there, and the global ratio requirements are so easy that people probably just snatch what they want. I know thats what I do.

So, I will follow the rule and continue to enjoy what is a very unique and high quality tracker. Irreplacable IMO.

When in Rome.........

slim-

[renwickftw]

Both utorrent and azureus have features which allow you to set a certain time or ratio to automatically stop your torrent, so babysitting will not be required. I'm not a uploader or have a seedbox so this won't affect me, but hopefully the community can come back together and the uploader strike to stop.

[The_Martinator]

To me these rules basically mean, that I should be able to boost my ratio in the 48 hours of a torren's life and that older stuff will probably seeded better.

My ratio there is allmost always between 0.9 and 1.1, so it's all good for me.

[Funkin']

I think this is a good move. I'm wondering if the other tracker will ever implement a rule like this since over seeding has been a problem over there too.

[1000possibleclaws]

What Skizo says is true. If member's are getting banned because they can't seed then there is deep rooted problem and this is such a superficial way to fix it. I don't seed every torrent I download 1:1. That is ridiculous unless you have a really fast upload speed, or if you don't download that much. Some things (most of the time stuff I upload) I'll seed for long periods, to keep them alive forever. Some things I'll take out of my client very soon after I download, and others will keep it alive. Worst situation; ask for a reseed.

Uploaders will hit 1:1 whether or not there's upload limit amounts or not. Maybe it works for Pedro's, I dont know, I'm not a flac nut. I don't think it's a very convenient system and I wouldn't like it on any tracker's I use. IMO it would encourage users to rely on VIP access cause who wants to keep every single torrent they download in their client till they hit 1:1? Maybe this is tolerable for people with decent upload speeds but I don't think this helps people as much as it inconveniences others.



Point in one sentence: Micromanaging to this extent is over-the-top.

[The_Martinator]

What Skizo says is true. If member's are getting banned because they can't seed then there is deep rooted problem and this is such a superficial way to fix it. I don't seed every torrent I download 1:1. That is ridiculous unless you have a really fast upload speed, or if you don't download that much. Some things (most of the time stuff I upload) I'll seed for long periods, to keep them alive forever. Some things I'll take out of my client very soon after I download, and others will keep it alive. Worst situation; ask for a reseed.

Uploaders will hit 1:1 whether or not there's upload limit amounts or not. Maybe it works for Pedro's, I dont know, I'm not a flac nut. I don't think it's a very convenient system and I wouldn't like it on any tracker's I use. IMO it would encourage users to rely on VIP access cause who wants to keep every single torrent they download in their client till they hit 1:1? Maybe this is tolerable for people with decent upload speeds but I don't think this helps people as much as it inconveniences others.



Point in one sentence: Micromanaging to this extent is over-the-top.

where did you read that a torrent at P's has to be seeded to 1:1? Actually they have some other rules, these are just the new ones...

[1000possibleclaws]

I'm speaking in generalities. If I upload an album it'll be because I want to share it, not because I want X amount of upload. I would be happy for someone with a good connection to help get it out there after I seeded 1 copy's worth.

I glanced over the rules and they seem to only apply to the first 48 hours. So I guess it's basically saying don't use a seedbox on fresh torrents, but in more words.

[Skiz]

This was the reason FTN stopped having a ratio. The seedbox users were ruining the tracker for the regular users. B found a genius solution in removing ratios. He could let the seedbox users continue to flaunt their epenises (epeni?) by means of an upload amount, while giving the regular user a minimum seed time so they wouldn't get pinched for not being able to seed.

I can understand Pedros wanting to do something about leveling the playing field but they're going about it all the wrong way.

[sez]

Wrong way or not at least he is trying,ts better than nothing.

[email protected]

[Skiz]

I'm speaking in generalities. If I upload an album it'll be because I want to share it, not because I want X amount of upload. I would be happy for someone with a good connection to help get it out there after I seeded 1 copy's worth.



Exactly. I've been an uploader at "E" for years and have had albums that get snatched a dozen times and I never reach a 2.0 ratio. If you're uploading tunes just to increase your ratio, you're missing the point IMO.

I have been lucky enough over the years to accrue a decent little buffer there. Every upload I have done in the past almost 2 years has been a "free drink", whereas I upload an album but I use my ratio so others can freely download it; I get nothing out of it. I'd much rather have people download an album I love to try it out than not download it for fear of losing a smidgen of ratio.

[The_Martinator]

I'm speaking in generalities. If I upload an album it'll be because I want to share it, not because I want X amount of upload. I would be happy for someone with a good connection to help get it out there after I seeded 1 copy's worth.



Exactly. I've been an uploader at "E" for years and have had albums that get snatched a dozen times and I never reach a 2.0 ratio. If you're uploading tunes just to increase your ratio, you're missing the point IMO.

I have been lucky enough over the years to accrue a decent little buffer there. Every upload I have done in the past almost 2 years has been a "free drink", whereas I upload an album but I use my ratio so others can freely download it; I get nothing out of it. I'd much rather have people download an album I love to try it out than not download it for fear of losing a smidgen of ratio.

That I can agree with. I also didn't know that T.S.O.L. was speaking in general about uploading. I thought you meant everyone had to seed to 1:1, which I found quite hard, even at P's.

[Funkin']

This was the reason FTN stopped having a ratio. The seedbox users were ruining the tracker for the regular users. B found a genius solution in removing ratios. He could let the seedbox users continue to flaunt their epenises (epeni?) by means of an upload amount, while giving the regular user a minimum seed time so they wouldn't get pinched for not being able to seed.

I can understand Pedros wanting to do something about leveling the playing field but they're going about it all the wrong way.

I think their main reason for not going no ratio(same as E, I think ) is that they're afraid albums may not stay as seeded as long as they would be if ratio was in place.

I honestly don't know what I would do if I were an admin at either of these trackers. Maybe I would try the no ratio thing and see how well that went(both trackers have pretty dedicated communities, so I personally think that albums would not go unseeded that quickly). And if that didn't work, then maybe try a bonus system. I think this works well for general sites, so it may for a music site.

Either way, I still think it's great that P's is trying to do something.

[jasperr]

hasn't there been a few discussions/debates on this sorta topic in the past??

but, i think it's a fair solution myself, as to many users whom have seedboxes rape the slower users... thus making it had for them to seed anything at all.. as was mentioned utorr, azerus and torrentflux as well(i think) have that option available, to set a upload ratio limit.. i do not see a problem with this.. if seed whoring is rampant on that site that staff should put the brakes on it!
As for a ratio free system as skizo mentioned, it doesn't work so well.. you just create another issue with seeding.. as users do not feel justified having to seed back or continue to seed a torrent for any paticular length of time.. so torrents die out much faster that they might normally..

i give the staff much credit though for taking a stand on the subject... good, bad, or ugly.. only seed whore would be the ones complaining about this... sucks to be them.. lol

[cinephilia]

I think their main reason for not going no ratio(same as E, I think ) is that they're afraid albums may not stay as seeded as long as they would be if ratio was in place.
honestly, if they cared so much about keeping torrents alive, they would start by archiving torrents like KG does.

[1000possibleclaws]

If a torrent dies then request it again in the requests section. They should work on a better request system if that is a prevalent problem. If requests don't get filled it goes back to a shitty userbase, and there's nothing you can do about that.

Archiving works for KG because it's video but that would wreak havoc on a music tracker, where tons of people change around tags. If a torrent is archived and someone re-seeds it then it might not fully complete, but if they re-up it it will.

[Skiz]

If a torrent dies then request it again in the requests section. They should work on a better request system if that is a prevalent problem. If requests don't get filled it goes back to a shitty userbase, and there's nothing you can do about that.



I agree. E has a terrible system where uploaders are allowed to select their torrent as "permanent" and it will never be purged. There are old torrents that people would like to reupload but they cant b/c it already exists on the tracker albeit with no seeds for a year. :dabs:

[cinephilia]

If a torrent dies then request it again in the requests section.
i mean even classics are deleted automatically and reuploaded later... i don't get the point. if someone need a torrent that no one has anymore, he can always contact staff to remove the torrent (after having tried to leech it during a certain time) in order to permittmembers to reupload it.

They should work on a better request system if that is a prevalent problem. If requests don't get filled it goes back to a shitty userbase, and there's nothing you can do about that.
yeah, staff should allow only 2 or 3 active request per use for example or a system of votes like KG does (your req is bumped when you add a vote).


I agree. E has a terrible system where uploaders are allowed to select their torrent as "permanent" and it will never be purged. There are old torrents that people would like to reupload but they cant b/c it already exists on the tracker albeit with no seeds for a year. :dabs:
this system has been implemented not so long ago and it's always better than deleting torrents imo; torrents with no seeds (even for a long time) are reseeded very fast and if by any chance no one would be able to reseed it, i'm pretty sure staff would agree to let the torrent being replaced by a new upload.

[sez]

No ratio has proven to be extremely poor when it comes to retention,It would be the worst idea for any music tracker,what pedro has done is as far as it should go imo.

[kukushka]

at the end of the day, seems to me, this tracker requires more efforts/.torrent from users and staff than any other... personally, i don't think that all these limitations with tracker load, overseeding etc etc are the optimal solution, but somehow this game has its fans, so.. until it will stay the good source for music, i don't really mind

[Roooney]

Kind a strange rule for a tracker, overseeding... It's not okay to have a low ratio, and now you can't have too good ratio.. It's not easy being a torrenter these days:)

But what the heck, i love Pedro's and I will respect their rules.

[cottonseed]

I would be willing to bet that those that are posting against such a rule have fast bandwidth at a relatively cheap cost, i.e. not the U.S., and think that seeding to a 4 or 5 ratio on a new torrent somehow gives them some type of prestige. P2P is about sharing, not about excluding those that don't have fast bandwidth. I bet if you were forced to use a slower connection as that is all that is available or is what you could afford that your attitudes would be a lot different on the subject. Just a guess and I could very well be wrong.

[Lovestoned]

I would be willing to bet that those that are posting against such a rule have fast bandwidth at a relatively cheap cost, i.e. not the U.S., and think that seeding to a 4 or 5 ratio on a new torrent somehow gives them some type of prestige. P2P is about sharing, not about excluding those that don't have fast bandwidth. I bet if you were forced to use a slower connection as that is all that is available or is what you could afford that your attitudes would be a lot different on the subject. Just a guess and I could very well be wrong.

Well said, my sentiments too.

If something like this wasn't in place, it would become something like BitMeTV.

Really hard to seed, and not practical enough for daily usage.

[kukushka]

I would be willing to bet that those that are posting against such a rule have fast bandwidth at a relatively cheap cost, i.e. not the U.S., and think that seeding to a 4 or 5 ratio on a new torrent somehow gives them some type of prestige. P2P is about sharing, not about excluding those that don't have fast bandwidth. I bet if you were forced to use a slower connection as that is all that is available or is what you could afford that your attitudes would be a lot different on the subject. Just a guess and I could very well be wrong.
yes, you're wrong because it's just the system that is built like this. for example, dumb alternative solution: after the user has hit 3.0 ratio, his upload stop to be counted for him and is being redistributed between users at the swarm with lower ratios. limiting users from seeding is definitely not about sharing.

[Lovestoned]

I would be willing to bet that those that are posting against such a rule have fast bandwidth at a relatively cheap cost, i.e. not the U.S., and think that seeding to a 4 or 5 ratio on a new torrent somehow gives them some type of prestige. P2P is about sharing, not about excluding those that don't have fast bandwidth. I bet if you were forced to use a slower connection as that is all that is available or is what you could afford that your attitudes would be a lot different on the subject. Just a guess and I could very well be wrong.
yes, you're wrong because it's just the system that is built like this. for example, dumb alternative solution: after the user has hit 3.0 ratio, his upload stop to be counted for him and is being redistributed between users at the swarm with lower ratios. limiting users from seeding is definitely not about sharing.

If most users actually wanted to share not just for the torrent ratio we would still be using public trackers.

Pedro is just being more down to earth.

[psxcite]

If it helps, then cool. But if it's just a reason to ban a bunch of people in order for them to PAY to get back in, well...

[Fiamma]

If it helps, then cool. But if it's just a reason to ban a bunch of people in order for them to PAY to get back in, well...
They can no longer 'pay' to get back in.

[DonkeyPacker]

I think the whole "overseeding" system is majorly stupid and discourages seeding for extended periods of time which is what a music tracker needs most. If they're scared of people having trouble seeding with low ratios then make a bonus system or go no ratio so as to keep torrents on site.