[email protected]

[schlappschwanz]

i'm hoping to be able to join what.cd in the near future but i'm curious about the site rules. could someone post them here or would that break any (other) rules?

maybe its in the rules but does what.cd multiply your upload, like for instance softmp3 did, to make it easier to maintain good ratio?

[anon]

i'm hoping to be able to join what.cd in the near future but i'm curious about the site rules. could someone post them here or would that break any (other) rules?

http://www.whatinterviewprep.com/preparefortheinterview.html

Scroll down. Those are old and don't include information about the new ratio system, for example, but it should be enough to give you an idea.


maybe its in the rules but does what.cd multiply your upload, like for instance softmp3 did, to make it easier to maintain good ratio?

No, it doesn't.

[schlappschwanz]

thanks man, seems i have some studying to do to pass the interview.

[anon]

I'm afraid so, but the fact that you're actually taking the interview puts you above a lot of other people :lol:

[Cabalo]

thanks man, seems i have some studying to do to pass the interview.

As anon-sbi said, you have no idea the amount of people who are lazy enough to not bother reading that, and rather beg for an invite here.
What.cd did that also to reduce the amount of public giveaways, but I guess they can't prevent people from acting lazy. :rolleyes:

[QPD]

You're completely responsible for the people you invite. If your invitees are caught cheating or trading/selling invites, not only will they be banned, so will you. Be careful who you invite. Invites are a precious commodity.

I like this part of the rules.

[Tv Controls you]

You're completely responsible for the people you invite. If your invitees are caught cheating or trading/selling invites, not only will they be banned, so will you. Be careful who you invite. Invites are a precious commodity.

I like this part of the rules.

I like the rule also as they act as if their invites are something of worth.
Even a "terrible user" such as myself had over 3 invites.

Also, They are negligent to their rule where you are liable for crazed accusations made on complete assumptions.

Or is that covered already in their "golden Gilded Rules"

Access to this website is a privilege, not a right, and it can be taken away from you for any no reason.

[schlappschwanz]

How about this part:
"Do not browse the site using proxies or TOR. The site will automatically alert us."
I'm seeding/leeching from a dedicated server in germany that i also use as a proxy for all my browsing i do from home(in sweden). Will that be a problem?

[Rigel9]

As long as it isn't a public proxy, you should be fine.

[AdrianPhoto]

Do not browse the site using proxies or TOR. The site will automatically alert us.
lol!!! as if the site is someone I should be afraid of, some spirit that's watching me for using a proxy.
Really weird

[redMonster]

Do not browse the site using proxies or TOR. The site will automatically alert us.
lol!!! as if the site is someone I should be afraid of, some spirit that's watching me for using a proxy.
Really weirdIf you replace spirit with script, yes you should be (to loosely put it).

[ca_aok]

I like the rule also as they act as if their invites are something of worth.
Even a "terrible user" such as myself had over 3 invites.

Also, They are negligent to their rule where you are liable for crazed accusations made on complete assumptions.

Or is that covered already in their "golden Gilded Rules"

Access to this website is a privilege, not a right, and it can be taken away from you for any no reason.
Based on why you were originally DP'd here, I can't believe you're still butthurt over that. More specifically addressing that, invites are quite easy to get. You don't get banned for an invitee unless they trade/sell/cheat.

These rules are all pretty standard and can be found on most of the big sites. When they say don't use proxies, it's only an issue if you're sharing IPs. If you set up a SOCKS5 proxy on your seedbox, for example, you'd be fine.

And yeah I can vouch for the no TOR rule, since I accidentally visited the site using the OperaTOR browser once. One of the admins was perfectly understanding about it (though I'm sure returning to my old IP afterwards helped).

[Tv Controls you]

Based on why you were originally DP'd here, I can't believe you're still butthurt over that. More specifically addressing that, invites are quite easy to get. You don't get banned for an invitee unless they trade/sell/cheat.


My DP had nothing to do with what.cd. I had long been disabled on what.cd, before my DP's were initiated on this site.

Also me being disabled on what.cd zero connection with a proxy.

[whiteboy]

I like the rule also as they act as if their invites are something of worth.
Even a "terrible user" such as myself had over 3 invites.

Also, They are negligent to their rule where you are liable for crazed accusations made on complete assumptions.

Or is that covered already in their "golden Gilded Rules"

Access to this website is a privilege, not a right, and it can be taken away from you for any no reason.
Wow this guy again, still don't understand why you are even allowed to be here.

Banned from what.cd also huh. I bet it was all there fault, bunch of a**holes :unsure:

Imo there invites are definitely worth something. I would have spent thousands on all the music I have downloaded there.

Sounds like your still butthurt because you got the boot.

[anon]

lol!!! as if the site is someone I should be afraid of, some spirit that's watching me for using a proxy.
Really weird

Actually it's this part of the Gazelle source code:

// Check DNS blacklists to see if IP is a proxy or a tor node
function blacklisted_ip($IP) {
// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_DNS_blacklists
$DNSBLs = array('http.dnsbl.sorbs.net', 'misc.dnsbl.sorbs.net', 'socks.dnsbl.sorbs.net', 'ohps.dnsbl.net.au', 'tor.dan.me.uk');

// Reverse IP, so 127.0.0.1 becomes 1.0.0.127
$IP = implode('.', array_reverse(explode('.', $IP)));

foreach($DNSBLs as $DNSBL) {
$TestHost = $IP.'.'.$DNSBL;
$ResolvedHost = gethostbyname($TestHost);
if($ResolvedHost!=$TestHost) {
return $DNSBL.' ('.$TestHost.' returned '.$ResolvedHost.')';
}
}
return false;
}

[AdrianPhoto]

Actually it's this part of the Gazelle source code:
Thank you, I'm pretty aware of that

[TP635]

Based on why you were originally DP'd here, I can't believe you're still butthurt over that.Doubled penetration? I see why his butt hurt:lol:

[Tv Controls you]

Based on why you were originally DP'd here, I can't believe you're still butthurt over that.Doubled penetration? I see why his butt hurt:lol:

What.cd got me good I wouldn't consider it double penetration though lol. :sick:

Also whiteboy you are the most inconsiderate :censored: I have ever had the chance to talk to.
I hope you screw up once, because ill tare you a new butt lol.

[whiteboy]

Doubled penetration? I see why his butt hurt:lol:

What.cd got me good I wouldn't consider it double penetration though lol. :sick:

Also whiteboy you are the most inconsiderate :censored: I have ever had the chance to talk to.
I hope you screw up once, because ill tare you a new butt lol.
Sounds like you've screwed up more then once there guy.

[WhatMan]

I don't get your problem, Tv Controls you. Your account was irrefutably linked to warfront1 and Nuke0063, which were disabled less than a day before the tvcontrolsyou account was created. It's painfully obvious that you had multiple accounts, which is against the rules on basically all trackers.

You even managed to implicate yourself, by saying "Even a 'terrible user' such as myself had over 3 invites". The tvcontrolsyou account never had any invites - however, the original Nuke0063 account did.

Your account was disabled for ratio watch, you tried to get more, we found you and banned you. I don't see why we're at fault here.

[Tv Controls you]

I don't get your problem, Tv Controls you. Your account was irrefutably linked to warfront1 and Nuke0063, which were disabled less than a day before the tvcontrolsyou account was created. It's painfully obvious that you had multiple accounts, which is against the rules on basically all trackers.

You even managed to implicate yourself, by saying "Even a 'terrible user' such as myself had over 3 invites". The tvcontrolsyou account never had any invites - however, the original Nuke0063 account did.

Your account was disabled for ratio watch, you tried to get more, we found you and banned you. I don't see why we're at fault here.

I'm not nuke0063, that is my co worker. And I could prove that extensively. I logged onto the same computer as nuke0063, myself, and my invitor.
It is the local work machine. On the disabled channel I was not told anything near the lines that I was getting banned for nuke0063's offenses.

I would never get banned for a ratio watch ever... I have a seedbox and a dedicated torrent box hosted in my own house that is ran 24/7.

[7th]

I'm not nuke0063...

I'm starting to believe that you really enjoy all this... if not, you know you could avoid all this discussion again, don't you? C'mon, it's not that hard to leave all of this behind, specially now that you seems to don't care much for the tracker. (and I'm not trying to be ironic here, really).

And I'm just trying to share some respect to the OP :ermm: He probably don't know about you're history with what.cd and now a new discussion/debate comes from nowhere and down into his thread? :mellow:

[Tv Controls you]

I'm not nuke0063...

I'm starting to believe that you really enjoy all this... if not, you know you could avoid all this discussion again, don't you? C'mon, it's not that hard to leave all of this behind, specially now that you seems to don't care much for the tracker. (and I'm not trying to be ironic here, really).

And I'm just trying to share some respect to the OP :ermm: He probably don't know about you're history with what.cd and now a new discussion/debate comes from nowhere and down into his thread? :mellow:

I have no history wtf lol... I was banned (now I know from whatman) for the acts of another person, like seriously wtf.
He wanted to know about the rules, so I let him know they will ban your for "any reason at all".

Since I have this "history" with what.cd, that makes my statements less credible than anyone else's? I think not.
I enjoy this lol? So I should let everyone come in here and BS about how great what.cd is when I got screwed. I don't think so.

[7th]

I have no history wtf lol...
So you're a ghost or something? Anyway, I think you have a history and I have the right to think that :yup: And you even had a thread about you! I never had that! I'm envious/jealous, you know? :lol:


He wanted to know about the rules, so I let him know they will ban your for "any reason at all".

This is what you think and you have the right to think that. The problem is that you put it as an eminent true that will work for everyone :blink: Now, is it true that there are no "old" users at what.cd? I don't think so :P


Since I have this "history" with what.cd
That's what I said! :yup:


that makes my statements less credible than anyone else's? I think not.
That's what I didn't say :noes: Maybe someone else, not me :mellow:



I enjoy this lol? So I should let everyone come in here and BS about how great what.cd is when I got screwed. I don't think so.

You could use things like: "In my opinion", "I think", "If you... maybe you'll..." :D I'm just kidding here but, whenever you state what you "think" as a "fact", others will come to "declare firmly" you're wrong :P

ps: OP, sorry, I won't be back here to continue this... I promise! :)

[Tv Controls you]

No I'm not just making it up....

Golden rule number 2:

Access to this website is a privilege, not a right, and it can be taken away from you for any reason.

http://whatinterviewprep.webs.com/preparefortheinterview.html

Second bullet point.

[cinephilia]

You even managed to implicate yourself, by saying "Even a 'terrible user' such as myself had over 3 invites". The tvcontrolsyou account never had any invites - however, the original Nuke0063 account did.
what about that 'TVCy'? :coffee:

[Tv Controls you]

You even managed to implicate yourself, by saying "Even a 'terrible user' such as myself had over 3 invites". The tvcontrolsyou account never had any invites - however, the original Nuke0063 account did.
what about that 'TVCy'? :coffee:

I put terrible user in quotes as that's what what.cd makes me out to be.

I had invites on my one account (I believe it was named killzone08085) then I got banned for this BS, and made a new account tv controls you.
They then found that about a month afterwards and I went in and they said I was banned for a low ratio. Then they tried pinning me for two accounts lol.
I then cursed out the entire disabled channel if I remember correctly...

[superman1496]

You have to take an interview? I think some of the ppl at these sites are taking things a little too seriously.

[anon]

They only want members that can keep a ratio and have audio ripping/encoding knowledge (necessary to upload your own albums without getting them deleted) to get in. I don't see the problem with that. :unsure: You can always get in without taking it if someone invites you anyway.

[superman1496]

They only want members that can keep a ratio and have audio ripping/encoding knowledge (necessary to upload your own albums without getting them deleted) to get in. I don't see the problem with that. :unsure: You can always get in without taking it if someone invites you anyway.

I understand the logical reasoning, but lets be honest, they are putting alot of stipulations out for someone to join a site to download music illegally. Seems pretty ironic to me.

[anon]

I understand what you're saying, but they're running a site and want to keep a certain quality level. If you want to pirate music without taking their interview, either get an invite or use Limewire, Ares, music blogs...

[ca_aok]

I understand the logical reasoning, but lets be honest, they are putting alot of stipulations out for someone to join a site to download music illegally. Seems pretty ironic to me.
It's your loss not theirs if you choose not to. Especially judging by those Rep points :whistling Personally I'm happier with the interviews as it gives people who don't know anyone with an invite a chance to get in. And if those people don't spam the site with transcoded 128kbps MP3s as a result of being forced to learn a few things beforehand, it's all the better. If you don't want to take the interview, you can still find an invite just like every other torrent site out there.

Then they tried pinning me for two accounts lol.

I had invites on my one account (I believe it was named killzone08085) then I got banned for this BS, and made a new account tv controls you.
Regardless of whether they were right initially, they were certainly right then ;)

[anon]

They offer comics and applications as well.

Edit: the person I was addressing got his post deleted

[superman1496]

It's your loss not theirs if you choose not to. Especially judging by those Rep points :whistling Personally I'm happier with the interviews as it gives people who don't know anyone with an invite a chance to get in. And if those people don't spam the site with transcoded 128kbps MP3s as a result of being forced to learn a few things beforehand, it's all the better. If you don't want to take the interview, you can still find an invite just like every other torrent site out there.

Then they tried pinning me for two accounts lol.

I had invites on my one account (I believe it was named killzone08085) then I got banned for this BS, and made a new account tv controls you.
Regardless of whether they were right initially, they were certainly right then ;)

whats wrong with my rep points? Im already in at what.cd, have been nearly since the beginning. I dont go there much, use waffles more, but I just think this whole interview thing is a little bit over the top.

[Tv Controls you]

Regardless of whether they were right initially, they were certainly right then ;)

I think my second account was fully justifiable as I was banned for the acts of another person.

As no where in the rules does it state that users are held responsible for other user's actions.

[anon]

As no where in the rules does it state that users are held responsible for other user's actions.

Sorry if I misread something, but I get that your coworker used the same PC as you and broke What.cd's rules?

If so, those do point out that if you use the same computer to log in, your accounts will be linked, thus affecting the other if one of them misbehaves.

[Tv Controls you]

As no where in the rules does it state that users are held responsible for other user's actions.

Sorry if I misread something, but I get that your coworker used the same PC as you and broke What.cd's rules?

If so, those do point out that if you use the same computer to log in, your accounts will be linked, thus affecting the other if one of them misbehaves.

As I gather I was linked with my co worker...
Yes we all use a machine at our work place. We didn't download or seed from there ever.
I'm even pretty sure .torrent files are banned on the network there.
We both seeded from different ip's or downloaded (as it seems he never seeded lol)

[kukushka]

As no where in the rules does it state that users are held responsible for other user's actions.
you mean, nothing like this?
"Attempting to find or exploit a bug in the site code is the worst possible offense you can commit. We have automatic systems in place for monitoring these activities, and committing them will result in the banning of you, your inviter, and your inviter's entire invite tree."


As I gather I was linked with my co worker...
Yes we all use a machine at our work place. We didn't download or seed from there ever.
I'm even pretty sure .torrent files are banned on the network there.
We both seeded from different ip's or downloaded (as it seems he never seeded lol)
or like this? "Be careful when sharing an IP or a computer with a friend if they have (or have had) an account. From then on your accounts will be inherently linked and if one of you violates the rules, both accounts will be disabled along with any other accounts linked by IP. This rule applies to logging into the site."

[Tv Controls you]

Kukushka I don't mean to be rude but everything you just typed was complete nonsense, excuss me if I didn't pick up on your sarcastic tone or something.

My whole scenario pertaining to what.cd has absolutely nothing to do with exploiting a bug within what.cd.
In addition the second rule you listed is no where to be found on there interview page and I was banned around a year ago so if your reading new rules they didn't apply to me.

http://whatinterviewprep.webs.com/preparefortheinterview.html

[kukushka]

In addition the second rule you listed is no where to be found on there interview page and I was banned around a year ago so if your reading new rules they didn't apply to me.

if it's not written it their rules, it doesn't mean that they won't ban somebody's ass if they'll feel like it. they're kind enough to point to most common occasions in rules but who obliged them to describe all possibilities some of which they may even not be aware of until sh happends. at the end it's their private tracker and they do whatever they want and while they're keeping their tracker alive and well, they have the point of doing it the way it is

[whiteboy]

Why does anyone even waste their time with this guy. Its obviously everyone elses fault every time.

Its their site, if they don't want you there then thats it, your over it. You already have multiple public instances so your credibility is pretty much zero imo.

[Tv Controls you]

I love how everyone is trying to justify them banning for no apparent reason simply because it is their site.

That is a load of bullshit.

The fact is I have more credibility than you whiteboy. I'm sure I am 10x the user you are on any tracker your on.

[Rart]

TVCY:

It was never a wise idea to "supposedly" log in from a public work computer, much less one that another co worker is logging in to from the same place. You should realize from the start that that is an inherently suspicious action in the first place, and you can't in anyway blame the staff for harboring doubts, considering how popular of an "excuse" that is for having dupe accounts.

And why would you, as well as your co worker, decide to log in from public work computers that you will never even download from? Was what.cd so much of a necessity that both of you couldn't even wait until you got home to visit the site? Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt for everything the staff are accusing you of, your actions were such a terrible idea in the first place that, if you got mistakenly banned, you have no one else but yourself to blame for it.

And even if you disagree with everything I say above, there is one clear rule you broke that even you yourself admitted to: you created multiple accounts. No matter how you slice it, no matter how "justified" it may be, you still broke that rule, and the staff have every right to ban you for that. If perhaps after your first ban you calmly negotiated with the staff or posted at FST you may have gotten your issues resolved, but after breaking such a black and white rule there isn't much of a chance.

[Tv Controls you]

TVCY:

It was never a wise idea to "supposedly" log in from a public work computer, much less one that another co worker is logging in to from the same place. You should realize from the start that that is an inherently suspicious action in the first place, and you can't in anyway blame the staff for harboring doubts, considering how popular of an "excuse" that is for having dupe accounts.

And why would you, as well as your co worker, decide to log in from public work computers that you will never even download from? Was what.cd so much of a necessity that both of you couldn't even wait until you got home to visit the site? Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt for everything the staff are accusing you of, your actions were such a terrible idea in the first place that, if you got mistakenly banned, you have no one else but yourself to blame for it.

And even if you disagree with everything I say above, there is one clear rule you broke that even you yourself admitted to: you created multiple accounts. No matter how you slice it, no matter how "justified" it may be, you still broke that rule, and the staff have every right to ban you for that. If perhaps after your first ban you calmly negotiated with the staff or posted at FST you may have gotten your issues resolved, but after breaking such a black and white rule there isn't much of a chance.

There is no negotiating with the disabled channel staff, they drive you to flip out.
Although I agree it was stupid logging in on the same computer, I shouldn't be banned for another person's actions.

I didn't know of waffles when I was banned, and I was a hardcore audiophile so I didn't have an option.
I found my second account fully justifiable.

[redMonster]

Although I agree it was stupid logging in on the same computer, I shouldn't be banned for another person's actions.

In addition the second rule you listed is no where to be found on there interview page and I was banned around a year ago so if your reading new rules they didn't apply to me.

http://whatinterviewprep.webs.com/preparefortheinterview.html

That rule about accounts getting linked if multiple accounts are seen logging in from same place has been there for a long time. It's your shortcoming for not reading the Golden rules when you first joined the site.

Also, one question in the interview is whether the interviewee has had an account in the past. And as everyone can guess easily, you must have lied about that.


They then found that about a month afterwards and I went in and they said I was banned for a low ratio. Then they tried pinning me for two accounts lol.
I then cursed out the entire disabled channel if I remember correctly...Your use of the word 'entire' indicates that you are under the false illusion that the whole world cares about your curses.


whats wrong with my rep points? Im already in at what.cd, have been nearly since the beginning. I dont go there much, use waffles more, but I just think this whole interview thing is a little bit over the top.How is it hurting anyone? Most sites don't even have such a process and the only way to enter is by getting invited from someone you already know. Something is better than nothing, isn't it?

[Tv Controls you]

I didn't take the interview... I got invited by the same guy who invited my first account.
He also got banned... All 3 of us (me and my 2 co workers got banned from the site)

It wasn't his ip at all, it was a the work places ip address... He couldn't of had more than 20 minutes of use from that ip address recorded.
I am also sure he has gotten 0 k/b's down or up as .torrent files are disabled.

It wasn't even listed in the rules when I joined about a year ago.

[sheela]

The test isn't easy if you haven't been doing much CD-ripping in the past, like myself hehe. =P

[kukushka]

I love how everyone is trying to justify them banning for no apparent reason simply because it is their site.

That is a load of bullshit.

The fact is I have more credibility than you whiteboy. I'm sure I am 10x the user you are on any tracker your on.
your measurement of how much you are a better user - it's only yours. and "justify"? i am just explaining. there's no justice in here, if you think that there should be some of it, you're just naive to say at least