[email protected]

[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/pr...interview.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