All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
I think Dedistation is dead
I got a 2GB UK special in September for $15
Performance was never great, but it was fine for what I paid for it.
However, about a week ago I could no longer connect to the VPS, but I could log in to the control panel, and access it through an emergency session in SolusVM. So it was just the network that seemed like it was down.
So I opened a ticket (02/13/2017 09:08:02 pm) and asked on LET if anyone else had an issue.
Someone said they did and @linuxthefish hadn't replied on Skype (now I see he's banned on LET??)
Then the VPS came back up for a bit, but then went offline again. Still no reply to my ticket.
The box is up but I can't ping it, however I can ping it via the IPv6 address.
So if you were thinking of signing up, may want to avoid it or at least wait.
Comments
He's been around, seen the messages, chosen to ignore them. At this point, and I hate to say it, I think he's made a run for it. I'm not going to say that he's run off with the money because, quite frankly, I'd wager some of this has to do with a lack of it.
If I separate my criteria for calling it from how I feel about the person, I would say scam if it were anyone else. So I'm going to say it... scam. Honesty pays off, he chose not to go that route. He chose to watch it fall and stay silent. He scammed LET members.
This should be considered the nail in the coffin. If you have services with Dedistation that are running, migrate away ASAP. Too many reports of servers failing. Sounds like server renewals are dropping one at a time, tbh.
i offer him to host all contracts until expire in our house for free .... so if anyone have his skype/email pm please.
He's not a scammer, he's a bottle-job.
LET history is littered with bottlers. Your business going to shit (through mismanagement or no fault of your own) doesn't make you a scammer, and not coming back to LET to face the music and apologise just means you're weak.
This is just yet another example of someone being so scared of receiving a few harsh words on an Internet forum that they run and hide (poorly) rather than nut up.
and still love you ....
Taking money and not providing the agreed upon service, while not issuing refunds (no one has stepped forward, he has not spoken) or stating a reason does make you a bit of a scammer.
It does, but not necessarily a malicious scammer, more like someone who gets in to debt and does not know how to deal with it so avoids the phone calls/letters.
I think there is a difference, still a completely shit thing to do either way and iirc he used to be fairly critical of other hosts in the past before he was one.
If you want to start misusing the term like half of LET does, sure, whatever you like.
The thing is that I don't know that it isn't malicious. I only suspect.
If I am fair and just, I have to call it that. If a new member signs up tomorrow, creates a company a few days later and begins selling services, then bails a month later without a word, no one questions the use of the word scam. Literally the only thing that exists to separate that person from @linuxthefish is my bias in his favor due to his length of registration and time spent participating on the forum. Logically, these items provide absolutely no conclusion that the motives are not identical.
Joshua Prout is also very friendly and has spent a lot of time participating on the forum. His motives were never stated by him either. We can all agree, I think, that his actions were a scam. So must this be called until alternate evidence has been provided.
I think it goes without saying that I'm not thrilled to call this a scam. That ban button was hard to hit. To be consistent and ignore my own bias is always challenging.
This will be indexed, might want to add some context.
EDIT: Changed quote to match post.
You must add dear comrade before name right now
I'm pretty sure that people do question the use of scam reasonably often; I know I do.
Anyway, whether people question its use is immaterial; that doesn't mean we should all start misusing words because it doesn't get called out every time.
If we're going down that road, good people, with legitimate reasons for shutting up shop abruptly are going to get called scammers somewhere down the line.
FWIW, I'm not defending @linuxthefish, he's behaving like a bottling cunt.
I do have a simple remedy for such a scenario. Speak. I ask nothing more. When you log in and see what people are saying about you for over a month and refuse to speak, you've chosen your path. Good people don't ignore their customers crying out for help, unless there is something serious that is preventing them from speaking. Given the frequent logins, I do not believe that to be the case. This seems to be a conscious choice to stay silent.
It shouldn't have to come to that if you'd just use the right words to describe the situation.
What sort of logic leads you to justify calling someone a scammer unless they return to explain themselves.
There's a lot of other, wholly appropriate terms you can use for such a person, but calling someone a scammer, without any indication that the person in question deliberately attempted to trick people out of their money for the own gain, is just plain wrong.
Take money, cut services, run away. These are my criteria for a scam.
Took money? Check.
Cut services? Check.
Ran away? Check.
It is what it is
If you want to start misusing the term like half of LET does, sure, whatever you like.
EDIT: I literally do not care, if you just want to misuse the term then do it, at least you know you're wilfully misusing it instead of spraying it with no idea what you're doing.
Misusing the term scam is something I continue to not support. If someone provides you with the services that you paid for and/or communicates clearly and honestly on the issue they are not a scammer. I'm sorry, but the definition I'm using does not give me the ability to play favorites, as much as some people here would love for me to do so. In any given day I am both accused of playing favorites and chided for not playing favorites. Such is the role I took on here.
I believe this scenario to fit the dictionary definition of scam. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scam
If I require that someone come forward and admit to running a scam to use the word scam, then there will be no case where the word scam is appropriate. I must use some basic logical deduction. Taking someone's money, providing them with no service, and then running away is a dishonest scheme until I have evidence that suggests otherwise. I stand by that. It's something LET is all too familiar with, and I will not go back and retroactively declare them as all "not scams" nor hold this user to any higher standard.
lol
@cociu any "refugee offer"? (c) delimiter
From where are you deducing fraudulent or deceptive intent?
Who asked you to get anyone to admit to a scam?
Calling this a 'scheme' implies that it was planned. What do you have that suggests this was the case?
One of us is right then :-0
and still love you ....
nope sorry , just try to help because i have like it the guy ....
This is my default assumption when the above given criteria is met. I believe this to be fair. Is it arguable? Of course, everything always is. However, I believe that it is a solid criteria for making such a determination.
To the best of my recollection, everyone that I have previously labelled as a scammer has been repeatedly questioned by members of the forum and has chosen to silently run away rather than answer them. Such would suggest a reasonable conclusion that asking them if they have malicious intent would be of little value. So, too, would requiring them to answer to their intent before labelling them a scammer. The only thing that ever makes labelling someone a scammer acceptable, I propose, is logical deduction which ends with an assumption.
Intent has to be assumed to some degree if one is ever to make a judgement on it, and I am faced with the task of making said judgement from time to time. I cannot escape the call by declaring "scam" to be something that I can never prove. That may be arguably true, but it is a defeatist position which declares me unable to perform my role here effectively. That a matter can be argued should not be grounds for tying my hands behind my back, everything can always be argued.
You can use a nulled WHMCS and argue that I don't know how your backend server is set up, and therefore I can never ban anyone for nulled WHMCS. That's not productive in the goal of discouraging scammers on LET.
Logical deduction based on the criteria at hand. You may disagree with it, and that is fine, but as I have stated I perceive that I must have a criteria that I use and it must be functional and capable of declaring a conclusion. Using a criteria that declares me universally unable to make a conclusion serves no function.
I set out to discourage scammers on LET and I set criteria based on continual observation of scams on LET. Such criteria has not been called into question until applied to a member who has been active here for some time, and I do not believe that the length or depth of their contribution to this forum is sufficient to declare the criteria irrelevant.
Ok, I give up.
WBMDKJGKDHG ?
What this meant on your native language?
Your sister.
no more sister , i am mature ... so looking something more mature now !!!
That's exactly what your sister would say.
Try to contact @AlexanderM from hostus since they own HostWithLinux Ltd, the company behind Dedistation, for months now.