New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Incero & SpeedyKVM throws the ban hammer at ALL LET members.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Wondering why let members blacklisted. Maybe scam rate was so high that company took step towards discrimination. Hm, what's next...
Somebody should tell incero brand how to manage image like a boss @Hetzner_OL
you know nothing jon snow
Well said. No one expect You guys to just drop it and leave everyone here high and dry. but it might be time to start vetting a less aggressive provider.
Seriously while i have my reservations about hetzner there is no doubt they handle LET PR like a boss.
Even if that was the case there is no way to pre-screen your clients for LET membership. This is purely a thing so they can terminate anyone complaining about speedykvm on LET...
@AnthonySmith I have this question: What's the case if offer thread includes only non-Incero locations? Would we be still banned from posting here?
This should not be
That's 110% fine, I was interpreted as saying i would ban incero providers, for clarity, I meant incero based offers.
My hope is that this was just an error in judgement and this entire situation does not exist tomorrow, ball is in Gordon's Court.
This should obviously still be allowed. The point should be to disincentivise the use of Incero on here, not hurt people for using it.
That said, this is some quality popcorn.
Thank you mate, but that venture ended long time ago when they published their BF sales and removed my VIP discount.
which doesn't even make sense. most people probably won't be member here when ordering their services. they only eventually sign up here to complain about whatever afterwards... so a) bad PR will be there (here) anyway, b) the client won't be interested in their services anymore and not care much about that rule.
so besides being able to terminate the account pointing to their TOS - which they most likely would have done without that rule too - how does that help?
if it's just for dealing with paypal afterwards... I'd doubt that such kind of uncalled regulation would stand legal ground in a lot of countries and paypal would take it as a valid reason for denying a chargeback.
anyway, providers put all kind of crap into their TOS, no matter if it is reasonable or not... so this case isn't much of an exception. easiest solution: understand that they don't want your business, so don't buy.
I think this is going too far.
Granted that they should no longer be able to post their offers here, nor they seem interested as well, but I think those ToS are simply advising LET customers to not signup directly with them, that is, because we tend to post bad reviews all the time, and most times, they were actually right. Excluding the stupid price increases, which I've never agreed to. A recurring price, is a recurring price, this could have been changed before they posted their offers here (RE: SpeedyKVM) and that was a stupid trick to increase prices with NO notice.
Now, nNot allowing providers that use solely Incero to post their offers here is just ridiculous. That has nothing to do with Incero, only than the fact that they're effectively using their network/servers. The provider doesn't need to fight Incero over this because Incero do not want LET members to signup with them DIRECTLY. Note that the ToS also state a date from where they do not want new LET members to signup with them. Think about the Providers that use Incero and have nothing but praises for them, why would they need to fight this to be able to post their offers here? It's non-sense, and I wouldn't think @AnthonySmith would go ahead with that limitation. Creating a new war when there's no need to: No LET members for Incero/SpeedyKVM? Ok, cool, remove their Provider tags and don't allow Incero to post any offers.
Keep in mind that most LET members do not fit Incero's niche. Cheapskates, drama queens (like me) and all that. It's within their rights to refuse service to us. That, again, doesn't mean that a Provider using their network/servers shouldn't be able to post their offers here.
I think they just want to avoid all the drama that we see here in LET, and we all know how it works out. For a successful company as Incero, we're really not that interesting for them.
I hope @AnthonySmith reconsiders his non-sense decision, or I'll just side with the Providers that won't be able to advertise their offers here.
Does this also dis-allow clients of SKVM (that signed up in 2018) from creating LET accounts, effectively "limiting free speech"?
Would it be enough to just temporarily have your account suspended on LET while signing up for SKVM to avoid this line of the TOS to be effective?
Considering how it's phrased, no - you're free to sign up to LET after signing up with SKVM.
Would you like me to deactivate your account so you have the chance of using incero in the future?
I feel discriminated, can we make a mass lawsuit?
Interesting thought. Current wording surely does not say that but then theres usually the question of intend when it comes to nitpicking such stuff so the only one able to give you a definitive answer is probably a judge.
I'd say you are still a member even if you are banned which combined with LETs no account deletion rule comes down to that once you sign up at LET you can never ever sign up there again. Purely my unprofessional opinion again of course.
No, and your reaction is completely understandable, but respected long term community members are going to get caught in the crossfire. IMHO LET can't afford to lose too many more of those if it ever wants to get back to being something more useful than drama central.
I am yet to hear from a single one of then or Incero or a representative of, however its 6:30am ish there now so not surprising.
My hope is this was just a badly thought out terms update for a specific reason that has been taken out of context and the impacts were not considered.
Nobody is saying they can't offer elsewhere though. Not like any reputable provider would be crazy enough to rely solely on LET for clients, any number of events could cause that to fail.
Is it? I mean I have had services with Wable in the past, prompt paying, non-abuser at all times, even wrote positive reviews on here.
But if I tried to create a new account at Incero directly or SpeedyKVM I can't. For only one single reason, I am an LET member. Feck right off, making out I am somehow not a good customer because of a forum membership.
What next? I sign up with one of their clients, come here and complain about something Incero specific such as Network and they tell that provider to get rid of me or they will cancel their servers? Not as crazy as it sounds given their actions and history to date.
Easy way for LET to take responsibility for this is remove Incero entirely from the site.
The specific reason is pretty obvious. While the majority of LET users are good and decent people, an attractive offer on LET brings lots of abuse and needy people submitting stupid tickets. It's been that way for a long time and I'm sure you've personally experienced it. A famous Gordon tantrum over some LET drama is the cherry on top.
Of course that doesn't justify this moronic TOS. "Badly thought out" is quite the understatement.
If you wish to, go ahead.
This is completely non-sense. I've always been a great supporter of yours, but this time, you're definitely wrong and you won't admit it.
In all seriousness though, I have no influence over this decision. If LET doesn't want my offers as a result, I have no influence over that either. I'm not going to sacrifice anyone's quality of service or cause intentional downtime in the name of sales, nor am I going to quit my day job and hurt my family to have the time necessary to perform the massive data migration some here have suggested.
My provider has been very good to me, this helps me to be good to my customers. I'll keep providing the best service that I can. That's all I can really say or do.
You still expect a respectable business to come here and explain their new ToS. Where they clearly have stated they're not interested in this community.
Although, Providers that use them are getting hit. You're just abusing your power, and not taking to consideration what it may cause to many Providers who use Incero.
Definitely with you.
I asked you the question, what I want in relation to your account is not a factor.
I am always happy to admit I am wrong, I have no doubt in your eyes I am wrong, we have very different perspectives and reasons for our opposing stances though if you dont want to recognize that i cant force you.
As i said, take it up with Gordon.
Remember to separate church and state or your objectivity is out of the window.
All I said is that I'd side with the Providers that use Incero. Incero's ToS do not mention that they do not allow any LET member to use their network. You're making up that rule.
First comment of yours:
I was just saying my opinion, and stating I'd side with the Providers using Incero. Why did you over react? That's very unreasonable. You're taking things too far, and you're trying to side with the guys that are taking it as extreme as well.
I am more than sure that Gordon would accept any orders from reputable members here. They just want to get rid of those that use their brands and come here yelling at them, creating drama that is unnecessary to their brands. Cheapskates like me that love drama (or used to).
Did all the Mods approve what you've just implemented? Just ridiculous.
Again, I am not the root cause or the catalyst here, take it up with Gordon and wind your neck in.
I make a decision you like and your all over it, I make a decision you don't like and you have a pissy fit, grow up take a step back, consider this from a perspective outside of your own, I make decisions based on the community not individuals.
Gordon didn't say he wouldn't allow any LET member to use their network. They stated they do not want LET members to order directly from Incero. That's what I perceive from what they have in their ToS.
You made up that decision before hearing from the Providers that are using their network.
You're not thinking of the Providers that use their services, you're trying to be radical and implementing a rule that does not make sense. I am simply stating my opinion, you either accept it or not. I just don't want you to force my opinion to change either, nor to have you tell me that you can deactivate my account so I can use their services again.
I use their services, while I do not resell those, and am more than happy to do so.
We have historically, at least while I was involved, upheld provider policy as an LET rule to a degree. Like finding a way to work around a provider's policy and making a thread about it, that was always considered bad form. Though, mostly in the name of making this place hospitable to providers.
This to say, there is some precedent for saying "no offers from X provider" were X provider has requested no signups for here. Would be a stretch to use that precedent for providers that are a customer of X, or where used to discourage provider activity, but a stretch on an existing precedent is less extreme than building it from nothing.
I wouldn't have had to face this (friends don't put friends in that situation) so "what I'd do" is irrelevant in relation to this provider. What I'd have done for some other random provider... Probably the same thing Anthony did. Economic incentive is a bargaining tool but you have to be willing to use it. He is, he did, should be interesting to watch play out. Everyone has to do the best they can to do right by the people that depend on them.
Just in response to some unspecified posts in thread