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.
Keep away BuyVM and FranTech.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Good for you! I personally still on side of BuyVM and other provider who reported you, as for the rest it’s just your comments without any proof.
It’s normal for Chinese customers as they do think everyone is spying on them, government, all companies and everyone - sick in head!
Is that so? Can that be proven?
FraudRecord has some problems. For one it's a relation with only 1 leg; FraudRecord - provider. The customers aren't in any relation with FR. Second, there is no burden of proof. From what I know, usually it's enough for one provider to mark you as black sheep for whatever reason. I didn't examine it closely but I'd bet that customers rights aren't exactly a priority with FR. Plus, obviously a marked customer has to prove or at least demonstrate plausibly that him being marked was unjustified - and he has to do that based on very little info. Finally, if customer succeeded he of course will not be compensated for his damage, time and efforts. In other words: It's a totally rigged game.
Well noted, I do understand the desire and need of providers for something like FR. It just seems to be very unbalanced and one-sided with customer ending up as the idiot in one way or another.
Btw, my reason to post in this thread is the fact that FranTech did not react in any way whatsoever when I sent them a PM telling them about a comment spammer from their IP range. Nothing, no reaction at all. No problem, I just block all their IPs and informed some colleagues and friends. In case my log shows more than occasional spamming attempts coming from them I'll have them listed.
But I'm quite surprised to now see how they treat some chinese customer based on some FR record. That looks very one sided to me. As in "we do not even react at all to messages about spam from our network - but we do react swiftly the other way round and ban customers without refund based on some questionable FR record".
That's the murky point here imo.
In their case it's mostly true.
We understand that, and that's why we made the changes to our systems to whitelist alipay.
Anyway, once OP figures his stuff out, he can place his order.
Francisco
Lads, rejoice, bsdguy enters the circus.
P.S. Vote for Fran to drain the swamp and stop the spying!
@jsg - just because I don't respond to a PM doesn't mean I don't bring it up with the client.
We do allow TOR exit nodes on our network so seeing these things aren't uncommon. I'm not going to rip people offline willy nilly.
Francisco
OK, I understand. But I hope you see why your not reacting risks to be interpreted in a quite bad way.
Anyway, my main point wasn't to hit at you but it was FraudRecord which certainly is needed and useful. But it should be made more balanced. As in: why is it enough for a provider to just assert something but a customer must prove or plausibly demonstrate his innocence?
That's how it works.
Just like how women can accuse men for rape charges for no apparent reason and men must defend themselves in court.
If the opposite, people will laugh at you.
Yeah, sad world for lads. We have balls between our legs. And they've got balls on their chests.
That's the only difference between 'em & us.
I personally don't look at FraudRecord score at all, but instead look at the offense notes and which providers put it there.
If I see 5 reports from 5 different providers noting abuse/chargebacks or something like that, I do become wary and generally refuse the customer - you know, having to clean blacklisted IPs and/or solving disputes/chargebacks is definitely not fun, and it is generally much more hassle than it's worth risking accepting the customer.
But you are partially right. FR works on a basis of trust between providers. If you think about it for a while, the whole internet also works on a basis of trust between ISPs so… don't see that much of a problem here.
I see what I said as an empirical generalization ("generally"), but -- yes -- there are exceptions (so no proof possible).
A working assumption is that if there were a significant number of innocent people on FR, then we'd hear more complaints about this on forums.
But perhaps there are a significant number of innocent people on FR and they don't complain about this on forums, in which case this working assumption would be wrong.
Another working assumption is that most providers are self-respecting and don't report people to FR for made-up (i.e., false) reasons. (It also takes effort to report someone.)
But perhaps most providers are not self-respecting and do report people to FR for made-up (i.e., false) reasons, in which case this working assumption would also be wrong.
Given what I've observed, I think that FR, taken statistically, represents the situation significantly more correctly than incorrectly.
But, yes, I could be completely wrong about this.
@ehab tldr;?
It's very much like @FHR said. Going by score alone is pointless and a bad idea.
Actually reading the reports can tell you if a user is a one off issue or a cancer moving between providers.
The OP already admitted that he knows why he got flagged at the top of page 2 and who flagged him. It's on him to fix it because that report is going to follow him between providers.
It could've been anyone else that he opened a thread with for the same issue.
It's in his best interest to address it.
Francisco
@quick, nope, Francisco is old enough to handle things like these. Go read something else.
OP claims Fran is a scam. It turns out that it is (or may be) the other way around.
as usual... still don't get why providers get in a fight over f*cking $5 and earning themselves a drama thread on LET for it.
getting involved in threads, PMs and tickets to eventually sort it out is not even worth keeping it. if he manages to clean out his FR record, you end up with providing him service after all that work and still can't be sure, that he does not abuse your service later.
I would have refunded it already just to make sure I don't need to clean up later or somehow end up with having to keep that bitch.
tl;dr; fully okay to kick him out based on fraudrecord, but if you want to get rid of him quickly - f*cking refund his peanuts and be done with it.
Is Mr Endis around the corner?
Free advertising. Negative drama bring in far more customers than some fake happy drama.
He came, yelled, and left on page 1 or 2.
yah, maybe. but what kind of customers will that bring in? I doubt the big serious ones...
Anyone with an ounce of functioning brain will do his due diligence. A stupid negative review like this won't have any impact.
Now, the mugs with zombie brain will see this and visit Fran's site, sees the mindblowing price and will simply sign up.
I welcome money either way. I bet @MikeET's sanity that Fran will do the same.
Circular logic, fallacy.
Fair, but the problem is more often than not we have problems with the Alipay Global system not processing it properly.
Besides, good chance he would've still made the thread about the malware claim. As of the start of page 2 he admitted he sees where it came from and why it did, that's a good start. He's been informed of the same via a ticket and I've told him he needs to resolve it and we can fix him up.
This way, he'll hopefully address the issue and it won't be a problem for him and his future providers.
Francisco
on the topic of MaxMind - How would you react to a single "chargeback" comment from a provider that is known for crap support and continued to charge and ignore cancellation requests.
No.
I stated it dramatically and redundantly, but it's basically just:
Generally x: if x is innocent, then NOT (x is on FR)
Which is equivalent to:
Generally x: if x is on FR, then NOT (x is innocent)
It's meant to be an empirical generalization, not a logical truth.
angstrom just made this thread XXX rated.
If it's just a single FR entry about chargeback, I open a ticket with the customer and request brief explanation - maybe they had a reason for the chargeback. Then decide whether to accept the order or not.
That is 2 assertions. Not a proof.
In fact, you even can not possibly make reasonable statements because we don't have the necessary data.
All we know is that a providers assertion (at least often) is enough to get someone into FR's records. Yes, providers can and should not be assumed to be evil people and yes, probably providers do not invent false stories to paint someone bad at FR. But: Those are assumptions, reasonably looking assumption but anyway just assumptions.
If FR - and it's real inner working - were more open and if providers and peers both were assumed to not lie and to have no ill will we could have more trust and make more tenable statements. But that's not the case.
Plus: what keeps providers from willy-nilly or driven by emotions or whatever allegations and have them put into FR? Compare that with a credit rating agency (in a civilized country). They must (a) fully inform anyone about his data and ratings, (b) they are legally liable (c) and so are the finance institutes reporting to them, and (d) a victim can sue them and win if they can't show that their information and rating are correct.
With FR? It seems nobody is liable, nobody - except the victim - has to prove anything, and the people in FR must trust that what FR tells and gives them is correct and complete (which it may be or not).
In summary FR seems to be not much more than an insiders hear-say utility. I understand that the providers want/need to protect themselves but the way it's working is extremely one-sided and biased and while they demand and try to enforce honesty with the clients there seems to be nothing in place to keep the providers honest and correct (which many or even most of them happen to be anyway, but that's not the point).
Strangely, I understood the broken English better than what you said. It's almost like you missed the entire point that there wasn't a refund. Your sarcasm would have made sense if there was a refund.
Okay, come up with a better system. I can't think of a system that wouldn't work on a trust basis.