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.
extravm suspended all my vps without notice, what can I do ?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I wouldn't say he screwed him again.
The client got refunded. Having a bit more than 24 hours would be better but I mean... The client did threaten the vendor. That's like... not cool. 24 hours (or even a week) is a nice courtesy.
It's not good for both people but hey, shit happens.
He wasn't refunded.
In the ticket it says the client will get refunded.
Everyone should smoke weed. Here. Here's a couple of joints. Cheers.
Just for transparency sake if it wasn't seen in my previous reply a refund isn't possible, I didn't realize until after. His VPS will remain suspended until he will be willing to provide proof his use case doesn't breach my terms, or if he is wiling to move to a non-APAC location, or he can continue using the VPS in Tokyo with the new bandwidth limits even if his use case breaches my terms.
Well tug my boat and call me shirley.
Isn't this a pickle. Well sucks that there's a limitation with the payment processing vendor. But then the Service Vendor (ExtraVM) has done what they could to refund the payment. Maybe they can reach out to AliPay and find a resolution to this, but I think this is ok.
Sucks that the client paid using AliPay.
While this sucks for the client, it's the nature of the beast with these payment processors. I think this is a reasonable alternative to move forward with the relationship. It's like paying in cryptocurrency. Sorry chief there's no refund button for that.
@MikeA Why did you offer unmetered in Tokyo in the first place? What did you expect to happen? That users will just limit themselves on a bandwidth-expensive continent distributing non-profit Linux ISO?
@concept @tjn @armnotstrong Nobody ever reads the TOS, and don’t pretend like anybody should. It’s just there for legal cover. Nonetheless, it looks bad if a company has to fall back on obscure provisions in it. Pity that can’t just do a refund.
Whoever mentioned it is right, clearly miscalculated potential risk for offering it in the region. No denying that. I could continue to offer it if I had a guarantee nobody would abuse it, but the world isn't all great.
Edit: Also I don't think I ever offered unmetered in Tokyo actually, I think I am confusing things. Tokyo was previously 20TB/mo.
But he wasn't even suspended for breaching some terms as that's made up reason invented in this thread
Maybe you should go through your own ticket posted above before you change the narrative?
I'm sorry but what a sad excuse. OP is not presenting himself very well, but what a shitty response from the owner of a company. I will personally be cancelling my services with you based on this. You can't change the agreement after it has been made, are you fucking kidding me? Thinking its okay because no one would ever sign a deal based on the bandwidth. This guy needs to be banned from LowEndTalk if he is dealing business like this. I can't actually believe someone would handle business like this and think they are in the right. Get the wax our of your ears and wake up. Cmon man, don't scam people from other countries knowing that there isn't much they can do to get their money back. You are morally and legally in the wrong here.
Wake the fuck up man. You are literally running a scam operation. Its your fault that you oversold these plans. The OP is doing nothing wrong, you are 100% in the wrong.
They've overextended themselves and then communicated and tried working with each client to make sure they can still accommodate their demand while reducing risk surface. I think it's a fine approach for problem resolution. The problem though is that the client complaining here never read the email and then came in hot and accusatory.
Terms of Service protects the client and the vendor. Not saying it should be "hidden in there" but there's a certain accepted level of service that you can't just "tell all the time" for every single purchase. These purchases are in good faith, the vendor and the client are establishing a working business relationship. I mean I use ExtraVM as well and I believe we have a good working relationship. Some people use it a bit underhandedly and I understand that. But overall, it's important to be knowledgeable and aware of what you're working with and trusting (but verify) that they're doing business in good faith.
if the client is not doing business in good faith and only looking to abuse, then the vendor uses ToS to protect themselves. If the vendor is not doing business in good faith then the client should use ToS to protect themselves. It's a way to keep both parties liable.
Yeah, I let many people breach my terms usually as long as they aren't affecting my overall quality of service or costing me a bunch of money. His suspension was only done once I realized he is almost 100% certainly using it for purposes that don't follow my terms of service. I wouldn't have suspended him just for opening this thread.
Yep. Agreed. As mentioned, it could have been handled better. On both sides. But the fallout for @MikeA is that it will turn some potential customers off. So then there's risk management and the magic of PR in situations like this.
@MikeA should have tried to work harder with @jinwyp to come to some reasonable compromise. While @MikeA has the legal high ground (with a clearly stated TOS), he doesn't have the moral high ground in this case. People expect to get what they paid for. At the same time, @jinwyp could also try a bit harder to understand that @MikeA is running a business, not a charity, and at some point @MikeA can't provide services in that region if he kept the limits at the same level, notwithstanding his miscalculation. @jinwyp's aggressive approach didn't help.
If people could just take a breath and be human beings who try to understand each other's issues a little better, things like this wouldn't happen.
Of course not.
You suspended him because of his legitimate complain about decreased service resources after he paid them already and as revenge for not so welcome remark in ticket about posting his experience at some forum.
There's not one single indication in ticket that he was supended because of some specific abuse. That's the narrative we're trying to change now.
I wouldn't put it as moral. Because morals doesn't play into this.
It's a reputational risk. The business ($$$) risk has translated to reputational risk which is now being realized here. We see certain clients publicly state they're pulling out. OP definitely didn't win as he lost access to his service. Vendor didn't win because... well... their reputation took a hit.
My recommendation here to the vendor would be to just take it on the chin, do what you can to minimize the reputational damage. But the vendor has more to lose than the client. That's why these "public threads" are so much more worrisome for the vendors.
For others. Eh... Everyone's fair to feel the way they feel. I'm not here to demand you keep service or for you to cancel. But just recognize that there are humans on both sides of the screen.
Shameless Plug: If anyone would like business management consulting, advisory, or risk assessment services, LMK. lol
@HalfEatenPie imho. it would be the right thing to do it at the end of the billing period.
Or in case host did it anyway despite the fact that resources were paid already, they should deal with this matter with some understanding, try to work with the client and so on ... instead of giving him "you have 24 hours to gtfo, bye".
I originally replied stating he had 24h to move off and I would refund him, then I realized what the service was being used for and suspended them so he couldn't modify or delete any data on the VPS to spin things. Then I realized a refund isn't even possible anyway, he can reply to the ticket providing proof of his use case or use another location, or use the existing location and plan with the limits.
So in fact you didn't gave him even those 24 hours before suspension and now you hope that there will be something more to justify all this crap although this wasn't primary the reason for dealing with this matter the way you did?
This is getting better and better...
Can we please get a ban hammer for MikeA?
I agree, there is reputational risk. But I do think there is a moral (in the generic sense) component. When someone feels "wronged" based on commonly accepted principles of "right" conduct, there is a moral issue at play. The "right" conduct and outcome is that a customer can expect that he/she gets the service/product that they paid for.
The legal basis for how @MikeA handled it is clear, but he didn't have the moral high ground, or that kind of gut-check "fairness" that people expect to get what they paid for, leading to the reputational risk which is unfolding here.
Which @MikeA could remedy, at some cost and a bit of PR. Which I'm sure you could provide.
A service I'm sure would help many! No doubt you are a very level-headed and thoughtful consultant. Cheers!
Yeah but also you have to think of it from the vendor's side.
This is an immediate risk to the operations of a location. If you buy further capacity then you're losing money and for how long... a year? That's not going to happen for a business (well... a good business anyways). They've taken the approach of basically telling vendors "look, we need to reduce bandwidth allocation. This is what we're going to do, but reach out to us if you need more or have problems we'll work with you on a case-by-case basis.". The client seems to have not read this email or have responded to it. This is the vendor trying to work with every client in this site to make it work for both sides.
Client sent a message coming in hot and basically talked as if they pulled a scam. This devolved into... this. The way I see it, the avenue they business took to try and arrange alternatives that works for both parties is a good step. It seems most clients are fine. But this client was very upset and was threatening them with public humiliation. Not saying its as bad as "I'm going to do a chargeback" but it's another red button that people like to push without care that impacts vendors negatively.
People have the opportunity to change the contract of their business as they wish. The only way that agreement remains valid is if both agree and proper notice is given. Most changes in contracts (depending on size and volume) and primarily for service-related agreements (which this is) it's usually acceptable to say "well if you don't respond we'll assume you agree". This is what the vendor did and the client didn't seem to have read the email or responded to it.
Now the client is complaining as if they changed the terms of the agreement without their permission and the vendor is like "well... we tired communicating with you and you didn't tell us.". They probably should have included "we're open to alternatives or understanding your usecase" but... yeah.
That's life.
if the user really abuses the traffic, you can ask the person in charge of extravm to upload the traffic usage in the background of the user, and you can see if it meets the abuse standard
There's really no defined thresholds for moral. This is a relative threshold from one person to another. This also really isn't a risk (unfortunately) to a business (in this definition and context of moral). However...
This business risks can be translated to include moral as a proxy. We're seeing here a reputational risk being realized. There's also policy/legal, Market, and Technology risks. Some try to use policy/legal to build a "moral system". Others try to change the market forces to build a "moral economy". But there's no clear direct risk from morals.
I don't doubt that they sent out mail about quota change but could you be so kind and share actual content of this mail?
I am asking this solely because of people talk a lot out of their asses in this thread trying to make client look bad and it's hard to know what's true and what's just product of people's imagination.
You didn't made this up, right?
I appreciate the way you framed the issue. I also think people get too sensitive with the word "moral" as the word itself carries a lot of baggage. But I get your perspective. It makes sense to frame it around reputational risk (and other forms of risk). But why is that reputation at risk... largely because of commonly expected conduct. So I like how you framed it in the context of moral as a proxy. Interesting. And there certainly is no defined, universal, and universally-accepted threshold for morality. Just levels of risk.
In any case, @MikeA could use your consulting IMO. There's probably still a way to thread the needle on this so that it's a win-win.
Going to cancel my 5 VPS with extravm,
Its a clear SCAM. Look like he advertised fake offer to attract customers get there money prepaid for a year and then suspended them for using resources they were promised and paid for.
He is keep on blaming OP for using server as proxy without having any evidence of it. If you need OP VPS access to prove your statement that OP was using proxy so without access or proof how are you blaming?
It's not ethical. You did not even asked OP for alternate way to refund him if Alipay don't allow. This show your clear intention not to refund and hiding behind payment terms.
It's not cool at all, You even did not allowed OP to backup there data.
Can't trust you anymore.
Damn, that's so unprofessional @MikeA. Didn't expect such things from you. 1st you broke agreement, 2nd you've suspended VPS without notice. I know the emotions, etc. but you are not a noob, you are experienced one. Building reputation is taking years, destroying reputation is taking one day.
I don't know Extra VM or the OP but it appears that packages where sold with XX Tb of bandwidth the op bought the package and then the bandwidth was reduced to much much lower number (for whatever reason) as the OP had paid yearly he should really have expected to recieve XX TB for the term of the package I've got to say .... in the UK there would probably grounds to sue you on the basis of a breach of contract under the sale of goods as you've now reduced the bandwidth massively (from what I understand)
And because of the payment method can't offer a refund so your taking the money and not delivering the service which is the definition of theft
I did once look at ExtraVM as a provider but won't be again
https://rsj1.tax2.cf/snap12.jpg
This is an image from the post. 1st response from the vendor stating they sent an email out about it. From my interpretation with how quickly they reduced bandwidth commitments was that this had an immediate negative impact for everyone on the node and (like they mentioned before) they needed to resolve it immediately.
The actual contents of the email I haven't seen it. But I don't think that matters for this case. Noone has stated that they didn't receive or got the email. Noone's arguing the validity of the email.