extravm suspended all my vps without notice, what can I do ?

jar

@cybertech said: if he has taken this stance from the get go it would probably be "alright". but his initial position and reasoning was weak and that's apparent.

Aye, but as the data changes so too does my opinion. That's why pre-GitHub my opinion was simple:

@jar said: Gift the user their money back, call it a refund, give them the options you’re willing to do so through. You made a mistake with your promo there. It happens.

And @emgh you should take note of that, since you're trying to call my integrity into question over this thread.

When I was presented with new data, my opinion changed. As it should. Because that's what intellectually honest people do, they change their opinions when they obtain new data that modifies their conclusions.

emgh

@jar said:

@emgh said:
@jar There’s no proof here, not a shred. There’s speculation,

Wrong. The user’s GitHub was found with quick spin up scripts that do exactly what the host thought the user was doing, and on top of that they do install Nginx which the user tried to say was what they were doing, and we all knew it sounded weird (because just generically using Nginx with no actual stated use case as to what you’re doing with it isn’t a logical match for the bandwidth usage, the user was clearly intentionally leaving out detail).

@MikeA may not have known for a fact that the user violated policy earlier, but I’m comfortable now saying that I do. You’re welcome to deny it but the GitHub account shares a unique name, same profile photo, and “just using Nginx” doesn’t generate that traffic. The user tried to lie by omission. I’ll bet everything I own on it, are you willing to put up the same bet that I’m wrong? You’d lose, this is a slam dunk case and you know it.

The only reason to doubt that we’ve put it together based on that GitHub account, combined with the refusal to state a use case other than (paraphrased) “I installed Nginx,” is a desire to see a different conclusion. Personally, I don’t give two shits who wishes the conclusion were different or why. My opinion changes with the data I take in, not how anyone feels about it.

The host should have terminated the user sooner for violating policy. It’s the job of the host to know that they are violating policy, and it’s extremely clear that they were. You can gaslight yourself on that all you want, I don’t fall for that shit. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and when you photograph it the pictures look suspiciously like a duck, it’s a god damn duck.

You argue, but not against what I wrote. You also conviniently quoted a very selected piece of text.

I wrote: ”There’s no proof here, not a shred. There’s speculation, and in the argument that he was running a proxy the above speculated leaves me to agree, he probably was using the VPS as a proxy.”

You quoted: ”There’s no proof here, not a shred. There’s speculation,”

You left out: ”and in the argument that he was running a proxy the above speculated leaves me to agree, he probably was using the VPS as a proxy.”

Leaving out the crucial part of my argument that I believe he was using a proxy made you able to base your argument off of that, but in my reply, I was very careful to point out that yes, he probably is using it as a proxy.

I just wanted to elaborate on why your counter-argument isn’t based on any argument I made really.

What I wrote in the last part is still true, and that’s what’s interesting because that’s my actual argument: ”Most importantly, and what I was on about in the beginning of this reply, is the fact that no rule-breaking is speculated upon, even by Mike himself in the ticket. Are the proxies publisheed anywhere public or commercially used/sold? I have yet to see any of that.”

I can’t quote text on my phone, but your main argumet seems to be the following: ”The host should have terminated the user sooner for violating policy. It’s the job of the host to know that they are violating policy, and it’s extremely clear that they were. You can gaslight yourself on that all you want, I don’t fall for that shit. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and when you photograph it the pictures look suspiciously like a duck, it’s a god damn duck.”

Yet, you don’t mention, that I see (abeit I’m tired so I could have missed it) how you’re sure that the proxy was of a public or commercial nature. That’s my issue with this, not if it was a proxy at all, because I find it probable that it is (even though it dosen’t have to be).

I find it much less probable, even though it’s very possible, that the proxy was of a public or commercial nature.

If it’s not - it’s not breaking any policy.

And since this wasn’t clear, getting 24 hours to not only clearify but also to gather proof (after another erratic decision from a dead VPS) is not remotely production-ready service.

emgh

@cybertech said:

@jar said:

@emgh said:
@jar There’s no proof here, not a shred. There’s speculation,

The user’s GitHub was found with quick spin up scripts that do exactly what the host thought the user was doing, and on top of that they do install Nginx which the user tried to say was what they were doing, and we all knew it sounded weird.

@MikeA may not have known for a fact that the user violated policy earlier, but I’m comfortable now saying that I do. You’re welcome to deny it but the GitHub account shares a unique name, same profile photo, and “just using Nginx” doesn’t generate that kind of traffic. The user’s scripts do install Nginx though. The user tried to lie by omission. I’ll bet everything I own on it, are you willing to put up the same bet that I’m wrong? You’d lose, this is a slam dunk case and you know it.

The only reason to doubt that we’ve put it together based on that GitHub account, combined with the refusal to state a use case other than (paraphrased) “I installed Nginx,” is a desire to see a different conclusion. Personally, I don’t give two shits who wishes the conclusion were different or why. My opinion changes with the data I take in, not how anyone feels about it.

The host should have terminated the user sooner for violating policy. It’s the job of the host to know that they are violating policy, and it’s extremely clear that they were. You can gaslight yourself on that all you want, I don’t fall for that shit. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and when you photograph it the pictures look suspiciously like a duck, it’s a damn duck. Follow the data.

if he has taken this stance from the get go it would probably be "alright". but his initial position and reasoning was weak and that's apparent.

of course providers have their position to consider but general public and prospective customers would form their own opinions as well.

that being said this would not affect most customers so this is just another drama for fun and laughter.

No it wouldn’t have been fine because nothing policy-breaking has even been claimed with any underlying evidence of any sort.

No one mentioning abuse or policy breaking has been able to show how the paragraph in question has been broken, even if we for a second imagine that the use of proxies is 100 % confirmed.

NobodyInteresting

@emgh said:

@cybertech said:

@jar said:

@emgh said:
@jar There’s no proof here, not a shred. There’s speculation,

The user’s GitHub was found with quick spin up scripts that do exactly what the host thought the user was doing, and on top of that they do install Nginx which the user tried to say was what they were doing, and we all knew it sounded weird.

@MikeA may not have known for a fact that the user violated policy earlier, but I’m comfortable now saying that I do. You’re welcome to deny it but the GitHub account shares a unique name, same profile photo, and “just using Nginx” doesn’t generate that kind of traffic. The user’s scripts do install Nginx though. The user tried to lie by omission. I’ll bet everything I own on it, are you willing to put up the same bet that I’m wrong? You’d lose, this is a slam dunk case and you know it.

The only reason to doubt that we’ve put it together based on that GitHub account, combined with the refusal to state a use case other than (paraphrased) “I installed Nginx,” is a desire to see a different conclusion. Personally, I don’t give two shits who wishes the conclusion were different or why. My opinion changes with the data I take in, not how anyone feels about it.

The host should have terminated the user sooner for violating policy. It’s the job of the host to know that they are violating policy, and it’s extremely clear that they were. You can gaslight yourself on that all you want, I don’t fall for that shit. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and when you photograph it the pictures look suspiciously like a duck, it’s a damn duck. Follow the data.

if he has taken this stance from the get go it would probably be "alright". but his initial position and reasoning was weak and that's apparent.

of course providers have their position to consider but general public and prospective customers would form their own opinions as well.

that being said this would not affect most customers so this is just another drama for fun and laughter.

No it wouldn’t have been fine because nothing policy-breaking has even been claimed with any underlying evidence of any sort.

No one mentioning abuse or policy breaking has been able to show how the paragraph in question has been broken, even if we for a second imagine that the use of proxies is 100 % confirmed.

You do realize that the moment Mike shares any evidence - then he would be called out for sharing private user information without consent, right?

I would honestly trust a very highly rated and respected aged provider, over some random user that claims otherwise.

emgh

@NobodyInteresting said:

@emgh said:

@cybertech said:

@jar said:

@emgh said:
@jar There’s no proof here, not a shred. There’s speculation,

The user’s GitHub was found with quick spin up scripts that do exactly what the host thought the user was doing, and on top of that they do install Nginx which the user tried to say was what they were doing, and we all knew it sounded weird.

@MikeA may not have known for a fact that the user violated policy earlier, but I’m comfortable now saying that I do. You’re welcome to deny it but the GitHub account shares a unique name, same profile photo, and “just using Nginx” doesn’t generate that kind of traffic. The user’s scripts do install Nginx though. The user tried to lie by omission. I’ll bet everything I own on it, are you willing to put up the same bet that I’m wrong? You’d lose, this is a slam dunk case and you know it.

The only reason to doubt that we’ve put it together based on that GitHub account, combined with the refusal to state a use case other than (paraphrased) “I installed Nginx,” is a desire to see a different conclusion. Personally, I don’t give two shits who wishes the conclusion were different or why. My opinion changes with the data I take in, not how anyone feels about it.

The host should have terminated the user sooner for violating policy. It’s the job of the host to know that they are violating policy, and it’s extremely clear that they were. You can gaslight yourself on that all you want, I don’t fall for that shit. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and when you photograph it the pictures look suspiciously like a duck, it’s a damn duck. Follow the data.

if he has taken this stance from the get go it would probably be "alright". but his initial position and reasoning was weak and that's apparent.

of course providers have their position to consider but general public and prospective customers would form their own opinions as well.

that being said this would not affect most customers so this is just another drama for fun and laughter.

No it wouldn’t have been fine because nothing policy-breaking has even been claimed with any underlying evidence of any sort.

No one mentioning abuse or policy breaking has been able to show how the paragraph in question has been broken, even if we for a second imagine that the use of proxies is 100 % confirmed.

You do realize that the moment Mike shares any evidence - then he would be called out for sharing private user information without consent, right?

I would honestly trust a very highly rated and respected aged provider, over some random user that claims otherwise.

He shared the ticket, where he asked the user to gtfo before he even reslized there might be a proxy at all.

As to the facts, the issue at hand is very clear: The proxy, according to ticket, Mike has no idea what’s it about.

Me mentions it’s proxying commercial streaming websites, and then he refers to his own terms (changed since the service was bought) that mentions that no commercial proxy services are allowed.

You do realize there’s a huge difference between using a proxy to access commerical services (pretty much every website) and running a commercial VPN service? Because Mike don’t.

trungkien

The client should be treated as innocent until proven otherwise. Even if jinwyp running public proxy, tell him clearly, ask him to fix. Not like this (banning him then trying to find an excuse).
I understand that extravm made a crazy offer and tried to back out. But it is your mistake to make the offer, say sorry and offering refund is the least you could do.

emgh

@trungkien said:
The client should be treated as innocent until proven otherwise. Even if jinwyp running public proxy, tell him clearly, ask him to fix. Not like this (banning him then trying to find an excuse).
I understand that extravm made a crazy offer and tried to back out. But it is your mistake to make the offer, say sorry and offering refund is the least you could do.

I agree, but let’s be clear, nothing so far is suggesting that he is.

As to what you wrote above @jar, I’ll gladly change my opinion as soon as anything makes me at least fairly sure that the proxy was public or commercial, because Mike’s claim in the ticket that the proxy was accessing commercial websites is a weak interpretation of his own TOS, where it even mentions that private proxies are allowed.

Nothing in the TOS mentions accessing commercial websites through a proxy is not permitted, but that was what Mike accused the client of in the ticket.

equalz

what a steaming pile

dahartigan

Low grade drama

FatGrizzly

I find it funny that it's just us arguing / debating while the OP of the thread doesn't seem to give a fuck at all... Sounds like he really proxied something via nginx.

emgh

@FatGrizzly said:
I find it funny that it's just us arguing / debating while the OP of the thread doesn't seem to give a fuck at all... Sounds like he really proxied something via nginx.

I mean if he was offered a refund I wouldn’t stay around either, he was f***ed twice, my guess is, he understands staying around for a third time isn’t going to make the two times prior feel any better.

And with the wind, he went.

Drama stays though, always does.

TheOnlyDK

The OP did say he "surrendered" in the ticket, so...

I see this as two problems
1. Bandwidth reduced
2. TOS breaching

#1 is on the provider, no question there. There are many ways to address that properly but the provider chose the worst. Need work on that @MikeA.

#2 is what confuses me (it could due to my terrible reading skills). Why did Mike offer the client to "keep using the service with reduced resources" in the first place when he knew the client has 100% breached the TOS? If I'm a provider and I find a client clearly breaching my TOS with solid proof, I'll just provide backup and refund, case closed. Last thing I want is the client continuing breaching the terms, or rather "abuse" as used in this thread.

JabJab

@FatGrizzly said:
I find it funny that it's just us arguing / debating while the OP of the thread doesn't seem to give a fuck at all... Sounds like he really proxied something via nginx.

I think he is smart enough to be quiet here until that refund arrives in his bank account ; 🤣

emgh

@TheOnlyDK said:
The OP did say he "surrendered" in the ticket, so...

I see this as two problems
1. Bandwidth reduced
2. TOS breaching

1 is on the provider, no question there. There are many ways to address that properly but the provider chose the worst. Need work on that @MikeA.

2 is what confuses me (it could due to my terrible reading skills). Why did Mike offer the client to "keep using the service with reduced resources" in the first place when he knew the client has 100% breached the TOS? If I'm a provider and I find a client clearly breaching my TOS with solid proof, I'll just provide backup and refund, case closed. Last thing I want is the client continuing breaching the terms, or rather "abuse" as used in this thread.

Because he didn’t know, didn’t have any clue. He just wanted, as seen in the ticket, a reducce in bandwidth usage and he wanted it fast.

Notice the timestaps, 10 minutes between Mike conveying that ”you have 24 hours” and Mike having completely investigated the proxies, and whether or not they were public/commercial, and to nuke the servers and to inform the client.

MikePT

Adding my 2 cents, I was trying to avoid replying here, but...

1 - Mike stated the OP was running commercial and/or proxy servers.

2 - The OP admitted to be using nginx and xray (check Mike's uploaded PDF). That's what it's on the OPs Github. He didn't lie. Even though Mike doesn't know what xray is (neither I did).

3 - Said Github doesn't target commercial or public usage, but private, personal usage. Mike doesn't mention anything regarding private usage, we can assume that it is allowed.

4 - Are any of you guys in China here facing issues with GFW? The OP is a damn rockstar in Github https://github.com/jinwyp/one_click_script, he has 3.7k stars and 1.3k forks, the guy is a hero! It's fully documented, he seems to have put a lot of effort to create everything. All this to bypass the stupid GFW. Who wouldn't appreciate to be able to watch Netflix etc?

I respect Mike a lot but I honestly think he fuc*ed up here. However, Mike said that he has refunded the payments, and I trust he has, so can we all just calm down here guys? Mistakes happen. We should learn with these. We've all messed up many times in our lives. Now it's our choice whether we assume and learn with our mistakes or refuse to acknowledge and stay ignorants.

Furthermore, for God's sake, let's stop trashing the Providers because they have done a mistake or have different perspectives that we do not agree with.

Mike has been in business for quite a while. We should be helping the Providers present here instead of trying to ruin their businesses.
We all need to feed our families. We're not kids, are we? There's no reason to create such a fuss here, it only helps to bring the companies down, which is much easier than bringing these up.

Cheers!

SirFoxy

How are people arguing about this? This is so meaningless lol.

FatGrizzly

@MikePT said: 2 - The OP admitted to be using nginx and xray check Mike's uploaded PDF). That's what it's on the OPs Github. He didn't lie. Even though Mike doesn't know what xray is (neither I did).

when chinese mention xray, they 99% of time mean this, https://github.com/v2fly/v2ray-core

MikePT

@FatGrizzly said:

@MikePT said: 2 - The OP admitted to be using nginx and xray check Mike's uploaded PDF). That's what it's on the OPs Github. He didn't lie. Even though Mike doesn't know what xray is (neither I did).

when chinese mention xray, they 99% of time mean this, https://github.com/v2fly/v2ray-core

And the OP did.

Thank you by the way. I keep learning every single day...

lebidule

I don't know about US laws but it is different in France/Europe
OVH got recently convicted in France due to his Strasbourg's backup strategy (and its ToS in particular limited responsability written in its ToS).

I agree with other users : breaking ToS != breaking law

OP may or may not breaking ToS, it doesn't matter. Moreover it doesn't mean host can do anything he wants.

First, host has to stricly follow the commitment of the sell. Many suggested to refund but a contract is a contract, you have to stick on terms moreover shit happened many months later. And in case you want to change terms, we are not talking in hours but in months
Second, OVH knows now than in France/Europe, as ToS has been concluded automatically at subscription (meaning ToS terms can't be negociated), it can't be against customer benefit until customer follows... the law.
Third, if you are in a logic of ISO 27001 and/or HDS (including RGPD), you can't assume customer use case and you can't even manipulate the customer data. He doesn't have to prove anything to a host but to a juridiction.

At last but now least, a mail is not a communication proof. If you are changing terms agreement, you have to be sure (and not presume) your customer has been informed. In a LET perspective, I would assume all impacted customers have to be informed by a specific ticket and not only a campain mail.

My 2 cents

treesmokah

Has the host received any abuse report about said "commercial streaming proxy service"?
Or did the host was trying to find a reason to kick OP from their service by manually checking the box?

SirFoxy

Ppl are making this personal when it's about money. Two ppl came together for a business transaction, one paid, they couldn't agree, he was refunded. It's fair. No need for drama.

nullroute

The OP definitely used the VPS server for VPN or some other shit to bypass access to Netflix - usage for this content is evident according to their GitHub, btw that's definite proof of abusing ExtraVM's services, OP dumbass.

ExtraVM is still a reliable provider, it has obviously lost reputation after decreasing the bandwidth offered to customers who already had a prepaid service for several months. ExtraVM must bear the loss in this case as ExtraVM is only a reseller in this case and the data center ate its ass without Vaseline after lowering its bandwidth caps.

Mumbly

@nullroute said:
The OP definitely used the VPS server for VPN or some other shit to bypass access to Netflix - usage for this content is evident according to their GitHub, btw that's definite proof of abusing ExtraVM's services, OP dumbass.

What? That's not even against host TOS...
Some reading before postning wouldn't do any harm.

jinwyp

I have got refund from extram, and have backup my vps data.

Thanks to MikeA and everybody.

It is a happy ending for me.

Extram is still a good provider worth to try.

Andreix

@jinwyp said:
I have got refund from extram, and have backup my vps data.

Thanks to MikeA and everybody.

It is a happy ending for me.

Extram is still a good provider worth to try.

So, until few hours ago was a scammer and now is "still a good provider worth to try" ?!
Safe to say he was not a scammer in the first place, but you tagged him as a scammer until you got the expected result? Blackmail if you wish?!

Damn logic.

treesmokah

@Andreix said:

@jinwyp said:
I have got refund from extram, and have backup my vps data.

Thanks to MikeA and everybody.

It is a happy ending for me.

Extram is still a good provider worth to try.

So, until few hours ago was a scammer and now is "still a good provider worth to try" ?!
Safe to say he was not a scammer in the first place, but you tagged him as a scammer until you got the expected result? Blackmail if you wish?!

Damn logic.

Where exactly did he say Extravm is a scammer?

Andreix

@treesmokah said:
Where exactly did he say Extravm is a scammer?

So, just for example, if I'd were to tell you something like:
"X don't have the ability to think! Everything X say is pure shit. X's ideas are crap."

Do I need to say exactly that I think X is stupid, or can it be concluded based on my affirmations?

hiphiphip0

@MikePT said:
2 - The OP admitted to be using nginx and xray (check Mike's uploaded PDF). That's what it's on the OPs Github. He didn't lie. Even though Mike doesn't know what xray is (neither I did).
Cheers!

https://github.com/XTLS/Xray-core
https://github.com/trojan-gfw/trojan

In these usage scenarios, Nginx is used to issue certificates and deceive GFW etc.

I am truly grateful to people who are involved in these projects, even for commercial purposes.
They make these tools easily accessible to non-technical people.

Kudos to all LET providers, you also contribute by offering cheap VPS, some even provide proxy directly like justmysocks.net.

News a few days ago:
https://k.sina.com.cn/article_7517400647_1c0126e4705903x62q.html
(2 people earn ￥19,000,000 by providing VPN in 2 years, they have 30 nodes)

If OP does have 100 VPS for commercial proxy, there should be enough profit to pay for the traffic fee, unless the ExtraVM ones are for personal use.

Chinese who buy VPS to deploy proxy could be the best customers. They only use a very small part of CPU and memory, and if not many people use it together, very little traffic. Strict no sharing of proxies doesn't quite apply in this case, I like the "as long as it doesn't bother other clients" policy of service providers, or fair use.

Providers could put these on the order page based on browser language.to avoid problem:
不要随便发起 PayPal 争议，不要误以为那是退款用的，很严重。
不要下载盗版影视和盗版软件，很严重。
不要发垃圾邮件，很严重。
合理使用，不要给我们和其它客户造成困扰。

（我们的网络不支持解锁 Netflix 等，不用尝试了）

（注册时可以使用代理，如果不使用代理就不能访问我们的网站的话。）
我们不会向你的政府提供信息，放心填写真实信息。（可以使用假个人信息，如果你担心使用代理而进监狱）但使用正确的邮件，并把我们的邮箱 [email protected] 加入白名单，留意邮件发出的通知，及时处理。

Don't just start a PayPal dispute, don't mistake that for a refund, it's serious.
Don't download copyrighted movies and cracked software, seriously.
Don't send spam, it's serious.
Use it wisely and don't cause problems for us and other customers.

(Our network doesn't support unlocking Netflix, etc., don't try it)

(You can use a proxy when you register, if you can't access our site without one.)
We will not provide information to your government, feel free to fill in real information. (You can use fake personal information if you are worried about going to jail for using a proxy) But use the correct email and whitelist our email [email protected] and watch for notifications sent by email to be processed promptly.

The information in brackets is optionally added according to your attitude towards GFW and censorship.

treesmokah

@Andreix said:

@treesmokah said:
Where exactly did he say Extravm is a scammer?

So, just for example, if I'd were to tell you something like:
"X don't have the ability to think! Everything X say is pure shit. X's ideas are crap."

Do I need to say exactly that I think X is stupid, or can it be concluded based on my affirmations?

I think you should stop putting words in peoples mouth.
You have no idea how much damage is done to the world by people like you.

Andreix

@treesmokah said:
I think you should stop putting words in peoples mouth.
You have no idea how much damage is done to the world by people like you.

Actually, what should be stopped is ordering a service, lying about it's true use case, abuse the hell out of that service and then try to discredit the provider, once your service was terminated/suspended with or without a refund: "Oh! I did nothing and the sneaky evil provider just suspended my service! OMG! OMG! LET SAVE ME!".

This habit of ordering IPs for "VPN", VPS for "just nginx", servers for "personal mail server", than end up being actually a Law Breaking VPN, Massive streaming proxies, No-Rick (if anybody remembers it) freaking spamming server.

Why can't people act honest from the start and DM the provider with something like: "Hey! I'd like to use the service for INSERT_REAL_PURPOSE_HERE. Would you be ok with this?"

If they say no. Go on, keep searching. Don't try to sneaky order the service anyway.