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.
ChicagoVPS lies about ugvps ownership
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The rat Crystal abandons the sinking ship. I think you are all as bad as each other.
You may want to do a little reading mate, I think you've missed half the story.
I have, Ive been reading the threads for the last few days.
No quite sure how you class Crystal as a 'rat' then, it appears she's a victim.
Unless you've drawn your own conclusions?
@AnthonySmith Ouuuch... :P
I don't beleave she is.
Honest as in I have never tried to hide the fact I have owned several other businesses, unlike some. I said GetKVM was here to stay and it was/is, people clearly can't grasp that.
Nice to know what page you're on though boss, apparently you have had some sort of personality transplant recently.
all CVPS bs aside, Jarland has a valid point Im fairly new around here and even I feel that some providers get extra special treatment around here. Providers who get caught deceiving and fraud SHOULD by all means be banned. How can LET advertise and endorse companies that are proven time and time again to be untrustworthy and just plain unsafe to deal with? To me it doesnt matter if a bunch of providers are part of an umbrella of another company thats just how business works. But if a company is caught with something so serious as identity theft and LET sends them more customers for them to do identity theft on is a serious issue and needs to be addressed. Chris said that UGVPS isnt going anywhere; thats fine, but I dont feel that they should be allowed to advertise on LET.
I'm not sure why you can't grasp why people have an issue with what you've done in the past. You've been around LE* to know the way a lot of the more vocal people think providers should behave, so really this shouldn't be a surprise to you.
No pal I'd do it but i wouldn't dress it up as something it isn't, which exactly what happens here. But if you have something to say you know where my inbox is, I'm not tossing dirt provider > provider, you live in the UK give me a shout if you have an issue.
It's really not and it seems to be mostly other providers that keep trying to bring things up which have already been discussed, go figure.
And your point is correct, I have been here long enough and have never ripped anyone off or done anything illegal. So why am i not allowed to post offers here when other con artists have free run to do whatever they want. Answer me that
It's not unusual providers(CVPS) decide to accept payments for customers(UGVPS) at one point, either to cover up debts or help them out. It happens, last known case was Santrex who also used their providers paypal for some time.
That doesn't prove anything I'm afraid. The only thing doing something illegal around here are those who harass certain people on daily basis and illegally access other people shit.
You've never done anything wrong in a business sense certainly, and I personally don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of entrepreneurial spirit; lots of people build stuff and sell it on once they've got a certain point. For some it's necessity due to boredom or whatever, for others is the business plan from the start. Dunno which you are, and it doesn't really matter.
What does make a difference is that (in theory at least) this is a community, and buyers here like to know who they're dealing with and who's taking their money. With so many similar plans around, the person behind the brand is probably as important to some buyers as the resources they get.
Based on the past, when it comes to your brands, there's a good chance that anyone who buys from you will be paying out their money to someone else in 12-18 months time, and that's not something the community appears to be happy with; as such, @mpkossen obviously feels it's his job to protect the community from history repeating itself.
I'm not judging that as right or wrong, but surely you can see the logic in the situation, even if it's not logic you agree with personally.
They didn't use his PayPal, they (or rather, he) used his name on the PayPal.
This^^
Sorry Ash, I don't mean to offend you personally and 90% of that last post was not aimed at you but you know, a spade is a spade.
If another provider without relation to CC had done this, @mpkossen Would have Ban the provider to hell long time ago.
Ok Ok, so lets agree to draw a line in the sand then, lets be grown up about all this and use this specific instance as a "lets do it right from now on" case.
I think with a common sense view point we need to first all accept the following:
1) Ranking members of CC and CVPS are good personal friends, you don't go out of your way to hurt your friends, if you had a good personal friend in a similar line of work no doubt you would help them if they needed it.
No one could/should/would disagree with that.
2) In almost if not all previous instances there has been no absolute concrete evidence when it comes to CC/CVPS shell companies etc.
This one is obviously different as the evidence is right there.
3) When absolute evidence of some serious wrong doing by a host that is irrefutable as been brought to light in the past offers have been pulled or people banned.
Hostrail, hostsnowy, that daft kid recently that was caught hacking ramnode and the other one that curtis G was running etc etc, I am sure others can name more.
And lets not forget there have been hosts who have made stupid mistakes, manned up about it and are now forgiven and respected members of the community.
So, with that in mind and lets also accept that the admins/mods need a little time to process all this lets see how this specific incident is reacted to before we get a linch mob together and start pointing fingers?
Is that unfair?
So what? Crystal didn't want her name on it, Thomas is unable to have his own PP, who else could put his name to PP to recover the debts? Yes, your right.
Your allowed to have your business account accepting payments for multiple businesses.
Its irrefutable that Chris lied about ownership of UGVPS, but is that enough to call it serious wrongdoing, or to ban him? Some people are compulsive liars, and it may be a personality trait than a business policy..
Well I would say yes and the reason I say that is pure and simple, he exploited it to generate additional revenue and circumvent systems here allowing him to essentially get more coverage.
The right way to do though would have been to start a group, run the parent company and put individual directors in charge of each company and be open about it, obviously this is MUCH more expensive to do and also running separate businesses in the same line of work can be viewed as tax evasion so probably would no work either.
Really what we have here is marital drama playing out right before our eyes. Tom and crystal split up, tom moves in with another woman, perhaps abandoning his responsibilities, and crystal wants revenge.
Tom owes the world a lot of money as we can all tell from publicly available documents. He also owes Chris a ton of money which I know to be true. That could explain why payments are being taken from the the PayPal, kind of like a wage garnishment.
As for why tom used crystal's name, I am going to bet that he did so entirely with her permission to avoid violating a non compete with his day job. Now that their marriage is a train wreck, and crystal is out for blood she's looking to apply maximum collateral damage.
The whole situation sucks for crystal, tom and Chris (who is out tons of money). No one wins here and I wish tom would go back to Pennsylvania and make this all right.
Sorry but that is absolutely not the case and absolutely does not in any way explain why the paypal account linked to ugvps is in Chris's name.. just under no circumstances does it cancel that out sorry.
It may be in part true in money is owed but I would hazard a guess none of them would like to sit in a room with an IRS man to explain it.
Play with fire you get burned.
@jbiloh does CC own whole/partly Chicago VPS or not?
We do not. I gave Chris his original Website template for Chicago vps because I had one laying around that we were going to use for a shared Web hosting company and I bought the domain many years ago because I squat on good domains but that's it.
I think the bottom line here is this: http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/15263/lowendtalk-rules-and-guidelines#latest
If CVPS own UGVPS then rules have been broken, what ever punishment has been dealt in the past for providers trying to circumvent these rules should also apply.
I completely agree with you. I guess i would feel a little less discriminated against if such actions were been taken across the board.
If I'm honest i believe @mpkossen has warned the consumers in our offer posts, those aren't going to disappear. But what have i actually done to have my posting permissions removed?
Any business can get sold at any time, not just VPS businesses. There is always a risk of this happening, period. At least the clients I have had still get what they signed up for. I'm certainly not trying to hide my past, I still use the same accounts on forums etc and if people ask me I tell them the truth.
@AnthonySmith
Dont you Think that it has been proven beyond resonal doubt that Chicago VPS Owns UGVPS?
Regardless of the story you wish to believe, Chris still broke the LET/LEB rules in his financial interest/partial ownership/whatever you wish to call it with UGVPS and then very blatantly and directly lying about their relationship WITH UGVPS. The evidence in this thread clearly proves it. I'd say let the lawyers deal with the lawyer stuff in the Tom/Crystal situation, but there's justice to be served here at LET in relation to Chris and CVPS/UGVPS' relations and blatant lies.