GoodLeaf Hosting Scam Attempt?

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:
I'm not picking sides here, but I have to ask just out of curiosity. Are people really not reading AUP's etc before they click 'agree' and then come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP that they actually agreed upon?

Well, i do and i think everyone should but i still don't see having wording in there that basically negates the conditions of the original offer as a good business practice.

That I totally agree on. Marketing something as "Unlimited" and then asking people to "you have to let us know if you intend to use more than *" might with a bit of a stretch qualify as unlimited, but it's not a nice way of doing it.

Exactly. Besides i very much call bullshit on the noble cause waiving. Outside a very tiny window of usages (where supporting a project could be turned into an advertising opportunity for example) the consumed resources are either economically viable for the host or they aren't and asking nicely isn't going to change that. In the general case the limit won't be waived and an upgrade to a more expensive plan will be mandated to keep the service.

The invoice was generated by mistake by a system in beta that had a crazy high unreachable bandwidth limit hence why i deleted it after 5 minutes

Huh? I'm not sure where you see the connection here unless you want to imply that you'd keep clients using 600TB/m on their $25(?) plan as long as they'd ask in advance?

If it's for a real reason like a major vpn company I would reccomend them to upgrade their plan and help pay for the planned bandwidth usage

GoodLeaf-Cloud

This is clearly a net tho

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@FatGrizzly said:

@nbgames said:
Why aren't we asking how is "palworld" server used 10gbps 24/7 for a week straight

Why aren't we asking how Nathan failed to monitor a server using 10gbps 24/7 for a week?

Admit you/your automatic abuse system fucked up, issues do happen from time to time. You've learnt your mistake, and I hope you wont go further with this.

Ideally instead of suspension, Providers limit port speeds to 100Mbps, so that client's service doesn't go down.

You could have stated, "150TB soft cap, ticket in to raise" with Unmetered line on the pricing page to avoid confusion.

I'm no one to judge, but doing ^ would save you from another Drama.

GLWS.

There is a system in place but since the vps was manually re created that got disabled (I was unaware)

kenjing789

Am on @nbgames side on the bandwidth

He already state Fair Use Unlimited 10Gbps port and u can find it on his FUP page so it not his fault. Imagine 25$ for 10Gbps unmetered dedicated

Also it actually unlimited , 150tb soft cap and you can use more of it. OP just refuse to fix his Palworld server so his fault

TLDR @nbgames do nothing wrong , he just have lowendsupport post sales services with lowenscustomer

totally_not_banned

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:
I'm not picking sides here, but I have to ask just out of curiosity. Are people really not reading AUP's etc before they click 'agree' and then come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP that they actually agreed upon?

Well, i do and i think everyone should but i still don't see having wording in there that basically negates the conditions of the original offer as a good business practice.

That I totally agree on. Marketing something as "Unlimited" and then asking people to "you have to let us know if you intend to use more than *" might with a bit of a stretch qualify as unlimited, but it's not a nice way of doing it.

Exactly. Besides i very much call bullshit on the noble cause waiving. Outside a very tiny window of usages (where supporting a project could be turned into an advertising opportunity for example) the consumed resources are either economically viable for the host or they aren't and asking nicely isn't going to change that. In the general case the limit won't be waived and an upgrade to a more expensive plan will be mandated to keep the service.

The invoice was generated by mistake by a system in beta that had a crazy high unreachable bandwidth limit hence why i deleted it after 5 minutes

Huh? I'm not sure where you see the connection here unless you want to imply that you'd keep clients using 600TB/m on their $25(?) plan as long as they'd ask in advance?

If it's for a real reason like a major vpn company I would reccomend them to upgrade their plan and help pay for the planned bandwidth usage

That's pretty much what i'm saying. The implying lifting of limits doesn't really exist in reality. It's basically an euphemistic way of saying "contact us to discuss an upgrade". Besides unless you have some actual hints at something illegal going on i feel the questioning of a customers usage are quite nosy.

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:
I'm not picking sides here, but I have to ask just out of curiosity. Are people really not reading AUP's etc before they click 'agree' and then come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP that they actually agreed upon?

Well, i do and i think everyone should but i still don't see having wording in there that basically negates the conditions of the original offer as a good business practice.

That I totally agree on. Marketing something as "Unlimited" and then asking people to "you have to let us know if you intend to use more than *" might with a bit of a stretch qualify as unlimited, but it's not a nice way of doing it.

Exactly. Besides i very much call bullshit on the noble cause waiving. Outside a very tiny window of usages (where supporting a project could be turned into an advertising opportunity for example) the consumed resources are either economically viable for the host or they aren't and asking nicely isn't going to change that. In the general case the limit won't be waived and an upgrade to a more expensive plan will be mandated to keep the service.

The invoice was generated by mistake by a system in beta that had a crazy high unreachable bandwidth limit hence why i deleted it after 5 minutes

Huh? I'm not sure where you see the connection here unless you want to imply that you'd keep clients using 600TB/m on their $25(?) plan as long as they'd ask in advance?

If it's for a real reason like a major vpn company I would reccomend them to upgrade their plan and help pay for the planned bandwidth usage

That's pretty much what i'm saying. The implying lifting of limits doesn't really exist in reality. It's basically an euphemistic way of saying "contact us to discuss an upgrade". Besides unless you have some actual hints at something illegal going on i feel the questioning of a customers usage are quite nosy.

This case isn't nosy just straight abuse but we need to ask to verify no abuse

totally_not_banned

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:
I'm not picking sides here, but I have to ask just out of curiosity. Are people really not reading AUP's etc before they click 'agree' and then come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP that they actually agreed upon?

Well, i do and i think everyone should but i still don't see having wording in there that basically negates the conditions of the original offer as a good business practice.

That I totally agree on. Marketing something as "Unlimited" and then asking people to "you have to let us know if you intend to use more than *" might with a bit of a stretch qualify as unlimited, but it's not a nice way of doing it.

Exactly. Besides i very much call bullshit on the noble cause waiving. Outside a very tiny window of usages (where supporting a project could be turned into an advertising opportunity for example) the consumed resources are either economically viable for the host or they aren't and asking nicely isn't going to change that. In the general case the limit won't be waived and an upgrade to a more expensive plan will be mandated to keep the service.

The invoice was generated by mistake by a system in beta that had a crazy high unreachable bandwidth limit hence why i deleted it after 5 minutes

Huh? I'm not sure where you see the connection here unless you want to imply that you'd keep clients using 600TB/m on their $25(?) plan as long as they'd ask in advance?

If it's for a real reason like a major vpn company I would reccomend them to upgrade their plan and help pay for the planned bandwidth usage

That's pretty much what i'm saying. The implying lifting of limits doesn't really exist in reality. It's basically an euphemistic way of saying "contact us to discuss an upgrade". Besides unless you have some actual hints at something illegal going on i feel the questioning of a customers usage are quite nosy.

This case isn't nosy just straight abuse but we need to ask to verify no abuse

I've already asked this before and you didn't answer: What's the alleged abuse (outside of a possible fair use violation for which the actual use case is irrelevant anyways) here? Did you receive complaints? Did the traffic have some kind of questionable qualities?

kait

@rcy026 said: As I said, I do not always read the AUP or TOS, but then again, I do not bitch and cry if I get shut down for being in violation of the AUP or TOS that I did not read.

Oh yeah, OP is bitching 100%

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:
I'm not picking sides here, but I have to ask just out of curiosity. Are people really not reading AUP's etc before they click 'agree' and then come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP that they actually agreed upon?

Well, i do and i think everyone should but i still don't see having wording in there that basically negates the conditions of the original offer as a good business practice.

That I totally agree on. Marketing something as "Unlimited" and then asking people to "you have to let us know if you intend to use more than *" might with a bit of a stretch qualify as unlimited, but it's not a nice way of doing it.

Exactly. Besides i very much call bullshit on the noble cause waiving. Outside a very tiny window of usages (where supporting a project could be turned into an advertising opportunity for example) the consumed resources are either economically viable for the host or they aren't and asking nicely isn't going to change that. In the general case the limit won't be waived and an upgrade to a more expensive plan will be mandated to keep the service.

The invoice was generated by mistake by a system in beta that had a crazy high unreachable bandwidth limit hence why i deleted it after 5 minutes

Huh? I'm not sure where you see the connection here unless you want to imply that you'd keep clients using 600TB/m on their $25(?) plan as long as they'd ask in advance?

If it's for a real reason like a major vpn company I would reccomend them to upgrade their plan and help pay for the planned bandwidth usage

That's pretty much what i'm saying. The implying lifting of limits doesn't really exist in reality. It's basically an euphemistic way of saying "contact us to discuss an upgrade". Besides unless you have some actual hints at something illegal going on i feel the questioning of a customers usage are quite nosy.

This case isn't nosy just straight abuse but we need to ask to verify no abuse

I've already asked this before and you didn't answer: What's the alleged abuse (outside of a possible fair use violation for which the actual use case is irrelevant anyways) here? Did you receive complaints? Did the traffic have some kind of questionable qualities?

Maxing out the port, no real service uses that much bandwidth 24/7

GoodLeaf-Cloud

If I get a unmetered cogent line and use it 24/7 they will reach out (for example)

totally_not_banned

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:
I'm not picking sides here, but I have to ask just out of curiosity. Are people really not reading AUP's etc before they click 'agree' and then come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP that they actually agreed upon?

Well, i do and i think everyone should but i still don't see having wording in there that basically negates the conditions of the original offer as a good business practice.

That I totally agree on. Marketing something as "Unlimited" and then asking people to "you have to let us know if you intend to use more than *" might with a bit of a stretch qualify as unlimited, but it's not a nice way of doing it.

Exactly. Besides i very much call bullshit on the noble cause waiving. Outside a very tiny window of usages (where supporting a project could be turned into an advertising opportunity for example) the consumed resources are either economically viable for the host or they aren't and asking nicely isn't going to change that. In the general case the limit won't be waived and an upgrade to a more expensive plan will be mandated to keep the service.

The invoice was generated by mistake by a system in beta that had a crazy high unreachable bandwidth limit hence why i deleted it after 5 minutes

Huh? I'm not sure where you see the connection here unless you want to imply that you'd keep clients using 600TB/m on their $25(?) plan as long as they'd ask in advance?

If it's for a real reason like a major vpn company I would reccomend them to upgrade their plan and help pay for the planned bandwidth usage

That's pretty much what i'm saying. The implying lifting of limits doesn't really exist in reality. It's basically an euphemistic way of saying "contact us to discuss an upgrade". Besides unless you have some actual hints at something illegal going on i feel the questioning of a customers usage are quite nosy.

This case isn't nosy just straight abuse but we need to ask to verify no abuse

I've already asked this before and you didn't answer: What's the alleged abuse (outside of a possible fair use violation for which the actual use case is irrelevant anyways) here? Did you receive complaints? Did the traffic have some kind of questionable qualities?

Maxing out the port, no real service uses that much bandwidth 24/7

So distributing some sought after content isn't a real service? I rest my case.

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:
I'm not picking sides here, but I have to ask just out of curiosity. Are people really not reading AUP's etc before they click 'agree' and then come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP that they actually agreed upon?

Well, i do and i think everyone should but i still don't see having wording in there that basically negates the conditions of the original offer as a good business practice.

That I totally agree on. Marketing something as "Unlimited" and then asking people to "you have to let us know if you intend to use more than *" might with a bit of a stretch qualify as unlimited, but it's not a nice way of doing it.

Exactly. Besides i very much call bullshit on the noble cause waiving. Outside a very tiny window of usages (where supporting a project could be turned into an advertising opportunity for example) the consumed resources are either economically viable for the host or they aren't and asking nicely isn't going to change that. In the general case the limit won't be waived and an upgrade to a more expensive plan will be mandated to keep the service.

The invoice was generated by mistake by a system in beta that had a crazy high unreachable bandwidth limit hence why i deleted it after 5 minutes

Huh? I'm not sure where you see the connection here unless you want to imply that you'd keep clients using 600TB/m on their $25(?) plan as long as they'd ask in advance?

If it's for a real reason like a major vpn company I would reccomend them to upgrade their plan and help pay for the planned bandwidth usage

That's pretty much what i'm saying. The implying lifting of limits doesn't really exist in reality. It's basically an euphemistic way of saying "contact us to discuss an upgrade". Besides unless you have some actual hints at something illegal going on i feel the questioning of a customers usage are quite nosy.

This case isn't nosy just straight abuse but we need to ask to verify no abuse

I've already asked this before and you didn't answer: What's the alleged abuse (outside of a possible fair use violation for which the actual use case is irrelevant anyways) here? Did you receive complaints? Did the traffic have some kind of questionable qualities?

Maxing out the port, no real service uses that much bandwidth 24/7

So distributing some sought after content isn't a real service? I rest my case.

not on our lowest tier vps 😭

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@rcy026 said:

@kait said:

@rcy026 said: Are people really not reading AUP's etc before they click 'agree' and then come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP that they actually agreed upon?

No one reads the AUP or a TOS, everyone clicks on yes yes yes yes. It is not only in this industry, its everywhere.

That's not what I asked. I asked if they come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP or TOS that they did not read.

As I said, I do not always read the AUP or TOS, but then again, I do not bitch and cry if I get shut down for being in violation of the AUP or TOS that I did not read.
I just cant get my head around the fact that people are so entitled that they agree to a contract and then complain when they have to follow what's in the contract. It just baffles me, I can not for the life of me understand how they think the world works.

its also common sense not to max out a fair use port 24/7 then complain when we suspend the service, (he also lied to us the first time saying he got hacked) so when it happened a second time we were more strict

totally_not_banned

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@nbgames said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@rcy026 said:
I'm not picking sides here, but I have to ask just out of curiosity. Are people really not reading AUP's etc before they click 'agree' and then come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP that they actually agreed upon?

Well, i do and i think everyone should but i still don't see having wording in there that basically negates the conditions of the original offer as a good business practice.

That I totally agree on. Marketing something as "Unlimited" and then asking people to "you have to let us know if you intend to use more than *" might with a bit of a stretch qualify as unlimited, but it's not a nice way of doing it.

Exactly. Besides i very much call bullshit on the noble cause waiving. Outside a very tiny window of usages (where supporting a project could be turned into an advertising opportunity for example) the consumed resources are either economically viable for the host or they aren't and asking nicely isn't going to change that. In the general case the limit won't be waived and an upgrade to a more expensive plan will be mandated to keep the service.

The invoice was generated by mistake by a system in beta that had a crazy high unreachable bandwidth limit hence why i deleted it after 5 minutes

Huh? I'm not sure where you see the connection here unless you want to imply that you'd keep clients using 600TB/m on their $25(?) plan as long as they'd ask in advance?

If it's for a real reason like a major vpn company I would reccomend them to upgrade their plan and help pay for the planned bandwidth usage

That's pretty much what i'm saying. The implying lifting of limits doesn't really exist in reality. It's basically an euphemistic way of saying "contact us to discuss an upgrade". Besides unless you have some actual hints at something illegal going on i feel the questioning of a customers usage are quite nosy.

This case isn't nosy just straight abuse but we need to ask to verify no abuse

I've already asked this before and you didn't answer: What's the alleged abuse (outside of a possible fair use violation for which the actual use case is irrelevant anyways) here? Did you receive complaints? Did the traffic have some kind of questionable qualities?

Maxing out the port, no real service uses that much bandwidth 24/7

So distributing some sought after content isn't a real service? I rest my case.

not on our lowest tier vps 😭

...

rcy026

@nbgames said:
If I get a unmetered cogent line and use it 24/7 they will reach out (for example)

Actually no, I do not think so.
I have never used Cogent, but I have used Arelion, Hurricane Electric, Verizon, AT&T and a lot of other big carriers, and if they say unlimited they mean unlimited. Of course, the cost reflects this and it is not cheap, but that's why it is called unlimited.

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@rcy026 said:

@nbgames said:
If I get a unmetered cogent line and use it 24/7 they will reach out (for example)

Actually no, I do not think so.
I have never used Cogent, but I have used Arelion, Hurricane Electric, Verizon, AT&T and a lot of other big carriers, and if they say unlimited they mean unlimited. Of course, the cost reflects this and it is not cheap, but that's why it is called unlimited.

nah they reach out and say hey do you know and then they say do you want to upgrade?

kait

@nbgames said: nah they reach out and say hey do you know and then they say do you want to upgrade?

Then you say no, and keep doing 10Gbps 24/7.

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@kait said:

@nbgames said: nah they reach out and say hey do you know and then they say do you want to upgrade?

Then you say no, and keep doing 10Gbps 24/7.

yea just saying they still reach out and ask

GoodLeaf-Cloud

they dont really care tho because your paying for it, a $25 vps isnt getting 10gbps unmetered 24/7 would litreally bankrupt us if everyone did that

kait

@nbgames said: they dont really care tho because your paying for it, a $25 vps isnt getting 10gbps unmetered 24/7 would litreally bankrupt us if everyone did that

So its not unlimited...

rcy026

@nbgames said:

@rcy026 said:

@kait said:

@rcy026 said: Are people really not reading AUP's etc before they click 'agree' and then come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP that they actually agreed upon?

No one reads the AUP or a TOS, everyone clicks on yes yes yes yes. It is not only in this industry, its everywhere.

That's not what I asked. I asked if they come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP or TOS that they did not read.

As I said, I do not always read the AUP or TOS, but then again, I do not bitch and cry if I get shut down for being in violation of the AUP or TOS that I did not read.
I just cant get my head around the fact that people are so entitled that they agree to a contract and then complain when they have to follow what's in the contract. It just baffles me, I can not for the life of me understand how they think the world works.

its also common sense not to max out a fair use port 24/7 then complain when we suspend the service, (he also lied to us the first time saying he got hacked) so when it happened a second time we were more strict

It is also common sense not to market something as unlimited if it is in fact limited, however soft those limits might be.

I am basically on your side here, I think op is mostly in the wrong, but advertising something as unlimited should be avoided if there are any kind of restrictions on it. I'm not saying it is a scam, but it is at least misleading. I understand that it feels good to use "unlimited" as a sales pitch, but trust me, you will not gain any customers when it turns out it is not true. In fact, you will eventually loose customers and your reputation will take a hit that you will probably never recover from.

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@kait said:

@nbgames said: they dont really care tho because your paying for it, a $25 vps isnt getting 10gbps unmetered 24/7 would litreally bankrupt us if everyone did that

So its not unlimited...

never said it was

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@rcy026 said:

@nbgames said:

@rcy026 said:

@kait said:

@rcy026 said: Are people really not reading AUP's etc before they click 'agree' and then come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP that they actually agreed upon?

No one reads the AUP or a TOS, everyone clicks on yes yes yes yes. It is not only in this industry, its everywhere.

That's not what I asked. I asked if they come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP or TOS that they did not read.

As I said, I do not always read the AUP or TOS, but then again, I do not bitch and cry if I get shut down for being in violation of the AUP or TOS that I did not read.
I just cant get my head around the fact that people are so entitled that they agree to a contract and then complain when they have to follow what's in the contract. It just baffles me, I can not for the life of me understand how they think the world works.

its also common sense not to max out a fair use port 24/7 then complain when we suspend the service, (he also lied to us the first time saying he got hacked) so when it happened a second time we were more strict

It is also common sense not to market something as unlimited if it is in fact limited, however soft those limits might be.

I am basically on your side here, I think op is mostly in the wrong, but advertising something as unlimited should be avoided if there are any kind of restrictions on it. I'm not saying it is a scam, but it is at least misleading. I understand that it feels good to use "unlimited" as a sales pitch, but trust me, you will not gain any customers when it turns out it is not true. In fact, you will eventually loose customers and your reputation will take a hit that you will probably never recover from.

we labeled it as fair use (I see most people say unmetered them put fair use so I did too)

kait

@nbgames said: never said it was

Your website did.

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@kait said:

@nbgames said: never said it was

Your website did.

said unlimited traffic fair use

GoodLeaf-Cloud

never said it was flat unlimited

rcy026

@nbgames said:
they dont really care tho because your paying for it, a $25 vps isnt getting 10gbps unmetered 24/7 would litreally bankrupt us if everyone did that

Then don't sell it!
Make it 100Mbps unlimited or 10Gbps with a cap, or whatever you can afford to do. But do not sell a product that you can not afford to deliver!
This is just as obvious as people following AUP's they agree on. Contracts work both ways, if a user has to abide by your AUP, you also have to deliver what you sold. This goes without saying, this discussion should not need to exist.

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@rcy026 said:

@nbgames said:
they dont really care tho because your paying for it, a $25 vps isnt getting 10gbps unmetered 24/7 would litreally bankrupt us if everyone did that

Then don't sell it!
Make it 100Mbps unlimited or 10Gbps with a cap, or whatever you can afford to do. But do not sell a product that you can not afford to deliver!
This is just as obvious as people following AUP's they agree on. Contracts work both ways, if a user has to abide by your AUP, you also have to deliver what you sold. This goes without saying, this discussion should not need to exist.

yes I sold a FAIR USE port not a unmetered port, its supposed to be 1gbps not 10gbps aswell as stated when the vps was recreated it was set to unrestricted and to not bandwidth suspend for some reason

kait

@nbgames said: never said it was flat unlimited

Youre lying once again, Unlimited traffic.....

https://web.archive.org/web/20231208100816/https://goodleafdev.com/vps.php

GoodLeaf-Cloud

@kait said:

@nbgames said: never said it was flat unlimited

Youre lying once again, Unlimited traffic.....

https://web.archive.org/web/20231208100816/https://goodleafdev.com/vps.php

thats from december, it was quickly updated after that to be fair use