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.
Comments
That's a low blow by filemedia. I had a bad experience with them in the past also, although it was partially my fault.
I went over the bandwidth limit by a few GB and they suspended my account immediately after I paid for another month, demanding that I pay $11 more to get the server back online (for a $5 server). In the end, they refused to let me access my data temporarily to make a backup. So I ate the loss and moved on to more respectable providers. They're not very classy to say the least.
This thread is ridiculous. I've had a vps with filemedia for around two years now and it's one of my favourite LEBs, never had a single issue with it and the staff are great.
@WellGrounded you ordered a server and didn't know how to set it up, reading that ticket to me it seems that the staff tried their very best to help you but you weren't able to comprehend what they were saying. You received the unmanaged service that you paid for, and filed a dispute against them so they have every right to report you to fraudrecord.
The fraudreport report says "Spamming two months, then paypal chargeback." which could have been worded a little better by filemedia (they're a German provider so their English might not be the best), it seems they meant that you were spamming/wasting their time for two months.
WSWD say that after contacting filemedia and speaking to them, they were told that you "spent weeks sending massive amounts of spam". Can they confirm that they actually spoke to them and they said this? or are they basing this of the fraudrecord report where it says "Spamming two months"?
I don't see how filemedia are in the wrong here other than that, OP is in the wrong here for filing a paypal dispute. I wouldn't sell to him either.
I signed up with Filemedia last month for KVM vps and I was able to setup and run debian smoothy I am really happy with them.
@AsadHaider How did I waste their time for 2 months when I only signed up with them 2 weeks ago? Besides, my interaction with them was only over a 1 week period.
Could be he just was reporting multiple assholes at once and got them mixed-up
I see what you did there
I have noticed how a lot of LET members, especially the providers in the hosting industry and their sympathizers always try to make excuses for the errors of their fellow providers. If it was a court the judge would declare every excuse not related to the actual claim of spam irrelevant.
It is outrightly false for filemedia to state that the OP spammed. It should simply have said he filed for a Paypal chargeback for a service which was delivered, which doesn't constitute fraud anyway.
All experienced providers know about customers who complain about KVM servers not working because they don't know that they need to set up an ISO, login via VNC and partition the disk and install stuff themselves, and we see a number of them asking for assistance on LET.
Dealing with people like that is part of the cost of doing business.
To report them for fraud for a chargeback is clearly out of order
There is a (huge) difference between opening a paypal dispute and chargeback.
Also, anyone using fraudrecord apparently doesn't care about about the number of reports or reliability? A single semi-false report like this will stop you from ordering from anyone using this service. I don't like this at all
You can always explain and dispute. If it's semi-false there will be some way to deal with it, like posting this thread.
I got a couple of vps' from their previous offer, and find their setup and service excellent. If they infact troll clowns, it's just an added bonus.
I usually read it and see who reports it (not some random host), what the report is and the number of them.
It's a good reference but not fact.
OK, nice try! You're wrong, though... It is just a revenge of filemedia.de to their former client because of the faulted chargeback reason. Yes, filemedia has the right not to refund a client because he cannot understand how kvm works.
Yes, the client should not ask for a chargeback to paypal. On the other hand, client had the opinion that it was not his fault that filemedia.de installation system is so complicated that for an inexperienced person it is not understood. In their adds here, they should state clearly that their kvm service is not for the inexperienced users because it is far more complicated than other kvm boxes a lot of providres here give to the people.
All this is completely different of the way filemedia.de, reacted after the dispute. They tried to make a revenge (!!!) to their client and close the door to other providers he maybe wanted to order services. Spam is spam: it is not about the support system, we all know very well what spam is and we all hate it, mostly the providers.
So, this is a dishonest behavior from filemedia.de side. And the way they changed the claim in fraudrecord after OP's thread here, is an extra argument about their dishonest behavior.
This. If they participate in FraudRecord they know what other hosts write and how to phrase a report.
They wouldn't ask for clarification on what "spam" was if it was in a new customer's FraudRecord report.
As stated before, the change was not from filemedia, it was by me (fraudrecord) after reading this thread, on request by the OP.
That makes it worse because it means that FileMedia couldn't own up to their choice of action.
@Harzem
Your website says:
So how can you be sure to change the "right" record if you can't check the actual client info? And why do you change a record just because someone complains on a forum stating "I didn't do that...". Did the OP proof his claims? Did you hear the other party (file media)? Could filemedia proof their claims?
Frankly, I don't know what is more troubling here: the OP's (admitted) fraud, or fraudrecord's autocracy, or filemedia's (still unproven) misinformation...
What? Where did OP commit a fraud?
You deliberately break a legally binding contract by not paying (or at least try to do so): in my country, this is considered fraud.
A lot of hosts if not all of them consider a charge back or PayPal dispute fraudulent..
@fileMEDIA Last Active 1:56AM
Since he obviously has read this thread but chosen not to respond to it i'd say it's a fair assumption that he knows he fucked up
It's a fair assumption to say that he doesn't want to respond. But frankly, I would prefer that he gives us his version rather than saying nothing at all...
People often forget by opening a claim for virtual goods actually brakes PayPal's terms as well when you put in stuff like "missing parts".
I know someone that recently started at the local PayPal CC here and although they wont say it directly because you know.... big professional business, people that use Paypal to buy things that they specifically don't cover you for then try and put a fake claim in are hated within PayPal they don't see it as any different to bullshitting your credit card company to try and get a refund.
@fileMEDIA has responded to other posts after this one was posted.
Paypal dispute is an arbitration carried by Paypal and you agreed to it by accepting their terms. If Paypal decides against you, suck it up (and we don't even know what happened in this case, most likely Paypal decision was not in OPs favor)
Fraud is a legal term, what hosts think is completely irrelevant.
That's the point, OP here considered the other party broke the same "legally binding contract" by not delivering a functional service. He was wrong in both but it's hardly a fraud attempt.
Even if he "thinks" so (rightly or wrongly) doesn't give him the right to chargeback (again: in my country -- that happens to be the country where fileMEDIA operates from).
But our (amateur) legal definitions are not really interesting here: Fraudrecord explicitly states that each and every fraud reporter has the right to determine himself what he considers to be fraud.
But that's not what he did ... Again, paypal dispute != chargeback
Also:
fraud noun: fraud; plural noun: frauds wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.I don't know what OP said in the dispute, the example above by @AnthonySmith might fall into this definition, otherwise if OP was honest in his claim, it does not.
No, they are using the word "misbehavour".
I think fileMEDIA isn't fucked up. In Germany, where most of the clients are of fileMEDIA, no one care about FraudRecord, it's not really known
Yes, and "Chargeback", "Non-payment", and "Fraudulent Activity" are all part for their "DEFINITION OF MISBEHAVOUR":
https://fraudrecord.com/terms-of-service/
So we can conclude that OP's behavior justifies reporting him to Fraudrecord based on
Filemedia.de could report their client for asking a chargeback with no reason, because he couldn't understand their way to deploy a box thru their system. But they did report their client for spam activity, a claim that is way far from what OP really did. Their difficult for average users deploy system could be an argument for a client for dysfunctional system. So, even in a court, OP could claim that their system is too difficult to be used by an average user and the provider should warn about that.
But, a claim for doing spam, could in worst scenario destroy client's reputation and ban him from most of providers out there! What professional provider would accept a client that is doing spam?
So, the fraud is from Filemedia.de side, not from OP's. Because they lie about the real reason of their conflict with their client and tried to have a revenge because he wanted a chargeback.
Do remember that: an individual client is not a professional always. But a provider, is. So, he has to be proffesional in all his moves, while the client is just a client, good or bad, smart or not, experienced or no.
Oh, I have no problem with it at all, I think he 100% deserved to be listed there. Disputes are unnecessary annoyance for providers even if they are going to win.
The only problem is here is calling it a fraud when it isn't, and the description put there which looks more like retaliation then a honest attempt to help other providers decide if they want this person as a client or not.
And to give an example about their claim of how easy is to deploy a vps and a screenshot of their deploy system, look that:
Their first page
The user's pane for deploying vps.
There are several steps for deploying a vps and , if you want to manage them via ssh, you should take extra steps from vnc console to install it. You have also to configure the o/s from vnc console. This is normal for an experienced user, but not a noobie.
To sum up, for an experienced user, it is not difficult to deploy the box, if he has experience about real cloud but not DO or similar services. If, for example, he deployed so far a DO box (their boxes are also kvm based), it is way different and much more difficult to do it with filemedia.de control panel. So, they should state that clearly in their first page: IT IS NOT FOR NOOBIES! In that way, they would be crystal clear with their ads and a client would have no wright to ask for a chargeback or so.