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
OK, I get your point ;-) Innocent until proven guilty, I agree. So let me rephrase:
@vedran said:
Well, I would prefer to hear the other party (filemedia) before deciding what it "looks like" ;-)
But my main reasons for entering this discussion were the questions to @Harzem that have not been answered yet:
You are making a lot of assumptions here.
I know the right record because I simply searched for the client's name and email as a query, after he told me his name and email to search. What's not to understand here? Ask him his email address, login to FraudRecord if you have a membership, make a query yourself. The "right" record is displayed. That's how a blacklist works.
No assumptions, simply asking questions ;-)
You answered my first one about identifying the client (he gave you his name/email), thank you. How about the other ones?
I am just interested to know how fraudrecord works when the parties involved do not agree, and based on what kind of information you (the owner) are arbitrating.
I think this kind of information might interest all those who "trust" your service in one way or another....
@WellGrounded, it seems you're too used to buying OpenVZ and fair play on admitting that the dispute probably was not warranted. I wonder how long it takes a provider to deal with a dispute as I imagine it'd be all of 3 minutes, particularly if they have a template "digital goods" response. It seems filemedia made an error in judgement by choosing to do it differently.
FraudRecord has questionable integrity here, IMO they should treat this (potentially/seemingly) deliberate misinformation very seriously, since they've already decided to edit the record I can only assume they've taken a position on the matter. I believe the intention for their service is good, just not too workable as it places too much weight on providers being straight-up honest.
As for the 'defamation', it wouldn't be too hard to prove that their actions and misinformation can materially harm your business model (I know that being unable to sign up to hosts would be a problem for me). Problem is it's small potatoes and probably not worth your time, unless you feel like burning up some cash to prove a point
I'd just put it down to the "low end mindset". As much as providers have to protect themselves, they generally have little patience of customers that don't behave like the rest of the herd. Unfortunately for many of them, their pricing models (or attitude) can't deal with these contingencies.
Arbitration is the worst kind of duty here.
There are many different cases. If some client contacts us saying "I didn't do that, remove me!", my first response is "contact the host, they can remove the record themselves". If the client comes back with no result there, I send an email to the other party asking for their version.
If two versions don't match, and everyone claims they are right, I try to check if the client has a reputable WHT/LET/etc membership, and if the host has a reputable WHT/LET/etc membership. Try to see if one of those appear more honest in general.
If I think that client may deserve a chance based on the report, maybe it's something rather simple like staff abuse instead of child pornography, I may hide the report (never delete) and give the client another chance. Repeat offenders not welcome.
If the host is known to be robust one as well, then I don't act. Both parties look legit, and there is a problem between them in which I can't really see the details, I must stay away.
But if 1) There is a public forum post about the issue, and 2) both parties are members on that forum, then it's rather simple. Assume a neutral role, edit the report if necessary to "lighten" it, such as I did here by removing spam but keeping the chargeback (which the client admits), and put a link to the public post. Then keep an eye on the forum to see how both parties respond.
In short, I have edited the record but I didn't leave it there. I'm here, monitoring the situation, the edited report is still a valid reflection of what happened, and it has a link to the discussion. I think it's fair to both parties right now.
Did I mention arbitration sucks?
edit: arbitration has been needed only 4 times in the entire run of FraudRecord. So there isn't a lot of experience accumulated in this area yet. I do my best.
It is a easy thing for us:
1) Customer ordered service and paid.
2) We delivered the service as it is described.
3) Customer used the service.
4) Started a chargeback over paypal to get his money back. Reason: He cannot administrate it.
5) We reported the chargeback because service was delivered as it is described and the chargeback violated against our ToS. If a user cannot administrate it, do not order it. Service is unmanaged.
Nothing magic here.
You're missing the part where he supposedly sent out a load of spam, according to your fraudrecord report
Have you asked your lawyer before posting here?
And the spam?
Yah.. what about the fraud report genius?
Hm yeah what about the spam? Do you admit it was a mistake to report it this way? I mean I can understand your situation perfectly well. You are trying to help and then that
douchecustomer even files a dispute, that would piss me off so much, but reporting something that didn't happen is a bit too much. You should definitely be more responsible with your power to report clients.@Harzem Thank you for the explanation. Seems quite reasonable (to me) how you are proceeding, even if the decisions you have to make are quite "informal" (not criticizing, just trying to understand).
I don't think @fileMEDIA needs a lawyer (at least not more than the OP), but what about the spam report? Did he spam or not? And if not, how did it make its way in the fraud record?
Yes, there is magic: you disappear the part that you lying about spamming! Your client, as you also say here, did not spamming but you reported him as spammer! So, either you are a magician yourself or you don't say all the truth to this community...
I can see your order has now been processed on our side following the receipt of payment @WellGrounded