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.
Incero & SpeedyKVM throws the ban hammer at ALL LET members.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
@Jarland, did you talk to Gordon about this? You are always being a good friend to pals at Incero, and I respect that, but why are you always trying to change opinions here, of LET instead of working diplomacy on the other end is beyond me.
Or you did, now or before, and didn't have any success? He doesn't care? Curious.
We get it, you have special treatment and you aren't hurt by this.
But anyone else who isn't already an Incero/SpeedyKVM customer is explicitly not allowed to purchase a service, or even make an account. Just because I'm not attempting to do so this very minute doesn't make that fact not true.
As a host that targets LET heavily, as ex-LET staff, as a respected LET community member you should not be justifying their attack against the LET community base by saying in the month its been true no one has been effected. You should be more upset that your beloved provider thinks so little of your community, your friends here, your customers that they ban them outright from henceforth ever becoming a customer. You shouldn't find it acceptable that people need to literally choose between being an LET user or a SpeedyKVM/Incero customer.
Why do you need someone to be terminated in order to accept this TOS change as real?
I'm not trying to change opinion of Incero's action. In fact it's the bias of people like you who would see my friendship and try to put words in my mouth that aren't there, or paint me as trying to say something that I'm not. Let me be really clear:
No one today was actively harmed or damaged in a direct and quantifiable way by anyone other than @AnthonySmith who has now set the precedent that providers here will be held accountable for the perceived sins of their vendors, even if it has no actual measurable impact on their ability to function as providers here.
I never asked you to change your opinion of Incero's policy. I never asked you to think something less severely of it. I asked you to take clear note of who took the first REAL swing. It was LET. The victim? Innocent providers. Incero promised a punch, LET actually took one.
Prove it. You're so smart, you can speak words. Now bring facts.
Why do I need to accept anything? What are you even talking about? I'm talking about LET hurting innocent providers in a petty and childish move, and that it was the first quantifiable damaging move taken in relation to this. You're talking nonsense. I never said the TOS wasn't real.
As of last few months, every damn single time I write something to you, you tell me I'm putting words into your mouth and painting you in certain light. This is getting ridiculous, I'm sad I can't communicate with you in any meaningful way anymore. "It's people like you" and that's the icing on the cake. You are paranoid.
And you didn't answer the question. Fine.
That's great, but it's not relevant. You did, because you said this:
I didn't try to change anyone's opinion of anything here. I openly stated that LET staff threw the first real punch and that they were the first ones to actually hit someone. That's a fact, period.
I'm sorry that it hurts your feelings if I state facts, but could you actually provide a rebuttal or is it simply upsetting you that I'm providing them with clarity?
It seems to me that you're not trying, and you're blaming me for that.
But I'm the one who can't have meaningful conversation, because I'm taking a moment to point out a clear fact that upsets you, you're accusing me of doing something that I'm not, and I'm articulate enough to point it out. Understood.
No I answered your question fine. Ask me one that isn't loaded with a false accusation.
As of right now, today, am I allowed to sign up for an Incero account without breaching their TOS by being a LET member?
Hopefully you answer no, and therefore I am impacted.
No new provider from now on will be able to start at LET using Incero services.
Their new policy is damaging to LET members. Providers that support Incero doing this shouldn't be welcomed in open arms.
Uhm, it was speedy who started the war. It wasn't @AnthonySmith but speedy who wanton punishes and craps on LETters.
One might discuss about the wisdom of Ants reaction (I'm fine with it) but he merely REacted to speedy's insane attack and insult.
From what I see (which, granted isn't too much, particularly no insider info) the real problem is one or some weirdos at speedy whose immature and unprofessional attitude nobody can reign in.
@AnthonySmith
While I like jarland (well, mostly, probably surprising to some) I highly value your neutral and professional attitude and am glad that you are at the helm in this situation. I wanted to clearly and publicly state that. Thank you.
No, the ToS is being enforced
Well, seven pages in all that is left are that @AnthonySmith has reached out to Incero, what happens now depends on whether Incero opens a dialogue, if not then I am sure we will hear what his actions are in response.
Not seeing any revolt in terms of the suggestions he has mentioned so far but then there is little support for Incero here really. Certainly an interesting one overall.
As a member of this community @jarland can state his option the same as any other member. Just because you disagree with him, there is no reason to attack his character. Biased? Are we not all biased for providers we have had good experiences with and against providers that we have had bad experiences? Just because he is friends with Ryan this does not change, IMO.
In regard to rules and banning, IMHO banning Incero/SpeedyKVM from posting offers seems right. Banning their customers that provide services to LET members seems wrong.
No. Follow up question: How is that remotely relevant to anything I've said? If you're trying to engage me in a different topic than the one I brought up, which is related to the actions of the LET staff, I'm not certain that I'm interested but I'm willing to hear you out.
No, you are potentially impacted by something currently nonexistent (your services there). Providers who advertise here are impacted immediately, they have effectively been shut down by the word of the administration. If you do not have service with Incero, you have not lost something today. You have been told you cannot have something that you did not have. Someone else had something taken away that they actively had yesterday. Do you understand the difference?
From what I've read, and correct me if you see otherwise, existing providers on LET will not be allowed to advertise their services while their vendor is Incero. See:
...
If you sign up and are not aware of the policy, yes it is damaging to you. But today, right now, the only person who has had something actively taken from them is the provider that has been advertising here. That is not you. You have not had something taken from your hands today.
I feel that you're overreacting to their ToS. Don't like it? Bash them on their offers.
Drama whores.
I'm not disputing who spoke first. I'm simply stating who acted first. I think this is relevant. If you don't, then you do you. I do. I think it's incredibly important to note.
It was @AnthonySmith who told providers who were formerly posting that they are no longer able to post. It was Incero who told new people that do not have service with them that they are not welcome moving forward. If you see no difference there, cool, I do. One took something away, the other put a "You're not welcome here" sign on the door and told everyone inside "It's cool, that doesn't mean you." I'm not disputing whether or not that's a dick move, I'm merely comparing the actual real world impact of the two events.
In all fairness the ones that are directly negatively affected today and potential livelihood on play are our own providers. @Awmusic12635, @mikho, @jarland have all provided solid service and seeing them being prohibited from posting could only be seen as a premature decisions further alienating future and current provides from posting here.
Feel free to take any measures you deem necessary @AnthonySmith, but consider the consequences thoroughly before. My 2 cents before going back lurking.
I can confirm that @ryanarp gives me excellent support even in 2018, and has done so since 2013.
For those people requesting a block on Incero, check my signature for asn-blocklist. Please note that it is hosted at Incero, so you will need to manually update it from a non-biased internet connection.
Admit it, you wanted to see the process in action...
I've had my ability to ever be an Incero customer revoked.
I'm not saying Anthony's new rule doesn't impact people, it does, and it should. I'm saying its a reaction to Incero.
It is reasonable for the admin of a community to not want to drive business towards a company that has so aggressively come out against them. Especially since some of the hosts don't seem to care, as they are not impacted.
Just wondering whether there's any provider who is also a customer of Incero who tried to make an offer on LET today and had their offer rejected/deleted.
@mikho made an offer earlier today and it's still there:
https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/137542/mrvm-net-dallas-kvm-from-6-for-3-months-120gb-triple-disk-space-offer
If not, there's no quantifiable damage yet. (Assuming that there's a new policy already in place, which I'm not entirely sure about.)
Just to be clear: I'm against penalizing providers who are customers of Incero, as you can see from my posts above. It's more your claim of "quantifiable damaging move" that I'm wondering about -- whether there's been any damage in practice yet.
Aside from them turning away any new sign-ups I am sure given how they work, anyone with a "grandfathered" account will not be too comfortable. Let's face it, the message to you is that you must follow the Incero way of behaving line in totality or you are out as well.
I never doubted for a minute they’d follow through if baited.
It was as expected. K, thx, bye.
I’m more amused that someone spent 5 minutes actually doing it.
You seem interested in engaging me on this but still seem to be missing it. Let me compare:
You've been told you cannot rent a billboard.
You've been told that you're no longer allowed to be on the billboard that you've been renting.
Now, exclude the payment aspect because that unnecessarily muddies the metaphor. What I'm getting at is this: One has had something previously owned taken away. The other has simply had a choice removed from their list of available options. One is more quantifiable and measurably damaging than the other.
Fair point, but even Incero's policy says that you're grandfathered in, which is a way of saying "We're not taking something away that you currently have" where LET staff's reaction appears to be "What you've previously been doing here, you are no longer allowed to do." At least until more clarity is provided, one is actively proposing damage to existing plans that are currently in motion.
Indeed, it works both ways and there is no current "damage" to anyone at this time. A war of words, fuck you, fuck you too, no really, fuck you harder.
If Anthony makes a concrete decision it will be announced elsewhere in confirmation.
To me that seemed pretty concrete, but I welcome other interpretations.