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
I wonder, can dc do something if its renters are offering services to the "undesirable comunity"?
That is an interesting question you could argue either way. By providing services to new LET you could be breaking Speedykvm's TOS. They did not clarify what should the providers that rent under them should do.
But on the otherhand the renters are seperate entities. But the equipement that they use is from Speedy. I read from what Anthony posted as asking for clarification.
Worthless.
As long as that gordon is there we must reasonably assume that someone suddenly wanton declaring LETter not welcome may as well anytime change the wanton rule to terminate anyones existing contract.
From what I see the solution is to fire (or buy out or whatever) that gordon and to make ryan, who seems to be OK, the boss.
It looks fairly cut and dried, but then no-one has lost a provider tag either so nothing’s concrete yet.
Want to share my fluffy rabbit?
You don’t half chat some shit.
I get it, I don't disagree at all. I even said I support it.
See?
Is there a proportional response you can think of that will have any meaningful effect?
They already don't advertise here anymore.
They are rejecting all future LET business, LET should reject giving them business back.
The hosts are indeed in the cross fire, good hosts and good people, but both parties played a role in putting them in a situation between standing behind their customers against a hateful TOS and company, or siding with the company who they've had a good relationship with.
All I can say is that I, personally, my OPINION, is that I wouldn't want to support a business that supports Incero, and therefore I support the decision.
No. Because when I'm done with it you'll be mad at me and say ugly things like "insane fluffy rabbit rapist and killer monster" to me.
I said share it not leave you alone with it.
All one has to do there is ask the provider. I have the benefit of knowing their intent by knowing that they wouldn't do that to me. I get how this makes me look "special" but there's nothing really stopping anyone else from having that kind of relationship, it's not just personal because Incero was born out of my group of friends (it wasn't), the beginning of my relationship with Incero was nothing more than provider renting from vendor. Gordon was so impressed by Ryan as a customer that he hired him. Ryan is my best friend that I started a host with, a host that became a customer of Incero.
It's not like Incero was planned by my group of friends in high school or something.
With all due respect, I don't think that @AnthonySmith announced a definitive policy change today that took effect immediately. He said a lot of things throughout the day, sometimes correcting himself and revising. It was all fairly spontaneous speech. (See also @Lee's comment just above.)
Now come tomorrow who knows, you understand what being a hot-headed opinionated react first, think later forum admin is like, right?
But as we all know from Civilization, Gandhi is a nuke-happy warmonger.
Except the TOS if they are an LET member looking to build that type of relationship and not already grandfathered into it.
@jarland
So all providers should ask the company? That is nice and when my provider does something weird like that I would ask also.
@Mods
I hope all other providers get that clarified.
Of course, and I know this won't stand. It's why I'm getting my shots in early. I don't do the whole escalation thing where one person escalates a little, then I escalate a little, etc. I just go ahead and lay my cards on the table and escalate to the point that I'm willing to. If the other party is willing to escalate further than my limit, so be it. A lot of time saved.
If they feel so inclined. I already know the answer. They're not pushing out providers just like they're not pushing out customers. They're simply stating that they don't want new customers from LET. You can call it a dick move and I won't argue, I'm just saying that's what they're saying.
Why does it require a response? I cannot think of a reason other than to say "ha take that". Actions taken in anger are rarely good ones.
@jarland
A provider who makes up an insane rule on tuesday can't be trusted to act reasonably on thursday.
And he did act. To put something into a companies TOS isn't playing with an idea; that's an action. When you say that no one had any concrete damage so far you are simply shifting goal posts. If tomorrow someone has damage you'll shift the goal post again and say that that damage doesn't break his neck...
As for @AnthonySmith he merely reacted. Moreover I assume (reasonably it seems to me) that Ant won't kind of kill of any customers of incero but rather put some reasonable burden on them, e.g. that they must put "hosting at incero" in all their offers here.
It will be though, so consider it done. LET is banning offers from providers under Incero tomorrow or he's changing his mind. And that's exactly why I want him to hear what I will be saying tomorrow. If there's room for influence, he should hear it before he hits the button.
Isn't it time for mxroute.com to make another offer? :-) (Also as an experiment to see whether the offer is rejected/deleted.)
I guess it comes down to LET members being lumped in with HackForums members and therefore being blocked.
I wonder how you'd feel @jarland if a provider decided to ban DigitalOcean's IP prefixes because of the spam coming out of your ASN?
I guess it would be like a website posting:
WE BAN ALL DIGITAL OCEAN AND ECATEL / NOVOGARA IPS
Now clearly Ecatel and Novogara are known to be a rogue ISP offering pretty shady deals. It would suck to see Digital Ocean name checked next to that, knowing clearly those 26 listings under your network are an outlier of the customers at DO and you guys honestly seem to do your best to keep a clean network.
So under that example it would kind of would suck being lumped under that, perhaps that makes sense?
That's how it feels to be a LET member being banned some from random Texas provider, who just rents a cage... and think he's holier than thou. I would never use Incero due to my own experience of Gordon being a little shit and not cleaning up his IPs when I worked at another ISP on the West Coast, and never had any experience other than the hilarious failure Wable.
Regardless, I'll actively encourage others to avoid the slap-dash operation over little bullshit lines like this in the ToS so he can have an arbitrary reason to kick out customers he doesn't like.
Us being on par with HF members? That argument falls apart as LET members can still use Incero servers all the live long day, as long as they don't 'bug' Incero directly and get a VPS or server from a reseller? It seems them Texas boys don't feel like catering to the diverse global community of LET if you catch my drift.
It's pretty obvious the reason why. Otherwise there would be something in the TOS against hosting members of LET on reseller servers. They just don't want the tickets and I'm sure like to deal with 'their kind'
TL;DR - Gordon's a twat.
Absolutely. I'm glad others share the same point of view as I.
I assume Gordon will just be happy with my offer, it's a win win, except all of the work I will have to do, nothing has changed yet so no damage done.
Sure he has a reputation but I assume he is not going to go out of his way to damage his own business and customers for the sake of simply saying "ok do that"
I honestly meant what I said haha, I legitimately have no intentions of posting another offer until Black Friday. I have a really long time to see this play out before it gets personal for me. What you're seeing is me not taking this personally for it's impact on me, it's just not there I don't need an offer thread, but my concern for other providers and the community in general.
If I was making the decision.
Existing providers remain as is. If you are an existing provider who opens up in Incero after x date then you cannot post offers in that location.
Of course, if they remove LET from the ToS then all that can be reconsidered.
However, if @AnthonySmith determines that existing providers out of Incero can't post then I am good with that also. It is his decision to ultimately make.
I do not understand how you think it's LET. Without this in their terms, this wouldn't have come about.
Petty and childish? I'd like to know how this move is childish and theirs is somehow OK.
This shows exactly how "childish" and "petty" Incero are. As others have said, I do not believe existing accounts should be effected, but direct ones should.
This is the real takeaway of this whole mess.
Everyone is attacking them, what did you expect...? You're just doing it for the fun, no?
That's like: I create X rule, you break it and ask me if it's alright. I'd get pissed off too.
I'll gladly engage you if you're willing to try.
Incero says no more customers from LET: 0 customers removed.
LET says providers using Incero can't post offers anymore (pending implementation tomorrow): >0 providers removed.
Is that clear enough?
That is a really good point. My only response is that Incero (and brands) have a history of scammy and sketchy behavior that has effected LET members many times. In my opinion they should have been banned back then but weren't due to undying administrative favoritism.
I'm glad to see some repercussions towards them for once, and they should not be allowed to benefit from LET. Hosts that are grandfathered really don't seem to care, so LET making them care feels good.
But you're right, a response will hardly even reach them. I'll just have to vote with my dollars, and not support services that will fund Gordon's insanity.