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.
Keep away BuyVM and FranTech.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Dude, did you read my reply to you at the very top of this page? I said that there was no proof. And now you say that there's no proof. So we agree.
Request from providers what is requested from the clients reported to FR.
Proof.
There ya go, I "invented" a better system.
Online shopping evaluations (also eBay) are pretty similar except that it's the buyer that evaluates the seller. Buyers sometimes leave unfair negative evaluations of sellers, but it's generally assumed that most buyers won't do this. The system isn't free of errors and unfairness, but it seems, statistically at least, to work reasonably well.
Yes, you can always claim that there's no proof of this, but this isn't the point.
Easy. In fact I already outlined some major points. Like equal rights - and duties - for providers and customers. If both providers and customers were forced to provide proof and if there were mechanisms in place to assure customers that they aren't victimized and that a provider making false claims had to bear (painful) consequences FR would be more accepted and more acceptable.
That's why I responded and what I was referring to. @Yura was right.
(But I also get your point. You just made it somewhat sharper than the facts provide).
Case by case, we look at the source provider.
Francisco
No.
Much as I'm fond of @Yura, no, sorry, he wasn't right when he said that what I said was "circular logic" or a "fallacy."
I expressed an empirical generalization which may be true or false. I believe that the empirical generalization is true. You or @Yura are free to believe that the empirical generalization is false. With enough relevant data at our disposal, we could determine whether the empirical generalization is true or false. But to say that an empirical generalization is false is not at all the same as to say that the empirical generalization involves "circular logic" or a "fallacy." This is a category error.
FR does not have customer information i believe so it cannot contact the customers.
Did Karen also say that the funds will remain as credit until cleared up with the previous host Letbox and service can continue when cleared? That makes a HUGE difference as to the next step.
If I booked a flight and paid for it and the airline denied me without specifics and refund, I'd be pissed at the airline. But if they said, "can't let you on because you're on the no-fly list, get that sorted and we'll happily fly you anywhere. Here's your credit note", then next step is getting off the no-fly list and not raging on the airline for taking reasonable measures.
So I think your response differed from Karen's in some way.
The other week, I reported a package as stolen because mail carrier came to my building, marked package as delivered, but didn't. I found out the next day with a pick up notice in my mailbox and getting the package from post office the label was not printed correctly by the shipper, chopping off my apartment number. Overall, the mail carrier fucked it all up by not checking the tracking number for correct address and marking it in the system as delivered instead of invalid address.
Mistakes happen way too often.
EDIT:
Removed inappropriate comment.
That would be correct, FraudRecord stores just SHA1 hashed data. This means that it is impossible (or rather extremely difficult) to reverse it. In other words, you can't make an email address from the stored data again.
How would a consumer check their own FraudRecord?
I've never made a PayPal chargeback (nor do I intend to) but curious to see what info (if any) they hold.
Delimiter had the cheek to put me on fraudrecord after doing a chcarge back for a server that was down for 2 months and with me going through tickets asking for a resolution/money back. That there shows how accurate fraudrecord is, not much.
Personally, I wouldn't be taking much notice of a delimiter report.
Sorry but
is logically badly flawed. Yes, formally it's not circular logic but mainly because it's not logic at all; it's merely assertions dressed up to look like logic.
That said, I'm not really interested a lot. My point is about making understood that FR is heavily biased and questionable but also: I understand that providers feel to need and want something like FR. So let's try to come up with a better FR that is a credible and reliable service for all involved parties.
Regarding that I've said what I had to say for the moment. Should new arguments come up I'll address them if I feel that might be useful. But I have no interest in hunting anyone or anything down. I got what you wanted to say and I'm quite confident that you also got my point.
That made me laugh. I guess it was a well meant attempt to protect customer data.
It is however not a major problem. They can simply SHA1 hash the email address from which a client requests information, deletion, whatever, and compare it to their data.
The funds already show up as a credit so it was visible to the customer. It's possible he didn't see it, but I'll make sure Karen makes that point clear in the future if there's ever such issues.
OP replied to my ticket and claims he's actively trying to resolve the issue. We'll see if he wants to reply to this thread anymore.
FR doesn't validate any complaints, it's a completely crowdsourced fraud tracking service. It's as good as the providers taking part in the community.
If you don't like a report, as far as I know you can talk to Harzem directly and he'll work to address the reports.
FR does more good than harm.
Francisco
Those were just semi-formal paraphrases of what I said earlier in an attempt to clarify to @Yura that there was no "circular logic" or a "fallacy." This is all they were: semi-formal paraphrases of what I said earlier.
But I said this. I also said that what they expressed was an empirical generalization. I also said they weren't a proof of anything.
(I'll stop here but you attributed to me things that I didn't say.)
LOL. YEP. Me too. That's why I asked what I asked earlier.
Delimiter is WSS of hosting industry, born to troll customers and will collapse trolling customers.
failure of delimiter is nigh
Some people kill for chocolate bars, so its not a surprise to see a drama for 5$.
Didn't you have a shitfit over something like $2?
All depends on your location and social status i guess.
Not that I remember but, even if something is free, and its level's of shit are high enough to justify a drama then yes.
Fixed for LET.
Reminds me of 2 moderators, which where drunk and flooded the chest pit with some nsfw stuff.
Sometimes even good things happen when you are drunk as fuck, like Hostballs.
I go nuts when it's exactly 666 dollars.
I always go to the chest pit for my NSFW fix.
@Jiuling
You can only be advised to order in jurisdictions, that are far more consumer friendly such as Germany, where it is deemed illegal to even charge fees for certain payment channels. If a host decides for whatever reason (ToS, lack of stock) not to honor the service contract that you have agreed on, the host would be in breach taking payment and refusing the refund. (if the ToS states that offer is not binding that is an alternative case)
If a host in Germany has an illegal ToS which states that XYPay is not refunded, competitors will trigger lawyers to caution him. The great advantage is that you will find the majority of ToS around being inline with consumer friendly laws and regulations, without you needing to anything, not even reading the ToS.
If you order with an "illegal ToS host" you would certainly need to hire lawyer in Germany and write him a letter in order to have this host aligned with the law in no time, however you will need to cover the lawyer yourself. That's the classic difference between law and justice. That is why in General you always need to read the ToS and hand sort providers, in doubt go with reputable brands.
In my country there is a legislation about the refunds that everyone has to undergo, it is not possible to take the money of a customer and not give him the service or the product, this is always illegal. Perhaps in the country of Buyvm you can put a sign in front of a store with written on it: "no refunds", get the money for a liter of milk and then keep the money without giving anything in return because you are on a black list written by private entities, in my country it is a crime even if the buyer is the worst criminal in the world and corresponds to an embezzlement to be given money without giving anything back, maybe in BuyVm country it is perfectly ethical and legal, but I don't think so.
I see a hit Snickers commercial in the works.