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
Plenty of time and all will be properly planned in advance. Nothing to worry about. We still plan on keeping a footprint in every location so it's possible your service won't change or might just be an IP change depending on the blocks we keep.
Wait... Didn't he say legal took over the account?
@dude
£4/y small plate chicken. Should I worry or chargeback?
Why shut down my service and not provide a refund? It's just a scammer. Who would believe it again
Don't believe it, they shut down the service and didn't give a refund
You tried to process a chargeback and wanted a refund. We're forced to cancel your account once you initiate a chargeback otherwise we're complicit in your fraud. Work with your bank. We're unable to provide service to people who are tying to defraud others. Now you have more of a legitimate case to do whatever you need to do.
Everyone else has their service fully active and we plan on keeping it that way.
I took a dive into the orders..... Here's some winners. 10 orders got 30GB ram, 3cpu 90gb disk for 3 years for $45.90... one guy snatched 4 of them...
Same deal 14 orders but for $65 for 3 years.
Most crimes require mens rea, or a culpable state of mind. If someone does a chargeback because they think they have the right to, but it turns out they do not, then it is not fraud. If they initiate a chargeback knowing that it's illegitimate and with the purpose of making money off someone, then it's fraud.
Whether or not people can legitimately initiate chargebacks in this particular case isn't relevant: If people believe they can (and their belief is not blatantly unreasonable), then they won't get charged with fraud, much less convicted.
On one hand, I don't like scalpers. On the other hand, those are pretty good specs for ES cluster
First of all, the service stopped and I couldn't use it. I sent a work order to ask him to restore my service to normal or provide a refund, but he said he had to find a bank to refund himself. I contacted the bank, but they said only the merchant could refund, which was a vicious cycle. Then my service was shut down and I didn't receive a refund. It's so funny
You said you asked me to contact the bank for a refund, but the bank has already told me that they cannot provide a refund. Refunds are handled by the merchant, and if you don't provide me with service, I cannot get a refund. What did I get? That's too funny
When you pay and don't receive the service, I can't get a refund? Of course, refunds are not that simple. The bank can only communicate with the merchant and cannot directly refund, so whether the refund is successful or not is still up to the merchant to decide. The server has been down for many days without any processing, and it is impossible for him to restore it. So I sent a work order to ask him to restore my service or refund, which is completely reasonable. However, he asked me to contact the bank, but the bank cannot handle it, only the merchant can handle it. The lost money is treated as buying food for the dog, and the reputation is already poor. Don't continue to harm people
It's just a scammer. If the server is attacked or hardware is replaced, users can be notified in advance instead of keeping the service down and then shutting down the customer's service. No one will continue to believe it. This brand has already gone bad
Of course you can, and if my service was terminated without refund, I would too. You misunderstand me: I'm not saying that you can't get a refund. I'm saying that initiating a chargeback isn't going to put anyone in jail as someone else claimed.
Will small exemptions that do not break any laws or cause undue strain on the system remain honored? I was given permission to run a Tor middle relay (non-exit) by Lewis, despite the ToS having the rather broad prohibition against just "Tor" (without explicitly specifying exits as most providers do). In the ticket, he said:
I think I actually asked in a ticket about whether or not this would still be honored, but I think it would be good if I could get a confirmation here: Will services like mine which are legal and do not strain your infrastructure remain up, or will they get shut down because the exceptions were ones that Lewis made?
For what it's worth, my server was a triennial BF deal but it was not a particularly insane or unsustainable one (2 cores, 2 GB RAM, 50 GB disk). I am pleasantly surprised that you're engaging here again and answering people's questions, and I think that is vital to rebuild trust. The lack of communication and clear statements that services would not be terminated without refund simply because it was unprofitable was making me wary, so seeing those statements here and now is going a long way.
Due to the bank processing the refund, I have decided to continue using the service and have him restore my service. He directly closed my work order without any explanation and did not restore the service. The bank clearly informed me that only the merchant can process the refund, and they are only negotiating
I didn't receive any service and paid money, who will continue to believe, it will only go bankrupt
**inshort this is a silly show carried by VeloxMedia/Eric now. And well, this is my last post on this thread. I've already chargedback and so my friends here. No, we don't want a host with a scam company anymore who is not transparent about anything. One day they say they are sole owner and have incurred losses, then after 10 days they claim their parent company spends millions of dollars on vmware and tech support and then with public backslash, they attempt to coverup their failed service. Mere keeping servers online is not called as service delivered. Eric should learn this. Also, there is still no written statements about services/deals/plans be kept or discarded. Eric/VeloxMedia things their comments on LET/Discord are official. No, it should be an official email about keeping/running old plans, transperancy about everything. Till today Eric is ranting that VeloxMedia is owned by an Enterprise having worldwide footprint in atleast 4+ locations, etc. But can't giveout the name. Why playing hide-n-seek with your users. This is where trust issues arise. Trust is not built when somebody say they're owned by Enterprise corp spening million a year. This is actually seems to be said to avoid further chaos and chargebacks and to avoid futher tarnishing about VeloxMedia brand.
Anyways.. VeloxMedia is already blacklisted and Provider tag removed so I don't want to write more on this. **
At the risk of getting vanned...
I snatched 8 Gold 6248 Cores, 32GB RAM, 120GB NVMe for 134 GBP (now USD?) Triennially.
My service has been online and haven't gone down aside from being inaccessible during DDoS. As I said on Discord, I am honestly waiting for the other boot to drop, but hope we can work out some sort of deal to keep things going.
In the spirit of neutrality, I do want to point out that he gave out a name and registered a company, and stated that he will comply with GDPR: https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZC072447
I'm hoping he can take this chance to re-earn some trust (even if he doesn't earn it from everyone). If he does send out an official email soon as he stated, that would be good as well. And if he does try to turn things around, let's try to give him a second chance.
We've only known him for a matter of days, so hopefully he was just overwhelmed and began acting really childish when people got hard on him (which is our right, we're the customers after all). Maybe I'm just a starry-eyed optimist, but if (and only if) he can show us his better side now, I'd rather encourage and welcome it than not.
You've used this "fraud" line a lot, which is simply not true.
If you clearly represent the situation when requesting a chargeback, then it is not fraud. The payment provider assesses the situation from the notes and decides whether or not to issue the chargeback.
By continuing to provide service after someone has started a chargeback is not being complicit in anything, let alone fraud. As your company has no ongoing relationship with Lewis, if Lewis is personally paying for these chargebacks, it really should have no bearing on whether you continue to provide the service or not. I agree that the customer should have no expectation of continued service after a successful chargeback. Personally, in such a situation, if the service remained running, I would log in exactly once to wipe all my data.
What is interesting is that you claimed you have no legal access to the contracts / payments that Lewis made but that you are reading the emails from Stripe that are intended for Lewis only. You should be aware that this itself is definitely a GDPR violation, as well as being an offence in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act. The latter wouldn't be worth prosecuting for, but the GDPR violation is a slam dunk.
It's also puzzling why you're so desperate to stop people doing a chargeback when it's Lewis that's affected not you, and at the same time complaining that these exact same set of customers were sold unsustainable deals that you want to get rid of.
Regarding GDPR, hasnt he realized yet that he could end up losing a lawsuit, for which he would have to pay a hefty fine?
I cant understand how people like to play with fire. It only takes someone having the brilliant idea to do it.
These are pretty low priced, but still not too unrealistic for a low end promotion. For instance, I have a 6 core 6GB RAM 66 GB disk for $6/y.
Remember also that the entire premise of Lewis' deals was for high RAM. Without that, there wouldn't even have been any customers. I don't think the CPU and disk allocations are particularly high for the price, it's just the RAM that's an outlier.
But in any case, for all those orders you just complained about, their total RAM usage is 720GB. You have the upfront cost of that RAM if you're building a new server from scratch, but those users could all share a thread group with say 16 threads, leaving you tons of resources on that machine for other deals. You also say that you have racks and racks of excess hardware you can use for free. I'm not really sure I see the problem here, especially as you say you only entered into this deal because even knowing the ongoing costs, you'd save far more on having fewer vmware licences. If this is true, these few outlier deals are just the cost of doing business.
Personally if it was me, I'd just proactively offer these customers a refund (note offer not force) and see how many wanted to leave anyway. You might find the problem just goes away if you give people an escape route. But one thing you can't do is terminate these customers whilst simultaneously denying them a refund. They've paid for the service, your obligation is to provide that service or refund them.
I thought the new boss was eager to shed those low-value clients. Besides, that fee was pocket change to him as he said. I remember reading those statements.
As a customer, this period can hardly be called “in service.” There will be no compensation time either. I never accept threats, or so-called 'charity' from the new owner.
Let's wait and see the next announcement 🤔 better in an Email.
Well I've just told you it's illegitimate so if you read this then that excuse won't work.
Also your bank will tell you this.
It seems like you used the wrong word. A refund is initiated by the merchant, but a dispute is initiated by the customer.
You can always sue them in small claims court too. Generally, lawyers are not allowed in this court and fees are low.
If a customer is intending to chargeback for a refund and continue to use the service this is fraud plain and simple. If we knowingly allow this to happen we're complicit. How are you saying this isn't fraud?
It 100% is not a violation at all and makes zero sense. Furthermore both stripe and PayPal have integrations where anyone can check transaction IDs to see if there's a chargeback so we just built a system to query and are batch terminating anything that comes back.
Again I don't care if anyone chargesback I only care that they send a ticket with us stating such so we can delete their account and not deal with the legal issues of filing these reports back to stripe and PayPal as we're marking the transactionIDs as fraud in their system.
This is all required per every vendor who uses their services. We're saying this to help you guys not hurt you. All of this is in your terms and conditions written with stripe and PayPal that you all agree to, along with the credit card companies and banks.
Whether or not it's legitimate doesn't matter. What matters is mens rea. If a person does it without intent to defraud, then it is not fraud. If someone initiated an illegitimate chargeback despite your warnings because they didn't believe you, then it was not intentional and was not fraudulent.
I personally am not initiating any kind of chargeback in part because my service is still running, I currently make active use of it, and the price was right. My only point is that illegitimate doesn't automatically imply fraudulent.
If "unrealistic" means in your book that things are done before, yes, maybe. Although 30G RAM voor $15/year... nah
Thing is: are they sustainable, i.e., do you at least break even with costs. With that in mind, $15 for 30G RAM is quite unrealistic to ever break even, and if you have a 256G RAM server that's filled on CPU capacity but only 64G of RAM is used (if everyone uses 100%), then you could argue that it's "sitting there anyway, so make a few bucks of it".
But I think that's just plain stupid; if all other customers are gone and you sit there with a few $15/year, 30G RAM eating customers, it's difficult to ever get this system to break even with all the costs you made in the past and are gonne make in the future.