LowEndTalk Community Rules (Updated June 2026)

tentor · April 10

@plumberg said:

@tentor said:

@Hotmarer said:
If someone has host rep/provider status and sells it as an unregistered business, they should also include this information at the end of the offer.

Isn't this forbidden?

You new here?

I haven't said enforced

plumberg · April 10

@tentor said:

@plumberg said:

@tentor said:

@Hotmarer said:
If someone has host rep/provider status and sells it as an unregistered business, they should also include this information at the end of the offer.

Isn't this forbidden?

You new here?

I haven't said enforced

Better not to write something... enforcing doesnt come into effect any anys

forest · April 16

We should ban "check out my new vibe coded app" slop posts where community members are encouraged to run insecure code or submit credentials to a 3rd party website. I saw yet another one. Not a single one of them turns out well, and the last few I saw ended up with OP getting hacked. I think it'll just keep getting worse.

NushairAlvi · April 17

@rpqu said: It has been more than > 2 weeks since I started recognizing irregular users. Commonalities:
1. Few weeks to few months account
2. Posting multiple comments within short-time (under 10 minutes) and (likely) never login again within the same day or week.
3. Posting non-sequitur or low-quality opinion copied from other users
4. Copy something that's being discussed on the thread, then made it their own thread

I have mentioned this irregularities @DP on other occasion through DM.
I don't know what's LET policy on this. But to me, it seems someone are making sockpuppets.

It’s like people are trying to do some scams via our beloved LET

rpqu · April 17

@NushairAlvi said:

@rpqu said: It has been more than > 2 weeks since I started recognizing irregular users. Commonalities:
1. Few weeks to few months account
2. Posting multiple comments within short-time (under 10 minutes) and (likely) never login again within the same day or week.
3. Posting non-sequitur or low-quality opinion copied from other users
4. Copy something that's being discussed on the thread, then made it their own thread

I have mentioned this irregularities @DP on other occasion through DM.
I don't know what's LET policy on this. But to me, it seems someone are making sockpuppets.

It’s like people are trying to do some scams via our beloved LET

Scam? I'm more concerned of the probabilities of getting GA prizes

rpqu · April 17

Anyway, I'm seeing another modus operand...

forest · April 18

@rpqu said: modus operand

mov eax,modus

rpqu · April 18

@forest said:

@rpqu said: modus operand
mov eax,modus

Sorry, modus operandi or M.O. for short. Just look into request categories and I think infosec like you could see the patterns within 10 clicks

forest · April 18

@rpqu said:
@forest said:

@rpqu said: modus operand
mov eax,modus
Sorry, modus operandi or M.O. for short. Just look into request categories and I think infosec like you could see the patterns within 10 clicks

Sure, I was just making a joke. :P

rpqu · April 18

@forest said:
@rpqu said:
@forest said:

@rpqu said: modus operand
mov eax,modus
Sorry, modus operandi or M.O. for short. Just look into request categories and I think infosec like you could see the patterns within 10 clicks
Sure, I was just making a joke. :P

Well, the strategy MO is confirmed. Just look at the newest request thread

HackedLocked · April 23

Thanks for putting this together. Will read through before posting. Just joined and looking forward to being part of the community.

forest · May 27

People often ask why a given user was banned when they don't know the context. Since the banned avatar is so prominent, it really attracts curiosity.

Is there any chance to have a transparency report so users can see who has been banned and why?

rpqu · May 28

@forest said:
People often ask why a given user was banned when they don't know the context. Since the banned avatar is so prominent, it really attracts curiosity.

Is there any chance to have a transparency report so users can see who has been banned and why?

Let's make it lowenddrama.com

Shakib · June 1

Just wondering, where did my profile pic go?

rpqu · June 1

@Shakib said:
Just wondering, where did my profile pic go?

You changed your email lol

Shakib · June 1

@rpqu said:

@Shakib said:
Just wondering, where did my profile pic go?

You changed your email lol

No, I didn't.

rpqu · June 1

@Shakib said:

@rpqu said:

@Shakib said:
Just wondering, where did my profile pic go?

You changed your email lol

No, I didn't.

Strange, it's usually happened when you change your email

Shakib · June 1

@rpqu said:

@Shakib said:

@rpqu said:

@Shakib said:
Just wondering, where did my profile pic go?

You changed your email lol

No, I didn't.

Strange, it's usually happened when you change your email

I did exactly nothing. I was sleeping and when I wake up, my profile pic was gone.

Requesting full investigation to LET admins and mods. Did someone access my account? I have sensitive messages here.

tentor · June 1

@Shakib said:

@rpqu said:

@Shakib said:

@rpqu said:

@Shakib said:
Just wondering, where did my profile pic go?

You changed your email lol

No, I didn't.

Strange, it's usually happened when you change your email

I did exactly nothing. I was sleeping and when I wake up, my profile pic was gone.

You're now pirate

Freek · June 1

Same issue here. My profile picture is gone. It was probably too hot to handle

BasToTheMax · June 1

Yep, my profile pic also seems to be gone. No email change has happened.

yoursunny · June 1

@Shakib said:
Just wondering, where did my profile pic go?

We are guessing a forum software adjustment breaking Gravatar integration.

totally_not_banned · June 1

I can sponsor you guys some new profile pictures. Just hit me up. Not a problem at all.

forest · July 6

What the hell is wrong with Cloudflare? It's preventing me from posting:

openssl info -cpusettings | perl - pe 's/(0x[0-9a-f]{16})/sprintf("0x%016x", hex($1) | (1 << 57))/e' >> /etc/environment

If the - pe is replaced with -pe, Cloudflare blocks my session.

Can an admit look into what rule is causing this and fix it so it no longer has this false positive?

forest · July 6

s/admit/admin/

zed · July 6

@forest said: Can an admit look into what rule is causing this and fix it so it no longer has this false positive?

maybe if you stop blocking ads~

forest · July 6

@zed said:

@forest said: Can an admit look into what rule is causing this and fix it so it no longer has this false positive?

maybe if you stop blocking ads~

I don't block ads on LET, actually.

By which I mean uBlock for whatever reason isn't blocking the ads out of the box and I haven't bothered to manually block them. Plus, it's amusing to see ads from banned providers being displayed.

OpaqueRegistrant · July 9

@LordSpock said:
I'm sure it has been discussed before... but when is LET going to discourage advertisements and requests for "DMCA free" and "residential IP" services? We all know that they're aimed towards people using them for illegitimate purposes.

I get it - we've all maintained our fair share of Linux ISO collections, but it just seems like every other thread is some HF tier skid wanting a 10Gbps unmetered dedi with a EPYC 9965 for $7... and yes, it needs to be DMCA ignored.

In theory isn't this already banned by the black hat rule?

For providers that aren't banhappy with false abuse reports there's surely better terms than "DMCA ignored"

forest · July 10

@OpaqueRegistrant said: In theory isn't this already banned by the black hat rule?

How is avoiding false or excessive takedown notices related to hacking? DMCA ignored providers are good for plenty more than just piracy. I use them for Tor exit relays. Others can use them for public or commercial VPNs, for hosting material that is legal but which attracts false complaints, etc. A "DMCA ignored" host is not a bulletproof host.

I agree that "DMCA ignored" is a stupid term, but it's what the industry mostly settled on, unfortunately.

OpaqueRegistrant · July 10

@forest said:

@OpaqueRegistrant said: In theory isn't this already banned by the black hat rule?

How is avoiding false or excessive takedown notices related to hacking? DMCA ignored providers are good for plenty more than just piracy. I use them for Tor exit relays. Others can use them for public or commercial VPNs, for hosting material that is legal but which attracts false complaints, etc. A "DMCA ignored" host is not a bulletproof host.

I agree that "DMCA ignored" is a stupid term, but it's what the industry mostly settled on, unfortunately.

In my opinion if you specifically want a host that ignores the DMCA, you're asking for a partner in criminal activity. It is like asking for "corpse-allowed self-storage" even though you only want to hide your legal anarchist zines from overzealous ICE cops.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

LowEndTalk Community Rules (Updated June 2026)

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

LowEndTalk Community Rules (Updated June 2026)

Comments