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
I think you're over exaggerating. "DMCA ignored" doesn't mean the operator and the host are criminal, or they would ignored court orders. It may just mean they won’t remove content automatically when a notice is disputed or when fair use is plausible.
Im not quite sure how that immediately equates to cirminal activity. lmao. All thats asked from that is not to apply bullshit exploitable and abusable US law where its not applicable. Come at me with a valid court order, ill take it down.
Please clarify the actual rules under "Politics", I got a "Severe" level warning for something that isn't actually a rule. The rule is allegedly: politics-related topics may only be posted in Cest Pit.
cool
I wasn't aware of that rule either. I always thought politics was only allowed in Offtopic.
I mean, that's what the rules say, so it's a reasonable assumption.
is there any new rules for the new security category ?
Can somehow be adjusted, that profile pictures aren't bigger than everyone else has? Because i see users with whole username in it with an unknown picture form and that spreads the line to the right.
Those are just broken. They're not actual profile pictures.
Probably not. I assume it's the same as the News category, but for security-related news.
I wonder why streetwear/sneakers are so special that half the internet has special rules about them. Like why do we care about Nike's profit margin?
That's just what they're called, but it's not specific to shoes. It's any proxies that are used to quickly grab limited-offer products and the like. An example ad from a residential proxy provider with those services (the kind that LET would not welcome) explains what they're used for well:
"Sneaker proxies are residential and ISP IP addresses used with sneaker bots to place multiple checkout tasks on limited releases without getting blocked. seamless delivers clean, low-fraud IPs that survive Nike SNKRS, Shopify, Footsites and Adidas drops. [...] When a limited sneaker releases, every retailer rate-limits and bans IPs that send more than one or two checkout requests. Sneaker proxies spread your bot's tasks across thousands of real residential and ISP IP addresses, so each task looks like a separate shopper. The result: more entries, fewer bans, and a far higher chance of securing the pair."
So while it's named after sneakers, it's also used to grab VPS deals during flash sales...
Yeah, but I think a few specific rules would still help. Maybe... no need
Anyways, why are discussions suddenly getting closed without any notice now? Some of them just randomly get closed, even ones that didn't seem to have any issues.
Which ones? Usually discussions are only closed if they're against the rules, getting out of hand, got necroed, or have had their purpose fulfilled (e.g. a transfer thread after the transfer has been completed).
No there is some truth to this and I haven’t had much of a response when several Godlike hosting threads suddenly vanished. In those threads I called out the discrepancies in the bandwidth options. After messaging @angstrom I (as usual) was met with silence.
In fact… my criticism is still not resolved, as on the latest offer thread it says unlimited inbound 5TB outbound… but on their website…
https://godlike.host/leb-offer-vps/?utm_campaign=affiliate_let-offer&utm_medium=affiliate_affiliate&utm_source=affiliate_let
Saying it’s unlimited with a fair use policy is a completely different story.
Which is it? If I post this exact same thing it will probably get hidden again.
Just to keep things in perspective, you messaged me one time, on August 12th, in the middle of summer, writing two sentences, asking me what happened to "the godlike offer thread"
It's true that I didn't reply, partly because I was away from home and on my phone, but also partly because I didn't know exactly why "the godlike offer thread" had been removed, not having removed it myself
If an offer thread is removed, it's usually because the offer breaks one or more of our rules, but generally, we don't say publicly why an offer thread is removed
If there's a discrepancy in what @ThrowRaPest (= Godlike.host ) advertises about bandwidth, this is a valid issue to ask about, but then it makes little sense to send me a DM asking about what happened to "the godlike offer thread"
Instead, it would be much better to write an articulate message, clarifying what you find the issue to be, in this case, a discrepancy in what @ThrowRaPest advertises about bandwidth
With all that said, let me tag @ThrowRaPest and ask them why there's a discrepancy in what they advertise about bandwidth. @ThrowRaPest , could you please shed light on this?
Yeah, I messaged one time because tagging in posts and flagging stuff that actually should be removed for clear rule breaks doesn't work, nor is there any actual feedback. If there was then I would be a lot less frustrated. And FWIW I did actually post about it, in their threads. Twice in fact. And on the second that's why I privately messaged you as a fairly casual... "hey what's going on?"
My question has not changed in now the three times I've asked this and wanted some response, so hopefully there will be a response. I had let it go back in August but since this exact post:
I cannot help but rehash and think about the offers threads being removed completely with no reason or any feedback... and again in the latest thread the bandwidth claim is very different to the offer thread and the website...
I'm not frustrated at you, I'll make that very clear. We cannot possibly know or do everything. I'm just frustrated at the lack of feedback and holding hosts accountable. 😉
@MaxTakeba When one of my threads disappeared without warning, I had good luck by opening a support ticket. The thread was quickly restored and jbiloh said that he wasn't sure why it would have been deleted. I suspect some of these deletions may result from miscommunications within the moderator team.
Wouldn't it be best to say why a thread is removed, since the rules are public anyway? Otherwise it seems like there are either secret rules that we aren't allowed to know, or secret interpretations of public rules that we aren't allowed to know. Understanding the reasoning behind moderator actions would, except in exceptional circumstances, probably help people follow the rules better.
Enforcement on non black-and-white matters may cause drama on its own and cause infighting — opacity minimize the blast radius.
At least that's what I perceived.
That would count as "exceptional circumstances" to me, especially if there's a detailed history behind the person such that context is needed to understand the merits of the moderation action.
Today I was pinged for “severe necroposting,” and I sincerely apologise. As suggested by the moderator, I have now carefully read the forum rules.
I don’t frequent forums often, so when I received the warning, I had no idea what “necroposting” meant. I genuinely thought I was contributing positively to the forum. I think the “thread necromancy” rule could be written more clearly in plain English; clearer wording could help others in the same position understand what’s expected. Clearer wording could also reduce the moderators’ workload by preventing avoidable misunderstandings. The word “relevant” is subjective and can be interpreted differently, since someone replying may genuinely believe an old thread is still relevant. A clearer guideline might be: “Only reply to an old thread if you have a timely, substantive update related to the original post.”
I’d also appreciate clarification on what to do when there’s a useful update to an older discussion: should we reply to the existing thread, even if it’s long and old, or start a new thread and link to the original?
Edit: Integrated warning system and closing old topics would also help moderation work too.
Depends on the update and how relevant it is. There's no hard-and-fast rule, but a generic "What's your favorite X?" thread isn't going to be as suitable for posting in after a while than an update to "Provider Y deadpools" saying that they just came back.
Thanks for the reply!
This I find interesting; because someone could start a new thread on the same topic leading to fragmentation or we keep it all organised in the original thread. What does LET moderation prefer, since there's no hard rule?
Ah yes, I witnessed single purpose update threads on such topics when I was just a lurker.
I noticed that some of the favourite/recommendation type threads that I replied in are now closed; I wonder now in this case, is someone allowed to make part 2 or a fresh thread concerning that same topics? (This would be a real world test on what the moderation team expects)
@OttoWood
Briefly, you seemed to go wild with necroposting, unaware of the rule against necroposting, which is why you received a warning
To a limited extent, necroposting is tolerated if the user shows awareness that they're necroposting and clarifies why they're doing so
But in most cases, this isn't what happens. Instead, in most cases, we see a relatively new user who finds old threads and gleefully starts necroposting in them, which seemed to be your case
And yes, there are plenty of "repeat threads" in the history of LET. Every generation seems to want to ask at some point what desktop environment everyone uses or what everyone's favorite color is. This is okay as long as it doesn't happen too often
Thank you moderator for the reply!
Did a self-audit; It was 5 posts in total, including 1 deleted by moderation that could be counted against the rule. 4 of 5 were favourite/recommendation type threads that could be reasonably argued as timeless topics of discussion.
This isn't a request for warning removal btw; just wanted clarity about how rules are being applied in this forum and whether the rules are being applied fairly.
I highly suggest implementing the points I made earlier: clearer explanation of the necroposting rule; integrated warning system and/or closing stale topics to avoid misunderstanding and frustrations from both the user and moderation ends; as I was seriously questioning whether to just not bother posting on LET ever again. Nothing is more frustrating when others are given the pass against a rule but you aren't; so a very clear definition of the rules is important for everyone.
Lastly, it would probably be in the forums best interest to avoid fragmentation, but maybe that's a LET culture thing, so don't want to press further on this topic.
To be honest, this isn't really a LET-specific thing. It's kind of general forum netiquette. It's true that not everyone might know it, but it's impossible to describe it in all detail, especially because sometimes moderators legitimately have to make a decision based on a subjective interpretation.
I definitely get that impression just looking up what it is (e.g. Conflicting information on what counts and what doesn't). But I'm not requesting/suggesting a big essay or exhaustive list; just a simple sentence: "Only reply to an old thread if you have a timely, substantive update related to the original post.”. IMHO, that's a night and day difference, especially for someone unfamiliar with forum norms and/or where English isn't their first language.
Another issue that we contend with is users who want to quickly increase their post count so that they can qualify to offer a service transfer, participate in an auction, qualify for a free VPS, or similar. An "easy way" of quickly increasing one's count with seemingly non-spammy posts is to necropost, which is also why we tend to pay attention to users who necropost
In the current state, I would just mandate post count as only a residual factor to qualification for such stuff, with full veto privileges to disqualify by the management parties for those engaging in such practices.
The moderation burden could probably be reduced further by a gated/tiered system where stuff like freebies are only accessible once an approval or multi-factor reputation/quality/vouch threshold is reached; though I appreciate that LET in it's current form may have technical/structural limitations to deploy this easily.