Do not purchase any products from C-SERVER. They will delete your account and claim you violated their terms of service. When you ask them for proof, they will ignore you, and they will not pay out the commissions earned through their affiliate program.
This is by far the worst provider I have ever encountered.
There have already been numerous complaints from affected users on LOWENDTALK and NODESEEK; you can look up their past actions at any time.
@luckydanny said:
Do not purchase any products from C-SERVER. They will delete your account and claim you violated their terms of service. When you ask them for proof, they will ignore you, and they will not pay out the commissions earned through their affiliate program.
This is by far the worst provider I have ever encountered.
There have already been numerous complaints from affected users on LOWENDTALK and NODESEEK; you can look up their past actions at any time.
@luckydanny said:
Do not purchase any products from C-SERVER. They will delete your account and claim you violated their terms of service. When you ask them for proof, they will ignore you, and they will not pay out the commissions earned through their affiliate program.
This is by far the worst provider I have ever encountered.
There have already been numerous complaints from affected users on LOWENDTALK and NODESEEK; you can look up their past actions at any time.
maybe you unlucky?
If it's just a matter of luck, then a lot of users have really had the short end of the stick—simply because they ended up with C-SERVER.
Many users have raised these issues before; they are completely incapable of properly maintaining their servers and providing stable service, yet they shift the blame onto the users.
@luckydanny said:
Do not purchase any products from C-SERVER. They will delete your account and claim you violated their terms of service. When you ask them for proof, they will ignore you, and they will not pay out the commissions earned through their affiliate program.
This is by far the worst provider I have ever encountered.
There have already been numerous complaints from affected users on LOWENDTALK and NODESEEK; you can look up their past actions at any time.
maybe you unlucky?
Oh, it's most certainly the same user on the OGF of the select few that was terminated due to malicious activity on Zeta.10 Houston. People really think they can abuse a NAT system and then provider still gets the blame anyway - and even has to pay comissions for a malicious agent.
And they also think they can continue a thread for three more pages when the Provider has put out there all the explanation necessary, questioning everything from the owner's sanity to the technical competence, but always ignoring what was written.
"Numerous complaints" are a bunch of noisy abusers that don't know how to respect a company, that's all.
That begins with the name - it's C-Servers, for example.
"Many users" = 4 users going round and round. We have more than 3100 registered. Hardly an issue.
@luckydanny said:
Do not purchase any products from C-SERVER. They will delete your account and claim you violated their terms of service. When you ask them for proof, they will ignore you, and they will not pay out the commissions earned through their affiliate program.
This is by far the worst provider I have ever encountered.
There have already been numerous complaints from affected users on LOWENDTALK and NODESEEK; you can look up their past actions at any time.
maybe you unlucky?
Oh, it's most certainly the same user on the OGF of the select few that was terminated due to malicious activity on Zeta.10 Houston. People really think they can abuse a NAT system and then provider still gets the blame anyway - and even has to pay comissions for a malicious agent.
And they also think they can continue a thread for three more pages when the Provider has put out there all the explanation necessary, questioning everything from the owner's sanity to the technical competence, but always ignoring what was written.
"Numerous complaints" are a bunch of noisy abusers that don't know how to respect a company, that's all.
That begins with the name - it's C-Servers, for example.
"Many users" = 4 users going round and round. We have more than 3100 registered. Hardly an issue.
See? That’s their attitude. A small number of users isn’t a problem; it has nothing to do with right or wrong—they don’t even want to deal with these users.
No matter how you downplay it, I’ve only brought up what happened last time. You’ve had issues in the past as well—just wait for more users to dig into them.
Why don’t you go post your promotion on LowEndTalk? You can try it out and see if it’s just a small minority of users or the majority.
So are you hoping to attract a small number of users here?
@luckydanny said:
Do not purchase any products from C-SERVER. They will delete your account and claim you violated their terms of service. When you ask them for proof, they will ignore you, and they will not pay out the commissions earned through their affiliate program.
This is by far the worst provider I have ever encountered.
There have already been numerous complaints from affected users on LOWENDTALK and NODESEEK; you can look up their past actions at any time.
maybe you unlucky?
Oh, it's most certainly the same user on the OGF of the select few that was terminated due to malicious activity on Zeta.10 Houston. People really think they can abuse a NAT system and then provider still gets the blame anyway - and even has to pay comissions for a malicious agent.
And they also think they can continue a thread for three more pages when the Provider has put out there all the explanation necessary, questioning everything from the owner's sanity to the technical competence, but always ignoring what was written.
"Numerous complaints" are a bunch of noisy abusers that don't know how to respect a company, that's all.
That begins with the name - it's C-Servers, for example.
"Many users" = 4 users going round and round. We have more than 3100 registered. Hardly an issue.
The traffic on my blog was generated through my own hard work and promotion. It brought you revenue; the money went into your pocket. Now you’ve deleted the account and are asking why you should pay me?
Have you ever respected other people’s hard work?
If you’re still claiming that we users have violated the terms, please provide evidence. If you have conclusive proof that it was me, I’ll admit it. If you don’t, then you’re just making things up, aren’t you?
I’m willing to cooperate with any investigation and can provide some evidence. Are you willing to verify it?
If you dare, let’s settle this right here. I can also gather more affected users to confront you.
@luckydanny said:
Do not purchase any products from C-SERVER. They will delete your account and claim you violated their terms of service. When you ask them for proof, they will ignore you, and they will not pay out the commissions earned through their affiliate program.
This is by far the worst provider I have ever encountered.
There have already been numerous complaints from affected users on LOWENDTALK and NODESEEK; you can look up their past actions at any time.
maybe you unlucky?
Oh, it's most certainly the same user on the OGF of the select few that was terminated due to malicious activity on Zeta.10 Houston. People really think they can abuse a NAT system and then provider still gets the blame anyway - and even has to pay comissions for a malicious agent.
And they also think they can continue a thread for three more pages when the Provider has put out there all the explanation necessary, questioning everything from the owner's sanity to the technical competence, but always ignoring what was written.
"Numerous complaints" are a bunch of noisy abusers that don't know how to respect a company, that's all.
That begins with the name - it's C-Servers, for example.
"Many users" = 4 users going round and round. We have more than 3100 registered. Hardly an issue.
See? That’s their attitude. A small number of users isn’t a problem; it has nothing to do with right or wrong—they don’t even want to deal with these users.
No matter how you downplay it, I’ve only brought up what happened last time. You’ve had issues in the past as well—just wait for more users to dig into them.
Why don’t you go post your promotion on LowEndTalk? You can try it out and see if it’s just a small minority of users or the majority.
So are you hoping to attract a small number of users here?
Moving the goalposts - an absolute classic of forum posts. You've just done it here - congratulations!
Small or big on numbers, if clear-cut abusers they abuse and breach the terms, they get the correspondent action. Just like on all providers. It's a company, not any deity nor are we Jesus to give the other face when we were affected by the action of third-parties.
On the OGF - use the correct designation when you are at the correspondent forum - we are not a Patron Provider. Hence why this offer wasn't published there. At the OGF there's merely a Host Representative.
And honestly, from the significant ramp-up of abuse we've seen on the very few campaigns done at special events on the OGF, we probably won't touch that forum with a 10ft barge pole ever again and the special offers attributed during the last BF could probably not allow any renewals (it's something being considered though not yet decided).
We don't expect to attract too many or too much - we expect to attract the right users here. Those that are purchasing a service for their usage, keep with the provider and do things the correct way, and don't behave like, in fact, you are behaving now.
If you’re still claiming that we users have violated the terms, please provide evidence. If you have conclusive proof that it was me, I’ll admit it. If you don’t, then you’re just making things up, aren’t you?
I’m willing to cooperate with any investigation and can provide some evidence. Are you willing to verify it?
If you dare, let’s settle this right here. I can also gather more affected users to confront you.
No. We don't cooperate with abusers.
You'll never get your money back on the affiliate commissions due to your actions. You took the gamble, gamed the system, and got the result.
It's on you, not the provider. Assume your responsibility and take your losses on your actions. End of story.
@luckydanny said:
Do not purchase any products from C-SERVER. They will delete your account and claim you violated their terms of service. When you ask them for proof, they will ignore you, and they will not pay out the commissions earned through their affiliate program.
This is by far the worst provider I have ever encountered.
There have already been numerous complaints from affected users on LOWENDTALK and NODESEEK; you can look up their past actions at any time.
maybe you unlucky?
Oh, it's most certainly the same user on the OGF of the select few that was terminated due to malicious activity on Zeta.10 Houston. People really think they can abuse a NAT system and then provider still gets the blame anyway - and even has to pay comissions for a malicious agent.
And they also think they can continue a thread for three more pages when the Provider has put out there all the explanation necessary, questioning everything from the owner's sanity to the technical competence, but always ignoring what was written.
"Numerous complaints" are a bunch of noisy abusers that don't know how to respect a company, that's all.
That begins with the name - it's C-Servers, for example.
"Many users" = 4 users going round and round. We have more than 3100 registered. Hardly an issue.
See? That’s their attitude. A small number of users isn’t a problem; it has nothing to do with right or wrong—they don’t even want to deal with these users.
No matter how you downplay it, I’ve only brought up what happened last time. You’ve had issues in the past as well—just wait for more users to dig into them.
Why don’t you go post your promotion on LowEndTalk? You can try it out and see if it’s just a small minority of users or the majority.
So are you hoping to attract a small number of users here?
Moving the goalposts - an absolute classic of forum posts. You've just done it here - congratulations!
Small or big on numbers, if clear-cut abusers they abuse and breach the terms, they get the correspondent action. Just like on all providers. It's a company, not any deity nor are we Jesus to give the other face when we were affected by the action of third-parties.
On the OGF - use the correct designation when you are at the correspondent forum - we are not a Patron Provider. Hence why this offer wasn't published there. At the OGF there's merely a Host Representative.
And honestly, from the significant ramp-up of abuse we've seen on the very few campaigns done at special events on the OGF, we probably won't touch that forum with a 10ft barge pole ever again and the special offers attributed during the last BF could probably not allow any renewals (it's something being considered though not yet decided).
We don't expect to attract too many or too much - we expect to attract the right users here. Those that are purchasing a service for their usage, keep with the provider and do things the correct way, and don't behave like, in fact, you are behaving now.
If you’re still claiming that we users have violated the terms, please provide evidence. If you have conclusive proof that it was me, I’ll admit it. If you don’t, then you’re just making things up, aren’t you?
I’m willing to cooperate with any investigation and can provide some evidence. Are you willing to verify it?
If you dare, let’s settle this right here. I can also gather more affected users to confront you.
No. We don't cooperate with abusers.
You'll never get your money back on the affiliate commissions due to your actions. You took the gamble, gamed the system, and got the result.
It's on you, not the provider. Assume your responsibility and take your losses on your actions. End of story.
I have absolutely no hope of receiving the affiliate commission, because I’m dealing with a scoundrel. That’s why I have to speak the truth—so that fewer people might fall into this trap.
You still haven’t provided any evidence. Without evidence, no one wants to hear your excuses. So when you reply, let’s get straight to the point: please present concrete evidence that my account violated the rules.
If you choose to dodge the issue, then it’s already clear—you don’t need to put on any further show.
You’re right; I’m no philanthropist, and I certainly shouldn’t be a victim of abuse—nor can you make me one. So let me make this clear: the issue of the affiliate commission and the server issue are two separate matters.
The server issue is a matter of your competence.
The failure to pay the commission is a matter of your ethics.
It looks like the abusive users you “cleaned up” a month ago were not completely removed after all. Perhaps you should continue shutting down services and pick a few more “lucky users” from your existing customers to ban, then later send everyone a templated email saying that you have identified the abusers — just like you did a month ago to the 31 so-called “abusers,” including me.
So, to anyone considering purchasing servers from C-Servers, I hope you are prepared before buying for the possibility that your service may be unilaterally terminated and your account banned — even when your account has more than $80 in referral commissions.🤣
Also, just a reminder: you can look at how they’ve handled issues and what they’ve said in the past, as well as what many users have to say about them—that’s a pretty objective way to judge them.
If you want to gamble, go ahead, but in my opinion, there are plenty of better options out there—there’s absolutely no need for this.
I hadn’t logged into my server for a long time before this incident occurred. Yet he actually accused me of manipulating the server via NAT—isn’t that ridiculous?
Please release the operation logs for my account so everyone can see them. I don’t mind the privacy issue; I authorize you to view my server logs. Do you dare?
If you can’t even do that, aren’t you just shooting yourself in the foot?
A server is as much a matter of competence of the Provider as of the users that are on them. Perhaps even more of the users, because they're the primary active agents at the node - the Provider brings the bare metal, global maintenance and existing network access.
It's a shared environment. Even more so on a NAT system. All play together.
If the users at a shared enviroment misbehave, it's the duty of who provides the shared environment - the Provider - to reestablish the necessary environmental equilibrium, to the utmost extent necessary, so that the majority doesn't get damaged because of a select few.
This not only includes networking abuses, but also performance penalties caused by third-parties, among others.
C-Servers is rigorous on these - and will continue to be - in order to ensure the existing environment at each and every server is the best possible. Exactly like all providers do.
Everything else are just anonymous third-parties behind a username that don't bother to assume their responsibility for their actions.
@cservers said:
A server is as much a matter of competence of the Provider as of the users that are on them. Perhaps even more of the users, because they're the primary active agents at the node - the Provider brings the bare metal, global maintenance and existing network access.
It's a shared environment. Even more so on a NAT system. All play together.
If the users at a shared enviroment misbehave, it's the duty of who provides the shared environment - the Provider - to reestablish the necessary environmental equilibrium, to the utmost extent necessary, so that the majority doesn't get damaged because of a select few.
This not only includes networking abuses, but also performance penalties caused by third-parties, among others.
C-Servers is rigorous on these - and will continue to be - in order to ensure the existing environment at each and every server is the best possible. Exactly like all providers do.
Everything else are just anonymous third-parties behind a username that don't bother to assume their responsibility for their actions.
It seems you don’t understand what your responsibilities are.
You’re a service provider, but you lack the ability to provide services. Do you understand?
And you lack integrity as well.
As I said before, no one is interested in your little show. If you intend to accuse me of something, just present the evidence—concrete proof that my account has violated the rules. Otherwise, what grounds do you have for suspending my account?
@skorous said:
To be fair, it looks like he got a lot of you. The number of abuse reports is down to a couple in the last month as opposed to multiple per day....
At the expense of harming innocent users?
At the very least, I have no expectations of such companies or individuals.
It’s as if, when faced with an unsolvable problem, someone must be sacrificed. So I’ll draw lots to decide who goes, and then tell those selected, “You’ve broken the rules, so you must die.”
Then, when the chosen ones ask what rule they’ve broken, he’ll say, “I say you’ve broken it, so you’ve broken it—no evidence needed. That’s your obligation.”
“What about my inheritance after I die?” they’ll ask. “Sorry,” he’ll reply, “since you broke the rules, there’s no inheritance. If you keep bringing this up, I won’t bother with you anymore.”
@skorous said:
To be fair, it looks like he got a lot of you. The number of abuse reports is down to a couple in the last month as opposed to multiple per day....
You could argue that C-Servers did actually root out the abusers — if you conveniently ignore the fact that they wrongfully banned nearly 30 users in the process.
Even if we give them the full benefit of the doubt, is there any realistic chance that 31 people would all tacitly agree to run outbound port scans from the exact same server at the exact same time?
@luckydanny gave the citations (the first link even contains the provider's unprofessional crash out), yet the posts are moved to Rants.
LES is a seller's platform after all.
@luckydanny said:
Is this kind of language allowed?
If so, I’ll make you look really bad. For now, I’ll exercise restraint and follow the community guidelines.
I was just reading the community guidelines.
1、Don't be a dick
7、Trying to skirt the fine line of being a troll will just get you banned.
I suggest getting a custom firefox plugin to block certain users, WSS in this case.
Those of us who has been around for a while learnt to ignore most of his messages when he is off his meds
I speak fluent sarcasm and broken logic. | I would agree with you, but thæn we’d both be wrong.
@luckydanny gave the citations (the first link even contains the provider's unprofessional crash out), yet the posts are moved to Rants.
LES is a seller's platform after all.
I think that was just a rules citation it was not moved to a none indexed section which is what that actually means.
TierHive - Hourly VPS - NAT Native - /24 per customer - DE, UK, SG, CA, USA x3, FR, AU, PL, NL FREE tokens on sign up, try before you buy. | Join us on Reddit
@luckydanny gave the citations (the first link even contains the provider's unprofessional crash out), yet the posts are moved to Rants.
LES is a seller's platform after all.
I think that was just a rules citation it was not moved to a none indexed section which is what that actually means.
This thread was in Rants 8 hours ago, but now in Reviews.
Regardless of whether the review is indexable by search engines, the moderation decision of splitting @luckydanny 's legitimate warning from the offer thread is protecting the provider and harming the customers.
@luckydanny gave the citations (the first link even contains the provider's unprofessional crash out), yet the posts are moved to Rants.
LES is a seller's platform after all.
I think that was just a rules citation it was not moved to a none indexed section which is what that actually means.
This thread was in Rants 8 hours ago, but now in Reviews.
Regardless of whether the review is indexable by search engines, the moderation decision of splitting @luckydanny 's legitimate warning from the offer thread is protecting the provider and harming the customers.
Thanks for the correction. I was sleeping when it all happened. It looks like the error was corrected. Can I remind you that the mods are human and make mistakes? It should not be an us-and-them situation; judgment calls are made, they won't always be perfect. It looks like it sorted itself out
Actually, the rules protect providers from malicious reviews by design. From day 1, the OP acknowledged this, and it was split as it should have been because it was posted in an offer thread; then the "proof" linking to another forum is not proof of your own experience.
Anyway, its indexed, both sides had their say, rules have self-corrected everything, no extra off-topic drama here needed, if you have a problem with the moderator, I am sure he will discuss it with you directly via a PM or something if you want. if you have a problem with the rules, feel free to reach out, they are due for an overhaul anyway.
We need some balance instead of looking for tiny threads to pull at.
TierHive - Hourly VPS - NAT Native - /24 per customer - DE, UK, SG, CA, USA x3, FR, AU, PL, NL FREE tokens on sign up, try before you buy. | Join us on Reddit
Comments
Do not purchase any products from C-SERVER. They will delete your account and claim you violated their terms of service. When you ask them for proof, they will ignore you, and they will not pay out the commissions earned through their affiliate program.
This is by far the worst provider I have ever encountered.
There have already been numerous complaints from affected users on LOWENDTALK and NODESEEK; you can look up their past actions at any time.
maybe you unlucky?
[ bunny | gbcloud | gbnetwork | greencloud | hostus | limitlesshost | onidel | shockhosting | smarthost | speedypage | tierhive ] (aff)
If it's just a matter of luck, then a lot of users have really had the short end of the stick—simply because they ended up with C-SERVER.
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/215850/c-servers-vps-suspended-without-notice-beware-before-buying/p1
https://www.nodeseek.com/post-681382-1
Many users have raised these issues before; they are completely incapable of properly maintaining their servers and providing stable service, yet they shift the blame onto the users.
Oh, it's most certainly the same user on the OGF of the select few that was terminated due to malicious activity on Zeta.10 Houston. People really think they can abuse a NAT system and then provider still gets the blame anyway - and even has to pay comissions for a malicious agent.
And they also think they can continue a thread for three more pages when the Provider has put out there all the explanation necessary, questioning everything from the owner's sanity to the technical competence, but always ignoring what was written.
"Numerous complaints" are a bunch of noisy abusers that don't know how to respect a company, that's all.
That begins with the name - it's C-Servers, for example.
"Many users" = 4 users going round and round. We have more than 3100 registered. Hardly an issue.
See? That’s their attitude. A small number of users isn’t a problem; it has nothing to do with right or wrong—they don’t even want to deal with these users.
No matter how you downplay it, I’ve only brought up what happened last time. You’ve had issues in the past as well—just wait for more users to dig into them.
Why don’t you go post your promotion on LowEndTalk? You can try it out and see if it’s just a small minority of users or the majority.
So are you hoping to attract a small number of users here?
The traffic on my blog was generated through my own hard work and promotion. It brought you revenue; the money went into your pocket. Now you’ve deleted the account and are asking why you should pay me?
Have you ever respected other people’s hard work?
If you’re still claiming that we users have violated the terms, please provide evidence. If you have conclusive proof that it was me, I’ll admit it. If you don’t, then you’re just making things up, aren’t you?
I’m willing to cooperate with any investigation and can provide some evidence. Are you willing to verify it?
If you dare, let’s settle this right here. I can also gather more affected users to confront you.
Moving the goalposts - an absolute classic of forum posts. You've just done it here - congratulations!
Small or big on numbers, if clear-cut abusers they abuse and breach the terms, they get the correspondent action. Just like on all providers. It's a company, not any deity nor are we Jesus to give the other face when we were affected by the action of third-parties.
On the OGF - use the correct designation when you are at the correspondent forum - we are not a Patron Provider. Hence why this offer wasn't published there. At the OGF there's merely a Host Representative.
And honestly, from the significant ramp-up of abuse we've seen on the very few campaigns done at special events on the OGF, we probably won't touch that forum with a 10ft barge pole ever again and the special offers attributed during the last BF could probably not allow any renewals (it's something being considered though not yet decided).
We don't expect to attract too many or too much - we expect to attract the right users here. Those that are purchasing a service for their usage, keep with the provider and do things the correct way, and don't behave like, in fact, you are behaving now.
No. We don't cooperate with abusers.
You'll never get your money back on the affiliate commissions due to your actions. You took the gamble, gamed the system, and got the result.
It's on you, not the provider. Assume your responsibility and take your losses on your actions. End of story.
I have absolutely no hope of receiving the affiliate commission, because I’m dealing with a scoundrel. That’s why I have to speak the truth—so that fewer people might fall into this trap.
You still haven’t provided any evidence. Without evidence, no one wants to hear your excuses. So when you reply, let’s get straight to the point: please present concrete evidence that my account violated the rules.
If you choose to dodge the issue, then it’s already clear—you don’t need to put on any further show.
You’re right; I’m no philanthropist, and I certainly shouldn’t be a victim of abuse—nor can you make me one. So let me make this clear: the issue of the affiliate commission and the server issue are two separate matters.
End of discussion.
https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/149.112.84.49
It looks like the abusive users you “cleaned up” a month ago were not completely removed after all. Perhaps you should continue shutting down services and pick a few more “lucky users” from your existing customers to ban, then later send everyone a templated email saying that you have identified the abusers — just like you did a month ago to the 31 so-called “abusers,” including me.
So, to anyone considering purchasing servers from C-Servers, I hope you are prepared before buying for the possibility that your service may be unilaterally terminated and your account banned — even when your account has more than $80 in referral commissions.🤣
Also, just a reminder: you can look at how they’ve handled issues and what they’ve said in the past, as well as what many users have to say about them—that’s a pretty objective way to judge them.
If you want to gamble, go ahead, but in my opinion, there are plenty of better options out there—there’s absolutely no need for this.
I hadn’t logged into my server for a long time before this incident occurred. Yet he actually accused me of manipulating the server via NAT—isn’t that ridiculous?
Please release the operation logs for my account so everyone can see them. I don’t mind the privacy issue; I authorize you to view my server logs. Do you dare?
If you can’t even do that, aren’t you just shooting yourself in the foot?
A server is as much a matter of competence of the Provider as of the users that are on them. Perhaps even more of the users, because they're the primary active agents at the node - the Provider brings the bare metal, global maintenance and existing network access.
It's a shared environment. Even more so on a NAT system. All play together.
If the users at a shared enviroment misbehave, it's the duty of who provides the shared environment - the Provider - to reestablish the necessary environmental equilibrium, to the utmost extent necessary, so that the majority doesn't get damaged because of a select few.
This not only includes networking abuses, but also performance penalties caused by third-parties, among others.
C-Servers is rigorous on these - and will continue to be - in order to ensure the existing environment at each and every server is the best possible. Exactly like all providers do.
Everything else are just anonymous third-parties behind a username that don't bother to assume their responsibility for their actions.
It seems you don’t understand what your responsibilities are.
You’re a service provider, but you lack the ability to provide services. Do you understand?
And you lack integrity as well.
As I said before, no one is interested in your little show. If you intend to accuse me of something, just present the evidence—concrete proof that my account has violated the rules. Otherwise, what grounds do you have for suspending my account?
Is this the best your customer service can do?
This is not the OGF, @luckydanny, for you to behave this way. Our replies cease here.
You want drama - this is not the forum for it.
OK, so you still can't provide any evidence that my account violated the rules, right? Please stop your unethical behavior.
To be fair, it looks like he got a lot of you. The number of abuse reports is down to a couple in the last month as opposed to multiple per day....
At the expense of harming innocent users?
At the very least, I have no expectations of such companies or individuals.
It’s as if, when faced with an unsolvable problem, someone must be sacrificed. So I’ll draw lots to decide who goes, and then tell those selected, “You’ve broken the rules, so you must die.”
Then, when the chosen ones ask what rule they’ve broken, he’ll say, “I say you’ve broken it, so you’ve broken it—no evidence needed. That’s your obligation.”
“What about my inheritance after I die?” they’ll ask. “Sorry,” he’ll reply, “since you broke the rules, there’s no inheritance. If you keep bringing this up, I won’t bother with you anymore.”
Absolutely ridiculous.
You could argue that C-Servers did actually root out the abusers — if you conveniently ignore the fact that they wrongfully banned nearly 30 users in the process.
Even if we give them the full benefit of the doubt, is there any realistic chance that 31 people would all tacitly agree to run outbound port scans from the exact same server at the exact same time?
To anyone considering purchasing any services from this provider, I strongly recommend reading through this thread to learn about C-Servers' track record:
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/215850/c-servers-vps-suspended-without-notice-beware-before-buying/p1
Who is @luckydanny and why do they enjoy the flavor of cock?
"It's a hard life- to be a stick insect." - Karl Pilkington
Fuck off, MJJ.
"It's a hard life- to be a stick insect." - Karl Pilkington
Is this kind of language allowed?
If so, I’ll make you look really bad. For now, I’ll exercise restraint and follow the community guidelines.
I was just reading the community guidelines.
1、Don't be a dick
7、Trying to skirt the fine line of being a troll will just get you banned.
@System @FrankZ
When it comes to @WSS it's best to have a sense of humor.
He gets like this most of the time once in a while.
Tourette syndrome I suspect.
@luckydanny gave the citations (the first link even contains the provider's unprofessional crash out), yet the posts are moved to Rants.
LES is a seller's platform after all.
best of "yoursunny lore" by Google AI 🤣 affbrr
I suggest getting a custom firefox plugin to block certain users, WSS in this case.
Those of us who has been around for a while learnt to ignore most of his messages when he is off his meds
You are being too dramatic for a you suck dick joke. Just log off, disconnect your router and touch grass.
To add to above, "and what ever you do, do NOT go on reddit"
I think that was just a rules citation it was not moved to a none indexed section which is what that actually means.
TierHive - Hourly VPS - NAT Native - /24 per customer - DE, UK, SG, CA, USA x3, FR, AU, PL, NL
FREE tokens on sign up, try before you buy. | Join us on Reddit
This thread was in Rants 8 hours ago, but now in Reviews.
Regardless of whether the review is indexable by search engines, the moderation decision of splitting @luckydanny 's legitimate warning from the offer thread is protecting the provider and harming the customers.
best of "yoursunny lore" by Google AI 🤣 affbrr
Thanks for the correction. I was sleeping when it all happened. It looks like the error was corrected. Can I remind you that the mods are human and make mistakes? It should not be an us-and-them situation; judgment calls are made, they won't always be perfect. It looks like it sorted itself out
Actually, the rules protect providers from malicious reviews by design. From day 1, the OP acknowledged this, and it was split as it should have been because it was posted in an offer thread; then the "proof" linking to another forum is not proof of your own experience.
Anyway, its indexed, both sides had their say, rules have self-corrected everything, no extra off-topic drama here needed, if you have a problem with the moderator, I am sure he will discuss it with you directly via a PM or something if you want. if you have a problem with the rules, feel free to reach out, they are due for an overhaul anyway.
We need some balance instead of looking for tiny threads to pull at.
TierHive - Hourly VPS - NAT Native - /24 per customer - DE, UK, SG, CA, USA x3, FR, AU, PL, NL
FREE tokens on sign up, try before you buy. | Join us on Reddit