# Is this poor customer service?



## devineball (Sep 7, 2013)

I placed an order with QuickPacket. It was a small order and I assume that is part of the reason I received the customer service I did. Anyways, placed the order. Got three emails (acct. has been created, bill for services & order confirmation). Bill for services had a due date of today, the same date the order was placed. So, I try to login. Get login errors. Go to emails sent by QuickPacket and copy and paste username and pass they verified. Still get errors and can't login to pay the bill etc. I open a ticket to see why I can't login. Four minutes later (yes, very fast) I get the response:

"Due to the characteristics of your order, we are not willing to accept your order. Unfortunately, when there are certain flags, it is too much of a risk for us to proceed."

Now, my domains, email are squeaky clean, non-flagged, risk-free and very low traffic sites. If you want I can msg you some of my domains for accountability. The one that I submitted and was approved by QuickPacket for was devinebaseball com. As far as websites go, it is a unicorn or some other mythically pure creature.

Now I get a reply that says (in robot voice) my order poses a risk. What!? So then I freak out because I assume my domain has been flagged or maybe my email, I don't know, no details other than one line are given. Furthermore, the one line reply also results in a closed status of the ticket which I opened. So, when I send my reply asking what exactly has been flagged or is risky about my order, I get no answer (sharply contrasting the four minute initial reply). So I open a new ticket after an hour passes to ask about "risks" and "flags" and the bill email they sent. At this point I am upset because, well, this just doesn't make sense and they are wasting my time. However I do remain polite although I list a couple of web host review sites along the top of the ticket. Just the sites URL nothing more.

20 minutes pass and I get this reply:

"We are sorry that you are upset about the situation. Our *automated system* rejected your order. Due to high incidents of fraud, we do not allow orders from VPN/Proxy servers or services that hide your true IP address. I think you will find this rule to common among hosting providers. <not sure what that last line means?

Threatening to post this on public forums in an effort to extort us into allowing your order to proceed further confirms that we do not wish to do business with you.

Your order has been canceled and your account has been closed. Best of luck in finding a hosting provider."

So, since I ordered from my work VPN my order was flagged and my order canceled. And all of this took me contacting support over an hour or so to find out. Otherwise, I have no idea when they would have informed me about the cancellation. And they would have never told me what the "flags" and "risks" were since they closed the first ticket. And apparently posting a link to web host review sites in support tickets ( VPSboard.com) is now extortion? lol. Anyone that doesn't know what extortion is please do a quick google search. Basically a criminal offense. So to QuickPacket, simply posting a link to a web hosting site is extortion. If this is the case BBB and Consumer Reports are gonna have to do some serious time along with everyone else on VPSboard that has written a review.

Also, I think anyone with a minor amount of interweb points knows I can just disable my VPN, and order a package with a new email address. So they managed to get their foot caught while attempting to slam the door. Nonetheless, still very rude service.

So I replied asking how hard it would be to inform customers in this situation that their order had been canceled? Or how hard it would be to inform them of the details of the cancellation. I also advised them, in the case of VPN flags, to contact the customer and also look at the domain in question. Basically, don't rely on an *automated system *for human customer service.

I also pointed out that their package rates change once you hit the order now. Space and bandwidth amounts get halved after you place the order while the price and package name remains the same?

That is probably a typo but it is still on their site. And I pointed out how some of their sites have malware and material that conflicts with their TOS (quick "whois quickpacket llc" search confirms this) while my site is perfectly legit.

Honestly I am kind of seeing why they are hasty to reject customers as they have frequently seen downtimes from DDoS and as stated above, some of their current hosted sites are flagged. Even still, they should email people to tell them the order is canceled and exactly for what reason. In my case it was a work VPN IP address which is honestly no problem for the web host whatsoever (kind of confuses me). But more importantly, I freak out thinking my domain has been flagged or my email. Worse, they didn't reply when asked what the flags or risk were. Not until I opened a new ticket. Not cool, not cool at all. And I get no apology even though it is pretty clear QuickPacket caused undue stress and wasted my time. However, I'm glad I saw how bad their customer service was now rather than at a critical moment.


----------



## jarland (Sep 7, 2013)

You should have apologized and stated that you were mistaken for making the order via VPN and asked them if they would mind if you attempted again from your local IP. Any web host who doesn't mind a VPN signup doesn't care about their customers.

Btw I ordered a new server from them today. Server was set up 4 hours after order.


----------



## drmike (Sep 7, 2013)

The fraud check based on IP checks are blah.  Inaccurate, problematic, and umm necessary...

Sign up again without the VPN and see if any better.


----------



## jarland (Sep 7, 2013)

buffalooed said:


> The fraud check based on IP checks are blah.  Inaccurate, problematic, and umm necessary...
> 
> Sign up again without the VPN and see if any better.


I used to not mind VPN signups. Reality vs idea is what happened. Conceptually, there's nothing wrong with a VPN. In actuality, almost no one who lacks malicious intent orders with one.


----------



## KuJoe (Sep 7, 2013)

According to QuickPacket this person works for a competitor.  opcorn:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8832436&postcount=5


----------



## MannDude (Sep 7, 2013)

KuJoe said:


> According to QuickPacket this person works for a competitor.  opcorn:
> 
> http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8832436&postcount=5


Shouldn't be a problem at all.

Most providers here have services with other providers. If the OP works for a competitor, all he learned from this ordeal is how to not handle these type of requests.

QuickPacket would have been wise to suggest him to re-place his order, using his home/office connection. VPNs are great, but even I log out of my VPN before placing an order as to not deal with the hassle of the back and forth with the company before I even get my service.


----------



## KuJoe (Sep 7, 2013)

MannDude said:


> Shouldn't be a problem at all.
> 
> Most providers here have services with other providers. If the OP works for a competitor, all he learned from this ordeal is how to not handle these type of requests.
> 
> QuickPacket would have been wise to suggest him to re-place his order, using his home/office connection. VPNs are great, but even I log out of my VPN before placing an order as to not deal with the hassle of the back and forth with the company before I even get my service.


I was thinking the same thing but in the screenshots the OP posted on WHT it shows QuickPacket making mention of blackmail and threats so I'm curious to see what these threats were since the OP somehow forgot to mention this in his post. If he truly did threaten to post negative reviews if they didn't let him buy service through his VPN then the OP is 100% wrong even if he doesn't work for a competitor.

This line says it all:



> Threatening to post this on a public forums in an effort to extort us into allowing your order to proceed further confirms that we do not wish to do business with you.


----------



## MannDude (Sep 7, 2013)

KuJoe said:


> I was thinking the same thing but in the screenshots the OP posted on WHT it shows QuickPacket making mention of blackmail and threats so I'm curious to see what these threats were since the OP somehow forgot to mention this in his post. If he truly did threaten to post negative reviews if they didn't let him buy service through his VPN then the OP is 100% wrong even if he doesn't work for a competitor.


Ah, haven't looked at the WHT thread really. Going to do that now.


----------



## KuJoe (Sep 7, 2013)

MannDude said:


> Ah, haven't looked at the WHT thread really. Going to do that now.


It doesn't have much more info that here but the OP is only providing parts of the story. Had he posted all of the conversation instead of out of context replies he might have a leg to stand on. I just hope QuickPacket utilizes FraudRecord.


----------



## devineball (Sep 7, 2013)

No, I am not a competitor. This is a false allegation made up by QuickPackets to cover themselves.

As for disabling the VPN and attempting to reorder, I guess if I had known that the VPN was the problem then I would have gone that route. I suspected, as you can seen in the screens I posted on WHT that the "risks" and "flag" that QuickPacket canceled my order because of were my domain or email. I did not suspect it was my VPN. Even still, I contacted QuickPackets asking what the "risks" and "flags" were. If they had said it was a VPN address I would simply disable and attempt again, with their knowledge of course because honestly, I think disabling the VPN and then trying to reorder with the same domain would look kinda suspicious too. So had Quickpackets simply said it's your VPN that is the problem, attempt with another IP address, sure that would have been ideal. They would have my business and would be happy with their customer service. Instead I just got an email saying "Due to the characteristics of your order, we are not willing to accept your order. Unfortunately, when there are certain flags, it is too much of a risk for us to proceed." Now had this email said, your VPN has been flagged and is a risk please use another IP address then yeah, things would be fine. I have no problem with that. But I was just ordering a shared hosting package and got the hand. No explanations, just a big NO, please move along.

KuJoe, as I have pointed out earlier, your posts are biased and strangely close in time to Quickpackets. And as we see here you are more than happy to carry the banner for Quickpackets which leads me to believe either you are quickpackets or you are buddies. Anyways I will treat your statements and quickpackets as the same as I am under the assumption you are the same person. I don't post much on forums so I will see how I can debunk all of your allegations separately rather than in one long post.

But the main thing that needs to be debunked is no, I don't work for a competitor. I think a competitor coming up with a situation this petty would be kind of strange when I could just post and say something like the downtimes were horrible or customer service just cursed me out on the phone or something like that. But to say my order was not accepted because of a VPN and their inability to contact me with order cancellation info? Does that seem like something a competitor would post about. Also, viewers, please do read the thread at WHT as there is more details there. And you can see KuJoe/QPS in action. When were there join dates?


----------



## jarland (Sep 7, 2013)

Based on your statement, I will agree that you were not given sufficient opportunity or information to correct your position.

As for your assessment of KuJoe, way off base.


----------



## devineball (Sep 7, 2013)

KuJoe, where exactly do you see blackmail?? Holy cow! And the what QuickPackets said was that I was trying to "extort" them. Now if you want to know what that word means, which clearly QuickPackets did not, please do some Googlin'. What I did was, I posted three links at the top of my ticket to web host review sites. Honestly, VPSboards was not one of those sites but when I found that QuickPackets posted here I posted here as well with my situation. So I placed three links at the top of my ticket after waiting one hour for a reply about "risks" and "flags" there were for them to cancel my account, AND not tell me they had canceled the account.

Do you think posting three links to web hosting sites is blackmail? or extortion. Maybe in retrospect I should have just said, hey this is B.S. and I'll post this experience elsewhere. But what you are saying is blackmail and extortion is largely a part of what this site and WHT are composed of. Honest reviews. And yeah, I was letting QuickPacket know they were being held accountable.

Furthermore, I invited QuickPackets/KuJoe to repost those tickets so everyone could see. I do not have access to the message sent to QuickPackets and they have deleted that ticket. So it is actually QuickPacket that is hiding info. And, they have no proof that I'm a competitor either, it is simply a a false allegation to cover this up.

I don't know what FraudRecord is but if that could show that my VPN was a competitor, then do it. However, the truth is that QuickPacket has no truth behind their statement and I'm guessing that something like FraudRecord would actually show their claim is untrue.


----------



## jarland (Sep 7, 2013)

devineball said:


> Do you think posting three links to web hosting sites is blackmail?


Yes. The message is "Fix this or I post bad things about you."


If you've got another plausible explanation for why an upset would-be customer is randomly pasting links to forums related to the company's profession, I'm all ears.


----------



## devineball (Sep 7, 2013)

@Jarland Sorry but I'm new here and the timing of KuJoes post with those of QuickPackets made me suspicious. The fact that he too is saying I'm a competitor with no proof is also highly suspicious. So at this point I'm just pointing out the obvious. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, yes, its a duck.

The real problem was actually the mild stroke I received when QuickPackets said my order was "high risk". I don't order hosts very often. I have changed hosts twice. So when I see my order is high risk, and all I have given them is my domain name and email, I am very concerned what has been flagged. If my domain is flagged that is very bad. If my email is flagged that's pretty bad too. Honestly, getting rejected because I was using a VPN is good news. I'm fine with that. But A.) Quickpackets gave me no alternative B.) They never informed me of the cancellation. C.) They never told me why my order was at risk. - and that is the biggest problem.

And now, QuickPackets is furthering their poor customer/public treatment with false allegations. Tsk. Tsk.

On a side note. I posted here because I saw that QPS posts here. However, I am looking for a shared host or ridiculously cheap cPanel managed VPS on the east coast. Yeah I know, the cheap part makes you guys cringe. Really I was just trying to settle for a premium shared hosts. As for QuickPacket, the customer service displayed to me over a shared host is applicable to their VPS and dedicated customers as well. Same company. I doubt when there is trouble it is handled much differently. Exception being high dollar clients.


----------



## devineball (Sep 7, 2013)

LOL. um where do you see "Fix this or I post bad things about you??" Please cite it. I don't even talk like that as most people reading this post would be capable of seeing so ummm yeah, please post where you are reading this material. I am checking WHT now to see if they have altered their tickets and reposted them which would be both very sad for a company to have to do but deviously awesome at the same time.

@jarland Cite "Fix this or I post bad things about you." -where did that statement come from? or is it just another falsehood?


----------



## wdq (Sep 7, 2013)

I find it odd that they were very vague in that first email, and then they later said that you were behind a VPN and that's why they denied the payment. 

I ordered a dedicated server from QuickPacket a few months ago. The order went through, and then about an hour later I got this as an email:



> Dear William Quade (ZL Studios),
> 
> 
> It appears that you placed your order from an IP address belonging to a proxy, VPN, or VPS service provider.
> ...


I was confused for a minute, and then realized that I ordered the server from work (they have a static IP with rDNS and everything, so I assumed that confused the system.) When I ordered from my home IP address things went smoothly and I haven't had any issues since. 

I wouldn't consider myself being a "high dollar client" since I only pay them around $60/month for my dedicated server, but they have still treated me well.


----------



## tonyg (Sep 7, 2013)

To the OP:

There are a zillion VPS hosts, easier to have just moved on.


----------



## jarland (Sep 7, 2013)

This isn't the first time I've heard them being a bit cold in reaction to their fraud protection. I remember a while back someone had filed an incorrect fraud record report on someone and that client then had trouble ordering from QuickPacket. The report would have made anyone turn him away, but it was reported on the wrong person. Once cleared up, I believe everything went through.

I believe that QPS (let's just call him that) works damn hard and works at all hours. I think he gets fed up with all the people trying to get a cheap server for malicious intent, and he just breezes past things that don't look like they're worth his time. I like the guy. I'll sing praises of his network, hardware, and support. However, I do see something plausible in what you say, as I read it in your words. Always two sides to a story, so I can't say "you were wrong" or "QPS was wrong" with certainty.

Regardless, you did learn a valuable lesson about the VPN, and at least you walk away with that.


----------



## devineball (Sep 7, 2013)

Oh, I see it now.

"Now get to work on fixing stuff rather than taking the easy route. And as you know, or will see, even small customers can have a big influence on how your company is viewed."

No what I meant by that statement was, fix the broken automated system. My order canceled with no notification. Yeah that. Or the rates that are incorrect on their site? Or hosting malware sites? Or their bad customer service period. Yeah, that is stuff that needs to be fixed rather than neglected as they have done here.

So instead of being rude and turning your back and failing to apologize, fix it,

The part about the small companies. Yeah I do feel as though I was treated in the manner that I was because I wasn't going to be spending a lot of money with quickpackets.  And yeah, I'm allowed to tell QuickPackets that I will voice my opinion about their transgressions.

I think you are missing the fact that this statement was a closing statement. I had already been told I could not order with QuickPackets when I made that statement.

And, that statement was not "Fix it or else" No that statement was fix it and stop making excuses. PAUSE (very important pause) And, don't neglect low paying clients and give them poor customer service.

At this point in our correspondence we both new I would be posting the experience to web hosting review sites. QuickPackets has simply chosen to hide information that would probably make this a lot clearer.

However I am impressed that QuickPackets has exerted this much energy to remedy a problem that could have simply been avoided by good communication.


----------



## KuJoe (Sep 7, 2013)

I have never even spoken with anybody at QuickPacket before and my only relationship to them is that we both post on WHT and here. As for our registration dates on here, you'll notice that A LOT of the users on here registered during those dates when LowEndTalk was hacked and offline. It really is a coincidence and most of the regulars on here can vouch for that.

I would act the same way regardless of what hosting company it was because I've been on that end of the stick before where clients complain publicly about how horrible of a hosting company we are because we don't accept orders from proxies/VPNs AND have threatened to post negative reviews if we don't do what they say.

According to the screenshots you posted, QuickPacket implied that you threatened to post on a public forum if they didn't give you service. Threatening negative action if they don't do what you say.

blackmail - "the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone's actions"

Unfortunately we do not have all of the information so I am going based on what YOU posted. If QuickPacket could post the whole conversation it would probably clear up a lot of things.


----------



## devineball (Sep 7, 2013)

Ya know I apologize to Jarland and whomever else I may have offended or aligned with QPS in my paranoia.

@jarland, Yeah, from further research on QPS I think QPS had a bad run of DDoS there for a bit. I honestly have no idea what that means or how that might effect my situation but I guess they had tightened up their borders a bit (become more secure). And that last statement I made in that email does come off sounding like I was saying fix it or else but the above explanation is what I meant entirely. I just knew this situation was wrong and I was giving them advice to fix it rather than neglect the problem. There system needs to alert people when the order is canceled. I had to submit a ticket to find out my order had been canceled. That in itself is wrong. It needs to be fixed.

I think I'm doing my best broken record impersonation at this point. So I'll give it a rest.

Um, as for anyoe being wrong? Well read above. i'll metaphorize it for you. You go to McDonalds, order a big mac, wait 20 minutes, then WHEN YOU ASK they say no your order was canceled. Sorry, it was just too risky to make that BigMac. (no further explanation and no apology). Ya see, that's not right. So, yeah QUickPacket was in the wrong there. Business-wise, questionably wrong. I don't know the hosting ins and outs. So I guess if a hosts sees a VPN try and host an account then boom that is it. However, they should still make an attempt, for those like me that are honest, to at least not freak us out by giving no explanation to what it is they find that is "high risk" or "flagged". Had QPS just said hey, you tried to order with a VPS IP, unfortunately we cannot complete your order. I would be fine with that. I might suggest they put a little disclaimer up that says disable your VPN when ordering or something like that. But unfortunately, they didn't even bother telling me that the order was canceled. Then they gave a sooooper vague reason as far as I am concerned. Now I got them on record saying that I am a competitor?? Seriously.

So, QPS may be hard workers but they need to work on customer service.


----------



## devineball (Sep 7, 2013)

KuJoe,

Answer honestly. Do you  believe that posting three links to popular web host review sites is blackmail? Or extortion. You do realize both are criminal offenses. But definitions aside. Here is the breakdown and I think what I have posted still covers that aspect if you follow times and ticket numbers:

Ordered Host

Tried to login. Login Failed.

No email was sent to alert me my order had been canceled.

Submitted ticket.

Got a vague response that something in my order was high risk and the ticket was closed.

I'm upset at this point about having my order canceled without notification.

AND now they are saying something about my order is high risk. (I actually checked to see if my domain was flagged)

I responded to that ticket and got no reply for 1 hour. So I reopened a ticket.

In that message, yes the message that they have and will not post, I simply posted three links of popular web host review sites at the top and asked what part of my order was at risk.

Now do you really, honestly think that posting three links to popular web hosting sites is blackmail or extortion??

If I tell someone I am reporting them to the BBB is that blackmail extortion?

If I get a undercooked BigMac and I tell the manger I am contacting the newspaper about it unless he fixes the burger is that blackmail or extortion??

Honestly why would a host be threatened by someone posting the truth about their service online unless they messed up and didn't resolve it?

Why would they hide the tickets?

Why would they make a false allegation, with no proof, that my VPN, which was orginally just a system error when ordering, is now the VPN  of a competitor??

And the use of the terms blackmail and extortion, aside from being completely wrong by definition and context, is actually being used to make me look like I'm wrong for saying "hey, your screwing me over here and these are outlets to which I can go to let people know you screwed me over". Actually, I wouldn't even be here if a proper apology was given. Now I'm being accused of blackmail and extortion. lol. Extortion being the funnier of the too because I would have to physically threaten them in order for that to be accurate. Seriously, go get a good definition. Not one you had to edit or cherry pick. Because what you are suggesting is that anytime someone tells their host, "hey I'm posting this experience on VPSboards, or WHT or any web host review site, that they are engaging in blackmail or extortion. And if that is the case we have a lot of people here that belong in cuffs.

Plus I think I am giving credit to those terms simply by defending myself against them. Here, this does a great job at providing a rundown of taxonomy of the words and their legal implications:

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/extortion-and-blackmail/


----------



## shovenose (Sep 7, 2013)

I would have called the customer (if they're in the US) and informed them of why we took the actions we did and how they can be resolved - perhaps asking them to order from their home.

I think the customer over-reacted, (even though I understand that getting declined to order is frustrating - FireHosts refused to host my website even though I was willing to pay them $200/month for a small VPS because apparently I was a competitor), and the customer should understand what hosting providers go through on a daily basis.

On the other hand, QPS could been much more polite and helpful to the customer. Honestly looks like a back and forth of miscommunications, which can happen in any situation.

Devine, if QPS has a phone number, call them up, apologize, and perhaps become a customer. Who knows, you might really love their service - give them a chance and I am sure they will give you a chance.

Edit: For what it's worth, many months ago I inquired about a service from QPS and they responded quickly and professionally.


----------



## devineball (Sep 7, 2013)

@Quade

In Quickpackets defense I only see good reviews. That is part of the reason I decided to host with them. Unfortunately, I did not receive an email informing me that my IP was the problem or instructing me on how to proceed. In fact I didn't get an email from them at all. I had to submit a ticket to find out what was going on.

The other reason I chose Quickpackets, out of like 8 possible hosts they responded the fastest to my first inquiry. So, I was actually pretty excited about getting a host that communicated promptly. This is obviously not how communications occurred today though. I think once the boat started rocking some people bailed out. By that, I mean, when I presented the errors to QuickPackets I didn't get a response for over an hour. So I'm sitting there wondering what is "high risk" or wrong with my domain or email that has been flagged. I didn't even think about the VPN until later. I think the messages posted on WHT reenforces this, where I am stating that my email and domain have never had any problems. So I was left for an hour hoping something wasn't flagged on my domain name resulting in me having to ditch it.

And now, instead of dealing with errors, apologizing and attempting to fix them, (although they did fix the rates) QPS is now saying I'm a competitor. Which if we want to throw around big legal words, is defamation. And well, there is so much of that on the interwebs it would be a hard case to sell to a jury. That being said, QPS has jack proof that my VPN is a competitor and if you follow the incident it makes jack sense that I would hatch this elaborate scheme with the intent of defaming QPS. I mean, really? So yeah, please present proof KuJoe or QPS when you make accusations. As it stands you have made none and the burden of proof still rests on you as I have provided everything that I can.


----------



## devineball (Sep 7, 2013)

@shovenose

I wish a phone call would remedy the situation but honestly. QPS is on another forum making false allegations that I am a competitor. So, I really don't think I could trust them to host my site on their servers after what has transpired. And I may have overreacted but I doubt that many people here have been rejected by a host for "risks" with no further explanation. I had to open a new ticket to find out what the "risks" were. And my main concern wasn't the host rejection but the possibility that my domain had been flagged. ]

Anyways, after QPS has attempted to cover this up by falsely saying I am a competitor, no, there is no way I would use QPS especially when their prices and performance are that mediocre. I actually wanted QPS for their location and customer service. As tonyg stated there are tons of hosts. Definitely no need to risk it with QPS, and definitely not after this.

Actually QPS can call me. They got my number I am pretty sure unless they deleted it when they deleted my account. Call me up. Apologize. I still won't host with them. And since they have made false allegations that I am now having to defend myself against I probably won't stop discussing the issue but, hey they might feel better as humans if they fix it. I think sometimes when you spend too much time around the machines you kinda get that machine, ends-justify-the-means, functionality mentality.  So maybe a human phone call to say "oh hey, yeah that was wrong, sorry about that" would help matters. Although I find things to be very wrong at this point, a phone call couldn't hurt. I'm actually a pretty nice dood. But, if QPS had a PR team they would spontaneously combust over some of the decisions made by QPS. Take the extra time to communicate, offer a solution, if there is no solution offer a condolence, do not hide when you are called out, and definitely don't go and try and slander someone without anything to back what you are saying. Especially when that person has clearly called you out on several instances.


----------



## mikho (Sep 8, 2013)

Why did you post links to three review sites in your ticket? What results did you think those links would give you?


----------



## HalfEatenPie (Sep 8, 2013)

===== This is Personal Opinion =====

Ok see this is the ridiculous part that just doesn't make sense.

You linked QPS to 3 review sites?  What's the reason for that?  That's like indirectly saying "Hey, either do this for me or else something bad could happen."  This is where people are getting the idea that you're in it for malicious intent.  I mean I welcome everyone to this board for a great discussion but I got the idea more as "I saw QPS posting on this board and I'm pissed off and I'm going to try and hurt their reputation as much as I can by registering here and saying negative things about them".  

I mean yeah I do see flaws on both sides of the fence (from what I understood from your post) but personally seeing the way you present yourself (especially by mispelling dude with "dood" and such) and seeing the way you responded to their responses I can't really say I agree with you/support your argument.  Yes they should have been more direct and clear with why your order was rejected but seriously man?  Come on, you were essentially blackmailing him indirectly.  

And just to reiterate (even though I think you get this) KuJoe is most certainly not QPS.  His actions are reasonable because this industry (while awesome) has the unfortunate experience of people who contact providers privately and demand service (either for malicious intent or just trying to strong-arm them) or else they threaten a bad review/going onto forums and screeching at everyone about how "so and so was mean to them".  I'm sure you're a nice guy, but the current way you've approached the situation it just feels like that.  A guy who's trying to tell/yell at everyone about "so and so was mean to me so help me to take them down".  

In the end, I wouldn't put your own opinions in it.  If you want to make a serious review or a discussion just provide the facts.  People can make up their own opinions based off of what they read.

That's my two cents.  My apologies if I sound like a dick but it's kind of the harsh reality of what just happened (from the information I have been presented).


----------



## switsys (Sep 8, 2013)

I would like to come to QPS defense here.
I've been a (low level service) customer of theirs for over a year.

When I signed up I didn't pass their security checks immediately either.
So I COMMUNICATED with them, without 'linking to review sites'.
And the few times that I've needed to communicate directly with them after that - I've just sent them an email, and I've received prompt, polite and accurate response.

They are communicative enough.
They treat 'small' customers VERY well.
They are VERY quick on posting info that will effect your service.
They even have a special twitter account for the sole purpose of informing their customers on these matters.

Their service is also, more or less, rock solid.


----------



## perennate (Sep 8, 2013)

Communication -- they don't seem to often update StatusPacket when there's a denial of service attack. So what's the point of having it? Agree with the responsive.


----------



## devineball (Sep 8, 2013)

@HalfEatenPie

I do appreciate the objective point of view. I think some posters here are simply quick to defend Hosts rather than look into the actual situation.

Why did I post three links to web host review sites? The ticket in which I posted those three links was after they had already said they would not hosts my site. So, the idea that I was trying to blackmail, extort, or strong arm QPS into giving me service is completely off. In the ticket where I posted the three links to web host review sites I was not asking for service from QPS. In that ticket I was mainly asking what the "risks" and "flag" were were with my order and asking why they didn't notify me of the cancellation. Basically, I was already done with QPS at that point I just wanted to know what the deal was with the "risks" and "flags" and yes I was clearly not happy that they had waited an hour to reply (after replying in 4 minutes on my first ticket) or that they had canceled my order without notifying.

So, just to make it clear. They canceled my order. They provided poor explanation for that cancellation and they took an hour replying. No, I was not going to use QPS' services at that point. I was being screwed over by QPS so I posted three links to the top of the ticket. It's no different than someone saying "this will be reported to the BBB" or to any place that reviews businesses. It was not an effort to get QPS to give me services.

Here are two logical points that disprove the blackmail/extortion/strong arm accusation:


I could have easily just logged out of my VPN and reordered through QPS. Or gone down to the free wifi in our building's lobby. Or gone to McDonalds and used their free wifi etc. There is no need for blackmail/extortion/strong arming.
Why would I threaten someone I am trying to do business with? I'm not Alan Greespan, but that seems like a really stupid way to start a business relationship. I mean seriously. In your perspective I am saying "Give me hosting service or else" and then "Oh, hey, here is my domain and credit card info and please do make sure I get good service etc."
No, the three links I posted were after the bridge was burned between QPS and I. And no I do not regret posting those three links or posting here. QPS has already fixed the rates on their site on my behalf. And, I would imagine that in the future they will notify people of their order cancellations and they won't give replies to VPN orders saying nothing more than "your order is high risk". And when asked why the order is high "risk" they won't take an hour to reply.

I do wish QPS would repost that ticket as that is the one ticket I do not have and therefore cannot repost. Ticket #733045.

And no KuJoe's actions are not reasonable. If you are going to repost a link saying I am a competitor then you should investigate the validity of that accusation. I think what you are trying to say is that many posters here simply jump to the defense of Hosts when they see negative reviews. That would be the case with KuJoe as he has failed to answer any of my questions directly or to view the situation in an objective manner.

I'm not trying to take QPS down. This is a review of my experience with QPS. It happens to be negative. Are all negative reviews of hosts attempts to take those companies down? Honestly, this is probably helping QPS more than it is hurting them. I mean look at the posts. You got several people saying QPS is a good host. That is part of the reason that I went to QPS was because of good reviews. And if this wasn't my thread and I read it, I probably would still try and use QPS services. This is a post about one guy that tried to order hosting with through his work VPN and QPS mishandled it. If I read this post I would be a little cautious about QPS customer service when things went bad but I would probably view this as an isolated incident and place an order with QPS. So no, this is not an attempt to take down QPS. I do think QPS will change their system and service, and maybe other hosts, because this issue has been brought to light.



> In the end, I wouldn't put your own opinions in it.  If you want to make a serious review or a discussion just provide the facts.  People can make up their own opinions based off of what they read.


It's kind of hard not to put in any opinions. I mean when I say this is what QPS should have done, that is an opinion. When I say they should have notified me of order cancellation that is opinion. When I say they should have told me initially what the "risks" (VPN) were with my order that is an opinion. When I say they should not have waited an hour to reply to what the "risks" were that is an opinion. However, I don't really see these opinions as being unfair, but just the same they are opinions.


----------



## devineball (Sep 8, 2013)

@Switsys

I'm glad your service with QPS has been good. And at $15 a year that is indeed low level service. Unfortuantely, I don't know the details of your security checks failures and how that was dealt with by you or QPS.

Was the order canceled? If so, did they notify you?  (in my case they did not)

When you had your "security check failures" did they tell you immediately what those failures where and how to fix them? (in my case they did not)

IF they did not tell you what the "security check failures" when you asked what they were did they take an hour to respond with an answer? (in my case they did)

So I think you can maybe look objectively, although I think anyone could see how you have incentive to come to QPS' defense (but your transparency is reaffirming), and see how my ordeal with QPS was very different than yours.

And the one part of this whole ordeal that I think is being overlooked is that QPS has actually said I am a competitor. Now they have nothing to back this up. And given detailed scenario and evidence I think most people would see this is clearly a false accusation. So you have to ask yourself, why did QPS take that course of action? Do you think that is somewhat indicative of the company whom you are defending?

On that same note. I think the accusation that a negative is review is from a competitor should be looked at more closely perhaps. Basically, whenever there is a negative review on a host they can just say "that's a competitor" and then sheeple will agree? That doesn't really make for an honest and accurate web host review platform does it? I think when a host says a negative review is a competitor the validity of the accusation should be questioned. And if the accusation is invalid then clearly the host is trying to get rid of a honest negative review by unethical means.


----------



## HalfEatenPie (Sep 8, 2013)

Well ok I understand your reasoning but still, some people do have the odd idea that by threatening someone they wish to do business with they'll get better service (sometimes logic is out the window).  You establishing that you understand this concept is at least very great to hear.  

From my own experience,  I can state that I dislike VPN orders.  Now I'm not saying I'm not guilty of this (hell I just ordered a service the other day and totally blanked to turn off the VPN) but most of the time VPN orders are a pain in the ass and honestly more trouble than it's worth.  Now obviously he could have responded with "Hey please turn off the VPN and re-order" or some sort, but (from my own speculation, so this could or could not be true) I could assume there was another issue which contributed to this factor.  This could include information paypal sent them, information fruadrecords sent them, I don't know really.  Regardless from their Risk Management analysis they figured it was not worth the additional risk from the information provided by those tools and decided against providing you service.  

Now these are obviously my own speculations and there's only been one side of the story, and I'm not really interested in reading the other WHT thread, so I'll leave it at that.  Maybe look into FraudRecords and see if your e-mail or anything is setting off any alarms.  

In terms of KuJoe's involvement, you can disagree with it (hell not everyone thinks the same way) but I personally see it as him reporting new information QPS stated in the thread.  Because there are people like me who... sometimes doesn't enjoy having to read another few pages worth of the same material, I personally appreciate it.  Now it's not my place to judge if you're a competitor of his or not (nor does it matter really to me unless it gets out of hand... of which it isn't currently) but it adds on to questions on the validity of your claim.  Of course this is the internet and every single statement shouldn't be taken seriously but given KuJoe's reputation here (of which I trust) in comparison to yours (which is on a new account created yesterday), I know that I can trust KuJoe's words over a random individual who (from our perspective) just registered in an attempt to negatively impact QPS.  This is why (my speculation again) many individuals are quick to defend QPS, especially since many of us consider him (or at least I do) an active member of this community.  

I do apologize if this has offended you in any way but some of the ways I just didn't want to spend more time trying to express it in a less negative manner (aka I'm tired as hell and will probably go to bed after this post).  I do wish you good luck in your future service with any other provider.  For a little background sake, I have been a previous customer to QPS.  I personally have had good service with them previously (for a short time) but due to an error on my end I cancelled my service with them.  From my time working with them I haven't had any issues and enjoyed the product they were selling.


----------



## devineball (Sep 8, 2013)

@HalfEatenPie

Thanks again for the reply. Yeah I don't know the details of what was received by QPS when I placed my order via VPN. I do think if someone tries to place an order with a host and the hosts get a message from some verification source saying "Satan Himself is trying to Host with You! BEWARE" they could still reply with a detailed explanation to the individual seeking hosting that says "Our systems indicate you are Satan. Sorry but we cannot provide service". In my case, "Hey we know you are using a VPN sorry but we cannot provide service". To which, I'm cool with. I'm not freaking out wondering what part of my order has been deemed risky. Plus, QPS didn't even notify me of the cancellation or any problem with the order. I had to contact them. So that in itself is a problem.

As for KuJoe there is certain responsibility undertaken when reposting information. And, adding your own commentary to add validity to the repost equals even more responsibility undertaken. The fact that kuJoe is a veteran, respected member of this community carries weight, and his repost are viewed as such. Nonetheless, they should still be questioned for validity. And a biased viewpoint, one that consistently favors one side, is not objective. I know KuJoe sees some things I am saying as true and correct but he has chosen not to represent those ideas in his comments. Which is really what you would do if you are trying to build a one-sided argument.

I also have to admit that my suspicions of kuJoe were first raised when four hours had passed over at WHT with no comments on my post and then all of a sudden I get two comments within 10 minutes apart. One from QPS and one from KuJoe. And then I come over here and KuJoe is carrying the banner for QPS (without acknowledging  QPS' faults in the situation) . I guess it was purely coincidence but I think anyone would view that as being suspicious.

Apologies also to the Satan Worshipers here for my inference that Satan could not pass host ordering verification.


----------



## MannDude (Sep 8, 2013)

QuickPacket contacted me. It does appear the OP is a competitor connecting from their office VPN.

Though I'm still behind on this thread so unsure what that means or why it matters. I'll get caught up later.


----------



## jarland (Sep 8, 2013)

MannDude said:


> QuickPacket contacted me. It does appear the OP is a competitor connecting from their office VPN.
> 
> 
> Though I'm still behind on this thread so unsure what that means or why it matters. I'll get caught up later.


I would like for the poster of this thread to provide permission to enter this into public record. If it's not relevant, let's get it on the table and out of the way. Otherwise it can undermine what may be a legitimate, albeit arguably and admittedly not originally worded in the best way, review of a provider.


----------



## jarland (Sep 8, 2013)

devineball said:


> LOL. um where do you see "Fix this or I post bad things about you??" Please cite it. I don't even talk like that as most people reading this post would be capable of seeing so ummm yeah, please post where you are reading this material. I am checking WHT now to see if they have altered their tickets and reposted them which would be both very sad for a company to have to do but deviously awesome at the same time.
> 
> 
> @jarland Cite "Fix this or I post bad things about you." -where did that statement come from? or is it just another falsehood?


Logic needs no citation. If you believe my conclusion to be mistaken, you must inject further knowledge for me to re-evaluate. Your previous statement that it was an "exit" comment is already sufficient to cast doubt on my conclusion.


----------



## devineball (Sep 8, 2013)

@jarland

Logic doesn't need a citation but quoted material kind of does. The paraphrase you quoted is not what was meant by the actual text from which you paraphrased. When I saw it in quotes I thought QPS had altered and reposted tickets because the tickets i submitted said nothing like that. I figured out what you were saying though and addressed it here 6 posts later:

http://vpsboard.com/topic/1838-quickpacket-poor-customer-service/#entry28971

And further knowledge injections for re-evaluations are periodically spaced throughout the thread. I do understand how when reading this the context of time is often lost. But yes that statement was the last statement I made to QPS after they had already canceled the order and my account etc. I think it is even that way in the screenshot at WHT.

And I also specifically address the assumption that I was threatening QPS for service in post #30 above as well.


----------



## devineball (Sep 8, 2013)

I'm not a competitor. That is simply a lie. It doesn't add up logically for a competitor to take the route I have taken or to take the actions I initially took when trying to get the host. Even in this thread the logic doesn't add up.


Ask yourself, why would a competitor even try to use a VPN to get an account? If it is such common knowledge (as has been expressed to me) that hosts don't allow you to place orders with a VPN then why would a competitor (someone that I assume would also know about hosting since they are a competitor) try and use a VPN?
Why would a competitor go onto public forums to address the order cancellation/customer service? If the intent of the competitor was to get into the host, why would they even care about the cancellation/customer service? Wouldn't their motive still be to get into the host? And wouldn't they then simply change their IP and proceed with the order?
Why would the competitor contact the host 11 days prior and ask where their location was? As you can see here: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1301704&page=2


If the intent of the competitor was to publicly write a bad review of a host do you really think I would have gone through all of this trouble? A more simple explanation? QPS got called out and figured they could cover it up with the allegation that I am a competitor.

Anyone that can prove I'm  using a competitors VPN please do so publicly. One the same note, anyone who can show me how to prove I am not a competitor please assist in the matter. I can give you my IP and the company through which I use VPN services (Level3) and any other relevant information.

As has been the case from the start QPS has chosen to work behind the scenes. He can post my tickets. I have invited him to do so.  He can show the proof he claims to have that I am a competitor. I have invited him to do so. Instead he has simply appealed to moderators in the hopes that his veteran status will be enough for them to overlook the fact that their is no proof to his allegations.


----------



## jarland (Sep 8, 2013)

devineball said:


> I'm not a competitor. That is simply a lie. It doesn't add up logically for a competitor to take the route I have taken or to take the actions I initially took when trying to get the host. Even in this thread the logic doesn't add up.
> 
> 
> Ask yourself, why would a competitor even try to use a VPN to get an account? If it is such common knowledge (as has been expressed to me) that hosts don't allow you to place orders with a VPN then why would a competitor (someone that I assume would also know about hosting since they are a competitor) try and use a VPN?
> ...


This is a personal request and I'll explain my reason first. I consider fake reviews or reviews based on ulterior motive to be a sort of "pet peeve." On the other side of that coin, I consider true reviews that are dismissed too quickly to be another "pet peeve."


Would you specifically give QPS and MannDude permission to post publicly this IP that supposedly proves that you are a competitor? As a mere reader, I like my information to be well packaged. This one is missing something because of this claim and the lack of ability to peer review the information. However, I would not ask them to post that info. If they claim it belongs to you, it is yours to request and not mine.


----------



## jarland (Sep 9, 2013)

Context: More likely to lean toward QuickPacket because I love their services and support. However, I wanted to be neutral and clarify for the OP given the accusations.


I reviewed the IP in question. It is allotted for customers of a very large cloud server provider. We're talking someone who competes more with Rackspace, not companies who post on LEB, and then we're talking about a subnet assigned for their customers, not office staff.


I see no evidence that the OP is a competitor, and if I assume he is, I have to admit that he'd likely have nothing to gain from posting a negative review about a provider who I highly doubt is causing problems for this major business.


----------



## qps (Sep 9, 2013)

First of all, let me start by saying that I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with us.  I'd like to explain our process and the series of events so that everyone understands what happened.

 

When an order is flagged by MaxMind, the order is automatically cancelled by the MaxMind plug-in in WHMCS, and a message is displayed on the screen advising the customer to contact us for more information.  The customer noted that they saw this message in one of their posts.  I'm sorry if the message wasn't clear enough, but it said in the message to contact us for more information.  

 

When the customer contacted us, we notified him that based on the warning characteristics of the order, we did not wish to continue.  When orders have a number of warning characteristics, even if we spend the time to work with the customer to address all of the concerns, we aren't likely to ever going to feel confident in our decision to allow the order to proceed.  

 

We don't like revealing to high risk orders why their order was flagged, as it gives them a roadmap on how to either attempt to defraud us or others in the future.  I am not saying that was this customer's intent here, just speaking in general terms.  That is why our first e-mail did not reveal any of the reasons why the order was rejected.

 

Here are the reasons why the customer's order was rejected.

 

1) MaxMind flagged his IP address as high risk.

2) The name on the customer's account did not match the name he used in a previous sales request, nor in his e-mails to us.

3) The customer utilized a VPN to submit his order.  (NOTE: At the time we did not realize it was the IP address of a competitor's network, so this didn't play into the decision.)

4) The address the customer provided was in Atlanta, but the residential IP address was that of Northland Cable in Greenwood, South Carolina (after he disabled his VPN).

5) The name, address, e-mail address and phone number on the whois of the domain name provided did not match the information provided on the order form.  This by itself is not a warning characteristic, but when combined with other warning characteristics, this escalates our level of concern.

6) The customer signed up for more than one month in advance.  We often find that fraudulent orders are placed for multiple months in advance to "test" the credit card.  This by itself is not a warning characteristic, but when combined with other warning characteristics, this escalates our level of concern.

 

Based on these issues, we did not want to proceed.

 

When the customer e-mailed us a second time, the customer's tone started becoming aggressive.  We did not immediately respond (as we were working with another customer to resolve an issue which took priority over a billing request on a Saturday).  He sent another e-mail just under an hour later with links to three industry sites at the top of the e-mail, which we took as a threat to allow the order to go through or else he would post negative reviews.  We don't take threats lightly and this was the end of the conversation for us.  In our final message, we advised him of the VPN issue as one of the reasons why we did not want to proceed and wished him well in his search for another provider.

 

Later, after he posted on WHT and VPSBoard and made a number of accusations about QuickPacket being a malware host, that we were trying to defraud our customers, and whatever else he has claimed, we looked a little deeper into his order and discovered that his IP address belongs to a competitor.  The customer has stated that the IP address he ordered from was his work VPN IP address, so this leads me to wonder if his attempts to bash us are at least partially motivated by his employment by a competitor.  Whether or not he works for a competitor really doesn't matter to me.  I only mention it because he said he works for the company he VPN'ed in from or something to that effect.

 

I'm surprised that the VPSBoard staff has allowed the IP address information I shared in confidence with them to end up in jarland's hands.  After assuring me that the info would not leak out, they did it anyway.

 

Let me also clear up two false things that this customer has claimed.  

- At no time have we attempted to defraud anyone.  The plans on our website are accurate.  If we catch a typo, we correct it.

- We do not tolerate malware being hosted on our network.  We investigate and address all abuse complaints.  Our reaction to the abuse complaint depends on the situation.

 

That's pretty much all I have to say about this matter.  I hope this clears things up for everyone.


----------



## jarland (Sep 9, 2013)

qps said:


> I'm also *shocked* that the VPSBoard staff has allowed the IP address information I shared in confidence with them to end up in jarland's hands.  After assuring me that the info would not leak out, they did it anyway.


I requested it from the user directly. I was very thorough but promised not to share information that could allow others to perform any malicious action in his direction, so I shared my conclusion but not my work. I assure you that unless it varied from the IP he used for the order, I did not make a mistake in my conclusion. I simply dislike this particular scenario and believed the user wasn't being heard correctly, so I stuck my nose in. Don't take it personally or anything.


----------



## qps (Sep 9, 2013)

jarland said:


> I requested it from the user directly. I was very thorough but promised not to share information that could allow others to perform any malicious action in his direction, so I shared my conclusion but not my work. I assure you that unless it varied from the IP he used for the order, I did not make a mistake in my conclusion. I simply dislike this particular scenario and believed the user wasn't being heard correctly, so I stuck my nose in. Don't take it personally or anything.


Like I said in my post, whether or not he worked for a competitor didn't matter.  We made the decision to reject the user's order based on the other factors I mentioned.

The possibility of him working for a competitor was only considered after his statement that the IP address he ordered from was his work IP address.  He has now said that he doesn't work for the company that the IP address belongs to, so that's fine.  Perhaps I jumped the gun in posting that, but it doesn't really change anything about the situation.


----------



## MartinD (Sep 9, 2013)

qps said:


> I'm surprised that the VPSBoard staff has allowed the IP address information I shared in confidence with them to end up in jarland's hands.  After assuring me that the info would not leak out, they did it anyway.


I just want to clarify something here;

None of us that have access to IP address information would ever (and will never) give that information out to anyone. Ever. Period.

We have been asked in the past and the answer was always no. We're not in to playing that game so rest assured that information is 'safe' on here.


----------



## qps (Sep 9, 2013)

MartinD said:


> I just want to clarify something here;
> 
> None of us that have access to IP address information would ever (and will never) give that information out to anyone. Ever. Period.
> 
> We have been asked in the past and the answer was always no. We're not in to playing that game so rest assured that information is 'safe' on here.


When I posted that statement, I thought that another moderator had shared the info I provided to him to jarland.  jarland has since clarified that he got the info from the user himself, so no problem there.


----------



## MartinD (Sep 9, 2013)

That's all good and I get that 

Just wanted to make sure that people knew we didn't and don't do that.


----------



## devineball (Sep 9, 2013)

I'm not sure ( as I don't have time to read this thread and the WHT thread and get paid to act like I'm working) if I have caused any problems trying to disprove the competitor allegation made by QPS. If that is the case, I was fully aware and consented to the information I provided to disprove this claim.


----------



## devineball (Sep 9, 2013)

I have and am currently replying to the conversation about this topic at WHT:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1301704

I can't really post at both places simultaneously.

It is also worth mention that I will post other inconsistencies with QPS claim but I don't have the time at the moment as I am dealing with the competitor claim at the moment. So there are more inconsistencies with what QPS has claimed today.

And on a side note, I think QPS is probably a good host as far as host service goes. I am questioning the ethics of their decisions, specifically the competitor accusation but also other inconsistencies, in regards to me but as I have stated before I think this is an isolated incident. However, these decisions do reflect the company as whole even though they may be isolated.


----------



## AnthonySmith (Sep 9, 2013)

wow, this thread was just not needed, let me sum it up for you in sane terms.

Order was rejected for reasons that are fairly standard, it is fairly standard because after you loose a few thousand a year due to orders that follow the same pattern you get a little less understanding.

They are not trying to be a dick about it that is just the way it is, this could have been dealt with without the drama jeez.


----------



## qps (Sep 9, 2013)

We've made our position clear.  This will be our last post here on this topic.


----------



## tonyg (Sep 9, 2013)

AnthonySmith said:


> wow, this thread was just not needed, let me sum it up for you in sane terms.
> 
> this could have been dealt with without the drama jeez.


100% agree...like I stated in a prior post, the OP should just have moved on.

There really was no need for any of this back and forth.

My Socrates moment:

Dealing with rejection in a healthy way is part of the key to a long, healthy life.


----------



## Tactical (Sep 9, 2013)

All this stuff was is not even needed. How about changing the title of the topic to "How I make a Fuss Over Nothing!" Nothing was actually done wrong here except someone getting their feelings hurt over a rejected order. Just grab hold of your big boy pants and let it go!


----------



## MartinD (Sep 9, 2013)

Agreed. I've edited the title to something a little more appropriate.


----------



## devineball (Sep 9, 2013)

@SgtZinn

Do you think when a hosting company says that a review is from a competitor when in fact it is not is a big deal? Basically whenever a host sees a negative review about themselves they simply say "the review is not legitimate, it is from a competitor". And do you not see how that kind of undermines the honest review platform?

QPS said I was a competitor. At WHT he says that statement was posted because he "honestly" thought HostWay was posting a negative review of him.

This thread was never about rejection of an order. As I have stated multiple times I am fine having my order rejected. The problem arose when QPS gave a one line reply as the reason for rejecting my order:



> Due to the characteristics of your order, we are not willing to accept your order. Unfortunately, when there are certain flags, it is too much of a risk for us to proceed.


So as a person that does not work in the hosting industry, the vagueness of that answer is troubling. What aspect of the information that I gave them is "too much risk"? If my domain or email or IP are flagged, and as an honest customer, how am I supposed to get a new host? So, yeah I don't really think rejection on behalf of risks is that small of deal. If your domain is problematic or email or IP then you big issues to deal with.

But, this is not a thread about rejection of an order. This is a thread about the customer service received in regard to the rejection of order. And sadly QPS has said I am using a fake identity and that he believes I am HostWay in an effort to discredit the review, but it is still about customer service. You send me a bill, invoice, order confirmation. You don't send me any information saying the order is canceled. I had to contact them. And then you give me a one line reply that is so vague it could mean many different things. All of which, with the exception being a VPN, are major issues.

@tonyg

Yes, I could have just moved on and tried at another host. But if you receive a message saying your domain might be flagged are you going to just move on. No you are going to ask what specifically is the risk. And I think the main issue here is that someone that is fraudulently trying to get hosting service they:


Wouldn't contact you asking first "why can't I login" then "what are the risks"
Wouldn't contact you 11 days prior asking you about your datacenter location. I kind of doubt service quality issues would be something a fraudulent person would ask about.
Someone that was fraudulent would have just changed the IP, name, email, domain and tried again. Is anyone here incapable of figuring out how to do that? Do you think a fraudulent person would probably have the same level of knowledge?

Instead I contact them asking why I can't login with the account info they just sent. You think a fraudulent person would bother with that question? Or how about when I ask "what is at risk" with my order? A fraudulent person is probably pretty likely to know the answer to that question and therefore wouldn't ask it.

So, QPS could have simply looked further into what MaxMind flagged and communicated those findings to me. And they could have sent a notice that the order had been rejected. If you send someone a bill for services, you kind of should be contacting them to say the bill is not owed. I am of course looking at this from a consumer perspective not from a hosting company perspective.

@MartinD

I think many people have weighed in on whether they think that is appropriate customer service so the title change is welcomed.

I'll also state that, the ordering system, I think it is WHMCS?, at least the one from QPS is flawed. I'm not sure if it customizable for certain things. But, as was the case with QPS, it sent a bill, an account confirmation and an order confirmation. Generally these are things that you see AFTER being accepted/verified. Not before. I was sent a bill for an order when I had no order. I was sent and order confirmation when the order was not confirmed. I was sent an account confirmation when the account was not accessible. And worse, when your order is canceled, you get no notification. i'm not sure if WHMCS, or whatever the ordering system is, is setup in this manner but that is obviously wrong.

Confirm the order then send out the bill and the order confirmation.

Confirm the account then send out the account confirmation.

If order is canceled send out notification.

I'm not a business specialist but that seems to be a better system of purchase notification to me.

So I get a order, that I just got a bill for, canceled with no notification.

Then I get a vague reply  that my order information is high risk.

Is that poor customer service?

Do you think that would happen at Amazon.com?

Or at restaraunt:

Place order. Get the bill first. No food comes for one hour.  Flag down waiter. Waiter says we can't serve you here and there is a high possibility that they won't be able to serve you at other restaurants. And a good day to you sir!

And then you review the restaurant service and they claim you are a competitor.

All around 5 star customer service.


----------



## AnthonySmith (Sep 9, 2013)

seriously stop writing war and peace, accept it was not personal and move on. I totally get it, it is annoying but it is not worth the amount of your life you have given over to it already and the stress you have caused a number of people.


----------



## Jade (Sep 9, 2013)

Personally, I think QuickPacket is completely in line for what they did. Every host has the option on to refuse an order that was flagged as fraud. Nothing left to say about this, should just move on.


----------



## clarity (Sep 9, 2013)

I am not sure why we are still discussing this. People are not required to do business with anyone in the US. As long as they are not discriminating against you for a physical trait, they can essentially do whatever they please. 

If you don't like it, there is really nothing that you can do. Move on!


----------



## devineball (Sep 9, 2013)

@AnthonySmith

Stop reading war and peace.

It is apparent that some people here are having difficulty understanding the basics of business/customer relations.

And as for it being annoying. Yeah. When someone tries to say you are using a fake identity to discredit an honest review that is annoying.

@jade



> Personally, I think QuickPacket is completely in line for what they did. Every host has the option on to refuse an order that was flagged as fraud. Nothing left to say about this, should just move on.


Actually, I think most businesses have the right to turn away customers? So aside from that insight, that wasn't the problem be discussed. The problem is when a host rejects a customer how and in what manner they notify that customer.

In this case they waited an hour. Was sent no notification. Then given a vague reply that meant I had figure out the risk prior to "moving on" as so many host providers here are suggesting. Because, another obvious statement, it's not like I was going to just keep on trying different hosts until I found one that didn't flag my order.


----------



## devineball (Sep 9, 2013)

@dclardy

Ok, one more time, the rejection is not the issue.

And yes you can't turn a person away from a business for their race. Hallmark example. Still not the case here.

Please read above where I tried to spell out the issue.


order/bill/account confirmation
contact customer support
1 hour wait
informed of order cancellation
no order cancellation was ever sent.
hosts provides vague response that the order is risky. Does not say what the problem is because they think fraudulent people can't use deductive logic and change their IP, Name, Email and Domain.
I think the restaurant example in #54 is good though. Try that, I made it a quick read. It's at the bottom.


----------



## Tactical (Sep 9, 2013)

LOL Where is my gun!


----------



## MartinD (Sep 9, 2013)

I really wish I could muster enough of a damn to properly reply to this but alas I cannot.


Seriously. This is just bordering on trolling.


----------



## MannDude (Sep 9, 2013)

qps said:


> I'm surprised that the VPSBoard staff has allowed the IP address information I shared in confidence with them to end up in jarland's hands.  After assuring me that the info would not leak out, they did it anyway.


 

Wait, what? Who all did you share it with besides me? I've said nothing other than in this thread confirming that the guy was ordering from what appeared to be a office VPN as per your request. I didn't even mention the company name of the competitor. I don't think anyone has even asked me, anyhow, and if they did, the answer would be, 'No'

 

EDIT: See my response below. Didn't read enough of the thread to realize Jarland got it from the OP directly.


----------



## MannDude (Sep 9, 2013)

qps said:


> When I posted that statement, I thought that another moderator had shared the info I provided to him to jarland.  jarland has since clarified that he got the info from the user himself, so no problem there.


Ah, I guess I should have read further before responding in my previous comment. Well, that clears that up then. You had me concerned.

We've got three staff members, myself included. They know the rules and know not to share info. Glad to see that was not the case and it was Jarland simply getting the info from the individual himself, and not from one of us. Good to see.

B)


----------



## jarland (Sep 9, 2013)

Thread full of people who are too lazy to read but feel obligated to make it clear.......check.


Honestly most of you guys are just being dicks to this guy because you feel like it. Make you feel more manly? Looking at you after that last post Martin. Way to be an example of a friendly forum.


----------



## jarland (Sep 9, 2013)

jarland said:


> For future reference, repeatedly trying to explain yourself to people who are judging you on assumptions that indicate their lack of willingness to read is NOT trolling. This text I just quoted? THAT is trolling. Earn that admin badge and grow up.





MartinD said:


> I really wish I could muster enough of a damn to properly reply to this but alas I cannot.
> 
> 
> Seriously. This is just bordering on trolling.


For future reference, repeatedly trying to explain yourself to people who are judging you on assumptions that indicate their lack of willingness to read is NOT trolling. This text I just quoted? THAT is trolling. Earn that admin badge and grow up. If you have no respect for the friendly board Curtis tried to start, maybe leave?


----------



## tonyg (Sep 9, 2013)

This thread started off poorly and is going down hill even faster (if that is possible).

Please, someone...pull the trigger and put it out of its misery.


----------



## jarland (Sep 9, 2013)

tonyg said:


> This thread started off poorly and is going down hill even faster (if that is possible).
> 
> 
> Please, someone...pull the trigger and put it out of its misery.


Yeah, it's sad how many people who bill themselves as "mature" jumped out to troll this guy. Yeah he screwed up. Yeah QPS could've done a couple things better. That's it, that's the story.


----------



## clarity (Sep 9, 2013)

jarland said:


> Yeah, it's sad how many people who bill themselves as "mature" jumped out to troll this guy. Yeah he screwed up. Yeah QPS could've done a couple things better. That's it, that's the story.


Jarland, 

I think the point here is that this entire thread was started because the OP jumped the gun. When we didn't agree with him, he continued to press the matter, and he has completely taken the thread a different direction now. 

For me, it has never gotten past that point. He tried to use the forum and others as a threat so I can never take anything that he says seriously. People who do that are trolls. There is no other way to classify them.


----------



## jarland (Sep 9, 2013)

He gave his counter argument to that, some didn't read it, some disagree. If you stop repeating your disagreement, he'll probably stop arguing.


----------



## HalfEatenPie (Sep 9, 2013)

Hello there friends!

I'm definitely not trying to be biased for one side or another but I feel that this thread has gone off course from the intended discussion.  I'm just going to close it down now and if you wish to continue this please feel free to start a new thread!


----------

