Should McHost.com be Blacklisted ! ! !

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37220

:angry:

If its true what he did, absolutely.... But will he? Prolly not, Mods only ban a host's name if they do something on this board, not in the outside world....


If all this turns out to be true, and Marc did attack his servers, I'd assume a large suit....

So far Marc hasn't broken any rules of conduct on the boards, so I don't think he can rightfully be blacklisted. However, if responds with blatenly false information then he is conspiring to defraud members of WHT, so then he ought to be blacklisted.

Just my opinion.

<edit>I voted no because of my above opinion. While I believe strongly the allegations are in fact true, he hasn't broken any board rules yet that I've witnessed so I cannot vote yes. I reserve the right to change my vote, but of course it will not be reflected on the boards. When Marc denies the allegations my vote is automatically a yes because then he is breaking rules, but at this point in time -- no.</edit>

if this is true ... its a sad day ...

If its true, then I say yes. Some things just deserve this type of punishment.

First - if MCHost was in the US, and if this were true, not only would there be suits, but I'm guessing possible jail time.

I hope this ain't true, but logs don't lie.. and I'm sure SplashHost wouldn't have posted if he weren't positive about it.

McHost.com should just shut down ! ! ! ! !

People that post on this poll, please give us a response on why you vote for what you did. Especially those who vote NO ! !

McHost.com = :angry

THIS POLE ALSO WANTS TO BLACKLIST MCHOST.COM JUST AS A BAD HOST NOT ONLY BLACKLIST THEM FROM WHT!!!!

Would you guys give me at least a chance to contact Splashhost and find out whats going on? I am talking to Alan on ICQ right now.

Well I voted NO, because according to the "Rules" he shouldn't be blacklisted as someone already explained.

Originally posted by Kiwi
Would you guys give me at least a chance to contact Splashhost and find out whats going on? I am talking to Alan on ICQ right now.

Doubt it. They're sharks and this story is fresh meat. And who doesn't like a good scandal?

Originally posted by Kiwi
Would you guys give me at least a chance to contact Splashhost and find out whats going on? I am talking to Alan on ICQ right now.

Only thing I can see you doing is working out a deal with him, IP's don't lie. Alan would be crazy to pull this story now.

I gotta agree with appletreats, IPs do not lie.

IPs do not lie

Splashhost = DONT COME TO ANY AGREEMENT OR YOU LOSE

Lets crush bad business practices

:angry:

Originally posted by ^Kyo
I gotta agree with appletreats, IPs do not lie.


Well IPs can be faked... If Kiwi had a backdoor program installed on his computer such as Back Orifice, this would allow someone in and use his computer as a proxy.....

Well although that is possible but seriously those are very remote chances in IMHO. Well lets not jump to any conclusions as yet...

Originally posted by ^Kyo
Well although that is possible but seriously those are very remote chances in IMHO. Well lets not jump to any conclusions as yet...


There are people you can hire to break into one box, and make an attack look like it came from there.. And in a competitive business its very possible...

To confirm that it did come from MCHost, you'd have to talk to his ISP and get all logs of his incomming and outgoing data....

Alan and Kiwi are talking now....why do we require instant justice (even if wrong) over waiting for all the facts and then taking appropriate action?

This is very sad if it's true. And if this is true, file a law suit (do not settle because if the law suit works, you will win much more) and contact the NOC (I think it's Burst) and hopefully Burst will just shut down McHost's servers ... I think this act is more serious than just plain spamming, so if spamming can result in a connectivity termination why can't this be (though probably Burst won't care ... or will they?).

Yes, let's not jump into conclusion yet ... but the way it looks right now, it's pretty much almost conclusive already

The Fact is that if

Alan and Kiwi talk and Kiwi really did no it he will never say ! ! ! !

Daaaaa

The IP right now are the only facts

Daaaaaaaaaaa

Lets give the sentance now

Daaaaa

;)

Wait until the dust settles.
IPs can be faked, and I am wondering if they would really be so silly to do this from their own computers!

I think you should give Marc a chance and stop speculating. Your attitude really bothers me bahres, I think it would be a better decision to ban you.

However, as far as I can see you have broken no board rules and neither has Marc. If it is proved that Marc did do these attacks then I see no reason for him being banned; his business will likely go down the pan - isn't that punishment enough?

A forum is a discussion point and if Marc was censored from the discussion wouldn't you be censoring his freedom of speech?

That is why i voted NO.

Well, no, it wouldn't be a censoring of his freedom of speech (as he doesn't actually have this right on this forum), but regardless, it has always been forum policy to only ban people for what they do on the forum (in regards to the forum guidelines), and let others worry about what happens off the forum.

Originally posted by R Doherty
his business will likely go down the pan - isn't that punishment enough?


I doubt anybody is going to go out of business.

1. Since when was Vbulletin board deemed to be the catcha of all IP addresses.

2. Alan should be talking to Marc...not blabbing.

3. Marc sort it out damed quick.

4. Chicken better have a whitter than white background if it goes to court.

5. Most of you are like a pack of wild animals baying for blood...because your sad efforts at web hosting are not paying the bills (or even your parents bills).

6. GET A LIFE!

Simon

Originally posted by SimonMc
5. Most of you are like a pack of wild animals baying for blood...because your sad efforts at web hosting are not paying the bills (or even your parents bills).

I agree to all of your points, but not no. 5.
1. No need to get personal
2. How about business ethics?

Originally posted by Walter


I agree to all of your points, but not no. 5.
1. No need to get personal
2. How about business ethics?

Sorry about 5...but my blood is boiling.

Simon

Yes....what happened to trying to work things out privately FIRST....and I am not simply addressing this issue....but everyone seems in such a hurry to run here and broadcast to the world, above addressing issues with the involved persons, then, if appropriate, bringing it here to

The Peoples Court

....no....I mean to the Forum. Almost forgot where we were.

And, guess I'm just a bit old fashioned on the innocent until proven guilty bit....why can't we be a little more patient and gather all our information before rendering a verdict.

Yes....what happened to trying to work things out privately FIRST....and I am not simply addressing this issue....but everyone seems in such a hurry to run here and broadcast to the world, above addressing issues with the involved persons, then, if appropriate, bringing it here to The Peoples Court ....no....I mean to the Forum. Almost forgot where we were.

Too early for a "vote."

It wouldn't mean much anyways. As WHT usually only bans for breaking WHT policy.
Maybe Matt should make a new rule?
We all love that.

But a very well run republic of Matt with VP-Chicken.

And polls are fine....but we the people don't set the rules....and from what I can see, that's probably good, because the owner and moderator do an excellent job.

"Incognito"

Yes We Would

:D

I'm locking down two of the off-shoot threads for now. One is hard enough to manage.