Min 8hrs Downtime For Refund

[Vixen]

Originally posted by Scroller
We're not talking about the SLA ...

We're saying how does the 8hrs downtime rule co-exist with a 99.9% uptime gurantee??? Or is it with the new rule, there is NO MORE 99.9 gurantee?

The first post in this thread is by you and says this is about the SLA. Or am I dreaming??

It all comes back to what I said in my initial post 2 pages ago. Due to the fact that virtual customers and resellers are in a shared environment, a reseller's customer can cause a server to go down just as well as a customer of our's can. The only difference is we have been issuing downtime credits, in some cases, for downtime caused by a reseller's customer. That is not fair to us. Especially when it is not even OUR customer causing a problem but we are still expected to issue credits to everyone on the affected machine INCLUDING the reseller who the customer belongs to. In reality, the reseller who the customer belongs to should issue credit to everyone on the affected server since it was their customer who caused the problem. But that would never happen.

If someone had to actually come out of pocket, like we have been doing, to reimburse for downtime they would see why we changed the policy.

Would you prefer that if your customer caused downtime on a server that we invoice you for the credits we issued to everyone affected on that server?? Would that work better??

[Scroller]

Vixen ... yap! you're dreaming ... pls read carefully before you start shooting your customer down again.

I mentioned the word "SLA" to refer to the other thread which announced the new rule. I dun believe at anytime did I quote SLA to question you on the new policy. In fact, I have never question if the new rule is fair, as far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with it, it's a simple case of happy seller happy buyer. I was merely seeking clarification if the new rule replaces the old 99.9% gurantee which was listed on the website. The only answer I needed has been answered, very easily, by Lindsey in his latest post. By saying that the website has not been updated, explains fully that the new rule is the only rule from now on. THere is NO MORE 99.9% gurantee. That was all that I need to know. You may have answered 101 other people on the same issue, but dun assume that everyone is asking the same thing. As part of Matrix's frontline customer service staff, you need to listen to what your customers are asking you. Don't be so preoccupied with trying to defend the new policy when no one is even attacking it. If the new rule is justified (which I feel that it is), it will stand the test of time (or your customer in this case).

[Vixen]

I read exactly what you said. Every post. I don't think anyone has read what Admin posted or any explanations that the staff has given.

All I wanted to know is if you guys prefer to keep the 99.9% uptime guarantee and we invoice you for the credits we have to issue when your customers cause downtime??

Originally posted by Scroller
The only answer I needed has been answered, very easily, by Lindsey in his latest post.

I'm a her.

::Snaps fingers 3 times and then gets back to work::

[Vixen]

Don't you mean a SHE?? LoL Gotta love the NC dialect. LoL

[Scroller]

Originally posted by Lindsey


I'm a her.

whoops! sorry my lady ... no harm done

This is all very confusing. Can I get a simple yes/no; as a resller do I still have my 99.9% uptime?

[Vixen]

Due to virtual customers and resellers being in a shared environment we will only issue credits for 8 hours or more for downtime. It must be 8 hours within a 24 hour time period. We must receive your credit request within 5 days of the downtime occurance. If you submit your request later than 5 days or you submit a request for less than 8 hours, you will NOT receive a credit. Also, you MUST include your main username along with ALL domains affected. If you do not include this within your request, you will NOT receive a credit.

[Garreg]

So in plain english terms – there is no uptime guarantee, lets be honest if we’re putting in tickets for refunds under those terms, we’d have to be crazy to be here.

Vortech must now be only of the 'only' hosts who don't offer a 99% uptime guarantee - thank goodness we don't (fingers x'd) need it

[awishstar]

Thanks Lindsey! If that blurb was posted from the beginning I don't think anyone would have a problem. We just thought that you guys are contradicting yourself and was very confused about the difference between reseller's sla and colo's sla. We need more of a "woman's touch" in this forum

Now I can go to sleep.

[Vixen]

Lindsey didn't post it and I did post that *blurb* 2 pages ago. <sigh>

[Vixen]

Originally posted by Garreg
So in plain english terms – there is no uptime guarantee, lets be honest if we’re putting in tickets for refunds under those terms, we’d have to be crazy to be here.

Vortech must now be only of the 'only' hosts who don't offer a 99% uptime guarantee - thank goodness we don't (fingers x'd) need it

Lots of host promise money back guarantees and alot don't actually deliver on the money. Heck, I don't know of ANY host that would have given out as many credits as we have for stuff that was caused by a user on the machine.

I broached the question yesterday and no one bothered to reply. Would you guys rather keep the downtime credits as they are BUT instead of the money coming out of OUR pockets (unless it is a downtime caused by us) we would invoice the reseller for all downtime we had to credit due to their customer's bad code or what not?? That sounds fair to me. If you guys would rather do it that way, I can talk to Admin. Everyone is generous with our money, I want to see how generous everyone else is when it's their turn.

[admin]

I have also got some other ideas running around in my head I should get time tomorrow to post some of them here for some feedback.

[Brangwyn]

Lots of host promise money back guarantees and alot don't actually deliver on the money. Heck, I don't know of ANY host that would have given out as many credits as we have for stuff that was caused by a user on the machine.

How many hosts have you used Vixen ?The last 6 I've had various relationships with over the last 2-3 years I've found every one of them except one to be quite forthcoming with refunds when appropriate with no questions asked.

we would invoice the reseller for all downtime we had to credit due to their customer's bad code or what not??

I could live with that actually, providing you were consistent and also provided adequate proof that the outage was indeed caused by one of my customers. Of course if your actually able to prove it was customer xyz's site that caused the outage then theres also a strong chance an outage could have been prevented.

Generally speaking outages caused by bad code usually dont just suddenly cause a server to fall over, the effects of bad code are normally cummulative over a period of time (not closing recordsets or destroying objects etc), resource monitoring and prevention should detect the problem before it became enough of an issue to drop the entire server (though without sacraficing some performance on the server true real time resource measurement is not always possible)

If the outage was caused by a Vortech Shared Hosting Customer and not a Reseller Customer you would of course be charging them for all credits as well wouldn't you ?

[Vixen]

Yes, we would also charge a virtual customer if the policy I suggested was established. However, that is not even the point and after 2 days, I am getting tired of trying to explain it. I understand what you guys are talking about but you don't seem to get where I am coming from. You guys want to blame us and hold us ultimately responsible, even though alot of times it is ya'lls customers causing the problem. For example, the mail server issue weeks ago was caused by a reseller's customer spamming. That is not OUR fault but we are the ones that have to compensate for it. It just seems as if alot of people don't want to be responsible for their customers but at the same time want to be treated like a business. It can't be both ways.