Criticism to

Suppose 1 day, a tenant rents an apartment (or storage) with a landlord of that apartment. And the tenant pays rent to the landlord, and the landlord gives him keys to the apartment door (for this example, let's make this more storage-oriented sake).

Then 1 day, the tenant installs a key hole to his closet in his apartment, and decides to rent that closet (like for storage) to another person. And he gives 1 of the keys to the closet to the person he is renting to. Then that person pays rent to the tenant, whom in addition pays rent to the landlord.

Suppose 1 day, the tenant violates the lease of the landlord, and let's just say, for Internet-examples reasons, the landlord reserves the right to keep everything the tenant has in his apartment. The tenant is outside 1 day, and the landlord comes in and locks his apartment with another lock in which the tenant does not have the key to (like a door with 2 locks).

The tenant, violating the terms of service (well lease), cannot get anything he had in his apartment again (similar to how a webhosting company will freeze your website when you violate their terms of service (the apartment in this case could be thought of as an ideal stroage, equivalent to web hosting)).

Then 1 day, the person whom is paying closet rent to the tenant, comes and finds the apartment door is locked (so he cannot get into the closet if he cannot get into the apartment). He calls the tenant, whom he pays closet rent to, and the tenant says "Sorry man.. I violated the lease. The landlord locked our apartment. I cannot give you access to your closet." So then, the person renting the closed, in turn, contacts the landlord, explaining how he rented the tenant's closed and asking if he can get all the stuff from his closet out. The landlord, of course, finds out that the tenant illegally rented the closet to another person.

The landlord now has 2 choices:

1.)He can say, "you're responsible for the tenant's actions," the tenant violated the lease, he got his apartment locked up, and you become with fault with him.

2.)Or he can say, "Okay, I did not know the tenant was renting the closet to someone, you can have all your belongings back from the closet."

The 1st example is unnecessary drama, the 2nd 1 isn't.

This is apparently something that happened to me with DreamHost, where I'm the closet-renter, as a result of 'unnecessary' drama. Someone I paid money to, to host my website, I did not know he was paying to host his website too. My website account was merely a 'subaccount' for his website. The person I paid money too, he violated the webhost's terms of service, and they freezed his site. Since my website was then a subaccount of him, mine was frozen too. This was over a year ago.

Not just frozen, but downloaded off-line. Could I right-click all my pages and view source? No. They took it down. Can I log in to my file manager and saves as all my pages? No. The file manager went off-line with the website.

Both me and the person I paid money to, asked the top owner if I could have my website back, but of course, people aren't that nice.

This is a typical example of unnecessary drama. Of course, it is still unethical, as I firmly believe, to make things worse than what the situation is (like making bomb threats to the crew). My life isn't about starting drama or making drama worse than what it already is (so making bomb threats after asking nicely won't cut it).

This is also why I don't recommend that company (DreamHost) as webhosting (as well as a lot of other stuff) to anyone.

I even made a compromise with them, on my reply e-mail with them, saying if I / I'd like to start my own account and pay them directly for them to host my site, would they give me back my site back? They rejected that too. They lost a potential customer.

Feel free to take a look at (1st part only) on my Stories.html page.