Juliet & Pablo

[Amy3]

16 minutes ago, groomy said:

Most likely they turned off the apartment - because Support was flooded tickets. And now under investigation (fine or warning).

About the covered cams. This is the risk of any apartment in the VH - which will bring guests. No - guests = no cover. 

Since VHTV already said that tenants can hide from the cams, what difference does it make if they hide from them by covering them. Isn't the punishment of a lack of views punishment enough? Just following VTHV's logic.

[Amy3]

A tenant can request down time for "maintenance", which can be any reason really. So, in a sense they can alter a subscribers ability to view all of the cams in an apt simply by request. A subscriber does not have the right to 100% usability of the cams at all times. Per VHTV's logic, covering the cams is permitted.

[ooopel]

let me say this VHtv has a blood to brings  the Juliet and Romeo but it  make them in a separate apats for destroying off any fantasy about novel of them!! good work  of you VHtv.. run away ooopel before the guards is coming ..

[letsdothis]

1 hour ago, Amy3 said:

Since VHTV already said that tenants can hide from the cams, what difference does it make if they hide from them by covering them. Isn't the punishment of a lack of views punishment enough? Just following VTHV's logic.

1

Did you mean tenants or guests or both?

You could interpret, "...hiding from cams", a couple different ways. I
see it as going to a spot with no cams or like one couple did by holding
a towel in front of the shower stall to block the view, but not by blocking
or covering the cams. That blocks everything from view. I believe you
once said that subscribers pay for a view through the cams. You can't
get that from a blocked or covered cam. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Amy3]

9 minutes ago, ooopel said:

let me say this VHtv has a blood to brings  the Juliet and Romeo but it  make them in a separate apats for destroying off any fantasy about novel of them!! good work  of you VHtv.. run away ooopel before the guards is coming ..

I feel the same way. Serious lack of imagination on the part of VHTV! 😣

[Amy3]

3 minutes ago, letsdothis said:

Did you mean tenants or guests or both?

You could interpret, "...hiding from cams", a couple different ways. I
see it as going to a spot with no cams or like one couple did by holding
a towel in front of the shower stall to block the view, but not by blocking
or covering the cams. That blocks everything from view. I believe you
once said that subscribers pay for a view through the cams. You can't
get that from a blocked or covered cam. Just my 2 cents worth.

I mean both. I already hashed this out with VHTV and per James there are no rules against the tenants hiding from the cams. They can do what they want. I think logic carries that over to even covering the cams. If not, why not?

[letsdothis]

Just now, Amy3 said:

7 minutes ago, letsdothis said:

Did you mean tenants or guests or both?

You could interpret, "...hiding from cams", a couple different ways. I
see it as going to a spot with no cams or like one couple did by holding
a towel in front of the shower stall to block the view, but not by blocking
or covering the cams. That blocks everything from view. I believe you
once said that subscribers pay for a view through the cams. You can't
get that from a blocked or covered cam. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

I mean both. I already hashed this out with VHTV and per James there are no rules against the tenants hiding from the cams. They can do what they want. I think logic carries that over to even covering the cams. If not, why not?

1

 

[Amy3]

Ah, yes, I see! That’s why I added the comment about the idea of going offline for maintenance. A tenants can “hide” by requesting to terminate the service for any reason. You don’t pay to see an unhindered view. In fact the subs ability to view the cams is frequently hindered and you are not given an explanation as the truth of the reason, simply maintenance is all you get. 

[ooopel]

Just now, Amy3 said:

I feel the same way. Serious lack of imagination on the part of VHTV! 😣

that if they has imagination .i have a billion doubt they don't have , especially,  when they hands were finished off from old renters!!. those that what because of them VHTV has standee on his feet..

[Amy3]

Perhaps Humpty Dumpty didn’t just fall off the wall. Perhaps he was pushed. I want to know if this is true and why. Everyone else seems to dismiss that possibility and just focus on the broken pieces with a look worry and wonder on how this poor egg can’t be fixed. 

[letsdothis]

10 minutes ago, Amy3 said:

Ah, yes, I see! That’s why I added the comment about the idea of going offline for maintenance. A tenants can “hide” by requesting to terminate the service for any reason. You don’t pay to see an unhindered view. In fact the subs ability to view the cams is frequently hindered and you are not given an explanation as the truth of the reason, simply maintenance is all you get. 

4

Yes, I saw that and I understand that it has the same result. But to me,
that's not the same as blatantly blocking or coving the cams, especially
when a guest does it with the knowledge of the tenant(s).

[Amy3]

Just now, letsdothis said:

Yes, I saw that and I understand that it has the same result. But to me,
that's not the same as blatantly blocking or coving the cams, especially
when a guest does it with the knowledge of the tenant(s).

I guess it all depends on what VHTV classifies as a NO NO. In the end what right does a sub have to view the cams and what rights do the tentants and VHTV have to deny them access after taking their money.