Failure to fulfil their obligations and refusal to pay back the money - page 5

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

Yedelkin:
Just forgot to mention that these reviews appear when "top developers" do not induce customers to do work outside the forum rules.

Are we explicitly sure that Techno has "induced" customers to work outside the service? As long as there is no correspondence, it's an unsubstantiated assertion.

[Sceptic Philozoff]

Yedelkin: Just forgot to mention that these reviews appear when "top developers" don't induce customers to do work outside of the forum rules.

Once again: buy something from a flea market, then try to post a review about the quality of the product in the shop's review book.

[Yedelkin]

Mathemat:
You are way out of line. The agreement to work and pay was made outside the arbitration field, i.e. outside the site, bypassing the Jobs service. What's not to understand here?

Well, if you personally cannot think about your own allegory, then I will personally help you.

A person comes to an official MAGAZINE, sees a list of worthy sellers of the MAGAZINE, turns to one of the worthy sellers of the MAGAZINE - and this most worthy seller of the official MAGAZINE offers the person to make a transaction in circumvention of MAGAZINE rules. Having considered this situation and advising the person to go to a flea market (apparently, to compare feelings), you personally, thereby have equated the MAGAZINE to a flea market.

You personally may consider all the above to be an inflection, what can be done about it :)

[Yedelkin]

abolk:
Are we clear that Techno has "induced" the customer to work outside the service? As long as there is no correspondence, it is a blanket statement.

Have I ever said anything specifically about Techno? I suggest we distinguish between a private situation and the problem that this private situation raises. In other words, the problem raised by the customer is much wider than his relationship with a specific contractor. If a person has a problem, we should not only look for a solution to his specific situation, but also for the reasons that caused it.

[Sceptic Philozoff]

Yedelkin: That said, you personally may consider all of the above to be overkill, what can I say :)

That's outright sophistry.

I am not equating a shop with a flea market. The flea market has nothing to do with it, as two people have entered into a hoarding relationship - the seller (respected) and the buyer. That's OK, it happens.

[Igor Makanu]

abolk: Also put out all the correspondence.

Maybe it is worth covering the topic? Why take on the role of the judge? There is a person who does not want to use the service work, there is a programmer who corresponded through the PM, what difference does it make what they write to each other?

I believe that the forum should not consider such appeals, the service is work, we use it and nothing else, if otherwise - then it means no work and no pay, who "screwed" whom does not matter anymore

SZS: It is clear that before when there was no service job, it was very important to have information about the artist, but now why?

[Yedelkin]

Mathemat:

This is blatant sophistry.

I am not equating a shop with a flea market. A flea market has nothing to do with it, because two people have entered into a flea market relationship - the seller (a respected one) and the buyer. That's OK, it happens.

Who would doubt that in the absence of arguments and unwillingness to look deeply into the problem the opponent will not equate your arguments to inflections and outright sophistry :)

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

Yedelkin:
Have I ever said anything specifically about "Techno"? I suggest distinguishing a private situation from the problem that this private situation raises. In other words, the problem raised by the client is much wider than his relationship with a specific contractor. If a person has a problem, we should not only look for a solution to his specific situation, but also for the reasons that caused it.

And what problem does this particular situation raise? We cannot even get to the bottom of this private situation because there is no data to analyse. There is only the unsubstantiated statement of one party.

There is one problem here so far: When you make an out-of-service contract, there is a problem of lack of a third party for arbitration. And about the "sore point" of the customer - so lack of clarity in the TOR, "I write one thing - I think another" - this is a well-known and often common situation.

That is what makes service Jobs great - it is the presence of the Arbitration, where problems of this kind can be solved anonymously - and in this service are protected, thanks to the Arbitration, both the interests of the customer and the interests of the performer. For some reason I remember the Consumer Rights Protection Act. But there are also the interests and rights of the other party.

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

IgorM:

Why don't we just close the subject? Why take on the role of judge?

No one is taking on the role of judge. The question was just raised: "either a valid claim", "or the topic should be rubbished".

[Yedelkin]

IgorM:

Maybe it is worth covering the topic? Why take on the role of the judge? There is a person who does not want to use the service work, there is a programmer who corresponded through the PM, what difference does it make what they write to each other?

I believe that the forum should not consider such appeals, the service is work, we use it and nothing else, if otherwise - then it means there is no work and no payment, who "cheated" whom does not matter anymore

SZS: It is clear that before when there was no service work, it was very important to have information about the performer, but now why?

Agree that with this approach should at least a large letters to warn potential customers of the problems that may arise when performing work on the side. Or screw them, the customers - let them fall for unscrupulous "top"?