I have been charged, where do I find out what for? - page 39
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
You and others like you are forcing me to keep answering and continuing this topic. For you personally, Comrade, let me clarify that I have not once ordered programming-related work simply on the Web, and I have NEVER been screwed. (Perhaps there will be a post from the trolls: "And prove that you're not screwed?) I was screwed once, when I came to this awesome service. And I was screwed by the management, not the contractor and I just wanted to draw the administration's attention to the unrighteousness and ABSURDNESS of what they did. THAT'S IT, THAT'S ALL I WANTED!!!
For the trolls about my earnings here (on the resource), I inform you that I was registered here 2012.11.27 and have not written a single post, not created a single branch (except this one). I guess it characterizes me as a person who does not strive to neither PR nor earn money on the resource.
By the way zfs, you have created Renko ZFSindicator for MT5, I wanted the same Renko for MT5 but only a chart. Executor agreed to work, and then refused the work, citing that it is impossible because of MT5 architecture (and you were satisfied with the architecture), and I was financially punished by the administration. So, is this RIGHT? Do you really think I paid some kind of insurance?
You have not understood the rules of the service, you do not understand that it is difficult to make your job and look for the culprits. And the culprit here is you. Who makes you ride the bus for a fee - keep walking. You have not been cheated here, ignorance of the rules does not exempt from liability, not knowing the product does not exempt you from liability when making up tasks for the programmer. Your lack of knowledge affects the face of the company that has been serving this market for decades. You have to pay the insurance, and for your ignorance in fact you will always pay double at best. No one punished you, you just paid for arbitrage, this is a fee for a refund, you should have clarified the nuances before starting the work, you can demand your 5 dollars from the programmer, but there is no guarantee of getting it.
That's not what you're saying.
You decide to build a house, you say what you want, you find a contractor, he says it will take a little longer, but we'll do it. You say yes, and then the contractor comes and says, "No, we won't."
And the performer sod all, and the customer takes it out, no questions if the rules at the time of the order was spelled out, but it was not (as I understand).
Clearly the broker must pay, but the mediator did not say that only the customer pays.
In general, the service is designed for both programmers and customers and I do not understand why only one customer pays.
They made the post an order paid, and the redundant performers pobayut and customers will think about the tasks.
The administration has concerns that the service will die from it, but do not worry rules can also change at any time, the more the experience of changing the rules at the right time there).
That's not what you're saying.
You decide to build a house, you say what you want, you find a contractor, he says it will take a little longer, but we'll do it. You say yes, and then the contractor comes and says, "No, we won't."
And the performer sod all, and the customer takes it out, no questions if the rules at the time of the order was spelled out, but it was not (as I understand).
Clearly the broker must pay, but the mediator did not say that only the customer pays.
In general, the service is designed for both programmers and customers and I do not understand why only one customer pays.
They made the post an order paid, and the redundant performers pobayut and customers will think about the tasks.
The administration has concerns that the service will die from this, but no problem rules can be changed at any time, the more the experience of changing the rules at the right time there).
What is wrong? The client always pays as soon as he sets aside money. 5% is deducted virtually immediately. They go to the service and I think it is normal practice. If you do not want to use the service - do not use it. Judging by the number of jobs the service is in demand among both customers and performers. Change the system I think there is no point. When I was a customer of the work, I just took these 5%, and the programmer should take 5% to not waste time on unadequate customers with unrealistic tasks. I saw the job and did not take part in it. The guy himself has not completed any work on the service, in fact, he is just flooding).
Well, don't you agree that the administration was wrong: first you don't tell me, and then you say it's always like this and I have to pay. You think that's nice?
Why don't we set a salary for the performers, so they don't just hang around here? )
Ifeel sorry for them, they hang around here and their customers only give them lazy jobs that they are too lazy to do.
You don't have to say anything first, and then you say that I always have to pay, is that nice?
Why don't we set a salary for the performers, so they don't just hang around here? )
Someone should have paid for the idiocy in the rules). At least programmers make mistakes too, and in the end it turns out that programmers make mistakes on customers' mistakes=0. And 5% for service is practically a tip. And stingy bastards should go to hell).
I'm not against charging for service, I'm against changing the rules at an inconvenient moment in a way that would make the moment convenient.
ZS: the bug was in the rules, so let the creator of the rules pay. agree it's fair.
In general, inadequate developers need to be weeded out as well... by introducing penalties...
like the 5% fine... everyone should be disciplined.
I'm not against charging for service, I'm against changing the rules at an inconvenient moment in a way that would make the moment convenient.
ZS: it was in the rules, so let the creator of the rules pay. agree that's fair.
I'm not against charging for service, I'm against changing the rules at an inconvenient moment in a way that would make the moment convenient.
ZS: it was in the rules, so let the creator of the rules pay. agree that's fair.