I have been charged, where do I find out what for? - page 51

New comment
 
zfs:
It's easier to close down the service right away.) The risks will already be built into the price.
Now, what kind of adequacy are we talking about? Why shouldn't the contractor bear the risks?
 
Integer:
In order for a performer to be charged a fine, it means that before someone starts accepting orders in the jobe, they have to pay some kind of deposit. This makes a big difference.
You can make a non-withdrawable amount, i.e. how much the artist works for free (say, 2-3 tasks for a total of 100 quid for example), above the amount withdraws, committed a screw-up deducted from the salary and again work for free.
 
sanyooooook:
The amount of money you can make is non-withdrawable, i.e. the performer works for free for a certain amount of time, and if he/she makes a mistake, he/she is deducted from the salary.
But the performer may get stuck on the first order and leave for good. The only option is a down payment.
 
Integer:
But the user can get stuck on the first order and leave for good. The only option is a down payment.
And why do you need a performer who can get stuck on the first order, well, cancel the order, the performer gets a minus)
 
Integer:
But the user may get stuck on the first order and leave for good. The only option is a down payment.

Maybe the number of professionals in the service will increase.

 
sanyooooook:
But why do you need a contractor who can get stuck on the first order and then cancel the order and the contractor gets a minus?)
The question is how to make sure that the penalty is written off equally from the contractor and the customer.
 
TheXpert:
Now, what kind of adequacy are we talking about? Why shouldn't the contractor bear the risks?
Maybe he should, but in very rare cases. These cases should be very clearly spelled out. But it will not be. Even if in this case the task is not feasible, who is to blame? And every task can be interpreted any way you like, even the client himself has done it here.
 
Integer:
If the order is cancelled, it means that the customer will be fined, but what we are talking about is how to make sure that the fine is written off equally by the contractor and the customer.
No, no, not equally, but from the one who is at fault.
 
zfs:
Maybe I should, but in very rare cases. These cases should be very clearly spelled out. But it won't be. Even suppose in this case, the task is not feasible, and who is to blame? And every task can be interpreted any way you like, even the client himself has done it here.

Shit. It's been said a hundred times.

Impractical - don't do it!

 
zfs:
Even if the task is impossible to perform in this case, who is to blame? And in fact every task can be interpreted as you want, even the customer did it here.

Well, whose fault is that? The client? He has no obligation to know whether his assignment is feasible. The programmer is obliged to read the assignment at least before agreeing to it. It's just too fucking complicated.

And so the programmer was too lazy to read what was required of him, the customer has to pay money. How fucking logical it is.

1...4445464748495051525354555657
New comment