Arbitration - rules, regulations, deadlines. - page 5
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
Excuse me, can you quote me exactly where the hit-and-run took place? Or give me the date and time of the message.
So that I can keep it in mind for the future! Because, you know, you can't see yourself from the outside!
Excuse me, can you quote me exactly where the hit-and-run took place? Or give me the date and time of the message.
So that I can keep it in mind for the future! Because, you know, you can't see yourself from the outside!
Everything is online anyway:
_http://novikov.dp.ua/fortrader/sovetniki/sovetnik-pomoshhnik-assistant.html
and dialogue without the last few bickering _http://novikov.dp.ua/news/dialog-s-programmistom.html
I read the correspondence (only a third of it was enough). It seems that the contractor is the one who has been stirring things up.
On the other hand, a number of requirements of the client are unjustified. For instance, the ToR didn't say that the code must be commented out.
An important role was also played by the customer's aggressiveness towards the bugs detected.
We have to understand that a bespoke program is a complex collaborative effort. And we have to distinguish between a bug, inconsistency with the TOR, misunderstanding of the TOR. Also, the emphasis should be shifted a bit because the customer is not testing the product for bugs, but to understand its operation and functionality and check for working out the terms of reference. And, yes, he identifies bugs at the same time.
There is nothing wrong with bugs. The main thing is to be able to fix them. Besides, no sane developer will ever guarantee that there are no bugs in their product.
I read the correspondence (only a third of it was enough). It seemed that it was the contractor who was stirring things up.
On the other hand, some of the client's requirements are unlawful. For instance, the ToR didn't say that the code must be commented out.
An important role was also played by the customer's aggressiveness towards the bugs detected.
We have to understand that a bespoke program is a complex collaborative effort. And we have to distinguish between a bug, inconsistency with the TOR, misunderstanding of the TOR. Also, the emphasis should be shifted a bit, because the customer is not testing the product for bugs, but to understand its operation and functionality and check for working out the terms of reference. And, yes, he identifies bugs at the same time.
There is nothing wrong with bugs. The main thing is to be able to fix them. Besides, no sane developer will ever guarantee that there are no bugs in their product.
If you count the number of times the implementer has said "it's done, close the job" or something like that, you could get tired of counting!
And it's even more infuriating when you find another bug.
And I completely agree that there is nothing wrong with bugs, as long as the performer responds adequately to comments and fixes them!
And all the new bugs are found! Just read the last few comments (2014.04.08 16:54) by the implementer on the bug I identified.
Although the executor (2014.04.01 10:57) said, "Well that's it. Take it away, check it out! If anything is wrong, write to me."
Just read the last few comments ...
You write as if you and the performer were interested in your underwear. There's a closed thread and there's no need to take arguments out of thin air. There is arbitration for sorting things out, there is feedback.
And it is not serious and worthy to have a public showdown. The client doesn't care about his reputation.
It is who brought trash in public - that should be guilty - if the arbitration is fair, it should end in favor of the contractor.
I decided not to create a new topic and continue with an existing one.
What are the arbitration deadlines anyway?
I am currently in arbitration. It's not the first time this has happened. A newcomer came to my site and decided that it was possible to demand unlimited free improvements and blackmail him with money. They say if you refuse to finalize what I ask - you will not get money. And never mind that this is not in the TOR. I also like it when the customer says: "My strategy is proven and it works. I used it for 2 weeks and traded on the plus side. So I will not give you the money until the program you made a stable earnings for 3-5 years! And then a lot of free work, otherwise "I will not give you the money".
Now on to arbitrage. When I started arbitrage the newcomer suddenly changed his strategy. He started to write that all was not working properly and nothing was done, and in a private message he offered to buy a source code for 50% of the price, because he said he would take the money from me anyway. Arbitration has been dragging on for a month. Admin showed up 2 times a week at first and tried to deal with it, then he stopped replying in person and wrote in the subject. Then another admin came and apologised for the delay in sorting things out. Then another admin came and apologized for the delay. He writes nothing and does not reply in the locker room.
Is this normal? Programmers are charged 10% of their work for what? I agree that the commission must be and the site of this level should not be maintained on the enthusiasm of the admins, but I want to and service for such a small, as for me, percentage?
Please advise, advise. admins - unsubscribe, otherwise in a branch of silence and do not answer in person :((((
Is no one interested in this topic? Or no one has dealt with Arbitrage?
It's not a question of closing the job as quickly as possible. It's about the length of time and ignoring a couple of them. Why are there no deadlines or arbitration rules? Who owes what to whom?
My work is basically closed 50/50. And this is after more than a month. What is taking so long? I warned the Client five times and they reproached me with the fact that that is why I received only half of the money.
Now I received 40% of the original amount, and this insolent Customer is now demanding to provide him the source code of the work! :-О
So maybe we need a regulation on arbitration? Who will support it? What are your opinions?
We have an agreement with the client, but we have no agreement with the site. So the site charges us as much commission as it wants and can block the money after work, and performers have no rights here?
We cannot demand anything for our money that we pay from the order? :((
It's hard to say what really happened there.
You don't need to understand it. The situation is painfully simple and straightforward.
If you, as a developer, had clearly and unambiguously justified, point by point, that you fulfilled all the provisions of the TOR, the customer would not have been able to nag you - and the arbitration would not have had grounds to terminate the agreement against you - and the arbitration would not have lasted more than a month.
If the client demands something that is not in the ToR, it is easily justified. If you could not justify that the client's requirements were outside the ToR, then you had to comply with those provisions.
It seems to me that arbitration owes nothing to either the client or the developer. If the developer wants to win the arbitration, they have to provide justification that the ToR have been met. If there is no such justification, then the task has not been fulfilled.
It seems to me that in Freelance Arbitration there should be:
a) the presumption of innocence of the client
b) the presumption of guilt of the developer
The customer may not know a lot of things, may not be able to express himself or herself in a crooked manner, or may not be able to explain things clearly.
The client does not impose himself on the developer. It is the developer who agrees to do the work. It is the developer assesses the TOR for feasibility and compares their capabilities. The developer is more competent than the client.
If arbitration occurs, it is the developer's responsibility to justify one thing, that the ToRs are met.
If the developer can not justify that the terms of reference are fulfilled, the work must be terminated 100% in favor of the customer.
Dissolution "in half" -- this is in fact -- a net loss of 50% of the customer's money -- which the customer is somehow paying for the work not done -- for the developer to take it on and not finish it -- for the customer to have to start from scratch. No one wants your unfinished source code.
There is only one criterion - fulfilled ToR. If the terms of reference are met, justify it. If you cannot justify, if the terms of reference have not been fulfilled, return the money to the customer and get out of the way.