Multiple recall updates - 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
How do you come to such nonsense?
What's not to like? They sell you a leaky boot, you'll notice it in a week and you'll walk around and be happy), even if the hole was intended technologically, but the product description didn't say so.
Andrei, I was not replying to the buyer - I had not read his review, let alone translated it.
I was responding to someone claiming that the buyer is always right a priori. This is an incorrect statement fundamentally created to attract buyers by unscrupulous advertisers in the hope that there are always fewer inadequate buyers.
I worked in the service industry for many years, talking directly to people. And, you know, people are often wrong. They pay a hundred roubles and they think they can do whatever they want, forgetting about morality and human decency. If you haven't experienced it, I kindly envy you.
Artyom -- we are looking at this particular situation -- and in this particular situation, it seems to me, the buyer is right.
He was really deceived, or deceived, or misled -- I won't say here how it was -- but he was buying one thing, following the seller's recommendations -- and he didn't get what he was promised.
We don't know their dialogue -- did the seller guarantee him something in the dialogue? We don't know the whole story.
But what the buyer is doing -- updating the review every day -- what is he violating? The system allows the review to be deleted and re-written -- he's not insulting the seller in the review.
Now he's banned -- who banned him? The administration, the marketplace or a forum moderator -- we don't know -- we don't even know what he was banned for.
But getting him banned -- that's not right either.
His being banned is a violation of buyer's rights. Read Marketplace rules -- no returns are allowed; you can only check the product in the tester. And now it turns out he got banned for feedback. Or rather, instead of entering into lengthy negotiations with a dissatisfied (justified) customer -- he was simply banned. Isn't that what it looks like from the outside?
Do you even go to the shops, do you buy anything? Or is it just the wife and you just fantasise about how things should be?
I recently returned an expensive purse I bought that was falling apart in my hands and was mildewed inside, which I didn't notice until a few hours later. I also complained to a broker recently who did not give me the information I needed before funding my account, what's the problem? And I'm right in both cases.
The first case is clear. But in the second, what did the broker offer? You can guess - he sort of hinted, the right client, that he could take his money and go wherever he wanted.
Although with the first case, too, it is not clear how you will treat this saleswoman next time, whether she will just turn around and you will stand there and clap your eyes. And the return went so smoothly and she didn't even say, "Where were you looking when you bought it?
The first case is clear. But in the second, what did the broker offer? You can guess - he sort of hinted that you can take your money and go wherever you want.
Although with the first case too, it is not clear how you will be treated by this saleswoman next time, whether she will just turn around and you will stand there and clap your eyes. And the refund went so smoothly and she didn't even tease you, like where were you looking when you were buying?
The second one on the broker's website didn't specify the minimum amount to deposit, I deposited $100 but trading was unavailable. I believe this is if not cheating then misleading as all information should be available before the purchase. After talking on the phone they agreed with me that they do not have information on the minimum deposit on their website.
Of course smoothly, what's the problem? according to the law I can return the product within 2 weeks. I don't care how she treats me next time, it's not my problem at all ) I mean, she'll turn around )) her duty is to sell, not turn around.
So, read carefully, the buyer has the FULL RIGHT to return the product within a certain period of time, even if he simply does not like it or does not fit
I get the impression that you are imagining things now :)Apart from ignoring it, I don't see anything else.
It's true what you've said - the man was deceived and now he's offended. If there are lies in his reviews - that's a reason to complain to the admins. If his comments are only true - there is nothing you can do but confirm, yes, the Expert Advisor loses $8 in this case, there's nothing you can do. You have to put up with the lost clients.
When I was bilked for $800 by a well-known brokerage company with the letter "I" - I started war actions in the form of similar reviews and I continue them - but at the same time, due to my bilking (and this company was not the only one that bilked me) - it still stayed in profit.
This is how advisor sellers are - if there are no lies in a negative review - then you will still be in profit.
Artyom -- we are looking at this particular situation -- and in this particular situation, it seems to me, the buyer is right.
He was really deceived or deceived or misled -- I can't tell you how it was -- but he was buying one thing, following the seller's recommendations -- and he didn't get what he was promised.
We don't know their dialogue -- did the seller guarantee him something in the dialogue? We don't know the whole story.
But what the buyer is doing -- updating the review every day -- what is he violating? The system allows the review to be deleted and re-written -- he's not insulting the seller in the review.
Now he's banned -- who banned him? The administration, the marketplace or a forum moderator -- we don't know -- we don't even know what he was banned for.
But getting him banned -- that's not right either.
His being banned is a violation of buyer's rights. Read Marketplace rules -- no returns are allowed; you can only check the product in the tester. And now it turns out he got banned for feedback. Or rather, instead of entering into lengthy negotiations with a dissatisfied (justified) customer -- he was simply banned. Isn't that what it looks like from the outside?
Reasonably?
A five percent drawdown?
Do you trade without a drawdown? Well, if you ever have a five percent drawdown, cut your hand off.
Nobody cheated him. This is an inadequate desire to trade on your own and be surprised with a five percent drawdown. And then to shit deliberately in reviews - spam. For that and got banned. You wrote once - it's okay. And for $ 8 to arrange a vendetta - inadequate. Definitely.
Reasonable?
A five per cent drawdown?
Do you trade without a drawdown? Well, if you're down five percent, cut your hand off.
He's not being spammed. It's an inadequate desire to trade not yourself and be surprised by a five percent drawdown. And then to deliberately crap in the reviews - spamming. For that and got banned. You wrote once - it's okay. And for $ 8 to arrange a vendetta - inadequate. Definitely.
It doesn't matter how much -- you tell me -- what did the buyer violate? What Market Rule or Resource Rule?
Read what is "spam" -- Spam is the mass mailing of commercial or other advertisements or similar commercial types of messages to people who have not expressed a desire to receive them[https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Спам].
Where do you see spam in his actions? I only see one review of his. There's no mass appeal. The fact that he updates the review every day -- that's not spam, it's a review update.
Why is it not illegal to update positive reviews, but it is illegal to update negative ones?
Nobody cheated him. It's not an adequate desire to trade not yourself and be surprised by a five per cent drawdown. And then to deliberately crap in reviews - spam. For that and got banned. You wrote once - it's okay. And for $ 8 to arrange a vendetta - inadequate. Definitely.
I don't think he was cheated, but I don't think he was wrongfully banned either.
Starting a "revenge campaign" for $8 is silly, of course, but on the other hand you have to earn it too.
But inadequates should be appeased, not banned. He is now even more offended - and go glorify the author of all the other forums - where it is no longer possible to shut him up. And the point?