Paying for freelancing. - 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
I haven't personally encountered it yet, but from what I understand there have been precedents.
This is the worst kind of publicity a service could come up with ((
Apparently, I was mistaken in imagining that the service's main task is to be the judge between the two parties. If one party is a cheater, and the service failed to protect the other party that fulfilled its obligations, why do the contractor bear the brunt of the losses? The fraudster is the one who got what he wanted.
This is reality.
And naive, if at that age you really think there is a guarantee against fraud. But it's understandable that you're more interested in thinking that way, for it supports criticism.
If you get to know people, you will not be surprised by the number of normal people who agree to cheat a little, if the chance of not getting caught is great. We have had numerous cases where quite normal people have agreed to "give money back in exchange for attracting clients", "get the deal done quickly, and if anything - say, work on Skype", and so on.
Understand that you are not being blocked, the money is being blocked.
The money is blocked from the moment the ToR is agreed, for 7 days. And everything that happens after 7 days is a natural blocking of payments to performers, it has nothing to do with anti-fraud. The customer has already received the product, i.e. exchanged his clean or unclean money and left, and the payment for the work is blocked to the performer
---
By the way, the possibilities and conveniences of the freelance exchange have really grown. New job options have been added, descriptions have been detailed:
These checkboxes are trifles that do not change anything in the procedure of work. If you exclude at least one step "demonstration" from this procedure, it would be much more useful
---
With the need to go through all the steps of the process? On the contrary, it is an advantage, saving both sides from endless complaints and the inability to follow through.
Renat, you are infinitely distant from the current practice in this service - noone ever uses these steps as invented by their authors. Neither the contractor nor the client needs this many checkboxes. You should leave them as you need to comply with the formalities, but the step 'demonstration' and you do not need it for nothing, clearly
---
And even our own arbitration held more than 4,000 (four thousand!) Proceedings, helping to bring the case to an end or amicably part ways.
That's because the service is flawed - if I could send a 'no case' reminder to my client's mobile phone, I'd be 60% less burdened by your arbitrators ---
---
Good suggestion, seconded.
Just leads to buying "accounts with a history".
That's what all the control systems slide towards. It's made easier by buying up accounts, pouring them in instantly and withdrawing the money. Old as the world.
The money is blocked from the moment the ToR is agreed, for 7 days. And everything that happens after 7 days is a natural blocking of payments to performers, it has nothing to do with anti-fraud. The client has already received the product, i.e. exchanged his clean or unclean money and left, and the payment to the executor is blocked
The result can only be judged from the moment the work is completed.
Don't forget to judge from the point of view of the one who bears all the risks. Not from the point of view of the contractor, for whom any rules that restrict him by even a slightest bit are a disservice.
These ticks are trivial things that do not change anything in the work procedure. If you were to exclude at least the step "demonstration" from this procedure, it would be much more useful
Yes, they would.
Without these ticks, the arbitration process would not be allowed to happen at all.
Those who tick them then regret a lot when the arbitration is being sorted out. If the client says "the contractor asked me to click them quickly, but we did the work elsewhere", then the contractor will easily lose.
Renat, you are infinitely far from the current practice in this service - noone ever uses these steps as invented by their creators. Neither the contractor nor the client needs this many checkboxes. You should leave those that you need to comply with the formalities, but the step 'demonstration' and you do not need it for nothing, for sure.
You are the one who is infinitely distant from business practice and looks at everything "and I don't care, I only think about myself, I don't care about the terms and conditions, I'll set everyone around me up".
You will be the first to start making claims left and right, as soon as the rules go away and your wish "I agreed, now give me the money quickly" collides with "provide evidence of the reality of the work".
So you see, you are already burdening the arbitrators too. And we already have push messages in freelancing.
So all of the above is true.
And naive, if at that age you really think there is a guarantee against fraud.
You've descended into personalities. I have no further questions.
It's come down to personalities. I have no further questions.
And those who click them will regret it later, when the arbitration is sorted out. If the client says "I was asked to click them quickly, but we did the work elsewhere", then the contractor will easily lose.
I thought about not getting involved in further debriefing, but when the management is talking nonsense, it's too much, and this phrase above confirms the eternal position of MQ - you're all weak, only I know how to do it right.
If the customer, for whatever reason, has ticked all the boxes, i.e. agreed to the work, demonstration etc., and then suddenly submits to arbitration - why would the contractor easily lose? Ignorance of the law does not exempt from liability.
Don't forget to judge from the point of view of the one who bears all the risks.
The view from that point is not available to me, and you do not provide screenshots of the view from your point of view. So it is not clear to anyone why the 'dirty money' control has been moved from when it is frozen to when it should already be cleared of suspicion and unfrozen. That should be understood as 7 days for MQ controllers to check the file transmitted by the contractor to the customer - is it fake?
---
Of course they do.
Without those checkboxes, they would have stayed in the arbitration process altogether.
That was about 'what you need' + 'categories' + 'requirements' checkboxes. Their presence/absence doesn't change anything - they don't read the contractor, they read the title and description. Customers don't need them either. Maybe it will be in demand in some of your future projects, but not right now. Right now, of all this, only the 4/5 language information is really needed.
And about the steps - still, can you explain why there is an extra step between the provision of layout and payment? The 2 parties don't need it, why does MQ need it?
---
Well, those who click them are very sorry when the arbitration is being sorted out. If client says "I was asked to click them quickly, but we did the work elsewhere", then the contractor will lose.
If the client clicked them all, the arbitration will not be sorted - this option is not provided for in your system
---
It is you who are infinitely distant from business practices and look at everything "and I do not care, I only think about myself, I do not care about conditions, I will set up everyone around me".
I do not understand who and what I am setting up... But just in case - sorry, I won't.
---
You will be the first to start making claims left and right as soon as the rules go away and your wish "I agreed, now give me money quickly" collides with "provide evidence of the reality of the work".
Proof of work is always present in the work. In MQL format. Plus, I personally have all negotiations on this site, not even on Skype. But in general, we are not talking about leaving all the rules, but about a specific incomprehension with the logic of freezing - nowhere to explain why it has been moved so far away
---
I thought not to participate in further debriefing, but when the outright nonsense coming from the lips of management, it's too much, and this phrase above confirms the eternal position of MQ - you're all helpless, only I know how to do it right.
If the customer, for whatever reason, has ticked all the boxes, i.e. agreed to the work, demonstration etc., and then suddenly submits to arbitration - why would the contractor easily lose? Ignorance of the law does not exempt from liability.
What makes you think that the contractor will lose in the arbitration? A balanced decision is made, both in favour of the contractor and the client, it all depends on the specific situation.
Of course, there will be no answers.
I'm explaining the basics here so that there is a story and an antidote to statements like the top-starter's and yours.
Recall that you were unable to justify your statement about the shortcomings of the service.
It's hard to explain, but I'll try.
It's nice to read these posts - as soon as you can see a person is not the first year in the subject, and really tries to do something, although I see that not everyone likes it. Regarding the reasoning - here I asked the simplest questions that "no answers" as if it will end the world.
We are all human and everyone wants to have a dialogue with him on more or less equal terms. What dictated it I have no idea, but given your experience I do not know how to respond.