Failure to fulfil their obligations and refusal to pay back the money - page 6

New comment
 
abolk:

And what problem does this particular situation raise? We cannot even get to the bottom of this private situation because there is no data to analyse. There is only the unsubstantiated statement of one party.

There is one problem here so far: In an out-of-service agreement, there is the problem of no third party to arbitrate.

In the second paragraph you have partially answered the question asked in the first paragraph :) Even if some people think it's bullshit sophistry :)
 
Yedelkin:
Agree that with this approach, you should at least warn potential customers of the problems that arise when performing work on the side. Or screw them, the customers - let them fall for the unscrupulous "top" ones?

On what basis do you judge the "good faith" or "bad faith" of the developers who appear at the "top" of the service?

Do you have any grounds for this? Can you give reasonable examples?

 
abolk:
Are we clear that Techno has "induced" the customer to work outside the service? As long as there is no correspondence, this statement is unsubstantiated.
Files:
forum.jpg  67 kb
 
Yedelkin: Agree that such an approach should have at least warned potential customers of the problems that may arise when carrying out work on the side.
Yes I agree, the metaquotes have done their best, but if someone is interested in "experimenting on their back" - let them experiment, I think the more orders, the more often such topics will appear, so I think it is not worth considering such claims now
 

forum.jpg: mutual agreement, no pressure from the coder noticed.

mayler, where is the EA code and your complaint?

 
 
IgorM:

Maybe it is worth covering the topic? Why take on the role of the judge? There is a person who does not want to use the service work, there is a programmer who corresponded through the PM, what difference does it make what they write to each other?

I believe that the forum should not consider such appeals, the service is work, we use it and nothing else, if otherwise - then it means no work and no pay, who "screwed" whom does not matter anymore

SZS: It is clear that before when there was no service work, it was very important to have information about the performer, but now why?

Your reluctance to discuss the problem, not my private, but in general, as well as a desire to delete this kind of topics suggests that you support the rules of dishonest work on the forum. Maybe you're Techno on "the subject". Maybe you should also clean up negative feedback on the developers. Or deleting such situations leads to the idea that fraudulent schemes to make money in an unfair way are being approved here.
 
abolk:

On what basis do you judge the "good faith" or "bad faith" of the developers who appear in the "top" of the service?

Do you have any grounds for this? Can you give reasonable examples?

This is the second time you are trying to translate a question into specifics. I repeat, in broader terms: The particular situation raised by the thread concerns a general question about the integrity of performers listed in the "top" without reference to specific individuals. The same Techno may be three times bona fide in fact - the topic with its appearance raises in principle the question of how to handle a bad situation, if a scoundrel has (has) got into the ranks of the honourable. If you exclude situations with POSSIBLE dishonest actions of executors - it is one thing; if you allow such a possibility in itself, without reference to specific personalities - you will understand me. And in the second case, oddly enough, it is not even necessary to give concrete examples.
 
mayler: Because removing the parsing of such situations leads one to believe that fraudulent schemes are being endorsed here to make money in an unfair way.
Once again:
Mathemat: mayler, where is the EA code and your claim?
 
Integer:

moving well - did you take a long time to learn the moves?
12345678910111213...22
New comment
Reason: