Arbitration - rules, regulations, deadlines. - page 2
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
papaklass:
You should get rid of such poor performers from the "Jobs" service who are unable to get the right information out of the customer. The sooner you start doing this, the less work the Arbitrage will have to do.
Why do they have to do it?
Because the customer came with the knowledge that he needs.
simply here as in a bakery will not roll a request: "I want bread," as this request bread and will give, and then prove that he wanted white flour from the highest grade, not bran) )
ZS: Briefly about the TOR
After all, the customer came with the knowledge of what he needed.
I completely agree that the customer knows what he needs, but there is a "BUT".
The customer is likely to be an ordinary user and the contractor is likely to be a technician, and the text and description of the same process is likely to be different!
Therefore, some of the contractor's inferences about individual points in the ToR are sometimes mind boggling. And explanations to the contractor, such as the fact that there is no such statement in the ToR as he understood it, do not change anything!
The contractor continues to work in his own way in his own world!
Rosh:
Each side must pay for the time and nerves spent.
Exactly, each side, not just the customer! And so it turns out, even if the result is 50/50, the contractor got half for his time, and the customer lost half, while receiving nothing or a crude product!
In this case, what should the customer do with this unclear code, which is impossible to use because it does not comply with the terms of reference? Where does each side pay here?
Rosh:
Each party has to pay for their time and nerves.
It is not like he is freezing his money, in the form of insurance, in case the deadline is not met, etc.
After all, the timing indicates the programmer, and then this term or more indicates the customer, when choosing a performer!
In this case, I am basing it on the cost of the work. It is much lower than the cost of the time spent dealing with the situation.
In other words, it is easier to divorce both sides and close the job "in half" than for both sides to spend time arguing. The fact that the parties did not understand each other also speaks in favour of a "fifty-fifty" solution.
I completely agree that the customer knows what he needs, but there is a "BUT".
The customer is likely to be an ordinary user and the contractor is likely to be a technician, and the text and description of the same process is likely to be different!
Therefore, some of the contractor's inferences about individual points in the ToR are sometimes mind-blowing. And explanations to the contractor, such as the fact that there is no such statement in the ToR as he understood it, do not change anything!
The contractor continues to work in his own way in his own world!
Look at how many requirements for the TOR, the material is old, but I think checked )
if you do everything according to this standard, your brain will boil over on the first item)
) And if you do not do it, it will boil over in the debriefing stages. )
The more you pay, the easier it will be to negotiate with them afterwards.
It is not like he is freezing his money, in the form of insurance, in case deadlines are not met, etc.
The contractor spends his time and risks his reputation. This is often more important than money.
Sorry, but I completely disagree with your statement!
The contractor does not waste time - he works on the order and thanks to this, earns the agreed amount, for the agreed period!
If the deadline is delayed, he is wasting the client's time, not his!
And also, the performer does not risk his reputation because the performer with the reputation of knowing and aware of what he is doing and what he is working on!
To risk the "reputation" can be a person - "doer" who does at the whim, right - wrong, right - wrong!
At the same time he does not want to take any responsibility!
We should recommend to the judges your new method of justice: RULING NOT JUSTICE, but the ratio of the CONTRACT COST to the TIME COST to deal with the situation.
Here we go.
In fact, it's the kind of thing worthy of the Annals.
The Work and Arbitrage service of the Work service are not exactly aptly named. A better one is:
-- Service Work -- it's "Mousing."
-- service arbitrage is "Snot Wipeer" or "Nothing else to do."
Let's look at this situation. This is probably the job in question -- https://www.mql5.com/ru/job/13951-- the cost is "<80" and read the application "p.s. If the cost of your services is higher than what I indicate, please do not check in as candidates!" The contractor for this job -- herehttps://www.mql5.com/ru/users/alexmost113/jobs_inprocess-- does it for $50.
I.e., on the one hand, there is a customer who is doing the Job service and the entire motley cast of performers a huge favour. How, in the words of papaklass above, he "brings money to the resource" and makes one of the performers happy with his choice.
On the other hand, there is a performer who asked for less money than all his peers and happily agreed to do the job to a blurred TOR.
And now three lonelinesses have met:
-- the client and the contractor -- stuck their horns into the vague terms of reference and the "little less" amount of the agreement:
Novikov: Заказчик скорее всего это обычный юзер, а исполнитель скорее всего технарь, и текст изложения и описания одного и того же процесса скорее всего будет отличаться!
Поэтому, некоторые умозаключения исполнителя об отдельных пунктах ТЗ иногда просто выносят мозг. И объяснения исполнителю, типа того, что в ТЗ нет такого изложения, как он это понял - ничего не меняют!
But if the contractor doesn't admit his mistakes during the implementation of the logic described in the TOR, and interprets certain moments of the TOR in his own way.
And on the specified errors of the Expert Advisor, he reacts as if they were new modifications not described in the TOR. What to do with this raw, non-working product?
-- and arbitration, which must make one of three decisions: 1) terminate in favour of the client 2) terminate in favour of the contractor 3) terminate in half
As a matter of fact -- there is a profound choice procedure, which is peppered with judgements from forum members, such as how to judge "by law or by equity".
It remains to propose to the topicstarter to put in this thread the text of TOR, to show what he did, to quote all correspondence, to call the executor for answers, and thereby -- as they do on the forum -- to mock the executor, saying he writes code unprofessionally or something like that.
But I do not know why the customerNovikov brought all this situation on the forum - there is a private branch of the work, and discuss your 12-year-old childish pranks there.
And the solution is simple:
--Novikov, make your TOR clear and concise - pay 20 copecks more (I don't think the contractor asks for more at this price - and your initial budget was higher - don't be stingy, "the saver pays twice") - procrastinate and get the result.
-- Either get the solution "in half" and leave with your unfinished TOR, with half the amount and use another contractor for a cheaper solution.
Every six months, there is always another customer who complains that he didn't get a million-dollar advisor for 30 credits.
And there is always a performer, who is ready to implement all the dreams for a low price. Then it turns out that the performer has not signed up for guessing all of the customer's wishes, and the customer is indignant because "why aren't we going, because everything is paid for".
If in the end both parties do not come to a compromise, we have to shoot to close the job in a "both to blame" mode, so that both parties do not suffer and think that it is all the fault of the Arbitration which has not understood the situation and has not made the only correct and fair decision.