Arbitration - rules, regulations, deadlines. - page 6
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
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 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 the performers have no rights here?
We cannot demand anything for our money that we pay from the order? :((
Yes everyone is FOR it, but what's the use?
The metaquotes do not care. Want - work, do not want - good riddance, performers in freelancing - a wagon and a small cart ...
I solved this problem for myself simply - I put in the price of a weighted average inadequacy of the customer. So even if he wants another frill, I'll be happy to add it )
"The most frustrating thing about the information war is that the one who tells the truth loses. He is limited by the truth, while a liar can say anything." @Robert Shackley
That's how arbitration loses, even if you go through all the points. When a program is complex and it has been negotiated and the customer knows how to run it wrong... And the budget doesn't allow to cut off all known wrong settings by the program :(
The point is that Arbitrage often doesn't look too deeply into the problem. In our case it was enough to read all the correspondence. So they did not take the time to do it and preferred to analyze the program which cannot be launched correctly without reading the correspondence. It is a vicious circle.
In fact, I think it is very hard for an outsider to look into the program at once and determine what is going wrong. It takes much time and effort. What is the purpose of arbitration at all then? :(
SZZ Still administration said that there will be a sifting of performers and will remain the most conscious. I wish they would sift out customers.
And the reputation of the performer is worth nothing on the site if a new person can come to the site and the first work to throw dirt on the performer and lie a wagonload and take half the money! :(
"The most frustrating thing about the information war is that the one who tells the truth loses. He is limited by the truth, while a liar can say anything." @Robert Shackley
That's how arbitration loses, even if you go through all the points. When a program is complex and it has been negotiated and the customer knows how to run it wrong... And the budget doesn't allow to cut off all known wrong settings by the program :(
The point is that Arbitrage often doesn't look too deeply into the problem. In our case it was enough to read all the correspondence. So they did not take the time to do it and preferred to analyze the program which cannot be launched correctly without reading the correspondence. It is a vicious circle.
In fact, I think it is very hard for an outsider to get into the program at once and determine what is going wrong. It takes much time and effort. What is the purpose of arbitration at all then? :(
SZZ Still administration said that there will be a sifting of performers and will remain the most conscious. I wish they would sift out customers.
And the reputation of the performer is worth nothing on the site if a new person can come to the site and the first work to throw dirt on the performer and lie a wagonload and take half the money! :(
Find the courage to see and your part of the responsibility for what happened and the situation will change. As long as "the whole world is to blame", it will stay that way - arbitration is bad, customers are assholes.
I am not defending any particular client, arbitration or anyone else. I am simply suggesting that we draw conclusions and move on.
Vyacheslav, you are not presenting the information correctly. To put it in the public eye, how do you conduct a dialogue? There is a job discussion thread, and it's all decided there.
What does it have to do with being a beginner or not? There was my ToR (spelled out tightly and completely), there was what you presented. I'm not saying that everything was provided for in the ToR, but I'm sorry, the fundamental condition was not fulfilled by you. I gave you many examples of errors with screenshots and asked you to explain them. You have not done so, neither for the first time, nor for the second or the tenth time. You have not explained your own errors.
And about the "fix it for free" thing... Tell me how many times I offered you a way out of the situation and I even offered you a new job? But you are not satisfied with it all, you basically did not want to negotiate.
Here you have passed the arbitration with a 50/50 result. Tell me what of all this was received by you as a contractor and by me as a customer? I spent my time and money and as a result I am now opening a new job with the same TOR. And you have received half the budget.
I believe I have every right to the source code as it is an integral part of the job and you received money for it. You didn't get it from the guarantor, you got it from me. I deposited them in the account.
Given that there was a dispute over the performance of the 2 indicators as part of the EA, I believe there should be source code minus the code of the 2 indicators. That would be fair.
In the meantime I am of the opinion that you are pure fraud.
...
This is how arbitration is lost, even if you go through all the points. When the program is complex and this has been discussed and the customer knows how to run it incorrectly... and the budget doesn't allow for cutting off all the wrong settings with the software :(
..."Foolproofing" is an a priori obligation
It does, but you need a particular fool to provide protection against it. The default protection is to protect another algorithm from another fool. Trust me, you will never guess what you need protection from, until this particular fool pokes you in the face with his genius move.
I understand this perfectly, but does checking the entered values for their correctness depend on the budget?
And, yes, sometimes the customer himself will set such a combination of input parameters that you wonder how he, knowing his system like no one else, introduces an absolutely stupid input values, absolutely contradicting each other. And not only to each other, but also to common sense. And then he gets indignant - why doesn't the program enter the value he wants? You explain to him that it is a protection against idiots, he asks to remove it. You take it off, and then he asks - why isn't anything coming out, not working, and not showing? You answer that he himself asked to remove the protection, and without thinking, uncontrollably introduces a condition such as "if the zero is greater than zero, then ..." and ... voila - he says that he needs to make protection (!!!). But he didn't ask to remove it last time... Until he sticks his nose into a logical error, he insists. And you have to add, remove, add again, just so he can poke at it himself and understand.
Artyom Trishkin You have now answered your own statement with a defence. In general, you cannot foresee everything. I agree withAlexander Puzanov here.
Andrey Khatimlianski I have drawn conclusions and am moving on :)
We have digressed from the subject. It is not about who is to blame. The question is how it should be and what to expect from the arbitration? I would like to clarify this point.
My broker has its own trading regulations. Even though we don't entirely agree with what it says, but in every situation they tell you that you have been warned and refer to specific clauses in the regulations. A regulation is an agreement and you already know what to expect. When there is no agreement, you have nothing to expect. You cannot blame why it took so long or why they didn't check. After all, these parameters have not been defined.
Artyom Trishkin You have now answered your own statement with a defence. In general, you cannot foresee everything. I agree withAlexander Puzanov here.
Andrey Khatimlianskii I have made my deductions and am moving on :)
We have digressed from the subject. It is not about who is to blame. The question is how it should be and what to expect from the arbitration? I would like to clarify this point.
My broker has its own trading regulations. Even though we don't entirely agree with what it says, but in every situation they tell you that you have been warned and refer to specific clauses in the regulations. A regulation is an agreement and you already know what to expect. When there is no agreement, you have nothing to expect. And you can not blame why it took so long or why they didn't check. These parameters have not been defined :(
You wrote about protection against incorrectly entered values. I understood that the budget didn't allow you to check if the user entered moronic non-functional values. For example, a variable can't be less than 1, but checking for inputs less than one isn't allowed by your budget.
For all that, even if you were talking about inputting logically wrong values, I'm always so kind as to try to control these situations as well. If there are, for example, two crossed price ranges, then I make sure the entered values of extreme prices for both ranges are in the permitted range, so that both ranges stay crossed, but not a kilometre away from each other.
Such checks are primarily needed so that you don't get distracted, for example, by finding bugs that the customer "found" by entering prices of ranges from -1000 to -500 one and from -2000 to -1500 the other. They can't be less than zero, for crying out loud, and they have to overlap. I understand - it's stupid to introduce negative prices, but it's better to limit the naughty hands of the user, so that he himself does not waste his time on an empty search for "found bugs" - all this is just from experience, not a bare allegation.
on protection against incorrectly entered values