Is it forbidden to negotiate with customers past the website? - page 7
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
With all due respect... but in general it's strange to ban developers for just putting up a bid, but there is no violation of the rules. The customer offered an illegal version of the work - I offered a legal, in principle, as usual. Collusion should probably look where the work agreement failed, and so did not even want to cheat, and already suffered).
The bid is a declaration of agreement to do the job. You have made it public - it means you agree. Agreed to a breach of the rules - got a ban. Everything is very simple. This approach makes you think and read the job, rather than vehemently clicking on all the jobs.
Why doesn't the contractor want to run such an order through Freelance? Because he is sorry to give up the commission, apparently.
Then customers come to us complaining that the developer violated deadlines/obligations and so on. If before they were simply sent back to where they did the work (back home), now it's time to look closely at such "calculating" performers. If a developer is ready to refuse access to Freelance in particular or to MQL5.com in general for saving 10%, then why keep them here? Delete the account and goodbye.
Contractors do not pay a commission, the commission is paid by the client. The customer receives the guarantee through Freelance, especially if he has never dealt with this programmer before. The programmers, if they work directly as a rule take a 100% prepayment and they can make a figurative discount on the commission. In other words, the programmer does not gain anything here, except the "money up front". The customers do what they want. I must, by decision of the board, read every word of the customer, look through the assignment clearly - it doesn't matter what else he has written or decompiled code - just to submit a request. And in fact, you sometimes don't have time to look through the task. We make everything very complicated.
A bid issued is a declaration of consent to do the work. If you have announced it, you have consented. If you agree to break the rules, you get banned. Everything is very simple. This approach makes you think and read the job, rather than vehemently clicking on all the jobs.
I have their own terms and conditions there in general. Sometimes the customer puts 30 c.u. to do for 1 day, and I'm responsible for the 100 c.u. in a month, and only then goes agreement on the work. And if the problem is clicks, then I'm sorry, the rules do not prohibit it.
What's the problem? If you want to take bookings via private, who forbids you? If you want to submit orders, the same thing. Take it and work. And if you do not like that absolutely any user can banish your account or electronic purse allegedly for fraud - do not give anyone their passport data. Or blame yourself.
It's strange that even people who have been doing jobs in Freelance for a long time are violating the rules.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/job/72401
I didn't understand what the infraction was in this order. I would have stopped reading at the "Budget $10" point had it not been for the red text below.
Often, in the dialogue, customers write their contacts to discuss the job visually. Each time I explain what I need an agreement and work through the site, it usually helps. If the customer has already thrown his Skype you need to immediately complain to him get?
-----
I can only see the order with the tag, I can not judge what they wrote in response to the artist - perhaps there were some replies in the form of "yes, of course, here's my Skype", then no doubt - a reasonable penalty.
If a customer has already dumped his Skype account, should I immediately file a complaint against him?
-----
I didn't understand what the infraction was in this order. I would have stopped reading at the "Budget $10" point had it not been for the red text below.
Often, in the dialogue, customers write their contacts to discuss the job visually. Each time I explain what I need an agreement and work through the site, it usually helps. If the customer has already thrown his Skype you need to immediately complain to him get?
-----
I can only see the order itself, I can not judge what executors wrote in response - perhaps there were replies in the form of "yes, of course, here is my Skype", then no arguments - a reasonable penalty.
In fact it turns out that only the developers were affected. The client made a new account and move on.
In fact, it turns out that only the developers were affected. The customer gets a new account and goes on walking.
Exactly... And the "smartest" ones, probably added on Skype and did not even try to leave their request under the order - they also go for a walk.
As I understand it, those who wrote "not dude let's through the site for 30" - also with a ban.
A bid issued is a declaration of consent to do the work. Having announced it means agreeing to do the work.
The rules do not prohibit agreeing to the work.
If you agree to violate the rules, you get a ban.
What makes you think that the submitter agreed to a violation? I put my price, did not put my contacts in the application and was not going to contact the customer. Even if someone wanted to get in touch - no personal contact available. I.e. by my actions I tried to direct the customer to legal cooperation. And I got a ban for it. Banned not for misconduct, and for the intent, and not the actual, but the alleged. Some kind of WADA.
The rules do not prohibit agreeing to work.
What makes you think that the bidder agreed to the breach? I put my price, did not specify my contacts in the application and did not intend to contact the customer (and personal account is not available), i.e. by my actions I tried to direct the customer to legal cooperation. The presumption of guilt is something like that. He gets banned not for misconduct, but for the intended, and not the actual, but the alleged. Some kind of WADA.