Is it forbidden to negotiate with customers past the website? - page 8
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
There is a complain button. Press it and wait for the text of the request to change.
Spell it out in the rules and that you can't submit orders with certain content. And only after that ban them. Now please reinstate the innocently banned.
)) With that approach, it's no surprise that people are bypassing freelancing.
Exactly... And the "smartest" ones probably added on Skype and didn't even try to leave their application under the order - go away for them too.
As I understand it, those who wrote "not dude let's through the site for 30" are also with a ban.
There was no skype there. It's just that the $10 budget assumes that they will exchange contacts and work around the service. I.e. this application knowingly violates the rules of freelancing.
)) With this approach, it's no surprise that people are bypassing freelancing.
There was no Skype. It is just that the $10 budget assumes that contacts will be exchanged and work around the service. That is, this application knowingly violates the rules of freelancing.
It was not a request, it was an order. There were no violations in the requests - it is physically impossible to put a budget of $10 there
It was not a bid, but an order. There were no irregularities in the bids - it is physically impossible to put a budget there $10
There's no need for demagoguery. The customer always pays. And not only for the order, but also for the service, and arbitrage, and he bears the risks as well.
We should ban developers like Squirrel who deliberately take the customer out of the service, and not tighten the screws where there is already overloading.
That is why it is clear from the start that the order will be executed on our side. So those who responded knowingly agreed to violate the rules.
How is it clear? What exactly were people writing? If they were baiting the customer to make a normal request on the website, is it a violation of rules? It is as if nothing in the correspondence is being analyzed at all.
There's no need for demagoguery. The customer always pays. And not only for the order, but also for the service, and arbitration, and he bears the risks.
We should ban developers like Squirrel who deliberately take the customer out of the service, and not tighten the screws where there is already too much pressure.
This approach is very... I've already been banned here for something I don't understand, this is the second time. The customer violates the rules - the programmer gets banned. I understand here a poor customer asks to help him cheaper - does not write by the way his contact details. He gets banned for nothing, and a bunch of programmers with him. Something with the moderators with jurisprudence is not very good. I'm without the freelancing, for me it's a hobby that brings dividends, but it's not my main source of income. I haven't been here for 2 years - I've had more interesting hobbies, but in fact I've always been with MT). It's very strange to see such an unqualified attitude from such a successful company. I hope they won't ban me on the forum at least).