The right to apply for freelance orders is missing. - page 3
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
https://www.mql5.com/en/job/97500
This application has been reported to the administration. Shall I report the response to you personally in public?
This application has been reported to the administration. Shall I report the response to you personally in public?
Dear administration and moderators.
In my humble opinion, violation of the rules on the part of the applicants in the above application is, to put it mildly, "pulled by the ear".
Given that this order was published March 23, 2019 and all bidders for this ill-fated order that everyone has already managed to forget about got a ban after about a month (about 16-17 April), while the reasons for the ban according to the highlighted paragraphs of the rules is highly questionable. Begs the conclusion that someone creates the appearance of work. Nowhere in the rules is specified that if the applicant leaves a request in the order (in which the customer has indicated any of his contact information), then it is an offense on the part of the applicant. Why did the freelance moderators suddenly decide after almost a month that bidders (all without exception) exchange contact details with this requester?
If moderators have any suspicions about requesters, the decision about a ban should probably be made on the basis of the relevant clauses of the rules.
If Priv. administration decided to tighten the conditions of freelance service, then these intentions should be reflected in a more detailed and clear description of the rules.
The answer to freelancers in the style of "in a month maybe they will return the rights - if the board sees remorse" in this situation in my opinion does not withstand any criticism.
Answer in servicedesk on the question "when will be resumed the opportunity to place requests in orders?" did not get, so please resume the ability to place requests in orders for all banned applicants in the above order.
Thank you.
In five years of freelancing on this resource, have you ever failed to understand that it is a violation of the resource's rules, and not something pulled out of thin air? If you took the order and saw the contact information, could have immediately clicked on the "violation" and the reaction to the offense would have been faster. And if you saw the contact details, but submitted a request instead of reporting the violation, then who is guilty of this but you? And if someone is late in reporting a violation, the time of three to four weeks is not critical - there is a violation. If you had clicked on it immediately instead of submitting your candidacy as a performer, there would not have been any talk about "late - already stolen".
There is no need for a personal report.
You don't see much, but that doesn't say there isn't anything:
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategy testing
Missing right to apply for freelance order execution.
Artyom Trishkin, 2019.04.23 12:43
This request has been reported to the administration. Do I have to personally report the response to you in person?
... In my humble opinion, the infringement of the rules by the applicants in the above application is, to put it mildly, a bit of a stretch. ....
When you submitted your bid -- did you notify (the Violation button) that the bid was in violation of the rules? -- did you inform the submitter that by posting contact information he was in violation of Freelance rules?
I think that's the reason for the blocking.
So I understand that the administration wants/expects/demands that Developers not just participate in Freelance -- but be fully and actively on the side of the administration in terms of following the rules and communicating the rules to the Customer.
In other words, if the Customer placed his details in a public bid, the administration was informed of the violation, the Customer was informed of his violation of the rules of Freelancing.
The Customer offers to contact us before concluding an agreement, gives his details - the details have informed the customer that this is a violation of Freelance rules, cited a link, a quotation of the rule in question.
The Client insists on communication strictly by contacts, offers to work with decompiled - we reported a violation of administration rules.
You don't see much, but that doesn't say there isn't anything:
Yes. The application is dangling and already someone inexperienced is willing to do it to get a reward.
Would an inexperienced person do the decompiling? I doubt it. Experienced, capable, but spitting on our ethics. His excommunication from the services of this resource is a fitting reward for his "inexperience."
On a par with the person who submitted the application.
... On a par with whoever submitted this application.
he would create another account.
I don't do freelancing, I don't get involved in such discussions. If you want to make a suggestion, then voice it in the appropriate thread (I think there's a freelancing suggestion thread somewhere)
Over five years of freelancer on this resource and still could not understand that the violation of the rules of the resource - a violation of the rules of the resource, rather than pulled to the ears of something? If you took the order and saw the contact information, could have immediately clicked on the "violation" and the reaction to the offense would have been faster. And if you saw the contact details, but submitted a request instead of reporting the violation, then who is guilty of this but you? And if someone is late in reporting a violation, the time of three to four weeks is not critical - there is a violation. If you had clicked on it immediately instead of submitting your candidacy as a performer, there would have been no "late - already stolen" talk.
And what makes you think that I or other bidders saw any contact details of the orderer when they applied for this order?
Maybe the customer later edited the text of the order and added contact details?
In fact, the paragraphs of the rules referred to by the moderator, challengers in this order has not broken. Ban is ridiculous and unreasonable.