Monday, February 6, 2012

scottie05 (the employer) closed their account and MOTASH (the worker) was forfeited for posting inappropriate opinions about the other party.

Allegation Summary:

Motash initiated an arbitration to resolve a contract dispute, stating that there was a disagreement over which MSN version needed to be used for the project. The arbitrator noticed that the employer had not set a deadline after the old deadline has passed (a situation called “implicit deadline extension”). So a new deadline needed to be set to allow work to continue. Before that could happen, both parties needed to agree on the contract. Several project issues were brought up by both parties that were resolved. Then a new deadline was set and work continued. When work continued, the employer discovered additional bugs which they reported, but closed their account before the project deadline expired and forfeited the arbitration. Shortly thereafter, Motash was forfeited because he had made additional inappropriate statements despite being warned previously.

Arbitration Summary:

This project was brought into arbitration by Motash (the worker) to resolve a contract dispute. Motash stated that there was a disagreement over which MSN version needed to be used. Scottie8 (the employer) stated that “tested the product on four versions of MSN in three OSes and it crashed on all of them all of the time.” Motash disputed this and brought up additional points as well, and the project went for technical analysis.

Since this project was not 100% complete, work would continue on the project. Both the employer and worker were offered self-mediation, but they could not come to an agreement on the funds.

In technical arbitration, the arbitrator stated that the latest version of MSN available at that point in time would be used and the testing environment would be 32 bit. Motash stated:

the employer gave a feedback that a fault in my program based on a test on platforms(64bit) that were not part of the contract, and when i noticed that and faced him, he said that same faults exists on agreed platforms(32bit),but these faults he claimed didn't exist in the data he provided as a feedback

** i see if my allegation in this point is confirmed by the technical arbitrator, then the employer is preventing work from being completed

The arbitrator ruled that the employer did not prevent work from being completed by testing on a 64 bit version of Windows. 

Motash stated:

Which version of MSN?

-the latest version,that's clear to me

2. Which environment do the deliverables have to work on?

clear to me,32 bit platforms as per Posting # 36,355,035, but to be more specific as this posting is an extension to Posting # 36,355,031, so specifically i believe its :

ONLY XP SP3, Vista SP1, Windows 7 on 32bit platform

3. Are extra features added by the worker considered part of the contract?

NOT CLEAR, since we are technically speaking,we should not consider a general answer for general request, as it had been subject to clarification and not been answered in its detailed form on Arbitration Response Ids: 1,669,116 , 1,669,871

After this, Motash brought up several issues regarding the employer’s previous responses and re-raised the issue that it prevented him from completing the work because he tested in a 64 bit environment. He was given a warning reminding him to remain professional or he would forfeit the arbitration in Arbitration Response Id: 1,674,883.

The arbitrator looked at the employer’s responses and reconfirmed that his actions did not prevent the work from being completed, since he had also tested in a 32 bit environment and posted the results. Since the project was an implicit deadline (The deadline had expired, work continued, and no new deadline was set), work was to continue.

On Monday Sep 26, 2011 2:56:06 PM, Motash did receive a warning for the following statements:

My Reply:that's not true, any agreed details by both parties in their conversation is part of the specs, and I'M SURPRISED THAT YOU DIDN'T REPLY HIM


as a judging party,i expect you not to follow nor show what you THINK on behalf of any party, until BOTH parties show their allegations(you did so on arbit. resp. ID: 1,672,194 before the employer gave his reply)

Scottie05 did bring up issues regarding the implicit deadline because Motash had marked the project complete. The implicit deadline rules were explained – if the project goes past the deadline and work continues without a deadline being set, the project is in an implicit deadline situation and work continues. Motash was also warned not to respond to the other person’s post – as this warning was given previously in Arbitration Response Id: 1,664,366.

Motash had an issue regarding the MSN version as they had trouble getting MSN to work on their computer.

Both parties could not agree on a deadline: scottie05 requested 24 hours and Motash requested “5 days from a fix is provided”. As both parties could not agree on a deadline, the arbitrator imposed a deadline of 3 days. Scottie05 did not agree to the length of the deadline, but did set the deadline onsite. The issue regarding not setting a new deadline when the old deadline expired was again explained to scottie05.

Work began and both parties responded back and forth to each other. In Arbitration Response Id: 1,683,366, Motash was again warned for giving opinions. After receiving the warning, Motash posted a list of statements to determine if they were opinions or not.

Scottie05 posted a list of defects. However, before the end of the deadline to complete the work, they deliberately forfeited the arbitration and closed their account without waiting to see if Motash was going to fix the issues before the end of the deadline.

Motash was forfeited shortly thereafter when it was determined that he should not have been given a second warning because he had been warned previously. The arbitrator and Motash had a discussion regarding opinions and what constituted opinions. Motash was given an option to go for a review, but declined.

Full Arbitration

Friday, January 6, 2012

Action taken against Jeremy Collins of Pennsylvania (due to duplicate account link to Brett Rutecky of Pennsylvania)

Note: this is not about arbitration fraud but about general fraud instead. This post has been updated to include the most up-to-date information.

The user Jeremy Collins of Pennsylvania was detected by the new security system as being another user who was ejected from the site (Brett Rutecky of Pennsylvania). Brett had been ejected from the site previously for multiple fraud accounts (seven): which he created to hide his numerous lost arbitrations from new employers. Each time he would also lose more arbitrations, pick unnecessary fights with employers, and the process would continue. Brett then started using family and friends names to setup accounts and cash checks, to try to avoid detection.

Numerous things were matched by the system between Jeremy Collins and Brett Rutecky.  (The system uses extremely sophisticated behavioral analysis of site data, far beyond simple matching on emails and ip addresses).  As one example, Jeremy Collins created this job for his worker to fix his website:  However, the WHOIS for revealed the site does not belong to a Jeremey Colllins, but actually belongs to Brett Rutecky.  There were many other matches like this.
Despite the obvious links, we still wanted to be give Jeremey a chance to explain himself (since a duplicate account results in a closed account). So Jeremy was given the opportunity to provide identification, so he could be paid the funds in his account ($347.00). However, he refused to do this.

As an alternative option, Jeremy was given the option to sign a contract saying he would not return to the site under a duplicate account.  A contract was created by vWorker, which included a clause that Jeremy would be excused from the disintermediation (opt-out) clause in his Worker Agreement if he notified his employers of the true reason he was being removed from the vWorker site. Jeremy agreed to the clause and stated that he would notify his employers after he received payment of the $347.00 in his account. Both vWorker and Jeremy signed the contract and the funds in Jeremy’s account were paid out. However, once Jeremy received his payment, he refused to notify his employers. Therefore, the disintermediation (opt-out) clause is still being enforced at this time.

If you are a previous employer of Jeremey and wish to switch to another worker, we will be happy to assist you.  If you wish to work with him offsite, please remember that you cannot do so unless you pay the fee specified in the disintermediation opt-out clause of their Employer Agreement.  Any employer who works offsite with Jeremy without following the opt-out procedure, will be breaking their contract with vWorker and subject to the disintermediation penalty (see below) as well as forfeiting their account.  If you have any questions about this, please let us know.


Disintermediation (and opt-out).
Employer agrees to pay Worker exclusively through the payment channels made available on the site and will not bypass it by paying through other channels (i.e. "disintermediation"). Worker also agrees not to participate in disintermediation as well. If disintermediation occurs, both Employer and Worker agree to each pay a penalty fee to Exhedra that is the greater of:

  1. All Exhedra fees that would have been charged for all payments, plus a penalty of 20%.
  2. $2,750
Additionally, Exhedra may (at its discretion) also close both accounts, and if so, all parties will additionally forfeit all unspent funds in those accounts. Employer and worker authorize that the penalty fee can be assessed from either of them or a combination. They also authorize it can be obtained in any way necessary by Exhedra, including charging of any credit cards on file.

Both employer and worker also agree that if they request or encourage disintermediation, then they will be subject to the same penalties as the act of disintermediation itself. Both employer and worker agree to alert Exhedra if another party requests, solicits or participates in intermediation.

  • Opt-out options.

    A specific employer can pay a specific worker directly and bypass the site (disintermediation), without penalty, under the following two opt-out situations:

    a) Paid opt-out: Employer or worker pays Exhedra an opt-out fee that is the greater of:
    1. The total Exhedra fees charged from transactions between the two parties during the previous 365 days.
    2. $450

    b) Free opt-out: 3 years after the employer and worker were first brought together on the Exhedra site, the two may participate in disintermediation without charge.

    To perform a paid opt-out, parties also agree to notify Exhedra with the following information:

    1. User id and email addresses of both employer and worker.
    2. Whether this is a paid opt-out or a free opt-out.
    3. Who will pay the opt-out fee (if it applies)?
    Once the opt-out fee is charged by Exhedra (or the free opt-out has occurred), then both parties may freely participate in disintermediation with the other party.

Complete log of what happened:

Thursday, December 29, 2011

JeremyCollins forfeits arbitration for posting opinions/attacks on other party (after being warned repeatedly not to) and responding out of turn (after being warned not to); arbitration is awarded to cyrusb

Allegation summary: Jeremy Collins (the worker) started this arbitration in order to get cyrusb (the employer) to accept the work and get paid. During the arbitration, Jeremy Collins was warned several times for unprofessional behavior, posting out of turn, and for giving opinions (i.e. personal attacks)about the other parties in the arbitration. Jeremy Collins was told that if he repeated the behavior he would forfeit the arbitration. During the testing of the work to determine if it was completed 100% or not, Jeremy Collins repeated the same behavior.  He was forfeited for giving opinions and posting out of turn.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

vWorker discovers Antony Repin failed to meet deadline and contract; Awards arbitration and all funds to MetalGuy

Allegation summary:
The employer, MetalGuy, alleged that Antony Repin, the worker, did not complete the project by the deadline, asked for a partial payment during the project even though the work had barely started, and had “horrible” communication.
Antony Repin alleged that he requested a deadline extension because of problems with software on the testing and live servers and that his time request was reasonable.

Monday, April 25, 2011

JamesScw0 (from California, United States) versus Lussay (from Vrancea Romania)

Allegation summary:
The worker, Lussay, alleged that the project was already complete but that the employer, jamescw0, continued to ask for new things. jamescw0 alleged that the project was not complete and that the remaining items were part of the contract.

Friday, April 22, 2011

vWorker discovers PixignStudio failed to meet contract and deadline; Awards arbitration and all funds to registryman

Allegation summary: The employer (registryman of Leicester, United Kingdom) alleged that the worker (PixignStudio of Karachi, Pakistan) did not upload any deliverables to the vWorker site before the project deadline expired. Pixignstudio alleged that registryman didn’t give complete information about the project which is why it wasn’t completed by the deadline.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

The Review of Dragos’s Behavior in Arbitration

Account Review of Tanasie Dragos Constantin

This account is being reviewed due to the worker's behavior in the arbitration of the project CellarTraks II. The purpose of this review is to determine if the worker should have their account closed due to their behavior in the arbitration.

As documented in the Worker’s Agreement:

Inappropriate Behavior. Should the Worker demonstrate poor or inappropriate behavior (to be determined at the sole discretion of Exhedra), Exhedra reserves the right to publicly document such behavior via a rating and comment in the Worker's profile. Such behavior includes (but is not limited to) losing an arbitration, refusing to cooperate with an arbitration, and sending abusive communications to the other party or to Exhedra staff.

Dragos/Nashoba arbitration summary

Summary of CellarTraks II Arbitration

This project was brought into arbitration by the employer, Nashoba, as a contract dispute in a pre-deadline situation. The employer stated "My worker, dragostanasie, and I are in conflict over payment as the project is almost done but he will not transfer the code to my server without me releasing 75% of the funds." In Arbitration Response Id: 1,518,091, Dragos confirmed that the work uploaded to vworker meets the project requirements 100%. However, the work had not been installed on the employer's environment as required by the project summary and had not been tested. There was still time to complete the work and the goal of the arbitration was to determine the remaining work to be completed, set a new deadline, and then the worker would be given the opportunity to complete the work.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Discussion board for the Dragos / Nashobawinery arbitration

Background for this posting (this was originally posted on the other blog)

It's good to have a lively back and forth on the Dragos / Nashobawinery arbitration and I appreciate everyone's participation. But I have also received some complaints. Many people subscribed to the blog to get updates about the site and instead are having their feeds and email boxes cluttered with what one described as a "flame war". Others have pointed out that the original topic blog posting (which has long been forgotten) was not about this person's specific arbitration and that this has gone way off topic.

At the same time, the people writing back and forth have their right to express their opinions (as long as they do so with professional language...which I'll address below). Personally, I am disappointed to see several people form such strong opinions after hearing only 1 side of the story and not waiting to actually view the evidence of what happened so they can make up their own minds about what actually happened. They are like jurors who listened to the defendant's story and proclaimed their verdict: before viewing any actual evidence or allowing the prosecution to speak! But if that is what they want to do, then even these people have the right to do that.

So to help both groups, I'm creating a brand new blog posting JUST about the Dragos / Nashobawinery arbitration.

Issues and misconceptions about this arbitration

1) Use of unprofessional or inappropriate language:

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Multiple violated contracts: Lerie Taylor, of San Diego, California and arbitrations he forfeited

This posting concerns three arbitrations involving Lerie Taylor with three different employers on the vWorker site from October 8, 2009 to October 20, 2009. They are labeled as "Arbitration #1 ", "Arbitration #2 ", and "Arbitration #3".

Arbitration 1

Allegation summary:
The worker (Lerie Taylor of San Diego, California) alleged that the work was 100% complete so he should be paid. The employer (bbassett of San Francisco, California) alleged that the work was incomplete and that Lerie Taylor sent “rude emails every minute for hours on some sort of autopilot.” 

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Copyright fraud (and inappropriate release of private information) by Rajamanickam Antonimuthu of QualityPoint Technologies (in Tamil Nadu, India), on Google Maps project for employer alexdw1 (in Rainham, Kent, United Kingdom)

Allegation summary: The employer (Alexdw1 of Rainham, Kent, United Kingdom) alleged that the worker (Rajamanickam Antonimuthu of QualityPoint Technologies in Tamil Nadu, India), got into a disagreement with him over scope of the project, and sent threatening emails to him saying he would redistribute his copyrighted code if he didn't get his way. Alexdw1 alleged that Rajamanickam Antonimuthu followed through on these threats and posted the code Alexdw1 purchased from him on his public blog. In addition, he also alleged that Rajamanickam posted confidential information entrusted to him, including his mother's private phone number.

Details: Rajamanickam Antonimuthu of QualityPoint Technologies Located in: 2/148, V.O.C Street, Ottapidaram Tuticorin District, Tamil Nadu 628401, India
on this project: PHP MYSQL Website Google Maps

Arbitration summary: