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: