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