Comment Posting that currently is not allowed on SpamSpott (Score 1) 190
The following was posted to the original Spam Spotter article that started this article. However the response is not being allowed to be posted by the admin (specifically it says "pending moderation"). In case it never is posted and will never see the "light of day"...it is also being posted here.
---
To Spam Spotter,
Libel is the act of writing something which unjustly damages the reputation of another party. It is not just "bad manners"...it is a criminal act. There are MANY incorrect statements in this article on Spam Spotter, including the following:
---
1) Incorrect information: "the arbitrator were claiming that we both broke the TOS agreement (Which was totally false)"
Your project is located at: http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder/misc/BidReque sts/ShowBidRequest.asp?lngBidRequestId=461.
In the arbitration you, yourself, stated:
"the project was to create an auction system similar to Rentacoder.com which would primarily focus on publishers and writers. In this system there would be workflow features implemented that would be of importance to writers and publishers."
The Terms of Service of Rent a Coder (at http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder/SoftwareBuyer s/BidReqestPostingPolicy.asp) state:
"We realize imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but this type of flattery is not allowed. This includes clones of sites that are competitors, or work on a service that would be a competitor."
Since Rent a Coder is an auction system which supports publishers and writers (in addition to coders, graphics artists, designers and translators...your service clearly "would be a competitor". As such it violates the RAC TOS.
Your incorrect statement that that TOS violation "was totally false", is unjustly damaging the reputation of Rent a Coder.
---
2) Incorrect/Misleading statement:
"This became a nightmare...so in effect the arbitration was all about the us breaking the TOS rather than ruling on the actual case that I initiated the arbitration on in the first place."
---------------
The above implies that Rent a Coder somehow was diverted off the main point of the arbitration and processed the arbitration incorrectly.
In fact, the process Rent a Coder was supposed to follow (and did follow) had already been pre-agreed upon by you in your contract:
http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder/SoftwareBuyer s/SoftwareBuyerLegal.asp
"Illegal Requests. Despite Exhedra's best efforts to prohibit bid requests that violate either Rent a Coder policy or United States law, it cannot prevent all such bid requests from being posted, as no system is perfect. Should a Buyer, against the wishes of Exhedra, post such a bid request, choose a Seller and escrow funds, then Buyer agrees that Exhedra may cancel the project at any time. Buyer also agrees that they forfeit rights to some or all of the funds (as detailed below) as well as forfeit all rights to any deliverables. Additionally, Buyer will be ejected from the site under the terms of 'fraud' and may be reported by Exhedra to the proper authorities.
The forfeited fund amount shall be determined as follows, and is designed to fairly compensate a non-complicit Seller. If Exhedra determines that the Seller is not complicit, then Exhedra will determine the percentage of work completed by the Seller. That amount will be deducted from the Buyer's funds. Exhedra will award the percentage to the Seller (minus any applicable Rent a Coder fee as detailed elsewhere). Any remainder will be returned to the buyer (minus any cancellation fee as detailed elsewhere). The deliverables will NOT be released to the Buyer.
If Exhedra determines the Seller was complict then the Seller will receive no credits and the entire amount will be returned to the buyer (minus any cancellation fee as detailed elsewhere)."
---------------
The statement you made was an attempt to deliberately mislead the reader into believing that the proper process was not followed...when in fact it was. It's a deliberate attempt to unjustly damage the reputation of Rent a Coder.
---
3) Omitted information/Misleading implication:
"I don't see how someone with a degree in Forestry can be an effective arbitrator which is generally related to the field of law."
The above implies that your arbitrator was unqualified to arbitrate on your project.
However, you deliberately ommited a crucial fact. Specifically, your arbitration did not require any special expertise (legal or otherwise) to process. It simply required someone who could the English in #2 above competently and follow simple instructions. Both of these were done accurately and completely by your arbitrator.
You may or may not have known that the arbitration process was setup by a person with legal expertise. The arbitrators then follow that process. As such, 99.9% of arbitrations require no knowledge of law to handle. Over 50% don't even require technical knowledge (just the ability to read English, and interpet deadlines, etc.). However, the instant that an arbitration requires special knowledge, it is transferred to a person with that knowlwedge. That was NOT the case with your arbitration becuase it required no special knowledge.
Regardless of whether or not you knew how RAC works, you omitted information regarding the expertise required on your arbitration to process it effectively. This unjustly damages the reputation of Rent a Coder.
---
To Spam Spotter,
Libel is the act of writing something which unjustly damages the reputation of another party. It is not just "bad manners"...it is a criminal act. There are MANY incorrect statements in this article on Spam Spotter, including the following:
---
1) Incorrect information: "the arbitrator were claiming that we both broke the TOS agreement (Which was totally false)"
Your project is located at: http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder/misc/BidRequ
In the arbitration you, yourself, stated:
"the project was to create an auction system similar to Rentacoder.com which would primarily focus on publishers and writers. In this system there would be workflow features implemented that would be of importance to writers and publishers."
The Terms of Service of Rent a Coder (at http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder/SoftwareBuye
"We realize imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but this type of flattery is not allowed. This includes clones of sites that are competitors, or work on a service that would be a competitor."
Since Rent a Coder is an auction system which supports publishers and writers (in addition to coders, graphics artists, designers and translators...your service clearly "would be a competitor". As such it violates the RAC TOS.
Your incorrect statement that that TOS violation "was totally false", is unjustly damaging the reputation of Rent a Coder.
---
2) Incorrect/Misleading statement:
"This became a nightmare...so in effect the arbitration was all about the us breaking the TOS rather than ruling on the actual case that I initiated the arbitration on in the first place."
---------------
The above implies that Rent a Coder somehow was diverted off the main point of the arbitration and processed the arbitration incorrectly.
In fact, the process Rent a Coder was supposed to follow (and did follow) had already been pre-agreed upon by you in your contract:
http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder/SoftwareBuye
"Illegal Requests. Despite Exhedra's best efforts to prohibit bid requests that violate either Rent a Coder policy or United States law, it cannot prevent all such bid requests from being posted, as no system is perfect. Should a Buyer, against the wishes of Exhedra, post such a bid request, choose a Seller and escrow funds, then Buyer agrees that Exhedra may cancel the project at any time. Buyer also agrees that they forfeit rights to some or all of the funds (as detailed below) as well as forfeit all rights to any deliverables. Additionally, Buyer will be ejected from the site under the terms of 'fraud' and may be reported by Exhedra to the proper authorities.
The forfeited fund amount shall be determined as follows, and is designed to fairly compensate a non-complicit Seller. If Exhedra determines that the Seller is not complicit, then Exhedra will determine the percentage of work completed by the Seller. That amount will be deducted from the Buyer's funds. Exhedra will award the percentage to the Seller (minus any applicable Rent a Coder fee as detailed elsewhere). Any remainder will be returned to the buyer (minus any cancellation fee as detailed elsewhere). The deliverables will NOT be released to the Buyer.
If Exhedra determines the Seller was complict then the Seller will receive no credits and the entire amount will be returned to the buyer (minus any cancellation fee as detailed elsewhere)."
---------------
The statement you made was an attempt to deliberately mislead the reader into believing that the proper process was not followed...when in fact it was. It's a deliberate attempt to unjustly damage the reputation of Rent a Coder.
---
3) Omitted information/Misleading implication:
"I don't see how someone with a degree in Forestry can be an effective arbitrator which is generally related to the field of law."
The above implies that your arbitrator was unqualified to arbitrate on your project.
However, you deliberately ommited a crucial fact. Specifically, your arbitration did not require any special expertise (legal or otherwise) to process. It simply required someone who could the English in #2 above competently and follow simple instructions. Both of these were done accurately and completely by your arbitrator.
You may or may not have known that the arbitration process was setup by a person with legal expertise. The arbitrators then follow that process. As such, 99.9% of arbitrations require no knowledge of law to handle. Over 50% don't even require technical knowledge (just the ability to read English, and interpet deadlines, etc.). However, the instant that an arbitration requires special knowledge, it is transferred to a person with that knowlwedge. That was NOT the case with your arbitration becuase it required no special knowledge.
Regardless of whether or not you knew how RAC works, you omitted information regarding the expertise required on your arbitration to process it effectively. This unjustly damages the reputation of Rent a Coder.
