RentACoder nightmare

[Zeeble]

A project of mine went into arbitration in May this year after the coder had made insufficient progress.

It dragged on for absolutely months. I was forfeited twice, and twice a senior arbitrator admitted that a mistake had been made and that the arbitration should be reopened.

RentACoder says in it's contract that if a dispute arises, they test the deliverables to decide what percentage of the project had been completed.
During a period of 5 months, no testing on the deliverables had taken place and Rafeek Kulkarni (the arbitrator) had not even got the point of finalising what the deliverables should be. I was disguisted.

Then, about 1 week ago I had computer problems. My computer went bust and it took three days to fix during which time I was required to respond to the arbitration. I responded, but as it turned out I was a few hours late in responding.

RentACoder immediately used this as an excuse to have me forfeit the arbitration for a breach of the contract, which they claimed would delay the arbitration (the contract says that you have 3 days to reply). I had no way of notifying RentACoder of the problems.
All of the money was sent to the coder and I didn't get a single penny back even though the coder had completed only a small amount.

What really annoyed me was the fact that RentACoder would not be flexible at all in terms of my lateness, they said that it was against the contract and therefore I had forfeited. However, I had responded on Thursday Sep 14, 2006 6:03:25 PM Rafeek then responded on Friday Sep 15, 2006 9:30:59 AM 15 hours later! Yet they have the audacity to say that I held the arbitration up.
At one point during the arbitration it actually took Rafeek more than 7 days to reply to a comment made, yet I wasn't allowed an extensions of less than a day due to unforseen circumstances thus loosing me over $300.

To sum up:
An arbitration with NO PROGRESS lasting 5 months.
A loss of $300 due to a slight delay which was explained.
Numerous mistakes on behalf of RentACoder (self admitted)
Arbitrators taking more than 7 days to reply.
Copy and paste answers with no real understanding of the situation.

If you want to avoid all of the above, DO NOT USE RENTACODER.

I have reported them to BBB and SquareTrade, although I doubt I will get any money back. I just wanted to make people beware that their arbitration system is useless and wastes a lot of time.

RentACoder actually said that my arbitration lasted for a record amount of time, and at one point Ian Ipolitto had to step in to say that Rafeek had forfeited me wrongly and to reopen the arbitration.

 

[Legal]

Colin,

>>It only happened twice. On of the times was a mistake made by Rafeek which was pointed out by Ian Ippolito. Therefore like I said before, I was forfeited due to a slight time infraction.

You're either digging yourself in deeper intentionally or forgetting the OTHER arbitration in which you forfeited for the exact same reason...not replying in the timeframe you agreed to. You were given an exception the first time it happened, and told it could only happen once. You again chose not to reply in 3 business days and you forfeited.

>>So you failed to mention that one of those time infractions was due to RAC's mistake!

Again, I think you're forgetting to count the 2 additional ones on the other arbitration.

>>I also stated that (in relation to the above) the arbitration spanned more than 4 months so time infractions were inevitable at some point considering that in such a large amount of time, due in large to mistakes made by RAC, no testing of the deliverables were completed.

People can read the arbitration Colin. The majority of time was NOT spent due to RAC. A typical testing arbitration takes only a few days. This reason one took so long becuase you VOLUNTARILY chose to work with him, rather than go for testing. You were given the choice for testing in Arbitration Response Id: 366,119 and you DECLINED it. You consumed the majority of time by your choice....not the mistake made by Rafeek (which was corrected). And that mistake had nothing to do with why you forfeited.

>>If RAC had completed the arbitration in a timely manner without mistakes (meaning without those particular copy and paste answers), in my opinion the problem concerning the second time infraction would not have occured.

That isn't a logically constructed assertion. First, the majority of time in the arbitration was not taken up by that mistake by Rafeek, or in correcting it. The majority of time was taken by you and your choice to work with the coder and DECLINE testing. Second, you had already had a pattern of being a serial offender for missing deadlines before this arbitration started. You missed a total of 4 and received 2 exceptions/extensions. Clearly your habit existed before that mistake occurred, and it was simply continuing afterwards. At some point Colin, a person has to take responsibility for their own actions.

>>Also Rod, why did Cherry tell me that there was no-one by the name of "Rod" working at RentACoder?

This is completely offtopic, but I will answer it and then return to the point. First, her name is actually Sherry rather than Cherry. You can find that out about her by going to the RAC employee page at http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder/misc/About/default.asp. And when you do that, you'll also see that I am an employee as well and have been listed there for the 3 months I've been working here. I am fortunate to work from home and report directly to the owner. As a result, I do not deal with phone calls, nor the day-time staff. I have met 3 of them, but am not familiar with all of them and vice-versa.

This however has nothing to do with what is being discussed: Which is the fact Colin that you have deliberately misrepresented what occurred...and are continuing to dig yourself in deeper.

Colin, will you solidify the case against you by doing so again in your next reply? Or will you "come clean" and acknowledge where you might have "exaggerated", "omitted" and/or "stretched" the facts for the benefit of other viewers?

As you saw from the letter, all RAC wants is for you to retract the inaccurate statements you made. Even though you've already damaged us unfairly with those statements, we are currently not pursuing any action against you to collect those damages. But you MUST undo the damage you've done by making those inaccurate statements.

Rod

 

[Zeeble]

In the summary you have laid out how many times I forfeited for not responding:
In point three you say I forfeited for not responding, when in actual fact that was Rafeek's mistake, as I had responded, but he had NOT responded correctly to me. Therefore that was not my fault.

Then, in point six I was forfeited for not responding. And then for a second time at point 7.

You say I had violated the three day deadline three times prior to this but there is NO record of this anywhere in the arbitration (both parts, 1 and 2).
So again, it only happened twice, both times there was a reason for it.

You also claim that I held up the arbitration by declining to have the deliverables tested.

I wanted the project finished. It was put into arbitration Saturday May 27, 2006 11:59:21 AM, I said I would give him another 5 days. Please remember it was the coder who originally put the project into arbitration and not me.
Then on Friday Jun 9, 2006 8:49:01 AM, the project was put into technical arbitration (pardon me if I am wrong, but does that not mean testing?) as a result of a dispute over the deliverables.

The arbitration was finally closed on Friday Sep 15, 2006 9:35:17 AM. That's over 4 months AFTER the arbitration was put in for testing. So how can my decision to want to work with the coder possibly be the reason for a 4 month delay?

It seems to me that even you don't have a thorough understanding of the events that occurred throughout the arbitration.

It also amuses me to see that your arbitrators are sometimes so busy that it takes them over a week sometimes to reply with a short answer. From my point of view little regard was made in that sense for me.

As far as I can tell, I only posted my opinions and facts taken from the actual arbitration, but if I have done otherwise, please point them out to me with reference to the arbitration and I will gladly remove them.
In the meantime I am taking legal advice and will not remove any content until I have gone through that process.

 

[Nashfan]

I don't have the details of this case, so I won't presume to know who's at fault, but I would suggest for both parties to end this now. Mr. Behr, I understand that you have been damaged in this scenario, but it seems more likely that this is simply human error, not an intentional oversight. I think you will gain nothing by arguing the point.

Mr. Smith, you now have a choice to make: you can be right, or you can keep your customers. Mr. Behr has made some mistakes, and I'm sure there were some people here ready to ignore him, until you proved that RentACoder would rather have a reputation of being correct than a reputation of friendly customer service. Not only will you gain nothing from arguing the point, I think you have much to lose.

If this "discussion" continues, Mr. Behr could end up with a lawsuit and lose far more than he did on a coder, and RentACoder could end up with a destroyed reputation, far worse than Mr. Behr is causing on his own. This post should be the last in this topic.

 

[Legal]

Colin,

>>In the summary you have laid out how many times I forfeited for not responding. In point three you say I forfeited for not responding, when in actual fact that was Rafeek's mistake, as I had responded, but he had NOT responded correctly to me. Therefore that was not my fault.

It's sounds like you are misunderstanding which 2nd arbitration I'm referring to as well as missing exceptions RAC gave you. (When I say "other arbitration" I'm talking about the "Creating a basic website" arbitration...which is a different project and arbitration completely from this project "PHP and Mysql development". )

So to be 100% clear...here is a complete log of ALL of the times you didn't respond in the timeframe you agreed to...and the numerous times RAC gave you an exception and didn't forfeit you for it.

1) On "Creating a basic website" you were given 5 business days to respond to the coder's accusation that they finished work but you didn't respond to accept it. You failed to respond in that time. RAC gave you an extension (even though it didn't have to) in Arbitration Response Id: 236,587 and gave you another 3 business days. You were warned that we could not give you another extension. You did not respond on those 3 business days and forfeited.

2) On this project "PHP and Mysql development": You forfeited for not answering Rafeeks' question in 3 business days. He did not forfeit you and instead granted you an extension (Arbitration Response Id: 383,278). He warned you that you site policy doesn't allow for a 2nd extension. You then responded in time for your next response.

After this, was where Rafeek made his mistake and forfeited you for not following instructions. Ian overruled it. I am NOT referencing anything in this section against you, since it was overruled.

Afterr this, you lapsed again in your responses at Arbitration Response Id: 422,289 by not filling out the flaw list per the instructions you were given. AGAIN Rafeek gave you an extension (which he technically shouldn't have done because it was overly lenient...but he did it for you anyway). He again told you that not responding in 3 days would result in your forfeiture. On Arbitration Response Id: 429,761, you again did not respond in the 3 days. You were forfeited from the arbitration by Rafeek.

-------------------
summary:
So in the first arbitration, you failed to respond twice by your deadline (one 5 day deadline and a 3 day extension). In the second, you failed to respond three times by the deadline (all 3 business day dealindes)...NOT counting anything that happened that was overruled.
-------------------


>>Then, in point six I was forfeited for not responding. And then for a second time at point 7. You say I had violated the three day deadline three times prior to this but there is NO record of this anywhere in the arbitration (both parts, 1 and 2). So again, it only happened twice, both times there was a reason for it.

The record is there for all to see Colin at:
http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACode...itration/ColinBehr_RentACoder_Arbitration.htm
You are a serial deadline abuser, and did not respond to the deadline 5 times. RAc made numerous exceptions for you...3 times. Yet you posted inaccurate information to the good people on this board, in which you claimed RAC forfieted you to get rid of your arbitrationn quickly. Nothing could be further from the truth.

colin, you seem to be misunderstanding what I meant by "2nd arbitration". Please see what I wrote in the first paragraph and you will understand what I was awing.

>>You also claim that I held up the arbitration by declining to have the deliverables tested.

No, that is not what I said. what I said is that YOU posted (in your first post) that you were "disgusted" because RAC wouldn't test the deliverables "during a period of 5 months". In actuality, it was you who DECLINED testing after being given the choice right off the bat. I also never said you "held it up". What I did say is that if you actually choose testing, it's done very quickly. But your choice (choosing to continue working with the coder) can take longer (obviously)...but that was your choice.

>>I wanted the project finished. It was put into arbitration Saturday May 27, 2006 11:59:21 AM, I said I would give him another 5 days. Please remember it was the coder who originally put the project into arbitration and not me.Then on Friday Jun 9, 2006 8:49:01 AM, the project was put into technical arbitration (pardon me if I am wrong, but does that not mean testing?) as a result of a dispute over the deliverables.

First, just so you understand, a technical arbitrator does not comes into the arbitration just for testing. It can be for testing, but it also can be for anything technical arises which the non-technical arbitrator cannot address. This includes when you choose to continue working with the coder and a dispute arises over things like requirements, etc.

Second...(address 5 day claim)

>>The arbitration was finally closed on Friday Sep 15, 2006 9:35:17 AM. That's over 4 months AFTER the arbitration was put in for testing. So how can my decision to want to work with the coder possibly be the reason for a 4 month delay? It seems to me that even you don't have a thorough understanding of the events that occurred throughout the arbitration.

colin, you and everyone else can read the timeline that occurred:
http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACode...itration/ColinBehr_RentACoder_Arbitration.htm

You are omitting many of the other things that occurred. For example, RAC awarded you several extensions...including when you said you were going to be away. More time was consumed because the two of you started arguing and insulting rather than cooperating, and RAC had to step in. RAC had difficulties getting cooperation from you at several points (including filling out items in the flaw list). The coder was also responsible at certain points for delays. Additionally, the review process did consume time as well, which is RAC's responsibility.

>>It also amuses me to see that your arbitrators are sometimes so busy that it takes them over a week sometimes to reply with a short answer. From my point of view little regard was made in that sense for me.

I apologize you had a time where Rafeek took a week to reply. But there may be a reason that you are not seeing (for example, often he has to setup a testing, or do things that take more time...even when his actual answer to you is short). Please please point out the posting id # this occurred on and I will check into this. I do know that this was back when we had only 2 technical arbitrators (now we have 3 and are hiring a 4th. So if he really did delay that long one time I apologize.

>>As far as I can tell, I only posted my opinions and facts taken from the actual arbitration,

This is an EXTREMELY inaccurate statement. Just in your 4 pargraphs in your first posting on this thread I can see 4 inaccurate statements of fact right now.

>> but if I have done otherwise, please point them out to me with reference to the arbitration and I will gladly remove them

Colin,you were there in the arbitraiton and konw what happened. You know what is untrue and inaccurate. I've given you the most egregious inaccuracies...it's up to you to get those and ALL of them taken care of, as they were your statements and no one else's.

>>In the meantime I am taking legal advice and will not remove any content until I have gone through that proce

Interesting legal advice. If I were in your shoes, I'd remove everything you'v written, because once you remove the inaccurcies, your content becomes unintelligible. But if you want to remove phrase by phrase, then please give me yor attorney's address and information. Our attorney will do you the favor of documenting all the inaccuracies in your first posting ONLY and send them to your attorney. From that you can figure out the 40-50 other inaccurcies that follow that in your subsequent posts. You will be responsible for cleaning out the inaccurate information.

Rod Smith

-------------------------------------------
Nafshan,

I applaud your attempt at mending fences. The problem with "leaving it alone" is that the inacccurate statements Colin Behr invented about what happened to him, continue to damage RAC unfairly. While it is regretable he will no longer be a customer of RAC, we actually have a responsibility that goes beyond just our pocketbook. One of our principles is that we run an marketplace that protects both buyers and coders. Colin Behr is a repeat "late responder" (5 times in 2 arbitrations past either 3 or 5 business day deadlines)...and in the other arbitration, the reason it was put into arbitration by the coder was that he stopped respoding to the coder. Even if it would be profitable to bring Colin Behr back, we couldn't do it, becuase his continual habit of not responding, makes him a less than ideal buyer for the coders in a safe marketplace. We have to uphold that...even if it means less profit in the end for RAC.

Rod

 

[Nashfan]

Mr. Smith, you are hurting yourself more than Mr. Behr ever could. Let me speak from personal experience: I recently had a programming project that I wanted to pay someone to do. Rent a Coder was one of the first places I looked. I then saw this topic. Mr. Behr made some mistakes, and may have deserved your arbitration decision. His anger at RAC in his first post did not bother me. However, I saw this long, tiresome discussion about an issue that could have been ignored. I did not want to deal with anything like this if something went wrong with my project, so I passed over RAC and posted my project at guru.com.

In conclusion: Mr. Behr's post did not lose me as a RAC customer. Your inflexibility did. You have lost at least 2 customers, then. One must wonder how many you've gained by this? It certainly seems like a loss.

 

[Legal]

Nashfan,

>>Mr. Behr's post did not lose me as a RAC customer. Your inflexibility did. You have lost at least 2 customers, then. One must wonder how many you've gained by this? It certainly seems like a loss.

I'm sorry to hear that Nashfan.

However if you consider defending your good name from unfair attacks to be "inflexible": then you don't just disagree with me. You also disagree with William Shakespeare. In Othello he said:

"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."

This is why writing inaccurate things is a crime and punishable by the law.

Let me put this another way to you Nashfan.

Let's say I was considering doing business with you. And a coder didn't like you because you didn't send him a bonus he felt he deserved. So he posted on the internet "Nasfhan Nightmare" (just like "RAC nighmare on this thread"). He also wrote "Nasfhan never paid me" (even though you did), and he wrote "beware in doing business with him".

What are your choices? You have 2 choices.
a) You can say nothing and ignore it. And many people will assume that your slience indicates that you cannot defend yourself, becuase you are guilty. Everyone who reads the thread will read how you didn't pay the coder. And if they have a choice to choose you or someone else, they will choose the other person.
b) Or you can choose to defend your good name against the unfair lies told about you. You can point out each instance where the coder lied about you and give out evidence so that people can decide for themselves what happened. This is normally enough to get the person to "come clean". But if it didn't, and you were losing business because of the lies, you could then take legal actions to remove the lies. You can do this, because the court recognizes that it's unfair, unethical and immoral for you to suffer becuase of the lies told by the coder.

So my questions are:

1) You have said you won't use us, because we did #B instead of #A. Would you have done #A in the situation described above?

2) I'm being very honest and direct with you, and I hope that you are being the same way with me, Nashfan. You said that you skipped using RAC because we defended our name from inaccurate attacks and used guru.com instead. However I could not find a job posted by you on the guru web site. What is the URL where you posted your project Nashfan.

Thanks,
Rod

----------------------
Nashfan,

You said:

>>However, I saw this long, tiresome discussion about an issue that could have been ignored. I did not want to deal with anything like this if something went wrong with my project

One final question...to make sure everyhthing is clear.

3) The reason Colin Behr is going though this is because he wrote inaccurate things about RAC to deliberately damage our business. If you write true things...as 99.999% of people do, you have nothing to worry about (you CANNOT be sued, we can't do anything to you, etc.) So the ONLY reason to be concerned is if your intention is to write untrue things about the company you do business with. You seem like an honest person Nashfan. Certainly, having the ability to write untrue things about a company is not the main criteria you use to determine who you will do business with...and who you won't?

Rod

 

[Nashfan]

The reason Colin Behr is going though this is because he wrote inaccurate things about RAC to deliberately damage our business. If you write true things...as 99.999% of people do, you have nothing to worry about (you CANNOT be sued, we can't do anything to you, etc.) So the ONLY reason to be concerned is if your intention is to write untrue things about the company you do business with.

On second thought, I concede this point. You're right here.

b) Or you can choose to defend your good name against the unfair lies told about you. You can point out each instance where the coder lied about you and give out evidence so that people can decide for themselves what happened.

If Budweiser made a Super Bowl commercial in which they did this to me, I would take legal action. However, I hesitate to believe that you have caused much harm in this case. Presenting your case in hopes of Colin Behr "coming clean" is one thing, but legal action is a bit inappropriate, I believe.

I'm being very honest and direct with you, and I hope that you are being the same way with me, Nashfan. You said that you skipped using RAC because we defended our name from inaccurate attacks and used guru.com instead. However I could not find a job posted by you on the guru web site. What is the URL where you posted your project Nashfan.

I am being perfectly honest and direct with you, Mr. Smith. I do not appreciate the implication that I'm not. I posted my project a few months ago, around December 06/January 07. I'll see if I can find the page for you.

 

[acronym007]

Nashfan-
Why in the world would you give Rod anything. You don't have to prove anything to him. You don't owe him anything, he's changing the subject again like he has throughout the course of this thread. I believe he is nothing more than a bully. Let me state some facts:

1. You can sued for anything in life, not just lying, someone can get sued for telling the truth also, did you know that? Suing is rather easy, winning is not. Anyone can sue anyone for any number of reasons, not just lying or slander.
2. Aren't there fictitious stories, aren't there magazine out there that print lies everyday? Rod's got this all twisted and he'll have fun trying to prove his position and the intent of Colin to harm him and and his company by simply posting a beware thread in a forum.
3. You can be sued, in some states even arrested for threatening. Rod does not have the right to come in here and threaten Colin or anyone else. That's nothing more than bullying people. Rod can sue him that's his right, Rod can state his position but if Rod continues to threaten people Rod will be more likely to be sued and lose than Colin. Colin will have some good points, Rod has not one leg to stand on. Ask your lawyer Rod if he wants you in here threating people with lawsuits? If he does I would like to know his/her name and avoid them. Truth is any lawyer will tell you to keep your mouth shut if you have a solid case. Threating to sue is ugly!
4. Me, Joomla, Nashfan, to name a few in this thread; have all tried to help Rod understand some basic business concepts. Help the customer, the customer is never wrong, if the customer FEELS slighted fix it because word of mouth CAN and WILL hurt a company's reputation BUT a company rep can hurt it faster than a cusomter's lips.
5. I would be surprised to find one person counter this point. Rod has done more harm to RAC than Colin in this thread. Rod are you listening yet? Shhhh, Rod, it's the customer talking, we don't want to see RAC in here threatening people, we want to see RAC helping Colin. Doesn't matter if he is right or wrong. He does deserve to be listened to, he paid money for your service.....
6. Forums are for free speech and warnings such as the one Colin wrote about. The facts always need to be weighed by the reader but if Colin feels slighted and it's his fault we'll figure it out but wait, there's a company Rep in here to help, no it looks like the company Rep is threating a lawsuit? WHAT? Let the reader judge, don't attack the thread contributers or the thread creator. State your position and points and move on.
7. Rod has no clue about customer service and I would encourage all who read to be aware of that. Use whomever you will but one thing is certain from the content of this thread, if Rod does not like what you say he will threaten to sue you.
8. Learn your lessons from this and NEVER, NEVER fear the bully. After reading this post I am more energized to post about bad experiences than ever before and especially glad I met Rod who set's the standard of customer service incredibly low. Rod has gone a long way to actually tick me off. Read the thread, he attacks everyone who posts against him. I hope more of you post after reading this and tell Rod and other companies that you support an individual's right to free speech regardless if the company likes it or not.
9. The saddest part. Rod missed a golden opportunity to show the best side of customer service. Rod could have worked things out right in the thread and in front of all of us so we would have the confidence to use RAC and know they care, know they will take care of our problems. That ship has sailed. Opportunity missed and judging by the responses from Rod the lesson still has yet to be learned.

Cheers,

Acro

 

[futureaudio]

Mr Smith:
As it has been said before, you really need to mellow up your attitude and tone towards people in general, at least while representing RAC. Just my 2 cents and I hope I don't end up being attacked by you too.

 

[Zeeble]

Rod,

Many people in this thread have said that they were actually going to ignore what I had written until you did what you did.

It is therefore YOU who has done the damage and not me.

 

[Legal]

Nashfan,

>>On second thought, I concede this point. You're right here.

I'm glad we could come to an agreement on this issue. RAC has no issues with anyone, other than those that go around making up untrue things to try to get people to unfairly stop using it.

>>If Budweiser made a Super Bowl commercial in which they did this to me, I would take legal action. However, I hesitate to believe that you have caused much harm in this case. Presenting your case in hopes of Colin Behr "coming clean" is one thing, but legal action is a bit inappropriate, I believe.

I understand what you're saying about the Super Bowl commercial. However I can't quite agree that Colin Behr hasn't done much harm. Not only did he post these untrue statements about RAC on this thread, (which can be read by anyone in the world) but he also said (on this thread) that he filed reports with Sqaure Trade, the BBB and (according to him) with the Attorney General's office. That is pretty close to Colin Behr doing his best to "super bowl ad" the situation.

>>I am being perfectly honest and direct with you, Mr. Smith. I do not appreciate the implication that I'm not. I posted my project a few months ago, around December 06/January 07. I'll see if I can find the page for you.

Nashfan, I apologize that I had to ask you for that, and I understand how you feel. Hopefully you understand that some people that I deal with that are anonomous and over the internet, do not aways give you accurate information 100% of the time, and this can cause problems. ...Especially when an emotional issue is involved. A good example are the people at the beginning of this thread who relayed that they had "bad experiences on RAC" but when I told them to give the URL and that RAC would apologize if a mistake had been made, they never responded. I suspect that at least some exaggeration was occuring there.

I'm glad to hear that wasn't the case with you.

Rod

--------------------------------
Acronym007,

I'm sorry to see we are drifting even farther apart in our understanding of each other. We may have to end up agreeing to disagree on some things. But at least lets address it logically and fairly like gentleman, instead of dropping to the level of insulting me personally. That is not what this board is about, nor any rational discussion. Can we at least agree to this Acronym007?

I suspect you are not aware of the following which I ask you to consider:

1) Colin's contract with us is setup deliberately to avoid frivilous lawsuits. No one wants to be in such a lawsuit...they are a waste of time and money. So they are avoided by the contract saying that the loser must pay the winner's fees. This means that if Colin really did tell the truth (as he is claiming), WE will pay his legal fees. Plus he will probably MAKE money from penalties. So we have absolutely no incentive to pursue this, unless Colin Behr really did post inaccurate information. (If you were not aware of this I can send you links showing this in detail).
2) Since #1 is the case, it's impossible for me to "bully" Colin. The contract is deliberately setup that way to avoid frivilous law suits. Does this make sense?
3) Rights to post inaccurate information: Imagine you buy a new Toyota and get drunk and wreck it. They won't refund your money. So you get back at them by lying on a bulletin board about what happened and say they sold you bad car and wouldn't refund it. You advise everyone to steer clear of them and complain to the BBB, Square trade and attorney general to try to generate as much negative publiclity as possible.

Acronomy007, if a person did they above, would they be behaving ethically? If the answer is "no", then doesn't Toyota have a right to sue them to protect themselves from the damage the unethical person is causing.

Please note, I am not asking you to agree that this is the case HERE. I'm asking you to at least synch up with me on what your rules for ethics are.

Rod

-------------------------------------------
Colin,

>>Many people in this thread have said that they were actually going to ignore what I had written until you did what you did. It is therefore YOU who has done the damage and not me.

"Many" is debatable, but even if it were not, there is a difference between "many" and "all".

As an example: Polour.NET said the following (BEFORE I posted anything, but after you posted your inaccurate information):
"Oh well, guess time to look elsewhere..."

Clearly he falls in the category of choosing not to use us due to your inaccurate statements. And I suspect that when we subpoena for the logs and interview others who have viewed this thread, we'll have many others to add to that list.

Further, your complaints to the BBB, Square Trade and Attorney general with false information were obvious attempts to maximize the damage from your false statements.

Colin, you deliberately spread inaccurate information in an attempt to damage another party. It was unethical and you are responsible for your actions.

Rod

 

[AMDWarrior]

No Offense, but I wouldn't use you either after reading this thread and not because of anything that was said by anyone but by you, just in the way you act in this post would be enough to make me stay clear of RAC.

 

[Legal]

AMDWarrior,

No offense taken.

Let me ask you a question. I don't know what you do for a living...if you work for yourself or someone else? Let's say your work yourself (if you work for someone else, let me know and I can change the question).

You depend on that business for yourself and to feed your family. Then someone lies about your business with the intention of making others not use you. And you read on that same thread other people saying "That's terrible. I won't use them either". What in your mind would be the appropriate thing to do?

Rod

 

[Zeeble]

AMDWarrior,

No offense taken.

Let me ask you a question. I don't know what you do for a living...if you work for yourself or someone else? Let's say your work yourself (if you work for someone else, let me know and I can change the question).

You depend on that business for yourself and to feed your family. Then someone lies about your business with the intention of making others not use you. And you read on that same thread other people saying "That's terrible. I won't use them either". What in your mind would be the appropriate thing to do?

Rod

Right, your forgetting the fact that nobody has said that they would not use your service because of what I have said, but because of what YOU have said.

Therefore the appropriate thing to do would be to apologise and try to work out the situation without just bulldozing in.

I haven't come here saying "You robbed me". I have come here to tell people what happened, step by step which to most people would mean that I at least have a legit reason (whether or not you deem it to be accurate) for complaining as something in the process of the arbitration has clearly gone wrong. I deem that to be you, and you deem that to be me.

Rather than bulldozing your way in threatening me you could have explained yourself and left it at that. For anyone who's interested the facts would be fully available to make their own mind up.

Instead you have bullied by the use of threats against me which is the real reason why people here have posted why they would not use RAC.

 

[Legal]

Colin,

I'm not sure why you are responding to something that wasn't addressed to you, but I shall respond.

>>Right, your forgetting the fact that nobody has said that they would not use your service because of what I have said, but because of what YOU have said.

This is plaingly inaccurate, Colin. I will repeat again what I wrote just one posting ago to you: Polour.NET said the following (BEFORE I posted anything, but after you posted your inaccurate information): "Oh well, guess time to look elsewhere..." Numerous others sympathized with you and gave you information on reporting to the BBB, etc.. And when we subpoena the records for viewers and interview them I'm confident there will be many people who were driven away by your inaccurate comments.

>>Therefore the appropriate thing to do would be to apologise and try to work out the situation without just bulldozing in.

So Colin, you are saying that in the above hypoethtical situation I just described, (where someone does business with you, you do nothing wrong, they lie about it to try to discourage peple from doing further business with you, and you depend on that business for your living as well as to support your family)...you would "apologize and try to work out the situation without just bulldozing in"?

Come on Colin. Do you apologize to the man who steals your wallet and wish him a good day? Or do you report him to the police so that he can't do it again to you, and to protect everyone else whom he would take unfair advantage of?

>> I have come here to tell people what happened, step by step which to most people would mean that I at least have a legit reason

If that was all you did, there would be no problem Colin, and I would never have even posted on this thread.

The problem is that you lied about a # of things to try to gain sympathy for yourself and to drive business away from RAC unfairly. That was where you crossed the line.

For example, you told people RAC forfeited you for just barely missing a 3 day deadline...encouraging people to sympathize with you about your situation and how inflexible RAC was. You deliberately omitted the fact that you were in fact given 3 exceptions by RAC for missing your deadlines. We bent over backwards for you, and you repaid that kindness by sticking a knife into our backs over it. You knew what you were doing...you were intentinoally trying to drive away business...business which we depend on for ourselves and our families.

>>Rather than bulldozing your way in threatening me you could have explained yourself and left it at that

Most people never read past the 1st page of postings. Doing that, would not stop the problem (which is continuing even now), in that people have a warped view of what happened and unfairly blame RAC because of the inaccurate statements you've made about what happened.

Had the roles been reveresed and had I been lying about Colin Behr enterprises and caused damage to your business, you would have every right to both present your side of the story, and then take whatever action was necessary to get that first page of false information removed.

Rod

 

[Zeeble]

For example, you told people RAC forfeited you for just barely missing a 3 day deadline...encouraging people to sympathize with you about your situation and how inflexible RAC was. You deliberately omitted the fact that you were in fact given 3 exceptions by RAC for missing your deadlines. We bent over backwards for you, and you repaid that kindness by sticking a knife into our backs over it. You knew what you were doing...you were intentinoally trying to drive away business...business which we depend on for ourselves and our families.

Well, first of all, I posted about one abritration, so why you include what happened in other arbitrations doesn't make sense.
My original post was concerning just ONE SINGLE arbitration so why I therefore have no reason to mention the history of any others.

Again, I missed the deadline twice in the arbitration. I deemed the fact that I was forfeited to be unfair, hence why I posted here and in regards to this.

It didn't even occur to me that I should talk about other arbitrations which have occurred as they were totally irrelevant to the post that I had made, and in fact to the arbitration in question.

RAC arbitrators have even said to me before that previous arbitrations are ignored whilst in a new arbitration, so again, why are you even discussing them?

So to say that I was late three times is actually a misrepresentation on your part.

 

[Legal]

Colin,

>>Well, first of all, I posted about one abritration, so why you include what happened in other arbitrations doesn't make sense. My original post was concerning just ONE SINGLE arbitration so why I therefore have no reason to mention the history of any others...RAC arbitrators have even said to me before that previous arbitrations are ignored whilst in a new arbitration, so again, why are you even discussing them?...So to say that I was late three times is actually a misrepresentation on your part.

Had you only complained about the arbitration itself, that would be a fair assumption to make. But you actually complained about a RAC policy...not just the arbitration. RAC policies span multiple arbitrations. And since the policy was actually the opposite of what you claimed it was, it was important to show that this policy is consistently more lenient than you were making it out to be. As we saw on your 2 arbitrations...even though your contract says you forfeit the first time you don't respond in 3 days, we ALWAYS give people a 2nd chance. It is only when they also fail that 2nd chance that they forfeit.

>>Again, I missed the deadline twice in the arbitration. I deemed the fact that I was forfeited to be unfair, hence why I posted here and in regards to this.

Colin, I am glad to see that we are coming to some common ground here, regarding the fact that RAC did give you an exception to the forfeiture.

Let me ask you another question. Let's say the roles were reveresed. Let's say:

1) The coder missed his 3 day deadline to respond (instead of you).
2) We gave the coder an exception to the forfeiture clause in his contract (as we did to you). At the same time, we warned the coder that if he missed another one, that he would forfeit, becuase he would not receive another exception.
3) The coder still didn't respond and missed the 3 day deadline again.
4) He gave an excuse that his computer crashed. But:
4a) It cannot be verified as true (other than by taking his word for it).
4b) He cannot provide a legitimate reason as to why he didn't just logon at the local library or internet cafe.

Colin, what should happen to the coder in the above situation? Should he be given a 3rd chance, and further delay your arbitration?

(I can tell you that on RAC, the coder would forfeit and you would win the arbitration. Note: Even if the above happened, but the coder had a logical and verifiably excuse...for example an illness with documentation from the hospital...an exception would be made. The same accord is given to buyers as is given to coders.)

Colin, do you really feel that the coder should be given a 3rd chance under the above circumstances?

Rod Smith

 

[TakeReal.com]

No Offense, but I wouldn't use you either after reading this thread and not because of anything that was said by anyone but by you, just in the way you act in this post would be enough to make me stay clear of RAC.

It is very good to know. And I am going to complete my 865th project. Via RentACoder of course.

 

[touchring]

No Offense, but I wouldn't use you either after reading this thread and not because of anything that was said by anyone but by you, just in the way you act in this post would be enough to make me stay clear of RAC.

RAC is very firm on deadlines and regulation. You either play by the rules, or you lose the arbitration or project. As in all low cost propositions, there is no time to waste.

 

[snareklutz]

Colin,

If RAC's logs are correct, then I feel that you are being dishonest. RAC had refunded $55 to you out of the $300. At many times, you have been exaggerating the situation. In comparison with other freelance sites, RAC is by far one of the best. It is their arbitration system that protects both buyers and sellers (I have been both a seller and a coder). In comparison with GAF or scriptlance, the absence of a arbitration system means a buyer could pay and receive nothing, and a coder do work and receive no pay.

The fact that you failed to reply is not RAC's fault but yours. Under the contract, you are required to reply (other than certain circumstances such as natural disasters), even if it means using a public computer. RAC was generous enough to give you an extension, so by all means honour it! One of the things that make arbitration a slow and tedious process is that people like you take so long to respond. In fact, the process could not have possibly continued until a reply was received from you.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[-MGS-]

Hey,

Well just doing research into RAC, any update on this? The case etc?

When I read through this (not taking sides I hope), spent an hour of my time looking at this and also researching as well. But as a potential customer of RAC, which is what I am. I am worried about how this has all been handled.

I understand that RAC wants to defend itself and protect the company name. But this thread and how RAC(rob) have replied is damaging the companies integrity, even if you are right, I still do not understand why you have used some strong handed tactics. I understand the nothing is clear cut and me and everyone else probably does not understand it as best as you (Rob) or Zeeble.

But what RAC has said here is worrying me, Is this how they want to handle customers? As me being a potential customer I am worried that if I have a problem I cannot complain on forums like this without being sued (unless I stand in Parliament and then I can say whatever I want as long as I was an MP).

The reputation of RAC should be key at the end of the day but this thread is doing more damage than good. Not by Zeeble but by you Rob, how you have handled this case but also the tactics used.

To me, I just think this is getting out of hand and RAC need to cut its losses and understand that customers are what they need to work for, not against.

Just what think, but I am just a grad student

Thanks

-Dan

 

[touchring]

As me being a potential customer I am worried that if I have a problem I cannot complain on forums like this without being sued (unless I stand in Parliament and then I can say whatever I want as long as I was an MP).

I'm a user of RAC, basically, you are either a buyer or a seller on RAC - what you are NOT is a "customer". RAC arbitrator plays god here.

And since the commission is deducted from the seller payment, if there were to be a customer of RAC, the seller is more of a customer than the buyer.

:tu:

 

[Zeeble]

I have received no further communication from RAC.

I have shown my side of the story, and the arbitration has been posted. Obviously I believe that the case was not handled fairly and RAC believes otherwise. It's great to know that rather than to actually come out and give their side of the story they have to threaten legal action in order to remove customer complaints from the internet.

 

[touchring]

I think they should thank you for the publicity. No one bothers about RAC, most people get their projects done without going through arbitration, and will never need to deal with them directly.