[DENIED] Enforcement of inaccurate timeframe/quoted times.

Suggesting inaccurate quotes for time to complete the service be included as false advertising and warrant compensation and/or an infraction. In respect to all timeframes or just guaranteed time frames.

People are willing to pay more for faster service. People say shorter timeframes to entice people and then later after they've gotten the business they just do as they feel. They don't finish by the stated time they either continue as they want or they have to refund based on what wasn't done at a proportional rate.

Especially so if it is agreed to be guaranteed by a certain time and isn't.

Compensation should be required for delays or have at least something done to tackle this issue.




Personally now had multiple skill training issues from trusted members giving quoted times that are not met.

-A frustrated customer who orders skill training.

 

I read the title and knew: this isnt a suggestion from A Broken Man. Vouch.

I support the suggestion. Kind of the same as the already existing rule regarding advertising gold prices which are false.

 

This is how it has always worked, if someone guarantees a date/time then they must follow through with it otherwise you need to be compensated + refunded the amount of work they haven't done.

At least that's how I've always ruled reports I've dealt with in-regards to slacking time frames.

 

That's why you always have to make an agreement about a compensation for delays, before you order something.

 

yes you take estimation time but sometime there might be delay , maybe the the quester/trainer gets issue in real life and had to deal with it first , in the end you're dealing with a human who has his own problems / life , some times it happens with me while im doing a service but i tell the customer first if i could .. but compensation for delay is too much i think

 

I support, but I do also take into account peoples real life issues. If something arises for them and they’re up front with it and puts it on the buyer whether they wish to continue

If buyer chooses not to the trainer forfeits their training as compensation for breach of contract. Seems fair to me

 

This wont ever hold up, theres way to many loopholes, I could break a rule like this into pieces.

The biggest glaring issue is 1) If I quote u a time and I don't meet it, so what? We didn't discuss compensation for me missing that timeframe so what are u going to do to me about it?

The only way this suggestion/rule would work is if theres a contract or very specific terms, 99% of the skilling done by users don't have those sort of agreements and it would be extremely easy to pick those reports apart w/o hassle.

Your proposal is to enforce a punishment on something that currently doesn't have any restrictions, make a suggestion to form restrictions(I.E- Seller must discuss terms if a timeframe isn't completed or it will be ruled against them) and THEN suggest a punishment for violating that restriction.

For now no support, makes no sense to apply a punishment before a restriction is officially made.

 

Support, there should be compensation on top of any refunds for the amount of that isn't done. If you compete based on speed you should be able to meet your promises.

If you tell someone it will be done in a given timeframe, they are paying you for it to be done in that timeframe. You already have to agree a refund/returns policy with your customers, which is usually in the TOS. Section rules mean providers have to ensure every customer agrees to the TOS before a service can begin, things like "If you buy then you agree to my TOS" don't count anymore, so you really can't miss it.

TOS is usually enough since people put most of the things that would fit in a contract in their TOS anyway.

I have no idea what you mean but both can come from the suggestion bud.

 

The biggest issue with most situations like this is that compensation isn't discussed before the service.

If a user says "I will complete this in a week" and doesn't, what is fair compensation? Its arbitrary.

If a user says "I will complete this in a week or you get 25% off" thats clear cut and fixes the issue.

Basically, evaluate your terms so that someone can actually adhere to it, because the only way situations like this can be resolved at that point is a mutual agreement between both parties.

 

As well as agreeing with @Void even if people set time restraints in the real world, some things can happen that change the time an order may take, and although I understand we all have some troubles, but penalizing our service providers for something that could be out of control seems a bit far, I think the provider should set a time constraint, and if they only partially complete a service they get partially paid, or the customer can choose to ask for the service again, same price different time constraint. I just don't care for the penalizing providers part is all..

 

I support this but I don't think it's fair to tack on a penalty for a delay besides the ability to give the user a negative vouch which in itself gives justice. Now if you beforehand say "I'll pay extra 5m if you finish by X date or I'm only going to pay 50% if it's after X date" then for sure I would agree that it's fair because it's been agreed upon. As always communication beforehand is the best. You can't just say "hey it took so long now I want the service free or half back" etc.

 

​

Skill training rules need to be changed then.


"An explicit refund and returns policy must be defined by the trainer and agreed upon by the buyer (in writing) before services are rendered."

"Failure to comply with the above may result in disputes being awarded to the buyer by default."

As a buyer if I dispute because its taking too long, he can just refund at an equivalent rate?

Example: I'm a service provider, a customer comes asking for a quote and I tell him a fast time. I can charge him more than others because I gave such a fast time, and he wants a fast service. I can then train the account at my leisure. After the quoted time he inquires and the service is only 1/2 done he can just wait for however long it takes or get a refund at a proportional rate of $ paid vs xp gained, however since I got the buyer to pay so much I still profit a bunch

Giving a user a negative vouch wouldn't do a thing unless the user is new; medium/big service providers wouldn't receive any impact. This isn't like other forums where you can see the total feedback/vouches which are classified as positive or negative. On the other hand if there was a rank or minirank which was made similar to a twc which was made to make buyers aware that the timeframes given weren't accurate then that could work.

As for compensation it can be discussed between both parties but especially if a date is guaranteed and isn't met. Compensation could be anything from full refund to at the very least giving compensation equal to 1/14 of the cost of a bond per day(covers the unexpected delay in membership)

 

To your first sentence: people don't read vouches anyways, unfortunately.

With everything else you said, I agree. Or, when posting a vouch, you should be allowed to rate it on a 1-3 scale. It was done excellently (3), it wasn't done on time but did get done(2), or it was done eventually, but just an overall poor/sus trade (1). (Disputes would obviously not be rated as the user being disputed on should be banned or receive a TWC/DNT. Then, that 1-3 scale would be displayed on top of the vouches or able to be viewed upon clicking a users profile. Overall, I completely agree with what you said, @WooWoo

 

fist sentence i said it wouldnt affect big or medium people, only newcomers. People read vouches of the newer people but not the older ones generally. Anyways something needs to be done about skill training. Possible a new/updated set of rules.

 

Maybe if we have a mod who's only experience isn't watching anime we could get someone to evaluate the process done within an agreed frame and force to return rest of the money +20%?

 

personally think just the xp that wasn't done should be refunded unless there was actual terms that were made

 

I think the largest issue with this could be people just having clear terms of service.

If a service provider agrees on one day with a client and then delivers late. It's the clients responsibility to have outlined that in the past. Both parties should agree to a timeline and stipulations if late. Does everyone? No.

I think it should be handled on a case by case basis. If someone promises 99 firemaking and they say 3 weeks for example and deliver in 3 weeks and a day. Maybe be less harsh than someone who promised to do a quest in a day and then didn't deliver for a week. (More leniency with longer services less with shorter.)

If you've ever worked with @Divine he's incredibly explicit about the terms of your deal and so far it's worked for him.

 

I agree with compensation if deadlines aren't met, but like @Void said, the rate and leniency should be determined beforehand otherwise it's just completely arbitrary/opinion-based in terms of how much is 'owed' to the customer. I feel like the responsibility for said discussion should be on the client; if someone is concerned about an order taking longer than expected before it has even started then common sense would dictate that it's a good idea to ask what would happen in that instance. If no clear agreement has been made then there's not much that can be done other than perhaps cancelling the order and (the service's TOS permitting) receiving a refund.

 

@Nate I agree with Nate. I could personally support something of this nature; it's hard to set clear cut rules, and while things happen in real life, if for example I'm quoted a service and they advertise 6+ hour days and their ETC looks to be way off of what was agreed or they aren't putting in the time they advertised it should be something discussed before-hand therefore making it that the skiller is held liable for compensation. Some service providers charge more than the market rate because they "Do the work just as quickly, play more hours etc.." and the price needs to match what they are backing up.