Assessing Buyer Accountability and Ensuring Fair Business Practices

[strategist_ceo]

The rationale behind Fiverr's decision to proceed with the cancellation of an order, despite it being associated with a buyer whose actions were seemingly unjustifiable, eludes my understanding. 

This particular project started with an agreement on intended scope (A), after which, through mutual discussions, the buyer implied compliance with my recommendation (B). Despite successful delivery within the agreed parameters, the buyer has now introduced a new condition (C) which, as per our detailed conversation history, never surfaced prior to the completion of the project.

Resolving this unexpected condition not only demands a complete overhaul of the work already delivered, but it also translates into at least an additional 20 hours of my effort. It's perplexing, as my records of our correspondences prove no prior mention of (C) in our discussions before the commencement or during the execution of project (B).

I am compelled to question if there is a clear demarcation between "reasonable revisions" versus "exploitative requests for unpaid work under the guise of revisions." Does the customer service team undertake a thorough investigation to gauge the legitimacy of both parties’ claims before moving towards cancellation? In this case, the buyer’s supposed order requirements only materialized post-delivery, a circumstance that seems inherently unfair to the seller?

I did refuse to work on (C) because it was an "ultra woke / extreme left" scenario.

Edited March 31 by strategist_ceo

[levinewman]

Fiverr simply doesn't care about your experience as a seller. You will do as you're told by random buyers and like it. I'm sorry to tell you that plainly, but that's the reality of this platform.

[desmond_aubery]

22 hours ago, strategist_ceo said:

The rationale behind Fiverr's decision to proceed with the cancellation of an order, despite it being associated with a buyer whose actions were seemingly unjustifiable, eludes my understanding. 

This particular project started with an agreement on intended scope (A), after which, through mutual discussions, the buyer implied compliance with my recommendation (B). Despite successful delivery within the agreed parameters, the buyer has now introduced a new condition (C) which, as per our detailed conversation history, never surfaced prior to the completion of the project.

Resolving this unexpected condition not only demands a complete overhaul of the work already delivered, but it also translates into at least an additional 20 hours of my effort. It's perplexing, as my records of our correspondences prove no prior mention of (C) in our discussions before the commencement or during the execution of project (B).

I am compelled to question if there is a clear demarcation between "reasonable revisions" versus "exploitative requests for unpaid work under the guise of revisions." Does the customer service team undertake a thorough investigation to gauge the legitimacy of both parties’ claims before moving towards cancellation? In this case, the buyer’s supposed order requirements only materialized post-delivery, a circumstance that seems inherently unfair to the seller?

I did refuse to work on (C) because it was an "ultra woke / extreme left" scenario.

Would a milestone-based proposal perhaps have been suitable for that project? 

An all-or-nothing approach to a complex project is bound to end up with differences of opinion on the rare occasion. This can end up with two beasts in the proverbial pottery shop.

[strategist_ceo]

 

Well, I hope the fiverr team know what they are doing. If I know what the client wanted (C), I wouldn't have accepted her as a client. It's a "super left" and "super woke" thing that I find incredibly provocative. 

[grayprogrammerz]

3 hours ago, strategist_ceo said:

 

Well, I hope the fiverr team know what they are doing. If I know what the client wanted (C), I wouldn't have accepted her as a client. It's a "super left" and "super woke" thing that I find incredibly provocative. 

I will be interested in knowing outcomes of CS conservation.

But in my case, it never helped when buyer is opponent.

I try my best to do whatever mutually possible. Because its quite harder to prove someone wrong, specially to CS.

Its like battle. So I let them play their day, once its complete, I won't continue with them further.

Even if CS forcefully completes order, I know what you will expect in review.

[strategist_ceo]

Based on my experiences, Fiverr generally operates with fairness, although their customer support tends to offer generic responses.

The buyer requested a cancellation of the order, apparently exploiting the system and asking for additional work without charge, which I objected to as I had completed the order. What she asked for wasn't a mere revision but an entirely new work.

The buyer then raised a complaint, leading to the order's cancellation and her subsequent refund.

Upon presenting the circumstances to customer support, they reimbursed me for the order (today, after a week or so). Interestingly, Fiverr compensated both the buyer and seller concurrently. Although this was appreciated, I couldn’t help but wish Fiverr had maintained a firm stance from the beginning. This leniency may leave room for such buyers to continue exploiting other sellers in the future.

Edited April 7 by strategist_ceo