You decided on your own to give the developers a chance, request revisions, and keep the process going until the 20th. If you truly believed the developers were incompetent, you could have stopped the project when you first saw the site on March 13 or during the first revision on March 15.
Until March 13, you were actively approving the updates and saying they "looked good." No major complaints had even begun to surface, even nearly three weeks after the project started. If they were as incompetent as you claim, you would have had to terminate the project after the first presentation or revision, not after a twenty-day work period.
You don't get to consume three weeks of a developer's time and then decide it's free because the final outcome has bugs. The core logic flaw does not erase the labor performed. It is already accounted for in the $600 refund penalty. A broken feature reduces the value of the delivery, it does not reduce the cost of the work performed under your direct supervision. The $600 refund is their penalty for those technical failures. The $400 is the cost of the labor you validated and used for twenty days.
Regarding the claim that this decision is influenced by @TheOlympus's role on this forum, If you take the time to review our resolved reports section, you will find cases where sellers with significantly higher status and longer history on this platform have been ruled against, sanctioned, or banned based solely on the evidence presented. Status does not protect anyone from a verdict here. It never has. @TheOlympus was already issued a "Deal with Caution" tag as a direct result of this report, which is a permanent public warning visible to every user on this forum. If this decision were truly biased in his favor, the outcome would have been a full dismissal of your report, not a $600 refund and a public caution tag against the seller.
The verdict was based on the chat logs, the documented timeline, and the approved progress steps. Nothing else. This verdict stands. No further arguments will be entertained.
Until March 13, you were actively approving the updates and saying they "looked good." No major complaints had even begun to surface, even nearly three weeks after the project started. If they were as incompetent as you claim, you would have had to terminate the project after the first presentation or revision, not after a twenty-day work period.
You don't get to consume three weeks of a developer's time and then decide it's free because the final outcome has bugs. The core logic flaw does not erase the labor performed. It is already accounted for in the $600 refund penalty. A broken feature reduces the value of the delivery, it does not reduce the cost of the work performed under your direct supervision. The $600 refund is their penalty for those technical failures. The $400 is the cost of the labor you validated and used for twenty days.
Regarding the claim that this decision is influenced by @TheOlympus's role on this forum, If you take the time to review our resolved reports section, you will find cases where sellers with significantly higher status and longer history on this platform have been ruled against, sanctioned, or banned based solely on the evidence presented. Status does not protect anyone from a verdict here. It never has. @TheOlympus was already issued a "Deal with Caution" tag as a direct result of this report, which is a permanent public warning visible to every user on this forum. If this decision were truly biased in his favor, the outcome would have been a full dismissal of your report, not a $600 refund and a public caution tag against the seller.
The verdict was based on the chat logs, the documented timeline, and the approved progress steps. Nothing else. This verdict stands. No further arguments will be entertained.
Telegram: @pto_beastmode
Scam Warning: I will never DM you first. If someone claims to be me — report & ignore.
Scam Warning: I will never DM you first. If someone claims to be me — report & ignore.