Complaint Review: VWorker / Exhedra Solutions

They stole 500$ from me in order to keep one or their frequent workers happy and sticking around. Here is the complete arbitration log. The original message board posts are not necessary as all pertinent info is mentioned in the arbitration. That I initially won. But had it overruled by the website owner's sister or wife. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AS THERE ARE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BEING FLOATED AROUND ON THAT SITE AT ANY GIVEN TIME

The log----------------------------------------------------

 From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker) Attached File 8,351.01 kb

 Hello. Please see the attached video as evidence of this "workers" failures. The evidence should be clear so I have not attached snippets from the message log, feeling it unnecessary. However, if you do not go through and read them on your own, I will be happy to pull EACH AND EVERY one of the , I would imagine, almost two dozen times I specified the absolute need for transparency. The reason the video the "worker" showed you is the way it is is because I had just started using those apps and did not know yet how to configure them for the correct output. Here is a comparison that details everything that is relevant to the reason this "worker" is not entitled to a dime. Furthermore, please instruct the "worker" that he has signed an NDA and if he mentions a word of my software or my company's business to ANYONE outside of this arbitration, that every available dollar in my company's grasp will be spent on civil litigation.

------------ Date: Friday Jul 16, 2010 1:55:00 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,412,826) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker)

 Furthermore, again, it is obvious that this "man" is an attempted cheat, a scam artist and a clown. I request that he be banned from this site, as types such as him are the reason i have moved some of my business to another site and am considering moving the rest. I do not have time to waste on obvious scammers attempting to confuse me with super technical coding language in order to assert dominance and knowledge. The only reason I caught on toward the end when I did is due to the fact that he is so bad at his attempted cons that I instantly knew of a big error in his logic(that being the alpha blending garbage he attempted to spew) that I had to ask another worker of mine on this site what he had said. It proved faulty and I attempted to give him one more chance to fix his mess but he no longer wished to do it, believing that the video he uploaded was going to tip the scale, and that his technical mumbo jumbo with witch he attempted to con me with(and I told him i did not understand a word of it several times yet he continued to log long paragraphs of it) was going to show that I agreed with his assertions. Well I never did and I continued to press on the transparency issue. This "extra" time he put into it???? All of it was an attempt to get it to read alpha correctly and render it transparent. Which was the only thing preventing me from purchasing it. So there was NO extra time, as it was a requirement of the sale.

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sunday Jul 18, 2010 2:41:35 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,413,596) From: Michael Legato (vWorker) (Arbitrator) To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker)

 Matthew, You said: Furthermore, again, it is obvious that this "man" is an attempted cheat, a scam artist and a clown. I request that he be banned from this site, as types such as him are the reason i have moved some of my business to another site and am considering moving the rest. I do not have time to waste on obvious scammers attempting to confuse me with super technical coding language in order to assert dominance and knowledge. The only reason I caught on toward the end when I did is due to the fact that he is so bad at his attempted cons that I instantly knew of a big error in his logic(that being the alpha blending garbage he attempted to spew) that I had to ask another worker of mine on this site what he had said. It proved faulty and I attempted to give him one more chance to fix his mess but he no longer wished to do it, believing that the video he uploaded was going to tip the scale, and that his technical mumbo jumbo with witch he attempted to con me with(and I told him i did not understand a word of it several times yet he continued to log long paragraphs of it) was going to show that I agreed with his assertions. Well I never did and I continued to press on the transparency issue Matthew, I understand that you are frustrated with the situation and with the project. However, I never asked Brian to give me their opinion of you. Similarly, I did not ask you to give me your opinion of Brian. Arbitration is based on factsnot opinions. As an example: if I should ask you if Brian has been communicating completely onsite, I am asking you for facts in return. So you should respond with yes or no and provide details related to the facts (if pertinent). You should NOT tell me that you think (as an example) that Brian is a cheat, incompetent, a deliberate liar, etc.. That is the difference between facts (which are knowable) and opinions (which are either subjective or your guesses as to what Brian is thinking). Please do not post any more opinions about the other party. Further, Matthew, opinion posting is unprofessional and insulting to the other party, and both parties are entitled to be free of such behavior in arbitration. So if you do post an opinion again, I will be forfeiting you. I would rather arbitrate based on the facts at hand rather than a premature forfeiture, so I hope you will cooperate and avoid this by not posting any more opinions. The same applies to Brian.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew, To address the points and your allegations: I am not a technical arbitrator, but I will gather the required information about the alleged flaws in the program and transfer control of the arbitration to a technical arbitrator to have it tested. My understanding so far is that Brian is alleging work is 100% complete, and you are alleging that it is not. If Brian confirms this, I will provide a flaw list to you to fill out every issue that you have with what's been delivered, and Brian will be given an opportunity to respond to each allegation

. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian, I have briefly reviewed the project and correspondence, and my understanding is that you are alleging that work is 100% complete. I did not notice anywhere that a deadline was set for this project to be complete, so you may be "owed" time to complete work. If you would rather I provide the flaw list to Matthew (as I stated previously), then let me know. If you allege that work is 100% complete, you will not be owed any additional time to complete work on the project. Please respond within 3 business days and let me know if you allege that work is 100% complete according to the project requirements. Michael Legato (vWorker) P.S. Automated warning about upcoming deadline(s). Worker must respond before Thursday Jul 22, 2010 8:00:00 AM EDT. If you can respond sooner, please do so, as it will speed up the arbitration process for both parties. Thanks.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sunday Jul 18, 2010 3:56:37 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,413,619) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker)

Yes, you are right. It was very unprofessional, my apologies. I do contest the worker's claims that the job is 100% complete, yes.

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sunday Jul 18, 2010 4:02:18 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,413,620) From: Army Software Engineer (worker) at 70.179.154.231 To: Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: darkmatter78 (employer)

 Michael, As you infer, my position on the matter is that work is complete according to project requirements. The issue seems to be superfluous requirements beyond the scope of the project requirements and my aversion to annex these additional requirements without compensation. Please provide the flaw list if that is the next logical step to resolving this issue as I am eager to see what flaws relative to the project requirements exist. Regards, Brian 

 a new response

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sunday Jul 18, 2010 5:31:23 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,413,645) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker)

Hello, Please, also note that on July 4th, in only my second post in the message forum, I stated this: "also, we would require the "box" without a window(whatever the flash animation is) to appear on screen and have NOTHING else appear on screen when it is clicked open." Since my flash animations render with NO border (black, green, or otherwise), any border surrounding that flash is what I specifically say in not acceptable. There are numerous more instances of me saying this in the forum, as well. There are also numerous instances of the worker claiming that he will correct this issue, even though on several occasions he blames the initial rendering as the casue of the issue. Which, as shown in the video I uploaded, simply not true.

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sunday Jul 18, 2010 7:17:38 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,413,659) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker)

 Please also note that I did not "hire" him to BUILD me an app. I was supposed to be BUYING an already built one that fit my requirements or, in his case, one that was almost precise that he would adjust to my requirements. He did not do so and it is not fair to award him anything, as the app is completely useless to me without my requirements done.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday Jul 19, 2010 11:24:51 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,414,251) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker)

Hello, Michael. When can I expect to receive the "flaw list", if that is in fact the next step? Thanks Matt

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday Jul 20, 2010 3:35:46 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,415,020) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker)

Hello, Also, the lack of alpha blending renders another very important aspect of swf rendering impossible. That would be the use of feathering when masking objects within the scene. This, in itself, renders the application useless to us, as we have many objects in pre-rendered footage that must be masked out. The lack of feathering would cause every project to take many extra hours and in some cases days to complete. And as I have no flaw list, and not sure that it is needed, here is the ONLY flaw in the application per the requirements. Simply that it cannot accomodate "true" transparency. It manufactures pixel saturation where there was none before. Everything else about the app is fine. The problem is that this "flaw" is one that actually prohibits us from doing the work that we are. There is no way around it. It simply does not work. Matt

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday Jul 21, 2010 2:59:44 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,415,787) From: Michael Legato (vWorker) (Arbitrator) To: darkmatter78 (employer) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker) Flaw List (Id #6656)

 Matthew, I apologize for the delay. To place this into testing (which is called "100% completion testing"), please fill out the attached flaw list form to document the problems you have with the deliverables. Once you complete it, the worker will be given an opportunity to see the flaw list and either concede (in which case you would win arbitration) or dispute the list. If they dispute it, I will then transfer this to a technical arbitrator for testing. The techincal arbitrator will screen the flaw list items for exceptions (i.e. non-pertinent, cosmetic or un-testable items. See the rules of arbitration). Then they will test the application. If one or more of the remaining flaw list items are verified then you will win the arbitration and all unawarded funds. If they cannot be, then Brian will win arbitration and all unawarded funds. (Should no flaws be found except cosmetic items, Brian would have to fix all of them 100% in order to receive payment.) It is important to only include items that are flaws in the current version of the software. Any complaints about the worker's past responsiveness or attitude may be accurate...but since they cannot be objectively verified or disproved they are not pertinent. So please do not include such items in the flaw list report. Also, since we will be testing only the last delivered version of the software, flaws in previous versions are also not pertinent. Avoiding these sorts of things will speed up the testing process. Matthew, please complete the attached flaw list in the next 5 business days so that testing can begin. Remember to hit "I am Finished" after doing so, so that I will know that you are done. If you forget to do this (or don't fill it out at all) then you will forfeit for non-response (per your contract), and I don't want to see this happen to you. So I hope to hear from you before the deadline and thank you in advance for your cooperation. Michael Legato (vWorker) P.S. Automated warning about upcoming deadline(s). Employer must respond before Wednesday Jul 28, 2010 2:59:44 PM EDT. If you can respond sooner, please do so, as it will speed up the arbitration process for both parties. Thanks.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday Jul 21, 2010 5:19:11 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,415,866) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator)

Flaw List (Id #6656) darkmatter78 (the Employer) updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656 and marked them as 'Finished'. They can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday Jul 21, 2010 5:19:11 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,415,867) From: Michael Legato (vWorker) (Arbitrator) To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker) Flaw List (Id #6656)

 Matthew, Thank you for the flaw list. Brian, Matthew has provided a flaw list which I am now providing to you in the attached document so you will know the employer's allegations. Please review it. (Note: no items have been screened yet by the technical arbitrator for exceptions...i.e. non-pertinent, cosmetic or un-testable items. See the rules of arbitration for more details). If you know that after screening, the technical arbitrator will NOT be able to duplicate any non-cosmetic flaws in the attached flaw list, then your best interests will be served by having testing commence. So please fill out your response to each flaw list item in the space provided and return it to me within 3 business days. (When you're finished, please don't forget to hit "I am Finished" to let me know that you are done. If you don't, you may forfeit for non-response--per your contract--and I don't want to see this happen to you.) Once I receive this it will be forwarded to the technical arbitrator for testing. However if you know that testing will verify non-cosmetic flaws in the attached flaw list, then it would be in your best interests to conceed before continuing further, to minimize the effect on your rating. Here is why... If you know that the deliverables will fail testing but you conceed now, you will receive a 3 ("Poor") rating and the following comment applied: "In arbitration, Army Software Engineer (the worker) conceeded that one or more of darkmatter78's (the employer) non-cosmetic flaw list items would be verified. Unawarded funds were returned to darkmatter78." However, if you do not conceed and the deliverables fail testing, you will receive a 2 ("Bad") rating. Further, if you deliberately provide inaccurate, false or argumentative information, you will receive a rating of -3 ("Failed Testing") rating and the following comment will be applied: "darkmatter78's (the employer) alleged flaws x,y,z existed. Army Software Engineer (the worker) alleged that they were not and when given the opporutnity to conceed, instead demanded testing. However, vWorker verified that the deliverables contained the alleged flaws. Unawarded funds were returned to darkmatter78." So please let me know your decision. Again, Brian, if your deliverables will pass testing, please fill out the attached form and it will begin. If not, please conceed to minimize the damage to your record. If you have any questions please let me know. Sincerely, Michael Legato (vWorker)

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday Jul 22, 2010 2:21:38 AM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,415,974) From: Army Software Engineer (worker) at 70.179.154.231 To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator)

Flaw List (Id #6656) Army Software Engineer (the Worker) updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656 and marked them as 'Finished'. They can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting. Army Software Engineer also posted the following message: ------------------------------------------------------

 In response to paragraph 1) The software does not display .png nor .gif file formats. Per the requirements it takes a Shockwave Flash (SWF) file and makes an executable application (EXE). Comparing the complex nature of a SWF file to static image file formats I believe is irrelevant. The software does indeed render true transparency. The alpha property by definition is not transparent but rather a level or degree of opacity. Foreground items that exist in the SWF with an alpha "channel" indeed display with opacity allowing the existing background of the SWF to show through. Foreground and background blurs authored into the SWF file are not flaws in my software. The software displays what it is given. The software does not/can not discern the intent of the SWF file author's using a blur effect as flaw or not flaw. The software will display the blur because it exists in the input SWF. Additionally, the software does mask out the background color making regions occupied by that color completely transparent, even to mouse clicks as requested. In response to paragraph

 2) There is no mention of "guassian [Gaussian] blurring or other types of blurring that leave a semi transparent pixel" as a requirement ever. Furthermore, I implemented many features in addition to the project's requirements for free and am refusing to implement any more additional requirements for free. In response to the requirements discussed on July 4th, I attempted to clarify requirements and the reply on July 4th that can be verified on the project's message log verbatim: set x, y position of program exe with no border or controls set width and height of program These are the only 3 that are mandatory In response to paragraph

3) Even in arbitration, buyer is continuing to add previously unmentioned requirements and attempting to pass them off as flaws. "handle feathering of masked objects" was never a requirement and never mentioned until arbitration. In response to paragraph

4) Any pixel "manufacturing" is an inherent property of the flash SWF file being used. Not a flaw in my software. The software does not have control over how the SWF file was originally authored. It takes the authored SWF file and packages it as an EXE, existing flaws and all. In response to paragraph

5) This is a feature, not a flaw added to the software to allow selection of an overriding background color to help make inherent flaws of the input SWF less obvious (due to blurring or other "effects" that exist in the input SWF). There are default settings, so the need to select a background color is not required, just an additional option. It is true, a side effect of using this option is that if a color is selected that exists in the foreground, that color in the foreground will also be masked, but it is too easy to select 1 of 16,777,216 available colors that does not exist in the foreground. The software cannot control what colors the SWF author has elected to use while authoring the SWF and so the option to select one of over 16.7 million colors to mask as transparent well satisfies this requirement, which I agreed to implement for free. To call this a flaw and as a result the software useless is absurd, and I'll remove this feature and capability from the code if the buyer does not want the option. In response to paragraph

6) Correcting "some sort of blurring or native alpha blending occurring [in the input SWF]" was never given as a requirement and hence not a flaw. Rendering an "alpha channel" in a contrasting color is impossible because the alpha property is not a color but rather a level of opacity, so I am unsure how the buyer is arriving at this "flaw". My suggestion to the buyer was to use a background color that would make his existing blended blurry effects less noticeable. I would not suggest using an "alpha color", as no such thing exists. In response to paragraph

7) I had components to this app completed previous to discussion with the buyer. I created a user-interface and implemented the buyers requirements of this project into the code 100%. Buyer continued to add requirements after I completed the project requirements. I agreed to implement some of the additional requirements for free and did so. Buyer again continued to add requirements and I refused to implement any more requirements for free. In response to my refusing to implement further additional requirements for free, buyer is trying to pass off these additional requirements as flaws. Section 1C) in the arbitration contract states I have three legitimate choices when asked for work not in the contract. I am declining to work for free. I suggested to the buyer start another project for his further additions because the requirements of this project are complete. Unreasonably, the buyer decided to escalate to arbitration. Section 2) in the arbitration contract defines cosmetic flaws. There are no cosmetic flaws in my software. Flaws that end up being displayed by my software exist in the input SWF. The buyer's claim is analogous of saying a web browser software has a flaw because the webpage it is browsing contains a flaw, analogous to saying an image viewer software has a flaw because the image it is displaying has a flaw.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday Jul 22, 2010 4:35:38 AM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,416,009) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker) You know, I just spent an hour replying to this last post and clicked next, forgetting to pick reveiver and had to click back to find that an hours worth of typing is GONE. i will respond to ALL of these, AGAIN, in a few hours

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday Jul 22, 2010 4:37:27 AM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,416,010) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker) please tell me if your server captured my reply ASAP, please, as, I WILL, but do not wish to do it again. Thanks

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday Jul 22, 2010 9:50:45 AM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,416,319) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Michael Legato (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker)

 In response to paragraph 1) The software does not display .png nor .gif file formats. Per the requirements it takes a Shockwave Flash (SWF) file and makes an executable application (EXE). Comparing the complex nature of a SWF file to static image file formats I believe is irrelevant. The software does indeed render true transparency. The alpha property by definition is not transparent but rather a level or degree of opacity. Foreground items that exist in the SWF with an alpha "channel" indeed display with opacity allowing the existing background of the SWF to show through. Foreground and background blurs authored into the SWF file are not flaws in my software. The software displays what it is given. The software does not/can not discern the intent of the SWF file author's using a blur effect as flaw or not flaw. The software will display the blur because it exists in the input SWF. Additionally, the software does mask out the background color making regions occupied by that color completely transparent, even to mouse clicks as requested. "The software does indeed render true transparency" The definition of true transparency, and, indeed the reason that true transparency exists is due to alpha blending, nothing else. True transparency does not exist without this. I was using png and gif as a analogous comparison, as both png and correctly functioning flash projectors use alpha blending, allowing for true transparency, and gif images and the worker's application do not, meaning they DO NOT allow for true transparency, as they are unable to handle multiple layers of transparency. All 8 bits are one either opaque or transparent Rather they act as a binary on or off switch. Furthermore, both the IEEE as well as Adobe refer to flash animation and .png images in the same sentence on more than one occasion, due to how they both allow for the "true transparancy" which is only reached through ALPHA BLENDING. "The alpha property by definition is not transparent but rather a level or degree of opacity." This is a contradictionn 0% Opacity is 100% transparent. Transparent and opaque are antonyms. The app doesnt have to discern a thing, other than what it is given. That is an alpha channel configuration detailing where and at what level transparency pixels should be rendered. It does NOT display the blur that I render, that statement is FALSE. It displays manufactured pixel color as it is unable to read the alpha channel configuration and unable to "grasp" true transparency, which it then maufactures how it "thinks" it should be displayed. This is routine stuff nowadays. Alpha blending is "the norm". "Foreground and background blurs authored into the SWF file are not flaws in my software". This is correct. It is his app's inability to render those blurs out properly with alpha blending that is the flaw with his app. It picks up BACKGROUND COLOR which is SUPPOSED to be rendered alpha "The software displays what it is given " This is false. Alpha information is embedded within the swf file. All other apps tested display no border. Please test this function, and, at the code level if you can to see if it displays what it is given, without manufaturing pixel data. He was aware from the beginning that Star Wars and other sci-fi material was to be used. Blurring and blending are ubitquitous in sci-fi. He also continued to say that he would solve the problem, until, he realized it could not be done without a rewrite. So I was strung along for two weeks, under the impression that he would be able to correct its fatal flaw. In response to paragraph

2) There is no mention of "guassian [Gaussian] blurring or other types of blurring that leave a semi transparent pixel" as a requirement ever. Furthermore, I implemented many features in addition to the project's requirements for free and am refusing to implement any more additional requirements for free. In response to the requirements discussed on July 4th, I attempted to clarify requirements and the reply on July 4th that can be verified on the project's message log verbatim: set x, y position of program exe with no border or controls set width and height of program These are the only 3 that are mandatory In response to paragraph

2) There is no mention of "guassian [Gaussian] blurring or other types of blurring that leave a semi transparent pixel" as a requirement ever.... This is true. As it is completely unecessary. I specified true transparency. NOTHING manufactured. There are over a dozen uses for true transparency, none of which have any relevance to the job or the arbitration. It is not for me to tell you WHY I want the configurations the way I do. You only need to know that I required true transparency(TT). I implemented many features in addition to the project's requirements for free and am refusing to implement any more additional requirements for free. Wrong. he implemented necessary adjustments to his app that did not work for us and as we were purchasing an app that was already built, we were only going to do so if the requirements were met. Any and all "extra work" was his attempting to get me the product I wanted, nothing more. I could've gotten several of the commercial apps that have all of the required functions for less money. I did not come to VWorker to buy an application that is substandard relative to even a minor commercial publisher's for MORE money. I state things such as this all throughout the board. And if he knew that it COULD NOt perform alpha blending even though I required it, shouldn't I have been told that it could not be done? Rather than telling me that he would find a way? set x, y position of program exe with no border or controls set width and height of program These were a REPLY to a project requirement list that he had asked me. As in a "yes" or a "no". I was responding by saying that that is all that is required of the list that you sent me. NOT NOT NOT to just forget my statement from an hour prior, the most important aspect of the app itself to us, that "NOTHING MUST RENDER ALONG WITH MY SWF FILE". Which includes pixel data that is not the same the pixel data stored with the source flash file itself. In response to paragraph 3) Even in arbitration, buyer is continuing to add previously unmentioned requirements and attempting to pass them off as flaws. "handle feathering of masked objects" was never a requirement and never mentioned until arbitration. AGAIN, this is not a "new requirement". This is simply the result that must occur when using the app that we pay for. There is nothing separate about this. There is nothing of import to this. I have got a list of a many more uses for alpha blending. THEY ARE ALL required, as they are all dependent on TT. If TT were available on the app in question, each use could be checked off the list at once. On a relevant side note, please pay close attention to the wording that he uses and the explanations that he gives throughout the board.Please also note the level of technical talk that I was bombarded with, even after stating that I did not understand A WORD of what he was saying at that code level. In response to paragraph

4) Any pixel "manufacturing" is an inherent property of the flash SWF file being used. Not a flaw in my software. The software does not have control over how the SWF file was originally authored. It takes the authored SWF file and packages it as an EXE, existing flaws and all. FALSE AGAIN. Please see the previously attached video for evidence to the contrary. Please also run 100 tests to get 100 failures of alpha blending with his app. And please test with a half dozen other swf projectors of your choice that render the footage CLEANLY, no pixel painting occuring. In response to paragraph

5) This is a feature, not a flaw added to the software to allow selection of an overriding background color to help make inherent flaws of the input SWF less obvious (due to blurring or other "effects" that exist in the input SWF). There are default settings, so the need to select a background color is not required, just an additional option. It is true, a side effect of using this option is that if a color is selected that exists in the foreground, that color in the foreground will also be masked, but it is too easy to select 1 of 16,777,216 available colors that does not exist in the foreground. The software cannot control what colors the SWF author has elected to use while authoring the SWF and so the option to select one of over 16.7 million colors to mask as transparent well satisfies this requirement, which I agreed to implement for free. To call this a flaw and as a result the software useless is absurd, and I'll remove this feature and capability from the code if the buyer does not want the option. There is NO advantage to this supposed "FEATURE". If it simply and CORRECTLY produced alpha transparency, there could not be any plasuible reason to use this "feature" It is an attempt to get the same result using a shortcut. And it FAILS. "help make inherent flaws of the input SWF less obvious (due to blurring or other "effects" that exist in the input... Blurring and blending COVER FLAWS. Why would I want to COVER UP the effects that COVER UP THE FLAWS? I will finish the other questions tonight

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday Jul 22, 2010 10:27:07 AM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,416,379) From: Michael Legato (vWorker) (Arbitrator) To: darkmatter78 (employer) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker)

Matthew, Brian, To avoid confusion with the flaw list and delays, please hold your responses to the information contained within it until the technical arbitrator has had an opportunity to review them. If the arbitrator is flooded with information and many postings, it will only delay completion of testing and closure of the project.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian, thank you for your flaw list. I am transferring control of this arbitration to a technical analyst who specializes in testing in the category of computing. "100% Completion" testing works as follows. First, will verify and establish which on-site deliverables are to be tested. Second, they will determine which party is responsible for hosting the venue for the testing enviroment. Then testing will begin, and they will compare Matthew's flaw list with the deliverables. If any non-cosmetic flaws can be verified, Matthew will win arbitration. If no non-cosmetic flaws can be verified then Brian will win arbitration. Please see your rules of arbitration for full details on this process. (If the two of you were previously considering a mediated settlement but could not agree on terms, this transition officially denotes that all previous negotiations are null and void. The project is now in full-fledged arbitration and once testing is completed, there will be one winner and one loser. However, the project can be moved back into mediation if you notify the arbitrator of your new proposal of terms.) Michael Legato (vWorker) P.S. CHANGE IN EXCUSED ABSENCE NOTIFICATION: To prevent either party from abusing the technical arbitration process, the minimum acceptable advance notification period required to obtain an excused absence is being increased. From this point forward, you must notify the arbitrator in advance a minimum of 1 (one) day for each 1 (one) day of absence. If you know that you have an upcoming absence planned in the near future, you should announce it now. If you don't understand this or have any questions about it, please let your arbitrator know. As a reminder, both of you have agreed in your contracts that Exhedra may make this change: "Exhedra may amend the timeframes of this requirement during the arbitration".

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday Jul 22, 2010 10:30:44 AM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,416,391) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker) Understood

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday Jul 23, 2010 2:17:55 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,417,398) From: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (Arbitrator) To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) Flaw List (Id #6656) Matthew, Brian, Please do remember that neither of the parties are allowed to respond to what the other party says. You will be given a fair chance to explain your side of the project. The intention is to ensure that we concenterate on the key issues and are not side tracked on any issues. I have updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656, which can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting. Matthew, please respond in the flaw list to the 1 item (#1) that I've marked for your response with the heading "Employer". When you're finished, please don't forget to hit "I am Finished" to let me know that you are done. If you don't, you may forfeit for non-response (per your contract), and I don't want to see anyone lose the arbitration in this manner. You have 3 days to respond (7/28/2010 2:16:51 PM), but if you can do so sooner, then it would be greatly appreciated and will help speed up the arbitration process. Thanks. Sincerely, Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) P.S. Automated warning about upcoming deadline(s). Employer must respond before Wednesday Jul 28, 2010 2:17:55 PM EDT. If you can respond sooner, please do so, as it will speed up the arbitration process for both parties. Thanks.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday Jul 23, 2010 2:30:42 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,417,410) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker) I will go through it now, thanks.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday Jul 23, 2010 2:37:35 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,417,423) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) Flaw List (Id #6656) darkmatter78 (the Employer) updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656 and marked them as 'Finished'. They can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting. darkmatter78 also posted the following message:

 ------------------------------------------------------ Am I to go through and pull all of the posts that I mention this aspect?

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday Jul 26, 2010 2:29:26 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,418,767) From: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (Arbitrator) To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) Flaw List (Id #6656)

Matthew, Bian, I have updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656, which can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting. Matthew, please respond in the flaw list to the 1 item (#1) that I've marked for your response with the heading "Employer". Brian, please respond in the flaw list to the 1 item (#1) that I've marked for your response with the heading "Worker". When you're finished, please don't forget to hit "I am Finished" to let me know that you are done. If you don't, you may forfeit for non-response (per your contract), and I don't want to see anyone lose the arbitration in this manner. You have 3 days to respond (7/29/2010 2:29:20 PM), but if you can do so sooner, then it would be greatly appreciated and will help speed up the arbitration process. Thanks. Sincerely, Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) P.S. Automated warning about upcoming deadline(s). Employer must respond before Thursday Jul 29, 2010 2:29:26 PM EDT. Worker must respond before Thursday Jul 29, 2010 2:29:26 PM EDT. If you can respond sooner, please do so, as it will speed up the arbitration process for both parties. Thanks.

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday Jul 26, 2010 2:49:42 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,418,780) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator)

 Flaw List (Id #6656) darkmatter78 (the Employer) updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656 and marked them as 'Finished'. They can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting.

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday Jul 26, 2010 4:17:52 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,418,850) From: Army Software Engineer (worker) at 70.179.154.231 To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) Flaw List (Id #6656) Army Software Engineer (the Worker) updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656 and marked them as 'Finished'. They can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting.

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday Jul 26, 2010 4:37:14 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,418,859) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker)

Hello, Rafeek. Do I get to respond to this? Because nothing he submitted is evidence against me. Forgive me if this is out of "turn", as I am not clear on the next steps. But I imagine that since he rebutted my claim , I get to rebut his as well? 1. looks as though may be a good fit------it did LOOK as though it would. Until I got a CLOSER look.. 2. rendered in black....looks like it might just work itself-----key word....MIGHT...further testing proved otherwise. 3. ha, okay, my apologies, it does click through...IRRELEVANT as I am not making a claim against click through option. 4. release funds today pending more clarification... when that clarifcation came, at the help of another coder that had to translate the worker's technical explanations, the funds were not released, due to the fact that I had become CLEAR of the situation. He says extra work...But please not that it was not considered extra work to him when he stated that he understood what we wanted and that he would do it in order to make the sale. Should I be pulling lines from the message board as well? Or do you go over it fully? Thanks Matt

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday Jul 26, 2010 4:46:07 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,418,866) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker)

 Please also remember that I was PURCHASING an app not having one custom built. So, again, all this "extra work" is something that he NEEDED to do in order to make the SALE. I wasnt trying to buy a "kinda, sorta" application. I need one that meets our requirements. I will post no further until hearing back from you, thanks matt

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday Jul 27, 2010 1:54:52 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,419,556) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker) Attached File 215.90 kb

Hello. Sorry, but there is another flaw. I was unaware of it fully until just now. It had happened before but I did not put two and two together. It seems that his app cannot handle files over 200MB correctly. It has errored out on me 6 times in a row. It happened before but he explained it away with something. I have attached an image and the error text. As you can see I have 8GB RAM and two quad core i7 processors, so it is not my hardware. I will upload a video if you would prefer to see that. I tried two different swf files over 200mb and both resulted this way. I will try others later

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday Jul 27, 2010 8:31:45 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,419,691) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker)

 The worker claims that alpha blending was never mentioned prior to the agreement.....This is his message JUST BEFORE I agreed to escrow funds.. There is some color blending going on in your flash file around the edges of the moving figure, and why you're seeing the green outline, because the exact shade of green on the outline is not the same shade as the background. See attached jpg for a blowup screenshot, it should explain what I'm trying to say. The exe writer can also override the background color and transparency with the program, it does not have to be specified to be exactly the same color as what was chosen in the swf. I tried this with the original 1360.swf and set it as white, so the outline is white now, perhaps if you cannot get the swf to not blend the background color, you can choose an overriding background color that will not be noticable. I tried with white and the outline is visible as white, perhaps a particular shade of grey that is not use elsewhere in the image would be best. One side effect I noticed from overriding the background color...clickthrough works on 1360 now. He calls it "color blending" and also says that it can be "overridden"...His words are very vague in meaning but they portray that of "the problem can be overridden"...Either way, he knew all too well BEFORE I escrowed funds that this was something that must be taken care of. So he has also lied to this arbitration hearing by saying that it was never mentioned.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday Jul 29, 2010 11:22:04 AM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,420,826) From: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (Arbitrator) To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker)

 Matthew, Brian, Thanks for the responses. Matthew, before I continue with testing, I need to clear some basic issues before the arbitration gets side tracked on them. I dont want the arbitration to be side tracked on any issue so that we can process this arbitration quickly. Matthew, Brian, please do remember the following issues will be considered for both of you, even if one party is being addressed at this point of time. 1. Responding to what the other party says. Matthew, neither of the parties are allowed to respond to what the other party says. Both of you will be given a fair chance to explain your side of the project before the decision is made. This is to ensure that the arbitration is about the main issues and not side tracked on moot points. Also, please do remember that no opinions about the other parties are allowed (even if you beleive that your opinions is a fact) 2. Responding to the flaws only in the flawlist. Please do not respond to the issues being discussed in the flawlist, outside the flawlist (on the arbitration page), like Brian did on Thursday Jul 22, 2010 2:21:38 AM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,415,974) and Matthew did on Thursday Jul 22, 2010 9:50:45 AM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,416,319). The intention of using a flawlist is to make sure that we can discuss all the items at the same time and keep all the information/discussion about an item in one place. When the information is scattered it becomes difficult to keep a track of what is being said and this will delay the arbitration and could even result in an incorrect decision. 3. Pre-built application vs custom built application. Matthew, I did notice that earlier you had said: "Please also note that I did not "hire" him to BUILD me an app. I was supposed to be BUYING an already built one that fit my requirements or, in his case" and now again you said: "Please also remember that I was PURCHASING an app not having one custom built. " At this point of time, I do not know if this is going to even affect the decision we make. In general, all the projects on vWorker are for custom built apps. Both the parties can have a deal of using a pre-built application and making sure that they met the requirements. The arbitration is about the contract and only the contract. IF the requirements have been explicilty listed out then we can verify if the final work meets those requirements or not. An arbitration is all about making sure that the contract (which the two of you created) is honored. If either party (or both) breaks the contract, my job as arbitrator is to enforce the appropriate penalty. The contract is made up of the following: All information on the project page (title, description, compatibility, etc.) All onsite amendments that are agreed to by both parties. These things are NOT a part of the contract: Things that a party "meant" to put in the contract but neglected to. Any amendments allegedly communicated offsite (These are too easy to fake, where even a professional cannot determine if it's real or a forgery and thus not admissible.) Anything that was not agreed to be done by both parties I am sure that when required, while I am doing a contract analysis, this issue will be cleared for me. At this point of time, we do not need any information about this. So please do not repeat this issue. 4. How Software Programming works: Matthew, I am not sure how familiar you are with custom built software. I always share the following example with the employers to make sure that they do understand how software programming works so that they can get their projects completed sucessfully. Please note, there is no intention of offending any of the parties here. Matthew, Building custom software is a lot like building a custom home. If you wanted to build a custom home, you wouldn't go to a homebuilder and say "I have $250,000...build me the best house that you can for that money...I trust your judgement". Houses can be made in thousands of ways, and even if the homebuilder was 100% honest and forthright, you would almost be guaranteed to end up with a house that the homebuilder thought was fantastic, but that you really didn't like. Worse, if the homebuilder was less than 100% honest, you could even end up with some features that were included simply because they were cheaper or more convenient for the homebuilder to build, rather than because they were the best features to include for you. Even worse, you would have little recourse because there would be no detailed contract on what you wanted the homebuilder to do. On the other hand, you could take the opposite course, and make a drawing in advance of what you wanted the house to be like. Your drawing would show how many stories your house would be, how many rooms it would have and where they should be placed. If it was important to you, you could describe the exact kind of flooring and cabinets you wanted in each room, and might even detail down to the last electrical outlet and ceiling fan exactly where you wanted things placed. If you created such a drawing, then the home builder would be contractually obligated to deliver exactly what you wanted. If they didn't, you could use the contract to either get them to correct it, or you could get your money back. Custom is exactly the same. If you don't have a requirements document (which can even be a drawing if you want), then you are not likely going to be happy with the results and will have no recourse. On the other hand if you make a requirements document, you make it much more likely you'll get what you want. And if you don't, you have a contract to get it fixed or to get your money back. Just as you don't have to understand homebuilding to create a drawing for a custom house, you don't have to understand programming to create a requirements document. All you have to do is tell the home builder (or the programmer) WHAT you want, and it is their job to figure out HOW to do it. One more thing...the more detail the better. For example, saying "I want a website that promotes my business", is not very specific and runs the risk of you getting something you won't be happy with. But saying "I want a website that contains 3 pages, a page about my company, a page with my bio, and a page where people can email me. I'll supply you with my bio and the information on my company" you are going to get what you want, or get your money back. I hope this analogy was helpful to you, Matthew. If you have any further questions on this please let me know. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Matthew, Brian, please go through the above explanation and confirm that you do understand the general issues discussed here, so that we can continue testing the work to determine if the work has been done as per the agreed upon requirements or not. If you have any questions regarding this issue then please let me know now. Later raising this issues (explained above) could be seen as trying to stall the arbitration and could put you in a risky situation. Thanks. Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) P.S. Automated warning about upcoming deadline(s). Employer must respond before Tuesday Aug 3, 2010 11:22:04 AM EDT. Worker must respond before Tuesday Aug 3, 2010 11:22:04 AM EDT. If you can respond sooner, please do so, as it will speed up the arbitration process for both parties. Thanks.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday Jul 29, 2010 12:09:22 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,420,873) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker) I understand all issues. My apologies as this is a very new experience for me.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday Jul 29, 2010 12:13:01 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,420,875) From: Army Software Engineer (worker) at 70.179.154.231 To: darkmatter78 (employer),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) I understand, I will only respond when asked.

 Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday Aug 2, 2010 1:33:29 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,422,713) From: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (Arbitrator) To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) Flaw List (Id #6656) Matthew, Brian, Thanks for the confirmation. I have updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656, which can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting. Matthew, please respond in the flaw list to the 1 item (#1) that I've marked for your response with the heading "Employer". Brian, please respond in the flaw list to the 1 item (#1) that I've marked for your response with the heading "Worker". When you're finished, please don't forget to hit "I am Finished" to let me know that you are done. If you don't, you may forfeit for non-response (per your contract), and I don't want to see anyone lose the arbitration in this manner. You have 3 days to respond (8/5/2010 1:33:18 PM), but if you can do so sooner, then it would be greatly appreciated and will help speed up the arbitration process. Thanks. Sincerely, Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) P.S. Automated warning about upcoming deadline(s). Employer must respond before Thursday Aug 5, 2010 1:33:29 PM EDT. Worker must respond before Thursday Aug 5, 2010 1:33:29 PM EDT. If you can respond sooner, please do so, as it will speed up the arbitration process for both parties. Thanks.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday Aug 2, 2010 3:40:32 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,422,795) From: Army Software Engineer (worker) at 70.179.154.231 To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) Flaw List (Id #6656) Army Software Engineer (the Worker) updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656 and marked them as 'Finished'. They can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday Aug 2, 2010 5:45:31 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,422,880) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) Flaw List (Id #6656) darkmatter78 (the Employer) updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656 and marked them as 'Finished'. They can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting.

Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday Aug 5, 2010 1:53:45 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,425,056) From: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (Arbitrator) To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) Flaw List (Id #6656) Matthew, Brian, I have updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656, which can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting. Brian, please respond in the flaw list to the 1 item (#1) that I've marked for your response with the heading "Worker". When you're finished, please don't forget to hit "I am Finished" to let me know that you are done. If you don't, you may forfeit for non-response (per your contract), and I don't want to see anyone lose the arbitration in this manner. You have 3 days to respond (8/10/2010 1:53:42 PM), but if you can do so sooner, then it would be greatly appreciated and will help speed up the arbitration process. Thanks. Sincerely, Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) P.S. Automated warning about upcoming deadline(s). Worker must respond before Tuesday Aug 10, 2010 1:53:45 PM EDT. If you can respond sooner, please do so, as it will speed up the arbitration process for both parties. Thanks. 

 a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday Aug 5, 2010 10:56:02 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,425,235) From: Army Software Engineer (worker) at 70.179.154.231 To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) Flaw List (Id #6656) Army Software Engineer (the Worker) updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656 and marked them as 'Finished'. They can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting. 

 a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday Aug 9, 2010 8:57:39 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,427,030) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker) Hi, Rafeek. At what stage are we in the arbitration and how many more are there? I mean are you conducting further testing or is that yet to happen or.....? I should have asked , in the beginning, for a commonly followed timeline for these things. Or is it that you are still on back-order due to being short a person? Thanks. I am too curious a person is all not trying to rush it Post a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday Aug 10, 2010 2:36:11 PM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,427,638) From: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (Arbitrator) To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) Flaw List (Id #6656) Matthew, Generally, this is the last phase of the arbitration. I would be the one making the final decision on the arbitration. As I have explained to Brian in the flawlist, if after I have made the final decision, if either of the parties beleive that I have made a mistake, then they can request for a senior arbitrator review. Hence, the only possible phase after this would be a senior arbitrator review (if either one of you request for it after I have made the final decision). At this point of time, I have still going through the flawlist and will test the work as required. Normally, all the arbitrators try and respond to all the arbitration atleast once within a business days. Sometimes in the testing phase it is not possible to do so especially if I am testing some project and it takes longer. Matthew, you are correct that the delay is also due to being short of a person. We are expecting someone to join us on Monday and that should help us be back on track. I am trying my best to ensure that all the arbitrations are processed as quickly as possible while making sure that a fair decision is being made. Matthew, Brian, I have updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656, which can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting. Brian, please respond in the flaw list to the 1 item (#1) that I've marked for your response with the heading "Worker". When you're finished, please don't forget to hit "I am Finished" to let me know that you are done. If you don't, you may forfeit for non-response (per your contract), and I don't want to see anyone lose the arbitration in this manner. You have 3 days to respond (8/13/2010 2:28:10 PM), but if you can do so sooner, then it would be greatly appreciated and will help speed up the arbitration process. Thanks. Sincerely, Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) P.S. Automated warning about upcoming deadline(s). Worker must respond before Friday Aug 13, 2010 2:36:11 PM EDT. If you can respond sooner, please do so, as it will speed up the arbitration process for both parties. Thanks. 

 a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday Aug 11, 2010 2:23:22 AM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,427,880) From: Army Software Engineer (worker) at 70.179.154.231 To: darkmatter78 (employer),Army Software Engineer (worker),Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) Flaw List (Id #6656) Army Software Engineer (the Worker) updated 1 item (#1) in Flaw List #6656 and marked them as 'Finished'. They can be viewed by clicking on the flaw list link to the left of this posting. 

 a new response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday Aug 11, 2010 2:41:14 AM (Arbitration Response Id: 1,427,883) From: darkmatter78 (employer) at 24.130.43.92 To: Rafeek Kulkarni (vWorker) (arbitrator) CC: Army Software Engineer (worker) Hi, Rafeek. Sorry, another question. Is there