Quote from Ali Scarlett on July 25, 2023, 6:55 pm

Here's the story (shortened as much as possible for brevity):

I hired a web developer to build an LMS into my website for my upcoming course.

And I sent him a link to PU's welcome lesson as an example of the design I'm looking for.

The designer says:

Him: "Noted! Yes we can make LMS similar to that. Once the LMS is developed and setup properly. You will be able to upload all new courses yourself. It will be VERY easy as well."

I request screenshots of what the project might look like once completed and I like what I see.

So, I decide I want to work with him.

But, I had another developer working on another part of the site already, so I wanted to wait before starting this course development project.

Unluckily, he had already sent a discount that would be expiring soon. So, I discuss it with him:

Him: "Just sent you a revised offer with a discount...Once proceeded - you can share the wordpress logins so we can get started. Thanks so much."

Ali: "Thank you, R! Looking forward to working with you."

Him: "Thanks Ali. Me too 😃"

Ali: "By the way, that discount is expiring soon and the website might not be ready for you to start by the time it ends. I can accept the offer now, but then you'd probably have less than six days to get the work done (and might have to request an extension). Do you want to resend the offer with the new price or continue with the discount route?"

Him: "The discount offer expires in 24 hours and not the delivery days when you accept 😃"

Ali: "I understand, I'm saying that even after I accept, you won't be able to get started working right away because the site isn't ready yet. You may have to wait two to four days."

Him: "Oh I see. Not an issue - we can extend time in that case 😊"

So, I accept the discount (which automatically approves the start of the project) and reiterate the following when sharing the login information in the "Requirements":

Then, he does this:

This developer:

• Blatantly ignores my repeated, clear instructions
• Accidentally deletes the user account I gave him (how does that even happen?)
• Orders me to create a new one
• Says, "...so we can continue..." (continue with what? The project you're not supposed to have started?)

And to top it off, he does this in the Fiverr inbox rather than the order communication page so that his blunder is kept a secret from Fiverr if I have an issue with the order in the future and need them on my side.

So, the first thing I do is cut off communication over that channel and force him to communicate over the order page.

He sends me two more messages that I ignore:

And then I respond over at the order page.

Then he orders me to create and share new logins for him again:

Here's the big issue here: the previous web developer was unable to complete their work because:

• They were using the same user that this new developer deleted
• The new developer started work that made changes to the website: and those changes made finishing the work impossible for the previous developer

So, they were unable to complete their work (i.e. I lost progress and money).

So, I expect this new developer to make up for it. And rather than ask them to, I assume they will:

I used the assume the close technique here because:

• I was already annoyed: and didn't feel like negotiating something that I felt should be an automatic "yes"
• I'm looking for a long-term developer: which is also one who can handle my directness when I don't have the time/energy to invest the effort of making my communication high-warmth

However, the arrow is still in red because, generally speaking, one should always strive for more power-protecting and eagle-like behavior.

Later on, he tries again to communicate over private channels/the Fiverr inbox (an early potential sign of sneakiness). And, I tell him to "please keep communication about this project here in the order page."

Then, I ask him to switch me from Classic Editor to Gutenberg (which was the task the last developer couldn't complete).

I wish I would've told him that that was the task of the previous developer because maybe then he would've deemed it more important and it would've led to less confusion down the line.

The Bigger Issues Begin

Throughout this project I've mostly been:

• Patient: there were a few times I had to repeat myself that something wasn't done after the developer tried to deliver the order. And since he can go back in our previous messages to see that I did indeed tell him to do something (and sometimes even designed a picture so he knows exactly how it should look), he can see that he's at fault and I'm choosing to be patient with him.
• Fair: offering to pay him more for any work I feel is beyond what we'd originally agreed upon and doing so throughout the project.
• Warm: in my communication, setting aside one or two scenarios where I felt it would be more prudent to go more direct (which also helps him avoid mistaking my patience for weakness)

And he even understands this and thanks me for my attitude:

But then, the seller kept trying to deliver the project before it was finished in a manner that felt like trying to push me to be OK with the incomplete work.

The main issue is the text size and font (i.e. formatting) for my course's lessons.

And when I request the revisions, I mention that:

Ali: "The text for the welcome lesson seems to be the same and the headers have actually gotten smaller (see screenshot below)."

Him: "Hi Ali, I’ll record my screen and do a tutorial for the text size and bullet point’s shortly and let you know. Thank you 🙏"

Ali: (Thinking: "Why are you creating a tutorial to teach me how to do work I'm paying you for?")

Ali: "R, I'm not looking for a tutorial because I'm not looking to do it myself. Before we started this project, I sent you a link to what I wanted the course lessons to look like when you develop it. It still doesn't look consistent with that example, so I'd like you to continue working on the course until they're congruent."

Him: "Hi Ali, Yes I definitely understand that. Please see attached. It is just to educate and nothing else :) So you also know how to do it for the future and rest of the lessons that you are creating."

I don't fully believe that it's for educational purposes only because it's not making sense to me that:

• I would have to know how to do it in the future: if it's done right, then each new lesson I create should automatically have the new formatting implemented
• You're only now saying that it's to educate: it would've made more sense to clarify that in the original message. (Now, it looks like you tried to push off some of your work onto my plate and only when I push back are you now backtracking with this excuse.)

But it's a small thing that costs me nothing now that he's agreed to take care of the revision, so I let it go.

We end up getting on a Zoom call where I literally pull up the PU welcome lesson and my own course welcome lesson side by side and flat-out let him know that mine looks too different.

There should be no confusion now.

But, somehow, there is.

The Developer Tries to Get Me to Do His Work for Him

He says he finally fixed the issue.

But what he really did was only fix the welcome lesson to be congruent with PU's and then record a tutorial for me to fix the other lessons myself.

Then, adds, "Please let me know if you need help with anything else," to frame his work as done (which is another form of assuming the close).

Not even believing that he truly meant to leave all of the other lessons undone, I ask him:

Him: "Hi Ali, We have finally fixed the issue. Here's a full tutorial on the formatting as well. Please let me know if you need help with anything else. Thanks so very much."

Him: "Hello Ali, any updates on this please? Thank you 🙏" (Ali didn't respond which re-affirms that he's the one with the final decision-making power on whether or not the work is done. So, the developer now has to request updates, which backtracks his "assume the close" a little bit and preserves Ali's power)

Ali: [Following the line of thinking they agreed on over the Zoom call.] "Hello R, did you finish updating all of the course's lessons with the changes we spoke about?"

Then, I notice that this developer actually switched me back to Classic Editor without asking me first and intended to leave it like that.

So, I also add:

Ali: "Also, when I switch back to Gutenberg editor, will all of the fixes we made to the text size of the lessons revert back?"

Him: "Hi Ali, I will do rest of the updates today. (Frame changing the question: treats my question as if I actually asked, "Do you recommend that I switch back to Gutenberg?") I recommend not to switch to gutenburg only for the course lessons. Thank you."

Ali: "Gutenberg has functions that I need for editing the course content. (Assertiveness technique: repeat the question and expect an answer) So, when I switch back, will all of the fixes go away?

Him: "Hi Ali, yes that will give error...All the pages will need to be rebuilt again. By default it always uses the Classic Editor!"

Him: "Ok - so now at this point, I am a bit confused. Should we move forward and make the font size edits to rest of the lessons? It will be using the Classic Editor just like it is as per default editor of LMS"

This guy just dropped a bunch of new information on me after changing a decision I made (the switch to Gutenberg) without my permission.

So, here's how I respond:

When he says he's confused it positions me to start clarifying.

The issue is he only wants me to clarify whether or not I want him to finish the work I paid him to do (which is, of course, a yes) because he'll only do it in the editor he wants to use.

So, rather than clarify that, I say "I'm also confused" to reset the stage.

Now, it's not about clarifying this singular point he wants my instruction on, it's about clarifying the entire situation.

The idea was that since we're "both confused" we can work together to find some form of clarification together. And since I was clear on what I was looking for in the beginning and I'm the buyer, I still have enough power to get the job done the way I expected it done.

The rest of the message is recapping the situation to frame him as the one making mistakes and putting my foot down on the way forward for this project.

In response, he pushes back while still trying to end it on a positive note/tone:

That screen recording is the tutorial he sent over where he was trying to get me to do his work for him. And it didn't say anything about a permanent switch to Classic Editor.

Now he says he's willing to do it all over (a positive) but also expresses that he's ready to be done with this project (a negative).

It gives me the feeling of someone who wishes they had the power to walk away but is afraid of a negative review/reputation.

And that concerns me because it can lead to the developer breaking shit out of spite (which probably isn't likely in this case) or finding sneaky ways to leave the job unfinished.

So, I choose to make it clear that it's him who had poor communication and put himself in this position:

Now, he understands, accepts the blame, and starts making the necessary fixes.

The Developer Tries to Get Me to Do His Work for Him...Again

However, he delivers the order again with the formatting still not looking like what we agreed upon.

The issue is the spacing and the bolding of the headers, but being in a rush, I only have time to note the spacing. (I figured it's better to get one note down so that when I get back at least that task should be finished.)

This is his response to my revision request (basically, "You do it."):

• "...you will be the one that will add space...": after you agreed to do it and I already paid you to do it?
• "...the font size and spacing can easily be handled by the one who is posting the content (i.e. you)...": when you knew exactly what the course lessons should look like (and received a link to the course lesson to model mine after, so there's no confusion there), you could've developed it to have the right formatting automatically. Instead, you thought it'd be OK for me to do it, probably cut corners there, and now expect me to do your work after already collecting my payment. (And if you weren't able to implement that formatting automatically, why not say that earlier on in the project, such as when we were still discussing it in the Fiverr inbox and you said you could handle this job?)
• "Would be better if we just finish it off with the very first lesson so you knew how to create future lessons with correct heading and spacing.": Better for who? You benefit from only having to format my welcome lesson how it's supposed to look, but I come out losing having to do your work for the rest of the lessons.
• "Anyway, it was a good experience and we are glad that we were able to help you.": notice the past-tense format and attitude that says, "Our work here is done."

So, I respond:

He tries rushing me because of the delivery deadline (which can negatively impact their Fiverr rating).

Him: Did you check? We have only 30 mins left for delivery 😅 (Covert power move) Would really appreciate your response on this, please. Best, R

But, I choose to take my time checking everything.

Then, I respond:

The "Yes, I understand how the spacing works now" is to reframe the part when I said "Let me give that a try and see if it works" as not me promising to do your work for you, but just trying to see how everything works now.

Then, you can see the rest.

He says:

I can see what he's saying.

For example, to have to go through 100+ lessons manually and do header-type formatting (such as changing things to H1 and H2) as someone whose responsibility is web development would be ridiculous.

We're not talking about making H1s or H2s (and I wouldn't and didn't ask them to do that). We're talking about fixing the text size and boldness based on the sample PU course lesson I sent over–which they agreed on because it's within the scope of their responsibility as developers. (They were supposed to develop it that way and didn't.)

Plus, it was his choice to implement the formatting for the course manually (he could've made it an automatic setting and avoided this which is what I wanted).

And, finally, let's also note that it's not 100+ lessons. At the moment, it's only 32.

So, considering I'm going to have to do all of my own formatting moving forward because he decided to make it manual, I think it's reasonable for him to at least finish the current coursework based on what we agreed on.

And that's generally what I say (while being willing to walk away and end this if we can't agree):

He still seems to feel that this is outside the scope of his responsibility:

He says it makes sense, but the tone/attitude of that "But, let's do whatever you say" implies something different.

So, I don't respond to it.

And, as a result, he's forced to follow up his comment with the extension request.

The Fake Gratitude

I approve the extension request. But also remind him that the headers need to be bolded in addition to the spacing fixes.

That's more work across 32 lessons.

He was already upset that he had to do the spacing fixes at all, he should be even more upset or at least annoyed that he also has to do the bolding.

And yet, he responds like this:

Him: "Noted! Thank you 🙏"

It was poor timing on my part to send that reminder because he was already frustrated.

Ideally, I would've sent it in the revision request earlier on.

So, his response doesn't make sense. A sudden switch from dissatisfaction to gratitude (with a praying hands emoji to boot, as if I'd just done him this huge favor).

Maybe he already knew he'd need to do the bolding (since we'd already discussed it multiple times) and expected to have to do it anyway.

But the extreme gratitude still doesn't make sense.

And I'd even go so far as to take it as an early warning sign.

I'll keep this thread updated if he does anything value-taking that reveals he was truly using the gratitude as a cover for some upcoming poor behavior.