Yesterday, I attempted to open a contract with someone that I already had an open contract with.. for something completely different then the first one was open for, and it wouldn't allow me to open the second contract. As shown in the attached image, it stated I already had a contract open with said user, and it wouldn't allow me to proceed any further.
I was just curious why this limit has been implemented? As it forced me to do the second transaction, without a contract.. which is something I would of preferred not to do, as the first contract was already in motion, and the second one was time sensitive and needed to be started that day.
![[Image: In-Shot-20250826-022131421.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/Jw8vPkxh/In-Shot-20250826-022131421.jpg)
Why dont u delete the first one and make a new contract for both ?
Limited offer
Signature space ... 1k bytes per week
Maybe it was to avoid contract farming?
Aug 26, 2025 04:51 AM
(This post was last modified: Aug 26, 2025 04:52 AM by Tyr.)
(Aug 26, 2025 04:13 AM)Chrome Wrote: Maybe it was to avoid contract farming?
Nobody here partakes in such LQ behavior sir.
is this what you truly think of us? ;(
(Aug 26, 2025 04:51 AM)Tyr Wrote: Nobody here partakes in such LQ behavior sir.
is this what you truly think of us? ;(
Pretty LQ reply here if I'm honest.
(Aug 26, 2025 12:08 AM)Jamika Wrote: Why dont u delete the first one and make a new contract for both ?
Tbh, I didn't think about that at the time of opening the second contract.. but I don't think it's something I would of done anyway, as the first contract was already in motion. Deleting the old contract, and starting the second one could potentially cause more issues in the long run.. as the first one wasn't started on the same day, and it was for a completely different service. So what if an issue was to arise with the first service.. and a Deal Dispute was to take place, and get resolved. Then what would happen if there was an issue with the second service, the buyer wouldn't of been able to open a Deal Dispute for the second service, as the contract would of already been disputed and resolved on the first service. Hence why each service, needs it's own contract.
As I said, I just did the second deal without a contract, which was of no risk to me.. but for the buyer, they may not see it the same way. They were actually hesitant about starting the second service without the contract.. but eventually agreed to it, as it was time sensitive. I just didn't understand why it wouldn't allow me to open the second contract, if it was for a completely different service, and a completely different day. I could understand if it was for the same user, same day, for the same service/thread.. but it wasn't. It was the same user, started on different day, and for a different service/thread.
(Aug 26, 2025 04:13 AM)Chrome Wrote: Maybe it was to avoid contract farming?
Contract farming? How can it be contract farming if it's for 2 different services, on a completely different day? All the details of the service are written in detail in the contract, so it would be pretty simple to verify that the contract was 1. legitimate 2. for a different service and date.
(Aug 26, 2025 04:51 AM)Tyr Wrote: Nobody here partakes in such LQ behavior sir.
is this what you truly think of us? ;(
That sounds like behavior of a person that needs to take a vacation from the forum, and get out the house. As much as I enjoy the forum, it's never that serious to be "Contract Farming".. and I think Omni would be able to easily confirm if that's what someone was doing, by just reading the contract terms. All my contract terms are written in detail, and provide enough information that him or staff could easily determine whether it was a legitimate contract or not.
Aug 27, 2025 08:28 PM
(This post was last modified: Aug 27, 2025 08:37 PM by Tyr.)
(Aug 26, 2025 04:55 AM)Chrome Wrote: Pretty LQ reply here if I'm honest.
I hardly have time to even use this forum with the workload I have right now but you can take this mentality however you want man. I will always be loyal to HF but speaking with the previous upmost "high quality" contributions I've dedicated to this forum over years in the past with my sincere intention to drive further engagement whilst also encouraging others to further their own learning pursuits; I would like to briefly defend myself and speak for a moment. My LQ activity that you may deemed to be disrespectful never even is or was. I must admit, the missed social cues with you and a few others I will not name are starting to make me truly wonder if you have ASD. Which is cool and all man (my gf does). I like your dedication to this place and continued devotion to being what one may consider to be a HQ member of HF and truly hope you will consider all the hard work, time spent, and countless people you've uplifted with your kind words and overall intention of synthesizing a better community; particularly what you did when first creating Pulse. Have you considered putting this on your resume? Preferably the first line?
I would argue that what defines LQ activity should be correlated to the amount of memes made about them over the last year or so. That's just me though. I am not cool enough to have any. :/
I wish you a lovely Wed/Thu and hope you prosper in all endeavors this week sir Chromie. I still want that banana award you stole from me.
I love you dawg but feel free to check my post logs regarding my activity here. Speaking of, I would desperately take a vacation in a heartbeat right now to escape 80 hour work weeks/uni You know of any places to recommend?
Take care Mr. Ryan
(Aug 26, 2025 03:28 PM)Moooookie Wrote: Contract farming? How can it be contract farming if it's for 2 different services, on a completely different day? All the details of the service are written in detail in the contract, so it would be pretty simple to verify that the contract was 1. legitimate 2. for a different service and date.
Potentially if someone is trying to get their contract numbers up to make them look like they do more business and look more trusted. Although thinking along those lines it wouldnt stop people just closing contracts.
Other reason why this may be implemented by is to avoid having contracts open for too long. Avoiding people having multiple contracts open at the same time and not completing older ones first.
(Aug 27, 2025 08:37 PM)Chrome Wrote: Potentially if someone is trying to get their contract numbers up to make them look like they do more business and look more trusted. Although thinking along those lines it wouldnt stop people just closing contracts.
What you're suggesting, I don't think that would stop someone from "Contract Farming" if that's what their goal was.. as they would just close the first contract, and then open the second one. That would be more along the lines of "Contract Farming". The scenario I mentioned, is the complete opposite of what you're suggesting. This thread was about why can one not open a second contract, with the same user, on a different date, for a completely different service.
(Aug 27, 2025 08:37 PM)Chrome Wrote: Other reason why this may be implemented by is to avoid having contracts open for too long. Avoiding people having multiple contracts open at the same time and not completing older ones first.
Having too many contracts open at the same time would hold true if a Seller only sold one service and/or product, was trying to open another contract with the same user for the same product and/or service.. but what I'm referring to in the OP is Sellers that are selling multiple different products and services, and the buyer wants to purchase multiple services during the week.. rather then having to wait until the first service is complete? Now they're forced to make the second purchase without a contract, similar to what I had to do.
|
![[Image: support-green.png]](https://hackforums.net/images/hfnews/support-green.png)
