I liked the one that started: For the love of all things.....

The poster was repeatedly posting MSC names and their clients together.

Oh no, I think I missed that one and unfortunately I don't think you can search "Author", "Mod".

(heart)

We were thinking the same thing. I just did a search "for the love of all things" and it didn't come up so I was going to say as a side point, mods comments are not searchable.

Found it!


Mod note: For the love of all things holy, please knock it off with linking clients and MSCs! It's the only spelled-out rule on the forum, so it shouldn't be that difficult to remember. It also violates your ICA with those MSCs. And we're getting annoyed having to fix it over and over and over. winking smiley Naw... that's why we're here. smiling smiley

I don't know how to link to threads but it's in the thread titled "Most Favored Mystery Shopping Company?"

And this one from 2012 "I would like to be a Mystery Shopper for McDonalds":

Mod note: Seriously. Knock it the heck off. You don't go to someone else's house and crap all over their living room. Either follow the rule, or leave.

Hahaha! And to think we could have formed a Mod Fan Club! Actually, I was all set to, until I began to see posts talking about the forum having several mods and then it became waaaaay too complicated. I mean, they can't all be that funny, can they? OTOH, maybe that's the criteria Jacob uses to qualify someone for the Mod position.

I really appreciate the fact that you tracked those down. Thank you, Kim. They're hilarious!

(heart)

I was able to do a search using the Google search box and put in "mod note."

I wonder what the criteria is for being a moderator.

LOL I can only imagine! From what I've read, they're all volunteers, so first and foremost, I'm sure it includes, "willing to work for free". I often wonder how long each Mod's tour of duty is, if they are assigned shifts and, also, why they're anonymous.

(heart)

@kimmiemae wrote:

I was able to do a search using the Google search box and put in "mod note."

I wonder what the criteria is for being a moderator.

A great sense of humor and a hellavu lotta patience. That leaves me out. :p
I think they should remain anonymous, but they could go by number. You know, like Mod #36. Maybe they could each pick their favorite number.

I wanna be 7 of 9.

Anyone remember 7 of 9 from one of the Star Trek series? If only I had her body....

Pfffft! I think that you have it wrong. You PM'd me first, and I responded to you. I never reached out to you in anyway. Don't get it twisted.

@dspeakes wrote:

At least he stopped PMing me.... I think I have him toggled now.

Enough. Toggle.

Both of you! Enough! You are both people that I admire, for very different reasons. Please, drop this corrosive interchange entirely!

If you toggle someone in the forum, will they be toggled (or prevented) from sending you PM's? If not, I think that should become a forum feature. Too many psychos out there. And no, I am NOT talking about Eric in Tampa or dspeakes. I don't know if they are psychos; I think they are just two people who do not like each other.

I would rather see the toggle and "block PMs" be two different functions. I sometimes toggle someone who is simply boring, or annoying, but would still want them to be able to reach me with a direct question or comment -- or maybe an apology, as has happened in the past once -- and he opened by saying he didn't know if I had blocked him so he wouldn't know if I got the apology (I sent him an acknowledgment so he would know i did see it).

I don't always toggle people because I never want to see them again; quite often I look at the toggled posts anyway (all you have to do is click on the hidden post to see what they said, post by post, without having to untoggle them). So I definitely would want a distinction between a toggled member, whose public posts I don't want to see, and someone I want to block on a personal level.

@Sybil2 wrote:

If you toggle someone in the forum, will they be toggled (or prevented) from sending you PM's? If not, I think that should become a forum feature. Too many psychos out there. And no, I am NOT talking about Eric in Tampa or dspeakes. I don't know if they are psychos; I think they are just two people who do not like each other.

Don't know, Sybil. I volunteer to be a test case. Toggle me, let me know when, and then I will PM you. You can then post the results

Jacob, I see the old tax thread has been removed. I just made a post of non-advice that if you think this is appropriate, please sticky and lock it. It is in the New shopper section where the other stickied information is.

I strongly endorse making dspeakes post a sticky!

Thanks, wales, I see he did.

In my brief time on the internet, only about 10 years or so, I have learned to simply not accept anything written by anyone as gospel whether they profess to be an expert or not. The internet is a double edged sword. Tons of both information and misinformation at our fingertips 24/7. It reminds me of some lessons from grade school for those old enough to remember when we got the majority of our information from actual newspapers. My city had two so one of our teachers had us bring them in and compare articles on the same subject to learn how editorial bias changed the same story. The goal was to try to find the actual truth. Now that is a teacher I wish I could find and thank

Absolutely, but unfortunately, it takes most people awhile to figure that out. in the meantime, people coming to a place supposedly full of experts in a certain area will tend to believe what they hear/read there because they don't have the knowledge they need to discern who knows what they're talking about and who is just talking off the cuff. Or to know where to go to find the reliable source that everyone seems to be alluding to but never actually quoting or citing the reference to.

People also tend to believe and remember what they heard first, thus becoming skeptical about whatever they hear on the subject later -- even if the first thing is incorrect and the later thing is not.

I'm a big believer in snopes and other sites that debunk rumors. That, and going to the source when someone makes statements of fact without citing references other than "this is what I have been told/always done/heard at a seminar."

Anyone who has ever played "operator operator" as a child should understand how things change in the retelling. Going to the source, rather than listening to the "I heard this" version, is always the best way to get information. So citing the source of information when giving advice is always helpful.

Isn't that why there is video shopping? So the client can see what actually happened instead of being told about it by someone whose memory may not be perfect or may be influenced by biases or who might have missed a few critical words that completely change the meaning of what they think they were quoting verbatim? "In most cases" does not mean "always." "One option is..." does not mean "this is the way to do this." "What I was told is..." does not mean "This is the truth." Leaving off those qualifiers in the retelling, or any other part of a sentence, can completely change the meaning.