I idsagree with a moderator
Warning: For Full Access Please Log In or Create an Account (Free)
Two possibilities:
1. The moderator made a mistake.
2. One of the clients named in the thread used to be a Maritz client once but you were not aware of it.
1. The moderator made a mistake.
2. One of the clients named in the thread used to be a Maritz client once but you were not aware of it.
I've had posts removed for the same reason. In my case, I mentioned a non relevant company.
"I told myself to quit you; but I don't listen to drunks." -Chris Stapleton
They error on the side of caution. Still better than Facebook or Youtube!
Not the hill I choose to die on. Say "mea culpa" and move on ...
@shopperbob wrote:
One of my posts was deleted due to a moderator stating the following:
You have mentioned an MSC in a thread where multiple Clients have been mentioned, whether or not the MSC is involved any longer with those Clients. Post removed for violation of Posting Guidelines, naming client and MSC in the same thread. Feel free to edit, removing the violation, then repost.
Bob;s comment--The non-MSC I stated was Maritz, but never mentioned the name of the client nor was the client's name inserted by another poster.
Honestly, I think that's a bit ridiculous. If a mystery shopping company is no longer involved with a particular client, it shouldn't be a violation of anything to name them. It's because of stuff like that, that I seldom participate on this forum. I don't agree with the rules of the forum, but realize that if I post on it, that I have to follow them regardless of how inane they might be.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2021 09:47PM by Curious99.
An MSC can lose a client and then regain it after a while. If MSC #1 acquires MSC #2, MSC #1 often also acquires MSC #2's clients.
@Curious99 wrote:
@shopperbob wrote:
One of my posts was deleted due to a moderator stating the following:
You have mentioned an MSC in a thread where multiple Clients have been mentioned, whether or not the MSC is involved any longer with those Clients. Post removed for violation of Posting Guidelines, naming client and MSC in the same thread. Feel free to edit, removing the violation, then repost.
Bob;s comment--The non-MSC I stated was Maritz, but never mentioned the name of the client nor was the client's name inserted by another poster.
Honestly, I think that's a bit ridiculous. If a mystery shopping company is no longer involved with a particular client, it shouldn't be a violation of anything to name them. It's because of stuff like that, that I seldom participate on this forum. I don't agree with the rules of the forum, but realize that if I post on it, that I have to follow them regardless of how inane they might be.
@shopperbob: I do not have a harsh response. I merely believe that the moderator way will prevail and fully and reasonably expect that some wag will come along soon and accuse the moderator of working on the side as an editor for that one unnamed company whose clients will remain unnamed based upon a similar vexatious pattern: you were penalized for not knowing what could not be known because their guidelines were missing, wrong, and/or unclear and therefore you are in the wrong because that is the prevailing logic there and it has fueled many discussions in this forum and therefore it must be the truth. 
Chin up, old sock (as they might say in a Bryant & May book).
Chin up, old sock (as they might say in a Bryant & May book).
Bach is not noise, Madam. (Robert, in Two's Company)
I disagree with shopperbob being an old sock! He's a LEGEND!
@BusyBeeBuzzBuzzBuzz wrote:
An MSC can lose a client and then regain it after a while. If MSC #1 acquires MSC #2, MSC #1 often also acquires MSC #2's clients.
If you want to be technical about it, sure, I guess that argument could be made, but to me this is a needlessly political topic within the forum.
I'll abide by forum rules while on the forum, but still retain my opinion of those rules. And if I see anyone breaking those rules, I am not calling them out for it, as some would. I could honestly care less.
The only valid reason that I can see not to disclose MSC clients is to be able to continue to do mystery shopping work, or in the case of the forum, to be able to continue participating in forum, but if someone else chooses to break that rule, whether intentionally, or by accident, I do not think they have done anything "wrong" or "immoral".
Just something that may not go over that well politically. Hence the moderator's intervention in this case. Gotta keep people squeaky clean with regard to ICA rules here.
Thanks to Helena for her compliment that brought, not a smile, but a grin. As to Shop, I, of course, had to Google the term; it surely fits me. My point in the disagreement, was that Maritz is NOT an MSC. Even if Maritz were in this business, neither any other poster nor myself mentioned the client's name.
old sock is an affectionate term from across the pond. It's an endearment! (And, it's one of a few Brit phrases floating around in my head as I binge read a Brit series.)
Bach is not noise, Madam. (Robert, in Two's Company)
Maritz isn't an MSC anymore. They have been defunct for well over a year now. Maybe I'm wrong (I usually am), but I don't see the harm in naming an MSC that doesn't exist anymore.
For those of us who have been here long enough to follow the changes, there is no confusion. Perhaps the moderator was thinking of, or responding to, newbies or others who do not know as much about the history of the MSC's and might see this is a forum violation. ?
Either way, I believe that our beloved shopperbob would never intentionally violate a forum rule. He is savvy and helpful. At this juncture, I would also credit the moderator with a good intention and suggest that the moderator acted out of an abundance of caution for the benefit of newer shoppers who might not know the status of Maritz. After all, the MSC lists have not been updated to reflect such changes.
This leads to another thread where people are talking about how best to update the lists. It is on the Mystery Shopping Company Discussion board, I think...
Either way, I believe that our beloved shopperbob would never intentionally violate a forum rule. He is savvy and helpful. At this juncture, I would also credit the moderator with a good intention and suggest that the moderator acted out of an abundance of caution for the benefit of newer shoppers who might not know the status of Maritz. After all, the MSC lists have not been updated to reflect such changes.
This leads to another thread where people are talking about how best to update the lists. It is on the Mystery Shopping Company Discussion board, I think...
@Morledzep wrote:
Maritz isn't an MSC anymore. They have been defunct for well over a year now. Maybe I'm wrong (I usually am), but I don't see the harm in naming an MSC that doesn't exist anymore.
Bach is not noise, Madam. (Robert, in Two's Company)
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.