I don't think for a moment that Jacob is sharing our info. It might be another shopper (or shoppers) but I know it is not Jacob. You are probably right. I gave out some specifics about the conversations we had, enough so that she was able to guess who I was. In that regard, I brought this on myself. I think you are right. She was quite pleasant about it. She probably did play me. And I fell for it. Shame on me. Nevertheless, I am chilled by this experience.
AustinMom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jersey, the scheduler did not get your contact
> information from the forum, unless perhaps she or
> someone else PM'd you and you responded with
> personal information. The scheduler likely read
> your posts and identified the situation you were
> writing about and knew who you were. She got your
> contact information from HER database. Don't let
> her kid you. Jacob is not sharing our
> information. You were specific about a situation
> and in the time period that it happened she knew
> which shopper you were.
>
> As a brand-new forum poster several years ago, I
> was very naive. I believed this was a shopper
> forum and a somewhat closed discussion. It is
> neither. It is intended as a shopper forum, but
> being on the internet it is open to anyone who has
> access to a computer: shoppers, trolls, spammers
> (we get lots of those these days!), MSC
> schedulers/owners/editors/etc, clients of MSCs,
> maybe even employees of clients. There is no
> expectation of privacy.
>
> On the ICA violation, I don't have a clear memory
> of what you said, but it's debatable whether you
> actually violated your ICA or not. Some companies
> are more specific in their confidentiality
> agreements than others, but most are still vague
> about what specifically is confidential. It could
> be that the scheduler was reacting more to seeing
> her company's name on a public forum cast in a
> negative light. I think she actually handled it
> rather well: she did not come to the forum to
> confront you as some MSCs have done, she did not
> reveal your name in a public post to let you know
> on the forum that she knew who you were. She
> contacted you privately to discuss. It sounds
> like she was nice about it. She discussed the
> situation with you and you are getting partial
> payment. I'm not getting the sense that you were
> deactivated. I don't think the company is "saving
> face" - I think the scheduler wanted the post
> deleted, and now it is.
>
> And sojo, yes, jersey now knows that this company
> reads the forum. But here's a news flash: many
> MSCs read the forum. They just don't post. You
> don't know they are here but they most definitely
> are. There is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Be
> careful what you say. Be especially careful of
> PM's. Most posters think PM's are somehow "safe"
> and totally confidential - and they are not
> necessarily. PM information can later be
> forwarded or published. And a PM-er may not be a
> shopper just because they are here - they could be
> anyone.
AustinMom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jersey, the scheduler did not get your contact
> information from the forum, unless perhaps she or
> someone else PM'd you and you responded with
> personal information. The scheduler likely read
> your posts and identified the situation you were
> writing about and knew who you were. She got your
> contact information from HER database. Don't let
> her kid you. Jacob is not sharing our
> information. You were specific about a situation
> and in the time period that it happened she knew
> which shopper you were.
>
> As a brand-new forum poster several years ago, I
> was very naive. I believed this was a shopper
> forum and a somewhat closed discussion. It is
> neither. It is intended as a shopper forum, but
> being on the internet it is open to anyone who has
> access to a computer: shoppers, trolls, spammers
> (we get lots of those these days!), MSC
> schedulers/owners/editors/etc, clients of MSCs,
> maybe even employees of clients. There is no
> expectation of privacy.
>
> On the ICA violation, I don't have a clear memory
> of what you said, but it's debatable whether you
> actually violated your ICA or not. Some companies
> are more specific in their confidentiality
> agreements than others, but most are still vague
> about what specifically is confidential. It could
> be that the scheduler was reacting more to seeing
> her company's name on a public forum cast in a
> negative light. I think she actually handled it
> rather well: she did not come to the forum to
> confront you as some MSCs have done, she did not
> reveal your name in a public post to let you know
> on the forum that she knew who you were. She
> contacted you privately to discuss. It sounds
> like she was nice about it. She discussed the
> situation with you and you are getting partial
> payment. I'm not getting the sense that you were
> deactivated. I don't think the company is "saving
> face" - I think the scheduler wanted the post
> deleted, and now it is.
>
> And sojo, yes, jersey now knows that this company
> reads the forum. But here's a news flash: many
> MSCs read the forum. They just don't post. You
> don't know they are here but they most definitely
> are. There is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Be
> careful what you say. Be especially careful of
> PM's. Most posters think PM's are somehow "safe"
> and totally confidential - and they are not
> necessarily. PM information can later be
> forwarded or published. And a PM-er may not be a
> shopper just because they are here - they could be
> anyone.
it's not my intention to come in and tell anyone who is not interested in participating in Social Media that they should. It's a completely optional practice. To do? Not to do? That's up to you 