SteveSoCal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I constantly speak out against MSCs when they act
> unprofessionally, my identity here is pretty well
> known by all of the MSCs that participate in the
> forum and yet I have not been deactivated by any
> of them. Why? My guess is that it's because post
> truthfully and intelligently, and am a good
> shopper.

Steve, answer this for me. Do you believe that deactivating a shopper for simply stating that the company only had one shop in his area and that the fee did not cover the cost of the meal is acting professionally or unprofessionally? I am incredibly interested in your answer to this question.

Sentry Marketing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am in complete agreement that retaliation is not
> appropriate

And I'm gonna call 100% bullshit on this one.

Sentry Marketing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as posting that atlash is guanadu's
> husband, I posted this because I believe that the
> members of this form have the right to know when
> they are being deceived.

I found this quote to be interesting and didn't want it to get lost in all the lengthy posts in this thread.

bgriffin

How is it that I have been upfront about every person that indicated their account was deactivated with the exception of your account?

After finding your comments on this site, I checked your account and it was active. Then, based on subsequent comments, I deactivated it.

You asked Steve is it is acceptable for a shopper's account to be deactivated based on a comment posted that an assignment's reimbursement does not cover the meal. Does it matter that a shopper posts information like this when they have not actually completed the assignment in question? Because if you haven't actually performed the assignment, how do you know if the fee and reimbursement cover the meal?

You call it "retaliation", however, would you continue to complete assignments for a company that communicated with you in a sarcastic manner? How about if that company posted inaccurate information about you on a public forum?

atlash

If you have questions about mail delivery, try reading this post:

[www.mysteryshopforum.com]

Sentry Marketing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bgriffin
>
> How is it that I have been upfront about every
> person that indicated their account was
> deactivated with the exception of your account?

Because you know if you admitted to deactivating my account that many people would have a more negative opinion of you, whereas you had a least a slightly decent reason for deactivating most of the accounts you have deactivated.

> After finding your comments on this site, I
> checked your account and it was active. Then,
> based on subsequent comments, I deactivated it.

That's not true. You know it's not true. I know it's not true.

> You asked Steve is it is acceptable for a
> shopper's account to be deactivated based on a
> comment posted that an assignment's reimbursement
> does not cover the meal.

Yes I did, and I'm very interested in his response.

> Does it matter that a
> shopper posts information like this when they have
> not actually completed the assignment in question?
> Because if you haven't actually performed the
> assignment, how do you know if the fee and
> reimbursement cover the meal?

Because I had eaten at the McDonald's of BBQ very shortly after they opened their first location there and for my meal I spent more than what the assignment paid.


> You call it "retaliation", however, would you
> continue to complete assignments for a company
> that communicated with you in a sarcastic manner?
> How about if that company posted inaccurate
> information about you on a public forum?

I communicated with you in a sarcastic manner only after you deactivated me. Please tell me what I posted about your company that was inaccurate?

bgriffin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Steve, answer this for me. Do you believe that
> deactivating a shopper for simply stating that the
> company only had one shop in his area and that the
> fee did not cover the cost of the meal is acting
> professionally or unprofessionally? I am
> incredibly interested in your answer to this
> question.


I would say that's within the right of the MSC, professionally speaking. It would be unprofessional to withhold payment or cancel shops based on a truthful posting, but that's not what transpired. You admittedly have never shopped for Dave so it's not like he cut off an existing shopper from a potential source of income. You had no interest in working for Sentry so what have you lost?

I would also go so far as to say that both of you are somewhat sensitive about your businesses and/or what gets written here. You have to admit that you have been sarcastic about the deactivation and taken quite a few jabs at Dave since. If you were apathetic you would have simply moved on. I don't think that anyone doubts that Dave is sensitive about what gets written about his company, so the professional thing for both of you to do would be to let it drop at this point.

Mary,

I am not hooked up with any "gang" or "circle".

This is thread about Sentry's pay, nothing more and nothing less.

I do not know the identity of anyone on this forum except for Dave's.

I hipped my roommate onto secret shopping because it brings extra income into the house and she and her boyfriend eat out a lot. We all do. So it's a way to at least get meals paid for and then some. It's not a lot, I will grant you, and although I shop with many other companies, I am not as organized, nor do I have the time to set up a spreadsheet to keep track of all this stuff. I do it when it suits me and I'm fine woth that.

"What difference does it make?" I don't know, you tell me. You're Dave's defender on this forum, and I am happy that your relationship works out so well for you. It obviously doesn't for everyone.

What I simply cannot abide, however, is when someone engaged in an honest and healthy discussion/debate starts lobbing bombs at someone else's character instead of debating the merits of the argument itself. Dave has accused me of histrionics. Why? Because I dared to engage him and he does not know who I am and I will not give him that. I obviously have hit a nerve with him. Further, he asks why I don't answer his questions (when I have, and anyway, why should I have to prove my mettle here?) but why doesn't he answer mine?

Where I come from, when you intentionally obfuscate as Dave has done, it's just a fancy manner of lying. He said this, he said he didn't when he did, now he changes his story and says he didn't actually say what he said he didn't say in the first place, it's dizzying. Then there's computer problems and returned checks, etc., Dave isn't doing himself or his company any favors by this endless stream of excuses.

I have no doubt that there are far more readers of this forum than commenters. Dave should quit while he's *ahem* ahead. Admit when you're wrong, be a stand-up guy and just quit making excuses all the time, is all.

Let's just all agree that Dave can boot any shoppers that displeases him. That is his right.

Now, thank god that not all MSCs are like Sentry Marketing. Honestly if all MSCs operate the same way, I would quit in a heartbeat. The forms are incredibly clunky for a small reimbursement and a tiny fee. Also, the way the form is designed, I don't see how the clients get much benefit from the shop. I would never hire Sentry to come around my business if I had a restaurant. I'm not impressed.

My theory as to why it takes so long for reimbursement is that Dave probably takes the funds to invest somewhere (just a theory)... like that recent purchase of that other company. When all is said and done, Sentry Marketing wants too much and gives too little. It's like that annoying customer that has a champagne taste but a beer budget. I hope Sentry goes out of business one day as it would be hell if it becomes successful and other companies follow suit.

bgriffin

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If I had deactivated your account initially, I would accept responsibly for it. You can continue to insist that I did, however, it simply isn't true. Similarly, you posted that I deactivated your account with Feedback Plus, however, I did no such thing and your account with FBP is open and active at this time. This is how you were emailed an invitation to take our shopper survey a few weeks ago.

Were you aware of the meal requirement for the assignment you posted about? I ask because, in fact, the reimbursement was enough to cover the required purchase.

--

atlash - I've answered your questions, yet you continue to deflect and simply inquiries about your relationship to guanadu and if you have been honest with the mysteryshopforum community. You accuse me of lying, however, you're the one twisting words, posting claims that you cannot support and deceiving members of this forum by concealing your relationship with at least one other forum member.

You accuse me of berating forum members, yet no content exists on this thread (or any others) to support this statement. You and guandu, however, have treated many members of the MSF community with a significant amount of disrespect.

You accuse me of changing stories when in fact, the substance of what I've conveyed has not changed. We experienced multiple failures of our accounting software throughout the spring and this situation caused payments to run late by a few weeks. Your specific payments were delayed due to a change of address and a damaged check being returned to us. I don't need to change my story because the information I am conveying is true. You, on the other hand, deflect and obscure the facts to fit your purpose.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2014 05:35PM by Sentry Marketing.

I understand that we have forum members who have problems with Sentry and also with other MSCs. I get it when a company rubs us the wrong way. I realize some companies pay slower than others and I don't have a chart on it. Once I work a problem out, or realize I cannot work a problem out, there's a personal release in letting it go and moving on.

We've had some threads on the forum which took Dave to task for not jumping in. We've had some threads on the forum which took Dave to task because he did jump in. Difference of opinion there. I say anyone attacked ought to get to address the issue raised, and when they do they should not be required to address every historical issue ever brought up by anyone, back to the point most of us can't even remember.

I sincerely regret the situation involving bgriffin and I've wished many times none of that happened, whatever it was that happened. My understanding is that bgriffin never shopped for Sentry, but that he signed up and it went downhill from there.
There were no shops involved, as far as I know, so what we're talking about here is the right to work and we don't have it. From what I see each party to this has taken a position they won't give up. What's written down here on this forum is never the whole story because we're not privy to the private and professional interactions between the MSC and the shopper. I do not see any change in this situation coming down but I wish both parties the very best.

I have been accused of being Dave and I have been accused of being a big fan of Dave. I am not Dave but I am a big fan of all my MSCs. I wish we could be as objective and fair in dealing with them as we are in doing our shop reports.

This thread, like most Sentry threads, dissolves into the ridiculous. For shoppers, there is no such thing that bad publicity is good publicity, regardless of what the MSC believes. My reply is for the benefit of new shoppers deciding whether to shop for this MSC. For many reasons, I choose not to shop with Sentry, nor Feedback Plus, since the Sentry acquisition. Reasons I don't shop with Sentry were as a result of shoppers' experiences, shared here. Due to unscrupulous MSC activity here, some of those experiences were purged from the forum. In my opinion, leopards do not change their spots, nor do skunks morph into perfume makers, and if my memory is not as good as an elephant, shopper friends will remind me.

Is it acceptable for an MSC to reveal a shopper's identity on this forum? Okay for an MSC to hazard a guess who is married to whom, and post it here? Fall short of payment terms, and rely on averages, while shoppers chase their payments? How about willy nilly deactivation? Yes, we're IC's and just as the MSC can deactivate, so can the shopper. Okay for an MSC to PM shoppers in an attempt to determine their identity? Rumor has it that a member or two of this forum has been hired by the MSC as writers to clean up or write posts. Hasn't helped, from my perspective.

If a shopper chooses, I suggest baby steps and proceeding with caution.

"Rumor has it that a member or two of this forum has been hired by the MSC as writers to clean up or write posts." I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ridiculous things ever posted. I am quite capable of writing my own posts without the help of others.

Exactly what “unscrupulous activity” have we been involved in? Was it unscrupulous when we worked out the issue with deafsigner? Perhaps we were being underhanded when we addressed the issue that dspeakes brought to our attention. What’s unscrupulous is the posting of half-truths and innuendos while cowardly hiding behind an anonymous online identity. If you don’t like me Mert, so be it, but please post honest information as stated in the forum guidelines.

The fact is that while our shopper payment process has room for improvement, we do pay our shoppers. And when we mistakes, our team is responsive and we work hard to resolve issues quickly.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2015 01:54PM by Sentry Marketing.

Your apologies are irrelevant. As a professional courtesy, I will not regurgitate the past ugly chapters in MSF regarding Sentry.

My message, albeit curtailed, is for shoppers contemplating doing business with Sentry.

Proceeding with caution is always good advice.

Most of us who've been doing this a while have more than we can do and turn away offers on a daily basis. Therefore, we don't need all the MSCs. Although I would be the first to warn of non-payment, I'm not interested in warning shoppers off this or that company because I had some other kind of issue regardless of what that issue may have been. I'm not here to judge pay levels and job difficulties for others who may be more skilled, organized, and resourceful than I am.

This is an open forum and apparently we are all free to beat up on each other to whatever extent we desire. If that is true, then the open forum should allow targets to respond and allow others to offer up ideas and suggestions on the current issue. I did not see the continually referenced deleted history but it must have been blazing on both sides. If the goal in the case of Sentry is to rehash and refer to the same deleted history over and over, good job so far.

Prattling on about so-called half-truths...

I will say again, that I am NOT this guanadu's "husband". I repeat, I am NOT. Dave is trying to smoke out my true identity and because I refuse to play that game, he's making wild and outlandish (perhaps childish?) accusations such as this.

I was also wondering WHY anyone on this forum would convey their experiences with this MSC, if I assume that the ICA expressly forbids it? Even if after deactivation isn't it still considered a breach of the contract?

So, we have an MSC who chides the commenters here who smartly hide behind their anonymity. So he can then do what? Sue them? That's just not right. And it's pretty darned low-handed and, yes, unscrupulous.

As I said earlier. Be a stand-up guy, admit when you're wrong, do the right thing, and quit commenting on this site. IF Sentry has investors and they saw his online activity herein, I would guess that they'd drop him like a plutonium-grade potato.

And for good measure, I am not "liking" anyone esle's comments here, lest I be branded as a gang member.

atlash

"As I said earlier. Be a stand-up guy, admit when you're wrong, do the right thing, and quit commenting on this site"

You should consider taking your own advice. Your posts are becoming more and more bizarre. You still refuse to explain how your relationship to guandu and the extent to which you have deceived members of this forum. These questions have been posed to you by other members of this forum, yet you still refuse to clarify. Based on the factually inaccurate content of your posts, I don’t think you are in a place to call out anyone else for “outlandish accusations”. Sorry, atlash, but you are not in a position to lecture anyone about their principles after your act on this forum.

Your identity was not too hard to figure out when you posted nearly the exact same information that you emailed to me a few hours before your post. If you wanted to conceal your identity, that was not a very wise move.

YOU are the only one here saying that I am this guanadu's "husband" (while I'm still not convinced that this person isn't really *you*, whose posts mysteriously disappeared after you popped up on this thread). I asked you the same questions that I have always asked: why the late payments, why the blaming on bad/slow checks/returned checks, etc. I also stated last week that I received a check that I did in June, which is what prompted my directed questions. I just expected that checks are always late with Sentry, and I was deactivated long before this guanadu person showed up. I WILL NOT give up my true identity, but I am deceiving no one here (and I think the admins know it) when I state that I am NOT who you accuse me of being. I'm not going to rehash my story here and be in jeopardy of some SLAPP suit from you for a potential breach of contract while you keep needling at me.

I think you are paranoid. You act like it. It's not enough to defend your company, you are outright behaving like a paranoid, accusing others of being dishonest, untruthful and deceitful. We shoppers are allowed to be anonymous, and it's quite imperative now, given the way you respond so... paranoid-like.

I refuse to take your bait. I will not share my story with you here for fear of retaliation. I will not respond to your PM's to contact you, so stop it (and if anyone is wondering at this point, no, I am also not "mert" ) .

But I guess, Dave, keep trying. What's that adage about enough rope in which to hang oneself?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2014 05:00AM by atlash.

It's not paranoid if they're really after you.

atlash

You should really consider your own behavior before accusing others of being dishonest or paranoid. Your post complaining about a check being post-dated contained nearly the exact same comments as your email a few hours before. You can continue to deny and deflect, but the truth is what it is. Of course your not going to "rehash" your story, because your story keeps changing.

The only one mentioning being sued is you. If everything you've posted about my company is true, what fear do you have? And since we have never spoken, I am not sure where the perceived fear of me comes from.

Except for you receiving a few payments outside of our 60 day timeframe, nearly everything you’ve posted about my company and I is simply not true. Your goal here is to defame my company and your twenty or so posts have done a pretty good job of doing just that. I am confident, however, that reasonable and rationale readers of this forum can see through your efforts.

Being paid a few days, or even a few weeks, late does not justify your actions on this forum. You did, in fact, get paid and we did, in fact, respond promptly to your inquires regarding payment.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2014 09:00AM by Sentry Marketing.

Ok, ok, I confess. I am guanadu's husband. Problem solved. Let's move on.

So, to give credit where credit is due, this morning Dave reactivated my account.

This thread reminds me of the Lambchop theme song

This is the song that doesn't end
Yes, it goes on and on, my friend
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it forever just because . . .

bgriffin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, to give credit where credit is due, this
> morning Dave reactivated my account.


Next he will be taking you out for dinner.

Maybe he has already

Dave, I also complained that you try to get people to rehash their stories here, when you know it's in direct violation of the ICA. Even after you're deactivated, it's still a contract. Why don't you address that?

It is not a direct violation of your ICA to rehash your story, so long as you do not mention the client by name in conjunction with the MSC.

After you are deactivated, you no longer have an ICA with that MSC, it's nullified, but the forum rules prevent linking MSC and client.

You can still speak about most of the specifics of your issue, so long as you do not identify the clients.

This goes beyond the ridiculous. Sentry, you want to show professionalism? Deal with situations such as this, privately, like other MSCs. And, get your house in order.

bgriffin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe he has already


Better chance of a baby coming out of your eyeball tomorrow