Wow! I think everyone needs to take a step back and consider what you are posting.
As I see it, April and I actually actually agree on a number of the items discussed here. I agree that the shop is a lot of work for the fee offered and she agrees that she was not as well versed on the reporting details as she could have been. My main point was that the assignment required a particular style of food description and she did not provide that initially....hence the request for revisions. She felt the revision was too much work for the fee offered and I contend that she agreed to it without fully understanding the requirement, so the MSC deserved to receive the data they contracted her to provide. I may not have said that as eloquently at first, but that was the point. We have the right to disagree about that and I am happy to let that argument drop, just as she is. I am assuming that she submitted the required revisions and will get paid for the shop.
It was a lengthy process of getting to that point and I think that perhaps the issue was confounded by the very polarizing component of Sentry being the MSC in question. April did not need a group of posters to come to her defense. She was perfectly capable of engaging in the discussion about it and even agrees that she may have accepted the shop in haste....so why all of the animosity from others? April is not a newbie shopper. She has considerable experience and is simply a newbie poster.
The discussion between April and myself was just that, a discussion. What I think escalated the discussion to the point of being an argument was the insistence from others that she was being bashed or bullied, and others claiming that the information that she provided was useful to those who have not attempted the shop or worked with the MSC. Lastly, there was the implication that I am somehow showing favoritism to a MSC.
The thing is, the information she provided was simply not accurate. It did disparage the MSC in question, was a thread that simply listed the company name and spoke to her bad experience with them, and supporting that type of posting without questioning it does nothing to move this forum forward, and away from the shoppers vs. MSC mentality.
I don't know where the rule is posted that the forum is only for shoppers and all posts must be shopper-centric, but that's ridiculous. The forum is about mystery shopping and MSCs are a considerable component of that.
For those who think that I was being harsh on the OP, please answer me this; What could the MSC have done differently to make this situation better? The guidelines were clearly posted. The revision request was clearly and politely stated. What did the MSC do wrong? How do they get compared to a supervisor who is making an employee's life difficult?
For those that want to shame me for insisting that posters be truthful in their posts; I think your attitude fuels the animosity we see here. There was no attempt on my part to cover up any shortcomings of the MSC. There was no personal attack on April. I pointed out a number of contradictions in the things that she was stating and the discussion moved forward from there. If anyone reading this cannot see those contradictions and understand that when the full story was revealed, there were a number of extenuating factors out of the MSC's control that made her experience frustrating, then I suggest your hatred for Sentry has perhaps blurred your perception. Suggesting that the thread makes the MSC look like crap and wanting to multiply like posts that say that are basically repeating the bashing and bullying behavior that you are accusing me of.