Negatively repped for confusing reason?

[REWGAew4rhgerherhaerwh]

Hi all,

I received a negative rep of I guess, -14? (new members start with 10, and now I'm at -4 from this)

Post/Thread Reputation was received on: https://www.mpgh.net/forum/showthrea...1#post14866652
Date: 2-24-2021

Reason for dispute: There was direct interaction with this user. I added them on IM to discuss an Apple Music upgrade, and as I guess we both don't go on MPGH that often (sometimes I don't check for a few days), we have not interacted frequently until yesterday. I was curious what their prices were, so I reached out again and they provided an annual price of $50 - which isn't bad but I didn't really feel a need or want to get Apple Music anymore, so I didn't respond and didn't want to waste their time, so I removed them from my IM contacts. Not as an insult or anything? Just wanted to keep IM clear and with people I'm working with right now.

I figure it has to be a mistake because the comment they left was "GOD BLESS YOU AND KEEP YOU SAFE"


User who gave Reputation: https://www.mpgh.net/forum/member.php?u=4782143

I'm so confused as to whats going on lmao. Didn't even buy anything from them? I didn't leave them a bad rep or anything on their thread.

[[MPGH]Liz]

Was the reputation a mistake @Schiphol ? Or is there more to this than the OP alleges?

[Schiphol]

To whom it may concern, I was trained in my field from day one as a specialist to get into a fight and wind up of search seekers, and I am professional at reading user's true intentions. Again, a gentle reminder that we never force users to make a deal with us, as he/she asked for a second time @syndicacy, uh I'm still interested if you're still offering the service and select the subscription duration @syndicacy: 12 months, and run away once we asked them to make a reply in 10 minutes and delete us in the middle of the communication.

Dear, Princes, I have sent you the IM chat-logs of this interaction to your private inbox, so you can make the final testimony which user is guiltily; While looking at the past requests; It seems, the user is not to be a buyer; Most of the time, the buyers [ Including syndicacy ] are looking to cut down on the cost [ Search Seekers ]. This can be found on the user's past nine posts on the community from his/her latest posts panel ID.

We are looking forward to our unquestionable response to our request and will happily provide any information you may require again.

Kind Regards,
Schiphol and syndicacy

[REWGAew4rhgerherhaerwh]

First off, please don't reply for me.

Let's take a look at the chatlog: @Liz feel free to look into my IM logs with @Schiphol.

I added you on February 2nd. Due to the nature of real life, I did not check IM until February 4th, to which I replied I'm interested etc (paraphrasing here).

February 15th: You say IM was down, okay, happy to make a deal. I did not check until February 18th; I don't check IM unless I'm in active communication with another user/service provider. Last Wednesday, you reached out and rapid-fired 23 messages in 5 minutes to which I responded 12 months and you gave me your price. I didn't like the price so I backed out. Now, was that a waste of time for you? Potentially, and I'm sorry for that. But does it warrant a negative reputation of -14? I'll let admins decide.

To address what you wrote:

While looking at the past requests; It seems, the user is not to be a buyer; Most of the time, the buyers [ Including syndicacy ] are looking to cut down on the cost [ Search Seekers ]. This can be found on the user's past nine posts on the community from his/her latest posts panel ID.

I choose not to leave feedback on EVERY seller I interact with. I have interacted and purchased services from a few service providers. Is that a problem? Happy to leave a vouch on every seller's thread if that's the result you want.

Let's take a look at my last 9 posts: Mostly in scam reports because I had a dispute with a user that was not able to complete a service I purchased from him. We successfully resolved that and nobody was infracted for it. Shit happens, tools go bad and get detected, I get it.

One post was that I added someone on IM. How exactly is that looking to "cut down on the cost"? Looking for people who will actually do the service you're looking for is a problem now?

I'm going to draw a line here for separation of ideas.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________

You seem to have involved yourself in this issue before, in this thread:

https://www.mpgh.net/forum/showthrea...1#post15042979

In which you used "search seekers" for a reason as a dispute for the reputation you received. You were told it was NOT a valid reason.

You then chose to open a second thread on the same reputation. For something that does NOT affect your reputation.

https://www.mpgh.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1527314


Now, let me be clear here: I have not left you any reputation nor do I plan on doing so because I haven't done any business with you. I don't know why you chose to do so.

[[MPGH]Liz]

Well I love when one asks a simple yes/no question and get entire essays as a reply.

Now the direct interaction clause is very clear. If there was direct communication between then two parties in relation to the rep, then my hands are tied. That's why I asked if the reputation had been a mistake, since the conversation (from the OPs POV) had been a simple exchange. Do I think the negative reputation is warranted, not at all. The user, from the logs I received, simply became disinterested. Happens all the time in any marketplace. Don't see why this necessitated a negative rep. However, since the rep occurred within the confines of the policy, I cannot overturn it. Even if I personally completely disagree with it.

For that reason, the reputation stands. Sorry, @syndicacy.

However I have gone and +Repped you myself, because I appreciate the honesty by which you tried to get this rep looked at. I'm sorry It's not back to what it was, but at least it's not in the negatives.

Be safe to you both.