vBulletin.com / vBulletin.org Hacked

Oh please, please, don't get him started.

Scott

 

Thats because he is a contractor that is not working for vBulletin he is only doing what ever.

If they where in the EU it would be easier, every one that works for a company represents the company it does not matter what your contract says.

 

Um....I'm quite certain that even in the states that as a contractor you are still considered a representative of the company. Mostly the differences between an employee and contractor come in the form of payroll and benefits.

 

I know but that what (s)he said last time.

 

Not only is he an employee, he's essentially in a support role. Back when I did support, they frequently told us: "You're the face of the company."

This is like an outsourced Comcast support representative being a jerk to a customer, and then saying "Well, I don't represent Comcast. I'm just a paid Comcast customer care representative."

That person would be fired.

I still don't understand why these people come to Admin Talk and accuse others of being childish. In psychology, there's this funny little thing called projection... My rule of thumb: if everyone thinks I'm wrong, it's time to stop being stubborn and start re-evaluating the common denominator in the equation.

 

That is only his definition to delude his self into thinking he is something other than what he is.

That stands in every country and situation where someone is doing something for others and receiving some form of gratuity. The reverse of that also holds true. When you work for someone or volunteer you are subject to be associated with the reputation of those you work with or volunteer with.
And ultimately they are equally libel, held accountable to and for each others actions or in actions.

 

Mark and Paul are both attention seekers, they want others to "look up to them" because they're vB staff. Both are trolls in my book!

 

He's started again....

Scott

 

OK that seems to be a response to a post I made on TAZ and what an odd response to make. It's just semantics though, something a number of vBulletin staff seem to regularly dabble in. Oops I did it again didn't I. Staff? I meant to say employee or should that be contractor who may or may not be in receipt of remuneration from vBulletin or Internet Brands.

To be honest Mark.B irritated me when he thought Internet Brands was a morally bankrupt obscenity. He irritated me more when he dropped his principles in favour of a pay check. Now I quite regularly see him calling people who are probably vBulletin customers liars and I felt that deserved some payback.

 

He chose his words quite carefully, imho. He's correct in the sense they are not his employer.

 

Apples and oranges. At the end of the day he works for IB, be it as a self-employed part-time contractor or a full-time employee. Same thing, they employ him to do a job which he gets paid for. Key word is "Paid" to do a job, which he wouldn't be doing if not getting paid to do it, he'd still be running around the web calling them "morally bankrupt"

 

I don't think you are correct here. If someone receives compensation for services, he/they are being employed. Split a hair if you like but I think the basics of an employer/employee's relationship is bound by services requested and services rendered. Paid or volunteer, the connection can and has been legally defined.

 

I shouldn't have said anything. LOL!

Scott

 

Nobody's saying contractors cannot represent companies.

Two different issues...I don't represent any company when I'm not on "company time" posting in a private forum, any more than I'd represent them in a restaurant having a meal.

When I'm on duty and dealing directly with a customer via an official support channel (which means, the vB Support Forums, or the support ticket system) then obviously I'm "representing the company".

 

Doh! And one post to early too.....

Scott

 

A contractor can be staff. An employee can be staff. However an employee cannot be a contractor.

 

I'm like a bad penny. Or cent, if anyone prefers.

 

A prime example of bad logic utilizing a play on words.