- 30,339
On Joe Rogan's podcast. It's not talked about by the news media. They decide what they want us to know about.
Last edited:
Monthly Group Expert Series of Webinars
- Thread starter DHK
- Start date
- 10,711
- 10,711
I never harassed you. I said your statement was incorrect. I then backed up my statement with facts.
Saying someone is wrong and providing factual references to back up that claim is not harassment.
As a professional, you should want to know when you are sharing incorrect information with other agents... or with clients. Especially about advanced planning topics dealing with businesses.
- 4,085
You make any assumption is actually an active and successful producer.
- Thread starter
- #45
- 11,471
Better than assuming that you know how to handle your own risks in your business.
Just submitted a $33,000 annual premium case.
Just submitted a $33,000 annual premium case.
- 30,339
There's nothing wrong with admitting when you're wrong. I thought I was wrong once.....but I was wrong.
- 4,908
we are all debtors to the govt, to our mortgage companies, maybe even to an auto,home or business insurance company.
If one of his moderators had Workers Compensation insurance with my company & the annual audit determined his moderator had higher payrolls than estimated, he would owe for the past. If he fails to pay, should he be cancelled as a moderator?
I think bad debt is bad, but not sure how this would affect being a facetwitter moderator. Sure, he should be out working harder to make money to pay off debts of any kind, but that is his choice.
PS.- no idea what this Facebook page is about, just don't understand the correlation, it is not like Larry Nassar is in charge of a page for children or day care centers
- 4,085
referring to roll up not mortgages
- 4,908
I get that. But why should that Facebook page care about roll-up debt more than any other kind of debt or even insurance policy debt or 2 insurance business partner debt
- Thread starter
- #50
- 11,471
If anybody really wants the story, one of my moderators used to be in Chris's insurance organization. He left some time ago (I don't remember when, nor is it really that relevant).
Anyway, I encourage my moderators to "run it like they own it" to make good moderating decisions. This moderator decided to remove Chris from any group they are a moderator/admin for.
Chris messaged me asking what happened? I explained that *I* didn't remove him, but I'll check to see what happened. I saw that my moderator removed and blocked him from the group.
The choice was now mine: Do I circumvent my moderator and override their decision? Or do I show loyalty to the principle that I encouraged them to "run it like they own it"?
I chose loyalty.
And, if I was in a similar position with a particular poster - and I have been - I'd do the same thing. In fact, anyone that blocks me on Facebook and is in the group... is automatically removed from the group because I can't moderate that person. I could only remove them, so that's what is done. And that's consistent with almost ALL groups on Facebook.
Now, Chris has it in for me because I had to make a decision that wasn't in his favor. He also told me how that it would hurt his business for not being in the group.
I gave him the same advice I posted earlier: Hire a collections agency and sue for the debt. (That's the answer in business when someone owes money and doesn't repay it.)
He messaged me on all other forms of Social Media including LinkedIn and Twitter after I blocked him for his incessant messaging. I blocked him on those platforms too.
Now, he's making it public here.
Here's what I had decided regarding my choice of moderators: Until they are no longer fit to be moderators, they will remain moderators. I will judge them by the job they are doing, not by their outside issues.
Believe me, there's another moderator that has some other issues that was brought to my attention. I'm sticking to my original decision to only judge based on their moderator performance, not by other things out there.
I believe I'm making the best decision, but Chris doesn't like it because it's not in his favor.
I find it odd that he thinks that I'm "endorsing" a moderator who owes him money.
I think it's odd that he's blaming me for his business problems and lack of business sense and knowledge on how to pursue collections.
Anyway, I encourage my moderators to "run it like they own it" to make good moderating decisions. This moderator decided to remove Chris from any group they are a moderator/admin for.
Chris messaged me asking what happened? I explained that *I* didn't remove him, but I'll check to see what happened. I saw that my moderator removed and blocked him from the group.
The choice was now mine: Do I circumvent my moderator and override their decision? Or do I show loyalty to the principle that I encouraged them to "run it like they own it"?
I chose loyalty.
And, if I was in a similar position with a particular poster - and I have been - I'd do the same thing. In fact, anyone that blocks me on Facebook and is in the group... is automatically removed from the group because I can't moderate that person. I could only remove them, so that's what is done. And that's consistent with almost ALL groups on Facebook.
Now, Chris has it in for me because I had to make a decision that wasn't in his favor. He also told me how that it would hurt his business for not being in the group.
I gave him the same advice I posted earlier: Hire a collections agency and sue for the debt. (That's the answer in business when someone owes money and doesn't repay it.)
He messaged me on all other forms of Social Media including LinkedIn and Twitter after I blocked him for his incessant messaging. I blocked him on those platforms too.
Now, he's making it public here.
Here's what I had decided regarding my choice of moderators: Until they are no longer fit to be moderators, they will remain moderators. I will judge them by the job they are doing, not by their outside issues.
Believe me, there's another moderator that has some other issues that was brought to my attention. I'm sticking to my original decision to only judge based on their moderator performance, not by other things out there.
I believe I'm making the best decision, but Chris doesn't like it because it's not in his favor.
I find it odd that he thinks that I'm "endorsing" a moderator who owes him money.
I think it's odd that he's blaming me for his business problems and lack of business sense and knowledge on how to pursue collections.
Last edited:
Similar threads
