Intimidation....I Will Not Be Silenced

[alebrewer]

It seems to me that one potential reason for the intervention (other than that OP attacked another AMC) is the conjuring of visuals that are very much sensitive topics at this juncture of our great country. IF Solidifi (or any other AMC for that matter) believed OP may have been expressing some form of bias or antagonism toward another race, that AMC would most likely be interested in ensuring that appraiser isn't associated with their group.

I'm not Solidifi, so I have no idea if that was part of the concern or not. If I were an AMC, though, I can see where that would be a concern.

 

[bluechip]

The question is why one supposedly independent AMC is policing what an appraiser says about another supposedly independent AMC.

I already told you why. Once they become aware of unprofessional conduct by an appraiser on their panel, they are obligated to follow through with whatever their written internal policies instruct.

Your comments were so stupid and offensive, none of this should be a surprise. You weren’t at a Chevy dealership, you were in a public forum… Linkedin no less which is where corporate HR squares hang out. If you can’t figure this out without spotlighting your self inflicted wounds all over the internet and claiming victimhood, then maybe it’s time to question your activism.

You're still arguing around the question while throwing in personal insults.

Nobody disputes that an AMC can act on conduct involving its own panel. The question is what triggered Solidifi's involvement in the first place. The comments weren't about Solidifi, weren't directed at a Solidifi employee, weren't connected to an appraisal I performed for Solidifi, and weren't made while representing Solidifi. They concerned another AMC entirely.

Calling my comments “stupid and offensive” doesn't answer that question. Neither does lecturing me about LinkedIn or “victimhood.”

If your position is that AMCs should monitor public criticism of other AMCs and take adverse action against appraisers for it, then just say that. That's a position you're entitled to have. I happen to think that kind of industry policing deserves scrutiny.

And whether it crosses any legal or regulatory line won't be decided by you or me on this forum. That's precisely why I'm interested in having an attorney who understands this area look at it.

 

[bluechip]

It seems to me that one potential reason for the intervention (other than that OP attacked another AMC) is the conjuring of visuals that are very much sensitive topics at this juncture of our great country. IF Solidifi (or any other AMC for that matter) believed OP may have been expressing some form of bias or antagonism toward another race, that AMC would most likely be interested in ensuring that appraiser isn't associated with their group.

I'm not Solidifi, so I have no idea if that was part of the concern or not. If I were an AMC, though, I can see where that would be a concern.

That's a pretty big leap. You can hate the analogy, call it offensive or inappropriate, but nothing I said expressed bias or antagonism toward any race. It was an analogy about the power imbalance between AMCs and appraisers. Turning that into a concern about racial bias in my appraisal work requires assumptions that simply aren't supported by anything I said or did.

 

[alebrewer]

That's a pretty big leap. You can hate the analogy, call it offensive or inappropriate, but nothing I said expressed bias or antagonism toward any race. It was an analogy about the power imbalance between AMCs and appraisers. Turning that into a concern about racial bias in my appraisal work requires assumptions that simply aren't supported by anything I said or did.

And that may be exactly the response they're looking for. Bias is an opinion. The statements in question really don't address whether you do, or don't, hold some form of bias or antagonism.

 

[DTB]

The question is what triggered Solidifi's involvement in the first place. The comments weren't about Solidifi, weren't directed at a Solidifi employee, weren't connected to an appraisal I performed for Solidifi, and weren't made while representing Solidifi. They concerned another AMC entirely.

I think most large companies monitor the social media activity of potential hires, employees and vendors. Their comments and or actions can potentially cast them in a very poor light.

Nothing new and not much to see here.

 

[CGinMN]

The question is what triggered Solidifi's involvement in the first place.

If your position is that AMCs should monitor public criticism of other AMCs and take adverse action against appraisers for it, then just say that. That's a position you're entitled to have. I happen to think that kind of industry policing deserves scrutiny.

You know that’s not my position and you keep saying monitoring and policing. I said became aware of. See the difference? You don’t think it’s possible a Solidifi employee or a lender that uses Solidifi could have possibly made them aware of your comments on LinkedIn?

 

[bluechip]

I think most large companies monitor the social media activity of potential hires, employees and vendors. Their comments and or actions can potentially cast them in a very poor light.

Nothing new and not much to see here.

I understand companies monitor social media. That's not the part I find unusual. What I find unusual is one AMC taking action over criticism directed at a completely different AMC, unrelated to any assignment, client or work I performed for them. Maybe there's nothing more to it. But I still think asking how and why Solidifi became involved is a perfectly legitimate question.

 

[bluechip]

You know that’s not my position and you keep saying monitoring and policing. I said became aware of. See the difference? You don’t think it’s possible a Solidifi employee or a lender that uses Solidifi could have possibly made them aware of your comments on LinkedIn?

Sure, that's possible. And THAT is exactly the question I'm asking. How did Solidifi “become aware” of comments about another AMC, and who brought those comments to their attention? If another AMC, lender, or industry participant forwarded them expecting Solidifi to take action, I think that becomes a much more interesting conversation. I'm not claiming that's what happened. I'm asking the question.

 

[CGinMN]

You used a bullhorn.

 

[bluechip]

You used a bullhorn.

Absolutely. Publicly. On LinkedIn. I never claimed otherwise. The question isn't whether people could see it. The question is why comments about one AMC became actionable business for another AMC. Those are two entirely different issues.