On Civility and Advancing our Profession

[Will Durant]

FEM appears to be dead. On the whole, I think that's a good thing. However, when we were debating it in this forum, I saw a lot of silly, unprofessional, TFH and/or offensive posts. Seriously, I've seen more serious stuff posted by 2pac in political. I did not comment on them because I did not want to publicly call out fellow anti-FEMers. That decision was wrong.

We drove Prof. Hardy out of the discussion. Who lost because of this?

* Prof Hardy. Aside from being subjected to personal attacks (I am not trying to minimize the importance of this aspect, but rather am trying to move beyond the blazingly obvious), she lost out on the opportunity to hear reasoned arguments against her position and perhaps fine-tune her thinking on this question.

* Anti-FEMers. If we're sure we're right, having a civilized debate with those on the other side can only help strengthen our arguments. Our understanding of the issue is less complete for not having heard Prof Hardy out.

* Our profession. I had a very good discussion with Prof Hardy on Monday at the SOA meeting. I'm still anti-FEM, but I found that our areas of agreement were actually much greater than our areas of disagreement. Our entire profession lost out because this was a conversation between two people, when it could have been a lively discussion/debate with a large number of actuaries on this forum.

Who won? Nobody.

I would urge everyone in the TFH brigade to think about this the next time there's an opportunity to hear somebody out as opposed to see them driven them before you for the sole purpose of being able to declare victory.

[DudeMan]

I agree there were a significant number of unprofessional posts and personal attacks. I stayed out of a lot of the threads because of that. The immaturity of some of the posters on the AO is only half the problem though. The other half is the lack of transparency from the SOA on important matters. imo, at least some of the unprofession posts stems not from immaturity but from anger towards the SOA for trying to sneak FEM in under the memberships radar.

[Patience]

I agree there were a significant number of unprofessional posts and personal attacks. I stayed out of a lot of the threads because of that. The immaturity of some of the posters on the AO is only half the problem though. The other half is the lack of transparency from the SOA on important matters. imo, at least some of the unprofession posts stems not from immaturity but from anger towards the SOA for trying to sneak FEM in under the memberships radar.

I don't believe I have been involved in the threads mentioned, but anger is not an excuse, especially in a thread that is on actuarialy related topics.

If the SOA wanted to "sneak FEM in under the memberships radar", imo FEM would now be a reality.

Too many of these discussion have people getting angry over perceptions with only partial information of the reality.

[cubs1969]

What does TFH mean?

[MathGuy]

"TFH" = :tfh: = "tin foil hat"

[Dumbdumb]

You may also consider two things:
1) some folks felt vehemently opposed. This was expressed vehemently. Some folks weren't interested in a civil discussion, they wanted the damn thing stopped NOW. See? There's a time and place for chatting pleasantly, and there's a time and place for kicking ass. Perhaps what you saw as unprofessional wasn't.
2) Some folks see a reason for the tinfoil hat currently. FEM appears to have a secret agenda amongst the leaders. Bruce gets shoved out under extremely poor circumstances. The AAA board could be perceived as acting in a heavy handed, unfair AND unprofessional manner. Does that excuse being unprofessional? No - but it does mean that many folks are going to leave pleasantness on the wayside when it seems 'the other side' is stacking the deck. When you find a cheater at a poker game who's just taken your pot, you don't sit down and have a civil discussion about the long term negative impact of cheating people. So your view of being uncivil, others may view as a call to arms against some extremely poor behavior in the industry, behavior unworthy of someone with whom a civilized discussion is the way to go.

personally, it's this 'let's have a group hug, can't we all get along' attitude that's allowing this mess to continue. It's symptomatic of people willing to let matters go unresolved in the interests of 'being civil'.

Bruce could've let his poor treatment go. It was past the point of being civil, and he went uncivil right back - and got some results. Is there anything less civil than suing a professional organization? Yet not only did he get some resolution to his matter, he's actually exposed a huge issue to this industry AND I'd say he's helped create the nucleus for solving those issues. That's what uncivil will get you sometimes.

In other words, there's a time and place for civil and there's a time and place for talking loud. I'd say the matters that have been discussed here recently are on the far side of talking civil (don't interpret that to mean I think personal attack are warranted unless it's attacking someone's actions acting in their professional capacity).

[DudeMan]

I don't believe I have been involved in the threads mentioned, but anger is not an excuse, especially in a thread that is on actuarialy related topics.


anger is not a good excuse for acting unprofessional, but it does happen. Lawyers lose their cool in court, doctors in ER situations, politicals in debate. Sometimes the unprofessionalism is warranted; sometimes not. in this instance, imo there's some of both :shrug:


If the SOA wanted to "sneak FEM in under the memberships radar", imo FEM would now be a reality.


d00d, it almost was reality. had it not been for Bruce bumping that thread, imo it would be reality today


Too many of these discussion have people getting angry over perceptions with only partial information of the reality.

major problem was that "the truth" was censored from us and not easily obtainable. that made people very angry about why such an important part of our education had such little publicity

What does TFH mean?

tin foil hat

[Patience]

anger is not a good excuse for acting unprofessional, but it does happen. Lawyers lose their cool in court, doctors in ER situations, politicals in debate,.....



d00d, it almost was reality. had it not been for Bruce bumping that thread, imo it would be reality today



major problem was that "the truth" was censored from us and not easily obtainable. that made people very angry about why such an important part of our education had such little publicity



tin foil hat

a lot of it depends on whether you are trying to learn something or to get a point across.

OP indicated it was an opportunity to learn something, you didn't because someone was insulted and driven away

However, if you wanted to make a point, you didn't becuase that same someone was insulted and driven away.

You want the truth, sometimes people need to shut up and listen. I have been very neutral on this issue because I don't know the truth, but everyone else who doesn't hear the truth also don't seem to want to listen to it

[Wag, the Dog]

Far more truth was hidden because of Bruce than you can possibly know. He managed to persuade the AO reader-posters that he was the force for transparency at the same time that he was working behind the scenes to censor half of all the information available.

You all have no idea. And you never will under present AO management.

[DudeMan]

You want the truth, sometimes people need to shut up and listen. I have been very neutral on this issue because I don't know the truth, but everyone else who doesn't hear the truth also don't seem to want to listen to it

i was neutral on this too. i think the addition of university education integrated into the actuarial educational system is a great idea and can benefit our profession significantly. But the main (pretty much only) opposition to FEM was the exam exemptions. This would represent a huge redesign and once Bruce brought this to our attention, there were mountains more questions than answers. Mary and Mike provided answers as to why FEM was asking for exam exemptions, but their answers weren't supported well enough to win us over.

[Dumbdumb]

Well, not too big of a deal anyway. I didn't see this Mary Hardy issue unfold, but outside of that, it's not like anyone on the other side of any of these issues cared to come in and make any points.

Bruce, long before he was 'popular', posted here - others in his position don't. This as far as I can see is by far the hugest chat site for actuaries around. So why weren't any of those on the other side posting here? That speaks to their character IMO. And don't excuse their lack of participations with it being an unfriendly environment. That's the job they accepted when they took on the leadership position - to be able to work their points against other's viewpoints. The fact that nobody from the AAA or FEM issues really participated in these discussions points more to their unprofessionalism than anyone here's. They didn't even participate when it's clearly their duty to do so.

THose on the pro-fem side and in leadership positions chose to ignore their memberships concern by not communicating. The chose to wield their authority instead of dealing with concerns (see how the new board was voted in). If there's anyone who's acted unprofessionally, it wasn't the vocal folks here.

[Patience]

i was neutral on this too. i think the addition of university education integrated into the actuarial educational system is a great idea and can benefit our profession significantly. But the main (pretty much only) opposition to FEM was the exam exemptions. This would represent a huge redesign and once Bruce brought this to our attention, there were mountains more questions than answers. Mary and Mike provided answers as to why FEM was asking for exam exemptions, but their answers weren't supported well enough to win us over.

didn't say you have to agree, but if someone from the other side is willing to discuss the issue you show them some respect.

[Dumbdumb]

Far more truth was hidden because of Bruce than you can possibly know. He managed to persuade the AO reader-posters that he was the force for transparency at the same time that he was working behind the scenes to censor half of all the information available.

You all have no idea. And you never will under present AO management.
Yeah, well I've got a bit more of an insider's view on some things than may be readily obvious. And the few times I've even posed a rhetorical questions about 'following the money' with the AAA board's actions I get deleted. So maybe it's not Bruce running the strings here.

Do we really know why the FEM keeps getting life breathed into it? Or do we really know why Bruce got turfed by the members of the AAA board? Why did the new president get selected instead of someone else? (wait, new president? anyone else see a vote for that one?) Why did Bruce say that that woman looted the SOA? What was he referring to?

So many questions, so many posts that ask these questions getting deleted.

[DudeMan]

If there's anyone who's acted unprofessionally, it wasn't the vocal folks here.

meh. don't get too carried away. some posters did act unprofessionally. i saw some borderline personal attacks that were uncalled for and many other posters who just pounced all over anything and everything posted by pro-FEMers; picking their posts apart to the word.

[Brad Gile]

I don't believe I have been involved in the threads mentioned, but anger is not an excuse, especially in a thread that is on actuarialy related topics.


Anger is an emotive state that can kill you or save your life. It is neither bad nor good, but must be controlled. I agree that some posters went way overboard.


If the SOA wanted to "sneak FEM in under the memberships radar", imo FEM would now be a reality.

I have seen enough to conclude that FEM was, in fact, being moved along "under the radar" for quite some time before the request for member comment on a system that was poorly defined. Indeed, FEM was actually ADOPTED without member input in 1987! Membership uproar subsequently killed it before implementation.


Too many of these discussion have people getting angry over perceptions with only partial information of the reality.Humans, including actuaries, rarely (if ever) have the luxury of complete "information of the realty". If we ignored perceptions arising from partial information, we would make no decisions in life. In fact, our species would go the way of the Dodo.

Sometimes you just gotta say "WTF?" and make your move.

[Patience]

Well, not too big of a deal anyway. I didn't see this Mary Hardy issue unfold, but outside of that, it's not like anyone on the other side of any of these issues cared to come in and make any points. .

sounds like she tried to

Bruce, long before he was 'popular', posted here - others in his position don't. .

as far as you know. Some have occassionally others may anonymously

This as far as I can see is by far the hugest chat site for actuaries around. So why weren't any of those on the other side posting here? That speaks to their character IMO. .

because of comments like this?

And don't excuse their lack of participations with it being an unfriendly environment. That's the job they accepted when they took on the leadership position - to be able to work their points against other's viewpoints. The fact that nobody from the AAA or FEM issues really participated in these discussions points more to their unprofessionalism than anyone here's. They didn't even participate when it's clearly their duty to do so..

this whole post convinced me that I would not post here if I was in a management position. They are volunteers, who hold full time jobs, doing what they probably feel is the best job they can, and who needs to come here when it seems obvious people don't listen and prefer to insult

[tbakos]

You may also consider two things:
1) some folks felt vehemently opposed. This was expressed vehemently. Some folks weren't interested in a civil discussion, they wanted the damn thing stopped NOW. See? There's a time and place for chatting pleasantly, and there's a time and place for kicking ass. Perhaps what you saw as unprofessional wasn't.
2) Some folks see a reason for the tinfoil hat currently. FEM appears to have a secret agenda amongst the leaders. Bruce gets shoved out under extremely poor circumstances. The AAA board could be perceived as acting in a heavy handed, unfair AND unprofessional manner. Does that excuse being unprofessional? No - but it does mean that many folks are going to leave pleasantness on the wayside when it seems 'the other side' is stacking the deck. When you find a cheater at a poker game who's just taken your pot, you don't sit down and have a civil discussion about the long term negative impact of cheating people. So your view of being uncivil, others may view as a call to arms against some extremely poor behavior in the industry, behavior unworthy of someone with whom a civilized discussion is the way to go.

personally, it's this 'let's have a group hug, can't we all get along' attitude that's allowing this mess to continue. It's symptomatic of people willing to let matters go unresolved in the interests of 'being civil'.

Bruce could've let his poor treatment go. It was past the point of being civil, and he went uncivil right back - and got some results. Is there anything less civil than suing a professional organization? Yet not only did he get some resolution to his matter, he's actually exposed a huge issue to this industry AND I'd say he's helped create the nucleus for solving those issues. That's what uncivil will get you sometimes.

In other words, there's a time and place for civil and there's a time and place for talking loud. I'd say the matters that have been discussed here recently are on the far side of talking civil (don't interpret that to mean I think personal attack are warranted unless it's attacking someone's actions acting in their professional capacity).

It seems to me sueing someone is a good example of civility - meaning: "not rude; marked by satisfactory (or especially minimal) adherence to social usages and sufficient but not noteworthy consideration for others"

A lawsuit involves a court with a judge and very well specified procedures. Each side has rights which must be observed. It is, sometimes, the only way to solve a problem in a civil way that one side refuses to acknowledge.

The thing with FEM is that what happened proves that influencing one person (unless that person is you) is not as important as influencing many, many people. The SoA Board did, very deliberately, seek member feedback, got member feedback, listened to member feedback, and then acted (properly, I think you would agree) to that feedback by eliminating from consideration any further consideration of using an FEM process as a substitute for SoA validation by exam procedures.

It was interesting for me to see at our recent board meeting that whatever you might think were Cecil's and Mike's positions on FEM at the beginning, they did not fight for it to the end. They were, apparently, influenced by the feedback received and both expressed thoughts, as did I, that to namby pamby around with the wording of the motion the Board passed so as to appear weak in our resolve that FEM as validation was no longer a viable option (given the member feedback, if for no other reason) would have sent the wrong message.

The point is that member opinion does count. We should, therefore, as WD asks, not discredit it with uncivil behaivior.

Attacks on Mary Hardy were not only wrong, they were unnecessary - but being wrong should have been enough to prevent their use.

[Brad Gile]

It seems to me sueing someone is a good example of civility - meaning: "not rude; marked by satisfactory (or especially minimal) adherence to social usages and sufficient but not noteworthy consideration for others"

A lawsuit involves a court with a judge and very well specified procedures. Each side has rights which must be observed. It is, sometimes, the only way to solve a problem in a civil way that one side refuses to acknowledge.

The thing with FEM is that what happened proves that influencing one person (unless that person is you) is not as important as influencing many, many people. The SoA Board did, very deliberately, seek member feedback, got member feedback, listened to member feedback, and then acted (properly, I think you would agree) to that feedback by eliminating from consideration any further consideration of using an FEM process as a substitute for SoA validation by exam procedures.

It was interesting for me to see at our recent board meeting that whatever you might think were Cecil's and Mike's positions on FEM at the beginning, they did not fight for it to the end. They were, apparently, influenced by the feedback received and both expressed thoughts, as did I, that to namby pamby around with the wording of the motion the Board passed so as to appear weak in our resolve that FEM as validation was no longer a viable option (given the member feedback, if for no other reason) would have sent the wrong message.

The point is that member opinion does count. We should, therefore, as WD asks, not discredit it with uncivil behaivior.

Attacks on Mary Hardy were not only wrong, they were unnecessary - but being wrong should have been enough to prevent their use.

:iatp:

[SirVLCIV]

didn't say you have to agree, but if someone from the other side is willing to discuss the issue you show them some respect.

And if they aren't willing to discuss the issue?

Or if they're only willing to discuss the issue by latching onto a minor point in a long critique?

Or if they're willing to discuss the issue after lamenting the fact that they're being bombarded with personal attacks, while ignoring the 95% of responses that are reasonable and civil?

There is a point where discussion is over. Either side can cause the discussion to end by their own failure to engage in a reasonable discussion. Sometimes one side pushes too far, and the other retreats. Sometimes one side consistently fails to see a point, and a discussion becomes moot anyway.

Note: Both sides of the 'FEM debate' had failures, and I am calling no specific person out. The 'Personal Attackers' can be ignored.

[idomoneus]

There definitely was an atmosphere of paranoia on AO during the FEM debacle. Even when the leadership took actions that I interpreted as positive, they were widely interpreted on AO as just more evidence of them being part of a FEM conspiracy. I think that is indicative of how poor the relationship is between the membership and the leadership of the actuarial societies. The pervasive sense here was "they don't care what we think and they're going to do whatever they want-- and we have to stop them". In my view this caused some people to overreact or misreact, but I sympathize with them nevertheless. When the leadership was done such a good job of alienating the membership, what do you expect?

Still, that's not the way things should be. Much of the responsibility for change lies with the leadership of the actuarial societies but we members need to not be too jaded and be ready to engage them when they demonstrate a willingness to listen to us.

The best thing the leadership could do would be to state flatly that neither FEM nor anything substantively similar to it will be adopted without a full membership vote of each actuarial society. I think that simple action would have changed the nature of the discussion. Equivocating on that point exacerbates the justifiable suspicion of the motives of the boards.

Mary Pat created a very worthwhile thread here to discuss how to improve the educational process. That's a very good idea. Instead of a small number of actuaries hammering out changes to the educational structure in a smoke-filled room and then trying to foist it upon an unwilling membership, there should be a frank and open discussion of how the educational process can be improved. Once we reach a consensus on how to make it better, it should be submitted to a general vote. We have the technology to do that. We should do it.

[Dumbdumb]

this whole post convinced me that I would not post here if I was in a management position. They are volunteers, who hold full time jobs, doing what they probably feel is the best job they can, and who needs to come here when it seems obvious people don't listen and prefer to insult
You twisted my entire point.

We can't listen if they don't talk. Did you see a lot of communication from the other side? I sure didn't. Lack of communication was part of the problem.

And decrying a hostile environment, well tough. As I pointed out, leaders should be able to enter a hostile environment and communicate their ideas. Choosing to ignore, failing to communicate, and using a hostile environment (part of which has resulted due to their lack of communication) as an excuse for your lack of leadership qualities makes you unfit for leadership.

You think Bruce hasn't weeded his way through hostile environments before? He's still out there talking to both sides.

[Chuck]

FEM appears to be dead. On the whole, I think that's a good thing. However, when we were debating it in this forum, I saw a lot of silly, unprofessional, TFH and/or offensive posts. Seriously, I've seen more serious stuff posted by 2pac in political. I did not comment on them because I did not want to publicly call out fellow anti-FEMers. That decision was wrong.

We drove Prof. Hardy out of the discussion. Who lost because of this?

* Prof Hardy. Aside from being subjected to personal attacks (I am not trying to minimize the importance of this aspect, but rather am trying to move beyond the blazingly obvious), she lost out on the opportunity to hear reasoned arguments against her position and perhaps fine-tune her thinking on this question.

* Anti-FEMers. If we're sure we're right, having a civilized debate with those on the other side can only help strengthen our arguments. Our understanding of the issue is less complete for not having heard Prof Hardy out.

* Our profession. I had a very good discussion with Prof Hardy on Monday at the SOA meeting. I'm still anti-FEM, but I found that our areas of agreement were actually much greater than our areas of disagreement. Our entire profession lost out because this was a conversation between two people, when it could have been a lively discussion/debate with a large number of actuaries on this forum.

Who won? Nobody.

I would urge everyone in the TFH brigade to think about this the next time there's an opportunity to hear somebody out as opposed to see them driven them before you for the sole purpose of being able to declare victory.

I agree.

Along the same lines, the Ken Hohman (Academy Pres) member email asked for ideas on improving communications with members. Obviously, the best idea would be to talk here, but there appeared to be a veiled reference (or maybe not?) in his blast to website postings "not working".

We can certainly argue about who is too thin-skinned, whether the various criticisms are personal, reasonable/unreasonable, professional, or unprofessional, etc, etc. But we know that some in leadership positions have tried participating and can guess that at least some of those are probably thinking "screw it - the majority of posters their are just a bunch of unprofessional bozos". And whatever we individually think about it, that situation is what it is.

So as an online community, we have to decide whether we want to offer an environment where reasonably interested leadership will feel that they can participate here at a professional level, without being subject to (what they may feel is) merciless attack.

What can we do to make that happen (assuming we want it to)?

My personal guidelines (which I may not always live up to) are to:

Certainly not pull any punches in discussing ideas and stating what I think. If that's a problem for somebody, that that is their problem. But to do so, accepting the possibility (however small that likely is in my case!) that I can be wrong and that there are valid points of view on the other side of any issue.

Have respectful discussion, which in my mind, requires staying away from questioning the motives of any poster (eg Mary has an ulterior profit motive, Mike or Cecil have international cronies who are conspiring to diminish the SOA credentials, or somebody's letter is just a veiled notice that FEM is going to be re-wrappped and secreted through again because nobody really respects the anti-FEM arguments).

Maybe such motives could be true in some situations (we really don't know), but (what we may think of as) bad ideas can be successfully argued against without resorting to any of those inuendos and accusations.

Know when to agree to disagree on an issue and move on. Somebody tries to make a point, you counterpoint, they defend their point, you tear apart their defense, everybody starts parsing month old postings, or other communications, and argue about what he said/she said, who's being inconsistent with something they previously said, and on and on. This is a judgement call, but at some point you know a person's position and arguments, and you know they know your position and arguments, and that is often enough (or the most you can hope for). There is no reason to make those arguments battles to the death. Some enjoy those battles, but others are exacerbated by the time consuming relentlessness of the opponent and eventually just bail.

I am sure there are other ideas as well.

Chuck

One other thing - There is nothing wrong with letting people save face if that is in fact what they are doing. That's what people do. You get the result you want, there is no need to then try to rub their nose in it.

[Chuck]

You twisted my entire point.

We can't listen if they don't talk. Did you see a lot of communication from the other side? I sure didn't. Lack of communication was part of the problem.

And decrying a hostile environment, well tough. As I pointed out, leaders should be able to enter a hostile environment and communicate their ideas. Choosing to ignore, failing to communicate, and using a hostile environment (part of which has resulted due to their lack of communication) as an excuse for your lack of leadership qualities makes you unfit for leadership.

Here's the thing. Maybe you are right. Maybe the leaders should be willing to enter a hostile environment. Or maybe they are right and the "hostile" environment is really just an "unprofessional" environment. But the question is whether you just want the satisfaction of being "right" or whether you want to be "effective". You can vote for leaders with a thicker skin and maybe eventually be both "right" and "effective".

But in the meantime, you need to decide whether you are interested in promoting the talk or having the satisfaction of your righteous stand.

[gadzookz]

this whole post convinced me that I would not post here if I was in a management position. They are volunteers, who hold full time jobs, doing what they probably feel is the best job they can, and who needs to come here when it seems obvious people don't listen and prefer to insultYou twisted my entire point.

We can't listen if they don't talk. Did you see a lot of communication from the other side? I sure didn't. Lack of communication was part of the problem.
The new AAA President can't even send out an initial e-mail without it getting dissected word-by-word here with accusations of breaking the settlement agreement. I agree that I would like to see more communication, but I'm not going to say that the AO be a required method of delivery.

There definitely was an atmosphere of paranoia on AO during the FEM debacle. Even when the leadership took actions that I interpreted as positive, they were widely interpreted on AO as just more evidence of them being part of a FEM conspiracy. I think that is indicative of how poor the relationship is between the membership and the leadership of the actuarial societies. I would qualify that as a poor relationship between leadership and between vocal AO posters. I wouldn't classify the tone of certain AO threads as the voice of membership. I don't know that we could classify some of these threads as the voice of the AO, as it seems a relatively small number of AO members participated in a lot of these threads.

[Patience]

Or if they're willing to discuss the issue after lamenting the fact that they're being bombarded with personal attacks, while ignoring the 95% of responses that are reasonable and civil?.

imo that isn't good enough.

[EddieC]

Far more truth was hidden because of Bruce than you can possibly know. He managed to persuade the AO reader-posters that he was the force for transparency at the same time that he was working behind the scenes to censor half of all the information available.

You all have no idea. And you never will under present AO management.

Welcome back doggy!!! :tup:

[Lucy]

. . . We drove Prof. Hardy out of the discussion. Who lost because of this?

* Prof Hardy. Aside from being subjected to personal attacks (I am not trying to minimize the importance of this aspect, but rather am trying to move beyond the blazingly obvious), she lost out on the opportunity to hear reasoned arguments against her position and perhaps fine-tune her thinking on this question.

* Anti-FEMers. If we're sure we're right, having a civilized debate with those on the other side can only help strengthen our arguments. Our understanding of the issue is less complete for not having heard Prof Hardy out.

* Our profession. I had a very good discussion with Prof Hardy on Monday at the SOA meeting. I'm still anti-FEM, but I found that our areas of agreement were actually much greater than our areas of disagreement. Our entire profession lost out because this was a conversation between two people, when it could have been a lively discussion/debate with a large number of actuaries on this forum.

Who won? Nobody.

I would urge everyone in the TFH brigade to think about this the next time there's an opportunity to hear somebody out as opposed to see them driven them before you for the sole purpose of being able to declare victory.
. . .
Attacks on Mary Hardy were not only wrong, they were unnecessary - but being wrong should have been enough to prevent their use.

We may have lost Arlie Proctor, as well. And a couple of movers&shakers on the SoA side posted a couple of times and left, quite likely because of the tone of discussion. I think we lost a lot.

[Patience]

You twisted my entire point.

We can't listen if they don't talk. Did you see a lot of communication from the other side? I sure didn't. Lack of communication was part of the problem. .

but someone was here to communicate and was attacked. That is the point. Why should she try again? If others read what goes on here and how people behave why should they subject themselves to the discussions that go on here?

And decrying a hostile environment, well tough. As I pointed out, leaders should be able to enter a hostile environment and communicate their ideas. Choosing to ignore, failing to communicate, and using a hostile environment (part of which has resulted due to their lack of communication) as an excuse for your lack of leadership qualities makes you unfit for leadership. .

These are volunteers for a not for profit institution. They are taking on new jobs for which they have no real training and most are trying to do the best they can on top of their regular jobs. I have stepped up for such positions (not actuarial) and we do make mistakes. But most of what you are attributing to their lack of leadership is going on in your own head, with no attempt to listen when they do speak.

You think Bruce hasn't weeded his way through hostile environments before? He's still out there talking to both sides.
No idea what this means. and sorry I am not ready to see Bruce as a saint and sacraficial lamb, but I also am not ready to condemn him either. Lots of rumors, very little fact.

[campbell]

Mary Pat created a very worthwhile thread here to discuss how to improve the educational process. That's a very good idea. Instead of a small number of actuaries hammering out changes to the educational structure in a smoke-filled room and then trying to foist it upon an unwilling membership, there should be a frank and open discussion of how the educational process can be improved. Once we reach a consensus on how to make it better, it should be submitted to a general vote. We have the technology to do that. We should do it.

Thanks...

By the way, I'm trying to revive some of these threads. I think there is a real problem with the disconnect between academia and industry:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=172627

One of the arguments in the Morris Review had to do with the unresponsiveness of the profession in the UK to theoretical advances, and while that might have an effect at the beginning education, those people won't be making ultimate decisions for quite some time. I'm also concerned about the state of continuing education for the profession:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=172453

And I see Will Durant has just started a thread about the improvement of exam system:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=178735

[Mary Frances]

I'm willing to give it a go, y'all, so long as the discussion stays civil. Can't promise I'll have time to get on very often, though - but I do have an email address, and I manage to read my emails pretty quickly.

By the way - there's a thread in here that characterizes me as pretty close to the Devil incarnate. Interesting that (afaik) only one person on AO has ever contacted me to find out more information, just kinda jumped to conclusions, I'd say.

[bdschobel]

And decrying a hostile environment, well tough. As I pointed out, leaders should be able to enter a hostile environment and communicate their ideas. Choosing to ignore, failing to communicate, and using a hostile environment (part of which has resulted due to their lack of communication) as an excuse for your lack of leadership qualities makes you unfit for leadership.

You think Bruce hasn't weeded his way through hostile environments before? He's still out there talking to both sides.I totally agree. Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." People run for leadership positions -- and they really do run, at least at the SOA and CAS, which have competitive elections. These folks should be willing to defend their ideas and positions in unfriendly environments. Certainly I have. Look back at some of the battles between GosuJohn and me. I guess some of the current "leaders" would rather run away than defend their ideas. I never did that -- starting when I joined the Outpost more than 5 years ago.

I have asked before, "Are actuaries the prissiest profession?" Are we really so squeamish that we can't bear to be challenged, even in an unfriendly way? Are such challenges "unprofessional" -- or, to the contrary, are they the height of professionalism? How else can anything change?

Mary Hardy could not defend her advocacy of FEM, which was a terrible idea. Rather than admit that, she claimed that "personal attacks" drove her away. It looks like a smokescreen to me. Mary is simply tougher than that. End of story.

Bruce

[campbell]

As I've said multiple times before, it's not a good idea to impugn other people's motives.

Two obvious reasons:
1. It makes others wonder about the motives of the person making these accusations.

2. It makes others wonder about the strength of arguments of those who need to resort to this technique.

[Dumbdumb]

Here's the thing. Maybe you are right. Maybe the leaders should be willing to enter a hostile environment. Or maybe they are right and the "hostile" environment is really just an "unprofessional" environment. But the question is whether you just want the satisfaction of being "right" or whether you want to be "effective". You can vote for leaders with a thicker skin and maybe eventually be both "right" and "effective".

But in the meantime, you need to decide whether you are interested in promoting the talk or having the satisfaction of your righteous stand.
Yes, they would've communicated here if it wasn't a 'hostile' environment. rollmyeyes.

Nonsense. They wouldn't communicate here regardless. That's part of the reason people are upset - these clowns are running around making decisions and not communicating - because they don't want to discuss it.

You've actually got it backwards. People are upset because they're not communicating - not the other way around.

Let me give you an example of what these people should be doing. Let me restate that FEM email that came out a while ago:
------------------------
The SOA has been considering various alternative education scenarios that we believe would enhance the the future of our profession.

While many of the options have potential, some members have been opposed to some of them. Specifically proposals related to any type of accreditation by university course have come under fire.

Due to the very vocal response to this issue, we've decided to pause and reconsider. We're sending the FEM committee back to the drawing board. They won't be charged with considering FEM. Instead they'll be charged with determining if FEM should even be considered as an option or whether it should be dropped from consideration all together. They will not be charged with trying to repackage FEM to make it more palatable.

The committee will return with their recommendations by January 1, 2010. At that time members will be appraised of their specific recommendations and the board will reconsider at that point. If the committee's recommendation is that FEM should not be considered, even if due to opposition by the membership, the board expects to drop FEM from further consideration for the forseeable future.
-------------------------
Was that so hard? That's called communicating. That would shut up even the most hardcore anti-fem, and no communicating on the AO required.

But that's not what they did.




edited to add: and as I'm yelling at you folks, I've done penance. I cruised the forum here and tried to help a few entry level folks with their job search :). Does my trying to help others offset my being grumpy in this thread? Hope so.

[Wag, the Dog]

You've actually got it backwards. People are upset because they're not communicating - not the other way around.You may be right about some leaders but wrong about others. Bruce is not the only poster/leader. Dale Hall, Mary Hardy, Jeremy Gold, and others have posted regularly for years. It is clear that Mary was driven away by the disrespect she regularly encountered. Mike McLaughlin, not a long time poster, was driven by his sense of duty as incoming SOA President to post his views. He was often treated unkindly.

[EaglesFan]

It is clear that Mary was driven away by the disrespect she regularly encountered. .

No, that's not clear at all. When she first posted in the thread she actually said something to the effect of she was expecting a hostile environment, but she was really asked fair but tough questions. At one point she got a little flip but then she corrected herself.

Bruce, on the other hand, was treated very rudely.

[EaglesFan]

I agree there were a significant number of unprofessional posts and personal attacks. I stayed out of a lot of the threads because of that. The immaturity of some of the posters on the AO is only half the problem though. The other half is the lack of transparency from the SOA on important matters. imo, at least some of the unprofession posts stems not from immaturity but from anger towards the SOA for trying to sneak FEM in under the memberships radar.

One idea I would suggest to AO is to limit a person to one alias at a time. I think that would cut down on a lot of the flaming and prompt users to be a little more responsible in their posting. I only post under Eaglesfan and am cynical of anyone who needs a second alias to cover themselves.

[campbell]

Actually, if you care about anonymity, I definitely understand the need for multiple alts. If one is exposed, not necessarily all the others are exposed [of course, some people are not trying to hide the connection between various alts, but not everybody will catch on].

Some people post under their real names and have alts in addition -- they'll post in the professional areas under their real names, but use the alts for NAT areas.

In any case, it's pretty tough to enforce such a rule. You can make it harder for people to make alts [unique email addresses required for registration], but that can be gotten around by people if they really care.

[campbell]

You may be right about some leaders but wrong about others. Bruce is not the only poster/leader. Dale Hall, Mary Hardy, Jeremy Gold, and others have posted regularly for years. It is clear that Mary was driven away by the disrespect she regularly encountered. Mike McLaughlin, not a long time poster, was driven by his sense of duty as incoming SOA President to post his views. He was often treated unkindly.

Several people had their motives questioned, where it was totally undeserved.

Prof. Hardy had been greatly involved in the discussion re:FEM starting back in 2008. Several of us opposed the concept at the time, and it was a civil back-and-forth. We discussed the merits of the issue; it was a personal discussion to the extent that some of us noted our own experiences and our own self-interests, not casting shade on other people.

Mary Hardy and Mike McLaughlin were personally targeted with regards to FEM, and that was wrong. I don't blame them for avoiding the AO now [and other Board members, after seeing how they were treated.] There was no way for this to be productive if they are trying to argue the merits of various proposals and for their pains get personally attacked. Though I didn't agree with the arguments they were making, I recognized a good faith effort to respond to our arguments here.

Mary Hardy may be "tougher than that", but really, is it a good use of her time? If all that she gets for her efforts is a bunch of feces-throwing? What's the point? That's why I stay out of the Political forum here for the most part; I see it as futile to try to argue anything in there. I stopped posting in various threads, and had hesitated to post in here, because I often get a feeling of futility of telling people to cut the crap. No one's listening, so why waste my time in typing?

It may be the nature of the AO that some will not restrain themselves even in the professional sections, and will attack specific people and the circus will continue. In which case, don't expect many people to come in here except those with very thick skins and time to waste. It can end up at the point where those who want to seriously discuss issues will be doing so somewhere else online.

It can take a long time to build an online community, but it doesn't take much time to destroy it.

[Moderator1]

Several people had their motives questioned, where it was totally undeserved.In addition to all the contention (hard questions) that was allowed to remain, most of the worst posts were removed by Tom or moderators. In some cases they were removed before being seen by the targets and others. In other cases not. There were posts alleging blackmail, lying, decisions motivated purely by self-interest, etc. I have deleted posts from this thread on civility which said "they were stealing".

[WWSituation]

How many posters were banned in the last 3 months? I find the correlation striking between ppls willingness to share the truth with their (lack of) access to the AO. Banning ppl who have something of substance to say isn't going to advance anything.

It is likely that few ppl know what I'm talking about at this point, but I have learned a lot about a lot of ppl since September.

[JMO]

Several people had their motives questioned, where it was totally undeserved.

Prof. Hardy had been greatly involved in the discussion re:FEM starting back in 2008. Several of us opposed the concept at the time, and it was a civil back-and-forth. We discussed the merits of the issue; it was a personal discussion to the extent that some of us noted our own experiences and our own self-interests, not casting shade on other people.

Mary Hardy and Mike McLaughlin were personally targeted with regards to FEM, and that was wrong. I don't blame them for avoiding the AO now [and other Board members, after seeing how they were treated.] There was no way for this to be productive if they are trying to argue the merits of various proposals and for their pains get personally attacked. Though I didn't agree with the arguments they were making, I recognized a good faith effort to respond to our arguments here.

Mary Hardy may be "tougher than that", but really, is it a good use of her time? If all that she gets for her efforts is a bunch of feces-throwing? What's the point? That's why I stay out of the Political forum here for the most part; I see it as futile to try to argue anything in there. I stopped posting in various threads, and had hesitated to post in here, because I often get a feeling of futility of telling people to cut the crap. No one's listening, so why waste my time in typing?

It may be the nature of the AO that some will not restrain themselves even in the professional sections, and will attack specific people and the circus will continue. In which case, don't expect many people to come in here except those with very thick skins and time to waste. It can end up at the point where those who want to seriously discuss issues will be doing so somewhere else online.

It can take a long time to build an online community, but it doesn't take much time to destroy it.

I agree with all this, and especially with the parts I emphasized.

If you want people to communicate, you need to LISTEN to them, not jump all over them and refuse to receive the communicaton.

[JMO]

How many posters were banned in the last 3 months? I find the correlation striking between ppls willingness to share the truth with their (lack of) access to the AO. Banning ppl who have something of substance to say isn't going to advance anything.

It is likely that few ppl know what I'm talking about at this point, but I have learned a lot about a lot of ppl since September.

Grow up, folks.

Banning people who are only here to make trouble is the RIGHT thing to do. There was plenty of discussion that was civil, but the trolls* were screaming so loud it couldn't be heard. This is not what the AO is supposed to be about.

* By trolls, I mean folks who got their jollies from attacking others and had no conception of a conversation.

[gadzookz]

I totally agree. Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." People run for leadership positions -- and they really do run, at least at the SOA and CAS, which have competitive elections. These folks should be willing to defend their ideas and positions in unfriendly environments. Certainly I have. Look back at some of the battles between GosuJohn and me. I guess some of the current "leaders" would rather run away than defend their ideas. I never did that -- starting when I joined the Outpost more than 5 years ago.

I have asked before, "Are actuaries the prissiest profession?" Are we really so squeamish that we can't bear to be challenged, even in an unfriendly way? Are such challenges "unprofessional" -- or, to the contrary, are they the height of professionalism? How else can anything change?

Mary Hardy could not defend her advocacy of FEM, which was a terrible idea. Rather than admit that, she claimed that "personal attacks" drove her away. It looks like a smokescreen to me. Mary is simply tougher than that. End of story.

BruceGood leaders can lead through difficult circumstances or situations. It is not the only attribute of a leader, and I would suggest in a professional organization such as ours, it is not even the most important attribute. However, being a leader doesn't mean you have to live in the heat of the kitchen, or engage in perpetually unfriendly environments. In fact, I consider a good leader to be one who is aware of such hostile environments, and takes steps to avoid escalating the battle when possible.

Why do you have to have battles to defend your position? We aren't at war. Where's the line between unfriendly and unprofessional?

[bdschobel]

The battle over FEM was -- and maybe remains -- very high-stakes indeed. The two sides were diametrically opposed, and compromise was realistically impossible. One side was going to win, and the other was going to lose. Under those circumstances, you can't really expect people to be all jolly with each other. Battling as we did over FEM was not friendly, but it was absolutely professional.

By the way, most of the so-called "personal attacks" against Hardy and McLaughlin were not much more than observations that people who have never taken any of the SOA/CAS exams might have less regard for those exams than people who have taken them. Is that incorrect? What's the problem, really?

Bruce

[Lucy]

I'm willing to give it a go, y'all, so long as the discussion stays civil. Can't promise I'll have time to get on very often, though - but I do have an email address, and I manage to read my emails pretty quickly.

By the way - there's a thread in here that characterizes me as pretty close to the Devil incarnate. Interesting that (afaik) only one person on AO has ever contacted me to find out more information, just kinda jumped to conclusions, I'd say.Er, at the risk of being banned for outing personal information/guessing at alts. . . I don't suppose you are Mary Frances Miller, the incoming president elect of the AAA?

Welcome!

[Shaft]

This forum is a godsend.

It can be excoriating. It can be illuminating. It can be mundane. But it serves an incredibly useful purpose, warts and all.

I would like to make comments related to some of the posts above and beg your indulgence to draw you temporarily away from your take-no-prisoners work schedules:

Stop whingeing about civility. This itself is uncivil. Accept the nature of the medium and decide if you want to participate. We don't all rumba to your cha cha cha.

Mary Hardy is a tough old bird. See you can say that on here. I thought she gave as good as she got on FEM and many other topics she has participated on here in the AO over the years. It is my view that she lost the argument on the merits of FEM here a long time before she departed on that issue (but I know she has not fully departed as she still reads and posts). Mary also made clear to all here that she abstains on votes on the SOA Baord on FEM issues as she is acutely aware of the conflict of interest issues. many would not have learned that without her posting it to clarify a point. I have no doubt she will continue to contribute here and hope her recent dip in AO activity is a temporary hiatus.

Mike Mc 'got a pasting' as my Brit friends say for a number of reasons and I believe there was a mixture of personal invective and reasoned, robust input:

his role in the Schobel-AAA affair (again IMO it is a very sad day to see the AAA losing 600k+ in unnecessary legal action and reputational damage - and he's the ERM Thought Leader Champion!) - see, we can discuss and express such views here

his selective posting (entirely his prerogative) on FEM - some of which was either misleading or delusional IMO and I expected much, much better from a Prez Elect, posting as a Prez Elect, even here, and

his unusual route to the top of the SOA - which most did not know about without it being discussed here and which some feel undermined his credibility when discussing the SOA exam process.


I could go on and on on Mike Mc but that's enough for now...

I only end this point with the comment that most of us don't know how others behave off the AO in order to achieve their agenda.

Ken Hohman's blast email showed me that some lessons are not quickly learned. Apart from being woefully inaccurate I felt it was insensitive and showed poor leadership qualities so early on. Again the beauty of the forum is that action on bylaws and accountability have made it to the top of the agenda. Mary Pat, Carol and Tom have done a great service to the actuarial community in leading on this issue. Now that is an example of real leadership.

Bruce Schobel's input here has been frankly a breathe of fresh air and I applaud him for his incisive contributions. He contributes from a unique perspective and there are few of his peers that that do post on the AO.

And finally, without this forum we would not have the delectable Duffy and Wag, The Dog. I am personally thrilled-to--bits that Wag has managed - in the dying embers of long-lived doghood years - to take another rectal botox blast and has puckered up in the past day or two to proffer coruscating analysis of the topic du jour. This forum has taught me to be sympathetic to tired old pooches. We must all remember that kennel life has not been kind to Wag.

Long Live the AO!

[JMO]

Ken Hohman's blast email showed me that some lessons are not quickly learned.
I must not be part of the "in" group who got that e-mail.
Mary Pat, Carol and Tom have done a great service to the actuarial community in leading on this issue. Now that is an example of real leadership.
I would add that this is being accomplished WITHOUT attacking anyone. Just put forth the facts and let them speak for themselves.

I'm sure the perpetrators disagree with me on this, and that is their prerogative, but it is my personal belief that the mad-dog attacks around here were counter-productive.

[Shaft]

I would add that this is being accomplished WITHOUT attacking anyone. Just put forth the facts and let them speak for themselves.
That's why I highlighted this as an excellent example of real leadership on an issue.

[bdschobel]

Anonymous internet forums are prone to incivility. We all know that. So what? People who come to anonymous internet forums know what anonymous internet forums are like. No one should act all surprised.

Serious posters manage to communicate with each other over the background noise. Not a problem for me.

Bruce

[Patience]

Er, at the risk of being banned for outing personal information/guessing at alts. . . I don't suppose you are Mary Frances Miller, the incoming president elect of the AAA?

Welcome!

btw, when someone posts under a real game, is there a way to be 100% sure they are who they say they are?

[bdschobel]

Years ago, when people doubted that I was really who I claimed to be, I invited them to call me at my Directory phone number (212-576-6807). That usually was sufficient proof.

Bruce

[Moderator1]

How many posters were banned in the last 3 months? I find the correlation striking between ppls willingness to share the truth with their (lack of) access to the AO. Banning ppl who have something of substance to say isn't going to advance anything.

It is likely that few ppl know what I'm talking about at this point, but I have learned a lot about a lot of ppl since September.Grow up, folks.

Banning people who are only here to make trouble is the RIGHT thing to do. There was plenty of discussion that was civil, but the trolls* were screaming so loud it couldn't be heard. This is not what the AO is supposed to be about.

* By trolls, I mean folks who got their jollies from attacking others and had no conception of a conversation.
I think WWSituation may be referring to a different class of banned posters, not clearly trolls. There have been a few ids banned or temp-banned for posting "facts", in some cases of dubious accuracy or relevance or out of context. There is a difference between posting logical arguments anonymously, since arguments can be judged on their own merits, and "facts" anonymously, which cannot necessarily be verified.

For posts purporting to reveal "facts", in many but not all such cases "facts" that were not publicly available, I and the other mods - but not necessarily Tom - gave a little more leeway to people who would post the "facts" under their real name, acknowledging their responsibility for the accuracy of the information. This was communicated to some, not necessarily all, of the posters whose "factual" posts were deleted, in some cases explicitly offering that it would be allowed if posted not anonymously.

This does not mean that "anything goes" for real name posts. If something you posted was deleted, you should clear it with Tom before reposting it, even under a real name.

[Lucy]

btw, when someone posts under a real game, is there a way to be 100% sure they are who they say they are?Well, Bruce offers one option.

Years ago, when people doubted that I was really who I claimed to be, I invited them to call me at my Directory phone number (212-576-6807). That usually was sufficient proof.

BruceIn addition, I believe that if it came to the attention of the mods that a poster was pretending to be some other person who was a member of one of the actuarial societies that person would be forced to change his user name, and might be banned (depending on the circumstances.) So if someone has been posting as "Bruce Schobel" long enough that you'd think the real Bruce would have caught wind of it, there's a pretty good chance it's the real person.

[campbell]

Most of the people you would be concerned about verifying identity will have contact info in the actuarial directory. You can email, or phone, or whatever.

[SirVLCIV]

It's a message forum, and there's always going to be a subset of posters that are uncivil.

I'd place this subset in the 5-10% range in the recent threads with Mike McLaughlin and Mary Hardy. However, for every loud antagonistic poster, there are 10s if not 100s of reasonable posts that are outright ignored.

If an individual can't engage with the reasonable posters because they are put off by the significant minority, then there's nothing we can do.

[JMO]

It's a message forum, and there's always going to be a subset of posters that are uncivil.

I'd place this subset in the 5-10% range in the recent threads with Mike McLaughlin and Mary Hardy. However, for every loud antagonistic poster, there are 10s if not 100s of reasonable posts that are outright ignored.

If an individual can't engage with the reasonable posters because they are put off by the significant minority, then there's nothing we can do.
I too was annoyed at being ignored. Not here, though. By the folks who had requested feedback and gotten 1000 responses, but who seemed intent on changing nothing.

[Omikron]

There are, of course, instances in which being a gentleman is a mistake.

[Mary Frances]

Er, at the risk of being banned for outing personal information/guessing at alts. . . I don't suppose you are Mary Frances Miller, the incoming president elect of the AAA?

Welcome!

Yep that's me. I'm a returnee. Been here before. But it's been a while.

[JMO]

Yep that's me. I'm a returnee. Been here before. But it's been a while.
I'll welcome you also.

(By the way, a PM to Tom can cause the line that says "member" to display your full name, as a few of us are doing.)

[MAX.]

It's a message forum, and there's always going to be a subset of posters that are uncivil.

I'd place this subset in the 5-10% range in the recent threads with Mike McLaughlin and Mary Hardy. However, for every loud antagonistic poster, there are 10s if not 100s of reasonable posts that are outright ignored.

If an individual can't engage with the reasonable posters because they are put off by the significant minority, then there's nothing we can do.

I think it's important to note that there's also a HUGE number of people that read the threads and never post anything. If you stay civil and state your points on the topic, even when encountering uncivil posts/posters, you're still reaching a large number of people.

[gadzookz]

The battle over FEM was -- and maybe remains -- very high-stakes indeed. The two sides were diametrically opposed, and compromise was realistically impossible. One side was going to win, and the other was going to lose. Under those circumstances, you can't really expect people to be all jolly with each other. Battling as we did over FEM was not friendly, but it was absolutely professional.I never said the sides had to compromise nor be jolly. There has been much said here on several topics (FEM, CPD, education redesign, how to calculate travel time) that have been unprofessional, IMO.

Stop whingeing about civility. This itself is uncivil. Accept the nature of the medium and decide if you want to participate. We don't all rumba to your cha cha cha.Anonymous internet forums are prone to incivility. We all know that. So what? People who come to anonymous internet forums know what anonymous internet forums are like. No one should act all surprised.These are true statements. IMO, this is why so few of our leadership participate here. And I don't think anyone should be forced or required to post here. By some members here, that lack of participation is perceived as a negative.

Ken Hohman's blast email showed me that some lessons are not quickly learned. Apart from being woefully inaccurate I felt it was insensitive and showed poor leadership qualities so early on. I have the opposite opinion. I didn't see it as inaccurate or insensitive. How do you call out for others to have thick skin, but then be so thin skinned on the contents of his e-mail?

Long Live the AO!Indeed!

I too was annoyed at being ignored. Not here, though. By the folks who had requested feedback and gotten 1000 responses, but who seemed intent on changing nothing.Was that the true intent (to ignore feedback) or was that the implication and conjecture of AOers? IMO, This is where FEM went beyond an unfriendly debate of the proposal and turned into an "everything the SoA leadership does has a hidden agenda" tone. For the record, I too was not in favor of this FEM proposal and submitted a letter to the SOA strongly opposing it.

[bdschobel]

It took hours of discussion at the SOA Board to reach the agreement that was announced on Sunday. Many -- maybe even most -- Board members were still racing full-speed ahead, notwithstanding more than 1000 comment letters, overwhelmingly opposed to FEM. One Board member made the astonishing comment: "I will not be bullied, not even by the members." Huh? :-?

Many Board members were inclined to proceed with FEM. Only after hours of debate were they willing to back away reluctantly from this bad and unpopular proposal.

Bruce

[JMO]

Was that the true intent (to ignore feedback) or was that the implication and conjecture of AOers? IMO, This is where FEM went beyond an unfriendly debate of the proposal and turned into an "everything the SoA leadership does has a hidden agenda" tone. For the record, I too was not in favor of this FEM proposal and submitted a letter to the SOA strongly opposing it.

After the letter comment period "closed" there continued to be communications from the SOA about progress on the subject. My impression then was that our input was not being considered, at least not by those who were busily laboring to implement it. Eventually, the board of directors addressed the question. But until that happened, yes, I did feel frustrated.

I don't think the AO had any influence on the matter one way or another. But there did seem to be a huge disconnect between asking for feedback and continuing to "explore."

[Me Too]

It took hours of discussion at the SOA Board to reach the agreement that was announced on Sunday. Many -- maybe even most -- Board members were still racing full-speed ahead, notwithstanding more than 1000 comment letters, overwhelmingly opposed to FEM. One Board member made the astonishing comment: "I will not be bullied, not even by the members." Huh? :-?

Many Board members were inclined to proceed with FEM. Only after hours of debate were they willing to back away reluctantly from this bad and unpopular proposal.

BruceWow.

[tbakos]

Yep that's me. I'm a returnee. Been here before. But it's been a while.

Mary Frances:

Welcome. While not many speak, many listen on the Outpost and your comment can go a long way towards helping to restore the image of the Academy among both those who post here but also with the larger group (I suspect) who merely listen.

[tbakos]

Many Board members were inclined to proceed with FEM. Only after hours of debate were they willing to back away reluctantly from this bad and unpopular proposal.

Bruce

I think we must, at least, acknowledge that FEM does not mean the same thing to everyone.

The board rejected, although collectively we were not willing to be that strong in the wording, the part of FEM that proposed exam waiver for university granted course credit. That is, it was the validation part of the FEM proposal that was rejected.

However, the board recognized that the SOA does not really provide basic education. We set forth learning objectives and indicate material that must be mastered in order to get credit for examinations. Mostly this knowledge is acquired through self study but some candidates acquire this knowledge and understanding through a university program. To the extent that FEM meant university education, FEM was not rejected - and shouldn't have been. Universities do a good job of educating.

[cubs1969]

Civility and professionalism can't be defined in a way that's going to satisfy a majority of posters. For example, in this thread people have been told to "grow up" and some postings were referred to as "mad-dog attacks" and those comments weren't called out as uncivil but some might view them that way.

Actuaries aren't a culturally diverse group and the profession and corporate cultures demand a certain personality type that further homogenizes the group. When you get someone who doesn't behave as expected within the group and has a different philosophy when it comes to resolving conflicts and discussing differences, they are going to be characterized with words like "uncivilized." This is not unique to the actuarial profession. I was involved with a couple of faculty members at a small college doing the type of things being done now and was told "You guys need to put a leash on ..." because he was saying things that some thought shouldn't be said out loud and was doing it in a way that offended people's sensibilities.

This thread and statements like "If you aren't civil I'm out of here/I won't listen (and BTW I decide what's civil)." are designed, whether intentionally or not, to marginalize voices of dissent. It's a classic technique used in various forms all over the place.

At the end of the day, Tom and the mods are going to decide what's civil. I and others probably disagree with some decisions that's but that's just the way it is. If anyone doesn't like that they can get themselves banned or find another sandbox to play in.

[Will Durant]

To the extent that FEM meant university education[...]
Haven't JMO and MPC and others made a pretty string case that university education is not about the future, though?

[JMO]

Haven't JMO and MPC and others made a pretty string case that university education is not about the future, though?
Not exactly. For Validation, it's not about the future, that's certain.

However, promoters of university-based training in actuarial science have claimed that there are advantages to an integrated approach. (That route was dismissed by the CIA in the proposal that we've been debating to death, which I find verrrry interesting.)

I for one would very much like to see those advantages packaged for online delivery and made available to all actuarial students.

[idomoneus]

Yep that's me. I'm a returnee. Been here before. But it's been a while.

I'd like to echo the welcome that other AOers have already given you.

I think the crux of the problems that the AAA, the SOA and the CAS have had recently is a lack of effective communication and your presence here can help greatly with that. I think the existence of only a formal method of communication between members and the leadership, or the perception that was the only avenue of communication, led to an unfortunate "us vs. them" mentality. Informal discussion among the membership and between the membership and the leadership through channels like AO I think will be immensely helpful and will go a long way to healing some of the rifts that have formed recently.

[Shaft]

Originally Posted by Shaft
Ken Hohman's blast email showed me that some lessons are not quickly learned. Apart from being woefully inaccurate I felt it was insensitive and showed poor leadership qualities so early on.
I have the opposite opinion. I didn't see it as inaccurate or insensitive. How do you call out for others to have thick skin, but then be so thin skinned on the contents of his e-mail?

First, you need glasses or a dictionary. Second, there is nothing thin-skinned about my comment. The guy had a chance to step up and show real leadership. IMO he flunked it on his first opportunity.

Now I am off to cry into my soup.

[bdschobel]

This thread and statements like "If you aren't civil I'm out of here/I won't listen (and BTW I decide what's civil)." are designed, whether intentionally or not, to marginalize voices of dissent. It's a classic technique used in various forms all over the place.Amen.

Bruce

[Shaft]

I for one would very much like to see those advantages packaged for online delivery and made available to all actuarial students.And that everybody - is the whole point.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

However, promoters of university-based training in actuarial science have claimed that there are advantages to an integrated approach. (That route was dismissed by the CIA in the proposal that we've been debating to death, which I find verrrry interesting.)

What advantage is there to university-based training? Besides the shift of power to those accredited universities, I mean.
I see lowered revenues from exams. Surely, this would have to be made up in the "accreditation process."

[Dr T Non-Fan]

This thread and statements like "If you aren't civil I'm out of here/I won't listen (and BTW I decide what's civil)." are designed, whether intentionally or not, to marginalize voices of dissent. It's a classic technique used in various forms all over the place.

However, the "I consider that unprofessional behavior and I will file a complaint with the ABCD" approach is somewhat unique to our little sandbox.

[Will Durant]

If you go out to iTunes U, you can download entire MIT math courses and Stanford physics courses on video. Surely the SOA can do something similar.

[Shaft]

If you go out to iTunes U, you can download entire MIT math courses and Stanford physics courses on video. Surely the SOA can do something similar.
Or go here (http://ocw.mit.edu/).

[The Loo]

However, the "I consider that unprofessional behavior and I will file a complaint with the ABCD and I can haz post copy of my letter on my website" approach is somewhat unique to our little sandbox.IFYABCD

[Chuck]

btw, when someone posts under a real game, is there a way to be 100% sure they are who they say they are?

You could call or email and ask?

[Omikron]

George Washington, "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it. Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire, called conscience. My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth. The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments. We should not look back unless it is to derive useful lessons from past errors, and for the purpose of profiting by dearly bought experience."

[Chuck]

Yes, they would've communicated here if it wasn't a 'hostile' environment. rollmyeyes.

Nonsense. They wouldn't communicate here regardless. That's part of the reason people are upset - these clowns are running around making decisions and not communicating - because they don't want to discuss it.

You've actually got it backwards. People are upset because they're not communicating - not the other way around.

As long as we're critiquing communications, the highlighted are examples of what we are talking about. You could make your point without the "clown" reference and neither you or I actually KNOW anyone's motive for why they don't participate, so I don't see what you accomplish by impugning motives in such absolute terms. Do you think that encourages or discourages participation?

I realize and accept that I cannot force anybody to change their style of communication any more than you can get the leaders writing these blasts to suit your standards for clarity, transparency, etc.

It is however clearly not true that no attempt have been made by "the clowns" to participate. Several in leadership (Mary, Mike, Cecil, and many others) have participated and then stopped. The fact that Bruce thrives and survives the gauntlet does not change that fact.

We are just suggesting ways to encourage more ongoing participation. Obviously, nobody has to agree to change. But it seems pretty clear that the current way isn't working as well as it could and maybe if we can convince everyone to upgrade the tone just a little bit, we will make some progress there.

Chuck

[Dumbdumb]

As long as we're critiquing communications, the highlighted are examples of what we are talking about. You could make your point without the "clown" reference and neither you or I actually KNOW anyone's motive for why they don't participate, so I don't see what you accomplish by impugning motives in such absolute terms. Do you think that encourages or discourages participation?

I realize and accept that I cannot force anybody to change their style of communication any more than you can get the leaders writing these blasts to suit your standards for clarity, transparency, etc.

It is however clearly not true that no attempt have been made by "the clowns" to participate. Several in leadership (Mary, Mike, Cecil, and many others) have participated and then stopped. The fact that Bruce thrives and survives the gauntlet does not change that fact.

We are just suggesting ways to encourage more ongoing participation. Obviously, nobody has to agree to change. But it seems pretty clear that the current way isn't working as well as it could and maybe if we can convince everyone to upgrade the tone just a little bit, we will make some progress there.

Chuck
And at a certain point, I start to make judgements based on their actions. You want to put a fine turn on it, let's say their actions are clownlike. I abbrieviated that to calling them clowns.

At a certain point, it's time to call a spade a shovel. Don't like it, suck it up buttercup.

Edited to add, the buttercup comment is directed at those who don't participate due to reasons we can only speculate - not at the poster I quoted.

[JMO]

It is becoming clear to me that BOTH sides are demonstrating the phrase "tone deaf." Just sayin'

[Dumbdumb]

It is becoming clear to me that BOTH sides are demonstrating the phrase "tone deaf." Just sayin'

Pardon?

That's actually something I can agree with. At a certain point it's like a Dr. Phil marriage argument. We're arguing, but not even about the same thing. It's like two conversations in parallel. Mildly guilty as charged.

[Chuck]

And at a certain point, I start to make judgements based on their actions. You want to put a fine turn on it, let's say their actions are clownlike. I abbrieviated that to calling them clowns.

At a certain point, it's time to call a spade a shovel. Don't like it, suck it up buttercup.

I'll be sure to do that honeymuffin! But you should be prepared to do the same if the targets of your advice don't take your input seriously either.

You all can disagree, but I am pretty confident that what really gets the attention of leadership is when members firmly, but respectfully, begin to state their objections, because those opinions are harder to summarily dismiss. Tom B has done more to upgrade the influence of the AO in the last month, than all the circus noise put together has ever done. I think that happened despite the circus noise, not because of it.

Chuck

Edited to indicate that the honeymuffin comment was just for fun before I saw the buttercup edit, not that there is anything wrong with being a buttercup or honeymuffin.

[campbell]

I see a place for universities, but I think that the productivity hasn't really increased all that much in relationship to other information channels [except for places like MIT with OpenCourseWare].

In this thread I point to current increases in educational productivity via the internet:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=172352&highlight=online+education

And I've got some thoughts on education in general linked here:
http://meep.livejournal.com/1838810.html

[that ranges well beyond thoughts on actuarial education]

[campbell]

One of the benefits to me posting under my name is that everything I write here I would be willing to say to the person's face [and may have already done so, come to think of it.]

It's not my place to judge how civil I've been. I'm a person with strong opinions, lots of them, and obviously willing to share them. I understand that lots of people do not like this style [forget about whether or not they like my opinions], and it's not like my style or point-of-view is more valid than others'.

As others note above, some people find such type of overt disagreement uncomfortable, and in some cultures [whether certain small circles, or entire nations] my behavior would be considered rude and/or presumptuous.

So yeah, I understand that what I consider civil or uncivil will not be shared in opinion by other people.

But this is my point: I think it particularly not useful, when we're supposedly arguing issues, to start talking about individuals' self-interest or trying to imply hidden agendas. A bad idea is a bad idea, whether a person has the noblest or basest motives. [Likewise for good ideas].

[Brad Gile]

Or go here (http://ocw.mit.edu/).

One of my favorite gems. Absolutely priceless. There are also a lot of math professors who make their books and notes available free on the net.
But the MIT Open Courseware is a mammoth project.

[Brad Gile]

One of the benefits to me posting under my name is that everything I write here I would be willing to say to the person's face [and may have already done so, come to think of it.]

It's not my place to judge how civil I've been. I'm a person with strong opinions, lots of them, and obviously willing to share them. I understand that lots of people do not like this style [forget about whether or not they like my opinions], and it's not like my style or point-of-view is more valid than others'.

As others note above, some people find such type of overt disagreement uncomfortable, and in some cultures [whether certain small circles, or entire nations] my behavior would be considered rude and/or presumptuous.

So yeah, I understand that what I consider civil or uncivil will not be shared in opinion by other people.

But this is my point: I think it particularly not useful, when we're supposedly arguing issues, to start talking about individuals' self-interest or trying to imply hidden agendas. A bad idea is a bad idea, whether a person has the noblest or basest motives. [Likewise for good ideas].

:iatp:
Spot on.

[cubs1969]

You all can disagree, but I am pretty confident that what really gets the attention of leadership is when members firmly, but respectfully, begin to state their objections, because those opinions are harder to summarily dismiss. Tom B has done more to upgrade the influence of the AO in the last month, than all the circus noise put together has ever done. I think that happened despite the circus noise, not because of it.


In another thread Tom said (paraphrasing a Board member):


So, the Academy board's position was that they weren't really taking away from the members a right they were actually using. They don't understand what all the fuss is about.


I'm pretty confident virtually nothing gets the board's attention*. I don't think Bruce's lawsuit did and I don't think that the AO does. People squawking at them isn't pleasant but at the end of the day they've got their agendas and values, they're not aligned with the membership and they'll just wait until all the fuss dies down and then get on with whatever they were planning on doing before this summer.

*The one exception is if someone from the Academy testifies before a house subcommittee with Alan Grayson (D-FL) and he wants to make it a YouTube moment.

[bdschobel]

One of the benefits to me posting under my name is that everything I write here I would be willing to say to the person's face [and may have already done so, come to think of it.]

It's not my place to judge how civil I've been. I'm a person with strong opinions, lots of them, and obviously willing to share them. I understand that lots of people do not like this style [forget about whether or not they like my opinions], and it's not like my style or point-of-view is more valid than others'.

As others note above, some people find such type of overt disagreement uncomfortable, and in some cultures [whether certain small circles, or entire nations] my behavior would be considered rude and/or presumptuous.

So yeah, I understand that what I consider civil or uncivil will not be shared in opinion by other people.Ditto. No way to say this more clearly. :tup:

Bruce

[tbakos]

You all can disagree, but I am pretty confident that what really gets the attention of leadership is when members firmly, but respectfully, begin to state their objections, because those opinions are harder to summarily dismiss. Tom B has done more to upgrade the influence of the AO in the last month, than all the circus noise put together has ever done. I think that happened despite the circus noise, not because of it.


Thanks. I hope this is true. It takes discipline.

I think a basic rule is keep to the issue - remembering that it is the message not the messenger that needs stiffling. It may not be as much fun but has proven to be much more effective - and, effective is what I want to be.

I didn't get applause after my short two minute campaign speech at the Academy annual meeting on Monday, 10/26/09, and approached and thanked by stranger-to-me actuaries on the elevators afterwords (and friends as well) who asked to sign my petition because I made a speech personally attacking everyone I could think of who disagreed with me. I made a point they could relate to fairly and effectively. I was for something - against nothing.

I think people would be much more effective if they don't do things to distract from their own good intentions. Stones will be thrown back. Logic and reason will be feared and respected.

[Vomik]

The only thing more obnoxious than "TFH" is the people crawling out of the woodwork later pretending to be a moral authority.

edit: You're also just as guilty as anyone else. Your first post reads as though FEM was a plot devised by Prof. Hardy and she was the person to debate with, even though she mentioned that she abstained from voting.

[Heathen]

I have no qualms calling a spade a spade.

When a quiet cabal puts an entire profession into unnecessary danger for self-gain, I would be disappointed in the individuals adversely affected that did not act accordingly.

Allowing forgiveness for someone that restates X to Y when they clearly meant X before rebuttal is folly.

I have more to say, but I will hold back in this season of detente.

[campbell]

The only thing more obnoxious than "TFH" is the people crawling out of the woodwork later pretending to be a moral authority.

edit: You're also just as guilty as anyone else. Your first post reads as though FEM was a plot devised by Prof. Hardy and she was the person to debate with, even though she mentioned that she abstained from voting.

Sorry, it's not clear whom you are referring to.

If it's me, I have acknowledged that she didn't vote on any of this stuff. Multiple times. But my reference to Feb 2008 has to do with some of the history here on the AO [I understand not everybody has followed this since then, and may have seen this only over the last couple months].

Back in 2008, when this proposal was released, it was coming from the CIA and hadn't been co-opted by the SOA or CAS yet. I was debating Prof. Hardy at the time - along with many other AO denizens, over the merits of the proposal. It wasn't personal at that point, and many of the arguments developed over that time period were used by me and others in our official response letters.

If you're talking about someone else, please be more specific.

[Will Durant]

I'm pretty sure it was at me. It was so inaccurate I wasn't even going to respond.

I did not just crawl out of the woodwork on this point (whether you are speaking about FEM or about the need for civil discourse), I am not claiming any moral authority (in fact I admitted my own failing on this very topic), and only a gross misreading of my post could result in an inference that I thought any such thing about Prof Hardy.

[campbell]

If it's referring to WD, that's ridiculous.

Anyway, WD was in the old thread before I was.

As a reminder, here is the original thread, that was started by mjb back in Feb 21, 2008:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=131439

WD was in there third, I was there fourth. Mary Hardy shows up at post 15. So you can see where this all started; I thought the discussion was very civil at the start, though many of us disagreed on the issue.

WD has never been uncivil on this topic, as far as I know, and according to my own civility standards [take that fwiw].

ETA: I just noticed my concern about continuing education shows up early on in the discussion [http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=2684180&postcount=19]

[Vomik]

First, I guess my initial backlash is over the thread title. I mean, come on... "On Civility and Advancing our Profession?"

Second, whether or not you intended you mention Mary Hardy 4 times in connection with FEM. AFAIK, she was not a major pusher of the issue and abstained from voting on it, at least on the SOA side. I don't interfere with CIA politics because I'm not a Canadian

Third, I guess this is just a difference of opinion, but I'd rather people get angry over their profession. It is much better than indifference. If you wanted to rail on something being unprofessional I'd rather get rid of "Political Issues" before banning people for getting hot-headed over something that affects their career. A casual observer might presume 90% of actuaries don't believe Obama is a US citizen or whatever ridiculous claims are made in political.

[mjb]

This thread and statements like "If you aren't civil I'm out of here/I won't listen (and BTW I decide what's civil)." are designed, whether intentionally or not, to marginalize voices of dissent. It's a classic technique used in various forms all over the place.

At the end of the day, Tom and the mods are going to decide what's civil. I and others probably disagree with some decisions that's but that's just the way it is. If anyone doesn't like that they can get themselves banned or find another sandbox to play in.
It is also a classic technique for people to behave uncivily, rudely and unprofessionally and to call people who object to their behaviour "too sensitive" or "prissy".
I agree 100% with the second paragraph I quoted.

[Passacaglia]

If it's referring to WD, that's ridiculous.

Anyway, WD was in the old thread before I was.

As a reminder, here is the original thread, that was started by mjb back in Feb 21, 2008:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=131439

WD was in there third, I was there fourth. Mary Hardy shows up at post 15. So you can see where this all started; I thought the discussion was very civil at the start, though many of us disagreed on the issue.

WD has never been uncivil on this topic, as far as I know, and according to my own civility standards [take that fwiw].

ETA: I just noticed my concern about continuing education shows up early on in the discussion [http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=2684180&postcount=19]

Thanks for that. While I've been kind of annoyed at the AO for being so uncivil since August, reading Mary Hardy's posts in that thread from February give me a real "she started it" mentality. Not that it makes it okay for the AO.

[Chuck]

First, I guess my initial backlash is over the thread title. I mean, come on... "On Civility and Advancing our Profession?"

Second, whether or not you intended you mention Mary Hardy 4 times in connection with FEM. AFAIK, she was not a major pusher of the issue and abstained from voting on it, at least on the SOA side. I don't interfere with CIA politics because I'm not a Canadian

Third, I guess this is just a difference of opinion, but I'd rather people get angry over their profession. It is much better than indifference. If you wanted to rail on something being unprofessional I'd rather get rid of "Political Issues" before banning people for getting hot-headed over something that affects their career. A casual observer might presume 90% of actuaries don't believe Obama is a US citizen or whatever ridiculous claims are made in political.

Which part of the title don't you like? "Civility" or "Advancing the Profession"? Before answering "civility", google "civility" and see what it actually means. Then read what several of us are suggesting regarding civility vs uncivility.

Civility <> Indifference

Anger <> Uncivility

Unless you extend the meaning beyond what it actually means, I think it is really hard to argue that "civility" is not a good thing for advancing the profession.

Chuck

[campbell]

Thanks for that. While I've been kind of annoyed at the AO for being so uncivil since August, reading Mary Hardy's posts in that thread from February give me a real "she started it" mentality. Not that it makes it okay for the AO.

ARGH. She didn't start it.

Look, for all the conspiracy theories, there were more than a couple people championing FEM.

If it were only Mary Hardy, or even a small handful of people, we wouldn't be arguing this stuff today. FEM doesn't pop up every twenty years because of Mary Hardy [or even due to actuarial science professors...indeed, some of the strongest anti-FEM statements come from professors in actuarial science programs]. It hasn't popped up repeatedly due to the IAA.

I understand why it's an attractive notion, and it's not like other countries use something like this despite it not working there. Obviously, it does work to a certain extent elsewhere. I like the unbiased ground of the current system, but I can see where it falls flat. I just don't think giving people an "out" is the way to fix it.

What made Prof. Hardy a handy target for some was because she was one of the few pro-FEM people willing to argue the merits here at the AO. I talked with a couple pro-FEM people on the phone, who do not post here on the AO, and I invited them here, but they told me no. Given how Hardy and McLaughlin were treated, I don't blame these people. While it's nice and all Alinsky-like to try to marginalize the individuals advocating for FEM, it doesn't speak to the merits of the proposal and all it does is sideline particular people [and this thing is going to be coming back in twenty years... if not sooner].

What I find so frustrating is that the same dynamic, even the getting personal part of it, occurred twenty years ago. This is why I keep asking for some sort of post-mortem report, including the history of this idea. I doubt 1970 was the first time this appeared, though that's the first printed reference I have thus far [see this thread: http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=174667 ] - when I saw Kellison's statement from then, I realized the exact same arguments have been going on for DECADES.

If people get into the *****ing that "Oh, these people are meanies" "Bunch of luddites" etc. we are on track to repeat this exact same thing next time. GRAH.

It may feel great to complain about specific individuals, but it doesn't really address the specific issues, which means those issues never get resolved.

[Vomik]

Which part of the title don't you like? "Civility" or "Advancing the Profession"? Before answering "civility", google "civility" and see what it actually means. Then read what several of us are suggesting regarding civility vs uncivility.

Civility <> Indifference

Anger <> Uncivility

Unless you extend the meaning beyond what it actually means, I think it is really hard to argue that "civility" is not a good thing for advancing the profession.

Chuck

Nothing to do with the words. Just how goofy it is for someone who goes by the name Will Durant to bless the AO with his treatise on civility and advancing the profession. Just leaves me thinking this person must really think highly of themselves. I'll freely admit that first jab had nothing to do with the content of his post, but rather how he decided to present it.

[Passacaglia]

ARGH. She didn't start it.

Look, for all the conspiracy theories, there were more than a couple people championing FEM.

If it were only Mary Hardy, or even a small handful of people, we wouldn't be arguing this stuff today. FEM doesn't pop up every twenty years because of Mary Hardy [or even due to actuarial science professors...indeed, some of the strongest anti-FEM statements come from professors in actuarial science programs]. It hasn't popped up repeatedly due to the IAA.

I understand why it's an attractive notion, and it's not like other countries use something like this despite it not working there. Obviously, it does work to a certain extent elsewhere. I like the unbiased ground of the current system, but I can see where it falls flat. I just don't think giving people an "out" is the way to fix it.

What made Prof. Hardy a handy target for some was because she was one of the few pro-FEM people willing to argue the merits here at the AO. I talked with a couple pro-FEM people on the phone, who do not post here on the AO, and I invited them here, but they told me no. Given how Hardy and McLaughlin were treated, I don't blame these people. While it's nice and all Alinsky-like to try to marginalize the individuals advocating for FEM, it doesn't speak to the merits of the proposal and all it does is sideline particular people [and this thing is going to be coming back in twenty years... if not sooner].

What I find so frustrating is that the same dynamic, even the getting personal part of it, occurred twenty years ago. This is why I keep asking for some sort of post-mortem report, including the history of this idea. I doubt 1970 was the first time this appeared, though that's the first printed reference I have thus far [see this thread: http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=174667 ] - when I saw Kellison's statement from then, I realized the exact same arguments have been going on for DECADES.

If people get into the *****ing that "Oh, these people are meanies" "Bunch of luddites" etc. we are on track to repeat this exact same thing next time. GRAH.

It may feel great to complain about specific individuals, but it doesn't really address the specific issues, which means those issues never get resolved.

Sorry, I meant that she started the uncivility, not that she started FEM. Obviously she didn't carry it to the levels that the rest of the AO did, but the tone of her posts in Feb 08 are pretty uncivil, IMO.

[Will Durant]

Just how goofy it is for someone who goes by the name Will Durant to bless the AO with his treatise on civility and advancing the profession.
Sorry we can't all have brilliant noms de plume like Vomik. For the record, the only reason I posted my "treatise" at all is because I promised Prof Hardy that I would.

Also, I'm still wondering why the fact that I mentioned Prof Hardy 4 times in a post about how I had a conversation with Prof Hardy is an issue.

[Vomik]

Sorry we can't all have brilliant noms de plume like Vomik. For the record, the only reason I posted my "treatise" at all is because I promised Prof Hardy that I would.

Also, I'm still wondering why the fact that I mentioned Prof Hardy 4 times in a post about how I had a conversation with Prof Hardy is an issue.

I'm sure Mary Hardy is very happy you are looking out for her on the AO. Did you tell her you'd make the AO safe again?

Anyway, you've disregarded the rest of what I posted. Your post wasn't about your conversation with Mary Hardy (it was mentioned in a paragaph, though) but rather about how uncivil you viewed people talking about the FEM proposal. Whether you intended it or not you linked pro-FEM with Mary Hardy.

[Will Durant]

Whether you intended it or not you linked pro-FEM with Mary Hardy.
Are you seriously claiming that I am trying to equate Mary Hardy = FEM? Does it not make sense that I am using Mary Hardy's name because she is the specific person who was chased out of here by perceived incivility? What exactly is your point?

[Will Durant]

Did you tell her you'd make the AO safe again?
Clearly not, since I can't even make it safe for myself. However, I don't have any intentions of leaving. If push comes to shove, the ignore button is my good friend.

[Dan Moore]

Re: self study vs. university course:

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=3999832&postcount=1475

[bdschobel]

Mary Hardy was a staunch advocate for FEM in many venues, including the SOA Board. The fact that she abstained from voting should not leave people with the impression that she was silent. She was an active participant in Board discussions.

Mary Hardy was not "chased out of here by perceived incivility." She chose to leave entirely on her own because most of us opposed FEM, and she could not change our minds. To my knowledge, nobody asked her to leave or wanted her to leave.

Bruce

[Vomik]

Mary Hardy was a staunch advocate for FEM in many venues, including the SOA Board. The fact that she abstained from voting should not leave people with the impression that she was silent. She was an active participant in Board discussions.


Thanks, Bruce. I didn't know that, I guess I got the impression from the AO that she abstained completely in the "SOA version."

[4sigma]

Yep that's me. I'm a returnee. Been here before. But it's been a while.

Welcome to the AO and congrats on becoming President-Elect.

I encourage you to stay in communication with the membership via the Actuarial Outpost and ignore the 5-10% of posters that are rude.

[4sigma]

Thanks for that. While I've been kind of annoyed at the AO for being so uncivil since August, reading Mary Hardy's posts in that thread from February give me a real "she started it" mentality. Not that it makes it okay for the AO.

I didn't see Mary Hardy's posts as being uncivil. But it doesn't matter really who started it.

There's nothing wrong with being angry. But I have a lot more respect for someone who is angry at ideas and actions, vs. angry at people or their presumed motivations.

[Dumbdumb]

This thread is still going? At this point the people crying civility, at this point their actions seem little different than the people they're complaining about.

[Chuck]

I didn't see Mary Hardy's posts as being uncivil. But it doesn't matter really who started it.

There's nothing wrong with being angry. But I have a lot more respect for someone who is angry at ideas and actions, vs. angry at people or their presumed motivations.

:iatp: Exactly!

[Chuck]

This thread is still going? At this point the people crying civility, at this point their actions seem little different than the people they're complaining about.

Yes.

Nobody is crying that I can see.

They are very different.

[Dumbdumb]

You're calling posters uncivil and unprofessional. You're doing the same thing you're accusing others of, using the very same techniques you're accusing others of. Creating a hostile environment, calling them unprofessional, etc.

It's whiny posters like you that make poster's with an opinion move on to other forums where they don't have to listen to this nonsense - particularly page after page of it.

Pot. Kettle.

[Passacaglia]

I didn't see Mary Hardy's posts as being uncivil. But it doesn't matter really who started it.

There's nothing wrong with being angry. But I have a lot more respect for someone who is angry at ideas and actions, vs. angry at people or their presumed motivations.

Despite our differences of opinion of MH's Feb 08 posts, I agree with you on the second part.

[gosuruss]

Thanks, Bruce. I didn't know that, I guess I got the impression from the AO that she abstained completely in the "SOA version."

:lol:

Who gave you that impression?

[gosuruss]

It took hours of discussion at the SOA Board to reach the agreement that was announced on Sunday. Many -- maybe even most -- Board members were still racing full-speed ahead, notwithstanding more than 1000 comment letters, overwhelmingly opposed to FEM. One Board member made the astonishing comment: "I will not be bullied, not even by the members." Huh? :-?

Many Board members were inclined to proceed with FEM. Only after hours of debate were they willing to back away reluctantly from this bad and unpopular proposal.

Bruce

Talk about substituting appearances for "True Facts". This post is "Mover and Shaker" quality. I can't believe this hasn't brought more of an uproar.

[Chuck]

You're calling posters uncivil and unprofessional. You're doing the same thing you're accusing others of, using the very same techniques you're accusing others of. Creating a hostile environment, calling them unprofessional, etc.

It's whiny posters like you that make poster's with an opinion move on to other forums where they don't have to listen to this nonsense - particularly page after page of it.

Pot. Kettle.

I don't think I've called anybody anything here. But correct me if I am wrong.

I did point out that calling leadership "clowns" is an example of what drives them away (my opinion on an action, not on any person) and I did say I thought that impugning the motives of individuals is uncivil and unprofessional (which is a reasonably definitional fact, not name calling).

I suppose if someone realizes that they have in fact impugned somebody's motives or called somebody a derogatory name, that they could infer that I think they are uncivil or unprofessional. But I think that is hardly the same thing as directly calling somebody "a clown" or even "whiny'!

I am not saying that I might not want to do these things at times, or that those thoughts might not be inferred from my comments, or that I might not actually do so from time to time. But I do try to hold back because it is uncivil and generally unproductive.

I am not (nor do I think the others are) trying to imply some moral superiority, but merely trying to discuss what might be done to improve participation.

Do you know of anybody that has ever "moved on" or maybe avoided "moving in" because my (or other's similar) "whiny" postings? I would like to know. Or are you just lashing out because of your distaste for my opinions?

I just happen to think that this is an important and useful discussion (which nobody is forcing you to read as far as I know) that really goes beyond our forum here.


I thought that this (while it is talking about political discourse) is particularly applicable to what we are trying to say.

http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/civility.htm

Chuck

[bdschobel]

Adults -- and especially those adults who volunteer to serve in actuarial leadership positions -- can endure occasional challenges, including being called clowns. We just aren't that delicate -- and shouldn't be. Anyway, we should all worry a lot more about the quality of our thinking than about our "civility." If someone expresses a really important thought but does so impolitely, then I'll deal with it. And people who are so easily offended that they cannot participate here are losing more than we are.

Bruce

[Moderator1]

There were posts using language far stronger than "clowns", and far less interested in dialog with the other side. For example, somethone thought the following was an appropriate post. So there are only 3 possibilities of why this Canada FEM Proposal exists:

1. Mary Hardy has dishonest intentions.
2. Mary Hardy's educational methods are not successful.
3. All of the above. Many other posters were able to express their concerns that validation of learning is necessary and their fears that the proposal would give credit to some who hadn't learned the material well enough along with some who learned it very well. They could attack the arguments of Mary and other supporters without accusing anyone of being dishonest. Posts like that show no interest in understanding the other sides' thoughts and interfere with other posters' attempts to discuss.

[Chuck]

Adults -- and especially those adults who volunteer to serve in actuarial leadership positions -- can endure occasional challenges, including being called clowns. We just aren't that delicate -- and shouldn't be. Anyway, we should all worry a lot more about the quality of our thinking than about our "civility." If someone expresses a really important thought but does so impolitely, then I'll deal with it. And people who are so easily offended that they cannot participate here are losing more than we are.

Bruce

Bruce,

I agree with most everything you are saying, except possibly the last sentence.

I don't really care what people call me either (when it is unconstructive). Most of the times, it is a reflection of them, not me. So I agree it would be better if everyone had thicker skins and could ignore the bad to take advantage of the good. But people are the way they are regardless of how you or I think they should be.

By the same token, probably the best criticism of any of our attempts to raise the civility issue is that we too are likely wasting our breath (or fingers) for the most part. Maybe we even inflame those behaviours because fellow posters see us as preachy or insulting. Again, people are the way they are.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think everybody loses when both sides refuse to consider whether they could improve the situation. And probably most will never change. But maybe if some people grew a little bit thicker skin on the one side and the other side considered whether they could go out of there way to be a little more civil (or whatever you want to call it), then some good things would come of it. If you take what everybody is saying at face value, it seems at least that everyone is saying communication (and governance) can be improved, even if we disagree on how that looks, and so it is hard to see how these attempts could not help some.

I think your participation here has been a good example of that. It has been interesting to me that several of us who have generally supported your position in your recent travails also have had some pretty intense disagreements on other issues in the past (I am thinking in particular of the SOA CPD). I think that those arguments were firm, but civil and gracious (at least with those people where that was possible). I like to think we had some influence in the final outcome (even if it wasn't 100% what we were looking for) and I think you gained the respect of many despite our opposing some of your decisions.

I would just like to see more of that occur.

Chuck

[bdschobel]

Fair enough. I have my own style and pretty much stick to it. Occasionally, I write "Dear so-and-so" and sign off with "Regards," when I want to emulate a very aggressive but amazingly insightful young poster. And I can jab people once in a while (only when they deserve it, of course). :)

I just want to avoid adding layers of false civility that obscure the strength of our arguments. Strong feelings must be expressed strongly, or the feelings may be missed. That would be a serious loss of information!

Bruce

[Shaft]

I don't think I've called anybody anything here. But correct me if I am wrong.

I did point out that calling leadership "clowns" is an example of what drives them away.... Oh calling peoples clowns is so uncivil. I think it is much better to say

"you remind me of something I saw at the circus".

[JMO]

You all can disagree, but I am pretty confident that what really gets the attention of leadership is when members firmly, but respectfully, begin to state their objections, because those opinions are harder to summarily dismiss. Tom B has done more to upgrade the influence of the AO in the last month, than all the circus noise put together has ever done. I think that happened despite the circus noise, not because of it.

Chuck

I second this opinion.

[Double High C]

I third this opinion.

And anyone who disagrees is a clown.

[tbakos]

I third this opinion.

And anyone who disagrees is a clown.

Thanks again but ... you know many people have a fear of clowns (Coulrophobia) so being called a "clown" may for many people be a high complement ... something like saying he (or she) is a person to be feared :wink:.

[Double High C]

Maybe I am wrong, but I think everybody loses when both sides refuse to consider whether they could improve the situation. And probably most will never change. But maybe if some people grew a little bit thicker skin on the one side and the other side considered whether they could go out of there way to be a little more civil (or whatever you want to call it), then some good things would come of it. If you take what everybody is saying at face value, it seems at least that everyone is saying communication (and governance) can be improved, even if we disagree on how that looks, and so it is hard to see how these attempts could not help some.

Very true, and perhaps this is one of the key lessons. Too often, people see these types of things as "either/or".

Also, to put on the hat of those leaders who are being accused of being thin-skinned, when it is perceived that your opponents are just shouting at you, then you tend not to think that they are willing to listen to your point of view. Even if you are not thin-skinned, you might decide that it is not worth your time to stay in the room. Increased civility will keep you in the room, thereby being more open to influence.

So, from the point of view of those who are, FLOABW, the thick-skinned ones, it is better to be somewhat civil (without compromising your convictions in your point of view) to keep the "wrong-headed, thin-skinned leaders" in the room, so that there is a possibility that they will change course.

[bdschobel]

People can shout at me if they like. I'll shout back if necessary. Communication will occur, regardless.

Bruce

[campbell]

I should tell that to my kids.

Wait, I can send them to timeout and eat all their Halloween candy.

Never mind.

[Double High C]

They tehk er jehbs!

I mean, candy.

nevermind.

[campbell]

dey trk r jerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrbs

I couldn't help myself

[Chuck]

People can shout at me if they like. I'll shout back if necessary. Communication will occur, regardless.

Bruce

The problem though is I look at your avatar and I can't remember if you've shot 5 times or 6, and I don't feel lucky!

[bdschobel]

Well, do ya...punk! :D

Bruce

[cubs1969]

I'm putting this exchange from this thread (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=179057&page=4) because I'd like to know if what I said was uncivil.


I have known of a few mathematics faculty members who put little effort into their tests. But most of those I have known in over 45 years of teaching including 6 years of chairing a department that taught 11,000 students each semester have taken testing and assessment seriously and spend quite a bit of time making up their exams. Again, I do not claim that everyone does so, nor that those who do so do not sometimes make mistakes as I do, but that most do so in my experience. The statement quoted above paints with far too broad a brush.
Then you must have taught at some very special places because everywhere I've taught there's always been a people that either

are mailing it in because they're close to retirement and don't care or;
have no desire to spend more than the minimum on teaching because of research.


You said there have always been such people. Did I deny that? Try reading what I wrote. Just because _some_ people did that does not mean that it is typical, as you claim. And I resent the slam on people---such as I---that are close to retirement.

You sure are bitter. I'll not respond to any more of this.




My first response this was "WTF?" I was just making the point that at the places I've taught, including grad school, there have been people in the categories I listed. I don't know who this guy is, never heard of him, don't know how old he is or how close to retirement he is and have no idea what I said that makes me come across as being bitter.

Can someone shed some light and point out if, and where, I was uncivil to the guy?

[Shaft]

I'm putting this exchange from this thread (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=179057&page=4) I don't know who this guy is, never heard of him, don't know how old he is or how close to retirement he is and have no idea what I said that makes me come across as being bitter.
You don't know the Great Actuarial Academic Deity Jim Daniel - this picture (http://www.actuarialseminars.com/Misc/jwdducks.jpg) (yes it is he and he is very proud of this picture) tells you all you need to know.

There are a lot of clues to the questions you raise in that picture.

[Shaft]

I may have been too generous, perhaps this picture (http://www.actuarialseminars.com/seminar.jpg) is closer to reality.

That costume reminds me of something I saw at the circus.

[Chuck]

I'm putting this exchange from this thread (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=179057&page=4) because I'd like to know if what I said was uncivil.



My first response this was "WTF?" I was just making the point that at the places I've taught, including grad school, there have been people in the categories I listed. I don't know who this guy is, never heard of him, don't know how old he is or how close to retirement he is and have no idea what I said that makes me come across as being bitter.

Can someone shed some light and point out if, and where, I was uncivil to the guy?

At the risk of becoming known as trying to be the "civility police", I will let you know, for whatever it is worth, my impression, only since you asked.

I think you had a little bit of a tone that appeared to question his veracity, although pretty mild compared to a lot that often gets said, and he over-reacted to that. But then I don't know if he has had other experiences that made this his proverbial straw.

But in any case, I would have made your point something like this:


I have taught in universities as well and my experience was that such lack of care over exams was quite a bit more common than in your experience. In particular:

many (but certainly not all) professors close to retirement seemed to not care and appeared to me to be mailing it in;
many (but certainly not all) professors focused more on research and appeared to me to give teaching their minimum effort.
In any event, my belief is that these situations, however rare they may or may not be, would be hard, if not impossible, for the societies to identify and avoid.


I think that avoids implying that you don't believe he is truthful, while still firmly making your point. But again, I think it was mild, so I am not trying to make a big deal of it. I just think this whole issue of civility is useful to think about.

Chuck

[campbell]

Having to put conditionals on all statements gets to be a bit of a drag.

No wonder [some, but not all] actuaries aren't popular.

[bdschobel]

At the risk of becoming known as trying to be the "civility police", I will let you know, for whatever it is worth, my impression, only since you asked.

I think you had a little bit of a tone that appeared to question his veracity, although pretty mild compared to a lot that often gets said, and he over-reacted to that. But then I don't know if he has had other experiences that made this his proverbial straw.Arggh, we don't need "civility police"! I love ya, Chuck, but let's just let these folks work it out between themselves. If Jim is offended -- and clearly he was -- he can express his feelings. If cubs feels like he committed no foul, well, he can express that. We don't need any umpires. And, as usual, I agree with Mary Pat: "Having to put conditionals on all statements gets to be a bit of a drag." More than a bit.

Bruce

[campbell]

I have a hard enough time with my prose style as it is.

I =try= to follow Strunk and White.

[cubs1969]

Thanks for the input Chuck. I was genuinely confused at his reaction. I wasn't trying to be combative or insulting and I certainly don't know where he got my being bitter out of what I said. One of the reasons I got out of teaching was that I didn't want to become one of those old guys that had been teaching college algebra and baby stats for so long that they just didn't care anymore.

I agree with Bruce's philosophy that you should duke things out but it's always good to, in the words of Joseph McCarthy, know your enema.

[Double High C]

I agree with Bruce's philosophy that you should duke things out but it's always good to, in the words of Joseph McCarthy, know your enema.

No shirt, Shitlock! :-)

[Shaft]

I have a hard enough time with my prose style as it is.

I =try= to follow Strunk and White.Er.... you mean Strunk & White.

[campbell]

I do?

Fie upon the ampersand.

[Shaft]

I do?

Fie upon the ampersand.:rofl:

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Thanks for the input Chuck. I was genuinely confused at his reaction. I wasn't trying to be combative or insulting and I certainly don't know where he got my being bitter out of what I said. One of the reasons I got out of teaching was that I didn't want to become one of those old guys that had been teaching college algebra and baby stats for so long that they just didn't care anymore.


Totally off-topic: Anyone remember Dana Carvey's SNL character named Grumpy Old Man? Somehow, my synapses have stirred this memory, and I don't know why.

[Chuck]

Arggh, we don't need "civility police"! I love ya, Chuck, but let's just let these folks work it out between themselves. If Jim is offended -- and clearly he was -- he can express his feelings. If cubs feels like he committed no foul, well, he can express that. We don't need any umpires. And, as usual, I agree with Mary Pat: "Having to put conditionals on all statements gets to be a bit of a drag." More than a bit.

Bruce

As one of my fave posters always says - JMO.

He asked, so I answered. It's not like I inserted myself into their conversation, was trying to tell anybody what they had to say or how to say it, or ever had any plan to otherwise do so. I also don't think you'll find any attempts on my part to ever do so - it is just discussed here because it is after all the topic of this thread.

Even if asked to serve as civility police moderator, I would refuse to serve. I am not trying to require that anyone put in any extra effort into their posts either. So hopefully that will put everyone's mind at ease!

I do find it amusing though that these discussions can get some people so riled up (not talking about anyone in particular - excuse the conditional;)). There is some weird irony that being openly in favor of civility can create much the same reactions that being uncivil can (which I guess may help explain the pot-kettle type accusations).

On the other hand, I also find it a little weird on my part, that I somehow enjoy these discussions, and find my tone sounding more and more like Miss Manners - and I am not exactly sure why gentle reader. It's not the manly man tone I really aspire to, so hopefully it does not bleed into other threads.

[bdschobel]

:rofl:

Bruce

[tbakos]

I'm putting this exchange from this thread (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=179057&page=4) because I'd like to know if what I said was uncivil.

My first response this was "WTF?" I was just making the point that at the places I've taught, including grad school, there have been people in the categories I listed. I don't know who this guy is, never heard of him, don't know how old he is or how close to retirement he is and have no idea what I said that makes me come across as being bitter.

Can someone shed some light and point out if, and where, I was uncivil to the guy?

It's already been said, I guess, but I don't think your response was uncivil. Clearly, unintentionally, you hit a nerve.

It is hard to qualify everything one says in a forum like this and, therefore, possible to unintentionally offend. Perhaps the best way to handle things like this (which I have seen done) is to simply explain ones-self and appologize if no slam was intended.

[mjb]

This whole thread has made me think more about two particular issues around communication that have always concerned me in my professional life.

The first is around tone and manner. I have countless times heard actuaries complain and complain about the "ridiculous" behaviour of other departments. They don't listen, they don't understand, they're impossible to deal with. Whenever I've observed their interactions with these other areas, they always manage to be condescending, rude and abrupt when making their points. They seem to believe that because they are right, how they say things doesn't matter. Perhaps it shouldn't matter. Perhaps logic and valid arguments should always rule the day. The fact is, they don't and if you want to actually get anything accomplished, you have to not only be right, but also be able to communicate in a way people are going to want to hear. In practice, civility and tone matter, even if you think they shouldn't. The real challenge in this is to know who you are speaking with and how they will react to certain styles. The communicator who is able to adapt to the stituation they are in will be much more effective (which is what matters in the end).

The second is around written communication. I firmly believe the chance of resolving any contentiuos issue over email or internet forum is almost doomed to failure from the start. Although important in any conversation, in conflict, the nuances of tone in people's voices becomes extremely important. I've seen many situations get out of control because of exchanges over email where the reader subconciously infers a particular tone that may or may not have actually been intended. Often these situations are quickly resolved when the parties speak in person or on the phone. Written communicaiton is inherently limited compared to verbal communcation and conflict makes these differences very apparant.

I think this whole thread is valuable. Actuaries are viewed, in general, as poor communicators and anything we can do to improve those skills helps the profession overall.

[bdschobel]

I firmly believe the chance of resolving any contentiuos issue over email or internet forum is almost doomed to failure from the start. Although important in any conversation, in conflict, the nuances of tone in people's voices becomes extremely important. I've seen many situations get out of control because of exchanges over email where the reader subconciously infers a particular tone that may or may not have actually been intended. Often these situations are quickly resolved when the parties speak in person or on the phone. Written communication is inherently limited compared to verbal communication and conflict makes these differences very apparant.I totally agree. That's why I often suggest that people call me rather than continuing a seemingly endless series of ineffective notes back and forth.

Bruce

[Chuck]

I agree with that too. Many remember the infamous Andy Lang (whom by the way I talked to briefly at the SOA reception). Online, he would sometimes come across as out right nasty (and a few times it would be impossible to argue that he wasn't). But the times I have talked to him in person or on the phone, you couldn't ask for a nicer, helpful, more pleasant, good sense of humor, self-deprecating guy.

[Passacaglia]

Thanks for the input Chuck. I was genuinely confused at his reaction. I wasn't trying to be combative or insulting and I certainly don't know where he got my being bitter out of what I said. One of the reasons I got out of teaching was that I didn't want to become one of those old guys that had been teaching college algebra and baby stats for so long that they just didn't care anymore.

I agree with Bruce's philosophy that you should duke things out but it's always good to, in the words of Joseph McCarthy, know your enema.

There's probably an element of self-fulfilling prophecy going on here as well. Many people probably take it as a matter of course that internet message boards consist of people just yelling back and forth at each other, so if you really want to avoid being labeled "uncivil" you're going to have to do so fighting against an initial assumption that's already labeled you as such.

[bdschobel]

I agree with that too. Many remember the infamous Andy Lang (whom by the way I talked to briefly at the SOA reception). Online, he would sometimes come across as out right nasty (and a few times it would be impossible to argue that he wasn't). But the times I have talked to him in person or on the phone, you couldn't ask for a nicer, helpful, more pleasant, good sense of humor, self-deprecating guy.Some of Andy's postings are way over-the-top, but Andy himself is a very nice, smart person. I have always enjoyed speaking with him.

Bruce

[Take 2]

So where does Andy post nowadays? Do I sense sentiment for letting him back on AO? What say you?

[campbell]

There is a condition for him to come back, and as far as I know, if he fulfills that, he's welcome back.

From what I understand, it's highly unlikely he will fulfill that condition.

[Double High C]

Some of Andy's postings are way over-the-top, but Andy himself is a very nice, smart person. I have always enjoyed speaking with him.

Bruce

He's the nicest, smartest "Uber-Actuary" (retired or otherwise) that I have corresponded with. :-)

[actuary21c]

I totally agree. That's why I often suggest that people call me rather than continuing a seemingly endless series of ineffective notes back and forth.

Bruce

That often helps, but I also think there are counterarguments too:
- if you need a written record of the conversation, you've got to spend time transcribing it after the event
- if the other party has misquoted you or anyone else in the past about anything significant, then a written/electronic conversation is better than a verbal one, because there can be no dispute about what was said.

[Double High C]

After a point, it becomes silly - if not counterproductive - to record several iterations of oodles of written minutia pertaining to a divergent conversation.

I suppose that people could speak in person and then document the resolution here.

But again, that is often silly. This medium is highly valuable, but it is not for relying on specific, complete detail, for several reasons.

And those who are in visible actuarial positions can document the precise intent of anything missing here in formal actuarial publications.