Candidates responding to constituents

[glenn]

Copy from the desert:
We've probably given this topic its 20 minutes.

I was only trying to make the point that you can't attribute non-involvement in this or any other forum to apathy.

There are plenty of ways for members to be heard by the members who volunteer their time and effort to help govern the SoA by Board, Council, or committee participation. I think it is unfair to criticize them because they don't choose to use the way you prefer.

While I think the discussion forums can be useful in this regard you have got to admit that there is a lot of useless stuff one has to sort through to get to the meat.

Even this discussion track has gotten to the point where a written discussion forum type approach is probably not the most efficient way to conduct it. In fact, the only reason to continue is because it's fun

I can't attribute non-involvement to apathy? Then I'll attribute it to lack of interest in responding to constituents questions. Prior to election, some of the candidates are already demonstrating that the form of the question is paramount and takes precedent over the question itself. What happens if, after elected, someone asks a question in a format they don't like? Or goes outside the channels? Does it get ignored, or get the response that online forums aren't appropriate for some reason? Or only certain forums?

They're already demonstrating reasons why it's OK to ignore certain types of questions from certain individuals. No way would I ever place a vote for that.

I put my money where my mouth is on this one. I ran (and failed) for a local election. During my campaign I responded to questions regardless of the venue. Evening phone calls to my house. Answered questionnaires. Online forums (which were unofficial and low traffic - but I watched them all). Town hall meetings.

Being open to questions during an election I feel is a vital part of the democratic process. Being closed for whatever reason I think demonstrates qualities I would vote against. At best, it's ignoring a good sized population.

AFAIC, candidates who choose to ignore this forum are choosing to ignore the SOA membership at it's grassroots level.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I note the following:
- I'm not an FSA
- I'm not up to speed on any election issues
- I don't know anything about the person who posted other than what I've read on the desert.
- I have no intention of getting involved with the election process itself, it doesn't involve me and you'd be crazy to bother with my comments on specifics. However, I think my thoughts above stand for any election process. And in a group of similiar candidates where there aren't any large issues or severe differences in ideology, it's these type of issues that make the difference for me.

[glenn]

Ripped from the desert:
I say again, just because someone doesn't post to a discussion forum does not imply they are uncommunicative!

What kind of communication do you want that you are not getting? It seems you are only upset that candidates/board members etc. don't communicate with you via the discussion forums - that is, your way.

I'm gonna have to bust out the handpuppets here shortly.

[DW Simpson]

I haven't really followed the discussion over there. But I just read through some of it. This one really caught my eye --

The other forum (neither you or I post to) is the type of discussion that might have occurred at the bar after work ... a little rougher, a little less controlled, very occasionally stimulating but, overall, a less likely to produce anything of importance.

You have to be kidding me. I think important things are created on this board every day.

[glenn]

I think the important thing is to have this means of communication (Discussion Forum) available for those who choose to use it. But, it is over-reaching to conclude that members or leaders don’t care about communication just because they don’t use this tool to communicate. At work, I don’t blame my CEO just because he does not communicate to me in person or reply to my note. There are many ways for me to find out the strategic directions of my company such as Townhall meetings, staff meetings, daily company newsletters. He has built the formalized and ongoing communication channels to ensure that I get the information.

The leadership is responsible for hearing from members, building formalized communication channels, monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the communication. It’s great if the leadership could also strike some one-to-one communication but that’s the icing on the cake.
Lots of blather from a couple of candidates. Lots of 'stick to official policy' stuff. In case some poeple have missed the point, you're NOT running for CEO. You're running for election. You're demonstrating how you react to open questioning and how you respond to a sizable number of people in the community - apparently by ignoring them.

And that's my point - why would anyone vote for someone who's running for elections, yet won't deign to respond to questions?

Better yet, why WON'T they respond here? I'd bet that the real reason is either they're too chicken to stand up to even the type of questioning I'm putting to them (and thus a poor choice to run the SOA), or they've got some sort of petty thing going about this site. This type of behavior is exactly why we spent years unable to even get an answer to why the SOA wouldn't give us a link. A great, closed, secret leadership.

It's long past time the members voted for the kind of people who listen to and respond to the community. If there's no other reason to get out and vote this time, it would be great for the community to make it known that they expect some openness from their *elected* representitives. Otherwise what you have is an old boys club.

[hopper]

How significant is the RF members voting block? Maybe, it is not significant enough for them to bother. This may be kind of like the Asian voting block in the US. It is not significant enough, so that no candidates will ever canvass for the Asian votes. Just a thought.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Perhaps glenn and/or Dr T can put together a list of candidates who have responded here. And, of course, a list of candidates that have steadfastly refused to be a part here (by openly dismissing this forum in the Desert).
(Claude might already have the links, though.)
The people need to know.
Heck, you can even endorse a candidate or two. (I recommend one, since two will split the votes.)

[glenn]

How significant is the RF members voting block? Maybe, it is not significant enough for them to bother. This may be kind of like the Asian voting block in the US. It is not significant enough, so that no candidates will ever canvass for the Asian votes. Just a thought.
Well, that's a pretty good indication right there isn't it? You're vote/input doesn't matter enough? How offensive is that in an election process?

[hopper]

Glenn, welcome to the world of the Asian Americans!

[glenn]

Perhaps glenn and/or Dr T can put together a list of candidates who have responded here. And, of course, a list of candidates that have steadfastly refused to be a part here (by openly dismissing this forum in the Desert).
(Claude might already have the links, though.)
The people need to know.
Heck, you can even endorse a candidate or two. (I recommend one, since two will split the votes.)
For a couple of years I've been very careful to do just exactly the opposite of that. It's clear that some folks have something against this site. I don't want to tar a political candidate with some AO brush that hurts their chances.

In addition, none of the SOA members need my input on who to vote for. Just like when sometimes it'd be easier for us to delete posts here (when they hammer Claude, or question the mods, or ask tough questions) we meet them head on instead of deleting them. You can't whitewash this community, everyone here is bright enough to smell that stuff a mile away.

Thirdly, as I've stated, I'm not an FSA and am not even up to speed on the issues. Are Chris Derochier and Stuart Klugman good candidates? I have no idea, all I see is what they've posted here and on the desert. You'll have to make up your own mind.

What I can say however, is that some candidates have made it quite clear that they feel it's OK to ignore a sizable community. In addition to the garbage we put up with here for years over the link issue from people acting like this, I find the very thought of such attitudes in positions of authority to be distasteful. And that's something that I don't need to be an FSA to clearly state my position on and point fingers. I'm not suggesting vote for a candidate, I am suggesting that some candidates are giving the community every reason to vote against them. And I think folks should seriously think on what I'm saying here, and make a decision based on that.

[glenn]

Glenn, welcome to the world of the Asian Americans!
:lol: I feel so marginalized!

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Just name some names. Or at least publish the owners of the Desert posts you've been copying and pasting here. That way, you're not making any recommendations. Just posting the facts.

[glenn]

2pac for president!

[Malik Shabazz]

I, too, have been following that thread with a bizarre mix of amusement, horror, and disgust.

I don't think I've ever seen such a disgusting display of self-congratulations and auto-fellatio. :exams:

- Oh no, we're not apathetic.
- Absolutely not. We care.
- We certainly do.
- We just don't care enough to read what other people think.
- Or to respond to what other people write.
- That's right. But that's not because we don't care. Because we do.
- You tell 'em. We sure do!

:exams: :exams:

[Malik Shabazz]

As long as I'm griping, the SoA link to this site is still mislabeled (Hello people! We're not called "Actuarial Resources"!).

Information created, published, maintained, or otherwise posted on the "Rebel Outpost" is independent of the Society of Actuaries. SOA does not endorse, approve, certify, or control this forum and does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, efficacy, timeliness, or correct sequencing of information located in the forum. Use of any information obtained from the Rebel Outpost is voluntary, and reliance on it should only be undertaken after an independent review of its accuracy, completeness, efficacy, and timeliness. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, service mark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply favoring by SOA.
Does this mean that the SoA endorses, approves, certifies, and controls the information and guarantees the accuracy, completeness, efficacy, timeliness, and correct sequencing of information located on all the other web sites to which they provide links? ABC News? The New York Times? The Washington Post? USA Today? The White House? The American Heart Association? The Muhanna Foundation?

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Yes, it's the petty thing. I would guess it's part of the stereotypical "actuary as control-freak who couldn't get a job in any other field due to his personality (or lack thereof)." But hey, that's what the "Image Campaign" video showed, right? (Haven't received my copy yet.)

I guess we can all wait for the canned questions and answers that will be found in "The Actuary." That will be another very informative read, I'm sure.

[glenn]

As long as I'm griping, the SoA link to this site is still mislabeled (Hello people! We're not called "Actuarial Resources"!).


Does this mean that the SoA endorses, approves, certifies, and controls the information and guarantees the accuracy, completeness, efficacy, timeliness, and correct sequencing of information located on all the other web sites to which they provide links? ABC News? The New York Times? The Washington Post? USA Today? The White House? The American Heart Association? The Muhanna Foundation?

Generally websites have those kind of disclaimers for links sitewide. In this case possibly that was put there to help ease the divide between those asking for a link, and those denying it. FWIW, I don't mind it. We got a link - which was what we were asking for - and that big ugly thing on the end can only serve to draw attention to it ;). What's a 1 exam student going to think when they see that? Click!

[Chuck]

I, too, have been following that thread with a bizarre mix of amusement, horror, and disgust.

I don't think I've ever seen such a disgusting display of self-congratulations and auto-fellatio. :exams:

- Oh no, we're not apathetic.
- Absolutely not. We care.
- We certainly do.
- We just don't care enough to read what other people think.
- Or to respond to what other people write.
- That's right. But that's not because we don't care. Because we do.
- You tell 'em. We sure do!

:exams: :exams:
I'm not intending to be an apologist for the candidates. Certainly there are lots of them I don't know and some may be apathetic, not care, etc, but I really don't think that this is true in general. For the most part, I don't see the motivation for being a candidate for high SOA office unless you thought you could do some good or felt an obligation to give back to the profession some how. Maybe there's a little influence to be gained for your company, or some career financial benefit due to the exposure, or even a bit of prestige involved back at the office.

But do you really think those things are worth it? I think getting involved in various committees/taskforces certainly do offer important influence and potential for financial gain and that there is such motivation and potential for self-interests in those activities (maybe moreso AAA than SOA) , but I don't see that the additional time and effort involved in these SOA offices are worth the effort from any major self-interest standpoint. Would anybody here be more likely to retain my services if I get on the SOA board (let me know because if there is enough interest, maybe I will work on it)? I do know my family and neighbors wouldn't be all that impressed if I told them I was SOA Prez.

I see a certain version of "political correctness" that most candidates have always followed. You'll notice that they all go to great pains not to question anyone else's qualifications, motivations, accomplishments, positions on issues, or character. When they are forced to disagree, they do it carefully, dispassionately, and respectfully.

When you get them sucked into the debate about participation in these forums, you're pressuring them to negatively comment on the motivation or character of the other candidates. That just isn't going to happen, so you see the "wiggling comments" and I suspect that this pressure is one of the reasons that candidates avoid forum participation.

Is such political correctness a bad thing? It can certainly be taken to far if it means that there is no real discourse or delineation on the issues. But on the other hand, they do need to work with each other (it's a small actuarial world) and I do think, in real politics, we'd all like to see a little less mud-slinging about how much the other candidates suck and a little more positive discussion of a candidates own position on issues.

As I mentioned on the SOA site, I think another major reason for not participating is the general discomfort with the kind of no spin zone discourse that takes place in an open forum like this. I think it is reasonable for me to prefer someone who does participate and can handle that discomfort if that is the way I prefer to communicate, but I also agree that it's not necessary to disparage those that don't. If it becomes clear that participation helps you get elected, then you'll see more candidates overcome the discomfort. But at the same time, I think it wouldn't hurt to attempt to avoid making it unnecessarily uncomfortable.

As to why certain people will post at the SOA and not here? I think it could be in part a distaste for :exams: smilies, but I don't know for sure.

Chuck

[glenn]

I'm not intending to be an apologist for the candidates. Certainly there are lots of them I don't know and some may be apathetic, not care, etc, but I really don't think that this is true in general. For the most part, I don't see the motivation for being a candidate for high SOA office unless you thought you could do some good or felt an obligation to give back to the profession some how. Maybe there's a little influence to be gained for your company, or some career financial benefit due to the exposure, or even a bit of prestige involved back at the office.

But do you really think those things are worth it? I think getting involved in various committees/taskforces certainly do offer important influence and potential for financial gain and that there is such motivation and potential for self-interests in those activities (maybe moreso AAA than SOA) , but I don't see that the additional time and effort involved in these SOA offices are worth the effort from any major self-interest standpoint. Would anybody here be more likely to retain my services if I get on the SOA board (let me know because if there is enough interest, maybe I will work on it)? I do know my family and neighbors wouldn't be all that impressed if I told them I was SOA Prez.

I see a certain version of "political correctness" that most candidates have always followed. You'll notice that they all go to great pains not to question anyone else's qualifications, motivations, accomplishments, positions on issues, or character. When they are forced to disagree, they do it carefully, dispassionately, and respectfully.

When you get them sucked into the debate about participation in these forums, you're pressuring them to negatively comment on the motivation or character of the other candidates. That just isn't going to happen, so you see the "wiggling comments" and I suspect that this pressure is one of the reasons that candidates avoid forum participation.

Is such political correctness a bad thing? It can certainly be taken to far if it means that there is no real discourse or delineation on the issues. But on the other hand, they do need to work with each other (it's a small actuarial world) and I do think, in real politics, we'd all like to see a little less mud-slinging about how much the other candidates suck and a little more positive discussion of a candidates own position on issues.

As I mentioned on the SOA site, I think another major reason for not participating is the general discomfort with the kind of no spin zone discourse that takes place in an open forum like this. I think it is reasonable for me to prefer someone who does participate and can handle that discomfort if that is the way I prefer to communicate, but I also agree that it's not necessary to disparage those that don't. If it becomes clear that participation helps you get elected, then you'll see more candidates overcome the discomfort. But at the same time, I think it wouldn't hurt to attempt to avoid making it unnecessarily uncomfortable.

As to why certain people will post at the SOA and not here? I think it could be in part a distaste for :exams: smilies, but I don't know for sure.

Chuck

Chuck, respectfully, you're quite correct on a lot of that, but a couple of things I think are being missed.

The thought that the candidates should treat each other respectfully is absolutely true. But I'm not pressuring them to say anything about their competitors. Nor are we suggesting that the people that do post here who are candidates jump on the folks that don't (nor have they). We're suggesting they respond to the community, in the format that some of the community has chosen. They can make up their own minds about actually doing that. And I'm highlighting to the community what I think that says about these candidates. This isn't a mudsling between candidates at all. As fun as thati might be, I'm not going to either start or participate in such a thing. This ain't it.

The discomfort level with participating here? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. No way would I vote for someone scared to be openly questioned or debated.

In short, I disagree that these candidates shouldn't be disparaged. I guess that's obvious, I'm putting the boots to them as best I can over this. Heck, it's not like they can't post here and call me short, fat and ugly if they were so inclined. Or respond however they like. Instead, some candidates are choosing to remain behind the wall of the SOA.

They've made their choices in an open debate, they get to live with them. Still, it's not to late to start responding to some of the threads here.

I also find it funny that they're whining about 'forums', by responding in a forum. Sure, it's the official forum - they should be posting there. But claiming that forums aren't the way to communicate, while communicating in a forum simply says they just don't like *this* forum. And that's just petty. And again, I'm calling it as such.

If you can't even stand up to my (non-anonymous) comments, you're a pretty poor choice to run the SOA.

[glenn]

And here's hopin' nobody I'm dissin' is on the exam marking committees.

[Chuck]

Chuck, respectfully, you're quite correct on a lot of that, but a couple of things I think are being missed.

The thought that the candidates should treat each other respectfully is absolutely true. But I'm not pressuring them to say anything about their competitors. Nor are we suggesting that the people that do post here who are candidates jump on the folks that don't (nor have they). We're suggesting they respond to the community, in the format that some of the community has chosen. They can make up their own minds about actually doing that. And I'm highlighting to the community what I think that says about these candidates. This isn't a mudsling between candidates at all. As fun as thati might be, I'm not going to either start or participate in such a thing. This ain't it.

The discomfort level with participating here? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. No way would I vote for someone scared to be openly questioned or debated.

In short, I disagree that these candidates shouldn't be disparaged. I guess that's obvious, I'm putting the boots to them as best I can over this. Heck, it's not like they can't post here and call me short, fat and ugly if they were so inclined. Or respond however they like. Instead, some candidates are choosing to remain behind the wall of the SOA.

They've made their choices in an open debate, they get to live with them. Still, it's not to late to start responding to some of the threads here.

I also find it funny that they're whining about 'forums', by responding in a forum. Sure, it's the official forum - they should be posting there. But claiming that forums aren't the way to communicate, while communicating in a forum simply says they just don't like *this* forum. And that's just petty. And again, I'm calling it as such.

If you can't even stand up to my (non-anonymous) comments, you're a pretty poor choice to run the SOA.
Obviously those we are debating are at least participating somewhere. My point is that disparaging their "defense" of the motives of other candidates who do not participate is in fact pressure to mudsling.

And the fact is that many are staying out of this kitchen. It makes no difference whether they have good reasons or bad ones, we don't need to offer them any of our food. When they're hungry enough, they'll come. I just think that there may be better ways to increase their appetite in the mean time.

And also that's silly, I've never heard anyone say you were short.

Chuck

[Malik Shabazz]

For the most part, I don't see the motivation for being a candidate for high SOA office unless you thought you could do some good or felt an obligation to give back to the profession some how. Chuck, I agree with you 100%. I have served the profession on the annual meeting committee of one of the major actuarial organizations and on the pension committee of another. Nobody is there for the glory, because there ain't none.

To me, the issue is being accessible to one's constituents through the means used by those constituents. Both of my positions were appointed, not elected, but if I were running for office I wouldn't shun any forum in which voters sincerely wanted to engage me and ask me questions about the directions in which I intended to lead the SoA (or any other body).

As somebody wrote in the other forum, in the 21st century, that requires the use of 21st century means of communication. The SoA sends monthly blast e-mails to its members. They don't use a mimeograph machine to print their newsletter and an addressograph machine to print envelopes. I'm glad that the SoA has taken steps into 1990s technology, and I would encourage candidates who would like my vote* to make the leap to 21st century technology.

* My strictly hypothetical vote because, as I've written repeatedly on the Outpost, I'm a career ASA who doesn't have a vote (yet?).

[glenn]

It was asked in the desert if the candidates should come to the voters or the voters should come to the candidates. Here's the response from TomB:


Good question - but still about communication. Is that the only issue there is to discuss?

By my count we've had 5 non-Board members and 3 Board members or candidates in this forum discussion. That's not a really big turn out but, still, it seems to indicate that we are coming together in more or less equal numbers.

I'm not sure I understand what prompted your question?

Why not ask something about the direction leaders may take the profession ... ERM, Financial Economics, other new directions for the profession? Why not ask about education ... or continuing education? Why not ask about participation in international matters? How about any concern about multiple actuarial organizations and divided loyalties?

TomB
Four paragraphs, 9 sentences, and $5 if someone can find an answer to the question in all that.

This is a clear case of waffling and misdirection. Respond to the question with more questions. Talk about something else. As homer simpson says 'Look! Over there! A dog sniffing it's butt!".<runs after dog>

No Tom, there aren't any real good questions on ERM or education. Right now the discussion is on the SOA future leadership's communication with the community and how you're going to handle it. Some members have displayed their openness and willing to talk. Not you, you want to talk about something else. Unfortunately, your (lack of) communication skills are a big part of the job. You are running for leader, not actuary.

[Chuck]

As somebody wrote in the other forum, in the 21st century, that requires the use of 21st century means of communication. The SoA sends monthly blast e-mails to its members. They don't use a mimeograph machine to print their newsletter and an addressograph machine to print envelopes. I'm glad that the SoA has taken steps into 1990s technology, and I would encourage candidates who would like my vote* to make the leap to 21st century technology.
I'd guess about 15 years ago, I was a home office guy and we got rudimentary internal network email capabilities for the first time. I thought it was the coolest thing and that it was really going to make communication more efficient. I'd blast out emails to our field management across the country asking them about product ideas, alternatives, agent comp issues, etc. All they had to do was read it, hit the Reply To All button, and type some cryptic opinions. (eg "Your a genius Chuck, go with it"...or..."Chuck, you're an idiot"...or most likely... "Huh?")

At first they wouldn't read them at all. They'd call and say, why can't you just call each of us? Why can't you send a fax? Why can't you bring us all in for a face-to-face at a nice hotel with lots of booze? (Okay, all their ideas weren't that bad). After all, we're not geeky actuaries.

Then when they saw I wasn't going to stop using email, they had their admin people print them out because they didn't know how to use that new-fangled stuff. They'd scribble some notes on it and fax the scribbles back to me. That didn't exactly lend itself to an interactive discussion either.

Eventually I got them to get their admins to type in their responses in a return email. Some progress.

Today, I'll bet all those people use email regularly, albeit probably 5 or 6 years after us hip, leading edge, wise but still youthful type first adopters did.

I think I'm still a relatively groovy hep cat, but I have to admit that I refuse to use a cell phone for anything other than a phone call, I don't IM, I have no personal electronic organizer, I have no interest in things like Linux or alternative browsers, and I still like to do some stuff in DOS. And don't even get me started about all the remotes in my family room.

My point (at least I think I had a point) is that they'll come around eventually. I have no problem speeding the process up by voting for those that already have, but we'll also speed up the process by understanding where the ones who don't are coming from and not making this as hostile an environment as it probably looks like to them.

Chuck

[glenn]

I don't think this is about the use of technology at all.

[Chuck]

I don't think this is about the use of technology at all.
Probably not directly for the most part. But I think it is about comfort with a new environment created by new uses of technology (new to them at least). I don't think my regional management people were incapable of learning to use email, I think they were uncomfortable with the change in the negotiating environment.

[glenn]

There's not an FSA in the directory that's so feeble that they can't figure out how to respond on this forum. And some of them have managed the leap to posting on the SOA site. I'm not buying that an FSA can't figure out how to work a computer, or doesn't appreciate a busy online forum as being a pipeline to the membership.

No, it's not about technology at all. It's about being willing to communicate with the community and being open to questioning instead of throwing up a wall around the process. There are only two reasons I see for a candidate not being willing to participate here:

1) Too chicken. Maybe that's cold, but it's the unvarnished truth. It's not easy to stand up and be openly questioned by the very community you're trying to lead. But if you're either unwilling or unable to to it, then IMO you're unfit to lead. Go hide behind email blasts. You're not suited for leadership.

2) They've got something against this forum. Well, then spit it out. Get it out of your system and let me respond. I've certainly got reason to be suspicious that there's some of this going on too. Posting on one site but not on another, while it's clear to anyone that this forum is far busier, well you don't have to draw me a picture. And don't expect any respect or leeway from me if that's the problem.

I'm not in the least bit concerned about the candidates feelings here either. Nobody's asking them to become regular forum members. If someone can't even stand up to the little bit of questioning a two-exam student is throwing out here, they're not equipped to stand up to the heat a community of FSA's is going to throw at them.

The fact that we're having this discussion here and some of the candidates still can't be bothered to respond here is a joke.

[glenn]

Chuck, I just reread your note on mudslinging. If I was a candidate, no way would I mudsling. I suspect it works from what I understand of politics, but I don't think it's the way to go. And I have not encouraged anyone to that kind of behavior.

However, *I'm* calling a spade a spade. I've got an opinion and I've got years of history hear of openly expressing it. I'm openly expressing my opinions on what I see is a matter of primary importance,and I see no reason to lead into it gently. I'm a member of the community, if only by proximity,and a community member putting the heat to candidates isn't mudslinging I hope.

I have to take this kind of heat from the very same community myself every once in a while :). But at least I meet the questions head on. Some of these candidates would put Mohammed Ali to shame the way they bob and weave.

[Chuck]

Chuck, I just reread your note on mudslinging. If I was a candidate, no way would I mudsling. I suspect it works from what I understand of politics, but I don't think it's the way to go. And I have not encouraged anyone to that kind of behavior.

However, *I'm* calling a spade a spade. I've got an opinion and I've got years of history hear of openly expressing it. I'm openly expressing my opinions on what I see is a matter of primary importance,and I see no reason to lead into it gently. I'm a member of the community, if only by proximity,and a community member putting the heat to candidates isn't mudslinging I hope.

I have to take this kind of heat from the very same community myself every once in a while :). But at least I meet the questions head on. Some of these candidates would put Mohammed Ali to shame the way they bob and weave.
Never said you were slinging, although Malik's original message that I responded to constitutes a little slinging, but that's not really my point. Here's the situation (keeping in mind I have no hand puppets either):

(1) A discussion starts on why more candidates don't participate here (or even at SOA).

(2) Someone makes somewhat disparaging remarks about candidates who don't participate

(3) Candidates that are posting try to be "politically correct". They give their position (maybe they think it's great to participate but they only have so much time, maybe they think it's mildly amusing to participate but seldom of significant benefit, or whatever). But they are also sure to defend others who don't participate by objecting to the disparaging remarks by attempting to give reasons why others might not want to participate.

(4) Reasoning behind defense of other candidates participation is perceived as weak because there is no reason that's going to sound positive to the audience here, so they are accused of bobbing, weaving, waffling, or even auto-fellatio (and I'm not sure what the auto part is supposed to mean exactly, but it doesn't sound good).

What response could avoid (4)?

Probably the most honest minimal response would be... "I don't know why other candidates don't participate. You'll have to ask them." Or worse, they can offer up some possible reasons, none of which will come off as a positive comment even though they try to make it a positive comment. (They're to busy, they don't think its important, they don't care about you peons, they expect you to do it the way they prefer, or they fear getting hammered, etc).

All of those answers would be, to some degree at least, a little mud thrown at the others. So they either sling, or get hit with (4). That's an example of the pressure to sling that I am talking about. In the less interactive environments that they are use to, they can provide their politically correct answer to a question and move on to the next thing, as they are desperately trying to do.

This is not really a defense I'm trying to provide here, it's an observation. I just think it's a fear of getting sucked into exactly this kind of situation that keeps many from participating. I'm not trying to get anyone to change their ways, I'm just claiming that their ways contribute to the lack of participation that we're railing about.

Chuck

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I think that some people (candidates included) refuse to come here, because they need to know who a person is first, so they can, in their mind, determine whether the person is worthy of discussing topics with. I.e., they'd rather debate the person than the topic.

[CDesRochers]

I don't think that anyone who knows me would accuse me of worrying about political correctness, but the reality is that when you reach a point that you are running for office in the SOA, you know all of the other candidates, and have worked with them on professional issues over the years. Frankly, I like and respect the people who are running against me. If the voters choose to elect one of them, that's their choice.

I have always beleived that the Forum provides a valuable service. I post under my own name because I choose to, but the anonimity creates a robust discussion. As to why others don't choose to participate, you would have to ask them, but I have to respect their right not to.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Why is the issue of mudslinging even coming up? I don't see that ever happening among candidates. Mudslinging might come from pseudonomous posters, though. That doesn't make it acceptable, and I have great confidence that glenn and the moderators will be very much on top of any slinging, mud or otherwise.

[KathyWong]

Just to give my perspective on this –

I have posted a few comments. The main reason I don’t post more often is a lack of time. I do read the postings on this forum regularly. I can read through them quickly and get a sense of the issues important to the members. That input has influenced me as a Board member.

Responding to comments takes considerably more time. Posting here under your own name, particularly in a thread where the readers are evaluating you as a candidate, means you need to make sure you’re expressing your thoughts clearly, not including comments that could be misconstrued, and, yes, being politically correct as far as what you say about other candidates.

Most Board candidates have executive-level jobs (or the equivalent in consulting, academia, etc.), which take much more than a 9 – 5 commitment. We also contribute considerable volunteer time to the SOA, which is what put us on the candidate list to start with. Add to that family responsibilities and maybe community service, and there is a limited amount of time left for writing messages in the forum.

I realize other candidates may have different reasons for not posting, but this is the main issue for me.

[Chuck]

Probably part of my problem here is that I shouldn't have used the negatively charged but convenient terms "mudslinging", "politically correct" and "pressured".

By "politically correct" I just mean the desire to very carefully avoid any negative implications toward the other candidates. In doing so, candidates will sometimes feel the need to pro-actively defend the others when negative comments are made.

By "mud slinging" I just mean failing to be politically correct per the above definition.

By being "pressured" to mudsling, I mean when disparaging remarks are made about candidates trying to be "politically correct" as defined above.

Chuck

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Has anyone yet asked (or answered): "What do you, Candidate A, think of Candidate B's ideas, proposals, or recurring alcoholism?"
I just don't see or imagining anything like this being asked or answered.

Mostly, I think that the answers, regardless of the question, will be very bland and very similar among the candidates.

[Malik Shabazz]

Has anyone yet asked (or answered): "What do you, Candidate A, think of Candidate B's ideas, proposals, or recurring alcoholism?"
I just don't see or imagining anything like this being asked or answered.I was only trying to make the point that you can't attribute non-involvement in this or any other forum to apathy.