Lost the Desert

[Gandalf]

The home page loads OK for me.

[wonderer]

The SOA forum should be replaced with a format split by practice sections.

Inside these sections, which would be assigned to the various sections for maintenance, questions from the public at large would be invited and addressed. Additionally, a clear posting of ways to seek answers to questions "not ready for public eyes" should be made.

This would allow an organized place for section members to contact each other and post SOA business.

If the SOA wanted to become adventurous, they could have a "featured actuary of the month" bring out topics of current interest, much as we have people like Paddyboy(more in the past), Andy(definitely in the past) or Tupac(seems to be fading) take it upon themselves to try to bring current attention focus to particular issues.

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by CDesRochers

The SOA website is undergoing a design change and update. One of the issues to be considered is the format of the discussion forum. I would be interested in opinions regarding the "official" discussion forum. Possible options: (1) continue the current format; (2) adopt some form of registered anonimity; (3) discontinue a forum.

Back in the day when the current SOA forum was being implemented (and just before this forum was formed), the SOA had (for a short time) a Web Editorial Board on which I (and probably one or two others that frequent here) served. That committee was charged with recommending website content (including the forum format) that would best serve our members. There was also a Technology Committee that I was on for a short period that had other charges, but also had some overlap here. These committees have apparently been discontinued. I say "apparently", because they appear to no longer be listed on the list of committees on the SOA website and there has not been a meeting of any kind for several years (for the WEB, not since before this forum was formed). I theoretically don't know for certain because nobody on those committees (or at least I) was ever officially informed that they were disbanded or why. (Or perhaps I was just canned, which would certainly be understandable.)

At the time, we were attempting to address precisely these issues, as well as recommending who could participate. (Previous incarnations of the SOA forum allowed people who weren't members, but were thought to have something to offer to discussions.) Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but that was about the time that our meetings stopped and decisions about the current SOA forum were made (apparently) unilaterally by unknown officials without any further discernable input. (One exception, is that I think I did recommend we go with the blue color scheme!!!)

I am obviously guessing, but it is my gut feeling that, probably for some combination of liability and image reasons, a high level unilateral decision was made that it was not in the best interests of the SOA to continue to have a vibrant, controversial discussion forum on their website (the prior incarnations, I think, fit that description). I think we have the result that was intended.

So unless something has changed, I doubt whether there really is interest in having an official forum that will encourage more of the discussions that take place here. And as others have said, even if that were the goal, at this point I think there is no point in attempting to splinter what is already working here.

In hindsight, I had my concerns at the time about anonymity and still believe that an anonymous unregulated discussion forum can easily deteriorate into something not professionally useful. But if the Society wanted what happens here, I think it takes what was done here to succeed. Somebody needs to take charge and make common sense decisions on a case by case basis (as Traci and Glenn have done) to enforce some standards and principles to make sure things don't deteriorate. Then you have to have the fortitude to realize that not everybody is going to agree with each decision made, while at the same time clearly explaining if not defending the reasons for those decisions. If you make enough bad decisions overall, the forum and/or the decision maker will be replaced one way or the other. Since this is where most everyone congregates, I think that there is defacto evidence of the overall quality of the decisions made here.

But thats all water under the bridge. Given where we are at now, I suggest that the current forum be more clearly identified as the convenient place to go for members to communicate with SOA leadership and administration (and visa versa), as opposed to a place to discuss the issues of the day or chat. The feel would be more of what you get in a support type newsgroup where people go to ask a question, submit an opinion, or make a complaint and where mostly official moderators, with the occasional fellow visitor, responds. I think that could possibly serve as a complementary function to this site since it may be more palatable for many leadership individuals (present company excepted) to stay on top of such a more specific purpose, lower volume site.

As far as anonymity - You'll get more volume, but you better ask the lawyers again.

Chuck

[CDesRochers]

Many of the staff members who were present "back in the day" have left the SOA, so there is really no one in a high level staff position familar with the details. Some of the concern is based on an incident where a staffer was threatened by someone posting on the old SOA forum, and that is often cited as one cause of the change.

There is a committent to improving the quality of member services at the SOA, and the role of a discussion forum should be a part of that effort.

[Gretchen]

Originally Posted by Chuck

Back in the day when the current SOA forum was being implemented (and just before this forum was formed), the SOA had (for a short time) a Web Editorial Board on which I (and probably one or two others that frequent here) served. That committee was charged with recommending website content (including the forum format) that would best serve our members. There was also a Technology Committee that I was on for a short period that had other charges, but also had some overlap here. These committees have apparently been discontinued. I say "apparently", because they appear to no longer be listed on the list of committees on the SOA website and there has not been a meeting of any kind for several years (for the WEB, not since before this forum was formed). I theoretically don't know for certain because nobody on those committees (or at least I) was ever officially informed that they were disbanded or why.

I was also on the WEB, and came to the same conclusion about our status as you did - so it wasn't just you who never got oficially informed!

[Smurf]

I can access the new SOA website but I can't seem to find the Fall catalog. I want to see what materials are covered by Exam 8G but I can't find them.

[JMO]

I still cannot see the SOA homepage, unless I turn off the Norton Internet Security ad blocking. I can go to other parts of the website, however, including the membership list and the new discussion forum, by using the URL to go directly to those pages.

A bit annoying, but I can live with it, I think. The tech person at the SOA was very helpful, and his suggestion that I clear the cache and restart the machine enabled me to make what progress I have made so far.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Originally Posted by Smurf

I can access the new SOA website but I can't seem to find the Fall catalog. I want to see what materials are covered by Exam 8G but I can't find them.

I download them when they come out, so I'll always have it available, until my hard drive fails.

8GM Core:
Canadian Handbook of Flex benefits: CH 2-4, 5 (65-96), 15.
Group Insurance: 2, 8, 14, 25, 26, 30, 33, 34, 37, 41, 43, 46
Individual Health Insurance: 2.1.7 (background), 3 (background), 4, 6-8.
Managed Care handbook: 37, 38 (exc 714-717 and 733-734), 41, 43
"Cumulative Anti-Selection Theory" TSA XXXIV
"Required Surplus for the Insurance Risk for Certain Lines of Group Insurance" TSA XXXVI
ASP's 5, 8, 18

Additional, for 8G only:
CHFB: 7-10, 13, 14, 21
GI: 10
"Flexible Benefits Update" RSA 17 3A
"Long Term Care Insurance Valuation Methods" TSA XLVII
"SOA LTC Experience Committee Intercompany Study"

[Smurf]

Thanks, DTNF.