(Some (all) of the grammatical and such errors are just a limitation of the voice to text translator of the iPhone, so nevermind that)
If you actually read my resume, Bob, you’d know that my entire career has been in life insurance and that I know nothing about general insurance and that I am not in fact very well suited for a role as a consultant (of all things) in that field.
For what it’s worth I seem to get an unreasonable amount of “great opportunities that seem to fit my particular background well!” on the life side, as an FCAS. Sadly some recruiters don’t seem to bother to even get that deep.
Selby Jennings has been my worst experience, by far. Can’t tell you how many different names have cold called/emailed over the years. I used to tell them “not looking, I will reach out if that changes”. Then I’d get a call the next week. My responses got more and more annoyed. Now, their calls go straight to voicemail.
My experience with DWS was very positive. I had a yearly touchpoint with a recruiter (who is no longer with DWS) and they asked what type of roles I might be interested in, yada yada. Typical recruiter conversation. That was my only contact with them each year, that I can remember. This went on for ~3 years. During our last touchpoint, they mentioned an opportunity (my current job) that met my requirements and asked if they could send me the description. One thing led to another and two months later I had an offer waaaayyyyy above what I thought I’d get and some additional perks thrown in. They were never pushy, respected my boundaries and requests, and felt that they were advocating for me when it came to negotiating a few things.
Oh no, not at all. One day someone high up looked at the cesspool that had developed and freaked out, and pulled the plug. I chatted with Patty Simpson about it. They were concerned with reputational risk.
We literally had neonazis posting towards the end.
Eh, I wasn’t privy to every moderation conversation that took place, but I think there’s a bit of “blame the guy who isn’t here to defend himself” going on.
In the conversations I had with Tom, yes, he favored free speech. For example, he wouldn’t have been in favor of a rule that you can’t say that you view X as a sin (for a large variety of values of X).
But I think he was a lot more willing to rein in certain posters who were just consistently being jerks than actual moderation reflected.