(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.
Sounds like Bob is not using the right bait.
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.
We are gathered here because of the atrocities committed by dws
Good recruiters, shitty board hosts.
Eh, i kinda blame their administrator. He didn’t let the mods rein in stuff that ultimately led the site becoming an embarrassment to the owner.
Eh, someone didn’t allow competing recruiters to be typed into posts, which is petty and ultimately embarrassing to the petty someone.
Please elaborate
I was under the impression that they didn’t want to keep paying the rack fees to host the forum due to cost
I always thought AO was pretty tame
Can’t be worse than twitter
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.
Sounds like the last season of Breaking Bad.
I definitely don’t remember neonazis but then again I finished up exams in 2019 and took a step back from posting
But I definitely still checked everyday because working in the office was boring AF prepandemic
AO filled that niche of time waster in the office that isn’t blocked and isn’t a concern if someone sees you goofing off a bit on it
Tom didn’t let the mods rein stuff in?
I thought there was a fair bit of “well we don’t specifically have an infraction for X, so we can’t do anything about it”.
To be fair, it would’ve been helpful if it was easier to add new infraction categories.
Tom favored free speech, and we couldn’t do anything about a lot of posts that were racist and/or sexist.
OK, so you were NOT moderators, per se.
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.
This seems a better way to moderate than to worry about some posters’ feelings about other people’s beliefs.
Yes, we said we would moderate on the basis of “Don’t Be A Jerk” but then did not actually do that.
OK, so you were NOT moderators, per se.