raig
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by raig on Feb 24, 2012 20:29:32 GMT -5
I can appreciate the "hands off" approach to moderation taken by our administrator, in which only the most egregious violations of respect and collegiality get removed. I'm starting this thread to bring up specific posts/threads that might warrant review.
I have appreciated the "Six word job market story thread" quite a bit, especially because it seems like a quiet realm where you can escape some of the more heated (and occasionally ridiculous) exchanges that can pop up in nearly every discussion.
Today, however, an obviously distressed poster named "crushed" got pummeled in a few rounds, ultimately resulting in a "you are right, I'm a loser" response. I am personally saddened that this one little sane refuge got sullied by some completely unfounded suggestions that the candidate was deficient and should see the lack of job market success as an accurate indicator of his/her skills as an interviewee or potential talents as a member of the academy.
So -- even given the hands off approach in forum moderation, and knowing that this exchange was relatively mild -- I'm requesting that all of the subsequent responses be removed. It's a selfish desire, I know, to have just one safe space where one can complain or wallow in self-pity or just say "I'm feeling bad," but so it goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by ElDuderino on Feb 24, 2012 23:41:54 GMT -5
I would rather call for users to be more civil and supportive rather than interfere in situations where no concrete harm (named names, trolling, etc) is involved. I don't want to set up increasingly arbitrary rules for what goes, especially since one person's put down is another's tough love.
If, however, other people feel that the exchange in question did cross a line, or that there are additional rules that should be implemented, please feel free to discuss that with me, either in this forum or through PMs/email.
And as always, you can report specific posts by using the report to mod button available to registered users, or through the modsocjobs@yahoo.com email.
|
|
|
|
Post by slac guy on Mar 4, 2014 12:00:35 GMT -5
I also like the moderated decorum on this board. Professional reputations are at stake, and besides, those who just want to troll and muck around can always find a home on econ job market rumors, aka the home of unsocialized, Hobbsian man. Any chance that the moderator would consider banning the "LRM" (low-ranked monkey) talk on this board? It is used on other boards (like the Econ board and others), in my opinion, to destructive ends. It's elitist, dismissive of small liberal arts colleges as a valid career path, not reflexive (in the sense that it doesn't consider inequalities in terms of who ends up where), and not in the spirit of the community that I think we want to establish here. I'm bringing this up because I noticed it was used yesterday on one of the threads here. ("You'd make a great teacher for LRM soc 101.") |
|
|
|
Post by ElDuderino on Mar 4, 2014 12:29:33 GMT -5
Banning someone in this board is a short term fix given the anonymous nature of the posting. Only times I've used the ban feature here is with registered bots and when I want to get a break from someone (i.e., someone is spamming the board and I don't want to keep deleting the same things over and over, as the ban will at least require the person to take a break to change computers).
Also, I am generally hands off in things where no one is being personally affected.
That said, we recognize that the particular type of post you've mentioned is a problem. In the instance you've mentioned, for example, Archivist locked the thread because of precisely the issue you've brought up, and we might do it again in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by VLRM guy on Mar 5, 2014 15:52:42 GMT -5
Any chance that the moderator would consider banning the "LRM" (low-ranked monkey) talk on this board? It is used on other boards (like the Econ board and others), in my opinion, to destructive ends. It's elitist, dismissive of small liberal arts colleges as a valid career path, not reflexive (in the sense that it doesn't consider inequalities in terms of who ends up where), and not in the spirit of the community that I think we want to establish here. One solution would be for you to develop a sense of humor and maybe some thicker skin?? |
|
|
|
Post by can someone... on Oct 20, 2015 17:22:06 GMT -5
Can someone contact Dr. Kristen Jones directly and ask her to please, please stop posting in the wrong forums?
|
|
|
|
Post by ElDuderino on Oct 20, 2015 19:16:03 GMT -5
I have sent an email to the address provided and requested that they stop spamming all boards with that information. And in case the researchers of that study read it here, it is ok to promote the study here, as long as it is done in a way that does not disrupt the rest of the board (i.e., not posted in the wrong forums, or multiple times in a row, etc).
|
|
|
|
Post by spammer on Dec 23, 2015 10:55:20 GMT -5
Got a spammer in the Status of Searches board
|
|
|
|
Post by ElDuderino on Dec 24, 2015 15:25:08 GMT -5
taken care of
|
|
|
|
Post by anonamouse on Jun 3, 2021 17:53:13 GMT -5
can we start up some new boards for the 21-22 year? I have seen 2 real TT job ads posted already!
|
|
|
|
Post by noticed on Jan 10, 2023 15:40:38 GMT -5
That [snip] thread now has many entries that have nothing to do with the people named as being hired at [the institution]. All of that should go in a separate thread in a different section of the forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Jan 12, 2023 0:53:20 GMT -5
That [snip] thread now has many entries that have nothing to do with the people named as being hired at [snip]. All of that should go in a separate thread in a different section of the forum. Yes, I agree with you. I thought that it was an interesting discussion, and it wasn't disparaging the original institution or the hires it made, so I was letting it go. But I have now moved all of those posts to a separate thread: " Notifying current department about new position" |
|
|
|
Post by appreciative on Dec 6, 2023 8:32:33 GMT -5
There is a new (November 2023) posting that looks to have been inadvertently posted to last year's archived new positions thread. Can it be moved to this year's postings? It is a posting for a position at SMU on November 22, 2023 in the 2022-2023 archives.
Thanks – done.
-- Archivist
|
|
|
|
Post by visitor on Dec 30, 2023 14:37:32 GMT -5
Hello Archivist,
There's a comment in the George Mason hire thread that gives the poster's perception of the match between the department and the specific person who was hired. I think it's best to stay away from that sort of thing here. If you agree, that post could be deleted. Thanks.
This didn't seem like a malicious comment, but I also see no harm in removing the comment. Done.
-- Archivist
|
|
