Moderation Notes

[Archivist]

Yet another reminder that needs to be repeated every now and again: we never discuss the possibility that internal candidates have an "inside track" for a given position. Do not speculate on whether there is an internal candidate, or whether a specific search is intended to favor an internal candidate. Please see the thread Moderating Claims of "Inside Hire" if you need more clarification. This moderation rule is always in effect.

[Archivist]

This forum has occasionally been used to vent about specific individuals, departments, or universities. We have generally frowned upon this, particularly when the charges have been leveled by anonymous users. Our standard has consistently been one of public information: if there is a specific incident or a general pattern of behavior that has been vetted by an outside source, it is fine to point that out. But we have tended to err on the side of deleting unsubstantiated rumors that disparage others because it is extremely difficult for them to reasonably respond to the allegations within this forum.

We will continue to apply that guideline across the board. If anyone feels that such a post should be reviewed on that basis, please report that in the "Moderation Requests" thread.

[Archivist]

I have edited one post, given that we never discuss the possibility that internal candidates have an "inside track" for a given position. Do not speculate on whether there is/was an internal candidate, or whether a specific search is/was intended to favor an internal candidate. Please see the thread Moderating Claims of "Inside Hire" if you need more clarification. This moderation rule is always in effect.

[Archivist]

I recently removed two posts that pointlessly included both sock-puppetry and trolling. The job market is hard enough, especially this year, and there's no need to deliberately spread misinformation in an attempt to mess with people's emotions here. Grow up. The user has been temporarily banned from posting to this site.

[Archivist]

Yet another reminder that needs to be repeated every now and again: we never discuss the possibility that internal candidates have an "inside track" for a given position. Do not speculate on whether there is an internal candidate, or whether a specific search is intended to favor an internal candidate. Please see the thread Moderating Claims of "Inside Hire" if you need more clarification. This moderation rule is always in effect.

[Archivist]

Two issues resulted in my deletion of a few posts. First, we don't name names of candidates here. This includes not-so-very cryptic initials of well known individuals. Second, we never discuss the qualifications of candidates or hires. Period.

[Archivist]

Our policy on discussing “inside hires” has not changed in the last week. We will let you know when it is okay to engage in uncivil behavior. Until then, please cut it out.

[Archivist]

We still don't speculate on the possibility that an internal candidate might have an edge on a search. And we certainly don't start analyzing their CVs to see if they would be a suitable hire. Please see the thread Moderating Claims of "Inside Hire" if you need more clarification. This moderation rule is always in effect.

[Archivist]

From our longstanding General Guidelines:

Absolutely no discussions over whether a named hire is qualified for the job or not. This includes the use of identifiable information without actual use of a name.

[Archivist]

Posts that seek to denigrate named and known individuals will generally be removed without comment.

[Archivist]

New season, old rule, same reminder.

We never discuss the possibility that internal candidates have an "inside track" for a given position. Do not speculate on whether there is/was an internal candidate, or whether a specific search is/was intended to favor an internal candidate. Please see the thread Moderating Claims of "Inside Hire" if you need more clarification. This moderation rule is always in effect.

[Archivist]

And once again:

We never discuss the possibility that internal candidates have an "inside track" for a given position. Do not speculate on whether there is/was an internal candidate, or whether a specific search is/was intended to favor an internal candidate. Please see the thread Moderating Claims of "Inside Hire" if you need more clarification. This moderation rule is always in effect.

[Archivist]

Our policies on "inside track" talk have not changed this month. We will let you know when they do change.

[Archivist]

In a "status" thread, a discussion began about offers that had been made and then turned down, identifying (however obliquely) the name of a candidate who had received one. I removed the ultimate destination of the first candidate there, along with some subsequent posts. In this forum, we celebrate hires but refrain from discussing who received offers. Perhaps this is an overabundance of protecting candidate (and institutional) privacy, but offers are generally not public knowledge, and this type of information doesn't serve any useful purpose. If candidates choose to divulge this information on their own, that's a different story.

[Archivist]

From our "General Guidelines" statement:

# Absolutely no discussions over whether a named hire is qualified for the job or not.

Several posts have been removed. Cut it out.

---

And the same issue arose four days later. This is deplorable activity, as it seeks to heap crap on the crowning achievement of a graduate student's career. Moving forward, all such instances of such uncharitable behavior will be removed without comment in the original thread. I am noting this here just to maintain a record of how many times I have to intervene during each academic year's hiring cycle.

Some of you are in severe need of professionalization socialization seminars.