Linksassin - Nomination Link

1. Being a moderator is a customer service/public relations job for which there is little to no extrinsic motivation. You will invest hours of your free time dealing with the worst the internet has to offer, and we expect you to do it with a patient demeanor and a smile.
   What is your motivation for candidacy, or in short - why do you want this job?

While there is not a clear intrinsic reward for being a moderator, I believe that it can be a valuable personal experience. Being part of this community has been a constant learning and self-improvement experience for me. I can only see moderation as another step on that journey.

I want this job because I thrive on responsibility. In my professional life I am a better team member overall when given a leadership role. In gaming I became a better player when I took up the GM mantle. I think my contributions to this community have been good, but if given the chance to moderate, they could be great.

2. What is your view on current moderation policy on this site? Is there anything in particular you disagree with? If so, why? How would you reconcile this with needing to work with existing moderators?

I like 98% of this sites policy and believe most of the things I don't like are because I don't understand them well enough. The more time I spend reading up on the history of site policy through old meta posts the more I appreciate the way it works today.

One thing I would like to see change is the removal of topics because they don't fit the model. I believe that topics should be banned by community consensus that they are actively causing harm, rather than just being not that great. I don't disagree with the topics that have been banned and don't wish to reopen any of them. I simply believe that going forward we should give less weight to the "fit" of a topic and more to its overall effect on the site.

I will be able to work with the current moderators on this as I will abide by community consensus. This is just my single viewpoint as a user, if others disagree then it would be my role as a moderator to enact the decisions of the community.

3. As a moderator, how would you respond to learning that a user, or group of users, feels unfairly treated by another moderator? What steps would you take to learn their complaints, validate them, and what would you do with them if you felt they were valid or invalid, respectively?

As with most things in life, jumping to conclusions only ever causes harm. If this situation ever were to occur I would like to learn as much about what happened as possible. I would investigate for past behaviour on both sides to determine if this is a pattern/trend or an isolated case. Then I would communicate with the user(s) to establish an unbiased list of their grievances.

If the complaints are valid, I would then approach the moderator in question and ask for their version of events before making judgement. Engaging in discussion with the moderator, I would present the users issues in a unbiased way and listen to their response. I would then determine the correct course of action, then enact it and communicate it clearly with all parties if appropriate to do so.

If the complaints are invalid, I would seek to explain the reasoning behind the moderators actions in terms the user(s) can understand. I would try to work toward a mutual understanding of how the user(s) actions appeared despite their intentions, and why the moderators response was appropriate.

4. How will you, as a moderator, react to community consensus that you disagree with? How will you, as a moderator, handle issues on which the community has failed to reach consensus, particularly when you personally favor one particular side in the debate?

A moderators role is to enforce site policy as decided by SE and the community not to drive a personal agenda. My actions in the moderation role must be completely impartial despite my personal viewpoint. In deciding on policy I would have no more voice than any other user, unless the topic conflicts with SE policy.

When the community struggles to reach a consensus on a topic I would attempt to find a compromise solution which encompasses all viewpoints. I recognise this will be difficult and at times impossible, but I will do my best. If required I will open discussion between the moderation team to determine our course of action. If the community cannot reach an agreement than no one moderator should be acting alone to resolve it.

5. In your opinion, how does the role of moderator differ from the role of a 10k or 20k rep user on the site? What changes to the way that you interact on this site do you expect to have to make when filling this new role?

The diamond alongside your name adds significant weight and responsibility to your actions compared to a 10k or 20k user. Knowing that your voice may drown out others moderators need to be more conservative and thoughtful in their actions. Flippant remarks from high reputation users can be dismissed where they could not when a diamond is attached.

Personally I will be more reserved with my close votes knowing that my actions are binding. I will also need to spend more time considering posts that I would previously have flagged. Flagging means "this might be an issue" while as a moderator I would need to carefully consider if it is an issue or not.

6. In your opinion, how active should moderators be on meta sites? Should moderators take a pro-active approach to meta issues or be guided by the community?

I believe moderators should be very active in meta sites. They have a dual role there, both as prominent users and as moderators. As a user they should be weighing in on policy discussions and other issues, however their voice should be only as a user here. As a moderator it is important that they are aware of the active discussions in meta and ensure all user voices are being heard.

I actually submitted this question and I did so because on other SE sites I visit there are moderators who have not made a meta post unless directly addressed for months or years. I don't believe that a moderator that is not active in the meta is capable of doing their job correctly. Or they are showing that they do not have enough passion for the site to be a moderator anyway.

7. How important do you think it is for moderators to be aware of and keep in touch with the feelings of the community with respect to moderation issues?
   If you view it as important, what kinds of ways do you intend to use to try to keep in touch with how the community is feeling?

This question relates a lot to the one above. I believe it is very important to remain aware of the community sentiment and current issues. If a moderator is not aware of the issues how can they effectively moderate them?

As a moderator I would keep in touch with the community be remaining active in meta and chat. As well as continuing as a high contribution user on the main site. Posts such as our "How is the Community doing?" meta are vital to maintaining a healthy site. As a moderator I would be open to any user approaching me with issues and I hope that users would be willing to do so.

8. Becoming a new moderator can be daunting, but is also a big opportunity.
   What are you worried or fearful about in your transition to becoming a moderator, and is there anything you're looking forward to? Is there anything we can do to help support you in those areas should you be elected as a new moderator?

Honestly I am concerned about making a mistake that I cannot recover from. I will do everything I can to avoid it but I am only human. If I loose the respect of the community then I have failed as a moderator. To prevent this from happening I will begin slowly and take a conservative approach to moderation until I learn the ropes. I will be open to learning from other moderators and any material provided by SE.

I am looking forward to the challenge of the opportunity. Stack exchange has helped me grow as a person and I can see the benefits in my life outside of here. I hope that moderation can help me to continue that growth.

9. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?

Community standards need to be enforced equally regardless of user. No one users contribution can be so great that we lower our standards for them. Doing so would only open the door to a lower quality site overall, one that I don't think I would want to be a part of.

An experience users with many quality answers should be able to learn from our policy metas. I would approach them an remind them of our standards, if they continue to fall below it I would enforce site policy the same way I would for a user who never posts anything.

10. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?

This question relates a lot to #3 and much of want I said there stands. Jumping to conclusions is not a good idea. Additional a mod-v-mod close/open war is the last thing the site needs. I would open communication with the moderator and try to understand their reasoning. If after explanation I still disagree I would involve a third mod or open a meta to gather additional opinions. Acting single handedly would undermine the other moderator and potential undo important actions without the full context.