@MikeEdenfield Well, most of it can be read on the stats page anyway (like number of posts on main and meta), while others are rather irrelevant (like reputation). But then again, which voter actually looks at the stats page anyway?
Declined flag: if the flag was reviewed by a moderator who did not agree with you (for other, spam, offensive and comments flags) they decline them. Flagging to close a question or as duplicated will push the flag to the close review queue, and if the review is completed without any user casting ...
A disputed flag is whenever your flag was dismissed as neither helpful or declined, someone reviewed your flag but no conclusive action was taken. This is intended for use in cases where the validity of a flag is ambiguous.
Currently, the following scenarios may result in a flag being disputed:...
Community Managers (e.g. paid employees of Stack Exchange) play a large part in the background running of the SE sites and can be seen to exert enormous influence over users.
We've seen that there's modest interest in Community Moderators weighing in on Moderator Elections...
Should existing m...
@MikeEdenfield I suppose we could bring that into it, since those numbers are available, but it's mostly a feeling for how busy the mods are. That things like how many flags/day there are and how quickly we handle flags are measureable doesn't mean we need to use them to gauge our mod needs.
@MikeEdenfield those do exist, but mostly as a "how are we doing" thing for the mods themselves; if they get scary-bad, we'll take a look, but usually we just ask the mod team itself if they need an election before things degrade that much.
On a more serious note, I think a few people expressed the sentiment that, were the team a bit less burdened, they could be doing more community outreach. Being more fences on the cliff so's to avoid needing quite so many ambulance drivers in the valley.
> @SS-3 If you want us to judge for ourselves, give us the links and details required to make a good objective judgement. Right now, you're coming across as the angry one, and Mike is being, to his credit, very diplomatic. – ArtOfCode 1 hour ago
I have no problem with anyone expressing their opinion on my nomination -- that's what the comments are for. These are devolving into another rehash of that same meta argument, totally apart from the election.
they put way too much focus on a specific issue that has been discussed to death on meta already; just one comment linking to the old meta post would be sufficient to make the relevant point
the dozen or so comments that came in response would be better off moved to meta or chat
sadly, if anyone else has a relevant point to make about his nomination, they basically can't do it in those comments anymore since no one but us is going to read that far down
though maybe this chatroom is the better place for that anyway
@SS-3 It's true, one person's negative experience with a nominee is not something that should be hidden. Consider though, that there are thousands of users on this site, and the bulk of the comments on @Mike's election revolve around you. Is that fair to him?
@SS-3 I tend to agree with @phantom42 here. One comment laying out your concerns with a nominee is absolutely appropriate, but a string of comments including obscure references to events that readers may not even be aware of is something else.
A skeptical observer might even suspect you were trying to shout down any other opinions but your own.
For this reason, I'm cleaning up the comment thread there. You'll be allowed one comment; if you wish to discuss anything with Mike or other nominees, you can bring it up here.
@Shog9 I originally posted only one comment. Others were just replies. Also, why didn't you move those comments in chat here with a link to conversation there? That conversation had my appeal to voters.
@SS-3 there's no facility for moving election nomination comments to chat (not that they'd make a lot of sense without context anyway). If you wanted them in chat, you could've posted them here to start with.
2
Anyway, I edited Keen's link to the bifrost discussion into your original comment, which provides most of the context added by later commentary. I think that will suffice as a record of your concerns.
@Shog9 Why did you remove that comment? My first comment isn't a complete appeal. Also, I have updated the doc to include about conversation in chat room.
Nominations are not your soapbox, @SS-3. You can provide questions to or commentary on the nominees, but you can't just sit there and expound on your philosophy of life and why Mike sucks eggs.
3
You brought in the whole Bifrost thing in your first comment. If other folks don't think it's the problem you believe it to be, then you gotta live with that, not sit there and argue with them or write up some Bifrost Morality Manifesto to try & convince 'em. The story's all there, on meta, linked to from your comment: trust folks to make up their own minds.
@Shog9 That meta post is not dealing with morality issues. But, on election page, I put weight on morality issue. That's why I am concerned. Nothing more.
@SS-3 So write another meta post. Or edit your existing meta post. Or talk about it in chat. ALL of these scale more effectively than a single comment thread; you cannot easily monopolize them and force others to be silent, but if your only goal is to be heard they'll serve as well as anything.
Community Managers (e.g. paid employees of Stack Exchange) play a large part in the background running of the SE sites and can be seen to exert enormous influence over users.
We've seen that there's modest interest in Community Moderators weighing in on Moderator Elections...
Should existing m...
2016 Science Fiction & Fantasy Modera…
2016 Science Fiction & Fantasy Modera…