Before we begin, I have a big opening text. Please withhold all of your commentary and questions until after I clear through it all.
We're just here to get to know the candidates and ask questions regarding the candidates views on moderation that may help in voting.
A few notes about the format:
The format is open, feel free to ask your question(s) unprompted, however please be mindful of whether or not candidates have answered the previous questions so that they don't get behind and start missing questions. Other than that, feel free to jump in.
Candidates, be sure to use the reply feature so that questions and their answers are linked together. (Hover your mouse over the left of the message, click the down arrow, click reply)
It's a good idea to bold your questions (use ** or __ around it) to make them easier to see. When a question is asked, I'll star it - please star it yourself also to help! Please save stars for the questions so that candidates can refer to the star list to make sure they haven't missed a question. Please do not star answers.
@TimStone will be creating a digest version of the town hall chat after it is completed. This digest will take the form of a question on meta, containing all the questions asked as well as their answers for easier reading.
There's a system message up on the site, so we may get some stragglers joining us as time passes.
For candidates among us now, I spy: @Emil, @stuffe, @IanC., @patrix, @bassplayer7, and @Caleb.
@GraceNote Moderators make this site an even better place. Primarily I see the moderator role as the curator of the questions and answers on the site as well as a well-meaning "dictator" in keeping the site on-topic but still fun to use and visit. In addition they help new users to get used to the system, grow into the community and help to shape it even further.
@DanielLawson best case: membership and content continues to grow with only a light amount of intervention from the moderation team. That's the hallmark of a healthy, community-driven Q&A site IMO. Worst case: we end up with some personality and philosophy conflicts in the moderation team that need to be worked out. Looking over the serious candidate list I don't think it would be anything terrible in the worst-case.
@DanielLawson Best Case: Things will carry on pretty much as they were, the current crop of moderators keep on top of most everything promptly and generally without causing much fuss, and the new ones would fit into this mould without too much of a disruption to the status quo
@GraceNote Moderators essentially keep the site clean. Their main job is to process flags, go through the most recent questions for the things ones would flag for, and keep the peace where it needs to be kept (off-topic discussions for example).
@GraceNote they are the minders of the bonsai tree. A careful snip, a gentle prune, maybe a nudge here and there. Occasionally they need to police errant users and follow up on community flags, but for the most part they just kind of do gentle course corrections to keep the content and the community in line with the agreed upon goals for the site.
@DanielLawson Best: Not a whole lot except that work load will be evened, out, and the janitorial aspect will be more spick-and-span. Worst: somebody comes in who head-buts the existing moderators and community.
@DanielLawson Best case: Things will move on as they currently do, with even more helpful hands in developing the site and the content. By bringing new ideas into the moderator team the diversity of the site will grow. Worst case: Increased infighting in the mod team and a fallout/break of the current team
@DanielLawson Worst Case: The new moderator(s) do things sufficiently differently to the existing ones, or take sufficiently long to learn the ropes that the integrity and respect that currently exists is marred causing unhappy or upset users
@DanielLawson worst case is someone who poorly impacts the kind, helpful nature of the AD community or simply doesn't co-exists well with the current moderators.
@GraceNote Moderators do the little things that are required to leave the place as most users would wish to find it. We put the seat down, and clean the sinks such that no-one ever realises what you do until someone stops doing it.
@GraceNote Moderators are a very important part of ultimately teaching new users how the system works. There is a lot to learn about a site that has this kind of backend system, and it is important that everyone that asks a question on here, learn at least a little about the site. This doesn't mean that every time a new user posts a question that moderators give a tutorial about what to do and what not to do. On the contrary it means more cleaning up things that users have done.
@GraceNote I am worried about the amount of time I'll be able to spend performing the duties. Also: I've switched jobs to a Windows-based shop which means I'm not as on top of the Mac tech, it's an "at home" tech for me now.
@GraceNote Lack of interest in the subject matter. I have far more vested interest in StackExchange than I do in Apple products or their user community. I'm really glad the site exists so I can ask my questions when I'm forced to use Apple one, but that's where my interest with Apple ends. (Hint hint, I recommend not actually voting for me.)
@GraceNote My biggest weakness I believe will be my unfamiliarness with the general norm here on AskDifferent. Adjusting to the new tools might be a weakness in the first few weaks, but I'll catch up quick, as I am a very frequent reviewer on other StackExchange sites.
@GraceNote My biggest weakness I believe will be my unfamiliarness with the general norm here on AskDifferent. Adjusting to the new tools might be a weakness in the first few weaks, but I'll catch up quick, as I am a very frequent reviewer on other StackExchange sites.
@GraceNote I tend to be inpatient sometimes which may result in actions/responses considered to be rather direct by some people. Up till know I don't think it was a problem and I will make double sure to be careful as a moderator.
@GraceNote I tend to be pragmatic, sometimes overly so, if something is wrong I don't mind calling a spade a spade, and would worry that this might upset people. Generally I expect to be dealing with people who might not appreciate intervention on their content, and I suspect at some point I will upset someone, just as I did earlier today by rolling back a question edit without being necessarily careful enough not to fully explain what I was doing, even though I was right to do it
@GraceNote I tend to be pragmatic, sometimes overly so, if something is wrong I don't mind calling a spade a spade, and would worry that this might upset people. Generally I expect to be dealing with people who might not appreciate intervention on their content, and I suspect at some point I will upset someone, just as I did earlier today by rolling back a question edit without being necessarily careful enough not to fully explain what I was doing, even though I was right to do it
@Caleb I think I said it before, but I'll say it again. Part of criticism is a gift - and this alone makes a good moderator (sorry for the typo - god moderators are well above my experience level and pay grade - I only wanted to discuss good moderation). Sometimes the person that wants power too much is motivated by reasons other than to help the community. (not to get all reverse psychology on everyone here)
@GraceNote I also worry a bit that were I to get the diamond, I cannot necessarily be sure to give it the same attention as previous mods who are ever present in the site, and always around. I'm around a lot, but I can have gaps of attendance, for want of a better word, and I would not want anyone to think I am not taking it seriously because I am not here every day.
@DanielLawson Good. It's just that as a moderator you have to be even more careful in not offending people (primarily because you are looked at as an administrator by a lot of people). I'm sure I'll manage though
<meta> If you haven't figured it out - the chat server is having network issues. Be patient with double posts and waiting for your posts to get processed and entered into chat. </meta>
I suppose I'll just follow my trend of being so traditional in interviews, so, What is one contribution you feel demonstrates that you can be a good moderator?
@GraceNote I sometimes have trouble knowing what to do in not-so-cut-and-dried situations. However, this is fixed with time, and is already getting better. I also know I can ask other moderators for advice (and do that as it is).
@GraceNote My participation in content that is not my own is strictly high road. View my flag and comment and edit history and you'll see I'm interested in making things better, but not at the expense of other people. I understand human interaction over computers can be terse and confrontational and work to diffuse that when I edit and flag here. This is directly in line with my philosophy for moderation, of course. :)
Do you mean Mrozek's traditional question here: A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?
@GraceNote I managed to get the Marshal badge by relentless flagging dubious posts which either makes me a good citizen or a policeman in disguise (or both)
@GraceNote I don't live my life based on the title I carry. I live my life based on the reality I want to project. It doesn't change me, my answers, or how I hope people see me. I'll certainly strive to stay the line I've stayed all along, which I happen to think is a pretty good representation of me.
@GraceNote I can't really point out one, but my general contribution with flagging and editing post, not only here but on StackOverflow as well. Generally having a mindset set to improve the site.
Do you feel like a representative percentage of the community participates in your site's meta? Based on that, how strongly do you think feedback presented on meta should factor into your decision making as a moderator?
@GraceNote I already have done a lot of "moderating", reviewing, and such work - as my reputation allows it. As my edit history shows, I work hard at making quality edits to bring what is good in a question or answer out. So my contribution would be editing.
@GraceNote I don't live my life based on the title I carry. I live my life based on the reality I want to project. It doesn't change me, my answers, or how I hope people see me. I'll certainly strive to stay the line I've stayed all along, which I happen to think is a pretty good representation of me. You'll see i'm not shy about linking who am I here to who I am IRL. That's because I think we act more responsibly when we're accountable IRL as well.
@GraceNote I wouldn't mind having a diamond after my name. Since day #1 I strive to have everything I say be gentle and something I don't regret in the future.
@GraceNote Hopefully it's a case of continuing what I've been doing since last years elections, which is doing what moderation I can with the tools available to me as a 10k user - past performance is no guarantee of future performance, but it's a pretty good indicator. It's not doing 1 great thing to show you deserve it, it;s doing loads of little things that add up over the months.
@GraceNote On Ask Different, zero. My qualifications as a moderator can be speculated on based on my actions on other sites, but I have no track record on AD.
@TimStone From what I've seen this last week, no, not at all. Meta is still the only place you can complain about the site, submit feedback and such, and I feel like the ones who go through the "trouble" of giving feedback should be heard. There are a lot of smart and experienced users with valuable feedback that should be heard.
@TimStone I feel there is low participation on meta. However, when a question is asked on meta, from what I have seen it does get answered. So while I feel meta has some bearing on a potential moderator, it wouldn't be much at all.
@TimStone Traffic on meta is very low, but I don't know whether it is higher on other SE sites. I see meta as kind of collection of "moderation and site ethics" which should help to shape moderator's policy, so from that point of view a more active participation would be welcome.
@GraceNote I would imagine that a diamond on many sites would be a magnet, attracting all the flotsam and jetsam and making you to some extents a target for the worlds complaints. The diamond doesn;t just refer to your performance, but that of the team. Moderator B messes up, and Moderator C gets the flack if they are online to fix it when the user notices. On AD I think that the hand of the moderator is perhaps subtly softer than on many sites.
@DanielLawson Absolutely not a problem. If another mod does something I disagree with, I completely understand. Everyone has differing opinions and that is perfectly fine.
@TimStone Honestly: I don't frequent meta enough myself to make a good judgement call on how well it represents the community. Presumably I should check it more often if I'm elected. ;)
@DanielLawson I assume there are some moderator-only chats where such things could be discussed and (if necessary) changed. A flame war between moderators doesn't help anybody so I would strive at keeping the topic among the moderators (and also stick to whatever decision comes out of it).
@GraceNote We have a greater mix of new and low rep users, and a smaller mix of higher rep users who would even notice the diamond full stop. The best moderators would only be distinguishable by this diamond, because their actions should be sufficiently inherently fair so as to not stand out.
@TimStone One role of a moderator is to get people participating in meta. There are never enough people doing it, and it usually comes down to a few good folks slogging away. In the end, I think mods should lead the way in taking issues there and getting people to use their voice, but however many or few it ends up being, that is the voice of the community and should be given heavy weight.
@TimStone Even if it's a few outspoken folks, the others aren't being repressed, they just aren't stepping up to the plate to use their rights -- and hence waiving them in a sense.
@DanielLawson I am just great for the other moderator to do what they think is best. It's a community, and I'm fine to take the back seat on that one. Potentially the only exception would be if someone didn't want to remove offensive language or something. But I don't ever see that happening at all, so that really isn't an exception.
@bmike If I'm willing, yes. If I'd feel comfortable about it, probably not, but that's how people are built – public critisism sucks, but you jut suck it up. As a moderator, you have to deal with some crap, that's part of the job.
@DanielLawson talk it out. I don't expect to agree with all the people all the time. I certainly had to work it out with other moderators frequently when we were moderating the fledgling AVP and Guitar sites -- there were lots of opinions on what content to let and what not to let in. You work it out. Like adults.
@TimStone AD META isn't necessarily a particularly active place, and this is a measure of the fact that AD itself generally ticks along nicely without major issues greater than those of a single Q or A. However, it's voice is still just as important, because those people that do find themselves taking part are by definition the ones that have a strong viewpoint to make.
@bmike Hey, I'm getting this the whole day already anyway in real life so yes, just let them come on AD as well. I can focus on facts and change my view if necessary.
@DanielLawson Take it to meta. Reason my case for disagreeing. See if I can convince the community that my opinion is in the best interest of the site, if not zip it and back off, maybe learn something myself.
@TimStone As a moderator you have to represent not just the rules of SE, but the will of the community, and just because most people are happy enough to not come into META and start boat rocking, doesn't mean that those who do are less important because of that.
@TimStone AD META isn't necessarily a particularly active place, and this is a measure of the fact that AD itself generally ticks along nicely without major issues greater than those of a single Q or A. However, it's voice is still just as important, because those people that do find themselves taking part are by definition the ones that have a strong viewpoint to make.
@TimStone flags. For major issues I tend to mark it for moderator invention. I'll usually leave a comment about why I've flagged something though. Try and guide things in the right direction. Keep it positive.
@Emil thanks - I would say that as a moderator, you never have to put up with personal attacks, however a think skin and the ability to reply politely that perhaps feelings are running high - ask permission to reset the civility and see if everyone can come to an understanding - even if that understanding is to politely disagree or air things out on meta with care.
But - it has been known to happen, so I wanted to just raise the topic for discussion.
@DanielLawson Worst case, you just treat the action of another moderator as the action of a user, and if you see a need to change/edit/remove/revert, you do so, although you make every effort to super ping the mod in question first to at least explain what you are doing.
@TimStone Up to now, I either clicked "edit" to clean it up myself or flagged it (in really bad cases or if I had to leave/log off). As a moderator I would be a bit more careful in just reaching out to edit such posts, focus would be more on encouraging either the user himself or the community to cleanup the post themselves. Moderators don't run the site per se after all
Is there anything about the way the site is currently run that you would like to change? If so, what would you try to change if you were to become a moderator, and why?
@TimStone The edit link. (Which any non-mod should also be able to do, but sometimes they need an example set. I hate that mods are sometimes expected to do all the work (impossible) but if they aren't at least leading the way in showing how it's done, nobody can expect the community to follow suit.)
@TimStone Right now I edit the post, if it's within a reasonable editing scope. If it is a really major issue such as a non-answer, and such I flag it. Some of that may change towards a comment asking the OP to edit it themselves if I were to get elected.
@Emil The first time I would ask the more experienced moderators for help. If none is around I would probably add a comment to try to steer the discussion back to facts or wait a few minutes to see whether one of involved users looses interest.
@bmike Had it today, I rolled back a question edit, much to the ire of the user (who was on a roll of having being bumped and migrated and downvoted from pillar to post and then saw red when I was the latest in a line of perceived slights). It comes with the territory. Stay calm, be fair, and at worse go left of steam in the mod chat room and feel better. Most of all, never let the OP upset you such that you doing something publicly you regret.
@Emil A full on war? Lock the post, pull the fighters into chat, try to settle things down -- maybe make an executive decision about the what state to leave the post in until the OP's can be brought to sense. If they can't, the original OP takes precedence, but if their content is too problematic in the first place then it's subject to closure/deletion based on their "pet version" of it.
@TimStone the only things I've held strong opinions about in the recent past have been how the promotional giveaways have been organized. I thought they pitted users against each other. Otherwise I think things run, from a user's perspective, pretty well. Ask me again if I'm given the diamond and can peek behind the curtain.
@bassplayer7 This is one of the hardest things to balance as a moderator. When you want to be someone with an answer - people will see you as the referee and that colors their response. As a moderator you will see hundreds of questions you could fix with an edit, but sometimes it's best to point a suggestion how to fix it and leave that for others.
@TimStone Well, I would have to say, not really. I think AskDifferent is a great SE-site, it's not hostile, as many would say SO is to some, it's not boring and slow (won't mention examples), it's just the way I like it.
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?
@TimStone Right now if it's salvageable, I try to salvage it with edits. If it's salvageable, but not necessarily by me, I flag to the mods. I guess if I was a mod I'd be skipping the flag action and just talking to whichever other mod was around if any, before leaving a flag for the next mod if I cannot fix it myself.
@TimStone Of course, the best recourse is to get the user to fix their own mess if you can, but sometimes requesting changes can be taken the wrong way, and it's better to simply say "This is better" after fixing, than "This is a mess, fix it"
@Emil I would take them to chat, potentially meta depending on the situation. Sometimes the user is upset with a problem when they ask the question and settle down simply with time.
@GraceNote (and the questions get harder!) I'd address it 1:1 with them. "Your contributions are valued. Could you tone down the <whatever behaviour that was leading to the flags> in the comments?" Lead with a positive statement before asking them to change. Show them how others are responding to their comments and why they're not viewed positively.
@Emil Nobody likes wars. If there's one party that really stand out as "the bad guy", I'd put that one on cool-down and talk it out. If both are equally bad, I'd prevent any more edits/rollbacks and chat with them separately to work it out.
@Emil I'd get it into a chat room and off the comments as fast as I can. Right now I don't know of anyway to do that other than waiting for comments to increase until the site suggests taking it to chat. I believe that mod tools allow better "ping" powers to invite a user into chat even if they have never been before, otherwise they never see the notification.
@GraceNote educate, educate, educate. Add helpful comments to get him to fix the issues himself, edit in a manner of "look and learn", invite him into a 1:1 chat to discuss his answers
@TimStone I have no agenda to do anything other than maintain the status quo - spreading some of the mod workload, such that is is, is a popular and almost universal request amongst the candidates.
@Emil I'd get it into a chat room and off the comments as fast as I can. Right now I don't know of anyway to do that other than waiting for comments to increase until the site suggests taking it to chat. I believe that mod tools allow better "ping" powers to invite a user into chat even if they have never been before, otherwise they never see the notification.
@TimStone Yes. I would like to see the bar raised on quality and "expertness". I think the site is becoming popular enough that it's starting to hit a downward curve on the expected quality level. As such a firm but gentle crack down on the opinion based, listy or recommendation posts needs to happen to focus the site on the kind of questions that really need experts to answer. One-liner answers should not be the norm.
On that note we're hitting the 15 minute mark. We're going at a comfortable pace it seems, network difficulties notwithstanding, but don't hesitate to get out your site-specific questions~
@GraceNote Talk. Explain, conversate, be nice. If the user is hostile or uncooperative, I'd consult a bigger guy/girl/moderator for solutions like a cool-down (temporary 'ban').
@DanielLawson ever scream at phone help system that asks you to guide it with voice prompts? That's not how humans like to interact. Communication via keyboard is always easier if you can maintain a human element to the interaction.
@DanielLawson Turing tests are for machines, a moderators is a human being with humor, passion, an understanding of subtle differences and cultural differences. An AI bot can't cover that right now (but is doing a good job in auto-flagging really bad posts)
@Caleb I'll go on record and note that I'm not a fan, and have been an opponent in the past, of wiki style answers. I think they devolve in to long, useless lists too quickly.
@GraceNote Having high rep does not excuse you from participating in a manner that everyone else finds acceptable. If a comment is out of place or argumentative, it should be taken to task. If this happens regularly, then I guess that will become pretty repetitive and irritating from an admin perspective, but unless collectively there is some wilful and consistent breaking of the rules as it were, then you just have to plod away.
@GraceNote Identify what aspect of their contributions rubs people the wrong way, then pull them aside to talk about that, try to get them to see things from the viewpoint of a greater common interest rather than just their own. If success, eat ice cream. If fail, be the first to set the tone in comments for kindly pointing out the issues with their posts, put some pressure on with downvotes when appropriate, and watch out for people trying to troll them for an arguement.
@GraceNote Also, edit a set of their posts and talk them through the why of the changes.
@GraceNote Naturally one would hope that any user whose input is sufficiently steady as to be recognised as such would be also sufficiently active in other areas, such as Chat or META, and these may be avenues to attempt to politely address trends such as these.
@DanielLawson If any bot ever got as good as @bmike, then it wouldn't be hanging around on AD, it would be making millions and living on a beach, with at least 50 beautiful women and a small team of experts thinking up new ways to make it's life more pleasurable...
@IanC. See the pin in this room, the only person who couldn't make it is None of the Above, not for lack of trying but because our technical difficulties unfortunately got the best of him.
@GraceNote There are no rules of qualification that you can subjectively measure. If you did, we would elect by algorithm. The most qualified is the one that wins.
@GraceNote @stuffe is getting my vote. I think most of the 10k+ users have done well getting to know each other out side of the AD ecosystem and he's a good guy. Plus, he's got a killer vocabulary. I can't play Letterpress with him any more. It's just embarrassing for me.
We're coming close to the close here, so in that end (and note that this is only my final question, if someone else sneaks in a question before we hit the hour...)
@GraceNote I think the comments I've seen on patrix from people in the community that know him set it up for being a great addition to the team. I hear more down to earth experience in Lan C and have no doubt he would be excellent, but experience will come with time for anybody willing to roll with the punches. Frankly I'm sure in which order to vote for those two.
@GraceNote Tough one really, difficult to single out one, especially if moderators should act as a team afterwards :-) But if it needs to be one, I pick @stuffe, primarily because we had fruitful discussions in the past, he contributes heavily to the site and has a good way with difficult questions/answers
@GraceNote I can't quite justify this, but @Caleb's hubleness fascinates me. His opinions are straight-on and simply make sense, and he has the kind of experience that I can only dream of. Also, he's at my reputation level, and I think it is important to not only have moderators with reputation exceeding multiple thousands, but also some maybe underqualified and capable of learning.
I have a question What, if anything, are you not looking forward to as a Mod, what's the thing that is most likely to result in you not wanting to do it
@GraceNote I'm repeating myself here, but in my opinion, it is important to not only have moderators with reputation exceeding multiple thousands, but also some underqualified, new users who are capable of learning along the way.
@stuffe I am worried I'll find behind, not do enough, and the guilt will eat at me. I think I have regular conversations with everyone on the mod team now, outside of AD, and I don't want to let them down.
@GraceNote Please don't vote for me. Get one of your own. I'll be around to express my opinions and even train help whoever you do elect in the perils fine art of of moderating. You'll get as much as you want of me, and as much as I can contribute, without making me a direct moderator of a subject matter I could take or leave.
This marks the end of our Town Hall. Thank you to all of the candidates for their time, and to all others who came here to ask questions and to support the candidates. Good luck to everyone as this election approaches its close!
2
As mentioned, @TimStone will be making a digest of this that will be available after this at some point. Candidates who haven't finished, you are free to continue answering in here until you reach the end (and anyone who couldn't make it is also allowed to answer post-fact) - this end only signifies the end of new questions, not the time you have to answer.
@stuffe I would hate to get into any vendetta style arguments. I saw some stuff on the net criticising Nathan and Kyle on a most disturbing way, I'd hate to have anything like that happen to me.
