2016 Physics Stack Exchange Election

@heather You've done quite well here in... Wow, 3 months. Looking forward to seeing you run next time around.

@TheDarkSide Don't worry, I'm resolving that problem. I have a list of people I need to kill. #1 Jim. #2 Jim. #3 Jim.......

@all I will be on vacation tomorrow through Sunday. Any election-related issues you want me to address will have to be done either today or wait until Monday

Furthermore, this alone does not make ACM unsuitable to be a mod. I agree that unilateral closing if the question is as you describe would be unjust, but judgement calls must sometimes be made. One lapse in judgement does not an unfair man make. Additionally, closing an answered question does not show disrespect to the asker or answerer. An unclear question can reformulate itself and be re-opened. Closing is not the end of the world.

@ACuriousMind, do you honestly believe there is any value to be gained by engaging with peterh? The only power peterh has is that which he drains from those that engage him. What does he offer you in return?

I'm not playing a game, and I'm not "harassing" anyone. Closing questions unfairly would certainly be very bad, but obviously I don't believe that I'm doing that. I'm voting to close questions because they aren't a good fit for the site - homework problems, poorly formulated questions where it's unclear what actual answer is being sought, questions more suited to a discussion forum, etc.

I'm just back from lunch break and am having trouble following the course of this.... argument, I guess that's what I'd call it. Can one party from each side try to summarize their points?

@ACuriousMind If I remember the homework policy correctly, it says homework questions are OK, provided they ask about the general concept and not specific plug-n-chug. I do remember debating that policy previously. As a moderator, I could undo poor close votes (I believe).

@HDE226868 While I see where that could be a problem, how can the site improve without at least one moderator who disagrees?

Well, if I can stop good questions from being closed, I will have fulfilled my mission.

That's why I'm worried - because if mod X does something that mod Y completely disagrees with, and this happens on a consistent basis, we've got a site-wide problem.

My primary goal is to make the site more welcoming for students. This is supposed to be a q-and-a site.

@Jim This debate is starting to sound like it's deeper than what it's actually about. People who like a hateful abusive country where a small minority dictates to a large majority... yes, I am hoping they leave.

@Jim Less interested only because they have been shunned. It's a larger group of people, and this (stackexchange) is ultimately supposed to be some sort of democracy. People who currently use this site and feel students should be kept out will probably be unhappy, but I feel there's nothing I can do about that.

@HDE226868 Like in most governing systems, dissent is a good thing. I want the site to be what a q-and-a site is supposed to be and what stackexchange is supposed to be. The current moderation doesn't even meet the site's own policy.

@barrycarter So, if you're elected, we'll have a team of moderators which disagrees with itself on substantial issues?

I want to bounce an idea: people seemed generally in favor of having a chat session related to the moderator election. The next scheduled chat session on October 4 seems like a good time (as it's just past the cutoff for nominations), but there's no guarantee it would work for all the moderator candidates, and it doesn't seem fair to just schedule it then without considering the candidates' availability.

@ACuriousMind: Later today.

I think of it more like a traditional legislature -- moderators preside over the session and settle debates between users when rules need clarifying or users are out of line. But mostly, the users themselves call out violations (points of order), establish the policies (with discussion from the chair/moderators), and set forth the goals of the body

I think of this in terms of the USA system of government:

Another problem (for me) is that I'd like to be able to debate policy issues with the full force of my convictions without worrying that readers will interpret what I say as already established policy.