2018 Moderator Election Chatroom

@RobertFrost It is perhaps worth noting that @AsafKaragila is telling you almost exactly the same thing that I said in CRUDE a while back (the relevant conversation starts here): namely, if you think that there is a problem, it might be better to take action to correct that problem (by, for example, commenting on the question) than to complain in chat.

I didn't follow up on that question, but I am glad that Michael ended up editing it to clarify what's going on, and left some comments on it (although I'd be happier if the comments were less combative about closure issues), and as a result the question was reopened. And is in fact clearer.

Imo... at the time of that comment, the question looked like "Given triangle ... Prove that ... Solution ...". It did not contain much of a question (you can guess OP wants to verify his proof, or maybe he got stuck at that point and wants to know how to continue?)

A: A coauthor.

@SimplyBeautifulArt I also just wish you'd use actual words and less of those odd "smileys"... :P

i do not like it sam i am

Anybody got news on the new site format? (@Shog9)

"Awarded 6400 times"

@Shog9 Wait. I'm confused. It shows that the first day saw over 2000 votes. At this point, two and a half days in, only about 1600 new Constituent badges were handed out. Does that someone who voted for two candidates twice (and three candidates thrice)?

# of votes per day of the election, by election

@XanderHenderson Because I am curious about this now. In a few days I will be curious about other things. :P

@TheMaskedRebel (and rephrasing @AsafKaragila a little) The only way to be officially nominated is to nominate yourself.

@TheMaskedRebel It's only informal. Nobody can be forced to be a moderator. You can "recommend someone to try and run", but that's all you can do.

@MikeMiller Yeah, I don't either. But he made a direct accusation. And my experience is that sometimes it's easier to deal with a problem directly, at least for a little while, than to ignore it and let it ferment and fester.

@SimplyBeautifulArt While I agree, this is unbecoming for a moderator (or someone who wants to be a moderator) to ignore users on a software level.

Meek STV; just read the links above

ok, I was hesitant to believe your claim that you should almost always vote for 3 people, thinking it would be something akin to a Borda count.

It's on.

More like "philoso-POSER", amirite?

@XanderHenderson Lord Russell is displeased by your choice.

@AsafKaragila I can think of at least one candidate that explicitly said they do not want to be a mod.

> As Benedict Gross said in one of his lectures, “You can never learn too much linear algebra."

@Nick And participation on meta includes any/all of the following: voting (up or down), commenting, editing, in addition to posting questions and/or answers. So you don't need to put yourself at the center of attention, unless you feel strongly enough to post a question and/or answer on occasion. It is fine to watch meta, and cast upvotes on useful questions and helpful answers, and downvotes on others; even comment votes are ways of participating

On the candidacy announcements page, the following instruction appears: "Nominations are not binding; nominees may withdraw at their discretion at any point during the nomination phase." Yet there are no instructions visible as to how a candidate may withdraw their nomination. (Unless such information is provided to each candidate upon nomination.)

This comment can be found below their statement of candidacy

@Shog9 Please note [this most recent common from VonNeumann: "@user170039 As I said in few comments above, I retire from the nomination. I still have too much to learn, in terms of behaviour and so on. I actually suspect I won't do this thing anymore. I just prefer to read answers, answer questions, learn and take this site as the spare time it is for me (an intelligent, awesome, incredible community of intelligent and admirable people, except for someone)."

I see that Asaf mentioned "sponsored content" and bounties in the questionaire. I hope the Sponsor Lounge (or whatever name will be) planned by Alexander Gruber and Jyrki Lahtonen will be a successful project.

One thing we've tried in the past has been adding links to the answers at the top of nomination posts when voting starts; could do that again if folks are interested

I don't think there's anything to be done about it; if they think the only suitable candidates need 100k then I am not going to have anything to say to change their mind.

@quid That's what I meant by disenfranchisement.

What's more, and that is maybe even more draining, is that users mostly on the side-lines, can be unfair in their voiced evaluation of such tasks. In the twenty cases they agree they say nothing, but in the one they disagree they make a fuss. (It's not that they should not voice the dissent, they should, but the way it is done can be frustrating in that it is often very uncharitable.)

To be clear here: I do not mean to imply anything ill about either Zach or the community, and do not intend to deeply prod into Zach's reasons for leaving - they are his, and I respect that. I merely wish to know if any of his reasons might have been issues applicable to the site at large, which I ought to know about (e.g. the advantages and disadvantages of C.R.U.D.E.)

I second Hurkyl's question. I've been busy with research the last 6 months or so and have thus been much more inactive when it comes to MSE, and I'm afraid to say I've merely skimmed across controversial topics such as C.R.U.D.E. (handling meta isn't my cup of tea, which is why I will never run for moderator). While I respect Zach's decision to leave, I'm a bit surprised by it, and it makes me wonder if there are underlying schisms in the community I have missed out on.

By the way, I did not see the comment either. Anything relevant?

@SimplyBeautifulArt Makes it seems like you really just want to be a moderator for the status of being a moderator... :P

(See how easy it is to recast things into a negative light?)

@SimplyBeautifulArt What has MikeMiller to do with this anyway? And wrt your question to Asaf, you announced your candidacy less than 24 hours prior. Can we ask you about your sincerity, given your absence from this site, pretty much since after the last election?

@SimplyBeautifulArt When I was 18, perhaps even a bit after that, I was still in an attention seeking phase. Nowadays, quite the opposite usually.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I just want the assurance that you really plan on becoming moderator. Your nomination post feels uncertain.

@AsafKaragila why?

I would like to believe that sometimes it's not whether or not you are ready, but simply that you're willing to try. Of course, that doesn't always cut it, but you need a starting line anyways.

@quid In Scotland they go to "Aye, school".

@AsafKaragila but secondary school that's precisely an international term. By contrast high-school is rather US specific. For all I know no one goes to high-school in the UK.

Since so many people are curious about Zach and I've been following the election page quite closely and the situation was public at the time, I think I am not overstepping in saying that prior to his withdrawal, what happened was further development of the situation/discussion that initially began some time ago (I would say it didn't escalate, but that is up to interpretation). It could be that something happened elsewhere, but at that page nothing significantly new happened.

@AndrésE.Caicedo The only good thing about me being a moderator is maybe someone will finally push that whole "please remove WMs accounts globally" agenda towards other sites outside the MO/MSE sphere.

@TheSimpliFire 2-3 minutes can be an extremely short amount of time, most people are not checking their notifications constantly, or they could be busy with a number of other tasks, such as reading the answers they have received.

You are mostly correct. I usually allow 2/3 minutes for them to reply, then I close if there is either no reply, or if they reply with something along the lines of 'I can't be bothered' or 'I don't know'. If they give their attempt in the comments then I would incorporate that into their post.

Hence there should be time between closure and deletion during which the asker can respond to comments.

I see closure as a way of informing a user that their question is of low-quality, and that they should do something about, to be followed by deletion only later, if the user user fails to respond.