Database Administrators 2015 Moderator Election

1:47 PM

@uygar.raf sweeeet - thanks very much!

@PaulWhite I was thinking you probably wouldn't get a ping, but then I realized you'd stumble upon this room pretty quickly anyway.

A: 2015 Moderator Election Q&A - Question Collection

5:13 PM

So here's a general question: For those candidates that are active in community moderation (flagging, editing, reviewing etc.) already, how do you feel that would change if you became a moderator?

Context:

6

What's your opinion on taking out trash, washing dishes, doing windows, vacuuming, sweeping, mopping and washing down the blackboards? That's what moderators do. The gun is just for show, there's no glamour to being a mod. All the fun stuff can be done by someone with a few hundred rep (edit, co...

The implication being that becoming a mod means giving up "the fun stuff".

5:50 PM

I don't believe having the diamond means you need to stop the "fun stuff". I'd be a bit more neutral, and ensure I was helping people understand how to use the site, and perhaps more importantly, how to not use the site.

As a non-moderator, I find myself wishing I could have a more direct effect on "bad" posts, such as spam, etc.

@MaxVernon It is a fact though, that the diamonds act directly only infrequently. Perhaps this is because of the "exception handler" thing - they seem to prefer to leave stuff the community can do, to the community. For example, relatively few posts get closed/deleted/reopened/undeleted unilaterally by a diamond.

i.e. They tend to limit themselves to things only they can do.

@PaulWhite Yes, I agree, the mods seem to not act directly except in extreme cases. If I was a moderator, I don't think I'd really change my day-to-day use of the site, editing posts, answering posts, etc. I'd be more cognizant of the effect my votes have in closes, etc, because I know my opinion is not inherently always correct!

@MaxVernon Shouldn't moderators have confidence in their own actions though? Casting a vote to close shouldn't really be different simply because one's vote is suddenly binding?

The system of multiple votes being needed is somewhat flawed in that respect - no one person takes responsibility.

@PaulWhite I agree completely. If something is clearly bad, I'd have no qualms about closing it. I'd just be slightly more careful about the decision.

Yes, the "by committee" thing is flawed in many ways; however, like democracy, it's the best system we have.

@PaulWhite what are your thoughts about moderation?

@MaxVernon Which bit, specifically?

6:03 PM

@PaulWhite just the change that might happen from being a non-moderator, to being a moderator. How do you think your actions would change?

@Max That's what I am currently thinking through. On the one hand, my behaviour ought not to change, because I should already be being as careful as I would if my vote were binding (as it already is for close-as-dupe in sql-server.

On the other hand, that's not what I see from the four active mods.

My concern is that the net moderation value I offer to the site would actually go down.

Of course, there are other 10K, 15K, and 20K people that could fill that gap.

@PaulWhite good point. I think you should withdraw :-)

just kidding. It would be a terrible loss for the rest of the community to not see your answers as much as we do now. I'd hate for that to happen.

I don't think answers or edits would be affected. Neither changes as a result of acquiring the diamond. Comments, votes, reviews etc. might. And yes, this is the main issue I am wrestling with in deciding whether to withdraw or not.

I think you'd make an outstanding moderator since you are very careful and meticulous. In the past I have found myself on numerous occasions changing my behavior in subtle ways based on your current moderation tasks.

Perhaps I am being a bit naive, but I sometimes wonder why the current diamonds are not more often involved.

That's the thing, I might already be in my most effective moderation role.

6:11 PM

perhaps the sheer amount of actual diamond-related work is sufficient that it impacts their ability to do "normal" site activities.

@MaxVernon Yes, exactly. To guide, moderators must be seen to lead by example, at least to some extent. I'm not saying they ought not be careful or discerning, but perhaps it has gone too far to one en of the scale.

I haven't had any personal contact with Aaron about that, although I'd love to get his input.

@MaxVernon I'm unsure. I don't get the impression (from e.g. flag response times) that they are struggling with volume.

I'm not even sure how involved they are allowed/encouraged to be in the election debate process, aside from the official questions.

Which is odd, because they're the only people we can ask about these things.

@PaulWhite I guess we'll find out.

Hey nominees just so you know the questionnaire will be available for each of you to answer similar to this one on SO

2

you can discuss the questions in here but you'll have the ability to post your answers to these questions once the nom period is over

6:18 PM

thanks, oh mighty one with the blue feet!

feel free to continue to discuss these issues but I figured I'd let you all know how the process works :)

Yes thanks, though I did know.

well then I'll be quiet @PaulWhite :)

@bluefeet No, not at all. You couldn't know that I knew without asking. Hey, so, how did you find your site involvement changed when you turned blue-er?

@PaulWhite I'm torn on that sometimes - there are occasions where I

6:22 PM

@PaulWhite since I was on SO my experience will be different because well it's SO and it's huge. My answering question definitely dwindled because I was busy on the "janitorial" duties that go along with being a mod.

am on the fence about how strongly I feel about casting a binding vote, especially if I'm the first. So it would be nice to have the option to cast a non-binding vote to see if others in the community agree with me. I'm a moderator, not an all-knowing God. :-)

I also did somewhat hesitate to unilaterally perform an action i.e. deleting, closing, migrating, unless it was first initiated by the community. It's somewhat a fine line between "I think something should happen" vs "the community thinks it should"

I've been very careful to lead by example as much as I can control myself, and we've been lucky on this site that the garbage is kept to a minimum, so my moderation duties don't get in the way of answering a few questions here and there.

thanks, @bluefeet and @AaronBertrand, for your input!

The non-binding vote would be especially useful in cases that involve other platforms where I'm not as familiar, so it seems to me like the question is daft but I can't be certain.

Arguably I could just pass it over, but it's also likely that before anyone who agrees sees it and votes, enough people would see it and respond (and defend it). Oh how many times we've argued with shopping list posters and such...

6:32 PM

@AaronBertrand This is true, though mods also have the ability to instantly undo an operation (e.g. reopen) if the community objects.

@bluefeet Fair enough, thanks. Is that an "encouraged" behaviour, or just the way you personally decided to handle it?

@PaulWhite yeah but that's kind of like having a mop - yes I can clean up the jam I dropped on the floor, but maybe I shouldn't have been juggling it. :-)

Somehow I was expecting an analogy sooner rather than later :)

Right now whenever I'm in doubt I just move along. I just think occasionally it would be nice to be able to prod others with a non-binding first vote.

@PaulWhite a bit of both.

A: Add a way for moderators to cast a normal, non binding close/open vote

Cool. Thanks both, that's very helpful.

Also, I found a useful meta post on the subject.

23

This can be used in "grey areas" where a moderator can choose to give his or her opinion but not make a decision alone. I don't see the point. Moderators can already leave comments, thus making their opinions known, just like normal users. Moderators can edit poorly-worded questions, just li...

6:46 PM

Yeah I know why Shog rejected it. Doesn't mean I have to agree. :-)

In fact that might have been one of the posts where I argued with him and he later cleaned up.

Of course that was 5 years ago and before I was a moderator, so...

good old Shog. I like his answer.

The whole thread is interesting. Robert Harvey's answer is also good. The latest edit part.

And Jeff's too. LOL

A range of views :)

Indeed

@PaulWhite yes, I liked this "Having binding moderator votes results in a system that is simple, swift and effective. It makes it possible for the moderators to take out the trash, in a way that the ordinary user never even has to see it or be bothered by it."

I guess the root of the question is what sort of moderator do you want to be - active, visible, and leading by example; or silent, swift, and effective, taking out the trash. Or somewhere in between :)

6:55 PM

I think it is possible to be one most of the time and have exceptions. Jeff and Shog think too much in binary.

Even Robert pitches both sides of the argument in his answer.

That's probably true.

@AaronBertrand Oh so one other thing that came up above - is the current mod team under volume pressure or is the additional position mostly aimed at possible future expansion?

i.e. are you mad busy most of the time handling flags and routine stuff.

We are not, as far as I'm aware, I think it's mostly for future expansion

(Unless someone is going bonkers and it's just never happening when I'm online)

I handle a few flags a day currently.

Sweet, thanks again.

I jest oozed my banding vawt, y'all

(But I wasn't the first to vote. :-))