We'll get started in about 30 minutes.

Ronan will be here - if a little late. As usual he forgot that he has karate tonight which doesn't finish until 8 pm (GMT). It is only 5 minutes away though so he should be online by 8:15 at the latest

I will have to leave at some point for dinner. I don't know when. It's not my call.

NO FOOD ALLOWED

@RebeccaChernoff I know, that's why I'm leaving the hall

That's not what I meant. (:

So shall we start so I can freeze the bridge?

D:

Freeze the bridge?

We've been called on, um, this cramped meeting room for some reason

Hello hello hello

Hello. :)

Evening!

Hello

I'm ready to be a good and productive citizen.

As opposed to my usual.

Welcome to the Gaming Town Hall Chat #1

I'm ready to be a capricious and unproductive citizen!

Just like my usual.

(PS: you want to keep the stars for questions. You only get 30.)

We're here to get to know the candidates and ask questions that may help in voting. (:

The format is open: feel free to ask the questions you may have, don't wait for me to invite them. However, please be mindful of other questions asked and don't flood the candidates with questions. Try to ask once the candidates have answered.

To help follow things, please star questions as they are asked so that they can easily be seen on the right (and save your stars for the questions as you may run out in here).

Candidates: when answering a question, please use the reply feature to link the reply with the question

Why do you think you'll be a better mod than the others? (this better @Oak)

Isn't that a bit open? This question could be changed to compare any two users. Too general. Besides, "better" is subjective :)

@IvoFlipse Because I'm not also moderating a site with 121 new questions per day. :)

Platform Tags: what are they for, why/when do we need to use them, if at all?

Question: what is your experience moderating in a web or real world environment, and how do you think it will translate here?

I will be creating a digest version of this town hall and posting it on Gaming's meta site. I'll link to the question when the town hall concludes; it will contain all the questions as well as the candidates' responses.

The candidates I see here are: @ArdaXi, @IvoFlipse, @FallenAngelEyes, @CRoss (though I think he's signed up for the 2nd THC), @Fabian, and @badp. @Ronan will be here shortly.

@LessPop_MoreFizz I liked the idea for, say, wholesale ignoring of questions for games on platforms I don't own. That's not really that useful and breaks things down with multiplatform games. That said, we need more tagging, not less of it.

Question: moderators are often held to much higher standards than regular users, how do you plan to make sure your actions represent the best qualities of GSE?

Is it too late to announce my nomination?

@RebeccaChernoff Lurking, can't stay the whole time

@GnomeSlice Yes

@badp Good riddance.

Lots of questions so far. (:

@LessPop_MoreFizz They are mostly for clarification purposes, like certain Fallout-3 questions have PC-specific workarounds which would only apply with the pc tag, for example.

@LessPop_MoreFizz Some aspects of a game are platform-specific, it is certainly useful to tag questions that only apply to one platform of a multi-platform game with them.

Question: Much of the GSE community overlaps with the rest of the SE2.0 community, how will you stay up to date on the issues across SE2.0?

@tzenes best to give us a chance to answer first perhaps?

I thought we were just collecting hte questions now

Yea @tzenes, slow down :)

PS: I'm not going to reply to questions I've already answered in my nomination or on Meta, like tzenes's about MSO activity or that about "other experiences"

@tzenes I thought rchern said to ask one at a time?

@LessPop_MoreFizz I think they're definitely useful for platform specific questions/issues, as well as for users who prefer to sort question visibility via tags.

oh

@badp, you could state that you've answered it there rather than ignore the question. (:

well that's my bad

anyway I can't be here for the full thing

so those are my questions, I trust you guys to sort them out

I need to get back to work

Write a bot to feed a new question in every 10 minutes or so.

@tzenes Until now, I haven't acted in a way that would be inappropriate for a moderator. So nothing has to change, I would just continue that way.

@LessPop_MoreFizz I suck at tagging, but I would say that platform tags are only useful when the question applies to platform specific problems. Furthermore it's useful for users to filter questions based on their interest. But need them? Not really

@tzenes I haven't any experience but I'm always willing to try something, you never know I might be good at it!

@IvoFlipse But isn't useful better than nothing at all?

@tzenes I have been naughty and I've been pretty open about it, I expect voters to consider it carefully when voting. I don't expect becoming an avatar of law overnight. Certainly, I'll tread more carefully. Somewhat.

@GnomeSlice It's more important that it's consistent. If not every question is tagged with their platform, it stops being as useful as it could be

@LessPop_MoreFizz They should be used for console specific question (only apply to a certain console's version)

@Ivo tagging every question with a platform won't be easy

@IvoFlipse I'm still not sure I understand. Wouldn't having it in some cases be more useful than not having it in any case?

@tzenes I'll ask @ChrisF

@tzenes I think I've shown on Super User that I can moderate successfully and while being strict, I don't think the community dislikes me for it

@tzenes I'm visiting Meta regularly, where issues concerning all SE 2.0 sites should be discussed. I'm also using some of the other SE 2.0 sites occasionally and I am committed to 2 other proposals that are nearing completion. So I'm staying in touch with the whole SE 2.0 community.

Question: How do you plan to approach unruly users? Because as the site grows, we're bound to attract some less desirable users.

@IvoFlipse I'm not sure that's useful either. Who wants to search for every question on the PC? What's the use case there?

@tzenes Regarding qualifications, internet-wise, I have experience as an IRCop on the Stratics network, where I had to exercise judgment in holding people to community standards, kicking/banning, etc.

@Nick The sake of comprehensivity?

@tzenes I was the head of community relations for an internet radio station, where I also had to help maintain a chat room as well as write up the station's rules and policies for dealing with the community. Real world wise, I've held managerial/supervisor positions where I had to do task delegation as well as conflict resolution.

@GnomeSlice Comment first, if that doesn't work bring the matter on chat where we lynch, er, mob, er, discuss the problem with the user. I'd rather not pollute the comment area with meta stuff. If that still doesn't work mods can send private messages (even if you don't register your email) and eventually suspend. Oh well.

(Trying to catch up on questions aaaagh)

@tzenes Act how I have previously seen the site work or how people have requested it work, if I'm unsure, play by the book (faq)

Question: Given a policy that is being discussed with supporters equally split on both sides of the policy, how would you approach mediating the discussion with a goal of reaching a decision rather than continuing with an non-finalized or ambiguous directive?

@tzenes Given that I was own of the first to reach 10k on Super User and lead by example when it comes using decent formatting to my own questions and those of others. Furthermore, I won't often let myself be lured into heated discussions, unless it's on Meta where I think this is somewhat more appropriate.

@Shaun Make a decision first and have it be challenged on meta, as I explained already. (It was asked on Meta.)

@badp How would you make that initial decision?

@badp Would the decision be based on your personal feelings? What you felt was the closest majority? Something else?

@GnomeSlice I've been using SE for two years. More or less, I know what will work on the software and what probably won't. If in doubt I'll weigh your opinion, network standards and advice from other mods. I feel it is important however to decide something right away -- if and only if the topic does need a decision. Usually, it doesn't. See game-rec.

@GnomeSlice The first step is always to tell the user what they are doing wrong. For incorrectible repeat offenders (and spammers, obviously) timed suspensions are appropriate.

@Shaun Assuming that the discussion at hand is at meta, I would see if a real-time medium like chat would help to flow both parties to a common mean.

@tzenes I think I'm one of the few users who reads a lot of the different SE site meta's. I have 'some' rep on SU, SO, MSO, Gaming, Android and Web Apps and off course I have frequent discussions with new moderators on their respective sites. Which brings me up to date on network-wide issues.

@ArdaXi That hasn't necessarily worked in the past.

@ArdaXi that didn't happen with the game-rec discussion

@tzenes I believe leading by example is an effective way to help ensure that the community trusts and respects the moderation team. Not letting myself be drawn into petty arguments, making the effort to properly communicate, and being willing to be flexible yet firm (following the spirit of the law, if not always the letter) are just some of the ways I would plan on holding myself to those standards.

@Oak That is why I said "I would see if". It has worked on other issues.

Also I see some candidates are lagging behind, should we wait 5 minutes before the next question?

@GnomeSlice @Oak @Nick: as I said, I truly suck at tagging! But if tagging isn't consistent I'd rather not see it being used. Therefore I think the tag should only be used for platform related questions. However, I won't zealously go and try to retroactively try and purge it either

@Oak sure. Please be mindful of the questions that are unanswered prior to asking a new question. (:

Can we stop starring non-questions it's getting confusing

@RonanForman I don't see any non-question stars.

Is a counter-point, and still relevant.

@tzenes I visit Meta.GSE regularly and while I'm not a part of the SO/SU sites, again, this is one of the reasons I feel that moderating as a team is best. You can shore up each others' weaknesses in knowledge. What I wouldn't hear about in The Bridge (which @badp usually keeps up to date with site policy changes) I trust I would hear about from the other moderators.

suppose so

@Shaun I would discuss the issue with my fellow moderators on the merits of the presented arguments and make a decision. You have now the opportunity to elect the moderators that you trust to decide those issues. That does not mean I don't value the community input, but I don't think important policy issues should be decided by pure popularity.

@ArdaXi Assuming you were able to get such a discussion together, how would you mediate the discussion so it didn't continue to languish, but rather resulted in a policy decision?

@Fabian Some might disagree with that. The StackExchange network is based on community.

Okay, the call has been made and I'll have to leave for dinner. I may or may not get back before the hour is done. @RebeccaChernoff, @LessPopMoreFizz should I not get back in time please feel free to restore full access to the bridge here once we're done.

@GnomeSlice Unless Gaming truly attracts completely different types of users, I'm not afraid that this will happen so frequently. Our system is very 'hostile' towards negative users, so they will be noted quickly and not get any support from fellow users. Other than that, I will often suspend him if other measures have proven unsuccessful and rather suspend such a user incorrectly than letting him wreck havoc on the site

@Shaun Get a group of people (mod + high rep users) to make a binding decision, they will usually know what's best. If the higher users are arguing just mods

@IvoFlipse I'm not saying it's going to happen frequently but it will happen every now and then.

@GnomeSlice Regarding unruly users, communication is the key. I believe that in moderation, you should work first from the basis of good intentions from both sides. If a user has proven, after several attempts at compromise from both sides, that their intention is harmful to the site, then I think the team will have to make a judgment call on whether or not that user is a proper fit and should be allowed to stick around.

@Shaun Usually, in discussions I have seen before, the issue is being discussed quite well. I think it's unfair to use game-rec as a counter-example, since chat has played an important role in mediating that issue, in my opinion.

@ArdaXi game-rec was not my counter-example. ;)

@Shaun I know, I was making a general point, towards @oak et al.

I have to run. I'll try to make it to the next one.

Question: a moderator flag pops up on a question and you are not sure how to deal with it. What steps will you take to reach a verdict? What will be your default action on that flag (i.e. will you prefer to delete the post to maintain site quality or ignore it to not alienate the author and err on the safe side)

@GnomeSlice I'm not disputing that. But I don't think we should put every policy decision to the vote. As moderators we should of course take the position of the community into account. But if the community is divided, we have to make a decision and no matter which one we take, half of the community is not going to like that.

@Oak If I'm really unsure and I'm not the only moderator 'on call', I'd prefer to wait to see whether another moderator picks it up. If it's an urgent issue, I'll try chat.

@GnomeSlice The site works on trust and participation if a user is being unruly he will usually be ignored and may change their ways or leave

@Shaun In regards to these 50/50 splits, I would discuss with the moderation team. Now that we're electing moderators, the fact that you were elected means that the community trusts your judgment and trusts you to represent the desires of the community. If we have an issue that ends up game-rec worthy in scope (I hope this doesn't happen), it's only harmful to the site to let it drag out like game-rec did.

@Shaun When two parties can't decide, you need an 'objective' third party to help draw a line. In my experience, it has helped tremendously to have fellow moderators from other sites help judge and pitch in on Meta discussions.

@Shaun I also believe that while we're a community driven site, there are some decisions that will be made from an executive level, because 'we as a network' want to have a unified image. An example of this is where Jeff came in and banned any further website questions on Super User. A lot of users might disagree, but sometimes such decisions have to be taken.

@Shaun For the sake of the health of the site, the moderators may have to make a decision that a chunk of the userbase will not agree with. However, I feel that this is healthier for the site than to let it drag out in ambiguity and leave us without a firm policy to moderate by.

@GnomeSlice I just added that emphasis, because while I'm strict, I only have to apply it in such edge cases. Therefore others shouldn't get the impression that I'm trigger happy on the suspension button

@Oak I would discuss it with other moderators if possible. If it is a more general non-critical issue I also might open a meta topic on that. I would not delete content in uncertain cases, I can imagine cases were I would lock a question to gain time to discuss the issue and come to a decision.

@Oak If I myself am unsure how to deal with it, I would consult with the rest of the moderation team as to what steps we should take. The default action would depend on the nature of the question and I can't make a blanket statement saying how I would react.

@Oak I don't usually support full deletion unless it is blatantly against site policy (sexual content, illegality, etc.) because leaving them there at least does give us more ground to stand on when citing examples of what isn't allowed on the site.

@Oak RE: your edit, I like Wikipedia's policy on this. Assume good faith, if it's a relatively new user.

@Oak I would leave a flag for another moderator. In my experience, another will be able to make a decision based on my stance. However, if I'm on chat and it's not regarding abusive behavior or anything regular users can't see or 'should' see, I will simply ask others in chat what they think and act on that

@Oak My default action will be to do nothing and try and see the reasons behind the flag, most changes are reversible so can always be disputed after the event

can i ask questions?

@RonanForman Alienation is generally irreversible.

which is hardly ever used @ArdaXi or at least not unless it's a spammer or very obvious troll

@IvoFlipse A deleted question can alienate someone.

@RonanForman Sure.

I don't think purposeful alienation should be used at all, if it can be helped.

alienate how then @ArdaXi?

Question: I am considered very liberal regarding what questions I think we should cater for, while Ivo is probably the opposite and he prefers we enforce more narrow restrictions. Both approaches have merits and shortcomings. Where do you think you stand, and why? Are you more "liberal", more "conservative", or in-between?

I meant alienate in the sense of "cause (someone) to feel isolated or estranged"

@Oak I'm quite conservative, I believe liberalism will result in people trying to find the edge further and further until the site turns into a discussion forum.

@ArdaXi most users will not respond that negatively if proper reasoning is given I would hope most will understand if they don't they are probably not used to the medium of these sites.

@Oak I'm strict in what type of questions we should allow @Oak, not what is actually being asked. I believe there's a difference, because there are enough games in the world to feed this site indefinitely. I'm not restricting anyone from asking Wii questions, but I'd rather not have questions broaden the scope any further and also think it's not needed for the success of the site (just look at GameFAQs)

@Oak I believe I would lie in the more liberal camp, as I've discussed with you before that I feel passive knowledge is also valuable to the site and should be rewarded. However, I'm willing to be flexible if the majority of the site feels that certain categories of question/answers are not beneficial. Will I be disappointed about it? Sure, but I don't like perpetuating conflict when it's harmful to site health.

@RonanForman That depends. To people unfamiliar with SE, deletion can make them think "Was I that terrible?", or if they disagree, they may simply leave without saying anything. Even if they do say something, they may not really do this appropriately (as we have noticed on meta before)

@Oak I'm somewhere in the middle, slightly on the conservative side. I am firmly against game recommendation questions, but I currently see no harm in Identify this game questions. Independent of my personal thought on those issues I'm open to revisit them if the conditions change and some types of questions become problematic.

@Oak We should try and accomodate them if possible. If it can't be done it can't be done. If it can be done, it probably should.

@ArdaXi deletion is one of the extremes if a reason if given to this (possible a new feature) then they would know why and would be able to dispute

@ArdaXi I think you're exaggeration how often this happens. Our vast, vast majority of users don't even end up asking questions in the first place. That's not because they had their question deleted, but simply because they don't feel the need or because the site doesn't look as inviting to them. Just look at Wikipedia, anyone can edit, but only a small portion actually does

@RonanForman Even just community closing has alienated people before.

@Ivo: Do you mean "vast"? :o

@IvoFlipse Wikipedia has a lot of people cleaning up vandalism. You don't actually see every edit.

and we have a lot of people flagging

@ArdaXi You don't see all the flags you get around here either ;) A lot of work can go into keeping this place clean :)

The general userbase here is pretty great at flagging, as far as I've seen.

@Oak I let others handle it.

We've got a large audience of users who are active in The Bridge and keep an eye on the feeds.

@Oak the site is meant to help people and can be altered to accommodate for the users (after discussion)

Question: what actions do you plan on taking to maintain the site quality other than acting on moderator flags?

@Oak Editing and retagging questions where necessary, usually unintrusive. Salvaging bad questions for what is answerable, and making them attractive.

@Oak Editing questions (if necessary) to cleanup spelling/grammar or otherwise help improve the readability and comprehension, making sure that questions I ask or answers I provide are up to the levels of quality that the site commands, and doing my best to maintain an open channel with the community and its desires.

@Oak checking questions for things that are not yet flagged or should be and participating in meta and chats

Editing questions myself to improve them and trying to provide good questions and answers.

@Oak Lead by example, by using consistent, nice formatting (though a lot of users do this very well too) throughout my own posts. Then by editing other users posts to make them look better, especially with new users so they get familiar with how we would want their questions or answer to look like. Also leaving comments to ask them to elaborate on things if the Q/A is too short

We've got about 10 minutes left, so anyone planning to ask a question should keep that in mind. (:

@RebeccaChernoff that was quick!

@RebeccaChernoff question: why are your smileys inverted?

:)

Haha

I still want to know from each mod why they think themselves better than the others. Else, why bother nominating? So why should I vote for you and not somebody else?

@Oak oy! Maybe you're inverted! (;

@Oak typing left-handed?

Of course, feel free to continue asking/answering for the next few minutes, didn't mean to kill things hehe.

@IvoFlipse My decision to run for election as a moderator has less to do with thinking that I'm better than other people who may or may not run and more to do with the fact that I believe my qualifications would make me a competent candidate.

@FallenAngelEyes Competent in what @FallenAngelEyes? :) this is where you explain how awesome you are

@IvoFlipse Who says I think I am better that all the others (: All i think is that I'm at least as good as the majority and I thought "Hey, why not!"

Question: For those candidates who are already moderators on other sites (@Ivo, @CRoss, maybe others): How do you plan to balance your time and effort between moderating this site and the other site?

that's actually what i thought

@IvoFlipse I'm not a single person running for election. I'm running to be part of a team, and I look forward to working with that team for the best of the community. As a team, you can shore up each others' weaknesses, enhance each others strengths, and help charge the motherships lazers.

Question (I know it sounds weird but bear with me): rep is usually used to measure how active and contributing someone is. How much reputation do you consider to be enough to specify a user as someone who is a real "user" of gaming, as opposed to someone just asking a question or two when she passes by??

@StrixVaria As you can see I have been active on Gaming, however I was never able to do much beyond flagging and commenting. With moderating abilities I would be able to visit Gaming more purposefully, like during the Beta without the need of any middle men. Furthermore, due to my lack of abilities I couldn't 'serve' the community as well either.

@StrixVaria I'm used to having access to moderator flags or having users ask for help (on chat). I wasn't able to do either, which frustrates me a great deal. Since Super User got new moderators, I feel that it will be easier for me to spread my love.

that is from my Q&A @StrixVaria

@Oak I don't think there is a number, it's not a measure over time so can't be used as a comparison, there are also more popular tags so if you own a certain game you can get loads of rep really quickly

@IvoFlipse Regarding qualifications, I point you here and here, my answers to @tzenes. :)

As I don't moderate on any other sites currently, @Strix's question doesn't apply to me.

@Oak I think rep alone is a poor measure of ones interest in a site. I've got the Electorate badge, even though I don't have enough rep to even edit. I just happen to be active in tags that are either highly populated by awesome users such as @tzenes or in ones that don't attract any answers at all (ipad/android games)

@Oak Mmm, I think that's a difficult question to answer and make a blanket judgment on. I don't think that rep is the only thing that defines a gaming user. Look at @Grace for example: She has less than 5k rep on our site, yet I don't think anyone would argue that she doesn't know her stuff.

he's been on for 34 days

@Ronan Aardvark's a poor example, he deleted his account.

thats not the point

@Ronan Aardvarks is misleading it's a recreated account

@Oak I don't think we need to distinguish between "real" users and others, Gaming.SE is also meant for those who want only their one question answered. And reputation is anyways not a good indicator for that, I would say that answering or asking regularky are also good signs for that. Involvement in chat is another indicator.

@Oak There may be many users out there with a lot of knowledge but there just aren't any questions being asked right now where they can show it. I think one thing that definitely impresses me is when users take the time to come and join us on chat.

He has about 6 months of rep, nit 34 days.

@LessPop_MoreFizz i see

@Oak I don't think specifying a number would help anything... I'd look at his contributions.

Alright, let's hold off on the questions and finish up with the answers.

@badp since you're back, we have a backlog of questions for you :)

(Incidentally, that was not meant as a slight in any way at all to @Grace)

(Just saying you don't need a rep of 10k+ to be considered knowledgeable)

@Oak Tag management and/or rationalization.

Pseudo-question: final thoughts from the candidates. (:

@Oak I think I answered them all now, have I?

@RebeccaChernoff I hope that by becoming a moderator here, I can help the community as I can at Super User.

@badp oh right

@RebeccaChernoff Thanks for holding this chat for us and organizing it! I hope that I communicated my stances clearly, and while I'd like to be a moderator of the site, I'm running against/with a ton of great candidates, and I know we'll end up with a great team, even if I'm not part of it.

@FallenAngelEyes I sure feel handicapped without being able to vote to close or edit here :\

Also, as a reminder, there will be a 2nd THC in 5 hours with another group of candidates.

@Ivo: I can imagine. :( I was really happy when I hit the threshold, myself.

Final thoughts: Oak I hate you for making me think about who should get my third vote! Still, please, vote for Juan and Grace. They've done an invaluable job and they want more of it, so let 'em have it!

@RebeccaChernoff elected moderators should serve the community and most, if not all of us would do that well, as well as giving our own ideas and views.

@RebeccaChernoff I'd say the fact that we have a pretty high number of nominations and interest about this elections shows that we're on the right track and that we have a community that cares about this site.

I also blame @Oak for making me nominate myself, if only he had nominated himself!

Oh the tree, the tree, he vexes us so!

Wait, Oak's not running?

I blame @badp for blaming @Oak.

I could have sworn he did. maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan, that's so :(

Nay, he isn't.

@ArdaXi You blame me anyway, at least I'll give you a valid reason to.

I would vote for you only so that I could blame everything on you.

@ArdaXi Tsk tsk tsk.

Alright, let's officially conclude then. A digest summary will be posted to Meta tomorrow.

Thanks to everyone for participating.

@badp So I'll vote for you so you no longer are a scapegoat.

@ArdaXi Rather, you should vote for me so you can blame blue people, like @RebeccaChernoff.

By extension.

For science.

You monster.

Night @Ronan

And question for you @badp

@badp the way she says "You monster" sends chills down my spine everytime.

@Oak I'm so impatient I'll go ahead and reply before you can ask: that's something Grace attributed to me, so I merely accepted it.

@badp well I'm just saying that you mention a lot of bad traits in your nominations - do you intend to change any of them, at least as far as gaming as concerned?

I think @badp's "bad traits" are what would make him a good mod. He's kind of "no bullshit". As long as the other 2 mods are friendly and welcoming...

@Oak As I said I won't become a paladin of law overnight. I expect voters to vote accordingly. I want them to know what kind of deal people are getting into as they vote me. :)

Surely, with a diamond you tread more lightly.

Still I don't feel like promising unicorns and rainbows if I can't be sure I'll uphold it

@badp I realize that, what I want to know is if you'll make any effort in being patient and diplomatic... especially to new users.

@Oak I always try, that doesn't mean I succeed.

I didn't say "I'm not a diplomat", I did say "I'm a bad one".

but I'd assume everybody tries, so that's not enough.

@Mana I prefer the "Food for thought." comment, personally.

← 12 messages moved from The Bridge

@StrixVaria So, I better withdraw then?