Welcome all! This room is intended as a place to converse with candidates, discuss moderator traits, etc. For general discussion related to Science Fiction or Fantasy, go here: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/198/mos-eisley
2
If you have questions about the election process itself, please ask your question on the Science Fiction & Fantasy Meta Site. Remember, folks stepping up to lead this community are committing a significant amount of their time, please keep all discourse civil and constructive.
When we did allow outside nominations, it caused a lot of problems:
users often did not know they were nominated by someone else
users sometimes did not want to be nominated at all
it implies a lot of coordination, more than there actually is, between users
There is, I think, an important dif...
that's a lot less than I thought...I probably spend more time than that here and on PSE already
how much of that time is boring janatorial work versus the less common "incidents" that require intervention and active cleanup and telling people off?
And I'm surprised it has come up, but it apparently has, so I have to say this: DO NOT NOMINATE ME. I would make a terrible mod. I will not accept a nomination. Just because I'm here a lot doesn't mean I would be a competent mod.
Pro Tip: Don't nominate the guy who got suspended a couple of months ago for his part in killing the entire chat room for a week. He's probably the worst possible candidate.
1. patient and fair 2. leads by example 3. shows respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words 4. open to some light but firm moderation to keep the community on track and resolve (hopefully) uncommon disputes and exceptions
Me: 1. NO 2. I'm trying, but I need some work 3. I try, but often fail 4. Nope. I applaud the people who do it, but I want no part in doing it myself.
Now that I sort of understand how it works, here's a revised statement: I call on @Mike Edenfield, @Ixrec, @Slytherincess, @Praxis, and @N_Soong to nominate themselves.
my understanding is that mods are not meant to apply "technical knowledge" when reviewing things, i.e. they are supposed to make the kinds of judgements that do not require being an expert in whatever the post is about
@WadCheber I'm not positive I'd agree with that. He was knowledgeable on a few topics, and good at full text searching others, but he posted quite a few answers on topics I'm familiar with that were based on misleading quotes.
@WadCheber so he was really good at finding answers to specific questions, but judging things like 'is this answerable' or 'do we know this yet' etc. for things he was not well versed it might have been trickier.
@randal'thor me either, but the fact that there's nothing in the transcript makes me suspect it got yanked.
@WadCheber I'm not arguing your opinion, I'm warning that (according to @Richard) at least one other user appears to have been reprimanded for talking about him
@MikeEdenfield it wasn't anything major. i think it was mostly just a pre-emptive strike due to the subject matter and possibly who it was that was chatting