« first day (7 days earlier)      last day (18 days later) » 
00:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

12:19 AM
@ryan null has a perfect mod score.
12:49 AM
@JackBNimble You have a typos, I think, in your questionnaire post:
> "This user was suspended for actions belonging of the policies of this site'
Also mismatched quote marks.
After reading 4 of these questionnaire answer posts, I have developed a certain appreciation for how short Mithrandir's post is. :3
They were never as long as this last year!
@Keen lol
I haven't even had the time to read anyone else's yet.
I was going to start reading them after I finished review queues over on my site
@Keen I spent 4 days writing my answers, had the whole post pre-formatted and everything.
then Gilles goes and ruins my flow.
1:02 AM
@MikeEdenfield did you answer my wretched question?
I answered the ones in the Q&A post.
@Loong Your one about comment flags?
I had an answer ready to that one too.
@randal'thor yes, I wanted to add a clear question that is actually related to practical mod work.
yes. I had an answer for it.
ok, time to read these things
see you guys in an hour
1:08 AM
It seems to be that there's no one-size-fits-all approach to comment deletion.
Comments that turn into conversations or are way off-topic should go.
oddly enough I've been defending our comment policy a lot lately, after the suddenly became a topic of interest on meta.SE
Comments that add something useful to the post probably shouldn't, at least not until they've been incorporated.
Comments that are sufficiently funny and/or upvoted usually seem to be kept around.
@Keen Gah! More readers!
There's a bookmarked conversation in Mos about comment deletion, but IIRC the only mod who told us his policy on it is no longer a mod, so ...
For some reason, the topic of our comment policy has recently gotten brought to the surface, and there was some accusations that we "do them wrong", or at least we aren't following the same policy that other SE sites do.

I don't think that policy is strictly true, but I think as a community we are somewhat lax in enforcing it. What I mean is, we all know and accept that comments have a purpose, and any comments that aren't for that purpose can and will be removed. However, the moderation team largely relies on the community to report those comments when they appear, and in many cases we si
1:11 AM
@randal'thor yes, and the nature of SFF is different. When I first came here, I found a "chatty" comment and wanted to flag it; but then I saw hundreds of them. ;-)
there's mine. note I hadn't bothered to "polish" it when it didn't make the top 8.
basically: as a moderator, I would enforce the policy that chatty/non-constructive comments have to go.
@MikeEdenfield thank you for your effort
but I wouldn't go on a witch-hunt for them.
i suspect there are better ways to use my time
@Keen Is comment deletion the sort of thing the mods have a united policy on, or does it depend much on which one of you handles the flag?
tbh it sounds like most of us are already on the same page about comment handling
though maybe it's just us chat regulars
1:14 AM
i think so. i think we're mostly on a site where users rarely bother to flag comments.
that's probably because the topic we're talking about it already more "chatty" than the strictly technical ones.
comments here are far more likely to be entertaining, or informative despite being irrelevant, than on pretty much any other site I visit (maybe Worldbuilding???)
I see somewhat longer-than-average comment threads on, e.g. Workplace
1/8 questionnaires read
I need to read faster
you got 8 days, you're right on track
My 2nd favourite site is having another election - w00t! :p
1:23 AM
@MikeEdenfield But there are three more candidates.
OK, discount Arvin. Still two more.
poor Arvin
he just wanted to stop the other moderators from moderating
Oh - I don't see pitching to rename the site to that in your Q&A... :)
He didn't answer the questionnaire last year, so he probably won't this year either.
I wonder if he knows the questionnaire exists
do you guys get some kind of HEY LISTEN THERE ARE QUESTIONS thing in your inbox?
1:29 AM
But it's featured on meta, so it shows up in the sidebar.
and if you ran for moderator without reading any of the information about the process, you probably get what you deserve
When this is over I'm gonna pitch the made-for-TV movie about SF&F to the CW
@MikeEdenfield A movie about this site?
Sounds like fun.
plus, I'd make sure to put dragons in it. so it would be on-topic
There's already a dragon in it.
A Dragon Reborn.
Played by Clint Eastwood, perhaps?
3/8 read
they're already starting to blur together
1:36 AM
@randal'thor I'm thinking more John Oliver
Nah, he'd play Richard.
> Everyone in chat (and perhaps the site at large) is dead to me. As such, I am in a good position of emotional detachment from all of the other regulars.
best answer so far
@MikeEdenfield Anyway we should probably take this to Mos before Shog migrates it.
@Ixrec How that, when all those answers are so uniquely different?!
@Ixrec I wonder why jimkirk was suspended.
1:49 AM
These answers seem a little terse. Could you elaborate a little? — Richard 4 hours ago
honestly, pretty much all the candidates gave very similar answers to all of the questions, so Mithrandr's terseness just felt like less repetition rather than less redundancy
Well, it's modertator election and most of those questions, while relevant, are of course also pretty straight to the point. It's natural that every candiate answers with the same obvious stuff.
finally finished them all
I think #2 was by far the most informative question, as there were actually some meaningful differences between the responses (basically, whether they implied giving information or hiding information would be the priority)
Yeah, I think 2 and 5 were the most interesting questions
The others all had largely bog-standard responses
Except for 7, I guess
But the less said about that one
#5 I'm probably too pessimistic about, I basically reacted to all the answers with "meh, that obviously won't work"
A: Create a guided tour for new users

Shog9First off: I like parts of your idea, though possibly not for the reasons you'd hope. More on this later, but... keep it in mind. While the FAQ and privilege pages may offer enough information to teach new users some of the basics of Stack Exchange, they aren't the most coherent or beginner-f...

2:00 AM
yeah #7 if anything was a net negative; the only "interesting" response was from the one candidate who appears to be getting unfair attention for it (I'm kinda inclined to agree with Richard that it felt "vindictive")
Enlightening reading on the subject
I'm of two minds on that question
oddly enough, the suspension question that was a net win was the comments under Himarm's nomination post...and he hasn't done the questionnaire so not relevant over here
On the one hand, it doubt it would have existed if rand hadn't run
On the other, there are good reasons to be up-front about that sort of thing
Though, rand responded very well to the comments under his actual nomination post.
come to think of it a few people got really weird about Mike after the nomination, though they got suspended
2:04 AM
@NapoleonWilson Another excellent reason to include the question; grace under fire
yeah, if anything rand gained points in my mind from all that
that's me, drama magnet.
well of course Richard's comment gets deleted after I mention it in chat
@MikeEdenfield the weird thing is half of that drama had nothing to do with your nomination, and the other half was one user having a dramatically warped view of some past event, so it's not like you even did anything to provoke it...
so many questions to answerrrr
2:11 AM
@Himarm You mean you haven't been writing answers in notepad for the past week?
I'm not sure if I should question your commitment to the role, or my own
i wanted to wait for it all to hashedout
since they said they might not actually pick the highest voted questions
personally I doubt I'd write up much in advance if I was a nominee since I wouldn't have anything stunningly interesting to say for 90% of these questions
I think they actually did take the top 8
and seeing what the first posters wrote might be useful info somehow
at least as an indication of how much text I should be outputting
I actually wrote mine up early specifically to avoid that
2:14 AM
you guys all wrote to much stuff
so i wont bother to read it
till im bored after i answer
No i didn't.
so it will make mine personal :P
2:55 AM
@ryan Thanks for your support, buddy! :)
3:07 AM
@Ixrec TBF, his answer was the only one that was apparently possibly fudging the truth. even now, the answer is very politician like. "i've never been suspended on this stack". and the explanation of the suspensions on the other stack make it sound like they were minor infractions and what he did was very innocuous, and barely his fault at all. i don't know details, but i seem to recall hearing the suspension was for a year,
so it sounds like something more serious than his description reads to me. and i get that no one wants to go parading "this is how i messed up", but it's sometimes best to just be up front and honest and get it out there.
note: i don't need to know specifics, and i'm not asking for them. just noting that i can see how someone more invested in the event may feel like the answer was playing a bit loose.
i parade how i mess up
but im special
and i only have 14 upvotes in primary
which is really disapointing to me
rather possitive 14
3 hours later…
6:31 AM
Well, answered the Q&A and then tomorrow I'll read everyone else's responses.
(I didn't want to accidentally "steal" anyone's answers, so haven't read yet)
Were any of rand's comments deleted from his Q&A thread, or just other users?
I am concerned that the only comments on Q&As right now seem to only be related to question 7. (Okay, I guess 2 out of 3 Q&As with comments isn't enough to be concerned about. Thought there was more)
9:04 AM
Where did Richard's nomination go? I was going to vote for Jason and Richard :(
I don't recall Richard ever nominating himself
I'm also tempted to nominate myself, just for the sheer joy of seeing what excuse the CM's come up with to exclude me. — Richard Jan 18 at 20:14
that's as close as it got afaik
@CreationEdge pretty much everyone really, I happened to be reading them as they were deleted and none were spared (which was probably the right move)
9:26 AM
wow, Null and Jason are dead even for primary score (not that it matters)
1 hour later…
10:40 AM
@Ixrec What excuse? Failing as a moderator on that exact same site previously seems more like a reasonable hindrance than an "excuse". ;-)
his word, not mine =)
10:56 AM
@phantom42 Well, this stack is what's relevant, surely? I answered about SFF, chat, and other sites, in order of relevance. And I've included everything I've been told about what caused the last suspension on the other site; if there's something I haven't said, it's only because I don't know it myself.
Also, I wonder what people think of my answers to questions other than #7?
11:46 AM
@randal'thor IMO, no. really, the question is akin to asking, "have you ever been convicted of a crime", and you basically say, "well, i've never been convicted of a crime in this country!" now, what really happened to earn you the uber-long suspension, i don't know, and maybe you don't either - but as someone who doesn't know the facts, your almost trivialized description of the events doesn't sound - to me - like anything that would have earned that punishment
which means that either there was a gross overreaction, or there are major missing details and understatements, or a combination of both.
@phantom42 Hmm, that's a good analogy. If someone is standing for election to Parliament (or Senate, or whatever you have in the US), are crimes committed in other countries held against them? I'm guessing yes, but does that still apply if the crimes committed are not crimes in the country where they're standing?
in any other conversation, a deflection to "i've never been suspended here" or trivialization of the other suspension would be of little importance, but i think combined during an election, feels a little dishonest, even if it's not meant to be.
now mind you, this isn't something that concerns me greatly, nor does it appear to concern some other voters - but i do get why it might concern people.
perhaps I was biased because I'd heard the story before and had no interest in hearing it rehashed
yeah, i have no idea how involved the drama was, literally the only thing i had ever heard before yesterday was that there was a mega long suspension on another site
@randal'thor not sure if it quite counts, but I know of at least one guy who got impeached for an affair outside the country
11:53 AM
@phantom42 Think it would be better if I said "XYZ is all I was ever given as the reason for suspension; there may be more, but if so I don't know what"?
something along those lines may help.
overall, i think your answers were fine, though i'm not sure i think your answer to #5 will be enough, but that's neither here nor there; that question was never a dealbreaker for me. that one question just derailed you.
it kinda derailed the whole questionnaire
It made everyone adjust a bit, since Gilles's question came in at the last minute after I nominated.
@phantom42 Thanks :-) What about #2 and #3?
Originally I thought #3 was going to be a hard one to answer, but then I realised it's not so hard when one sees oneself as part of a team rather than just a guy with a hammer.
#3 is one of many questions on the list where the most common (and honest, and correct) answer is the very boring "I believe I'm mature and impartial enough to be a moderator, and I would take this seriously, and I would talk to the other mods, so there shouldn't be any problems"
@randal'thor i see nothing particularly good or bad with either.
@Ixrec agreed
12:06 PM
#2 is still the interesting one because some people actually wrote different things for it
I haven't even read other people's answers yet
#3 is one of those interview questions where you're basically just looking for anyone who deviates wildly.
@randal'thor I read all of them just so I wouldn't be the clueless one when everyone started chatting about them
though as I expected there was almost nothing in there which will affect how I actually vote
@Ixrec I'll get there, don't worry ... they're just so long!
@Ixrec some questions have predictable "politically correct" answers. That's not helpful to identify unique characteristics of the candidates.
12:20 PM
@randal'thor I like how Mithrandir is supposedly getting downvoted because his wasn't long enough
@Ixrec Or maybe because people just don't like him as a candidate.
He's getting lots of downvotes on the primary too.
12:37 PM
Which is annoying.
12:47 PM
However, if you pass the primary, there will be no downvotes in the actual election.
1:17 PM
Well, i just got my Deputy badge. My candidate score went up :)
1:34 PM
Null and Jason are still exactly tied for highest primary score
2 hours later…
3:20 PM
@Ixrec I have slightly more upvotes (one), but also more downvotes (one). Doesn't mean squat, but it is a nice fuzzy feeling :3
right now your net score is exactly 1 ahead of him
which should be exciting, but meh it's the primary
Yeah, doesn't matter; every score is going to be inflated in one direction or the other
rand has more upvotes than either of us, but also a lot more downvotes
rand is proving to be a very controversial candidate
the voting on rand is just weird
3:25 PM
I understand why there's a big split on his votes, but I find it surprising that he has so many more upvotes than any other candidate. That means some people voted for him but not really for anyone else.
He has been very active answering lately, so on some level it may just be some relatively casual users who don't recognize the rest of us that well
I think there might also be some people who think he's been treated unfairly by the Puzzling mods
that would explain a lot of it
the real question is how many of those people consider him their #1 choice, rather than merely upvote worthy
he's also very active in chat
During the primary, the vote scores are all public. Some people might be easily influenced by the current score; for example, if they don’t agree with a high number of up- or downvotes and would like to “correct” the score.
3:32 PM
I was thinking earlier that's probably the biggest effect of having a primary
A: What should we do about "funny" comments?

KeenWe have a culture here that involves a certain amount of light-hearted joking. So, I don't instantly delete any joke comments when I see them. However, the joke doesn't need to stick around forever, after a post's been around for a while, not many people are seeing the post or the jokes. And s...

we all know more about how popular each candidate is before any of the real voting starts
Obviously my jokes are both hilarious and timeless and should never be deleted.
1 hour later…
5:00 PM
I'm just happy to maintain a net positive! Seems like a good sign for being able to improve my position for next time around, whenever that may be.
mods are like sith, right? the new guys eventually rise up and kill the old ones?
I almost didn't run, just because I realistically didn't see myself winning with all these other candidates I think would be great, but I decided it would be good to show that I'm going to make an effort to be a better candidate.
@phantom42 I've previously suggested just taking them all out and starting fresh. Anarchy!
I'm curious, how do you feel about the fact that you more or less single-handedly caused a primary phase to exist for this election?
@phantom42 Long and short is that there's enough mud in the water that no one will ever know the truth, but from what I gathered, Rand did screw up, but the mods also overreacted and are not blameless either. Basically both sides should wash their hands of it, and the mods from Puzzling should butt out of our election.
5:13 PM
@Ixrec Well, from what I saw, the time frame wasn't going to change, and at least one user wanted to see a primary, and I think there's one obviously not qualified nominee that is, IMO, more responsible.
2 days ago, by Loong
The last 8 days are either divided between the Primary and the Election, or just are the Election as a whole.
@CreationEdge are you saying the not qualified nominee is a responsible person or that it's more responsible to have a primary phase?
@phantom42 There's more than two, though.
@ryan this is how it appears to me as well, but i don't have enough info to say either way conclusively. additionally, i hesitate to just say "butt out" to anyone blanketly. i dont know if some of them are also SF/F users. and much like shog chiming in with his opinions of nominees, they're honest opinions from people who are allowed to have opinions.
@Ixrec I'm saying that his nomination is more of a cause for us having a primary (more than 10 nominees), than me adding myself in at the last minute.
5:15 PM
ah, interesting
@Null should make for an interesting fight then
I stand by my Q&A answer regarding the suspensions thing:
> I will add, though, that I'm not sure this question is particularly effective at evaluating the merits of a candidate. We don't have a permanent ban policy on Stack Exchange. Users can reform, and suspensions can be part of that process.
@phantom42 I agree they are allowed opinions, but I feel their opinion in this case should be presented as users and not from a position of "trust" as other mods on the stack. How that would be achieved I don't know, which is why I suggest they just stay out since they can't really have split personalities.
I also stand by my statement that #7 was a "net negative"
5:18 PM
@Ixrec Seconded
We have other criteria to judge them on, if need be. The question isn't whether they've done something not-OK in the past, but whether they've learned from what they've done (in a good way).
Although, in fairness, I think it would have proved controversial anyway
When evaluating @randal'thor, I wonder if he's going to try to differentiate himself more from being Richard 2.0?
@CreationEdge Agreed, but unfortunately skeletons aren't being left in the closet, for various reasons
@CreationEdge Yeah, while I'm not really that much against that question and the philosophy behind it, that was a really good response to it.
5:20 PM
it seems to be just one guy with a skeleton though, so hopefully it'll die down after this
/shrugs you can ask job applicants if they were convicted of felonies. it affects perception of trustworthiness, regardless of whether it reflects their current personalities
@ryan At least one former mod has mentioned that there is a lot that we normal users don't see that will become obvious to whomever is elected as a mod, and might not be pretty, so I think if those mods have reason to think a candidate would not work out long term they have a responsibility to speak up.
but in the end it won't matter.
@ryan Presenting themselves as mods can alternatively be seen as being transparent that they were personally involved in the dispute, and that therefore they are not likely to be objective (but also know most about it). Personally, I think it's good that they presented themselves as mods.
i think there were better questions, but i dont think this was a bad one
95% of our voters won't know or care anything about it, and we're all blowing this 'mod interference' thing WAY out of proportion
5:22 PM
"mod interference"?
more like we have nothing else to talk about
@NapoleonWilson Thanks!
@ryan But at the end of the day, this very thing is part of the answer (and the question itself): "I'm happy for one of the moderators concerned to confirm that this is the case." - So saying those mods should not comment on it seems to go directly against that.
We should also take into consideration that it would be idiotic to think you could run for moderator and somehow expect major issues to stay out of the process.
Is there some sort of serial vote script that applies to the election? Because I'm fairly sure my votes aren't there anymore
5:27 PM
when does that ever work?
@MikeEdenfield on that "lets rename mos eisley" meta
i had to downvote one or two things at a time, and then come back 30 minutes later to downvote more
@SSumner It should only kick in when voting on many answers of the same user in a short period, which you can't do here.
@phantom42 no.. I was talking about running for an elected position and expecting your skeletons to stay hidden.
@MikeEdenfield oh, sorry.
yeah, expecting stuff to stay hidden is a fools game
@NapoleonWilson that's what I thought...but I definitely voted on almost everyone last night, and it's not showing my votes now
5:29 PM
@SSumner i've had it do that, but when i reloaded, they were there
@SSumner On the answers or the nominations?
you build up a reputation as a troublemaker -- no matter how deserved or undeserved it is -- and then you run for a high profile position with those same people, and expect them not to say anything?
@SSumner Did the page finish loading completely? Some JS highlights your past votes, and it'll be one of the last things to load.
well, not the same group of people
but yeah you have a point
5:30 PM
Also don't forget that the nominations will only show a 0 or -1 (depending what you voted) for candidates with a negative score.
You should have expected it and been prepared for it from the start. Which, in this specific case, I feel like @randal'thor did expect it and was prepared.
/shrug, SE itself has 2 conflicting policies here, because of that nothing is going to be fair to Rand one way or the other. Honestly I'm not voting for Rand in the end but I'd at least like people to be informed and know that SE is not blameless in this.
@keen @phantom42 that fixed it
hm, is it correct to say SE shares blame if it was mods and not CMs/employees? </tangent>
@Ixrec CM's were involved
5:31 PM
ah ok
I think @randal'thor for his part is handling it very well.
its everyone else complaining on his behalf that I think is a bit unreasonable.
Indeed. I was already quite impressed admittedly, how excellent he handled the comments under his nomination already.
@MikeEdenfield I've been hit!
he knew it would come up, he responded to it the way he thought right, he even adjusted his answers to answer the criticism. he's doing fine.
I'll admit I'm a bit concerned about how the controversy would unfold if rand got elected
I mean, he's handling it awesome, and there's no reason to expect he won't continue to
But we all have experience with mods that attract drama
5:34 PM
that's never happened
Doorknob is not my favorite person on SE... Part of me want's to elect Rand just to stick him in the eye.
@ryan That's the other concern I have
@phantom42 That's the spirit! ;-)
@phantom42 we could start a support group
@ryan Doorknob?
5:36 PM
@CreationEdge Mod from puzzling
i thought ryan was calling one of our users a doorknob
@phantom42 I thought it was a nickname for Jack or something, and I was like "Whaaaat?"
you doorknob
5:37 PM
you tarzan
@CreationEdge interesting that you go straight for jack.
I've lurked around a lot of different stacks for a long time, some users start to stand out after awhile.
@phantom42 Only because of his Idiot in his campaign photo!
6:21 PM
So.... I'm a doorknob.
It's fine, if this campaign is going to devolve into childish name calling. Meanie heads!
just don't call anyone a clown. I learned my lesson there :(
What about "mime"?
I like to live dangerously
Live on the edge
careful you don't let that frog fall into the water.
6:29 PM
That was really dramatic for an [Image not found]
@JackBNimble Better?
What the crap is on Frogger's back?
Looks like a sports jersey
Apparently it's a reference to this guy
Marcus Krüger (born 27 May 1990) is a Swedish professional ice hockey centreman currently playing for the Chicago Blackhawks of the National Hockey League (NHL). He was drafted by the Blackhawks in the fifth round, 149th overall, in the 2009 NHL Entry Draft. He is a double Stanley Cup champion with the Blackhawks in 2013 and 2015. Before joining the Blackhawks, Krüger previously played for Stockholm-based Djurgårdens IF of the Swedish Elite League. Krüger represents Sweden in international play, helping his country capture a bronze medal at the junior level and a silver medal in senior international...
I guess someone on the internet really wants him to get hit by trucks and fall into the water? Seems extreme
1 hour later…
7:50 PM
yay. 1st in voting on my questionnaire, 5 in the polls :)
@MikeEdenfield Are you counting the primary as the 'polls' ?
I'd be surprised if the final result doesn't fall out very similarly to how the primaries do.
Here's to hoping the primary results are bizarrely skewed.
I'm in a 3-way tie for 2nd on the questionaire. Possibly because we all basically answered the questions the same.
yeah. The top 3 at the moment is pretty much where I expect the final results to go so I'm not too concerned.
There were a couple days where I was all excited for me and you to be moderators. then everyone else joined. :)
Well, I took 4th out of 8 last time.
7:59 PM
I'm predicting you 4th this time, too, though that slightly anomalous voting pattern is making me rethink things.
I felt random people coming in to vote might have voted 'by rep', although I can't prove it.
Since the two mega rep candidates won.
I think if you look over the history of SE voting, that's exactly what happens.
Random people being, people past the 3rd page of the overall rep ranking.
At least some of them seem to take it quite seriously
I like to hope the majority is like that
The candidate with the most first votes does not always win. Here, number three of the first round was the winner: opavote.com/results/5590168354422784/0
8:07 PM
but our primary is also almost lining up exactly by rep as it is.
the anomolies are Null, but he also has the only perfect mod score.
and rand, who's tied with 2 others at 39/40 mod score
I'm guessing that 40/40 is gonna be a huge plus for him :)
I'm not sure I put much stock in that mod score.
Although, I did comprise on my principals to earn 2 more mod badges to bring me up to 35/40
if you dig into the badges that make it up, it becomes more questionable.
though I guess it's no worse than raw rep score.
@MikeEdenfield That's what I mean, after seeing my score and reviewing the requirements, I'm not sure it means anything.
I am conflicted.
a part of that mod score is how much time you spend in the review queue.
but 1. Our user review queues are almost always empty, so that translates into 'how much time do you spend starting at your browser'
and 2. The mods have totally separate review for things the normal review queues can't do so -- not having seen them -- I'm not sure how much the "experience" will really translate
@MikeEdenfield let's see... i work 9 hours a day... so...
8:14 PM
The score is not intended to mean "will be a good mod". It is geared toward "has the experience necessary to be a good mod".
@MikeEdenfield I keep having this problem. By the time it shows the notification, it's been resolved already. If I wanted to get some action I'd have to write a script.
@Shog9 that's what I struggle with, though, I'm not sure most of those things you get points for reflect experience to "be a good mod"
you get a point for showing up, and a point for offering a bounty.
@Shog9 That should probably be explained to the electorate, otherwise we have people who think a 40/40 means they are the perfect choice.
showing up is definitely a requirement. see: arvin
8:15 PM
but i don't actually know what experience would help me be a good mod, so I can't say it's a bad metric, just that it seems largely unhelpful.
@MikeEdenfield Showing up is a surprisingly difficult part of the position for many...
It's just another number ranking. I'd be more impressed with a highlight of their badge achievements, than just more #s.
bounty shows you're willing to give back
community building, if you will
@CreationEdge The goal is not to impress you.
In a mature election, most / all of the top candidates will have 40/40
@phantom42 I guess my complaint would be that people who treat SE as a game where the goal is to hoard rep and badges are, IMO, the worst people to be moderators but every metric we show users would rank them at the top.
8:17 PM
The goal of a system isn't always congruent with how the system is actually used.
that's true.. if our site were busy enough that there was something to review I'd have all those badges :)
And if in a mature election every candidate would have the same score, what's the point of the score?
The system is used by most voters voting based on the score and maybe familiarity.
@MikeEdenfield not disagreeing in general - just saying that the ideas behind the metrics being looked at do make a sort of sense
to weed out the people who didn't have that score?
8:18 PM
even if you have to squint
@MikeEdenfield Then we go back in circles, where the score doesn't mean they'll be a good mod, anyway.
@phantom42 I think that the idea behind each of those badges is a good thing to look for in a moderator; I also think "having the badge" and "generally behaving the way the badge is meant to encourage" aren't the same.
@MikeEdenfield Correct. Also to reduce the effects of massive amounts of rep among candidates whose experience are otherwise comparable.
@MikeEdenfield agreed
@MikeEdenfield It largely just measures site-engagement (beyond mere asking and answering), which I think is one of the top-priorities for being a moderator. Even if admittedly not the only one.
8:19 PM
I mean, I guess in the end whatever system you come up with the "rank" or "score" mod candidates is going to be open for abuse, so this isn't any worse than any other option.
gives me something to work on for the 2018 moderator election.
academic sf/f decathalon. 10 questions in 10 subjects. whomever gets the highest amounts of raw upvotes (excluding accepts) wins.
Then I want to submit that JLA ident question for the category of .
everyone has 30 minutes to write each answer
@phantom42 winner: guy who can CTRL-F a library of every ebook on the planet the fastest.
So, Richard?
8:22 PM
oh wait, that happened.
hey, i was trying to think of a worse system.
@MikeEdenfield Might happen again.
@NapoleonWilson yeah, I get it in principle and I don't disagree that it's a useful metric, assuming a metric is needed. It's better then just rep. But looking at what it actually takes to get a 40/40 made me realize that it's not necessarily going to reflect how a person moderators.
Keep in mind, this site has a relatively tiny number of voters, and has just reached a point where any significant number of people can actually have used the entire system extensively. In a sense, y'all are on the cusp of a problem that larger sites have been dealing with for years.
8:24 PM
Granted. But it's better than "I answered millions of stuff and gained alotta rep in a few months" nominations, which I'm rather pleased and surprised there aren't any at all with this election.
I'm kinda surprised at how many people are actually voting.
last years had a winning cutoff of 169 votes, meaning there were at least 340 people voting?
505, according to opavote
I'm bad at math.
Expect that to drop a bit in the final election
@Shog9 those were the numbers from last year's final election.
8:26 PM
@NapoleonWilson rand has earned like 20k rep since september
So far at least 214 people have voted in the primary
I hope we're bigger than we were last year.
Right. I mean expect this years final election to have fewer voters than are apparent in the primary
@phantom42 Sure, but that's not his sole nomination platform.
@NapoleonWilson ah, i misunderstood.
8:31 PM
Yeah, I've seen nominations where that was actually the reason those candidates thought to make good moderators.
8:57 PM
Hopefully someone knows this offhand, since I haven't had the time to delve into it. How much does meta participation factor into the candidate score?
@Keen Like two, I think?
Convention badge is definitely in there
Pretty sure Quorum is too
00:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

« first day (7 days earlier)      last day (18 days later) »