2016 Science Fiction & Fantasy Moderator Election

Mike Edenfield

00:19

@ryan null has a perfect mod score.

Keen

00:49

@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

rand al'thor

They were never as long as this last year!

ryan

@Keen lol

rand al'thor

I haven't even had the time to read anyone else's yet.

Ixrec

I was going to start reading them after I finished review queues over on my site

Mike Edenfield

@Keen I spent 4 days writing my answers, had the whole post pre-formatted and everything.

then Gilles goes and ruins my flow.

Loong

01:02

@MikeEdenfield did you answer my wretched question?

Mike Edenfield

I answered the ones in the Q&A post.

rand al'thor

@Loong Your one about comment flags?

I had an answer ready to that one too.

Loong

@randal'thor yes, I wanted to add a clear question that is actually related to practical mod work.

Mike Edenfield

yes. I had an answer for it.

Ixrec

ok, time to read these things

see you guys in an hour

rand al'thor

01:08

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.

Mike Edenfield

oddly enough I've been defending our comment policy a lot lately, after the suddenly became a topic of interest on meta.SE

rand al'thor

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.

Jack B Nimble

@Keen Gah! More readers!

rand al'thor

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 ...

Mike Edenfield

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…

Loong

01:11

@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. ;-)

Mike Edenfield

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.

2

Loong

@MikeEdenfield thank you for your effort

Mike Edenfield

but I wouldn't go on a witch-hunt for them.

i suspect there are better ways to use my time

rand al'thor

@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?

Ixrec

tbh it sounds like most of us are already on the same page about comment handling

though maybe it's just us chat regulars

Mike Edenfield

01:14

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.

Ixrec

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???)

Mike Edenfield

I see somewhat longer-than-average comment threads on, e.g. Workplace

Ixrec

1/8 questionnaires read

I need to read faster

Mike Edenfield

you got 8 days, you're right on track

Jon Clements

My 2nd favourite site is having another election - w00t! :p

Mike Edenfield

01:23

cooking?

rand al'thor

@MikeEdenfield But there are three more candidates.

OK, discount Arvin. Still two more.

Ixrec

poor Arvin

he just wanted to stop the other moderators from moderating

Jon Clements

Oh - I don't see pitching to rename the site to that in your Q&A... :)

rand al'thor

He didn't answer the questionnaire last year, so he probably won't this year either.

Ixrec

I wonder if he knows the questionnaire exists

do you guys get some kind of HEY LISTEN THERE ARE QUESTIONS thing in your inbox?

rand al'thor

01:29

Nope.

But it's featured on meta, so it shows up in the sidebar.

Mike Edenfield

and if you ran for moderator without reading any of the information about the process, you probably get what you deserve

2

When this is over I'm gonna pitch the made-for-TV movie about SF&F to the CW

rand al'thor

@MikeEdenfield A movie about this site?

Sounds like fun.

Mike Edenfield

plus, I'd make sure to put dragons in it. so it would be on-topic

rand al'thor

There's already a dragon in it.

A Dragon Reborn.

Played by Clint Eastwood, perhaps?

Ixrec

3/8 read

they're already starting to blur together

Mike Edenfield

01:36

@randal'thor I'm thinking more John Oliver

rand al'thor

Nah, he'd play Richard.

Ixrec

> 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

rand al'thor

@MikeEdenfield Anyway we should probably take this to Mos before Shog migrates it.

Napoleon Wilson

@Ixrec How that, when all those answers are so uniquely different?!

Loong

@Ixrec I wonder why jimkirk was suspended.

Ixrec

01:49

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

Napoleon Wilson

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.

Ixrec

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)

Jason Baker

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

Ixrec

#5 I'm probably too pessimistic about, I basically reacted to all the answers with "meh, that obviously won't work"

Jason Baker

19

A: Create a guided tour for new users

First 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...

Ixrec

02:00

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")

Jason Baker

Enlightening reading on the subject

I'm of two minds on that question

Ixrec

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

Jason Baker

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

Napoleon Wilson

Though, rand responded very well to the comments under his actual nomination post.

Ixrec

come to think of it a few people got really weird about Mike after the nomination, though they got suspended

Jason Baker

02:04

@NapoleonWilson Another excellent reason to include the question; grace under fire

Ixrec

yeah, if anything rand gained points in my mind from all that

Mike Edenfield

that's me, drama magnet.

Ixrec

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...

Himarm

so many questions to answerrrr

Ixrec

lol

Jason Baker

02:11

@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

Himarm

lol

i wanted to wait for it all to hashedout

since they said they might not actually pick the highest voted questions

Ixrec

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

Jason Baker

I think they actually did take the top 8

Ixrec

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

Jason Baker

I actually wrote mine up early specifically to avoid that

Himarm

02:14

you guys all wrote to much stuff

so i wont bother to read it

till im bored after i answer

Mithrandir

No i didn't.

Himarm

so it will make mine personal :P

Null

02:55

@ryan Thanks for your support, buddy! :)

phantom42

03:07

@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,

3

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.

Himarm

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

user132126

06:31

Well, answered the Q&A and then tomorrow I'll read everyone else's responses.

user132126

(I didn't want to accidentally "steal" anyone's answers, so haven't read yet)

user132126

Were any of rand's comments deleted from his Q&A thread, or just other users?

user132126

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)

John Bell

09:04

Where did Richard's nomination go? I was going to vote for Jason and Richard :(

Ixrec

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)

Ixrec

09:26

wow, Null and Jason are dead even for primary score (not that it matters)

Napoleon Wilson

10:40

@Ixrec What excuse? Failing as a moderator on that exact same site previously seems more like a reasonable hindrance than an "excuse". ;-)

Ixrec

his word, not mine =)

rand al'thor

10:56

@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?

phantom42

11:46

@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

2

which means that either there was a gross overreaction, or there are major missing details and understatements, or a combination of both.

rand al'thor

@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?

phantom42

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.

2

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.

Ixrec

perhaps I was biased because I'd heard the story before and had no interest in hearing it rehashed

phantom42

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

Ixrec

@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

rand al'thor

11:53

@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"?

phantom42

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.

Ixrec

it kinda derailed the whole questionnaire

rand al'thor

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.

Ixrec

#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"

phantom42

@randal'thor i see nothing particularly good or bad with either.

@Ixrec agreed

Ixrec

12:06

#2 is still the interesting one because some people actually wrote different things for it

rand al'thor

I haven't even read other people's answers yet

phantom42

#3 is one of those interview questions where you're basically just looking for anyone who deviates wildly.

Ixrec

@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

rand al'thor

@Ixrec I'll get there, don't worry ... they're just so long!

Loong

@Ixrec some questions have predictable "politically correct" answers. That's not helpful to identify unique characteristics of the candidates.

Ixrec

12:20

yup

@randal'thor I like how Mithrandir is supposedly getting downvoted because his wasn't long enough

rand al'thor

@Ixrec Or maybe because people just don't like him as a candidate.

He's getting lots of downvotes on the primary too.

Mithrandir