@DanielFischer the language barrier could've played a role.

@skullpatrol One doesn't need to know English in order to be familiar with the worst atrocities of the 20th century and avoid frivolous comparisons.

what atrocities of the 20th century?

How many moderators are elected per year?

@JorgeFernández ' ' No hypocrisy, I was just ordering my meal. You have all the rights to go against my nomination, but please bring something more steady than "look, you just gave help instead of being the nazi-mod you promised to be". It doesn't make sense. ' '– Jack D'Aurizio

True @MichaelGreinecker but this is politics my friend :-)

Oh I see.

@skullpatrol No. Not belittling the atrocities is not politics.

@JorgeFernández It is not fixed. We current mods where asked when we want to have an election and for how many slots. The community mods have of course the ultimate say, but the decision to open three slots now was partially taken because of an increase in flags and the decision of Willie Wong to retire as a site moderator.

Politics was a big part of the atrocities, no? @DanielFischer

@skullpatrol That's true. But it's about using "Nazi" indiscriminately for every person you find somehow unpleasant, that's not politics.

@DanielFischer I see you changed your profile picture, you look younger in that one.

I think I misunderstood your double use of "not" @DanielFischer sorry.

I'd just like to point out what Jack said now, does not necessarily reflect so much on how good he will be a mod in the case he became one. I say this because the attitude you take when commenting as a mod must be different from the one you take when being a nominee, specially after being put on the spotlight like he was right now.

well, more than point out say that is my opinion.

just here to say that I removed my last comment below my nomination speech, and replaced it with a more appropriate one.

Thanks for the up-date @JackD'Aurizio :-)

@Behaviour May I know does Ellie K here mean Ellie Kesselman?

Yes.

@MikeMiller Were you replying my previous chat?

Yes.

@MikeMiller Why don't you even mention my name?

Because it's entirely clear from context who I'm speaking to. Nobody else has talked for 12 hours, nor has anybody asked a question for even longer.

He is right @Anastasiya-Romanova秀 "context" is king :)

:D

@skullpatrol But I didn't get notification so I didn't know who he was referring to.

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 "Nobody else has talked for 12 hours"

12 hours later…

@skullpatrol OK, maybe this is internet. Everything is not like the real world.

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 I understand that you did not get a "ping", but still...

question?

yes

@skullpatrol I learn from Chinese wisdom which is part of my culture that if we talk to someone we must mention his name in order to be considered polite.

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 I agree.

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 but context does mean something, no?

@skullpatrol Maybe in the real world it can be translated as at least we make eyes contact first then we can start a conversation.

@skullpatrol But my open window is not only this chat

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 yep, there is no eye-contact or other body language here

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 but whom else could he be saying "yes" to? after 12 hours of silence?

I just don't wanna make someone else waiting too long that makes him easily get offended if I reply it too long

yes, timing is a factor...but 12 hours later...

@skullpatrol OK, OK fine. My fault... :)

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 nobody is at fault, it is just called a "miscommunication" :)

An interaction between two parties in which information was not communicated as desired.

@skullpatrol But there are 10 people in this room

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 yes

@skullpatrol Why chat in SE is designed can be seen by anyone else?

Why there's no private chat? I mean the real private chat that can't be seen anyone else

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 this is a "public forum"

@skullpatrol Are there other reasons that you probably know?

@Integrator I don't understand. Conspiracy of what?

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 not that I know of

the mods have their own private rooms

@skullpatrol Ya, of course

OMG @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez :O Hello!

It would be very desirable that nominees do not start flagging things en masse now to better their statistics...

@skullpatrol, heh. Hello

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 :o

I am speaking to everyone in this room. Can I ignore the comment below my nomination?

why would you?

but should you?

to what extent is that happening, @Mariano?

well, it got me in here :-)

yikes

-_-

me, again?

@MarianoSuárez-Alvarez I thought that was good! :(

haha

well, it is

@MarianoSuárez-Alvarez After election announcement, I can hardly see something in review queues.

@MarianoSuárez-Alvarez I just don't wanna engage in useless debate with some users that can easily makes, either me or him/ her, lose temper.

@MarianoSuárez-Alvarez We already have the example above

Well, as a general rule do not engage in useless things

@MarianoSuárez-Alvarez Indeed, but people tend to be emotional if they have an argument

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 Sorry for poking but I wonder if you're really 14?

@Integrator Never ask a woman about her age

You lost your temper because somebody didn't use your name when speaking to you, and you want to be a moderator, where people will be far more crass to you?

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 A mod will surely know what I'm willing to say now

well,they give you a mind reading machine after you get elected

@MikeMiller In this context, how come do you judge me lose my temper? Are you a mind reader or do you have a special power that I don't have?

How do you intend these to be read? What example above do you refer to?

@MarianoSuárez-Alvarez No!! No! But then you could see deleted comments!

@MikeMiller I didn't use any dirty words in my chat.

That doesn't answer my question, and indeed seems unrelated.

@MikeMiller Do you know what it means by lose the temper?

Yes, I know what the phrase "lose one's temper" means.

As a person who is more adult than me, I think you know that

I better leave !

later pal

@skullpatrol Bye

see ya

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 Part of being a moderator here is having to deal with "useless debate[s] with some users that can easily makes, either me or him/ her, lose temper."

@MichaelGreinecker one could use that description as a working definition of a troll.

@skullpatrol I don't think so. A persons behavior may frustrate you without the persons goal being to frustrate you. Personally, I have harder time dealing with extremely stubborn people than dealing with outright trolls.

We've had a few users pass through who were incredibly stubborn, some of which I never could decide if they were trolls

I don't want to point any of them out. But something I'm more willing to talk about in a similar vein is Cleo, and her answers

she has posted 30 absolutely remarkable answers, all of which seem to be perfectly accurate representations of extremely intricate integrals. But also without any explanation at all, even when requested, making her answers completely meaningless to me

this is a sort of frustrating thing that isn't necessarily a bad behavior

(at least, it frustrates me)

Ilmari Karonen is running!

Yep. Late nomination, but I figured, why not? :)

@Ilmari I don't know you very well; what are your opinions about the standard meta topics: PSQs and community user deletions?

@Mike: On PSQs, I personally don't find them (usually) to be very good questions, but I don't really see a need for a specific policy about them -- the community can already express its opinion by voting.

I'm a bit more concerned about the fact that many of them seem to suggest some form of academic dishonesty, but that's not really something SE can or should try to actively police.

@Anastasiya-Romanova秀 In the comments below your nomination, you explain that you voted to close homework questions with no demonstrated effort. Do you intend to continue this practice if you are elected, and your close vote becomes binding?

Mostly, I just wish people weren't so ready to provide full solutions to obvious copy-paste questions without any idea where they're from or why they're being asked. Mind you, I haven't been exactly blameless about that myself in the past, but nowadays I tend to avoid answering them, or try to provide just a hint if the question looks like homework.

As for community user deletions... I honestly had no idea that was a hot topic on meta these days (which probably reveals my poor meta participation lately). Do you mean the automatic deletion of closed and/or unanswered low-score questions, or something else?

Ah, that...

@IlmariKaronen Given an sufficiently high density of PSQs, voting on each one becomes a somewhat of a logistics problem, whereas adopting a site-wide policy could relieve the community of this burden. Does this observation affect your opinion?

@Alexander: Not really. If we don't have enough active users voting on new questions, that's a more fundamental problem, and we really should address that, not PSQs specifically.

Besides, any policy would have to be enforced by the community (and/or the moderators) anyway, and the community scales better than the mods.

@AlexanderGruber how would a policy relieve the community of this burden? Somebody still would have to close the questions. No?

Exactly; if we can get five users to cast a close vote, sure we should be able to get at least as many users to downvote.

After all, question downvotes don't even cost any rep.

@quid It would discourage reopen wars. A clear enough community consensus can be made a manner of policy, thus encouraging coordinated action in lieu of continuous debate.

Thanks. I see your point.

@AlexanderGruber How many threads debating "Consolidated Homework policy" did we have so far? More importantly, who reads meta anyway?

@Behaviour I am only asking the candidate about his opinion, not proposing that this issue be decided here.

Fair enough. :)

IMO, there shouldn't be any reopen wars on PSQs, because "being a PSQ", just on its own, should not be seen as a reason to close (as opposed to downvote) a question.

Remember that just three (IIRC) downvotes is enough to drop a question off the front page.

And if nobody answers it, the auto-delete-roomba will get rid of it eventually.

@IlmariKaronen Unfortunately, four. I wish it was lowered to two. feature-request for the CM lurking here.

OK, four then. :) It's still less than the number of votes needed to close a question (although, of course, those are not exactly comparable, since there's no such thing as a "don't-close vote").

Also, 1-2 people will upvote those out of principle, just to counter downvotes. So it becomes 5 or more to hide the question.

IMO, that's the real problem.

@IlmariKaronen Back when I was younger and less cynical, I argued, for moving away from CVs to liberally applied downvotes on PSQ-type questions. But it never worked. People don't downvote enough. I can't make them.

Also, the up-down vote game is played on an uneven field: all 15+ users versus all 125+ users. There are many 15+ users who could not care less about the site as a thing.

I can't, either, but we really should try to encourage people to do more of it.

Using closevotes as a "super-downvote" is bad, but it moves the game to 3K+ users, where the balance is less favorable to PSQs. Those users are more invested into the site, on average.

The problem with that is that, IME, it's just not a very effective deterrent -- it takes time to get a question closed, and if anyone posts an answer before that, the asker still gets what they wanted, even if the question is later closed.

If we want to be rid of PSQs (or bad questions in general), we really do need a reasonably widespread consensus that those questions are bad, and should be downvoted and not answered.

Otherwise, it's an endless uphill battle.

@IlmariKaronen True. There are still some effects of closure post-answer: (a) the question can then be deleted along with the answer, which serves to discourage the answerer and remove any reputation they got from the answer. (b) the closures (as well as downvotes) feed into the automatic rate-limiting/question-banning system.

If we don't have such consensus, the only possible alternatives I see are either to learn to live with PSQs, or to get a really clear and unquestionable "nuke on sight" policy that would allow (and mandate) moderators to summarily close and insta-delete such questions as soon as anyone flags them.

And I don't really see the latter as likely, or probably even desirable.

Maybe I'll repeat the quote since it applies so well here...

Amen.