- What do you think about the current moderation style with regard to closing and reopening questions? We, the current mods, generally have a laid-back style in a few areas. While we won't hesitate to move long, unproductive comments to chat or delete spam on sight, we'll often let the community delete posts on its own, and we almost never mod-hammer a post closed or open. Do you agree with this method of dealing with closing and reopening questions, and if not, how do you think it can be improved? How would you, as a mod, work to change it?
Even less intervention, less of that While we won't hesitate to move long, unproductive comments to chat. A mod should act on known cases with preferably a clear understanding what he is doing. Moving regularly 20+ comments on a 3k+ views question with 10+ answers into chat just because it is more than the usual threshold for a 150 views question, is not a good way of handling it.
And more intervention on shaping the community, teaching it what is good what is not so good, why and how, and more not in closing open questions, but find other ways to conduct a message and form public opinion. And the message should be well thought and tested and have the support of noble members.
- How do you feel about the scope of World Building SE? What if anything would you want to change about the site's scope? How would you go about ensuring community involvement in the conversation and decision of scope change?
Exchanging the reasons of decision is a good way to sync ways of thinking for a community. There have to be more dialogues inside of the community on different topics, and the meta do not have to be a forgotten place but should be more active used for that, it is not just a support forum and a place to express the discontent or occasional voices.
- Good Subjective, Bad Subjective describes what makes a good subjective question -- it inspires longer answers explaining "why" and "how", it encourages answers that are backed up by facts and references, and it's more than mindless social fun. Worldbuilding gets a lot of questions in the gray area here. Some of them get closed as primarily opinion-based or too broad, others are left open and attract 10+ answers, and members of the community are confused about which precedents to follow. As a moderator with a binding close (or reopen!) vote, as well as the usual abilities to edit and comment, how will you handle questions like these and their answers?
Good question, thank you. Now about of how to make the piece in the world. B.N. asked me once about why Graph Zeppeling decided to build his first ...
I'm joking, good question and it can't be answered easily. A lot of people can write an essay about the situation, similarly to the one you have linked.
The community defines the types of question it asks and how it perceives the questions and answers, and at any stage, it has some sort of agreement and consensus. Disagreement is also a part of the community consensus. It has to be understood that in general, the consensus can be any of.
Willing to understand the agreement is a good community member treat.
Willing to influence the agreement is a good community member treat.
And to voice and influence and to exchange the understanding of the consensus or trying to understand it, there are tools for that(limited but still functional) - comments, voting(up/down), meta, chat.
The understanding of the agreement, in general, is not a must of being a part of the community. You have to understand your part of the agreement because we are here pretty multispectral community(have different fields of interests) and no one should expect to understand everything about the community. (There is a lot to say, that as example Answer to: Why is Worldbuilding Stack Exchange so good at answering questions?, and other meta posts in general(by many other users since the beginning), the question will never find its final answer, and you have to be prepared for that)
The role of the mod is to help to navigate trough different IRL obstacles to allow the healthy communty to exist, it is not their function to rule, except the pledge to SE to be the WB site of SE.
As for your question, those meta post intention is to clarify why we do what we do, even if they doing not so well atm.
I would like for us to make of semi-permanent meta activity(like the sand box, but more well known) or once week/month activities - where the reasons can be disclosed, in a form when a reader can easily and quickly to determine/see a pattern.
I would like to promote such topics from meta at the main site, may be in form of comments or plates when it is appropriate and when there might be a controversy or when people voice their interest in the information(in form of arguable disagreement as an example).
It will be useful for new users to learn and more mature users to learn for practical reasons to be more certain in their votes/comments/edition actions and thus being more active in that sort of activities.
- Why do you want to be a moderator? Similarly to what Grace Note said, there are motives behind every action. It's important to distinguish if someone is in it for the title or if they have genuine intentions.
I would like to have more and better questions on WB, especially reality-check, space and tech questions in general. I would like to see a tech oriented mod as a 5th mod, as I think fantasy part of WB is too strong at the moment. I do not want to be a moderator, I just want such person to be the 5th mod, and I do not care who it will be even if it have to be me.
- How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?
The situation does not have the place on WB. The situation is very improbable, as generally, they do not participate in both of those activities equally good. Sometimes sacrifices have to be done for the well-being of the community.
- How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
The situation has to be discussed, and reason has to be understood. Mods have to have agreement on things(perfect world). In real live, it is more about separation of roles and finding some agreement and convincing, testing. Overriding decisions is bad practice, but it depends on situation and type of agreement which has place(verbal and non verbal), as long as we are not military personnel here.
- A genie appears and grants you one wish related to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange. You can change one aspect of the site. It could be something about the community (people post more questions, people post higher-quality answers, people deal with review queues quicker, …), about moderators (they start closing more/fewer questions, …), about the way the site works (some feature request gets fulfilled), etc. The genie adds, “no funny business about what ‘one aspect’ means!”. What do you wish for?
I do not get what genie mean by “no funny business about what ‘one aspect’ means!” but same as for the World, more brains for everyone, and as far I do not get what genie mean by the funny business, and I understand it might have limited capabilities, more wisdom for me and brains if you can, plz.
- What do you think the key traits of a moderator are, and how have you demonstrated them thus far in your activity on the site?
Understanding the humans. Understanding the humans on the internet. Сonsistency. Patience.
I'm working on that.
- What are your qualifications? i.e. Do you have previous moderating experience on SE or from somewhere else? What qualities make you suited for this position? Is there proof of your convictions on this site; can you show us examples of circumstances in which you helped, or could have helped?
Good question, and the question where I for real should begin to talk about important role which zeppelins will play in the world history in the future.
So far I have successfully avoided such type of duties when they were not part of the job.
Honorable mention is - I'm actively participating at 4chan-like site(less so in recent time), and I know the bottom of the human on internet (or something which is close to being called so)
- How would a diamond change the way you discuss on Meta? A lot of discussions on Meta require the finding of a "sweet spot" between extremes (mostly, the definition of some closing reasons). In those discussions, the voice of a moderator tends to have a higher influence than others. This is mostly a good thing: a moderator spends time thinking about it, has a lot of meta-experience and has been elected "because they're good at it". As a casual user, though, I also find it intimidating as it always feels like the discussion is closed after one of our moderators has answered. How do you feel about it? Where would you position yourself between "discussion ender" and "casual dude"? How is it going to change your tone? (if it does at all)
I do not see why anyone's saying have to stop you from voice your opinion or argument. It does not matter who and what said before and do he have mod "badge" or not, and if you have a point/opinion/argument to add to the conversation it has to be presented, it is a part of being community driven management. Do not wait until you snap, let other know what you think because if you do not voice yourself nobody will know what you have to say.
If you do not have new point, vote for the things you like, downvote thinks you do not like.
But also, You have to try to understand the reasons of other, and do not hesitate to ask for clarifications, when decisions have long lasting effect it is in your best interests to participate in the dialog, but it also have to be expected that not everything will be like you would like it to be, but do not be shy, voice yourself and let people know about your existence.
Worth noticing questions from electorate from different sources
From Michael Kjörling, by a comment
When you say that "WB needs a bit of fresh blood, to develop further", could you elaborate a little on how you feel having a diamond attached to your name, and having access to the moderator tools, would help you further that goal? Lots of the ways a user (any user) can affect the community's direction and development are equally available to all users with a minimal amount of reputation required, no diamond needed; what would the diamond add in your case? Pointing to e.g. previous work in your desired direction on Worldbuilding Meta or Worldbuilding Chat would work; I see very little Meta activity from you.
At the moment WB is doing pretty well and there are 2 ways further - keep it as it is or try to extend/grow/add some aspects. There are already solid candidates for the first course of actions. The second course of actions can be taken by involving one who is different enough and the difference will affect mod group decisions, and that is the reason why I agitate low rep users to nominate as they have a real chance to make WB better with help of more experienced mods and nominate myself.
Usually, people need time to understand what I say and why I say, time and will to do so. My best hope is that it worth their efforts, at a good amount cases. I can convince and explain a thing to a million of people, but it might probably take million of years to do so, and I more than willing to do so if I could squeeze the million of years in one. Hierarchical organization is intended to do exactly that, squeezing millions of years. So far my experience is not so impressive and limited to conducting a message to about 30 thousand people, trough hierarchical system, but I'm looking forward.
As for a way of making WB better, so far, I have chosen to give free internet points for all users who make the WB better right now, by voting for their answers/questions, so they can gain reputation and eventually get privileges according to their reputations.
The obligatory part of my decision-making procedure is collecting information, and it has to gain some critical mass and generate decent understanding before I can make valuable suggestions, decide, judge. The treat work the best in teamwork and in situations where I have the time to make the preparations for changing the course of my actions. I have reached the point recently and will continue my course actions and it does not depend on election results. Examples of meta activity which are the result of the process mention in 3 question of the questionnaire(and they are easy to access as they are 3 questions on meta).
It adds nothing in 99% cases to what I already have, my words.
But it adds statistics which I might find useful, access to agreements and rules from SE to mods which might affect the field of possible decisions.
One of the main problems of the second path, of adding or extending aspects(the technological theme in my case) is a low rate of gaining the reputation if one will consider answering only the type of questions, for reason not being competent in magic as an example.
With the current rate of suitable questions, it will take me(or similar candidate) about 3-4 years to get 10k privileges, 8+ years to get to 25k reputation.
The problem is with any candidate which can bring something new to the WB table, and that is a reason why I suggest to take fresh users as candidates more seriously, less attention to their rep and more attention to what they might bring. And do that at candidate stage and further stages of the election in case if you choose development.