So far most of the reactions to the 2014 candidatures concern user activity here at Meta. Why so? How relevant can it be to the requirements of a moderator?

  • I recently outlined some of the more abrasive elements of moderation. A lot of this is community, policy and diplomatic work and Meta is where a lot of that happens.
    – Oli Mod
    Commented Feb 13, 2014 at 17:02
  • So far FEichinger gave the most elucidative answer, it seems that a moderator is not only a referee, but also a rule maker. Reading the election page, the policy aspect of moderating is not at all clear. Commented Feb 13, 2014 at 18:37

3 Answers 3


Meta is the core of the site, plain and simple.

Meta is where site policy is shaped, important matters are brought up, actions are discussed and community consensus is written. Moderators, by necessity, need to be aware and involved in all of these things.

Moderators execute the will of the community and follow the procedure the community decides upon. Moderators give valuable, experienced input on discussions where policy is shaped. This makes meta incredibly important for site moderation - by moderators and the community alike.

My personal opinion is even that meta should take a more important role in moderation-interested users than it has right now.

  • 4
    One of the moderators on Stack Overflow is very much the personification of this - 20k rep on main, 80k rep on meta.
    – Flyk
    Commented Feb 13, 2014 at 14:03

Meta is where all the policies of the site, user grievances, and concerns are brought up and discussed. If you have a low meta participation people will make the assumption that you don't actively already participate in the molding of the site as it is today. It's merely a metric used to gauge a persons involvement within the Ask Ubuntu community.

  • "Molding of the site" is no where present in the election criteria. That's in fact my point: why are candidates being judged by criteria diverse from those required for election? Commented Feb 13, 2014 at 13:11
  • 2
    @LuísdeSousa No, it's not a criterion, it's a benefit. People who are already taking an active interest in how the site works are going likely going to be more qualified to step into a moderation role.
    – Oli Mod
    Commented Feb 13, 2014 at 16:59

Because meta is the place where you can show you understand, debate about and question the current policies. So when it comes to showing you, as an applicant, are on par with the current moderators meta is fairly important.

Though some do tend to put a lot of emphasis on meta.

  • Something is amiss here. From the election description page it seems a moderator will be working mostly on the main site. Though I am not a candidate, I rarely use Meta, and only to clarify doubts on the web site functioning. A great deal of the content is too subjective to appeal to me. Commented Feb 13, 2014 at 13:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .