Jacob Vlijm
- What timezone are you in and when will you be most active? The moderators we have now cover quite a broad range of times throughout the day, but there are a handful of times when there are no moderators around (Friday evening, PST, for example).
I live in the Netherlands, so +2:00, Central European Time. I have to work a normal job's amount of time, but apart from the teaching, most of my time is free to organize myself. In practice, I am on AU, spread over appr. 15 hours of the day.
- As the site gains more and more moderators, it will become increasingly important for the existing moderators to think and act alike so that we the laymen can can know what to expect, regardless of which moderator is acting. Describe your relationship with the present moderators and why you would expect them (and not just us) to trust you as a moderator as well.
I don't think I have ever given the moderators a hard job, always imagined myself in their position, which is in a way a vulnerable one, and acted accordingly.
- How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable questions/answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags in comments and chat?
Not trying to be the amateur psychologist here, but those who are familiar with Belbin's theory on how teams work (looking at AU as a team), know that extreme creativity can easily flip over into negative behavior; seeking quarrels, being easily offended, unable to handle critic etc. The trick is then to "flip" the person back, with a combination of acknowledging his or her qualities, at the same time pointing out some aspects on the behavior are unacceptable, and will not be tolerated.
- How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
It depends a bit on how far it is from "the edge", and if it is a single occasion or a structural thing. If it is a single occasion which could be interpreted both ways, I'd probably leave it as it is. If I completely disagree on a single occasion, I'd discuss with the moderator in question. If it is a structural and important difference in insight, I'd want to know the opinion of the team. Discussing it in public, or publicly even give the slightest impression that we disagree is not an option in any case.
- The existing moderator team doesn't always agree in private (the joke is if you ask 10 people the same question, you'll get 15 answers). What will you do if the majority of moderators are opposed to your point of view?
I actually would be worried if we would never disagree. As a comparison: I don't expect my students so much to do what I tell them to do; I expect them to improve their arguments to do what they do, by giving them good arguments to do what I think they should do. In other words: I can very well live with an outcome that would not necessarily be mine, as long as the quality of the argumentation is sufficient and the decisions are within the shared scope.
- What do you think about setting up something like the Stack Overflow Close Vote Reviewers chat room (SOCVR)? Aside from a recent surge in first posts, our close vote review queue has always been rather large. Every year or so, we see posts to clean it up: 1 2 3. This has been suggested before, and IIRC, there is such a room, but inactive (and lacking publicity). While having a room by itself is not the issue, the queue size is. It's been agreed repeatedly over the years that it's a problem and something needs to be done about it. Thoughts?
I am fully aware of the issue. I am not very fond however of closing factories, should preferably be done by the community, without the risk of co- voting. As long as there is no acceptable alternative solution, the periodic call for a clean up is the burden we have to accept I am afraid. Note as long as there is no acceptable alternative solution. We all should think about it, Don't have the solution at the moment though.
- How would you deal with a feud between two users? Consider a case where two users have it in for each other and tend to downvote and/or negatively comment on each other's posts.
The question is hardly answerable in a concrete way, without looking into both the "offenders'" profiles, see how they behave on other sites (if any), see if they often get involved in quarrels with others, and more specifically: looking how they got where the are. Not so much for making decisions, but to determine what "language" to speak. Actions in general should be based the assumption that, although some types of personality easily get caught into a quarrel, people who like to be in it are rare.
The idea would always be to maintain the site's rules without concessions, at the same time showing the way out of the situation, without losing their faces (if possible). A combination of pointing out that some aspects on behavior are unacceptable, at the same time acknowledging someone's contribution, often is an effective mix to change someone's mindset. In severe cases, I would ask another mod for his or her opinion, or "throw it in the group"
- How do you deal with established users who have gained reputation, badges and privileges by illicit means? This might seem silly but it has real world applications. Things like this, where >1k rep users do something really quite wrong, happen a couple of times a year. Dealing with it smoothly is important to the continued success of the site. Example scenario.
You'll have to take into account a few things:
- Most likely, other users noticed, or at least suspected voting irregularities. Therefore you somehow need to take action publicly, to make clear that justice was done. On a longer term, the negative effect of a lack of trust might be bigger than losing the established users.
- At the same time, you'd definitely want to prevent established users to leave; bad for the atmosphere, a big loss of quality and experience.
It would depend on if the used method(s) only effected each other's reputations, or there were some side effects on other users. You may hope for the latter: in that case you can officially state there were corrections, without incriminating anyone in person. At the same time approach the offenders personally behind closed doors, and make sure to communicate in a sufficient way to others who will be unpleasantly surprised by loss of reputation.
If the benefits were precisely towards a very limited number of accounts, there is a bigger problem, since anyone could see which users were corrected if you made a public statement. Impossible to answer then without having a concrete situation. This is therefore not so much an answer, but mostly a numeration of considerations...
- How would you encourage users to improve their answer quality? For instance, someone who consistently copies another user's comments into an answer, more or less verbatim, without verifying that the information they're supplying is correct.
Many times, the problem solves itself by either voting- or comments by other users. Furthermore, the motivation to answer in this setting usually does not last very long. To answer the question: in "severe" cases, a gentle pm might be effective.
- In your opinion, what do moderators do?
Moderators add the human factor to the system of the site and make possible imperfections acceptable, as how I look at it. Their main job is to cherish the best qualities of the community, if possible in an invisible way. In practice I assume a great part of the job will exist of handling practical stuff.
