It's probably unfair to expect the candidates here to answer any of these questions in total, or arguably at all. But a post here should give the option for those who'd like the opportunity. Clearly Expats is not as trafficked a site, and thus does not face quite the same issues, as StackOverflow. Some of these questions may never really apply here. If anybody wants to ask their own question here, please edit it in, or post a comment on this question and it will be added. There doesn't seem to be any practical reason why that would be an issue, though keep in mind that this meta is not visited often. You many have to prompt the candidates in the posts below.
The following is a direct copy/paste from the SO meta original post with edits to relate to Stack Exchange in general:
To save scrolling, here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):
When you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it in the bulleted list immediately above. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.
- The general atmosphere amongst the moderators is currently not the sweetest. A lot of them have resigned due to the issues on the site in the past year, and many others have significantly reduced their activity. COVID-19 has put pressure on our real lives, which is dragging the remaining ones down. The flag queue has been increasing, and has been higher than what it used to be in the past couple of years. In these testing times, what would you do to bring back happiness in the community, and motivate them to do more moderation tasks? Do you think you have the mettle to handle these gloomy situations, and help the Stack Exchange community bounce back on the moderation front?
- With all of the drama that has happened on the site in the last few months, why do you still want to run? What is it that drives you? What motivates you to still want to serve the community in good faith given your efforts will almost always go unnoticed, and that the folks you think have your back may at any point turn against you?
- A high rep user of the site has started to link their own library in many of their answers. Tipped off by a flag, you see that they are overtly self promoting themselves, and handle it by deleting their answers and sending them a mod message asking them to update their answers and provide affiliation. The user is arguably furious after reading your message. They then post their own version of the story on meta without giving much information, and cite that you deleted all their answers. The meta crowd, who is half informed about the situation has brought out all pitchforks, as a high rep user has been contacted. What do you do here to de-escalate the increased tensions? Additionally, do you feel that high rep users must be given more leeway than low rep users, or should the law be the same for all?
How aware are you of the controversial events on the network from Q3-4 last year? Assuming you are aware, what makes you still feel you wish to nominate now? Show us you know exactly what you are doing when you are running in this election. In particular, moderators are (should be) representatives of the community and its best interests, not the company. How can you find balance in representing what is the best for community and at the same time avoid conflicting the company to the point where the company may decide to remove your privileges?
(Edited to remove negative implications. For the original copy, see Dalija Prasnikar's original submission.)
- Here are two questions but you only need to answer one. It is about how you would interact on Meta.
- Your candidate score is > 20
Stack Overflow is moving into a new era with the next generation of developers / engineers / enthusiasts emerging. As you have a high candidate score you have been here long enough to not remember what it was like when you started here as a user (things changed, okay?). Why do you think you are the right person to guide / understand / support the upcoming community that is so much different with different needs and a different attitude? Please elaborate.
- Your candidate score is <= 20
Stack Overflow has a history with a vocal community, focused on quality. As you still have opportunities to develop yourself in certain aspects of moderation, you can approach problems with a new and fresh vision. How will you leverage your relative inexperience in engaging with the longstanding users and encouraging the upcoming generation in contributing to the knowledge base SE wants to be? Please elaborate.
- A user has replied to an increasingly heated comment chain and used an ambiguous yet colloquial word that can be gender neutral to many people, but carries an implicit male context by itself ("dude", "guys", etc.). This comment draws a few red flags, including a custom moderator flag that accuses the person of violating the pronoun code of conduct. There's nothing else flag-worthy about the comment. How would you handle this?
- There have been several unpopular features lately, changes in moderation policy
forcedprompted by SE, and a promise by the company (I am not stating this promise has been kept.) to listen to feedback from the community. Given this I have a two-part question (with the second part being the more important part in my view):
- What do you think a moderator's role should be when an unpopular feature is rolled out by SE?
- What would you, as a moderator, do when faced with a controversial decision announced by the company, one which you personally disagreed with, and felt was bad for the community at large?
- 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?
Do you see moderators as a cooperating team or as a collection of individuals with the "nuke" button? (Note: "nuke" is used as a general term here, referring to the fact that all actions by a moderator are binding and take effect immediately.)
How would you handle a situation where another moderator closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn't have been? Could you be convinced by fellow moderators to revert one of your moderating decisions (delete/close/undelete/reopen/suspend/unsuspend)?
- Given the trials and tribulations that Stack Exchange is facing—not just with some high profile departures from Stack Exchange moderation—what makes you believe that you'll be motivated and capable of handling the many responsibilities of moderation?