# [ouflak][1]
<a href="https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/users/658/ouflak"><img src="https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/users/flair/658.png" width="208" height="58" alt="profile for ouflak at Expatriates, Q&A question and answer site for people living abroad on a long-term basis." title="profile for ouflak at Expatriates, Q&A expatriates"></a>
> 1. 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?
I tend to apply my somewhat odd sense of humor at appropriate times and that usually helps me and those around me to keep perspective. My own perspective on my life also helps me to remember just how important the situations here should affect me personally and affect my efforts to keep this site going. I'm open and approachable. My 'mettle' has been tested in much more harrowing situations than any that have, or will ever, come up here. I'm still humming right along and chipping in. That fact that I'm willing to do more says a lot, I believe.
> 2. 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?
I suppose I have a rather unflappable character. I've long since enjoyed contributing in different ways on the site, mainly because of the knowledge that others will come to this site and get help. Since that intent doesn't really depend on StackExchange, that motivation remains unaffected.
I already have expressed stances which are not consistent with StackExchange pandering, as well as positions which have not been received at all well by the general users of this site (if meta downvotes are to be considered). I don't always expect or need anybody to 'have my back'. At the end of the day, I'm volunteering my time. The primary target for my efforts are those users who will only ever visit the site (likely never registering) and are unable to give their feedback with the current structure and format.
> 3. 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?
If it is the consensus here that a specific set of posts that go against the policy of StackExchange are allowed, then I will argue my stance, point to the policy and how it applies, and move on. It's probably just a matter of time before it's flagged again for the exact same reason anyway. Eventually, even the 'pitchfork' crowd will see the light.
It is literally built into the culture and system here that high rep users are treated with preference, whether deserved or not. It should surprise no one that in almost all contexts here, high rep users will get the benefits of most doubts.
On meta(s), I have argued that higher level moderation tools should be based far more on experience and interest rather than on reputation. This hasn't been met popularly, but I do believe that this approach would solve the problem of newly minted 3k+ users flying blindly into the review queues and promptly getting banned, as well as increasing the workload of other reviewers who have to go back through to repair the damage. I remember clearly the days before I was even registered and my frustration at not being able to improve the site. I've always been a 'low rep' user myself.
> 4. 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?
>
> <sup>(Edited to remove negative implications. For the original copy, see [Dalija Prasnikar's original submission](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/398910).)</sup>
I was very aware of the situation as it played out. I suppose it's still playing out really. My top voted meta post on the StackExchange network is related to the fallout from those events. I've always despised blind pandering and consider such things off-topic for a site that primarily provides technical/professional/advisory information. I will not be a mouth-piece for the company. Heck, even for the company that pays me money to do stuff for them, I've made it crystal clear to Human Resources that I do not approve of pandering and will not be a part of it. If that's a problem for them, it will just work itself out the way it needs to (I mean that for both companies). My skills and interactions with my fellow professionals are not dependent on my race/gender/orientation/ethnicity/immigration-background/religion/etc... nor is any of that dependent on theirs. That will not change if I become a moderator and it will not be forced on me.
I do not consider efforts to get women professionally interested in careers in engineering and science as 'pandering'.
> 5. 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 Exchange 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 Exchange 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 SO wants to be? Please elaborate.
All moderators still have opportunities to develop themselves in all aspects of moderation, regardless of their 'candidate score'. If I ever get to the point where I feel that's not true for me personally, then I'm probably so conceited as to be of no use to anybody as a moderator anyway. Considering I've been registered and active for around a decade, I'm not sure how 'new and fresh' my vision will be, but I'm an individual with striking characteristics. That will come along into my moderation style. I do not consider myself to have 'relative inexperience'. I've just been around here too (perhaps far too) long for that.
> 6. 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](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/336368). There's nothing else flag-worthy about the comment. How would you handle this?
Well, if I understand this policy correctly (and I may not), this is only an issue if an aggrieved user explicitly states they wish to be referred to by some other pronoun or contextual expression. I think there is some sort of neo-speak list of acceptable alternatives, though there is also room for some creativity on this point apparently. And after the matter is specifically brought up, it is the responsibility of other users to learn and apply this list accordingly. So unless that policy has been explictly voilated, which I would look into for certainty, I'd probably decline the flag. If the policy has been violated, then it is likely that things took a turn for the worse well before the pronoun issue came up (or shortly thereafter). At which point, comments are going to start getting deleted.
> 7. There have been several unpopular features lately, [changes in moderation policy](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/387910) <s>forced</s> prompted by SE, and a promise by the company <sup><sub>(*I am not stating this promise has been kept.*)</sub></sup> to [listen to feedback from the community](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/343890/the-company-s-commitment-to-rebuilding-the-relationship-with-you-our-community). Given this I have a two-part question (with the second part being the more important part in my view):
> 1. What do you think a moderator's role should be when an **unpopular feature** is rolled out by SE?
> 2. 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?
1. My role when an unpopular feature is rolled out is, in my opinion, unchanged. I will speak out against it just the same as I've done in the past. As I pointed out in the comment of my Moderator Questions post, no part of the Moderator's Agreement or the linked Terms of Service state that any of us, moderators or otherwise, have to support SE actions.
2. The same as I've done in the past. Take a peak at my meta/Meta posts. At one point, I advised them that they should tell their lawyers to take a hike.
> 8. 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?
Possibly take part in arguing-with/flagging them myself from time to time. In fact, I may already have. It's been my experience that users like this eventually burn out and fade away. Just keep taps on things and see if anything ban-worthy comes up.
> 9. 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)?
Probably leaning towards the individual side... but with cooperating elements strewn within. The whole point is that we are all working together to make this a great site. What that entails might not exactly be the same across the board, probably guaranteed not to be. But I think the desired end-result is likely very similar for all of us.
<br>
"How would you handle a situation where another moderator closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn't have been?" Bring it up. If they agree, so be it. If they don't, so be it. If it's a good question or answer that deserves to be on the site, it will come up again, especially in the higher traffic tags.
<br>
"Could you be convinced by fellow moderators to revert one of your moderating decisions (delete/close/undelete/reopen/suspend/unsuspend)?" YES. For d/c/u/r, especially if I'm not an expert on the subject. For sus/unsus, if there is context which I was unaware of.
> 10. 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?
After all of this time, I'm still here perusing the review queues, editing, voting, posting on meta. Since my motivations have always been independent of StackExchange, they haven't really changed. At this point, StackExchange would probably have to run me off the site to get rid of me.
[1]: https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/users/658/ouflak