1. 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 SE Network already has a progressive disciplinary program in place. This would need to be followed regardless of the content the user is providing, the Code of Conduct applies to all. No user, regardless of reputation, is above following the rules. This is especially true when it comes respectful discourse. I would warn the user either in a comment or chat and if the behavior continues they would be placed on a suspension. Incremental suspensions are useful in this regard as maybe the user just needs to take a step back for an hour. Everyone deserves a second chance, but if the pattern continues longer suspensions may be necessary.

2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?

The great thing about SE is that no one person can determine whether a question or answers survives. If there is enough consensus from users with sufficient reputation the problem can work itself out. If the question is locked due to mod action and those users cannot reopen and I feel it should be, then a meta post would be made or I would talk to the other moderator about it in chat to come a resolution. I would not change a moderation decision unless I spoke to them about it.

3. Once in a while, SFF suffers deep disagreements over policy and its usage. For instance, SFF has the Future Works Policy (where implementation is not always straight-forward). As a moderator you have tools to resolve these conflicts (post locks, suspension, and a binding delete the community at large cannot undo). How would you resolve conflicts where the community is thrashing a question over a policy dispute?

Locking a post is nice feature for questions where a high volume of charged comments are coming in. Similar to the first question, if things get out of hand a lock can serve as way to get everyone to take a step back and reassess the situation and suspension would only be necessary if Code of Conduct violations are occuring. I would not cast a binding delete vote unless a consensus had been reached on meta first. Again as with the second question, the community has (and needs) great input in resolving these situations on their own.

4. SFF.SE has a mixed reputation among neighbouring sites (such as M&TV, Literature, Arqade, RPG, etc.), sometimes getting a bad rap in their chats, with some of their site regulars having a negative view of SFF and not participating here. Among the many roles a moderator might play is that of an ambassador of the site; what is your view on these inter-site issues and how (if at all) would you consider dealing with them?

I am a semi-active member of M&TV and Literature (even ran in bo their moderator elections) and have enjoyed my interactions with the users there the same as I have the users here. However, I do not venture to Arqade or RPG unless I see something on the HNQ (I do love their content even if it always applicable to me). I see all these sites as our siblings and allies as part of the greater network. Even if users of those other sites do not like our questions, answers, or site in general, I hope they will "like" me. What I mean by that is that they see me as a trustworthy and fair moderator that can assess conflicts that arise in an objective way without being accused of taking my site's side. I have always been fairly active in chat and I think that is good tool to get to know other moderators and how they approach their site and our site. Through collaboration and mutual respect I am sure that all sites can get along just fine.

5. Why do you want to be a moderator?

I generally answered this in the nomination post. To elaborate (and to steal a metaphor I've seen on the network), I view the site as a garden. This garden was planted long before I showed up and even though I did not plant the first seeds I was able to enjoy the harvest. As time went on I was able to plant a few seeds and watch them grow. I have also been able to help others plant and grow their seeds and this is where the time spent cultivating the garden becomes rewarding. I want to help ensure the garden is around for a long time. There are many farmers here and the garden is healthy. So really becoming a moderator doesn't change the site drastically, anyone with at least 10k rep can do most of the same thing a moderator can. What becoming a moderator means to me is giving back to the community that welcomed me, to make sure small problems don't turn into large ones, and ensuring our site remains a positive place for the network to be proud of.

This has been my goal across the sites I contribute to. I elaborate the mention in the previous question, here are the links to Q&A from previous elections I have run in (all unsuccessfully):

• 2021 Workplace Election - Q&A Post

• 2020 Literature Election

• 2018 Movies & TV Election - Q&A Post

  I think I have been fairly consistent in my views on moderation over the years. My reasons for wanting to be a moderator remain the same as well. Although I was unsuccessful on those sites, I hope to succeed here as SF&F has been my "home" site and the one I am most active on.

6. How do you expect your activity would change if you become a moderator? For example, would you be a more active or less active reviewer (or review differently), spend more time or less time in chat and/or meta (or change the style of your activity there), ... ?

I do not see my activity changing very much. As I mentioned in the nomination, I am active on the site for about 10 hours every day (depending my real world job work load) from 11:00 to 21:00 UTC, Monday through Saturday. As a moderator I would make myself available to other moderators as long as I am not asleep if a situation arises.

My Q&A activity has fallen off a bit as my primary tag (Game of Thrones / A Song of Ice and Fire) is dead in the water. I have started to answer in a couple different tags now, but not nearly at the same rate. Questions are sporadic, if I have one I ask it.

As far as reviewing goes, I already am an active reviewer and I don't see that changing. The only thing I will have to keep in mind is my binding vote. As such, I would probably only close/reopen/delete if I was the final vote.

My activity in chat would probably increase. I was very active there in my early days. That came to sudden end which I never really recovered from, although it has been getting better. As a moderator I would make myself accessible there to engage with the community and get to know the others that venture into chat.

What do you do now to build the community, rather than your own prestige in the community?

I think everything a user does here builds the community. The "prestige" is something that just comes along with it. Asking, answering, reviewing, editing, and other tools on the site all contribute to making it a thriving community. I participate in all these activities (first posts and late answers are my favorite though). When I ask a question it is not because I think about how much rep I can earn from it, but because I want an answer, gosh darn it! When I answer a question I don't care how many votes it gets or if it gets accepted, I just want to share my knowledge!

To me after 25k reputation doesn't really even matter. It is just a number. Of course I did strive to reach 25k because I wanted to be afforded all the privileges the site offered, but I let it happen naturally as I became more interested in the site and found a few tags I was adept at providing answers for. The rest has been gravy.

I love building up new users. I have been running a "Best New User" post on meta in since 2017 which is nice way to honor new contributors to the site. This has been my small contribution to build the community and encourage meta participation.

8. You disagree publicly with another active/high-rep user about a point of site policy: for example, whether or not a particular question should be closed. How do you decide what to do - take mod action (such as closing/reopening yourself), start a meta discussion, or continue trying to convince the other person?

I am always going to defer to the community at large and this means taking a disagreement to meta. I have had my mind changes more than a few times after reading a particular meta post about a question or other policies. I will try to argue my own opinion as well, but at the end of the day I realize it is just that, an opinion. Once a meta consensus is reach I would apply any appropriate moderation actions if needed.

9. Given hypothetical absolute authority, what would you want to change about this site? What policies would you introduce, abolish, apply more strictly or more laxly?

Is it boring to say nothing? Well, I never minded being boring... I like the site the way it is. I've come to find that most of the best policies originate organically from the community and mostly resolved there as well. Although, I am sure if a policy discussion comes up I will be sure to participate in it. This is also not to say I can be strongly opinionated, I have had a few moments where I didn't like the way a policy was being applied or some I found bothersome. In each case I made my arguments and once the community reached a consensus I followed it (even if I didn't agree with it).

10. What do you consider to be the absolute minimum amount of activity a moderator should contribute to their site as a normal user (e.g. questions/answers/comments/etc), above and beyond their duties as a mod?

We can't demand any level of activity, but moderators should be visible; in my opinion the absolute minimum needs to be one visible action per day. This does not even need to be Q&A, it could be comments, meta posts, reviews, even some banter in chat. It just needs to be something beyond "handling flags behind the scenes" (i.e. activity normal users can't see). Moderators should also not be "last seen" for more than a week ago (extenuating circumstances notwithstanding).

1. 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?

First, I would warn the user in a comment to adhere to the Code of Conduct and other site guidelines, and to generally be respectful to other users. If that failed, I would discuss the user’s case with other moderators, and if they agreed, I would take the user aside in a private chat room and talk to them about how their answers were beneficial for the site, but how they might need to change how they interact with other users of the site to smooth over disagreements. If they chose not to take this advice, then I would suspend them briefly to give them some time to cool down. I would also consider the nature of the flags and arguments: the critics are not always correct, and if a user were attracting criticism for something positive, a different type of action might be warranted.

2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?

If it were not a matter that could be resolved by the site’s users through the tools available to them, such as reopening or undeleting, I would discuss it with the other mod in the moderator chat room to see if we could come to a consensus. My argument would likely be that the sites’ users should be able to decide whether a question should be closed or deleted, except in extreme cases. If we still disagreed, I would see what the other moderators thought, and I would respect the decision of the majority, unless it went against SE policy. In the case of a serious dispute that went beyond science fiction and fantasy issues, I would think that the other moderators would generally agree that it would be appropriate to bring it to the attention of the CM team.

3. Once in a while, SFF suffers deep disagreements over policy and its usage. For instance, SFF has the Future Works Policy (where implementation is not always straight-forward). As a moderator you have tools to resolve these conflicts (post locks, suspension, and a binding delete the community at large cannot undo). How would you resolve conflicts where the community is thrashing a question over a policy dispute?

I would continue what appears to be the current policy of locking highly disputed posts until the community or the moderators can reach an agreement about what type of action, if any, should be taken. I would not permanently delete a post unless it was generating extreme discord, or unless the moderators as a whole had decided that this was the appropriate course of action. I would use suspensions to give users a cool-down period if they violated the code of conduct while discussing policy.

4. SFF.SE has a mixed reputation among neighbouring sites (such as M&TV, Literature, Arqade, RPG, etc.), sometimes getting a bad rap in their chats, with some of their site regulars having a negative view of SFF and not participating here. Among the many roles a moderator might play is that of an ambassador of the site; what is your view on these inter-site issues and how (if at all) would you consider dealing with them?

I think our site’s reputation is partly due to past events, and partly due to behaviors that continue to be present. We do need to do outreach to other SE sites, but we also need to work to be more welcoming to new users, and to avoid giving the impression, or even promoting the reality, of being a clique of veteran fans. The site can only grow by attracting a wider base of contributors. At the same time, we need to keep in mind the mistakes that led to certain incidents in the past and avoid making them again.

5. Why do you want to be a moderator?

I have been using the site for almost six years, and even during my quieter periods, I have contributed some questions and answers. I understand the site tools and the basics of SQL database queries, so I can use them to figure out where the site is going and how to help it move in the direction that the community. I have enjoyed helping the site grow, and I think I can continue to help improve the site if I become a moderator. Also, I have been a teacher, so I have some experience “moderating” large groups of people who are interested in learning the answers to their questions. 😉

6. How do you expect your activity would change if you become a moderator? For example, would you be a more active or less active reviewer (or review differently), spend more time or less time in chat and/or meta (or change the style of your activity there), ... ?

I have been less active recently, so my activity would certainly increase. I would be more cautious about taking unilateral actions on the site, something that Uncle Ben would surely agree with. If a regular user mistakenly votes to close a question, they would need four other users to make the same mistake in order to close it (unless they are a gold badge holder and vote to close it as a duplicate), but if a moderator closes a question prematurely, they can easily turn a new user away from the site for the foreseeable future.

7. What do you do now to build the community, rather than your own prestige in the community?

I have participated extensively in the review and edit queues, as well as possibly having written a community wiki answer or two. Further, I post bounties for questions that I think deserve more attention. I have been an active contributor to meta, helping to clarify, explain, and even set site policy. In order to expand the site’s focus beyond a few popular works and to grow its user base, I also try to ask questions about lesser-known and international works.

8. You disagree publicly with another active/high-rep user about a point of site policy: for example, whether or not a particular question should be closed. How do you decide what to do - take mod action (such as closing/reopening yourself), start a meta discussion, or continue trying to convince the other person?

As indicated in my responses to some of the other questions, my preference is generally to let the sites’ users resolve disputes about opening and closing questions. If I felt that the closure was unambiguously incorrect from the perspective of our current policy, I would discuss it with the other moderators before taking action on the question, and I would also open a meta discussion to see if site policy might need to be changed.

9. Given hypothetical absolute authority, what would you want to change about this site? What policies would you introduce, abolish, apply more strictly or more laxly?

Needless to say, a moderator does not have absolute authority. However, if I did have that authority, I would seek the input of the community before making any changes. I would be particularly interested in reversing the slowing pace of the site, encouraging new users to join and ask questions about the works that interest them, and diversifying the works that people ask questions about, now that our standbys, Harry Potter and Star Wars, may no longer be such reliable sources of new queries.

10. What do you consider to be the absolute minimum amount of activity a moderator should contribute to their site as a normal user (e.g. questions/answers/comments/etc), above and beyond their duties as a mod?

I think a moderator should contribute at least one question, answer, or comment every week. First, because they should have some idea of how the site functions for ordinary users if they are going to be moderating their behavior. Stack Exchange occasionally institutes changes to the behavior of the site, and if moderators do not use the site, they may not be sufficiently familiar with how the site works to effectively employ the tools commensurate to their role. Further, it is important that a moderator be visible, so that the users of the site can be confident that they are performing their job. Moderation is about perception, not just results.

1. 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?

I'll show him/her comment standards of this site.

2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?

I'll respect the decision of the another mod and talk to him/her about this in private.

3. Once in a while, SFF suffers deep disagreements over policy and its usage. For instance, SFF has the Future Works Policy (where implementation is not always straight-forward). As a moderator you have tools to resolve these conflicts (post locks, suspension, and a binding delete the community at large cannot undo). How would you resolve conflicts where the community is thrashing a question over a policy dispute?

I'll lock the disputed post until the conflict is resolved in meta.

4. SFF.SE has a mixed reputation among neighbouring sites (such as M&TV, Literature, Arqade, RPG, etc.), sometimes getting a bad rap in their chats, with some of their site regulars having a negative view of SFF and not participating here. Among the many roles a moderator might play is that of an ambassador of the site; what is your view on these inter-site issues and how (if at all) would you consider dealing with them?

I'll go to their chats & persuade them to join us again to see whether it matches their taste this time.

5. Why do you want to be a moderator?

I am not seeing enough moderation activities these days. I want to fill the gap.

6. How do you expect your activity would change if you become a moderator? For example, would you be a more active or less active reviewer (or review differently), spend more time or less time in chat and/or meta (or change the style of your activity there), ... ?

I'll act more responsibly, so moderation quality would matter more than moderation quantity.

7. What do you do now to build the community, rather than your own prestige in the community?

I keep sharing good questions and answers all over the internet. I don't have access to stats, but I am sure I have brought lots of fabulous users here.

8. You disagree publicly with another active/high-rep user about a point of site policy: for example, whether or not a particular question should be closed. How do you decide what to do - take mod action (such as closing/reopening yourself), start a meta discussion, or continue trying to convince the other person?

I'll never abuse my powers. I'll act as normal user in this case and let community or other mod decide what to do.

9. Given hypothetical absolute authority, what would you want to change about this site? What policies would you introduce, abolish, apply more strictly or more laxly?

With absolute authority, I won't want older questions closed as duplicates. It's not nice to punish older questions if community failed to find it when newer question was found.

10. What do you consider to be the absolute minimum amount of activity a moderator should contribute to their site as a normal user (e.g. questions/answers/comments/etc), above and beyond their duties as a mod?

They should at least be active in voting (reading posts) & commenting so that they know what's going on in the community.

1. 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?

Talk to them, let them know their contributions are appreciated, but bad behavior cannot be tolerated. Let them demonstrate their ability to do better. If not some corrective action might be needed.

2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?

Questions are always being closed that some people object to. If it is a controversial decision then the ideal solution is to have a discussion where each side can make their case. Usually through meta or chat and afterwards what is done is done. I know sometimes people are upset when a question they like is closed, but if the community decides that is right (maybe after the mod made an early judgement) then so be it.

3. Once in a while, SFF suffers deep disagreements over policy and its usage. For instance, SFF has the Future Works Policy (where implementation is not always straight-forward). As a moderator you have tools to resolve these conflicts (post locks, suspension, and a binding delete the community at large cannot undo). How would you resolve conflicts where the community is thrashing a question over a policy dispute?

When divisive questions come along, it is nice when a moderator is closely monitoring the question to make sure that comments, answers, and edits aren't getting out of control. Sometimes just having a moderator present and putting a comment down that says "Lets all behave" can have a mediating affect. Other times it requires the aforementioned tools to reign in the conflicts.

4. SFF.SE has a mixed reputation among neighbouring sites (such as M&TV, Literature, Arqade, RPG, etc.), sometimes getting a bad rap in their chats, with some of their site regulars having a negative view of SFF and not participating here. Among the many roles a moderator might play is that of an ambassador of the site; what is your view on these inter-site issues and how (if at all) would you consider dealing with them?

I haven't participated much in chats on those sites, although I do have at least a few questions and answers for each of them. I know that we embrace identification questions a lot more readily than they do. To each their own? There is no reason these different communities can't exist with their own cultures and norms. Probably the reason those three are specifically called out is because Science Fiction & Fantasy has so much overlap with all three.

5. Why do you want to be a moderator?

I've enjoyed the site from its creation, even through the ups and downs. I've always felt as a moderator I'd be able to bring a more calming voice for when things get crazy.

6. How do you expect your activity would change if you become a moderator? For example, would you be a more active or less active reviewer (or review differently), spend more time or less time in chat and/or meta (or change the style of your activity there), ... ?

I would definitely be more active. My participation has waned a little over the years, although I am still lingering in the background most days, and still update blog meta posts.

7. What do you do now to build the community, rather than your own prestige in the community?

I maintain the blog, including the Best of the Quarter posts, which is designed to recognize members who are making positive impacts on the site.

8. You disagree publicly with another active/high-rep user about a point of site policy: for example, whether or not a particular question should be closed. How do you decide what to do - take mod action (such as closing/reopening yourself), start a meta discussion, or continue trying to convince the other person?

Sometimes it is best to take a step back and see what other people thing. Am I in the minority on this issue? It goes back to question 3. I am a lot happier to accept a decision I don't agree with if I feel there was at least some discussion to hear the different sides of an argument.

9. Given hypothetical absolute authority, what would you want to change about this site? What policies would you introduce, abolish, apply more strictly or more laxly?

I wish there was a way to change the site so that all my friends through the years who have left because of the various policies and decisions could feel welcome again. Baring that I don't know there is anything specific that I'd change.

10. What do you consider to be the absolute minimum amount of activity a moderator should contribute to their site as a normal user (e.g. questions/answers/comments/etc), above and beyond their duties as a mod?

It is nice when moderators are available and participating, but that doesn't necessarily translate to lots of questions and answers or high rep. So for normal user level, I'm not sure there is a really much of a minimum. The most important thing to me is that mods are available when needed and actively monitoring things, even if it is done in the background.

1. 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?

Discuss it with the other mods. Assess the nature of the arguments and flags. There may not be any action necessary; sometimes people just disagree. If action is warranted, the mod who has the best rapport with the user should address them in private.

2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?

I would contact that mod and ask for their reasoning, discussing it in private. Involving other mods if necessary, but preferably taking it to meta to let the community decide. If the other mod is unavailable, I might just reopen it, letting the other mods know what I've done and why.

3. Once in a while, SFF suffers deep disagreements over policy and its usage. For instance, SFF has the Future Works Policy (where implementation is not always straight-forward). As a moderator you have tools to resolve these conflicts (post locks, suspension, and a binding delete the community at large cannot undo). How would you resolve conflicts where the community is thrashing a question over a policy dispute?

In general, temporarily locking the post and having the community work it out on meta.

4. SFF.SE has a mixed reputation among neighbouring sites (such as M&TV, Literature, Arqade, RPG, etc.), sometimes getting a bad rap in their chats, with some of their site regulars having a negative view of SFF and not participating here. Among the many roles a moderator might play is that of an ambassador of the site; what is your view on these inter-site issues and how (if at all) would you consider dealing with them?

That's a difficult one for me, since I hardly participate in other chats.

5. Why do you want to be a moderator?

Quoting myself here:

If I use this stack, I should be willing to lend a hand in cleaning and fixing as well.

6. How do you expect your activity would change if you become a moderator? For example, would you be a more active or less active reviewer (or review differently), spend more time or less time in chat and/or meta (or change the style of your activity there), ... ?

I will have to learn to be more careful with my close and delete voting, leaving it to the community instead. Casting the final vote is okay. And of course, some things are just blatantly off topic.

7. What do you do now to build the community, rather than your own prestige in the community?

I don't need any rep above 25.000, so I regularly set bounties on questions (which I should do more). I participate in chat and am a room owner of our main chat room.

8. You disagree publicly with another active/high-rep user about a point of site policy: for example, whether or not a particular question should be closed. How do you decide what to do - take mod action (such as closing/reopening yourself), start a meta discussion, or continue trying to convince the other person?

Discuss it with other mods. If that user participates in chat, I would discuss it with them there. And again, meta is a great place to get input from other users and let the community decide.

9. Given hypothetical absolute authority, what would you want to change about this site? What policies would you introduce, abolish, apply more strictly or more laxly?

I would cap the reputation earned per question instead of per day, so that users get more rep for actively participating instead of just having answered one really popular question 10 years ago.

10. What do you consider to be the absolute minimum amount of activity a moderator should contribute to their site as a normal user (e.g. questions/answers/comments/etc), above and beyond their duties as a mod?

Barring vacations, visibly visiting (leaving comments, participating in chat) several days a week should be the bare minimum.

In general, I prefer to let the community decide. I expect the occasions where swift action is needed to have a quite obvious course of action as well.

1. 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?

With patience. The community is built up by high quality contributions, but an argumentative user can also be detrimental and make new users feel unwelcome. Ideally we should be able to communicate with the user in question, and show them how their behaviour is problematic and give them the opportunity to improve.

2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?

Discuss it with the other mod, to understand why they took the action they did and to explain why I felt differently. Being on the same page as other moderators is very important, and it's only through noticing these situations that we'll be able to understand our differences and how to move past them.

3. Once in a while, SFF suffers deep disagreements over policy and its usage. For instance, SFF has the Future Works Policy (where implementation is not always straight-forward). As a moderator you have tools to resolve these conflicts (post locks, suspension, and a binding delete the community at large cannot undo). How would you resolve conflicts where the community is thrashing a question over a policy dispute?

The question gets locked and we make a post on meta to achieve a community consensus.

4. SFF.SE has a mixed reputation among neighbouring sites (such as M&TV, Literature, Arqade, RPG, etc.), sometimes getting a bad rap in their chats, with some of their site regulars having a negative view of SFF and not participating here. Among the many roles a moderator might play is that of an ambassador of the site; what is your view on these inter-site issues and how (if at all) would you consider dealing with them?

I would speak honestly. Most of what happened here is in the past and the reputation far exceeds anything that actually happened. and we're now an awesome and welcoming community. I've been a user here for a while and I've loved the site.

5. Why do you want to be a moderator?

I would love to be in a position where I can give back to the community at a higher level than before.

6. How do you expect your activity would change if you become a moderator? For example, would you be a more active or less active reviewer (or review differently), spend more time or less time in chat and/or meta (or change the style of your activity there), ... ?

I would expect my time in chat and interactions with other users would go up, though my regular activity might go down a bit. (Not down enough to make me invisible though.)

7. What do you do now to build the community, rather than your own prestige in the community?

Focus on moderation, rather than reputation. Get flag response times down, engage with meta, etc.

8. You disagree publicly with another active/high-rep user about a point of site policy: for example, whether or not a particular question should be closed. How do you decide what to do - take mod action (such as closing/reopening yourself), start a meta discussion, or continue trying to convince the other person?

Really depends on the context. And all of those actions could be good in different situations. If I feel the person would be convinced, I'd try convincing them. If I feel policy is unambiguously my way I'll just take the action. If there's room for doubt we start a meta discussion to find the community consensus.

9. Given hypothetical absolute authority, what would you want to change about this site? What policies would you introduce, abolish, apply more strictly or more laxly?

I'm more of a "if it aint broke dont fix it" guy. I don't think there's any drastic changes that need to happen to this site, just gentle human exception handling as we go along.

10. What do you consider to be the absolute minimum amount of activity a moderator should contribute to their site as a normal user (e.g. questions/answers/comments/etc), above and beyond their duties as a mod?

I feel a moderator should still act like a regular user, just not necessarily a very active one. A few questions and/or answers a year would be the absolute minimum.

1. 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 answer to any issue along these lines always depends on context. Could it be that the user here is not actually at fault most of the time but is being targeted by other users? For the purpose of the question though I will assume the flags are valid and the user can tend to get caught up in arguments (whether caused by them or not knowing when to step away is sometimes a needed skill).

We should take the user into account depending on the context of the flag. A new user needs more guidance and a user that's been around a while should generally know better. A new user can still have provided "a steady stream of valuable answers" after all.

• A new user: Depending on the exact nature of the flags generated and the context of the arguments can depend on how to handle this. It might just be that the new user just doesn't quite understand how SE works and so needs some coaching. This can be done in the relevant comments, in chat or in private depending on the situation.

• An established user: Again same as the above. However, a reminder of the rules rather than something more in depth is needed.

In both cases if the situation persists then further action is needed. This may be another warning if there is a long enough time gap or either case isn't too severe or could result in a suspension. Communication is always the first step unless the situation is already too far gone.

2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?

This depends on the exact situation and timing of the issue. If I've just seen the action taken I would talk to the mod in private and come to understand why they did what they did. It could be that I'm missing something or it could be that they are; hopefully we could reach a mutual understanding. This isn't always possible though so talking to the other mods could help clear things up.

Below I'm assuming the situation in question can be discussed in public so not a suspension or similar.

However, even that might not do it and so it's then up to me whether or not I feel strongly enough against the other mod's actions. In that case I would need to work out if there are others in agreement with my position. This could be through reading comments on the post or in chat. It could even be a meta discussion if one is available.

If one isn't available and I still feel strongly I would post a meta question to get the community's feedback. Upon reaching a consensus there the appropriate action should be taken whether that is leave it be or act as needed.

3. Once in a while, SFF suffers deep disagreements over policy and its usage. For instance, SFF has the Future Works Policy (where implementation is not always straight-forward). As a moderator you have tools to resolve these conflicts (post locks, suspension, and a binding delete the community at large cannot undo). How would you resolve conflicts where the community is thrashing a question over a policy dispute?

Taking the thrashing to mean this is literally a close/reopen war. Initially, I think it would be best to lock the post; it does no one any good and can be frustrating for the OP for their question to constantly be closed and reopened. It may get unlocked as the below steps are undertaken. The lock will be needed to allow me to clean up what's needed and to pause the discussion if it's already too far gone.

After that offending comments on the post will need to be cleaned up as things can get quite heated. It might also be necessary to move some/all of the comments to chat unless that would just continue the argument. A comment informing users to keep things civil and/or discuss it elsewhere will be left as appropriate.

If this is a case where some users are acting against policy or to cause trouble the appropriate outcome of the post may be clear. As such I would follow the steps mentioned above. I would then discuss it with the mod team and see if we can reach a consensus. If so the appropriate action can be taken on the question and a comment left. If not then see question 2.

After that a meta post to discuss the dispute needs to be set up if there is not one already. Users can then discuss the question and how the policy applies to it to get a clear consensus. Once one is reached the appropriate action can be taken on the post.

All of these places for discussions will need to be moderated as normal with suspensions and chat bans handed out if necessary.

4. SFF.SE has a mixed reputation among neighbouring sites (such as M&TV, Literature, Arqade, RPG, etc.), sometimes getting a bad rap in their chats, with some of their site regulars having a negative view of SFF and not participating here. Among the many roles a moderator might play is that of an ambassador of the site; what is your view on these inter-site issues and how (if at all) would you consider dealing with them?

This isn't something that should be solely down to the mod team; the community as a whole can come together to work on these issues.

A lot of these apparent issues are in the past nowadays, not all are and some are more recent than others. It's worth considering a bit of context in answering this.

If the issue held is quite old then there's not much we can do about it now from our end. Take the old chatroom's reputation as an example. TREU has a good reputation and much of the issues of the previous chatroom have been moved passed and forgotten. At that point a lot of the onus is on the other party to move passed the issue. However, an honest communication and continuing to build a healthy chatroom goes a long way.

If the issue is relatively fresh or still ongoing then things need to be approached a bit differently. Setting up communication with the other party is important, the faster this is done the better. We can then work together to try and resolve the issue or even just being compassionate and understanding can go a long way in healing the relationship.

I also think that being a user of the other site, if one is interested in its focus (for example, I have 10k on M&TV and am somewhat active on Arqade), can help matters. Encouraging users, from both sites, to work together can help things. Whether openly discussing an issue or using the other site. If you're seen being an active member of their community and they appreciate your efforts, it may be reciprocated.

There's also the chance for some form of inter-community events. For example, a multi site topic challenge. That would encourage cross participation. Consider the overlap in content between SFF, Lit, M&TV and Arqade. If users are encouraged to post on multiple sites that can help grow all of the sites and strengthen/unify the communities.

5. Why do you want to be a moderator?

Firstly, I love this site, I spend a lot of time on it and I want it to succeed even more so that it already has. I have the site open constantly when at a PC and periodically check it on my phone when I'm not.

I'm already essentially "maxed out" in the way I help the site out: one of the most active users with the most reviews, helpful flags and edits of all time. There's not much more I can do as a user to help out the site that I love and I want to take that next step in doing so.

6. How do you expect your activity would change if you become a moderator? For example, would you be a more active or less active reviewer (or review differently), spend more time or less time in chat and/or meta (or change the style of your activity there), ... ?

I certainly expect my activity to drop. I'll still be active in meta and chat. My meta activity though would probably change. As a mod my words would take more weight and meaning to them. Depending on the question it might be important to get mod consensus and formulate a response as a team rather than off my own back.

Asking and answering questions is likely to take a hit. I tend to post in select topics and others if I find them interesting or know the answer. This means outside of "peak times" (new releases) my posting can be relatively low anyway. So I don't expect my normal day to day to change but I would probably not be as quick to answer a question.

My reviewing activity will drop like a stone. I'm pretty much the most active reviewer and that's not something a mod should really be. In single user queues I'll take a step back but still review occasionally. Leading by example is always a good thing. For multi user queues I imagine I'll mostly step back. It might be a case of skipping a review more often as well so as not to use a binding vote where it isn't really needed.

7. What do you do now to build the community, rather than your own prestige in the community?

By doing day to day user moderation and keeping the site clean is one of the best ways to help the community.

Helping users out is really important. I will often leave comments helping users or discussing in chat with them. This could be simple things such as pointing someone to the Tour and giving them some basic information about the site. Or it could be more in depth explaining how certain site features work.

I also find it important to help new users on their first use of the site and so I have over 7k FP reviews. Cleaning a post with an edit, tagging it correctly and giving it a decent title can go a long way. Leaving a comment also really helps. Letting users know how to edit their post and giving them specific feedback goes a long way to encouraging new users to improve their own posts and even stick around.

I also led the "Ways to improve SFF" discussion which led to improvements such as Topic Challenges. There are still things there that need to be started so room for more!

8. You disagree publicly with another active/high-rep user about a point of site policy: for example, whether or not a particular question should be closed. How do you decide what to do - take mod action (such as closing/reopening yourself), start a meta discussion, or continue trying to convince the other person?

This has a lot of similarities to my answers to questions 2 and 3 so I won't repeat a lot of it. I think though in this case communication is usually the best form of action. Be it a brief back and forth or on a meta discussion.

I think we also need to consider the degree of disagreement and whether others have stated how they feel. Maybe I need to defer to the community or that the community is acting against policy. I could also feel really strongly and so after a brief exchange it might be best to let another mod handle the situation and to take a back seat.

9. Given hypothetical absolute authority, what would you want to change about this site? What policies would you introduce, abolish, apply more strictly or more laxly?

The most important thing that is lacking on the site is a good way to onboard new users. This is tricky to get right but there are things that can be done. The site lives and dies with its users so user retention and content generation are important.

10. What do you consider to be the absolute minimum amount of activity a moderator should contribute to their site as a normal user (e.g. questions/answers/comments/etc), above and beyond their duties as a mod?

Enough so that you do not fade into the background. Mods might be "human exception handlers" but they are also community leaders because of their diamond. As such it is important to stay visible in the site. A mod should also always be reachable/approachable and an invisible mod is less of these things.