> 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](https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11865/what-are-future-works) (where [implementation is not always straight-forward](https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11853/62709)). 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](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/election/8?tab=election#post-170610) - [Q&A Post](https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6878/45825)

- [2020 Literature Election](https://literature.stackexchange.com/election/1?tab=election#post-13687)

- [2018 Movies & TV Election](https://movies.stackexchange.com/election/2?tab=election#post-93164) - [Q&A Post](https://movies.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4326/28011)

  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](https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/q/13237/57310) [New](https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/q/12896/57310) [User](https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/q/12261/57310)" [post](https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11636/57310) 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).