- 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 don't believe any special treatment is warranted; all users must follow the rules, regardless of past contributions. However, I acknowledge that highly active users may encounter more friction. My approach would depend on the severity and frequency of the issues. A friendly warning for a minor and less frequent incident can go a long way compared to suspension, for example. But more serious offenses definitely would require taking a firmer stance, most probably a discussion with another moderator (or moderators) to determine next steps. I think I even heard of at least a couple of instances where issues were escalated to Community Managers.
Ultimately, while we appreciate valuable contributions, maintaining a healthy community environment is paramount, and disruptive behavior can quickly overshadow even the most helpful answers.
- How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?
This isn't an uncommon scenario; I've found myself both taking actions that others (moderator or not) questioned and questioning actions taken by others. My first step in such a situation would always be to have a discussion with the other moderator. Through it, one of two positive outcomes typically occurs:
I gain a new understanding of their reasoning, which broadens my own moderating perspective for future similar situations.
Or I'm able to present my argument, leading them to reconsider their initial decision.
There are no downsides to prioritizing this kind of dialogue; it only strengthens moderation team's understanding and consistency.
- Given many moderators and curators left the site in recent times because they disagree with the direction things are going on the site/network, why do you want to be a moderator? What motivates you to keep cleaning up garbage, when many previous "janitors" felt it's not worth it anymore?
I understand the frustrations that have led many moderators and curators to leave; I share many of those concerns and have been vocal about them. However, I don't see myself giving up. I am deeply invested in this community, constantly learning from both the technical and non-technical aspects of being here. I still believe this platform is worth fighting for and maintaining. As I don't foresee a 'magical tool' emerging soon to replace human expertise, our collective (no pun intended) effort as a community remains the best way to ensure the continued existence and quality of the library of knowledge.
- Community moderators operate under shared principles; however, they are ultimately individual participants. A consensus may form within the team about how to handle discretionary matters not covered by established policies—for example, how to handle a specific kind of flag, or how long of a suspension to issue for some kind of inappropriate behavior. Would you consider this consensus to be binding and, in case you weren’t already doing things that way, adjust accordingly?
I've had disagreements with other curators and moderators before. In some cases, one of the involved parties was convinced by the other side's perspective and adjusted their approach. In other situations, we might not fully resolve the differences, even after finding common ground. However, I believe that engaging in back-and-forth actions over disagreements is counterproductive and unwise. If the team has had a reasonable and rational discussion and decided on the best way to handle something—which I trust is how our moderation team operates—then my personal agreement or disagreement becomes secondary. Consensus should be upheld for the sake of consistency and effective moderation.
- Stack Overflow moderation is a nontrivial time investment due to its scale. Do you think cleaning up Stack Overflow is an appealing way to spend your free time? If so, why? If not, what makes you want to be a moderator anyway? (Copied from this post by Ryan M, originally from 2022 suggested moderator questions.)
I believe I've partially addressed this in my answer to question #3, but to speak directly to spending my free time on moderation: I already do, and I genuinely enjoy it.
While I'd love to address the underlying issues that lead to chaos and noise on the network (and I advocate for features and fixes on Meta), I won't stand by when I see things like NAA posts or NLN comments. My motivation to clean up isn't easily quantifiable, but I can say that, "M-- likes order". For me, contributing to a well-maintained and organized Stack Overflow is an appealing and rewarding way to spend my free time.
- Stack Overflow sometimes asks moderators to offer feedback on things that they are planning (features, network software changes, etc). This feedback can sometimes alter what Staff does. What do you think about moderators being the "bleeding edge" of feedback, and are you willing to participate?
I am a firm believer in early feedback. While I understand that not every piece of feedback will result in an immediate change, providing informed input on planned features or experiments (can) significantly increase their chances of success and reduce the risk of disrupting existing workflows. I have consistently offered my "two cents" in the past (as is evident from my meta profiles), and I'll continue to be a proactive source of feedback.
- The mod team is completely split over a controversial issue. They are cordial with each other, but they disagree over what they should do, and it looks like they'll have to agree to disagree (which wouldn't work out great). How do you handle this?
It is certainly a tough situation when the mod team is completely split on a controversial issue, especially when a consensus isn't forming. As I mentioned in response to question #4, engaging in back-and-forth actions over disagreements is counterproductive and cannot persist.
My approach would be highly case-by-case. For less serious issues, like deleting or not deleting a specific post, I'd be much more lenient to settle for a middle ground or even concede my position for the sake of team cohesion and avoiding prolonged deadlock.
However, for more serious issues with significant community impact, I'd likely hold my ground if I felt strongly about the correct course of action. In such cases, the goal shifts from immediate consensus to ensuring the right decision/precedent for the community in the long run, even if that means extended discussion or seeking external guidance. Cody's conduct regarding the election incident is a great example of this, demonstrating the importance of upholding principles on critical matters, and that's an approach I'd aim to adopt.
Honestly, no! We've been talking about the importance of consensus and coherence, and I don't believe an entirely new approach is needed, nor would it be productive. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. For years, a lot of incidents and issues have come up, and moderators have considered different scenarios and developed sound solutions and strategies. While everyone will naturally have a slightly different approach for practical cases, the underlying principles don't need to change.
Let me give you an example: I believe in conserving valuable content and not deleting posts with historical significance, and I think all moderators generally share that philosophy. However, we might not always agree on the specific significance of a particular post. So, while the "philosophy" is the same, how it translates into action can vary from time to time.
- While moderators no longer have a huge backlog of flags related to AI generated posts, plenty of AI generated content is still being posted and flagged on daily basis. What is your stance on AI generated and assisted content and are you willing to handle such flags?
I fully support the current policy on AI-generated content (AIGC) and am definitely willing to handle flags related to it; I've already been dealing with them, to an extent, within Discussions.
There are multiple reasons for not allowing AIGC on the network, and these reasons are independent of whether one is generally for or against using AI:
LLMs can generate "answers" in a matter of seconds and there is no guarantee that the user asking the question has the expertise to verify the answer; and there's no reliable way for moderators to verify each of these answers, as we aren't subject matter experts in every technology. Furthermore, such content is not the work of the person posting the answer, which makes it a form of plagiarism. And honestly, why would I want an answer from an LLM posted on Stack Overflow?! If I wanted that, I could go and ask a chatbot myself. Finally, even if you believe LLMs are superior to any subject matter expert, you should still be against AIGC on Stack Exchange websites. You certainly wouldn't want LLMs to be trained on their own output, creating a detrimental feedback loop.
As an elected moderator, you can have an outsized impact on the community as a thought leader aside from the typical clean-up/moderation tasks. A diamond next to your name can lend weight or a sense of validity to your ideas, stances, and reactions. Do you plan to be a thought leader? If so, how would you seek to use your influence?
Additional Context: Being a moderator means more than just getting expanded powers to do things like cast binding votes, delete comments, and issue suspensions. It also means that people tend to look to you as a thought leader. People may vote for you based on what they already know about how and what you think (and I suppose asking this question just reinforces that), but you'll also gain leverage with a diamond—like being a weak magnet, subtly aligning iron filings around you. Is there anything in particular you'd want to do with that expanded influence?
I'm not entirely comfortable with the "thought leader" sentiment. I absolutely understand that a diamond next to my name brings additional responsibility and weight to my actions and opinions. So, I'll certainly be extra careful with how I express my views as a moderator, though I don't believe I've been careless so far. I'll continue to challenge myself, read existing posts, hone my ideas, and discuss them with others before putting them "out" there. My goal isn't to lead thoughts, but to contribute thoughtfully and carefully.