8

In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&A thread for the candidates. Questions collected from an earlier thread have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers.

Due to the submission count, we have selected all provided questions as well as one of our back up questions for a total of 10 questions. I omitted the two negatively-scoring questions.

As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes.Please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written, and also including a link to your answer on your nomination post.

Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page.

Good luck to all of the candidates!

Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.

To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):


  1. What distinguishes this site from questions about the biblical texts on Christianity.SE?

  2. This site has traditionally allowed a wide variety of hermeneutical approaches and does not (explicitly) favor any religious belief. Is this a policy you'd be interested in changing? Why or why not?

  3. Suppose there was a member of our community who writes good questions and answers, but who also shows a distinct lack of patience and respect for certain hermeneutical approaches. Perhaps they don't accept source criticism, or they reject traditional authorial ascriptions. Perhaps they can't stand esoteric or Kabbalistic approaches. Perhaps they oppose any Christological readings of the Hebrew Bible. They may not reach the line of objectively offensive, but they're quick to say that others are wrong or their posts are nonsense. What would you do with such a member (especially if you'd frequently agree that the posts they critique are nonsense)?

  4. Someone has asked a question that is off-topic, perhaps asking for what the Bible says about a topic, or looking for verses. It has already gotten several well received answers, has been put in the Hot Network Questions list, and has thousands of views. What do you, as a moderator, do? (Example question of exactly this situation.)

  5. Do you agree with the principles outlined in these site distinctives? If not, where and why do you disagree?

  6. 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?

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

  8. Do you believe this site needs to significantly revise its stated purpose and/or distinctives given the reality of the types of questions and answers typically posted?

  9. Do you feel like an evangelical Protestant Christian worldview1 and hermeneutical approaches are assumed in the majority of questions and answers on this site?

    If so, are you OK with such unstated assumptions in

    • questions?
    • answers?

    Why or why not?

  10. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

| |
6
  1. What distinguishes this site from questions about the biblical texts on Christianity.SE?

Christianity.SE handles texts from specific Christian perspectives, using the given perspective as the key factor in interpreting the text, or explaining its typical interpretation as given by the named tradition. Here on BH.SE we apply hermeneutic principles to texts with the intent of understanding their intended meaning, or determining the valid range of interpretation in their original or intended interpretive contexts.

  1. This site has traditionally allowed a wide variety of hermeneutical approaches and does not (explicitly) favor any religious belief. Is this a policy you'd be interested in changing? Why or why not?

I really value this aspect of BH.SE and have no interest in changing it. Each of us inevitably carries our own biases to every question, passage and subject, and many of these are invisible to us. As the KJV translators once wrote:

"A variety of translations is profitable for discerning the sense of the Scriptures."

This is true both of translations and interpreters. By taking a variety of views on a passage, we find more ways to question and test the different available readings of the biblical texts, and gain the best opportunity to discover where we may be mistaken.

  1. Suppose there was a member of our community who writes good questions and answers, but who also shows a distinct lack of patience and respect for certain hermeneutical approaches. Perhaps they don't accept source criticism, or they reject traditional authorial ascriptions. Perhaps they can't stand esoteric or Kabbalistic approaches. Perhaps they oppose any Christological readings of the Hebrew Bible. They may not reach the line of objectively offensive, but they're quick to say that others are wrong or their posts are nonsense. What would you do with such a member (especially if you'd frequently agree that the posts they critique are nonsense)?

In the first instance, I'd need to consider my own inexperience in judging these types of issues, and discuss the case with another moderator if available. This would be my first time as a SE community moderator, and so I need to learn more about the tools and options available for such a case.

"He drew a circle that shut me out- Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But love and I had the wit to win: We drew a circle and took him in." - Edwin Markham

Every man and woman is the hero of their own story. I'd seek to engage with this user in the first instance with a view to affirming their contributions and encouraging them to join the community-forming spirit of the site, and to consider how they could improve their contributions to make others feel more welcome.

Beyond that, if they're not crossing any serious lines, I'd hope for downvoting to form some of that feedback which helps slowly reform their approach. If there were one or two particular users inflaming this behaviour, I may approach them to encourage them to engage with this user in a more helpful way.

  1. Someone has asked a question that is off-topic, perhaps asking for what the Bible says about a topic, or looking for verses. It has already gotten several well received answers, has been put in the Hot Network Questions list, and has thousands of views. What do you, as a moderator, do? (Example question of exactly this situation.)

Due to the nature of what we're trying to do on BH and the academic standards we aspire to, we have historically struggled to get high numbers of views, questions and answers. I think in this case I'd view it on balance as a happy mistake, and let normal site processes take their action in the ordinary course of time - don't intervene as a moderator, let the user engagement happen, drop a comment on the Question encouraging the user to modify the question into a form fitting the site guidelines, and let the question be revised or closed in due time.

  1. Do you agree with the principles outlined in these site distinctives? If not, where and why do you disagree?

I'm broadly in agreement with all the principles there, though 2) needs more nuance to it. Doing hermeneutics without any consideration of application is sort of assuming that the author did not intend the text to be applied - and so I would consider there to be an essential domain of application pertaining to the intended context and recipients.

I agree we should never have questions about how to apply texts today, but think it's valid to have Questions about intended application to the original audience, or for Answers to include such applications where appropriate.

  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?

This sort of loops back to Q3, though it sounds like they perhaps have a better handle on the site intent, whilst having a poorer grasp on appropriate personal conduct. The arguments and flags risk influencing the culture of the site and the new user experience, and so can be toxic to healthy site operation if not addressed.

It's important to communicate that the behaviour is not acceptable, and where the user fails to correct this behaviour then moderator tools such as suspension and account locking should be used to underline the seriousness of the behaviour and that it will not be tolerated over the long term.

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

Behind closed doors - I'd approach the other moderator myself to respectfully talk about the question and the intervention approach, and figure out the best way forward. After such a discussion if we were collectively unsure on the best approach, it may be appropriate to consult another moderator or open a Meta question around the issue in question to get a feel for the community's lean on the best approach. If unable to reconcile our views, I'd defer to their judgement as that's their right and responsibility on the network - and where such action is necessary their contributions are invaluable, so individual cases shouldn't change the status quo between us.

  1. Do you believe this site needs to significantly revise its stated purpose and/or distinctives given the reality of the types of questions and answers typically posted?

Nope.

One lesser known fact about me is that I'm a big fan of the ante-nicene fathers as useful sources for testing the range of meaning for New Testament texts, and so I actually really appreciate the slight shift in emphasis over the past four years where we're now accepting a wider range of questions including near-contemporary sources which can have valid insights and input to exegesis of biblical texts. So these articles and underlying Meta answers fit very well with my own view of healthy approaches to BH as a discipline.

  1. Do you feel like an evangelical Protestant Christian worldview1 and hermeneutical approaches are assumed in the majority of questions and answers on this site?

    If so, are you OK with such unstated assumptions in

    • questions?
    • answers?

    Why or why not?

I think that's both fair and inevitable based on the current user base, but that best practice should not leave such a viewpoint as an explicit assumption. As more experienced users on the site and especially as moderators, we ought to aim to set the best example in examining and declaring our own biases and leans, and especially in affirming users and useful contributions from outside this sphere, with a view to encouraging a variety of perspectives and guarding against the exclusion of other viewpoints.

  1. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

It's in the name - we moderate, in a moderate way. It's primarily a position of service to the community, and much less a position of personal authority or leadership. We serve the needs of the community, occasionally enforcing known and agreed policies, but more often serving as a gentle nudge to keep the community sailing in the best direction, and encouraging the best aspects of the SE culture as well as BH's own unique subculture.

We're moderators, not extremists. We do our best to avoid taking sides or becoming embroiled in issues, but do our best to listen and value members of the community, both old and new. We help steer the culture of the community, assuring the safe space and freedom from influences which damage the culture or perceived value of contributions.

| |
  • Thank you for your answers. I think you've captured the spirit of the site and moderation. Good luck! (Though I don't know that you'll need it. ;-) – Jon Ericson Oct 19 at 20:22
  • 1
    I agree with @JonEricson. I especially like your comment on #5 "it's valid to have Questions about intended application to the original audience" and on #8 "One lesser known fact about me is that I'm a big fan of the ante-nicene fathers as useful sources for testing the range of meaning for New Testament texts" With you as moderator I am confident you will be a good shepherd to increase the value of this site. – GratefulDisciple Oct 20 at 18:49
5
  1. What distinguishes this site from questions about the biblical texts on Christianity.SE?

Christianity is a site about the theology and practice of Christianity. This site is about a set of texts. That these texts are held sacred by Christians should not be relevant to questions or answers here. (And note that some of the on-topic texts have Jewish origins.) Answers might use interpretive techniques from a particular religious tradition, but equally valid answers might use other methods.

  1. This site has traditionally allowed a wide variety of hermeneutical approaches and does not (explicitly) favor any religious belief. Is this a policy you'd be interested in changing? Why or why not?

Kinda got to this in the previous answer, but I'm in favor or maintaining variety of interpretation here. The trick (as I see it) is that the site tends to attract one particular religious tradition. That means voters need to put aside their own beliefs about what it true in order to evaluate answers that draw from other ways of reading the texts. This site is pretty far from perfectly neutral. I'm afraid that's inevitable. But I don't think certain failure is a reason to not try. It's important to remember that the vast majority of readers will see one question in isolation of the others. So while it may be that Christian interpretations dominate the site as a whole, it's worth perusing variety on the most viewed questions.

  1. Suppose there was a member of our community who writes good questions and answers, but who also shows a distinct lack of patience and respect for certain hermeneutical approaches. Perhaps they don't accept source criticism, or they reject traditional authorial ascriptions. Perhaps they can't stand esoteric or Kabbalistic approaches. Perhaps they oppose any Christological readings of the Hebrew Bible. They may not reach the line of objectively offensive, but they're quick to say that others are wrong or their posts are nonsense. What would you do with such a member (especially if you'd frequently agree that the posts they critique are nonsense)?

Two things here: if we are serious about a site that does more than surface the same interpretations we can find anywhere else on the internet, we're going to need to open to interpretations that are wrong. (Logically, if one interpretation is right, interpretations that disagree with it are wrong.) So I'd generally want to encourage regular users of the site to have patience with "nonsense".

Meanwhile, we don't want the equivalent of junk science. To me, that means I need to see enough of the thought process going into an answer to determine if there's an underlying method. A lot of the answers I see from new users utterly fail to show any sort of work at all. So I'm ok with respectful questioning of answerers. And, of course, downvoting is always an option.

  1. Someone has asked a question that is off-topic, perhaps asking for what the Bible says about a topic, or looking for verses. It has already gotten several well received answers, has been put in the Hot Network Questions list, and has thousands of views. What do you, as a moderator, do? (Example question of exactly this situation.)

I can cheat because I know where to look for moderator actions on that question. A relatively new tool is the ability to remove a question from the Hot Network Questions, which was done in this case. Closing the question might not be a bad idea either. (There were close votes, but they aged away.)

That said, I firmly believe small site benefit more than they are harmed from the HNQ list. The more people who know about the site, the more likely we are to find the Biblical scholars on the network. Yes, I know it also brings out the kooks, but there are far more tools for dealing with trouble makers than for reaching out to people who might be interested in joining our community.

  1. Do you agree with the principles outlined in these site distinctives? If not, where and why do you disagree?

I guess the one that I might (maybe) disagree with is the second one. It strikes me as somewhat more elitist than is really healthy and too dismissive of the way most people interact with sacred texts. I'm sometimes frustrated with shallow readings that attempt to get to the application as quickly as possible. But this site has been a wonderful place to practice the skills I use in my own Bible studies. I wouldn't get too dogmatic about that point.

  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?

This is the key to being a successful moderator. I believe the best approach is a process of escalating warnings and suspensions with an attitude that I described on Meta Stack Exchange. No one person's contributions can be allowed to dominate the site or manufacture controversy. Wisdom is required. As the proverb says:

A gentle response allays wrath;
A harsh word provokes anger.—Proverbs 15:1 (JPS, 1985)

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

There is a moderator chat room where this sort of thing can be discussed. We should have at least three moderators, so the third moderator can mediate. Finally, there's always meta. I think you will find I tend to seek consensus or, failing that, compromise. I try not to allow this sort of disagreement to get between myself and another person.

  1. Do you believe this site needs to significantly revise its stated purpose and/or distinctives given the reality of the types of questions and answers typically posted?

Generally no. (But I might be biased since I wrote an early draft of what you see on the tour.)

  1. Do you feel like an evangelical Protestant Christian worldview1 and hermeneutical approaches are assumed in the majority of questions and answers on this site?

    If so, are you OK with such unstated assumptions in

    • questions?
    • answers?

    Why or why not?

I haven't much changed from my position that the site should allow everyone to bring their own framework for interpretation. Because of the demographic makeup of people who have joined this community, that means we have a disproportionate number of answers that come from a Protestant worldview. I prefer a solution that encourages more people to contribute, but we can only encourage that, not mandate it.

I acknowledge that sticking with the status quo inevitably means more answers from my particular framework, however.

  1. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

I tend to agree with Plato:

On the other hand the philosopher will have the quality of gentleness. And this also, when too much indulged, will turn to softness, but, if educated rightly, will be gentle and moderate.—The Republic, Book 3

A moderator, like a philosopher, will have a "quality of gentleness", but that is not to be indulged lest they go soft. Good moderators are not pushover, but neither are they dictators. (Also they handle flags and resolve disputes.)

| |
3

Tony Y. T. Chan

  1. What distinguishes this site from questions about the biblical texts on Christianity.SE?

We keep away from general theological and doctrinal issues and focus on formal exegesis of specific texts. Hermeneutic analysis has a better chance to arrive at a core commonality or unity.

  1. This site has traditionally allowed a wide variety of hermeneutical approaches and does not (explicitly) favor any religious belief. Is this a policy you'd be interested in changing? Why or why not?

No need to change. The important point is to stay objective and logical whatever approaches we use.

  1. Suppose there was a member of our community who writes good questions and answers, but who also shows a distinct lack of patience and respect for certain hermeneutical approaches. Perhaps they don't accept source criticism, or they reject traditional authorial ascriptions. Perhaps they can't stand esoteric or Kabbalistic approaches. Perhaps they oppose any Christological readings of the Hebrew Bible. They may not reach the line of objectively offensive, but they're quick to say that others are wrong or their posts are nonsense. What would you do with such a member (especially if you'd frequently agree that the posts they critique are nonsense)?

Tolerance is the key here. Let upvoting and downvoting filter out these occasions. I always try to learn from everyone.

  1. Someone has asked a question that is off-topic, perhaps asking for what the Bible says about a topic, or looking for verses. It has already gotten several well-received answers, has been put in the Hot Network Questions list, and has thousands of views. What do you, as a moderator, do? (Example question of exactly this situation.)

I wouldn't do anything if it is a popular post and civil. We are here to help people.

  1. Do you agree with the principles outlined in these site distinctives? If not, where and why do you disagree?

They are good.

  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?

So long as everyone is civil, I wouldn't do anything.

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

I wouldn't do anything. I respect the other mod's decision. If the 3rd mod wishes to talk about it, then I'll participate.

  1. Do you believe this site needs to significantly revise its stated purpose and/or distinctives given the reality of the types of questions and answers typically posted?

No need.

  1. Do you feel like an evangelical Protestant Christian worldview1 and hermeneutical approaches are assumed in the majority of questions and answers on this site?

    If so, are you OK with such unstated assumptions in

    • questions?
    • answers?

    Why or why not?

If this assumption is an important key to the specific question or answer, then I will point it out. Generally speaking, this is not an issue.

  1. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

Moderators function best when participants do not even notice them. Moderators should only show up when extreme occasions demand their services.

| |
  • 3
    "I wouldn't do anything if it is a popular post." Why should popular posts be allowed to escape the rules the community itself determined? – curiousdannii Oct 20 at 2:49
  • 1
    That something becomes 'popular' indicates a trend in community. Sometimes Stack Exchange sites miss the change of trend. – Nigel J Oct 20 at 5:32
  • @curiousdannii, I modified. Civility was assumed. – Tony Chan Oct 20 at 14:56
  • @TonyChan Civility isn't the problem. If the community have determined that something is off-topic that decision needs to be upheld consistently. If it isn't you can guarantee that people will complain about the unfairness that some questions are closed and others aren't. – curiousdannii Oct 20 at 22:06
  • @NigelJ That's true. I'd say then that it's one of the moderators' responsibilities as community leaders to notice that trend and start a discussion of it on meta. – curiousdannii Oct 20 at 22:07
  • 2
    If it is off-topic, then, of course, it should be closed. It can be closed with or without a moderator. Moderators should not be the first resort. That's not the purpose or the meaning of to moderate. Do not confuse a moderator with a dictator. – Tony Chan Oct 21 at 16:47
  • @TonyChan Do you want to revise your answer to question 4 then, seeing as it is explicitly about off-topic questions? – curiousdannii Oct 22 at 23:48
  • If the community decides that it is off-topic, then of course it should be closed. Who makes up the community? 1 moderator = community? Shouldn't the popularity itself be part of this equation? We need to popularize hermeneutics, something that has never been done before. This is the platform to do it. Now is the time. – Tony Chan Oct 23 at 15:32
  • 1
    @TonyChan The question is assuming that whatever the question is about, it's currently off-topic by the whole community's consensus decision. That's why it's so concerning that you say its popularity means that it should stay open. Don't forget that lots of views and votes come from people visiting from other sites on the network who won't know the precise details of our site's scope. That's why popularity should not contribute to whether something is on-topic or not. – curiousdannii Oct 24 at 3:06
  • Where did I say that it should stay open? I said that one single moderator should not close it when it is popular and civil. A dictator can overrule the majority. Should a moderator do the same? Define consensus algorithmically. – Tony Chan Oct 24 at 15:23
  • 2
    There just seems to be a big disconnect between what you wrote in the answer, and what you're saying in these comments. Moderators are given the ability to single-handedly close questions because they are expected to actually do so from time to time. Closing an off-topic question which has become unexpectedly popular because it appeared in the Hot Network Questions list is exactly one of those times. It's important to close off-topic questions quickly before fights break out between the answers, as has happened many times before. – curiousdannii Oct 25 at 6:55
  • If you failed to read my statements logically and objectively, that's your own doing; e.g., where did I say that it should stay open?. One is elected to moderate, not to dictate. If you fail to define your usage of the word "consensus" algorithmically, you are having trouble distinguishing between the two. One moderator is not consensus. – Tony Chan Oct 25 at 16:35
  • 1
    People are not algorithms. For something like verse search questions, "consensus" means that after the previous mods added the close reason "Questions searching for a text are off-topic." no one ever came to Meta to argue they should be allowed. – curiousdannii Oct 25 at 23:34
  • First, you suggested the community decides. I asked you to define the community. You failed to do that. Then you suggested consensus. I ask you to define consensus algorithmically. You failed that. Now, I will make it easier for you. Define consensus concretely. Lay it out, so that people can apply your definition objectively and logically without behaving like a dictator. Also, where did I say that it should stay open? You failed to answer this as well. – Tony Chan Oct 26 at 15:32
  • 2
    @TonyChan - since this is your first engagement in Meta, I submit to you that you perhaps haven't fully understood how BHSE, or even the broader SE format, actually functions, in terms of establishing consensus on matters. It's not Dannii's responsibility to explain to you how community and consensus are typically understood in the SE format - it wouldn't be too hard to do a little research. You may find Jon's answer over on the main SE Meta rather helpful for your specific question, as a starting point. – Steve Taylor Oct 27 at 10:04
-2
  1. What distinguishes this site from questions about the biblical texts on [Christianity.SE][1]?

While there used to be an overlapping scope, the two sites now have complementary scopes. On this site we ask questions about Biblical passages without limiting answers to any denominations. On Christianity.SE exegesis questions must be scoped to a particular denomination or position. I think restricting the scope on Christianity has really helped highlight how each site has its own strengths to offer.

  1. This site has traditionally allowed a wide variety of hermeneutical approaches and does not (explicitly) favor any religious belief. Is this a policy you'd be interested in changing? Why or why not?

No, this site needs to stay free from any creedal requirements. Even someone who agrees with the theology of an answer on this site will still downvote it if it doesn't present evidence and logic for the claims it makes. That's what makes this site shine: presenting the best arguments for how to understand each text.

  1. Suppose there was a member of our community who writes good questions and answers, but who also shows a distinct lack of patience and respect for certain hermeneutical approaches. Perhaps they don't accept source criticism, or they reject traditional authorial ascriptions. Perhaps they can't stand esoteric or Kabbalistic approaches. Perhaps they oppose any Christological readings of the Hebrew Bible. They may not reach the line of objectively offensive, but they're quick to say that others are wrong or their posts are nonsense. What would you do with such a member (especially if you'd frequently agree that the posts they critique are nonsense)?

I see myself in the problematic user described. So what I'd say to others and myself is that we all need to practice patience and understanding with each other. If any of us think an answer does not illuminate the text the question asks about, the right tool is the downvote button. And even better - write an answer using different hermeneutical approaches which does illuminate the meaning and significance of the text.

  1. Someone has asked a question that is off-topic, perhaps asking for what the Bible says about a topic, or looking for verses. It has already gotten several well received answers, has been put in the Hot Network Questions list, and has thousands of views. What do you, as a moderator, do? (Example question of exactly this situation.)

To be honest, if elected I would intend to close questions like these much more quickly. Verse search questions are not helpful because they almost always attract answers that fundamentally disagree with each other. Instead of verse search questions it's usually better to ask a Biblical basis question (for one or both sides) at Christianity.SE.

  1. Do you agree with the principles outlined in these site distinctives? If not, where and why do you disagree?

  2. Do you believe this site needs to significantly revise its stated purpose and/or distinctives given the reality of the types of questions and answers typically posted?

I think that post is still an excellent description of this site. I think this statement is one that bears repeating: "If your goal in writing an answer or a question is to "make a point," then sadly, you've missed the point of this site!"

  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?

Participating on this site is a privilege and no one is so indispensable that their bad behaviour can be excused. If they continue to be frequently disruptive, then warnings and suspensions are warranted.

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

Depends how strongly I believe it should've been closed or reopened. If only a little, then I'll just let it slide, there are lots of other questions. If I care a lot, then usually the right thing to do is to take it to Meta - moderators are here to enact the standards of the community, not to override them. If there's a disputed post it's usually best for the community to have the chance to weigh in.

  1. Do you feel like an evangelical Protestant Christian worldview1 and hermeneutical approaches are assumed in the majority of questions and answers on this site?

If so, are you OK with such unstated assumptions in

  • questions?
  • answers?

Why or why not?

I don't think so - there are a lot of non-Protestant, non-Trinitarian, and non-Christian members here. Unstated assumptions aren't always a problem when it's pretty clear what the assumptions are. I think often the problem isn't these assumptions but instead that some answers don't actually ever put forward a case, instead they just repeat the conclusions of a theological position. We don't need or want those here - instead we want to see the evidence and logic so that we can verify for ourselves whether an interpretation is reasonable or not.

  1. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

Many things. Most importantly, they are janitors of the site, cleaning up after other users to ensure that the community-driven standards are upheld so that the site quality remains high.

But moderators frequently also lead meta-discussions on how the community should function, and if there are major debates, many users will look to the mods for guidance, so they should be prepared to explain their vision for the site for others in the community to rally around.

| |
  • Thank you for your answers! I don't have any concerns with your candidacy and I suspect you'll be elected without drama. :-) – Jon Ericson Oct 19 at 20:15
  • Wow, lots of downvotes. I'd appreciate specific feedback on what in particular you think is problematic in my answers here. – curiousdannii Oct 24 at 3:07
  • 1
    Hmmm... my vote was up. No idea why the downvotes on several of our answers. Interesting! – Jon Ericson Oct 25 at 18:20
  • I also upvoted your answer. I hope the downvoters add comments to provide feedback for curiousdannii. – GratefulDisciple Oct 26 at 5:26
  • 1
    It was an upvote from me. Personally it's a touch alarming to see (-8) on Meta without a single bit of feedback. Looks more like a personal attack rather than anybody actually taking issue with your Answer. – Steve Taylor Oct 26 at 8:08
  • 2
    As a former moderator of this site (and others where curiousdannii was active) and having handled hundreds of their flags I can say my vote is for this candidate. The voting pattern here (particularly with no specific feedback) raises more red flags about StackExchange than it does about this candidate. – Caleb Oct 27 at 13:31
  • @Caleb Thank you for your encouraging words. I (and many others) miss you! – curiousdannii Oct 27 at 13:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .