9

Pro-tem mods will be appointed soon, and among the potential candidates are some of the current moderators of C.SE.

Should we mind either way if we have one (or more than one) moderators in common?

3
  • 1
    I asked this in the Teacher's Lounge and it sounds like there's no precedence for this currently. No one has yet raised concerns of this before. So, this is an interesting and unique question! +1
    – Richard
    Oct 12 '11 at 17:07
  • Also, it should be noted that this might well apply for elected moderators. Pro-Tem moderators, however, are appointed by StackExchange, so we don't get a ton of say in that process. Still, this may come up useful later on.
    – Richard
    Oct 12 '11 at 17:48
  • 1
    I'm not personally worried about elected moderators - just pro-tem. If a mature community votes for someone I think their choice should be respected - but I want those at SE who do the appointing to at least consider any potential issue before deciding on pro-tems. However I seem to be in a minority so far :) Oct 12 '11 at 17:54
8

I believe that we should seek out moderators regardless of their involvement in other sites. I believe that this site's independence is the responsibility of the community and can be achieved through the community becoming involved in developing this as an independent site.

Furthermore, the purpose of moderators is simply to become involved in the community and to help enforce rules that the community has established. I don't see any conflict of interest whatsoever with having moderators here that are also moderators at Christianity.SE.


Instead, I believe moderators should be chosen based on:

  • How invested they are in the success of this site

    We should expect and seek out moderators that want to see this site succeed. We want moderators who want to be here and are willing to commit to their

    Per Meta.SO, A good good metric for this is involvement on the meta site

  • Understanding of the community

    We need people who understand how the StackOverflow community works.

  • Involvement

    We want moderators who are available. If we choose a moderator who is only going to be around a small portion of the time, clearly, they are not going to do well as a moderator. They will not help support the community.

    This is, interestingly, related directly to the first criteria. If a person is available, they'll be heavily invested. The more involved they are, the more invested they are (and vice versa).

  • Temperance

    This may seem like and odd qualification, but we want people who are moderate (not commonly involved in arguments and not quick to anger) in order to moderate (perform the functions of moderation).*

  • Ability to communicate

    This is crucial since the most important aspect of moderation is communication.

Given this criteria, I believe that we should seek out the best qualified candidate regardless of their other responsibilities. Furthermore, I believe that it's up to each candidate to determine whether they are capable of handling the work load of moderating two sites.

* gotta love homonyms.


Full disclosure: I have a vested interest in this position, but yet I still stand by it's validity

4

I think this would depend on the interest of the person in question. The general principal would run the other way. Having moderators with experience on other sites would be one of your our most valuable assets.

Before making a call about who to propose for consideration you should interview them to find out what their interests are and whether their commitment to the site and ideas about where it should go are likely to represent yours and the communities. StackExchange should also consider this, but they also have some other data to go on such as their involvement in baby-sitting the moderators in their previous work.

Another point is that any good moderator is going to be a representative of the community. They can have their own ideas (I for one do!) but their job is both listen as well as communicate, lobby for support of good ideas, figure out what community consensus is in the end, then support that direction whether it was exactly their idea or not. You want to pick people that are a track record of being good at this.

Lastly, because these sites are likely to have some cross over users and scope issues, having cross-over mods would help facilitate the communication between communities. Understanding a site scope takes a good deal of participation and investment of time. You want people moderating here that at the very least are active enough to have a good working understanding of what the scope of C.SE is or is not.

These are my honest opinions. For full disclosure, I have just accepted a nomination to be considered as a pro-tem mod here if SE is so inclined, and yes I am serving as a pro-tem mod on C.SE.

1

My preference in the interest of keeping the site independent would be that the network only appoint at most one pro-tem mod here in common with C.SE

Please feel free to vote down (or up) this answer if you feel strongly one way or the other

7
  • What are your specific concerns about cross-site moderators?
    – Beofett
    Oct 12 '11 at 16:58
  • 2
    Good question. I am worried there may be times where there is a conflict of interest - mods leaning in a certain direction here to benefit C.SE for example. Not suggesting anything concious just that there might be that temptation... Oct 12 '11 at 17:14
  • @JackDouglas Maybe could you imagine a particular scenario? That might help clarify.
    – Soldarnal
    Oct 12 '11 at 17:53
  • 2
    @Soldarnal - for example when deciding what should be on-topic here. There is apparently some concern about BH.SE over at C.SE, that we might attract experts away from there Oct 12 '11 at 17:58
  • 1
    @JackDouglas: I understand your concern about "temptation". For the record: if temptation is going to tip the scales one way or another it is C.SE that should be concerned because I have a higher personal interest in learning things here! (That said if I have shown any cause for complaint on C.SE they are welcome to speak to that. Stop in the chat there and ask.)
    – Caleb
    Oct 12 '11 at 18:15
  • 1
    @Caleb does that mean you accept your nomination - if so I'm glad to hear it :) Oct 12 '11 at 18:17
  • @JackDouglas: Yes. See my edit.
    – Caleb
    Oct 12 '11 at 18:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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