Return to Answer

4. Bearing in mind that this site is about Christianity, but not a Christian site, how do you intend to remain as objective and non-biased as possible when evaluating the contributions of users?

4. Bearing in mind that this site is about Christianity, but not a Christian site, how do you intend to remain as objective and non-biased as possible when evaluating the contributions of users?

5. One of the hardest issues we've dealt with over the past two years is how to deal with the following two related issues:

- Minority Christian groups that are regarded as heretical by mainstream groups.
- Individuals who claim to be the only person who believes the way they do and insist on being able to post their opinions wherever they please on this site.

Our scope has mandated that we include anyone (or group) who self identify as Christian.

- How will you as a moderator assist in making minority groups feel welcome?
- How will you handle individuals who do not have an identifiable group or doctrine?

7. As a moderator on Christiantiy.SE, which how would you prioritize the following, realizing that they are not mutually exclusive, but at times certain points can be, depending on the situation:

- Demonstrating a Christian attitude and Christian behavior
- Guiding new users into understanding the site guidelines
- Addressing unacceptable behavior
- Enforcing site guidelines, even the ones you disagree with.
- Ensuring all answers come from a Christian perspective
- Addressing heretical or grossly incorrect answers

For a concrete example: in the event of a conflict between these items, which "wins"? Say we have a new user that is repeatedly posting questions that fail to meet basic site rules, and ignores the community's attempts to explain the rules.

What wins?

- The Christian behavior: Kindness, gentleness, desire to see this person get saved?
- Enforcing the guidelines and suspending/censoring the user?
- Ensuring that the answers are from a Christian perspective, and deleting the ones that are not?

5. One of the hardest issues we've dealt with over the past two years is how to deal with the following two related issues:

• Minority Christian groups that are regarded as heretical by mainstream groups.
• Individuals who claim to be the only person who believes the way they do and insist on being able to post their opinions wherever they please on this site.

Our scope has mandated that we include anyone (or group) who self identify as Christian.

• How will you as a moderator assist in making minority groups feel welcome?
• How will you handle individuals who do not have an identifiable group or doctrine?

7. As a moderator on Christiantiy.SE, which how would you prioritize the following, realizing that they are not mutually exclusive, but at times certain points can be, depending on the situation:

• Demonstrating a Christian attitude and Christian behavior
• Guiding new users into understanding the site guidelines
• Addressing unacceptable behavior
• Enforcing site guidelines, even the ones you disagree with.
• Ensuring all answers come from a Christian perspective
• Addressing heretical or grossly incorrect answers

For a concrete example: in the event of a conflict between these items, which "wins"? Say we have a new user that is repeatedly posting questions that fail to meet basic site rules, and ignores the community's attempts to explain the rules.

What wins?

• The Christian behavior: Kindness, gentleness, desire to see this person get saved?
• Enforcing the guidelines and suspending/censoring the user?
• Ensuring that the answers are from a Christian perspective, and deleting the ones that are not?

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?

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

3. When you see a question or answer with major issues, e.g. argumentative or poorly-written, what tool do you reach for first and why?

For an argumenative or poorly written answer, I would check to see if the answer even addresses teh actual question and is in scope. If not I would explain why it isn't and remove. If it is at least topically a match for the question but presents its content in an argumentative way (or just poorly) the first tool I'd reach for would be a downvote + comment explaining why I think there is an issue and what could be done to correct it. If I have time (with an extra effort made to find time if the user is new) I would then hit edit and try to demonstrate a way to resolve the issue.

4. Bearing in mind that this site is about Christianity, but not a Christian site, how do you intend to remain as objective and non-biased as possible when evaluating the contributions of users?

5. One of the hardest issues we've dealt with over the past two years is how to deal with the following two related issues:

   • Minority Christian groups that are regarded as heretical by mainstream groups.
   • Individuals who claim to be the only person who believes the way they do and insist on being able to post their opinions wherever they please on this site.

   Our scope has mandated that we include anyone (or group) who self identify as Christian.

   • How will you as a moderator assist in making minority groups feel welcome?
   • How will you handle individuals who do not have an identifiable group or doctrine?

I don't say the following to pass the blame but to identify the problem that moderators can help with. Unfortunatly the majority of minorities bring trouble on their own heads. Too often they come in the door on the defensive and their early answers are attempts to proove themselves right (often on questions for which their views are competely out of scope) and their early questions are truth questions used as a platform to try to make a point about their pet doctrine.

So what's the answer? First I would try to get them off the defensive. I would help edit their questions to make scope them in a way that will be non-contentious and informative, putting their own doctrines in a positive rather than negative light. Unfortunatly answers are usually not salvagable, but while we may have to delete them we can also point them in a direction where their answers are called for. If no question exists relevant to their minority, it might be time to ask one and comment on their post specifically asking them to address the new question from their POV.

This is one area I think all the effort we sink into the site can actually serve a constructuve purpose. In learning to play by the rules here, people must also learn to understand where their own faith fits in relation to other pieces of the larger puzzle.

In the rare case of a true independent crank who insists on being recognized in spite of being unrecognizable I would explain they need to go find some web developer out of which to make their first convert to their new religion, then put their heads together on a web page so their new group can earn at least some virtual legitimacy. I suppor the bar @wax eagle proposed a year or so ago that the minimum bar for claiming to exist as a group is at least one off-site reference. Of course not all posts require references, but if you are challenged and cannot come up with even one -- well this site isn't the place to soap box your novel sect.

6. What, if any, role do you think moderators can/should have in developing replacement moderators and developing a strong community that reduces the need for moderator action?

Good moderator candidates A) exhibit good character traits over time in their role as users before beign elected and B) grok the local site culture including understanding how to work within the agreed guidelines and also influence the community when appropriate. The former is something we are not in a position to make a radical difference in except perhaps by example. The latter we can certainly take full circle. When people come along that are willing to learn, we can show them the ropes one at a time.

7. As a moderator on Christiantiy.SE, which how would you prioritize the following, realizing that they are not mutually exclusive, but at times certain points can be, depending on the situation:

   • Demonstrating a Christian attitude and Christian behavior
   • Guiding new users into understanding the site guidelines
   • Addressing unacceptable behavior
   • Enforcing site guidelines, even the ones you disagree with.
   • Ensuring all answers come from a Christian perspective
   • Addressing heretical or grossly incorrect answers

   For a concrete example: in the event of a conflict between these items, which "wins"? Say we have a new user that is repeatedly posting questions that fail to meet basic site rules, and ignores the community's attempts to explain the rules.

   What wins?

   • The Christian behavior: Kindness, gentleness, desire to see this person get saved?
   • Enforcing the guidelines and suspending/censoring the user?
   • Ensuring that the answers are from a Christian perspective, and deleting the ones that are not?

For me, my identity of a folower of Christ comes first and everything else should reflect that. Of course I fail this ideal regularly and constantly, but that doesn't mean it's actually a conflict of interest. If my goal is to do everything I do to the glory of God, any role I play to the best of my ability and wisdom is going to reflect that.

Addressing grossly incorrect answers is not a moderator duty at all. For this we have the same 1 downvote and comment privs to note the mistake as everybody else. As for heresy: this site is founded on the idea that all Christianity's various and sundry heresies are welcome. In turn. This is a gathering of heretics.

As for guiding new users and addressing unacceptable behavior, these are all kind of lumped in together with the other points. We can try nicely to explain and teach the guidelines. If people come on board with this ofter time great, however if they insist on doing things the community had judged unaccepatable then we have to exert a little preasure.

I do not see enforcing site guidelines as bieng in conflict with a desire for people to be saved. Using this venue for the aspects that it does best and leaving other venues to cover the other aspects is, I think, the best and most loving service we can offer people. Of course we can be as kind as possible in explaining this, but I'm also ok with a little tough love where necessary. Gentleness doesn't mean capitulation to whatever anybody wants to do here.

8. What are the top two or three challenges facing the site as it moves forward, and what do you plan to do to address them? (If applicable: what have you already done about them?)

As the percentage of our traffic stemming from random Google quries has gone up, so has the percentage of our user based that is novice rather than expert in our subject matter. I think the tendancy to let the bar down to keep everybody happy will be the hardest challenge we face going forward.

To counter this I have (and will make renewed efforts to) clearly communicate both our local guidelines and general SE principles to those comming in. This might require a review of our current guidelines, esp the way we are communicating the "truth question" issue. I think we might need a better way to explain that problem to new users than we have been, but that we need to be firm and consistent in enforcing it.

With the added user volume, it will also be hard to attract minorities. I activly try to recruit people I run across that actually hold minority views and pay special attention to makeing sure questions directed at them are constructive and given every chance to succede.

Along with my first point, getting and retaining the interest of real experts is harder than I imagined. Those who really know their stuff are generally turned off by the shear volumne of regurgitated content here. Whenever possible I would find ways to highlight and reward explemplary answers and help shape the guidelines in way that are most adventagious to retaining real experts.

9. Why do you want to be a moderator? It is time consuming, frustrating, and not very rewarding. What is your motivation to take this thankless job?

10. How would you handle a non-minor disagreement (not something that can be ignored as "personal preference," "could go either way," etc) with the action or inaction of another moderator?

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?

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

3. When you see a question or answer with major issues, e.g. argumentative or poorly-written, what tool do you reach for first and why?

For an argumentative or poorly written answer, I would check to see if the answer even addresses the actual question and is in scope. If not I would explain why it isn't and remove. If it is at least topically a match for the question but presents its content in an argumentative way (or just poorly) the first tool I'd reach for would be a downvote + comment explaining why I think there is an issue and what could be done to correct it. If I have time (with an extra effort made to find time if the user is new) I would then hit edit and try to demonstrate a way to resolve the issue.

4. Bearing in mind that this site is about Christianity, but not a Christian site, how do you intend to remain as objective and non-biased as possible when evaluating the contributions of users?

5. One of the hardest issues we've dealt with over the past two years is how to deal with the following two related issues:

- Minority Christian groups that are regarded as heretical by mainstream groups.
- Individuals who claim to be the only person who believes the way they do and insist on being able to post their opinions wherever they please on this site.

Our scope has mandated that we include anyone (or group) who self identify as Christian.

- How will you as a moderator assist in making minority groups feel welcome?
- How will you handle individuals who do not have an identifiable group or doctrine?

I don't say the following to pass the blame but to identify the problem that moderators can help with. Unfortunately the majority of minorities bring trouble on their own heads. Too often they come in the door on the defensive and their early answers are attempts to prove themselves right (often on questions for which their views are completely out of scope) and their early questions are truth questions used as a platform to try to make a point about their pet doctrine.

So what's the answer? First I would try to get them off the defensive. I would help edit their questions to make scope them in a way that will be non-contentious and informative, putting their own doctrines in a positive rather than negative light. Unfortunately answers are usually not salvageable, but while we may have to delete them we can also point them in a direction where their answers are called for. If no question exists relevant to their minority, it might be time to ask one and comment on their post specifically asking them to address the new question from their POV.

This is one area I think all the effort we sink into the site can actually serve a constructive purpose. In learning to play by the rules here, people must also learn to understand where their own faith fits in relation to other pieces of the larger puzzle.

In the rare case of a true independent crank who insists on being recognized in spite of being unrecognizable I would explain they need to go find some web developer out of which to make their first convert to their new religion, then put their heads together on a web page so their new group can earn at least some virtual legitimacy. I support the bar @wax eagle proposed a year or so ago that the minimum bar for claiming to exist as a group is at least one off-site reference. Of course not all posts require references, but if you are challenged and cannot come up with even one -- well this site isn't the place to soap box your novel sect.

6. What, if any, role do you think moderators can/should have in developing replacement moderators and developing a strong community that reduces the need for moderator action?

Good moderator candidates A) exhibit good character traits over time in their role as users before being elected and B) grok the local site culture including understanding how to work within the agreed guidelines and also influence the community when appropriate. The former is something we are not in a position to make a radical difference in except perhaps by example. The latter we can certainly take full circle. When people come along that are willing to learn, we can show them the ropes one at a time.

7. As a moderator on Christiantiy.SE, which how would you prioritize the following, realizing that they are not mutually exclusive, but at times certain points can be, depending on the situation:

- Demonstrating a Christian attitude and Christian behavior
- Guiding new users into understanding the site guidelines
- Addressing unacceptable behavior
- Enforcing site guidelines, even the ones you disagree with.
- Ensuring all answers come from a Christian perspective
- Addressing heretical or grossly incorrect answers

For a concrete example: in the event of a conflict between these items, which "wins"? Say we have a new user that is repeatedly posting questions that fail to meet basic site rules, and ignores the community's attempts to explain the rules.

What wins?

- The Christian behavior: Kindness, gentleness, desire to see this person get saved?
- Enforcing the guidelines and suspending/censoring the user?
- Ensuring that the answers are from a Christian perspective, and deleting the ones that are not?

For me, my identity of a follower of Christ comes first and everything else should reflect that. Of course I fail this ideal regularly and constantly, but that doesn't mean it's actually a conflict of interest. If my goal is to do everything I do to the glory of God, any role I play to the best of my ability and wisdom is going to reflect that.

Addressing grossly incorrect answers is not a moderator duty at all. For this we have the same 1 downvote and comment privileges to note the mistake as everybody else. As for heresy: this site is founded on the idea that all Christianity's various and sundry heresies are welcome. In turn. This is a gathering of heretics.

As for guiding new users and addressing unacceptable behavior, these are all kind of lumped in together with the other points. We can try nicely to explain and teach the guidelines. If people come on board with this over time great, however if they insist on doing things the community had judged unacceptable then we have to exert a little pressure.

I do not see enforcing site guidelines as being in conflict with a desire for people to be saved. Using this venue for the aspects that it does best and leaving other venues to cover the other aspects is, I think, the best and most loving service we can offer people. Of course we can be as kind as possible in explaining this, but I'm also ok with a little tough love where necessary. Gentleness doesn't mean capitulation to whatever anybody wants to do here.

8. What are the top two or three challenges facing the site as it moves forward, and what do you plan to do to address them? (If applicable: what have you already done about them?)

As the percentage of our traffic stemming from random Google queries has gone up, so has the percentage of our user based that is novice rather than expert in our subject matter. I think the tendency to let the bar down to keep everybody happy will be the hardest challenge we face going forward.

To counter this I have (and will make renewed efforts to) clearly communicate both our local guidelines and general SE principles to those coming in. This might require a review of our current guidelines, esp the way we are communicating the "truth question" issue. I think we might need a better way to explain that problem to new users than we have been, but that we need to be firm and consistent in enforcing it.

With the added user volume, it will also be hard to attract minorities. I actively try to recruit people I run across that actually hold minority views and pay special attention to making sure questions directed at them are constructive and given every chance to succeed.

Along with my first point, getting and retaining the interest of real experts is harder than I imagined. Those who really know their stuff are generally turned off by the shear volume of regurgitated content here. Whenever possible I would find ways to highlight and reward exemplary answers and help shape the guidelines in way that are most adventitious to retaining real experts.

9. Why do you want to be a moderator? It is time consuming, frustrating, and not very rewarding. What is your motivation to take this thankless job?

10. How would you handle a non-minor disagreement (not something that can be ignored as "personal preference," "could go either way," etc) with the action or inaction of another moderator?