- 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?
As much as possible, I would want to contact the user in private to attempt to address their behavior (following the model of Matthew 18) - and only involving others if they were disinclined to listen to a single moderator. Indicating to them that while their answers and questions are good the community finds their general comments inappropriate
- How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
I feel that the best way to address this would be privately between us, or in a group discussion amongst the mods.
- 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?
My first tool is the comment box. I like to give the OP an opportunity to edit first, but would jump into a rough edit if it appeared that a question could be garnered from it "easily". My second tool is the VtC button - if a comment and a vote aren't enough, and I cannot determine what the question should've been, my last tool is voting to delete.
- 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?
Given that answers/questions are not written in an argumentative/affrontive manner, I don't care who asks or answers. I believe that, in general, the voting system is effective, and eventually low-quality items will drift down while higher-quality will drift up. That being said, I don't think votes are enough per se to indicate the overall quality of a question/answer - but the ratio of down to up can be a better (though still weak) heuristic. And that all being said, if answers are given that are blatantly incorrect (for example, asking about Matthew Henry's views of Romans 7 and not quoting from his writings, but instead saying what you think he would've thought when it's demonstrably not), commenting, voting, and potentially voting to delete answers/questions is how moderation should be done. I do not think a moderator, in general, should be the first to work towards a deletion (especially given that as a mod, there is not "vote to delete" option (thanks @Ryan Frame for the clarification)).
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?
As a moderator, while I still maintain my personal beliefs and views, I'd rather see honest answers/questions given for small groups (some which broader Christendom may even regard as cultish or heretical) so that what they think on a given topic can be represented. To pick a by-Protestants-considered-heretical group, I see no issues with asking what Pope Pius thought about a given topic, even though as a Protestant I do believe the Papal institution to be heretical.
As a moderator, because I have already been doing such, I would strive to help an individual who did not have a "group" (or who doesn't think they have a group) to consider whether they may be better-off aligning with a given denomination, or if they're acting alone because they do not wish to be associated with a broader sect. It's not for me to judge whether any given person is or is not how they claim to associate (ie whether they are a Christian or not) - but I do think it is our place, both as moderators, and in community, to encourage the highest-possible quality among questions, answers, and discussion. It is highly possible that someone who thinks they are a "lone ranger" is really highly aligned to a specific denomination and just doesn't know it has a name.
- 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?
I have blogged about this topic from the workplace perspective, and I think it is well discussed in Robert Greene's book, Mastery. I think that the blog, comments, chat, and one-on-one (or group-on-one) time should be given by existing moderators to new ones, and from moderators to non-moderators but who still have subsets of moderation power. We all have different ideas about "the best" way to do things, some of which are diametrically opposed to one another. However, we don't need "the best" - we need "good enough", and I think that maintaining and active group that shares thoughts, has meetings, works to create an environment of nurture, etc is vital. It's how my workplace has worked for the last 2.5 years, and I'd like to carry-over some of the mentoring aspects I have witnessed in various places herein.
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?
As a Christian, I will always attempt to prioritize the "Christian attitude and Christian behavior" over all others - the other five (or perhaps four) can easily be subsumed by the first, and a right attitude will make all of the others more effective. I don't think that every answer must "come from a Christian perspective" - but they must correctly identify the "Christian perspective" requested by the questioner. For example, I could answer a question about Indian taxes on Money.SE but still be a United States citizen, resident, and have never been to India: I must merely make sure that what I answer is properly sourced from Indian government documents. The same is true within and around Christianity: nothing says you must be a believer to be know the answer to a question - if that were the case, Jesus could never have sent Judas out with the other disciples to go from house to house to preach the good news of His arrival.
- 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?)
I think the biggest challenge moving forward is building-out the community, and expanding the knowledge base contained - similar to the challenge faced by SO in its early days of moving from brand new-ish to an established service.
The second biggest challenge is making sure that as the community grows, it does so both organically (word of mouth, etc), and at a moderateable pace.
Joining and growing any community requires effort on the part of existing members to welcome and "train" new people, and an effort on the part of new or prospective members to follow (and, potentially, petition to change/modify) the community rules and expectations.
If you look at my voting and comment history, you will see that, where ever possible, I have already taken some responsibility for new folks to be able to understand how Christianity.SE works, so that they can become a solid member of what I hope will continue to be a thriving community.
- 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?
I want to be a moderator for the little diamond next to my name! Ha ha ha .. no - that's not it (but a kind of cool side bonus). I want to give back a little more than I have been able to on other sites (even on SE where I am a >10k user) because I feel this is one of the better communities I am involved in, and I think that it deserves to become one of the model SE communities at large, and I believe that I can make a positive impact towards that end.
- 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?
I view this as a restatement of question 2, and would follow the same process in this situation.
