In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3674/2014-moderator-election-qa-question-collection) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - I have elected to select the top 9 questions as submitted by the community (rather than flip a coin for the tie on the last choice), plus 2 pre-set questions from us, for a total of 11 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](http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/revisions/6551347a-7ce5-4795-bd30-10b133cdddfb/view-source).

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!

---

> Give an example of how you have helped a new user whose questions or answers were originally not up to site standards.



> A promising new user (let's call him Saul) who has already demonstrated a knack for answering questions wisely decides to answer a pastoral advice question. Another user flags the answer for deletion because of the http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/255/pastoral-advice-questions policy. Even though you agree with the advice Saul gave, you delete his answer. Now Saul is questioning your decision in chat. What do you do? Would you do anything differently if you thought the advice bad?



> As a moderator, your actions now represent the community, so you will be held to a higher standard of behavior. You are an ambassador of trust, with the same sorts of rights that the official development team and community coordinators have. Sometimes the policies that the community has agreed upon in meta are at odds with our own personal standards. If that's the case for you, which policies do you disagree with and how would you go about changing them? If you agree with all of the policies, what would you do if another moderator set out to change one of the site's accepted standards?



> How would you explain the importance of having a site that documents the beliefs and views of Christian religions from a secular perspective to a user who believes it is more important that we try to address "Truth"?



> 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?



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



> New users frequently post broad/opinion-based/pastoral questions. This isn't a big problem, except that new users also frequently answer those questions before they can be closed or put on hold. What can be done to help new users know what kinds of questions should be answered?



> How would you explain the idea of a "Truth" question to a user who seems to be having trouble understanding the distinction and purpose of the site? How do you explain the problems that trying to tackle "Truth" questions would cause?



> How would you differentiate between someone who is trolling the site and someone who is attempting to participate but getting too emotionally vested in what they feel to be "True"? Does this distinction matter in how you would handle the situation? How would you handle each situation?



> A fresh question hits the home page that clearly does not have a narrow enough scope [according to our guidelines](http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/q/690/30) to garner high quality specific answers. There are not enough clues for you to just edit and fix the question. Do you think it should be closed and why? When would you close it?



> If you already have 10k or 20k rep you will no doubt have found all the tools you have at your disposal to participate in moderating this community. How have you found yourself suited to those activities and how do you think your participation would change as a diamond mod with a bigger hammer? If you haven't gotten there yet, in what way do you expect the role to be unique and not just a shortcut to cool gizmos?