Timeline for 2014 Moderator Election Q&A - Questionnaire
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:22 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Dec 21, 2014 at 22:41 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @Tomás Re: non sequitur. For example, you write "What is empathy, emotional intelligence for you? If by this you mean to give a full answer for every question that appears here". Nobody made any such claim. Rather, I view these as highly desirable moderator traits since, e.g, they can prove very helpful for mediating disputes - success in which can go a long way towards reversing the loss of valuable contributors due to heated disputes, despicable debating tactics, etc. | |
| Dec 21, 2014 at 22:33 | comment | added | mick | @Tomás As far as I can follow the debate, I did not have the impression we were talking about homework or homework alone. Hence homework seems like a special case ( in which case I agree with you ) that forms an exception that is imho somewhat not so relevent to the debate. | |
| Dec 21, 2014 at 22:28 | comment | added | Tomás | @mick, your two last comment come without any argument. Do you really want to discuss something? | |
| Dec 21, 2014 at 22:25 | comment | added | mick | @Behaviour and every bad teacher too. | |
| Dec 21, 2014 at 22:25 | comment | added | mick | @Tomás Homework is a special case. | |
| Dec 21, 2014 at 22:19 | comment | added | Tomás | Dear @mick, the problem is not the full answer, the problem is the way that the problem is stated. Most of the cases, it is a poor question, intended only to provide some answer to a homework problem. | |
| Dec 21, 2014 at 22:16 | comment | added | Tomás | @BillDubuque, you wrote: "I look forward to the future preservation of valuable answers and the consequent deceleration of loss of excellent teachers". Well, after this quote, I think that my comment is not nonsense. It address the two sentences: "I look forward to the future preservation of valuable answers" (giving full answers) and "the consequent deceleration of loss of excellent teachers" (ideas of education). However, as always, you like to run away from the discussion. | |
| Dec 21, 2014 at 21:07 | comment | added | mick | @Tomás since when do full answers generate lack of interest ? | |
| Dec 20, 2014 at 10:37 | history | edited | Daniel Fischer | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Add links |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 15:46 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @Tomas Non sequiter, nothing was said above about "ideas of education", "giving full answers", etc. | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 15:38 | comment | added | Tomás | @BillDubuque, you're still raising the flag of the educator, although your ideas of education seems a little bit strange in my point of view. What is empathy, emotional intelligence for you? If by this you mean to give a full answer for every question that appears here, without making any concessions then, in the end, for those who asked the questions, the most probably result is lack of knowledge and lack of interest in the study. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 15:05 | comment | added | Jonas Meyer | @DanielFischer: I am grateful for your sacrifice. I appreciate your clear and honest answers here. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 14:16 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @Dan In any case, since you becoming a mod will greatly hinder your extremely destructive deletion campaign, then it does have at least one redeeming aspect - though I would much rather the mod slot be filled by someone who does not profess to lack some of the most crucial skills required (empathy, emotional intelligence, etc). Since SE has still not figured out how to competently run an election, you will win - as the highest "rep" candidates always do. I look forward to the future preservation of valuable answers and the consequent deceleration of loss of excellent teachers. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 14:16 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @Dan No doubt we disagree on much more fundamental points than that, but this is not the place to debate them. I confess extreme surprise that the reason you give for compromising one of your basic principles is to "have enough candidates to make a real election". Apparently the gap between our views is much wider than I ever imagined. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 11:14 | comment | added | Daniel Fischer | @BillDubuque Just for the record, we're disagreeing on the "(having) good answers" point. And incidentally, on the "immense". Yes, I believe it is important to clean out bad closed questions if they don't have answers that add value to the site. But more important is that the site has a full team of moderators. Other people who I consider more qualified have declined to run, unfortunately. We need enough candidates to make it a real election. People whose judgment I value asked me to run. I think despite my shortcomings I can be a decent moderator, so here I am. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 2:22 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @quid It would help if you read my question closer, since this more specific question is not answered above. Also it would help if you stayed on topic. (ed ajf) | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 1:42 | comment | added | quid | @BillDubuque there is a Q/A pair in the post to address this very question (mod vs 10k/20k user). It could save everybody some effort if you'd read the full post before asking for "clarification". | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 1:22 | comment | added | Alexander Gruber Mod | To answer your question about investigating suspicious activities, these do make up a very small percentage of the flags we get; however, because investigating them is often extremely involved, it does take up a pretty good chunk of time. (At least, it does for some mods. We all develop preferences for which mod tasks we like best, so the amount of time we spend on this varies from person to person.) | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 0:57 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @Dan Thanks for the clarification. But now I'm puzzled. The immense amount of effort you expended in closing and deleting "bad questions" (including many with good answers) seems to imply that you believe this to be an important contribution. If so, why would you trade such 10k mod powers for full mod powers? Do you think that there is something more important that you can contribute as a full mod? If so, what? Many users do not want to be a mod for this very reason, i.e. they don't want to lose the capability to vote due to their votes becoming binding. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 23:50 | comment | added | mick | Most bad question do not have good answers and when they do I find that positive. I agree with Bill Dubuque. You can still downvote the OP and upvote the answer and use favorites. See my answer for more motivation and explaination. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:43 | comment | added | Daniel Fischer | @BillDubuque If you read a bit further, you can read that I wouldn't delete such questions as a moderator, since mod-deletions can't be undone by the community. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 20:24 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @Alizter This is not the proper place to debate these matters. But it is the proper place to raise awareness of candidates stances on controversial matters. Here we have a candidate who has heavily engaged in the controversial tactic of deleting valuable content, combined with self-professed "difficulties imagining how other people feel ... a minus on empathy and emotional intelligence". That's a very dangerous combination. It scares me to think what will happen once his massive number of close and deletion votes become unilateral (binding). | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 17:39 | comment | added | Ali Caglayan | @BillDubuque Then why not abolish the closing system? As long as they have valuable answers it is fine to keep crappy questions? | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 16:39 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @Alizter Valuable site content should never be at risk of vandalism. A user who has heavily engaged in such vandalism should not be considered a viable moderator candidate. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 16:24 | comment | added | Ali Caglayan | @BillDubuque Is it not in the answerers risk to answer a bad question? | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 4:29 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | -1 To me, the "nail in the coffin" is your view that it is ok to delete questions with good answers. Your frequent deletion votes on such questions led to the deletions of many valuable answers. This is the primary reason that I left the site. I cannot in good faith participate in a site where a few users are allowed to destroy the work of others. This is a serious defect in the SE platform. Thankfully, soon other platforms will appear without this and other serious SE defects. | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 22:48 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | I feel you did a better job than I did. Upvoted your answer; can I somehow downvote your comment? ;) | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 22:23 | comment | added | Daniel Fischer | And I can't express myself, so I guess It firmly nails the coffin of my nomination. Oh well. | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 22:23 | history | answered | Daniel Fischer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |