Timeline for Add a way for moderators to cast a normal, non binding close/open vote
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2021 at 19:47 | comment | added | Sebastian Simon | The point of having moderators is to be “human exception handlers”: handle flags and other issues that the community cannot handle on its own. Still, moderators are part of the community and they should be able to do everything the community is able to do. Moderators are never expected to be subject-matter experts, so why are their close votes binding without an option to partially delegate the closure to the rest of the community? | |
| Dec 4, 2013 at 22:41 | comment | added | Sam I am says Reinstate Monica | So, what you're saying is that in situations where you want to leave a regular close vote, but don't want to unilaterally close the question, you should just leave a comment instead? | |
| Jul 21, 2013 at 18:13 | comment | added | Izkata | This is flat-out wrong. Lots of the mods on SciFi.SE, for example, have lamented in chat or on meta that they want to be a normal user most of the time, and only use binding votes when appropriate. They started as normal users, after all, and forcing binding votes onto them is a slight removal from the community. | |
| Nov 3, 2011 at 23:52 | comment | added | Kaveh | Jeff, moderators are not just moderators, they are in the first place users of the site. So saying that the purpose of moderators is to moderate is not the right attitude IMHO. Fearing and not using power unless it is necessary are different things. | |
| May 24, 2011 at 17:52 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | @Ian: the role of moderators on beta sites - especially early on - is a little different: traffic is lower, but (often, though not always) signal/noise is lower as well, since the site's definition is still in flux. I'd argue that unilateral closing is just as important, if not moreso, on the beta sites... But the importance of discussing the reasons for closing is much, much greater - moderators must be willing to address concerns raised by the community in response to their actions. Incidentally, we always appoint more than one pro tem moderator so that no one person is trusted with this | |
| May 24, 2011 at 16:17 | comment | added | Ian Ringrose | Beta site are different as there are often very few users that can vote to close - so by making someone a moderator there are even less people to do the "normal" closing. | |
| May 24, 2011 at 15:54 | comment | added | user102937 | @John: Having been a moderator for a few months now, I can tell you there are many questions that are (in your words) unexceptional, clearly off-topic questions that never achieve close velocity because they are too uninteresting to get enough views. I close them unilaterally, and I don't think twice about it. | |
| May 24, 2011 at 15:36 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | @John: we just added two more moderators to SO, because the work-load was so great. Even with a huge number of community members editing and voting to close, the shear volume of crap flooding into the site on a daily basis is insane. "Exceptional circumstances" here are any inappropriate questions that fall through the cracks - if only they were more exceptional... | |
| May 24, 2011 at 14:30 | comment | added | John Dibling | @Jeff: No. The purpose of a moderator is to intervene under exceptional circumstances. Most circumstances are not exceptional. A moderator should be able to act as a normal citizen most of the time, but when stuff hits the fan act as the one we turn to to make good decisions and carry out their duties. | |
| Feb 17, 2011 at 22:59 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood StaffMod | @mxy if you want to educate, leave comments explaining your actions. Good moderators should be doing this anyway. Pretending to hide in the cloak of "oh, I'm just a regular user like you good folks" is an abdication of responsibility as a moderator. | |
| Feb 17, 2011 at 14:33 | comment | added | mxyzplk | I strongly disagree with this. Moderators are also participants in the site. When I have people lightly misbehaving on my questions/answers, then either I can do nothing, or I can wield my super-mod-hammer and then have to deal with them getting hurt feelings and acting out in other Q's and on meta. Adding this feature could help people not get their fur ruffled as much and thus make all us mods' job easier and users happier. | |
| Jan 6, 2011 at 10:51 | history | answered | Jeff AtwoodStaffMod | CC BY-SA 2.5 |