Super User's broad scope overlaps with several other Stack Exchange sites, including but not limited to Ask Different, Ubuntu, Server Fault, Unix & Linux, Software Recs, and others. How do you intend to handle issues of scope overlap? How would you handle a flag suggesting that a question about OS X be migrated to Apple.SE, or a question about bash migrated to U&L?
Superuser already has a strong policy of not migrating questions when they are on-topic for multiple sites. That policy is sensible in that it allows a user to feel comfortable posting where they are most familiar, so in most cases of scope overlap I would simply leave the question where it is.
In the case where a flag is suggesting that a question be moved then I would most likely follow current policy and leave the question as is unless that flag was raised by the question poster themselves. I would expect the poster to raise that sort of flag as a result of them being told by one of our community members that migration may benefit their question as it may be better suited on another site.
In that case the migration makes sense, the user experience continues to be good, he is aware that we are not simply moving his question "for the sake of it" and his and everyone else's experience remains to a good one. We end up with one new user happy on two sites
Stack Exchange has established quite a few norms over the last years, which dictate the default action to be taken in several situations. After a few weeks of moderating, you find yourself in strong disagreement with one of these policies. Would you take different actions and deviate from the norm based on your personal assessment of the situation, or would you follow the established rules in order to keep the moderation coherent? If you thought a policy needed changing, how would you approach that?
In the first instance I would always follow current policy and try to maintain experience for the users of the site.
In the background though I would consult with other moderators as to the reasons for the policy and how they felt about them. I would try to discuss how I felt about the policy and how I thought it could be improved. If reception was not negative then I would ask if we thought that policy could be changed and possibly start canvassing the wider audience, potentially involving the larger community via either the chat rooms or meta.Superuser.
If overall reception was good then I would continue to look towards changing the policy or behaviours in more official ways.
In short I would try to work with other moderators and the community to change or update a policy, I would not simply assume that I know best and work independently or against the wishes or interests of the community.
Super User is a community of people, and often people disagree (whether on the topicality of the question, correctness of an answer, etc). While many users discuss things civilly, some don't. What is your approach on handling arguments that get out of hand, or are distracting from the original topic?
If I saw an argument or disagreement beginning in the comments section I would suggest that the chat rooms may be a better place to discuss their points of view but that they should try to keep their comments civil to each other. I would monitor the conversation to ensure it does not further degrade and try to keep the discussion civil if possible.
If the argument got worse I would attempt to encourage both users to drop the matter for now and come back when they have calmed down. If it had moved to a chat room then I would potentially lock and close the room if it got particularly aggressive, before that happened though I would try my best to reason with the two users and calm them down.
All being well the situation should pass rather simply as an exchange of opinions on chat without further sidetracking or discussion on the original question.
A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?
While I am sure that have on occasion been terse or overly jovial I am on the whole happy with how I have behaved and do not believe that having a diamond attached will significantly alter the interpretation of my answers or comments.
The idea that my comments will be seen differently due to a diamond makes me slightly apprehensive, but I still stand by what I have said and done.
Topicality (that is, whether a question is on-topic or off-topic for the site) is broadly described in the Help Center, but there are often questions that test the boundaries of the topicality guidelines, causing some users to disagree on the topicality of a question. Describe in a few sentences your personal view on the topicality rules of Super User, and how you might apply them as a moderator. You may cite other content on the network as a reference for your answer, but answer in your own words.
I think the topicality rules are quite clear as to what is on and off-topic on Superuser though there is often overlap. It is often the case that a webserver question or domain networking question could be on topic both here and on ServerFault but as the help centre clearly states we do not deal with corporate IT support or networks. It is a fine line for a question to take and it would depend on the question itself as to whether I felt it needed migration.
If the question was regarding a very specific problem with a piece of software that many "casual" users are likely to see then I would leave the question here, if it is only likely to be seen in a corporate network environment then I would most likely migrate it.
Every question is different though and would have to be treated on a case by case basis.
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?
From a moderation perspective I would deal with each of the flags on a one-by-one basis and not let previous experience affect how I deal with the flags from the user. The flagging system has safeguards in place that would eventually trigger and restrict the user in the long term.
In the short term though I would try to contact the user through chat or other means that may be available to try and discuss their habits and try to provide advice as to how they might better interact with the community. I would try to reason with them and talk through why some of the things they are doing might be counter-productive and how they affect their standing in the community as well as potential long term ramifications.
How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
In the first instance I would contact the moderator who closed the question and ask why. I would discus why it was closed or deleted and why I think that should not have happened.
If it was simply a mistake then we would reopen or undelete the question and take any necessary action to apologise or clarify the mistake to the user(s) involved.
If it was not a mistake but was intentional then we would come to a mutual agreement as to how to deal with the question. Hopefully we would be able to agree the future of the question.
If that moderator was not available then I would try to discuss it with another moderator.
I would not simply re-open the question and put the moderator in the position of having to explain themselves to the community at large.
What will you do to breathe life back into Kronos's the Super User Blog?
The blog is one of parts of the site that is under-used and not as visible as it needs to be. I would like to see it better integrated into Superuser culture and life.
The problem is though that a blog is a hard thing to tie into the fluid nature of the main site. We used to have Question of the Week (QotW) which was interesting and useful, but questions move too quickly and often it is difficult to choose a question that will have enough meat to make a post yet not so much that it becomes irrelevant before it gets posted.
It would be good to use it to discuss StackExchange wide changes that affects Superuser specifically but that would not interest the majority of users. It could also be seen as simply parroting the main Stackexchange blog which would not be constructive.
Regular competitions would be good but again the problem is choosing topics that would involve or interest the community at large. We covered the Windows 8 release with sitewide games, but they were gone quickly and had nothing to replace them with. Maybe we need to think more seasonal and have Easter egg hunts and Christmas raffles and things. The problem is always going to be keeping it current and topical.
There are always software manufacturers looking to get their products reviewed, but we don't want the blog to simply end up as a "free software review" site. The same goes for hardware. A very tight line would have to be walked to keep the site relevant if we allowed reviews for these sorts of things.
I would like to see the blog return to prominence and actually see a link to it on the main site, but this would take a significant investment of time and planning and involvement at all levels of the community from the new users right up through the chain to those who hold overall power over the site.
It can be done but before anything could really be started we would need to look a lot more at where we want to take the blog and what we need to get there.
I have some ideas, and want to see the blog rise up once again but there isn't going to be a cure-all bullet that fixes everything.
A user takes major offense at content in another user's profile (e.g. about me text, or avatar) and repeatedly flags posts by that other user within a few hours, demanding that you remove the offending content from the profile. You look at the user profile, and it doesn't appear to be against the rules. Neither user is available in chat. What do you do?
I am sure that I have previously seen that flags can be responded to with personalised comments, I would in the first instance attempt to use this to let the user know why the content is not considered to be against site rules.
If the activity continued then I would try to suggest via a comment on a recent answer or comment, if they were harassing the user via comments, by the user asking them to contact me to discuss the situation.
What is your current approach, overall, to handling new users when they come into the site and appear not to understand our rules/customs/guidelines? If you became a diamond moderator, how would that approach change, if at all? For the purposes of this question, you may assume that the new user is not posting something worthy of the "Spam" or "Offensive" flags; that would make the question too easy to answer ;) Instead, just imagine that the new user has posted an answer with quality problems, or asked a question in an "Answer" post, or asked a question that has been asked many times before and is widely duplicated -- something along those lines. Pick an example and explain how you deal with it.
We often get questions or answers which are severely lacking in detail. Either the questions do not describe the problem in enough detail or the answers simply link to other sites without describing what the information at the other end of the link will achieve.
As it stands at the moment I often rely on a script to inject comments such as "Whilst this may theoretically answer the question, it would be preferable to include the essential parts of the answer here, and provide the link for reference."
I also encourage users via the generic responses available in the /review tools.
For questions I try to leave a list of questions that will help clarify the the question so that it is more easily answerable.
These are perfectly good tools that are useful to give new users an idea of what they are doing wrong but as a diamond moderator I feel that this could be a bit too "impersonal". I would make a conscious effort to make more helpful comments and describe what can be done to improve the question or answer.
