1. 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?

As with other sites where this is an issue, such as ServerFault, the general agreement is something being on-topic elsewhere is not sufficient by itself to be reason to migrate it. So, in most cases, the flag would declined, though there are certainly times when it makes sense to migrate a question to a different site where it is on topic, particularly when it is not attracting people capable of answering it on the more general site.

2. 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?

The best approach to being in disagreement with a policy is to recuse one's self from matters where it applies. There are other moderators who presumably don't have strong opinions on the matter who will be able take more impartial actions.

As to changing the policy, the option in the same as it's always been: waste spend time writing up your opinion and supporting evidence, post it on meta.stackexchange.com and wait for it to be downvoted, ignored, closed as a duplicate, or some combination of the three.

3. 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?

The most important thing is to stop the argument. This would generally involve leaving a comment telling the participant to behave themselves, locking the inciting post temporarily, removing the comments, and then doling out whacks from the modhammer as appropriate, the primary tool being a temporary suspension.

Of course, as we see in that blog post, the penalty box is viewed in StackExchange as a chance for a user to learn from their mistakes and come back better for the experience, so I would do everything I could to make a sure user knows why they got sin-binned. Instead of, for example, saying:

Your account is being suspended for [X days] because of the [your remarks here], in which you acted like a massive jackass

The proper approach would be something along the lines of:

Your account is being suspended for [X days] because of the [your remarks here], which are inappropriate on Stack Exchange. You should consider using the time to consult with a qualified mental health professional in your area to resolve your apparent personality disorder before participating on SuperUser again.

In this way, the offending user knows both why they got in trouble in the first place, and has possible actions he or she can take to address the root of the problem.

4. 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?

I can't say I care in the slightest. It was right when I said it without a diamond, it's right with a diamond applied retroactively.

5. 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.

Computer hardware, software and networking are on topic on SuperUser, excluding programming, video games and console, websites and webservices, mobile devices, IT infrastructure and shopping questions/product recommendations.

I would apply those rules by ruthlessly hunting down and closing off-topic threads and reveling in the slaughter.

6. 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?

Possibly by deleting the offending comments, if warranted, possibly by telling the comment flaggers to stop being such overly-sensitive weenies, if warranted. When it gets right down to it, without the people who provide the valuable answers, Stack Exchange is just a bunch of people asking for help and not getting it. The content is what matters, both in terms of Stack Exchange's footprint on Google, (and its resulting ad revenue) and in terms of being able to attract a community of experts or power users. If someone who doesn't contribute has a problem with comments from someone who does, well, that non-contributing person can piss off back to Yahoo! answers, as they have no value to the site anyway.

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

I would head over to the mod chat room and explain to them why they are wrong, and work out the best way to undo their wrongness.

8. What will you do to breathe life back into Kronos's the Super User Blog?

Raise community awareness and contribute. It's a self-reinforcing cycle - the more awareness there is, the greater the likelihood of attracting quality contribution, and the more quality contributions there are, the more awareness there will be of it, so jump-start that cycle.

9. 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 would send a moderator message to the flagging user to inform them that 1) the content is not against the rules, 2) I don't respond well to demands 3) I am getting annoyed by their frivolous flags and 4) I ban things that annoy me.

I would also try to work in something about how this flagging user could improve themselves, though I don't have any bookmarked articles on "not being a whiny bitch"... therefore, if elected, I would remedy that and find some resources on how not to be a whiny bitch, so that I could assist any users I would interact with who are suffering from the problem of being a whiny bitch.

10. 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.

My current approach is to ignore such users. When particularly bad, a flag/VTC and downvote are "awarded" to the post in question. As a moderator, I would be held to a higher standard, and would do my best to inform and punish/correct such users.

First off, I would throw a downvote on the post and add a comment. The downvote, of course, serves to feed the auto-ban algorithm that cuts off low-quality contributors from spraying more of their crap around the site. Then I would dispose of the post as appropriate (closing it, converting it to a comment, protecting the other users from being afflicted by it with a deletion, whatever).

Of course, much like with my answer to question 3, the comment would serve to inform and offer suggestions at improvement.

Users who use answers for things that are not answers would be informed of their error, offered a handy link/definition of the meaning of the word "answer" and be advised to consult their nearest elementary school teacher for more information.

People who seem to believe that posting here is the same as sending a txt message to their BFF would be advised that we are not, in fact, a gaggle of tween girls, given a link to a spell checker, and advised that their manner of discourse makes them look moronic. Depending on whether the low quality is due to stupidity or laziness, I would then be able to provide the poster helpful tips on improving their mental functioning (mental exercise, certain foods, education services, etc.) or tackling their motivation/misinformed opinion that SuperUser is their mother and will clean up their crap.

People who seem to have managed to avoid reading the help center or topicality guidelines will be informed that this is their error, and directed to helpful resources to address their problem - programs to help them learn to read, programs to help the victims of adult illiteracy, and so on.

For egregious cases, I may just skip ahead, nuke their crap, smack them with a suspension, and send a moderator message at them to correct their impression that I'm willing to tolerate people flinging feces around like ill-behaved monkeys, and direct them to quality animal trainers who may have success in helping them stop that behavior.

And of course, between the auto-ban algorithm and the mod-hammer, I'm confident that we'd experience a sharp decline in problems with repeat offenders of community standards.