How would you approach a new user to the site who has clearly asked an off-topic question or clearly used the answer as a discussion? Assuming you will cast a close vote, how might you address the faux pas to the new user?
Being welcoming is key. I personally am an introvert by nature and I take that perspective when I find a new user. Regardless if their fear is real or not, I treat them as if it is. This approach makes me give them 1.) a welcome, then 2.) the issue, and most importantly 3.) how they can fix the problem. I will even occasionally offer a specific example they can emulate. If needed explicitly state my comments are not intended to be dismissive or condescending.
I hope as the site grows, I will no longer have time to do that. I hope we are so busy that welcoming new users cannot be done when compared to the other tasks a mod does like spam removal and such. My plan that my warm introductions and gentle handling of mistakes will be paid forward so the community has a habit of showing new users the way.
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?
Often people are be both smart and passionate. Aside from the occasional troll, I will tend towards encouraging the passion and simply removing the parts that generate the flags. There isn't any point in admonishing a passionate user for the occasional outburst, especially when the outburst is clearly a work of their love and dedication.
However, if somebody is being a creepy jerk, I have no problem asking them politely to stop. I will not make an assumption about what motivates a person, so if I have to bring up a behaviour problem I will point out the problem as I see it; suggest a remedy and leave the issue open for dialog. Honest people who let their fire get the better of them always see the way, and trolls get bored and leave.
How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
If the issue is about being on/off topic; I would post in meta about the issue to let the community have a say. If the mod is acting rashly or unfairly, the conversation is more direct. Like any confrontational communication. Don't assume, listen, don't accuse and find a middle ground. It rarely fails.
If members of the community ask for changes to the allowed topics for the site; what should be the process for change be? How would you decide to change the Money.SE help center based on the outcomes of meta.money discussions?
Changes to the community direction are always to be handled in meta. I would first encourage the member to post their issue and make their case. Then it is simply my job as the long term community member to explain why the topics are as they are. If the change is something I agree with, I say so and let my answer be voted on. After some time it will be easy to see if there is a passion in the community for change or not. As is so often the case, the community moves and changes slowly, and that is usually the right thing to do.
It is also important in these discussions for a mod to point out the blue diamond doesn't give my vote on community direction anymore weight than a new member. Perhaps my reputation does, but not the diamond.
If the change requires an update to the help, the discussion should continue in the meta post until the changes are done and agreed upon.
How would you deal with a question that is clearly off-topic, but well liked by the community , i.e. it has a lot of upvotes and quality answers? See here for example illustration.
If the community likes it, perhaps the question should be on topic. Post it to meta. Like any change we should talk about why, look for previous discussion and other citations, and finally see if the situation in the world is different than before.
How will you contribute to a strong culture that welcomes new users and rewards good behavior from established users?
The only tool I possess as a mod is the ability to delete bile as soon as I find it. I must lead by example with positive culture, and remove unhelpful culture as I find it. This is a community that will tend towards an adult demographic, and adults will behave like adults when treated as such.
As a mod, the blue diamond carries weight and influence. I won't temper my comments about being kind and nice.
How will you address the community if your feelings about the direction of the site are in conflict with the community's agreed upon direction as decided in meta.money?
The will of the community comes first. The mod is in a powerful spot; my close vote is binding. My delete vote is binding. Therefore I have to use those tools as sparingly as possible. I usually save my vote to close until I am the last vote. If the community has a clear path then it is the job of the moderator to keep that direction, regardless of my personal feelings. (That doesn't stop me from having a voice in meta to aim our community however.)
What role does community history have in guiding the future of the community?
The wheels of democracy should move slowly; change should be hard and and carefully considered. I don't want the community to stagnate and not grow in new directions, but changes must be done slowly enough that we can all agree and adjust accordingly. The worst change in the world is one where we have to revert later. To that end; my reputation and days visited is a more important metric than being a mod. My real job as a mod is to listen to the community and solicit information from the most experienced and respected users. Mods encourage dialog while high rep users steer it.
How will you react when a user lashes out at you, accusing you of being a {bully|idiot|a poor excuse for a human being} after you {close a question|delete an answer|delete a comment}?
I will post in the mod chat room and ask for quorum from the other mods. (If I haven't already brought my action to light.) At that point, whatever the other site mods say will be the decision. If my action is upheld, then the matter is over. If I am overruled, I should consider taking the step to publicly admit a mistake and apologize. Even if the angry user never sees the apology, the community should know that mods are not above the rules.
In your opinion, what do moderators do?
Moderators are garbage people: we patrol the site looking to remove unnecessary content like "thanks" comments and spam posts. We remove spam users and generally keep that home page clean and on topic. Handling flags that the community ID's as a problem as quickly as possible.
Moderators encourage positive dialog: welcome new users, stick up for questions suffering from negative votes and making sure comments and content is constructive and polite. If I can save a poor question or help a new users write a great question, I have done more good than any answer with a hundred votes.
Remember my place: being a mod doesn't make me smart. I can't add answers anymore often than I normally would. I don't change or remove content I disagree with. I serve the community; I don't run it.
Be ready to explain things: users get to vote and move on. Cast a flag and move on. Mods should be ready to explain the reason for the change so no change is made in haste. If a new user or high rep veteran questions my actions, if I can't back it up I might have made a mistake.
In your opinion, what is best in life?
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
