Gareth McCaughan

1. A puzzle becomes tremendously popular, spawning many similar, easily-reproduceable variations. New users flock to the site, eager to post their own version of the puzzle, but some regulars feel that the new wave of puzzles are too simple and of low quality. How do you react and how do you respond? To give a more concrete example, imagine if we were getting 10 of these a day, some better than others. It could be that none of them are too broad, but it's evident for many of the newer ones that the poster didn't put in much thought/effort when constructing them.

If what we have is a wave of new users each posting their single variation-on-a-theme, there actually isn't (so far as I know) much we can do. Downvote bad puzzles, comment on them to explain why they're bad, and wait for the storm to pass. The users we're talking about, though, are not going to look over past puzzles and see the critical comments and downvotes. They're not going to look at anything we control. And we're not allowed to kill 'em; I checked.

So, I respond with a weary sigh and a bunch of hopefully-useful-but-probably-futile comments and downvotes. Hopefully the situation would resolve itself after a week or so.

We had a riddle sandbox for a while. Reactions to that were extremely mixed. If we had a bad enough storm of bad new puzzles, it might be worth resurrecting something like it as a temporary measure, but it might be difficult to get a clear enough idea of the community's opinion quickly enough to be useful. (What might be possible, though, is to establish during bad-puzzle-storm #1 how the community feels about temporary sandboxing as a defensive measure -- and then react with greater agility when bad-puzzle-storm #2 comes along, if it does.)

Another desperate measure that might be worth considering if things get bad enough: perhaps it's possible to establish a rep threshold for asking questions. That would obviously be pretty hopeless elsewhere in the SE network, so maybe it's impossible, but if the flexibility to do it exists then we could turn the threshold on temporarily when there's an influx of bad puzzles from new users. (I'm pretty certain we wouldn't want it on all the time.)

2. As a moderator, your votes are binding - close, delete, tag synonyms, etc. How will this change how you usually VTC/VTD?

As a regular user, I think of my votes as providing information to a process that, once enough evidence has accumulated, closes/deletes things. As a moderator, I would no longer be able to do that; instead I would have the ability to take action. Obviously the bar for doing so is higher: something would have to be worse to make me delete it than to make me suggest deleting it.

(I think pretty much everything I've voted to close has in fact ended up closed, and pretty much everything I've voted to delete has in fact ended up deleted. So I'm not terribly worried that having extra power would lead to bad decisions. The bigger problem is that it circumvents the process of getting consensus. And it looks worse when something is zapped Because A Mod Said So rather than because lots of people independently thought it was bad.)

3. Puzzling is very different from most sites on the network. What do you think should change to reflect this difference in the way the site actually works, rather than just the way we use the system that's already there? (E.g. the ability to reward questions more than answers, changes to the wording of the help centre, etc.) As a moderator, with an improved level of access to Stack Exchange employees, how would you seek to bring about such changes?

It would indeed be good to be able to change a bunch of wordings, modify our close-reasons, tinker with the rep system, change what's selected for HNQ, and so forth. But all these things have been apparent for years and they haven't changed; I am sure the reason is that Stack Exchange as a whole quite reasonably isn't interested in introducing extra flexibility that's needed only by one atypical niche site, and I am not so arrogant as to think my election as moderator will change that.

So here's what I would do. It doesn't sound like much, but it's all I can honestly promise. I would look back at past discussions of such changes, and try to understand what arguments were made on each side. I would consider whether there are strong arguments that haven't been raised or weren't engaged with when raised, and whether anything's changed that would or should make a difference to the answer. And if it looks as if there's something genuinely new to be said, I would consult with other mods and raise the issue again if we agree it's worth a go. But if so, I would do it with the understanding that there are strong reasons for not changing how SE works just for the benefit of Puzzling, and with no expectation of success.

4. How much time do you think that you will be able to spend actively moderating every day? What is your usual activity pattern over the week?

I'm not sure what counts as time actively moderating. Am I "actively moderating" if I'm browsing Puzzling with an eye open for trouble, or only while I'm actually bringing down the banhammer on users who ask difficult questions (bwahahahahaha)? I'm usually around intermittently (and sometimes not so intermittently) from roughly 11am or so to 1am or so, UK time. How much of that time is "active" varies greatly; perhaps it averages an hour or two a day. How much of it would be "actively moderating", I don't know.

(The fact that I can't say anything like "Several hours every day, with nothing else to do but improve things here" is in my opinion the strongest reason for not voting for me as moderator.)

5. With the diamond attached to everything you've said in the past, do you think you have represented the ideals of this community? And will you continue to do so in the future as you are held to a slightly higher/different standard?

There is one ideal of this community that I have conspicuously failed to represent: I have not posted any puzzles. Other than that, I'm pretty comfortable with how I have acted. I would be a little bit more careful with the diamond attached -- I would, specifically, be extra-careful about jokes that could be interpreted as planning or condoning moderatorial abuse -- but I'm quite careful already.

(Readers who are concerned that that sounds slapdash are invited to look at my actual record. I hope they will be reassured that this really is more "I'm careful already" than "I don't think it's necessary to be careful as mod".)

6. Not every user is well-informed about site policy, and many things on this site are not policy, but rather convention. What would you do if an established user began telling newer users (in comments or in chat) that they need to follow certain "rules" that are not in fact rules (either contrary to policy or simply convention)? Keep in mind that the established user probably believes (for whatever reason) that these are in fact "the rules".

Step 1: respond in the same venue (pinging both users involved). "Actually, there's no rule against answering your own question here, and sometimes it's the right thing to do. It's usually best, though, to leave it a bit longer than you did, and to offer some hints before revealing the solution outright." or whatever.

Step 2: if the user persists after this has been done once or twice, make things more explicit. "Actually, there's no rule against answering your own question here. @InevitableOpossum, I see that you've continued telling people there's such a rule despite being told otherwise by a moderator. If you think there should be such a rule, the thing to do is to post a proposal on meta. Then we can talk it over and see what the community thinks."

(Note: before advancing to Step 2 I would want to check extra-carefully that the problem isn't actually that there's a rule I have missed out on noticing.)

Step 3: if they still persist, this is now in the category of active misinformation and it's time to get heavier. "@InevitableOpossum, there is no such rule. We have talked about this before and you've been invited to propose it in meta but have instead chosen to carry on spreading misinformation. Please stop. If you are unable or unwilling to stop, we'll have to impose a short ban."

Step 4: if they still persist, ban 'em. Short period at first; the goal isn't to kick them out but to find some way of getting it into their head that they don't get to set the rules unilaterally. Escalate as appropriate.

Somewhere around step 3, if not before, I would discuss with other mods. I'd be new to the moderation game and would want to check whether there's existing lore from people who have faced similar situations before.

I would firmly expect escalation from each step to the next to be rather rare. I don't know of any case in the past when it's actually got to step 3 or 4 -- I'm not sure I can even think of one that got to step 2. So please don't interpret the above as being keen to swing the banhammer. In practice, a few polite words of correction are probably enough almost all the time.

7. Suppose someone posts a puzzle that you, and maybe a couple other users, don't think has a solution. But you also can't prove the absence of an answer, by definition. (Assume that, if you comment, the user isn't responsive or helpful. But please do mention if you would comment.) What do you do in this situation? Suppose the user is a new account, and this is their first question - does your action change?

I would comment, first asking whether the questioner knows the/a solution, and maybe pushing more depending on how they answer. Next step is to air my suspicion that the problem is insoluble (in comments and/or TSL chat) and see what happens. After a while, if no sort of defence is forthcoming from the poster and no one is getting anywhere with finding a solution, I would explicitly invite them to post a solution and suggest that otherwise the puzzle might be closed. If they continue to be entirely unhelpful and no one offers good reasons for not closing it, close it. (In many such cases I would expect it to be closed by community consensus without needing mod action.)

New users are different in two ways. More likely to be posting really bad puzzles and/or not reading any of the followup; but also more likely to be innocently unaware of local conventions and more likely to be scared away by harsh criticism. So I would be quicker, more explicit, and more careful to couch my comments in language less likely to offend.

8. Suppose you observe a new user post their first attempt at creating a puzzle. The response is lukewarm, and the comments are helpful and posted in good faith. However, they're a little naive to the tone of constructive criticism, and as a result, come across... a little bit degrading and dismissive. (And maybe in your fair judgement, the commenters really are right: it's not bad, but it's not a great puzzle, and needs a bit of work.) There are a couple questions: How do you react to this situation? Do you respond to this situation at all? Suppose you see this becoming a problematic and frequent pattern. What do you do? I ask this question, because I do see this happen, and it's a situation that's always made me a little bit uncomfortable. I now know what I'd do, but it's taken me a while to figure it out, and it's definitely a personal stylistic decision.

A one-off bit of imperfectly-tuned constructive criticism doesn't call for any particular response unless the target seems particularly upset by it. But if there's any hint of a pile-on (multiple people being a bit too snippy at a single target) or a consistent problem with tone (one commenter being a bit too snippy at multiple targets) I would probably want to say a few words. Perhaps along the following lines: "@UniqueWombat You're making some good points, but please bear in mind that @NaivePuzzler is new here and be nice. @NaivePuzzler I'm sorry some of these comments are rather tactless. This isn't a bad puzzle. But I think your critics do have a point: [nicer constructive criticism here]. Again, everyone, creating puzzles is hard and accepting criticism is hard; please go out of your way to be nice when offering criticism."

There are three different ways this could become a problematic and frequent pattern. (1) A single newish user keeps posting low-quality puzzles. (2) A single critic keeps posting snippy criticism. (3) Lots of critics keep posting snippy criticism. Of these, #1 is best addressed by constructive criticism (which they're apparently getting, even if it's a bit rude) and downvotes. The longer they go on not improving, the less I mind if the criticism is a bit rude. (But no moderatorial action needs to be taken against them unless it starts to seem that they're flooding us with bad puzzles on purpose.) #2 needs some, er, constructive criticism directed at the critic himself. "@UniqueWombat I've noticed that you're offering critiques of a lot of new users' puzzles lately. It's great that you're trying to help improve the quality of puzzles here, and many thanks for that, but the tone is a notch or two too harsh; could you try to be gentler in future, please?" (With appropriate escalation if they won't listen.) #3 is a cultural problem and harder to deal with. Maybe put something about it on meta pointing out the problem and soliciting advice, and link to it from problematic discussions.

9. 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?

Step 1: gentle request to be nicer (or whatever it is they're failing to do that produces arguments/flags). Step 2: slightly firmer request to be nicer, coupled with acknowledgement of their valuable contributions. Step 3: not-so-gentle admonishment and warning that we will unfortunately have to take action if they are unwilling or unable to improve. Step 4: suspension, short at first but getting longer if necessary. The rate of progression through these steps would depend on just what it is they're doing and how they respond to each step. I would very much hope to avoid getting to step 4, and as with Q6 above I would expect getting there to be really rare.

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

I understand there is a separate mod chat room. I would discuss the matter there. I wouldn't bring it up anywhere more public. (Possible exception: if I thought they'd done something spectacularly improper. Even then I would not expect public airing of grievances to be a useful first step.) If specifically asked my opinion, I might give it (but not necessarily; if I thought there was much chance that the other mod would persuade me they'd done the right thing, I would until convinced or definitely unconvinced give noncommital responses along the lines of "We're actually discussing this elsewhere, and I'm not going to comment on it here right now".

If after all possible discussion I still thought the other mod's course of action was badly wrong ... well, at that point I would expect the other moderators to have weighed in too, and what happened next would depend on the outcome of the whole discussion. Most likely we'd agree to disagree. Extreme cases might end up with appealing for arbitration from the SE community mods (is that a thing?), or resigning in a huff, or something, but once again this is an extreme outcome I would expect to be extremely rare.