It was pointed out to me that I may have been unclear here. The reason for being hesitant to casting a close vote would be because as a mod, my vote would instantly close the post whereas it takes a handful of votes by the regular voting members
|2||added 249 characters in body|
I would first need to determine why arguments are occurring with this user. If members are provoking this person, both the members and the user in question need to be addressed. The reason being is off hand or snide comments which may not get flagged due to not being overtly offending can still cause ire. With that being said, if other users are making such comments, this needs to stop too. Once the root cause is identified, I would address the party or parties about civil discourse but showing empathy to the fact everyone will get frustrated from time to time. I would then let them know that when we do get frustrated, we all need to be cognizant of this so we can step back from the situation before commenting.
I would take two actions. (1) I would wait a bit to see if the users of the site take action by voting to re-open. If this doesn't occur, I would re-examine the question to see if my original thought was incorrect. (2) If I am still adamant that the question should be open, I would consult with the closing mod to see if they can see my point of view. If they still don't think it needs to be closed, I would see what the other mods thoughts are. If the other mods are in the same boat as me, I think we, as the mods, could make a vote to re-open the question.
Moderators address conflict, remove unacceptable forms of communication whether it is an answer, question, or comment, help maintain the content flow of the site, address user flags on question which can be duplicate, PSQ, or spam. Moderators also keep content organized by moving post from one exchange to another when the post is deemed to be better suited else where. Moderators should participate in answering meta question when it comes to concerns with the site as well as pose questions in order to receive member input. Additionally, moderators will be involved with many tasks such editing, commenting, answering, and asking (if they wish) their own question on the site.
I wouldn't feel any different about the diamond. However, I wouldn't want to make a mockery of the position so I would take the utmost care in the phrasing of responses and interacting with members so as to not put them off to the math community and stackexchange as a whole.
As a moderator, I would be able to handle flagged comments and post. With this power, I would make sure all user are being treated fairly in the comments and post that don't belong are handled in a timely manner when I am online.
I have posted a handful of questions and answers at present but I do follow meta. I answer when I believe I can add value or knowledge to the situation of concern.
One of the problems I noticed in the last few days is the posting of PSQ. Theses questions seem to have magnified recently but it may just be due to the end of the semester at universities, colleges, and schools so students are studying for finals. As a moderator, we need to continue to put the questions on hold telling the OP we would like to see what they have done in their attempts to solve the problem, and if the OP doesn't want to make these simple edits, then closing and deleting the questions from the sites should be the next course of action.
I believe in the status the quo unless I see or find compelling arguments to deviate it from it. If the user isn't willing to show any work, why should the members spend their time reconstructing a solution from scratch? It just doesn't make sense to ask that from the members if the OP isn't willing to meet them half way.
I have deputy and review badges. I just don't have the 1000 review badge in first post and the reviewer in late answers (not many come through there), low quality, and suggested edits which I obtained access to recently, but I will get there in time. Additionally, On TeX, I have access from first post to reopen votes so none of these tasks are new to me.
I don't see it affecting the way I review since I don't mind doing those task. The only review I would be hesitant to participate in is the close voting since my vote would shut it down. I would only cast that close vote if the post is an obvious duplicate. As for posting, I will still answer when I can and ask questions as they arise. As for why, when it comes to reviewing, I hit the limit of 20 on many occasions so I can't do to much better there, in regards to answering, I really can only answers questions I feel I have a handle on, and when it comes to asking questions, I have no problem looking to the experts on the site for help when I need it.
It depends on why the question is being deleted. If the question has a correct answer and it is duplicate (with answers) which is why it garnered the downvotes, then I feel the decision was the correct one. If the question isn't a duplicate but received the downvotes for being a PSQ, then (1) the user should have edited his post to when it was put on hold or closed (2) or the members are capable of editing the post to make it fit in with the sites values for appropriate question asking. If no one wants to take action, then there isn't much to do since the community silently voted against the question at hand.
Can matter that there are votes to delete and downvotes but that isn't the end all be all. In some cases, the question could have been edited but the downvoters never returned to see if they are willing to go neutral on the question so the question may not now be represented as it would be if it came in the form it is now present. A similar circumstance can occur with votes to delete. Once you vote, you are more than likely not monitoring that post to see what transpires.
The Dalai Lama said it best with, "If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." In my daily life, I try to live up to this quote since the Dalai Lama is correct. When you can put yourself in other peoples shoes, you can see strife and hardship through eyes only then can you have the slightest idea on what they are feeling. By having just an notion of their emotional state, I can make a better decision that doesn't seem unjust, unfair, and brash.