I was going to post this in my nomination, but it made my nomination WAY too long.
What do you believe is the biggest
issue currently facing Gaming.se? How
do you plan to handle it?
The biggest issue Gaming faces right now is attracting users. The StackExchange platform is really good for Q&A, but we have competition from existing websites. Our biggest indirect competition is GameFAQs. Our biggest direct competition is... GameFAQs Answers.
Should we be afraid you'll burn out or
become even more fanatic?
There is always the possibility that I'll burn out. However, as long as I take things in moderation, I should be OK.
How do you expect becoming a moderator
will change or influence the way you
To start, it likely won't change a lot. I will need to participate a lot more on Meta.Gaming.
Right now, my Gaming rep isn't even high enough to vote to close, let alone vote to delete or use Moderator Tools. That alone will change my behavior on the site.
However, I intend to use any mod-specific powers sparingly. This also includes close votes if the close reason is ambiguous, as mod close votes are absolute.
Will you have the time to spend
moderating the site? How much time do
you think you'll spend modding?
It will likely come out of the same time pool that my current gaming time comes out of. Modding isn't really a separate action, it will just be additional responsibilities in addition to my current actions.
Gaming suffers from a very wide topic
space, how you plan to stay up to date
with such a diverse knowledge base?
Moderation doesn't actually require you to know everything about the subject material. Having said that, I continue playing new games that interest me.
If you're not elected, will you take a
break from GSE or will you just carry
on like before?
I will carry on exactly as before.
We saw a lot of problems over the
voting on Game-Rec, what do you think
could have been done better? if such
an issue faced us in the future, how
would you handle it?
I'm not really sure if this is talking about the social or the technical side, but I assume social, since we do not have direct control over the tech side of the site.
Ultimately, this site is run by the community. There are two ways we can handle votes of this sort:
1. Put it up to a community vote.
2. Ask our moderators to decide for us.
Now, if you've seen the way politics works in the U.S., you know firsthand that the second way of doing things tends to backfire.
What do you think of Identify This
Game? How should it be handled? Please
use qualitative terms and not vague
I don't mind Identify this game, as it can be used to find old games that you may have once played but can only barely remember. The better the description, the more useful the answers are going to be.
What's your stance on duplicates and
how should they be handled?
Duplicates should be closed. That's why we have Close as Duplicate. Duplicates should not be deleted. Of course, this is irrelevant, as it's StackExchange policy not to delete them.
There's an iffy tag on a couple dozen
questions. Another tag is close in
meaning to it. Both suck though. How
do you handle the tags and/or the
questions? Merge? Delete? Close? Ask
If both tags suck, remove them both. The major exception to this is tags for games. In my opinion, every question should have at minimum its game as a tag.
However, there are certain tags that are superfluous and need to be removed. fps is a good example... it's a tag that could have multiple meanings. One meaning is a First Person Shooter which is superfluous since the game name already tells you that. The other is frames per second, and frame-rate is much more descriptive.
How will you deal with having a
binding close vote?
I would only use close votes when absolutely sure that the question doesn't belong. Since I don't currently have Close privileges on Gaming, this isn't a large change.
How do you, the potential moderators,
feel about suspensions? in what cases
should it be used? and not?
Suspensions need to be used sparingly. EXCEEDINGLY SPARINGLY.
Simply put, suspensions are a moderators tool to be used against a user as a last resort, once talking to a user has failed.
As some of you may know, I was hit with a suspension during this election. Not on the site, but on StackExchange's chat area, presumably from Gaming since that was the only room I was active in. For reasons that were never explained to me. (Side Note: I know who this mod is, and yes I am voting against them in the primary because of it.)
Using suspensions just because you want to is not acceptable behavior for a mod under any circumstances.
What do you feel is a good way to deal
with new Users posting bad questions?
That depends on if you think the question can be saved or not. If it can be, edit it so that it's a valid, working question.
If it can't be, downvote it and/or vote to close it and give reasons why.
If new users have enough closed questions, they will no longer be able to ask new questions until they participate in the community.
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
Tough question, but it sounds like they really need to be sat down with and have explained to them that their comments are unacceptable, and that you will have to suspend them if they continue. Remember, suspension is the last ditch ability a moderator has.
Which three nominees do you think are
the most suited to become the next
moderators and why?
C.Ross: From my experience with him, he has a level head on his shoulders, and is willing to listen to both sides of an argument.
Arda XI: Arda appears to be very active on the site and in chat.
badp: He may have nominated himself as a joke, but I don't think he'd make as bad a mod as his nominate seems to imply.
I would love to say Juan Manuel, but I've had some disagreements with him in the past, and I think his lack of activity recently is not necessarily a good thing.