Here are some answers to your questions:

here has a meta post on Who should our moderators be? in meta. I would like to ask the nominees some questions to understand the candidates better. Feel free to answer this. Your answers will help the community to understand you better.

1. What do you think the main job of moderator is?

A moderator should be like a lifeguard at a swimming pool, keeping a watchful eye on things, blowing the whistle for minor infractions (running at the pool, "flaming" on the site), and intervening, or calling for help in more serious situations.

2. Do you have any previous experience as a moderator?

I was asked to be moderator on the History SE site in 2013. I declined in order to the resident "fixer" of the large amount of content generated by "newbies" with good raw ideas, whose questions needed to be improved to meet site standards. I felt this self-appointed role would have been a conflict with being a moderator. Here's an example of a question I fixed and saved from closure:.

3. Our site is a very new one. We can expect a lot of posts that are broad, but are about practical problems faced when learning a language. What is your opinions on such questions?

I would welcome "broad" but practical questions, because they add value to the site. I might use the experience described under 2) to make minor fixes to narrow the question.

4. If you users fight over each other in comments, etc... how will you handle that situation?

I would first warn, then suspend, if necessary one or both users. Long discussions can be moved to chat rooms, personal attacks are unacceptable.

5. Some users who post great answers may not agree with the community. For example, they may ask a question which was previously agreed to be off-topic and may want to include such questions as on topic. How will you deal with such users? We surely don't want to loose such users and their good answer.

I would do my best to fix the question, if necessary, so that fundamentally good content that was (initially) flawed can remain on the site.

6. You come across a question which you think should be closed. But major of the community people say the opposite. What will you do?

I would go with the majority unless there were an overriding reason (e.g. profanity). As a practical matter, I am somewhat on the "lenient" side on other sites vis a vis closing, so I would understand how the community feels in this type of situation.

7. If a fellow moderator disagrees with you, how will you handle that situation?

I respect my peers and under ordinary circumstances would try to come to a consensus with them. Only in extreme situations (e.g. profanity) would I take the discussion to the "top."

Here are some answers to your questions:

here has a meta post on Who should our moderators be? in meta. I would like to ask the nominees some questions to understand the candidates better. Feel free to answer this. Your answers will help the community to understand you better.

1. What do you think the main job of moderator is?

A moderator should be like a lifeguard at a swimming pool, keeping a watchful eye on things, blowing the whistle for minor infractions (running at the pool, "flaming" on the site), and intervening, or calling for help in more serious situations.

2. Do you have any previous experience as a moderator?

I was asked to be moderator on the History SE site in 2013. I declined in order to the resident "fixer" of the large amount of content generated by "newbies" with good raw ideas, whose questions needed to be improved to meet site standards. I felt this self-appointed role would have been a conflict with being a moderator. Here's an example of a question I fixed and saved from closure:.

3. Our site is a very new one. We can expect a lot of posts that are broad, but are about practical problems faced when learning a language. What is your opinions on such questions?

I would welcome "broad" but practical questions, because they add value to the site. I might use the experience described under 2) to make minor fixes to narrow the question.

4. If you users fight over each other in comments, etc... how will you handle that situation?

I would first warn, then suspend, if necessary one or both users. Long discussions can be moved to chat rooms, personal attacks are unacceptable.

5. Some users who post great answers may not agree with the community. For example, they may ask a question which was previously agreed to be off-topic and may want to include such questions as on topic. How will you deal with such users? We surely don't want to loose such users and their good answer.

I would do my best to fix the question, if necessary, so that fundamentally good content that was (initially) flawed can remain on the site.

6. You come across a question which you think should be closed. But major of the community people say the opposite. What will you do?

I would go with the majority unless there were an overriding reason (e.g. profanity). As a practical matter, I am somewhat on the "lenient" side on other sites vis a vis closing, so I would understand how the community feels in this type of situation.

7. If a fellow moderator disagrees with you, how will you handle that situation?

I respect my peers and under ordinary circumstances would try to come to a consensus with them. Only in extreme situations (e.g. profanity) would I take the discussion to the "top."

Here are some answers to your questions:

here has a meta post on Who should our moderators be? in meta. I would like to ask the nominees some questions to understand the candidates better. Feel free to answer this. Your answers will help the community to understand you better.

1. What do you think the main job of moderator is?

A moderator should be like a lifeguard at a swimming pool, keeping a watchful eye on things, blowing the whistle for minor infractions (running at the pool, "flaming" on the site), and intervening, or calling for help in more serious situations.

2. Do you have any previous experience as a moderator?

I was asked to be moderator on the History SE site in 2013. I declined in order to the resident "fixer" of the large amount of content generated by "newbies" with good raw ideas, whose questions needed to be improved to meet site standards. I felt this self-appointed role would have been a conflict with being a moderator. Here's an example of a question I fixed and saved from closure:.

3. Our site is a very new one. We can expect a lot of posts that are broad, but are about practical problems faced when learning a language. What is your opinions on such questions?

I would welcome "broad" but practical questions, because they add value to the site. I might use the experience described under 2) to make minor fixes to narrow the question.

4. If you users fight over each other in comments, etc... how will you handle that situation?

I would first warn, then suspend, if necessary one or both users. Long discussions can be moved to chat rooms, personal attacks are unacceptable.

5. Some users who post great answers may not agree with the community. For example, they may ask a question which was previously agreed to be off-topic and may want to include such questions as on topic. How will you deal with such users? We surely don't want to loose such users and their good answer.

I would do my best to fix the question, if necessary, so that fundamentally good content that was (initially) flawed can remain on the site.

6. You come across a question which you think should be closed. But major of the community people say the opposite. What will you do?

I would go with the majority unless there were an overriding reason (e.g. profanity). As a practical matter, I am somewhat on the "lenient" side on other sites.

7. If a fellow moderator disagrees with you, how will you handle that situation?

I respect my peers and under ordinary circumstances would try to come to a consensus with them. Only in extreme situations (e.g. profanity) would I take the discussion to the "top."

Here are some answers to your questions:

here has a meta post on Who should our moderators be? in meta. I would like to ask the nominees some questions to understand the candidates better. Feel free to answer this. Your answers will help the community to understand you better.

1. What do you think the main job of moderator is?

A moderator should be like a lifeguard at a swimming pool, keeping a watchful eye on things, blowing the whistle for minor infractions (running at the pool, "flaming" on the site), and intervening, or calling for help in more serious situations.

2. Do you have any previous experience as a moderator?

I was asked to be moderator on the History SE site in 2013. I declined in order to the resident "fixer" of the large amount of content generated by "newbies" with good raw ideas, whose questions needed to be improved to meet site standards. I felt this self-appointed role would have been a conflict with being a moderator. Here's an example of a question I fixed and saved from closure:.

3. Our site is a very new one. We can expect a lot of posts that are broad, but are about practical problems faced when learning a language. What is your opinions on such questions?

I would welcome "broad" but practical questions, because they add value to the site. I might use the experience described under 2) to make minor fixes to narrow the question.

4. If you users fight over each other in comments, etc... how will you handle that situation?

I would first warn, then suspend, if necessary one or both users. Long discussions can be moved to chat rooms, personal attacks are unacceptable.

5. Some users who post great answers may not agree with the community. For example, they may ask a question which was previously agreed to be off-topic and may want to include such questions as on topic. How will you deal with such users? We surely don't want to loose such users and their good answer.

I would do my best to fix the question, if necessary, so that fundamentally good content that was (initially) flawed can remain on the site.

6. You come across a question which you think should be closed. But major of the community people say the opposite. What will you do?

I would go with the majority unless there were an overriding reason (e.g. profanity). As a practical matter, I am somewhat on the "lenient" side on other sites vis a vis closing, so I would understand how the community feels in this type of situation.

7. If a fellow moderator disagrees with you, how will you handle that situation?

I respect my peers and under ordinary circumstances would try to come to a consensus with them. Only in extreme situations (e.g. profanity) would I take the discussion to the "top."