Return to Answer

1. We had an election last year that ended with some parting and drama.
   And I can't help but think of Ryan Ries` comment: "I don't know why anyone would want to be a moderator, now." Let's be honest here, things went wrong after the last election. Communication was a major issue, and there were some divisive opinions on what should or shouldn't have been done. What do you think went wrong last year, and what would you do differently if put in the same situation?

2. Last year, we voted on someone who was running on a platform of extreme, desperate measures, we voted for someone who put up the following campaign slogan: "A vote for me is a vote to put my cruelty and viciousness to work for the site, against the horde of stupidity that threatens it." And while it definitely wasn't a landslide victory, talks of stupidity dealt with through cruelty did garner enough votes to win a second place. Do you think the extreme rhetoric used last year is still viable today?
   Would you consider picking up some of the work that helped win last year, and if so will you take a different approach?

• Writing an easily-understood question. It is fine if English is not your primary language. However, if I have to read your question through four times to even being understanding what is it you're asking about, it's probably getting closed.
• Showing evidence that you've done some work on the issue yourself. As I mentioned in my nomination speech, we're not here to do your job for you. If it's clear that you're clueless about the topic at hand, are unwilling to provide details required to answer the question, or are asking for a handout, the question will be closed.
• Interacting with peers in a respectful manner. If a user shows disrespect, they'll be temp-banned. I won't tolerate it. This applies even to high-rep users. Systems Administrators are often lumped into a "jerk" category, and if my work with SF can sway that stereotype even just a little bit, I would call it a success.
• All of the above applies not only to questions, but also to all other interactions on the site.

1. We had an election last year that ended with some parting and drama.
   And I can't help but think of Ryan Ries` comment: "I don't know why anyone would want to be a moderator, now." Let's be honest here, things went wrong after the last election. Communication was a major issue, and there were some divisive opinions on what should or shouldn't have been done. What do you think went wrong last year, and what would you do differently if put in the same situation?

2. Last year, we voted on someone who was running on a platform of extreme, desperate measures, we voted for someone who put up the following campaign slogan: "A vote for me is a vote to put my cruelty and viciousness to work for the site, against the horde of stupidity that threatens it." And while it definitely wasn't a landslide victory, talks of stupidity dealt with through cruelty did garner enough votes to win a second place. Do you think the extreme rhetoric used last year is still viable today?
   Would you consider picking up some of the work that helped win last year, and if so will you take a different approach?

• Writing an easily-understood question. It is fine if English is not your primary language. However, if I have to read your question through four times to even being understanding what is it you're asking about, it's probably getting closed.
• Showing evidence that you've done some work on the issue yourself. As I mentioned in my nomination speech, we're not here to do your job for you. If it's clear that you're clueless about the topic at hand, are unwilling to provide details required to answer the question, or are asking for a handout, the question will be closed.
• Interacting with peers in a respectful manner. If a user shows disrespect, they'll be temp-banned. I won't tolerate it. This applies even to high-rep users. Systems Administrators are often lumped into a "jerk" category, and if my work with SF can sway that stereotype even just a little bit, I would call it a success.
• All of the above applies not only to questions, but also to all other interactions on the site.

1. We had an election last year that ended with some parting and drama.
   And I can't help but think of Ryan Ries` comment: "I don't know why anyone would want to be a moderator, now." Let's be honest here, things went wrong after the last election. Communication was a major issue, and there were some divisive opinions on what should or shouldn't have been done. What do you think went wrong last year, and what would you do differently if put in the same situation?

2. Last year, we voted on someone who was running on a platform of extreme, desperate measures, we voted for someone who put up the following campaign slogan: "A vote for me is a vote to put my cruelty and viciousness to work for the site, against the horde of stupidity that threatens it." And while it definitely wasn't a landslide victory, talks of stupidity dealt with through cruelty did garner enough votes to win a second place. Do you think the extreme rhetoric used last year is still viable today?
   Would you consider picking up some of the work that helped win last year, and if so will you take a different approach?

3. Do you agree with the statement "ServerFault needs professional-quality questions, not just questions from professionals"? What does the word "professional" mean to you, within the context of the phrase, "professional-quality questions"? Do you believe that in addition to professional-quality questions, ServerFault also needs professional-quality answers and comments? What are "professional quality questions" to you?

1. We had an election last year that ended with some parting and drama.
   And I can't help but think of Ryan Ries` comment: "I don't know why anyone would want to be a moderator, now." Let's be honest here, things went wrong after the last election. Communication was a major issue, and there were some divisive opinions on what should or shouldn't have been done. What do you think went wrong last year, and what would you do differently if put in the same situation?

2. Last year, we voted on someone who was running on a platform of extreme, desperate measures, we voted for someone who put up the following campaign slogan: "A vote for me is a vote to put my cruelty and viciousness to work for the site, against the horde of stupidity that threatens it." And while it definitely wasn't a landslide victory, talks of stupidity dealt with through cruelty did garner enough votes to win a second place. Do you think the extreme rhetoric used last year is still viable today?
   Would you consider picking up some of the work that helped win last year, and if so will you take a different approach?

3. Do you agree with the statement "ServerFault needs professional-quality questions, not just questions from professionals"? What does the word "professional" mean to you, within the context of the phrase, "professional-quality questions"? Do you believe that in addition to professional-quality questions, ServerFault also needs professional-quality answers and comments? What are "professional quality questions" to you?

EEAA reporting in...