1. 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?

In the first instance, I'd invite them to talk. People don't just give up their time for free without seeing some benefit.

Altruists want to help because they're passionate. How can we help them direct the passion more constructively, give then tools to channel their energy and time more usefully, focus them on building great content that doesn't require constant defence?

Egoists want to look good, to know people view them positively. How can we help them identify the perspectives with a negative view of the behaviour, and recognise why it is seen that way? How can we help them get the acknowledgement they earn, without detracting from the greatness of our other contributors.

If that discussion doesn't help or improvement can't occur, the mod team can look at escalation. More blunt recommendations, formal warnings, brief suspensions as warranted.

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

As I've done in the past, I'd ask them what they were thinking and whether the alternative approach would be workable. I have no shyness in putting my reasoning forward, and accepting a robust response, in the privacy of the moderator chatroom, to ensure our site gets the best outcome.

I've been convinced otherwise of a decision more than once, and likewise had people change their minds, by respecting the person enough to ask in private and respecting their ability enough to justify a change instead of simply saying it should be made.

3. How will you handle questions that are borderline off-topic or otherwise low quality, and can't be trivially saved by an edit, but might be considered acceptable by a reasonable person (just not you)? Does being a moderator change your action in any way on these questions compared to not?

Fortunately, Stack Exchange has built in the tools for exactly this situation: comments, closing, and chat

We frequently get posts that show the glimmer of a good query, but are otherwise hampered by something that makes them difficult to answer or difficult to use.

There's no harm in commenting about a concern and requesting more details or clarity or focus. Sometimes a question might be okay if the answers are kept on point, and we can take the risk of letting them come; sometimes we need to put the brakes on until we (mods and users) know exactly what's going on.

4. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

Handle things for the community that the community can't do for itself.

Sometimes an individual is able to evaluate a situation and make a decision that a group of people is unable to successfully manage. It may involve private information and communication, it may involve seeing the need for action and taking it or (preferably) pointing it out explicitly and inviting others to act, it may involve being the focal point for collating the wondrous sundry thoughts of thousands so they can communicate effectively with dozens of others.

5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?

We see everything more clearly with better light shining on it. I'm happy for everything I write publicly to be read publicly.

6. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?

As I said above, moderators handle things for the community, that the community cannot handle itself.

That's always been a job I do better - finding the exceptions to the pattern, pulling at them to get the whole tangled mess isolated, and then working through the knots to make it clear and functional again.

1. 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?

This has happened a few times, it's never fun, or easy. If the statements do not demand immediate action individually, I prefer to use public comments to encourage people to take discussions into chat and prune excessive comments. If further action is needed, we escalate to mod messages and perhaps a short time out for the offender.

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

One thing that is not always appreciated is that moderators can have opinions, and use their votes as they wish. That means we can occasionally be wrong.

If this occurs on a non-controversial question I'd most likely just use my vote and drop a note in the moderator only chat to see if we could come to a consensus.

It's more likely this occurs on a contentious topic, in that case I refrain from using my vote and take it to chat and/or meta. On the difficult topics, I prefer that the moderators present a unified front, if possible. They should also reflect the values of the site as discussed on meta.

3. How will you handle questions that are borderline off-topic or otherwise low quality, and can't be trivially saved by an edit, but might be considered acceptable by a reasonable person (just not you)? Does being a moderator change your action in any way on these questions compared to not?

Being a moderator wouldn't change my action. I have no issue editing a question to (hopefully) raise it's quality. If that can't be done, I will vote to close.

4. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

Moderators are many things, few of them are exciting or glorious! Moderators should reflect the values of the site as determined by meta. They also assist in curating those values. Moderators are the exception handlers, the janitors of the site. There are always flags to handle, comments to look at. But that can be fun, for some of us!

5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?

It's an interesting thing, having a diamond. I try not to let it change my behavior for the most part. I use my votes, answer questions and participate in meta. I try to make it clear when I'm speaking as a moderator and to link out to site policies and meta discussions so that folks know that I'm speaking for the community rather than just waving a diamond around.

6. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?

Being a moderator isn't necessarily about being more effective. I think of it more as a responsibility. A regular user, regardless of reputation can step away whenever they want. A moderator should check in regularly, or use the moderator vacation feature to note when they'll be absent. Flags should not sit unanswered for too long, meta questions should be checked. There's always something to do.

1. 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?

I believe that technical contributions do not excuse or counterbalance rude or disruptive behavior, so I would treat that user like any other who behaves that way. I would delete comments that have been flagged and send them a mod message asking them to change their behavior. If they do not change their behavior, I would suspend them.

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

I would discuss it with them in the private mod chat room, and I would only take public action after reaching a consensus.

3. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

Moderators represent the community. The community entrusts the moderators with powers and authority that other users do not have, so that moderators can use those things to enact the will and consensus of the community.

Moderators are also "human exception handlers", as the theory of moderation post says. They are responsible for addressing low-frequency events that other users don't have the tools to do anything about.

4. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?

This has already been the case for me for a long time. I do try to communicate more carefully, because there is an extra degree of authority attached to everything I say.

5. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?

The main thing moderators can do that other users can't is handle other disruptive users at a user level, instead of only being able to act on individual posts. Moderators can directly message and suspend users.

1. 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?

First and foremost I would reach out to the user in question to explain the concerns with them to see if it could be resolved without further action. If that does not I would work with the rest of the moderator team both from this site and network wide if needed to come up with a solution.

I say this because this is unfortunately something that happens from time to time across the network. Because of this there is some knowledge and guidelines that have been created over the years for resolving the situation.

My overall goal for dealing with the situation would be to work with the user to help reduce the number of arguments/flags that are generated. This would be done in order to keep a member around and the quality of the site up.

I also would do this for a member who does not have as steady stream of valuable answers as I believe that every member has a chance of producing valuable answers (or questions) if given the chance. In the end I would like to ensure a welcoming site for everyone.

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

I would bring my concerns up with that moderator and the rest of the board game moderator team to make sure I fully understand the reasoning behind their actions. I would also explain my feelings why I think the action was wrong in order to express my feelings. This would be used as an opening for dialog in order to come to an agreement if the actions taken where correct or not.

I believe that communication is the key to solving issues and disputes between users regardless of their status.

3. How will you handle questions that are borderline off-topic or otherwise low quality, and can't be trivially saved by an edit, but might be considered acceptable by a reasonable person (just not you)? Does being a moderator change your action in any way on these questions compared to not?

My actions would depend on the question itself and what the concerns are. Something to be remembered is that if it could be considered borderline off-topic it could also be considered borderline on-topic. In general in cases like this I would leave feedback on the question with my concerns/feedback. I do this so that either the author or other user who has a better understanding has the chance to fix the question and prevent post closure before it happens.

The only big difference would be when I would case a close vote as a moderators vote is binding and I wouldn't want to close it before there was a chance to fix any issues.

4. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

Moderators are there to handle cases that can't be handled with normal site moderation. Either this is from restrictions placed on the community by Stack Exchange (such as comments) or dealing with users who work to get around restrictions. Overall I believe moderation is something that is done by the community as a whole and a moderator is for cases that can't be dealt with. Moderators are also useful for cases when a question/answer is posted that is blatantly spam/offensive so that they can be dealt with in a more timely manner.

Another important part of the moderator duties and toolset is private communication with users. This allows a moderator to reach out to users to help solve various situations while keeping the interaction private which can help prevent things from escalating further. It can be much easier to solve an issue when it is handled in confidence

5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?

For me this won't have any impact as I do my best to make sure I am providing high quality questions, answers and comments at all times regardless of having a diamond attached to my name if I am selected as a moderator.

6. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?

Becoming a moderator is all about helping handling the exceptions and a lot of this is done with communication between the parties involved. I will also be able to help with various flags that non moderators are unable to deal with.

Other areas such as managing tags will be easier as some of the features are not available to non moderators.

A short note: I've answered some of these questions before, some even multiple times, and rereading my earliest answers to them, I'm happy I still stand by them. Apparently I haven't changed that much :)

1. 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?

Being nice is very important to the success of Stack Exchange; more important than posting good answers (or questions, for that matter). I'd remind this user (in a polite but strict way) to change their behaviour or face the consequences in the form of a suspension. There are enough other users who can write those valuable answers instead, especially in this community. We have few questions that stay unanswered for longer than a couple of hours.

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

I'd discuss this with them in the private mod chatroom (each site has one). I might bring in a third moderator as well if I feel we need to make a tough decision, so that it can be a decision of a majority. There's no need doing this in public and risk harming the trust the community has in the moderator team.

3. How will you handle questions that are borderline off-topic or otherwise low quality, and can't be trivially saved by an edit, but might be considered acceptable by a reasonable person (just not you)? Does being a moderator change your action in any way on these questions compared to not?

If I have a hunch that this may happen, I have the patience to wait and see what the community will do to handle it. The new 'follow' feature makes this especially easy, though if nothing happens I need to remember to revisit the situation a couple of days later. Depending on the case, I might ping somebody in chat if I know they can help out. Moderator votes are binding, which is usually a good thing, but there are cases where it's simply better to let the community do its work; ♦ moderators serve the community, we do not dictate the rules and standards.

4. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

Moderators should represent the community and their interests in every way possible. That can be done in different roles and with different activities, but I'm at my best as a janitor (handling flags, editing posts, doing reviews) and as a Stack Exchange knowledge base (see my answers here on Meta and on Meta Stack Exchange).

5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?

No problem at all. I always try to Be Nice to all people, even if I think they have bad ideas or opinions which I can outright refute. Respect is the keyword for building a community where everybody is welcome. I have certainly made some mistakes in the past, but that only proves I'm human and not an AI.

6. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 2k or 4k rep?

_{(NOTE: not that it really matters, but I've adjusted the reputation amounts to our privilege levels. I should've spotted that during the question collection ...)}

Regular users can solve issues with problematic posts (by editing, downvoting or closing); moderators can deal with problematic users. There are various tools to their disposal which can help spotting those problems and those simply aren't available (for good reason) to high reputation users.

1. 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?

In part it depends on what the flags and arguments are about - some things (abusive/spam) do need stronger action, sites like this need to be a welcoming and safe for everyone to ask their questions.

The first step in any case is talking to the user about the issues. Their good answer history has little to do with this, all users should be given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to be acting in good faith until proven otherwise. The exception being new accounts with no history of anything but spam and abuse.

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

Communication is key in everything, it's at the very core of why this site network exists, communicating knowledge users have to the other users who seek it.

If there's a question that another moderator has closed that I believe should be open, I would first talk to them and the rest of the moderators about it, along with why I view the question should not have been deleted or closed. The other moderator would hopefully give their reasons why they chose to close or delete it, and between us and the third moderator, we'd be able to reach some decision about what to do.

3. How will you handle questions that are borderline off-topic or otherwise low quality, and can't be trivially saved by an edit, but might be considered acceptable by a reasonable person (just not you)? Does being a moderator change your action in any way on these questions compared to not?

Borderline issues shouldn't be handled by moderators, but by the community as a whole, that's part of why Stack Exchange gives the community so much control over itself. Stack Exchange sites cover a broad array of topics, and often times questions that may be on the borderline are clearly on topic with more specialized knowledge of the topic, for this site that may be the specific game. Bringing moderating powers into borderline issues is heavy handed and bad moderation.

As for the actions I would take, I would leave my concerns about it in a comment on the question, and speak to the rest of the moderating staff for their opinion on it. If the moderating team all agrees that the question is off topic, we would then close it.

4. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

Moderators handle urgent and edge cases that the community can't handle itself. Stack Exchange is somewhat unique in the level of control it gives over to members as they earn reputation, but there are some things here that moderators specifically do like handling flags, particularly on comments where there is no action for users to take other than flagging, and some of the deeper parts of tag management.

5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?

I have no issues with it. I don't say anything I don't believe in, and that little diamond attached to what I say doesn't change that, nor should it give any more or less weight to the comments and answers I give. For most of the site's usage, I'd still be a user like any other.

6. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?

I've already reached the point where I have all rep based privileges for Board & Card Games. I vote on review queues and flag issues for moderator review when they come up, but someone needs to be at the other end of those flags, and that is the moderator team. I believe I'd be a good addition to that team, that I can recognize where lines are drawn and when they are crossed.

1. 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?

First talk to the user. There is possible a misunderstanding or maybe the user is going through a hard time. My experience is that with a little understanding, at least 90% of the issues can be resolved.
If that fails, it depends, majority rules, but I can imagine there are situations that the answer quality outweigh the noise.

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

Again, talk with the mod in private. My experience is that you have to be a team as mods. You can disagree in private, but present as a team to the outside. We all make mistakes and luckily mistakes can be fixed.

3. How will you handle questions that are borderline off-topic or otherwise low quality, and can't be trivially saved by an edit, but might be considered acceptable by a reasonable person (just not you)? Does being a moderator change your action in any way on these questions compared to not?

I have seen several of these in the review queues. If I can fix a post with an edit then I will do it. And I don't think that will change as moderator. In the end, the goal is to be a high quality source of board and card game questions and answers.

4. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

I like the StackOverflow description, that moderators are exception handlers. Moderators should be normal users unless there is something that needs a bigger toolbox. And those tools needs to be used wisely.

5. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?

I try to be as helpful and fair as possible. So I don't think that a diamond will change anything.

6. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?

The review queues are great. But they miss one aspect and that is the direct user to user contact. As I moderator you can get in touch with a user (at least that was possible in the past) so you have the possibility to privately discuss with somebody.