The Stack Exchange Moderator Questionnaire is a routine part of the election process. It's a way for the community to gauge the candidates' fitness for the job; for voters to read a bit into who people are, their role on the site, and the value they can bring to their community.
These questions aren't usually very hard. Here are some sample questions that commonly appear across the network:
As a moderator, your votes are binding - close, delete, tag synonyms, etc. How will this change how you usually VTC/VTD?
How much time do you think that you will be able to spend actively moderating every day? What is your usual activity pattern over the week?
With the diamond attached to everything you've said in the past, do you think you have represented the ideals of this community? And will you continue to do so in the future as you are held to a slightly higher/different standard?
etc. etc.
These questions are pulled in part from a short Stack template, and in part from community generation. But truthfully, these questions are painfully easy, and communities tend not to ask questions of substance. Most people we would seriously consider for the job already know how to do basic site cleanup actions properly. Once we vaguely know someone is viable for the role, all we're checking off with these questions is: can a moderator speak the correct words? does a moderator vaguely know a policy? And that's not useful information.
What we really need are hard questions: ones that show us the substance of our community leaders' character. What I'm proposing is a fundamental alteration to the way we go about asking our candidates questions, and the way we select people who are eligible for the role.
I'd really like to see more difficult questions asked of the people we expect to lead us. Some examples:
A user of a minoritized group tells you that a certain behavior is harmful for them, but it's not a behavior you've ever thought of as harmful in the past. How do you approach the situation, and how would you have that conversation?
When a user exhibits behavior symptomatic of bigotry, even if that behavior is subtle, to what extent do you place faith in the correctional process' ability to mitigate their behavior (mod messages, suspensions, etc.)? Do you believe you have the ability to help guide them out of that situation? And, what role do you see yourself playing in that conversation?
A user you normally think of as calm and collected is angry and causing disruption to the site. You're originally unsure why, but when you look into what happened, it seems like someone else's actions have upset them for reasons you think are understandable. However, the person who caused harm is quiet now, and doesn't appear to be causing further damage at the moment. How do you handle the situation? Who do you talk to, and what do you say?
Do you believe your role is to bring civility, peace, or justice to disputes on your site? Do you believe these aims can ever come in conflict, and if so, how would you resolve the discrepancy between them?
What is a memorable moment in which you let down someone who looks up to you? How did you make amends, and how did you give the situation closure?
In essence, I'd like to see the default template provided for moderator questionnaires ask questions that reveal more about the character of the people we are voting on -- not just their ability to use the site tools. They don't all need to be these kinds of questions, and whether these are default/filler I'm leaving open for now. I'm of the personal opinion that there should be a healthy mix of default and filler hard-questions, and classic mod-role questions.
These specific questions are just me spitballing ideas, and I'm totally open to other ones, or more thoughts on the topic.
