<p>Good luck to all the potential candidates!  It is an honor to compete with all of you.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(Q1) What is your take on the "software questions on CV" that come up very frequently and where do you draw the line and decide it should be migrated to SO or simply closed? Based on the review queue, it seems there is a lot of heterogeneity among the high-rep users in terms of what constitutes "off-topic" in this context and, with moderators having the ability to unilaterally close/migrate questions, this seems a natural question to ask.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>(A1)</strong> Early on when I started using Cross Validated (4 months ago) I would say that this was one of my biggest complaints when I used the site.  I come from a Bayesian statistics background and so the focus of my early questions tended to be on how could I achieve a computational result using <code>R</code>, and much to my chagrin, most of all of my questions were migrated to SO.  having now gone through the pain of having a question migrated and/or closed I think I can fully understand why there is such a large debate on this topic.</p>

<p>For me, I believe that any question related to software questions should be allowed to stay on the site as long as it has statistical merit towards contributing to the overall CV community.  Of course what warrants "statistical merit" is obviously open to debate but I do decisively know which software questions I would like to see migrated/closed. The questions that I do like to see closed (or have offense with) are ones that simply (although they are statistical in nature) ask how can I do this with software without giving a good/valid discussion of why they are trying to implement the software method or without at least writing out the mathematical formulas behind the software.  I equate "how do I run this statistical model with software" to "how do I solve this homework problem," and so for me I want to see that the user knows why they are trying to use the software much like how I would like to see how a user has attempted to solve a homework problem they are working on. </p>

<p>Not to dwell on this question, but to me, there is a very big difference between "How do I fit the least square equations in <code>R</code>" and "How do I fit the least square equations
$$\hat\beta=(X^TX)^{-1}X^Ty$$ in <code>R</code> so that I can show a linear association between my covariate $x$ and my response $y$."  Questions like the former should be closed (or better improved upon so that they are not closed) where as question like the latter are right on topic for what a software question should be like. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(Q2) If you are elected moderator, what (specific, concrete!) changes would you like to see made to the way the site is currently administered and moderated? How do you view your role in effecting the proposed changes?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>(A2)</strong> Having only been around for four months this is probably the hardest question on the list for me to answer.  Honestly, everyday I am discovering new things about the CV website and community and so any proposed change I could think of probably already exist somewhere.  With that said though, there does seem to be a clear issue with closing/migrating of certain types of questions that I think need to be addressed, however, a more concrete change I would like to see is a more strict answer posting guidelines/rules for self-study tags.  I do not like seeing questions that are simply questions with no work or any indication that anything has been tried before an answer can be given.  In fact, it would be nice if there was some way (perhaps a time limit) when questions get tagged with self-study that no one can post an answer for at least 1 hour (of course this time limit could be less) so only clues/hints could be given in the comments section to help avoid users from simply giving answers to receive reputation points. Hopefully my constant presence is now noticed within the CV community so I do believe that I would be effective in "policing" questions to make sure they are on-topic for the self-study tag and making sure that users abide by the suggested guidelines.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(Q3) How would you moderate situations where you find yourself disagreeing with official SE policy about something?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>(A3)</strong>  In my opinion I do not think that the title of moderator should allow oneself to be above official Stack Exchange (SE) policy, and so, just like any other user on SE I would use the meta Cross Validated (CV) site to address these concerns and turn the issue into a public forum so that everyone could weigh and voice their opinions.  As a moderator I would want to work for the users of CV and put the best interest of the majority first rather than my own personal grievances.  Additionally, after this election there will be 5 moderators on CV and I think that communication amongst the moderators (as well as the staff of SE) will be vital in resolving problems as well. Open dialogue will always be the key to success.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(Q4) 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?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>(A4)</strong> Aren't I that user?  But seriously, there is no place for arguments, flags, and or rude/mean behavior on Cross Validated (CV) (or the greater Stack Exchange (SE) network) regardless of the the value/worth that a user presents in their answers.  I think it goes without saying that the Golden Rule should be in place just like anywhere else in life that we should treat others as we would like to treat ourselves. Having had my own personal experience with this on CV I do not think this will be an issue given that I have found this community to be one of the most supportive and friendliest people I have come to know in these short four months here. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(Q5) How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>(A5)</strong> Like I have expressed before, open dialogue is the key to solving most all problems.  If I was to disagree with another moderator's action on CV I would definitely express my concern (in private) with said moderator and try to understand their point of view before taking any further action.  Given the interactions I have had with the current moderators and the wonderful users of CV I think that expressing concerns over others actions will be an easy subject to broach with one another. Of course, if there are ever any problems with other moderators (and no other choices are left) then the topics/issues of concern could be raised on Meta CV and if still not resolved they would need be deferred to the greater gods of the SE -- the SE staff.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(Q6) What are your opinions about casting the deciding "moderator" vote on closing/opening questions? For example, if five non-moderator users have closed a question that you think should be left open, would you consider unilaterally re-opening it? Similarly, if a majority of reviewers have recommended that a question be left open (say 1 close vote and 3 "stay open" votes) under what circumstances would you decide to use your deciding close vote to override the majority?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>(A6)</strong> I'll let you know when I get to 3000 reputation points...2 more days? :) Well I do not have the privilege yet to review opened/close votes yet so I am not to savvy on this topic.  With that being said, I do feel strongly about moderators having unilateral power to reopen questions but perhaps erring on the side of group consensus when it comes to closing questions. I think this boils down to am I comfortable with making more type I errors or type II errors (oh stats humor, you've done it again) in that is worse to reopen a question when everyone agrees it should be closed, or is it worse to close a question when everyone agrees it should be reopened?  I think the former is of less concern and that is why I think moderators should be able to reopen questions (hey if it gets shot down again after reopening then perhaps that is further evidence it should not have been open in the first place) but closing a question when it should have stayed opened (hmmm, insert all of those "software questions" here) seem like a bigger issue.  At the end of the day we appoint moderators because we believe them to be ideal candidates to represent our beliefs and we should trust them with some unilateral power.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(Q7) What is your interpretation of the purpose of Cross Validated and how does this influence the way you choose to use the site as an ordinary user?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>(A7)</strong> Like I said in my nomination statement, 2013 is the international year of statistics and I believe it is the duty of every statistician to help build a stronger more informed community for future statisticians.  Cross Validated is my answer to this statement. Cross Validated helps bring together a great mishmash of people with different statistical backgrounds all with the common goal of providing excellent answers for helping advance the field of statistics. With this common goal in mind myself, I frequent Cross validated several times a day (it is 12:34 a.m. as I write this) in hopes of helping others figure out solutions to own statistical problems. Building a stronger statistics community through Cross Validated has now officially become an obsession of mine :)</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(Q8) What kind of moderatorial experience, if any, have you had before (online or offline)? Can you give an example of a moderatorial issue that came up, how you had handled it, and how the community that you moderated viewed your handling of the situation?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>(A8)</strong> I do not have any moderatorial experience as far as anything online other than the privileges that have been bestowed upon me by Cross Validated (CV) at each reputation milestone I have achieved.  Outside of the online world, I have worked as a moderator (or perhaps more of a liaison) between clinicians and laboratory scientists.  I worked as an applied statistician for 2 years at UCSF, and having been the only statistician in my department I was often times sole moderator on issues of statistical relevance for everybody in the department.  I was responsible for helping lab techs design statistical studies, advised clinicians on interpretation of statistical models and results, and was overall the main source of statistical computing (in <code>R</code>). So as you can see I have a good amount of experience in the types of questions/topics that get presented on a day to day basis on CV.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(Q9) 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?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>(A9)</strong> I am completely okay with having a diamond attached to everything I say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments.  I have the luxury of having only been around for 4 months so the diamond would not be attached to much past stuff, however, we elect our moderators knowing that they started from humble beginnings just like everyone else and so as long as a moderator makes progress day in and day out to contributing to the CV community I don't think a moderator's past will be something to dwell upon. For the record though, I do look much better in gold then diamonds...just saying.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(Q10) In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>(A10)</strong> I would assume that by the time anyone reaches 10k or (especially) 20k rep that they would essentially be contributing to Cross Validated at the same "standard" or "rate" as a moderator although without the official title.  However, I think the title of moderator will make me a more effective user because it will keep me engaged in the CV community for the long haul. I would imagine that without the moderator status it could become easier to lose interest and/or disappear for extended periods of time but the status of moderator "guarantees" that the user should be held accountable for being a  daily known presence in the CV community. Plus, a little recognition for all the hard work one puts in never hurt anybody :) </p>
