7

I'm AliceD and the new pro-tem moderator replacing Josh.

Maybe a post will be added from SE at large, but I just wish to introduce myself and give some backgrounds.

  • First, many thanks to Josh for being a pro-tem mod here for all those years. As far as I understand, Josh has too many other responsibilities in his beyond the in-silico-world of CogSci to deal with the tasks here as a mod;
  • Secondly, pro-tem mods are not voted for and I received a personal invitation from SE to replace Josh as pro-tem mod and I gladly accepted it. I know that there are some very active and very knowledgeable users here that may have been around longer than I am. Perhaps my recent appointment as elected mod at Bio had something to do with it. One way or another, I hope that the long-term active users (and the new users for that matter) can find themselves in me taking over the role of Josh;
  • I'm still actively learning the role of mod over at Bio and at a Beta site like CogSci my responsibilities are likely bigger. Please don't hesitate to grab me in chat or flag away if you have anything you'd like to tell me;
  • I am trying to give high-quality answers including references to credible journals and I'm trying to fulfill an exemplary role in this. However, I'm just a biologist/neuroscientist (actively doing psychophysics, but still :-) so don't hesitate to correct me on CogSci matters;
  • My activity here at CogSci has hit rock bottom lately, mainly because my recent elected mod ship over at Bio, workload, fatherhood, and what else. Don't worry, I'll better my life;
  • One of my long-time goals here is getting us out of beta. The ways to get there are, basically, two-fold. From my vantage point this is: 1) passively go on as we do now and slowly build this site further; or 2) actively change site focus, name changes, improving site stats through more aggressive close voting etc. I'm leaning towards the latter approach as that got Bio out of Beta, but I will try to fit in this community first and support the current focus. In my opinion, I'm here primarily to support the current team, not to change directions. That may, or may not come later. If it does, it will only happen after reaching mod-agreement behind (or in front of) the scenes. I'm here for you, not vice versa.

Cheers, AliceD { better known as Chris (it's a long story) }.

  • 2
    Happy to have you on the team! – Steven Jeuris Apr 12 '17 at 21:32
  • @StevenJeuris - many thanks for the warm welcome. I'm really honored to support you current long-time mods here and I'll try the best I can. – AliceD Apr 12 '17 at 21:34
  • 3
    Welcome. It's great to have you on board. – Jeromy Anglim Apr 13 '17 at 3:44
  • 1
    Congrats Chris! I thought you were a mod already haha. Good to see you around here more often :) – Robin Kramer Apr 13 '17 at 10:18
  • @RobinKramer - only the diamond distinguishes the true mods >__< – AliceD Apr 13 '17 at 11:48
  • 1
    And pro-tems ;) How does that work actually, becoming mod. When, how, why, how many? At StackOverflow I saw entire campaigns of people who wanted to become mods. With only 6 more rep I'll get some mod-tools by the way, hope that I can be of help with re-vamp a little more then. – Robin Kramer Apr 13 '17 at 12:45
  • 3
    @RobinKramer Pro-tems are mods, they're just mods on beta sites, appointed by SE staff (like me!) rather than via community elections. – Ana Apr 13 '17 at 18:35
  • @Ana - thanks for pointing that out so nicely. I feel a lot better now :-) – AliceD Apr 13 '17 at 18:40
  • @Ana I understand. It did not mean it seriously, just responding to Chris' "true mods >--<" with a wink ;) – Robin Kramer Apr 13 '17 at 18:52
  • 1
    @RobinKramer The internet is good at sarcasm. – Ana Apr 14 '17 at 15:12
3

Congrats Alice! And thanks for all the work Josh.

In regards to:

One of my long-time goals here is getting us out of beta. The ways to get there are, basically, two-fold. From my vantage point this is: 1) passively go on as we do now and slowly build this site further; or 2) actively change site focus, name changes, improving site stats through more aggressive close voting etc. I'm leaning towards the latter approach as that got Bio out of Beta, but I will try to fit in this community first and support the current focus.

Have you seen the two giant discussions in regards to changing the site name to Psychological Science, as well as promoting quality questions by creating the new close vote reason "Insufficient Motivation/Context"? What are your opinions on these initiatives? What type of support would you need to see from the community to get them implemented?

  • 1
    Thanks for your welcoming words here. I'll try to get back to you on your points. – AliceD Apr 14 '17 at 5:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .