In your opinion, what do moderators do?
Generally, moderators should be invisible in 99% of the time. Only if there is a real problem, moderators should step in and solve this problem. The community here on StackExchange has a lot of power and as a whole can do almost everything a moderator can do. So I think moderators should behave like normal users and only step in if it is necessary, for example spam posts, really low quality posts, arguments between users, etc. Flags are a good indicator for that.
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?
Personally, I do not see much difference. I will have the same opinions, questions and answers as before.
In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?
Generally, as a 20k rep user, I can already access a lot of features a mod can use to. However, I really love this site and want to participate even more. Therefore, I think that I can use the functionality that only mods can use to improve the quality of this site even more.
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 think the first thing to do in such cases is always talk to the person. That is what private chat rooms can be used for. If this does not help, there are other measures available. For example, delete comments that are really off-topics or full of personal arguments. As a last measurement, it is always possible to ban as user, either temporarily or for good. I think this should be really used as a last resort if all other things failed, but generally, I believe that all users should be treated equally, independent of the quality of their answers/questions or their amount of reputation.
How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
Personally, I think that the community has enough features, functionality and power to undo almost all actions a moderator can do. So I think, the community should decide if a closed question should be reopened. If it is getting a real big problem, there also ways to discuss this on meta or the chat room either with the whole community or only the moderators to reach consents.
How would you deal with situations arising from community differences on questions / answers related to disputed geographic territories? To explain, Travel Stack Exchange is in a unique position in the Stack Exchange network of sites because it gets questions related to politically volatile or disputed regions. These can tend to have loaded implications for many community members. How will you best defuse a situation such as these?
First of all, I think Travel SE should stay as unpolitical as possible. It is about traveling and discovering the world and not talking about geographic territories. Generally, I think we should establish some policies to avoid these situations in the first place. I know that it will take a long time to agree on a common policy how to tag geographic regions, but once we have achieved that, we can already solve a lot of problems before they even occur. As a concrete example, I personally would like to see that country tags have precedence over region tags, so that for example the tag Georgia refers to the country and no the US state.
For sure, there will be disputes nevertheless, but I think these will have to be handled on a cases to case basis. I'm sure that there is a way to find a tagging solution that will decrease the implications for anybody. As a concrete example, if there is a dispute about a Gaza question and tagging it with Israel or Palestine, I would argue to use both of them, or just neither of them a stick with a Gaza tag.
How would you deal with questions that overlap with The Great Outdoors or Bicycles Stack Exchange? One of the trickier situations we have as a community is that questions asked here on Travel Stack Exchange sometimes overlap with the remit of other Stack Exchange sites, specifically The Great Outdoors (for camping / hiking) or Bicycles (for cycling). How will you distinguish situations where these questions need to be migrated or allowed to remain here?
I think there is no strict line that can be drawn in this case. Generally, I would argue that if the main topic of the question is about traveling (i.e. getting to the place), it is fine for Travel SE, but if it is more about staying or doing things far away from civilization, I would say it is better suited for The Great Outdoors. However, I agree with the official guidelines that old questions and questions with a high vote/views shouldn't be migrated so easy.
Were you always happy with the pro tem moderators? Is there anything you think you could do better?
I'd like to mention that I didn't candidate as a moderator because I think the current moderators are bad. It is more that I just wan participate more actively too.
How would you handle with off-topic questions? Close them immediately and reopen if they get improved or give some time to the OP to improve it?
Off-topic questions should be closed and reopened if improved. I know that the current practice (at least from the highly active users) is slightly different, allowing new users some time to improve their questions without closing them.