@b_jonas Where did you see that they might contact the second-place finisher at some point? Out of curiosity.

That's common practice if the first place declines or dies.

@NapoleonWilson No, they talked about the possibility of checking in after six months.

Two mods are now replaced with just one. I think someone floated the idea of reusing this election if another mod was deemed necessary within six months.

@Adamant Good point. Also, users active in chat might have different views of people than other users of the stack that miss all chat interaction.

@Skooba Nailed it.

> 1660s, "frightening," from Latin terrificus "causing terror or fear, frightful," from terrere "fill with fear" (see terrible) + combining form of facere "to make" (from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put"). Weakened sensed of "very great, severe" (as in terrific headache) appeared 1809; inverted colloquial sense of "excellent" began 1888.

@NapoleonWilson we could potentially have an internal discussion amongst mods if we think we need mod #5

^ this latter is why I referred to six months about TLC's perverse incentive with the bathroom; if that's over then I think your campaign promise expires and doesn't automatically renew for that next election, so TLC can do hard work

until that, if TLC wants a swimming pool, he'd better not work too hard as a mod

I highly doubt we would need another mod in the near future considering the most active of all the candidates was the one elected.

@Null Yes, so if he wants a swimming pool, he has to work particularly hard to show that he's not working hard enough as a mod so you do need a fifth mod.

Not sure where I'd put a swimming pool

@TheLethalCarrot Note that it needn't be in your house. There can be one in a relative's or friend's larger house. It doesn't matter whether they post on SE.

I like the loophole

That's not a loophole!

Plot hole then ;P

Everything's a plot hole

It's how all campaign promises work, ever since we're guaranteed secret elections. No politician is allowed to promise a swimming pool only to those who vote for them, or even only to those who vote.

They could perhaps promise a swimming pool to everyone in their town if they're campaigning for the local government, but they have to be careful not to make it look like favoritism for their own town. Adamant could promise a swimming pool only to Sci Fi SE users, but registration is free for anyone so it hardly matters.

@b_jonas That does not specify what @Adamant has to be elected to. We could elect Adamant to anything, even a made-up position with no power.

I don't want a swimming pool, though.

@b_jonas The promise only says "every household" without qualification, so that would mean every household in the universe.

I do have a small inflatable one, that my youngest will undoubtedly ask to put up once again the coming months.

Question. Where are the actual official site rules about using multiple accounts? There's a whole tag meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=multiple+accounts on Meta, and Meta answers like meta.stackexchange.com/a/341516/222298 refer to "the sock puppet rules", but

without links, and I don't see the actual rules anywhere. I tried to search in stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public , scifi.stackexchange.com/conduct , stackoverflow.com/legal/acceptable-use-policy , and I don't see anything specific, other than scifi.stackexchange.com/legal/acceptable-use-policy saying “Accounts that are registered automatically or systematically will be removed and access will be permanently suspended.”

I'm mostly trying to understand why I never see diamonds with a public alternate account for the purpose of casting non-binding close/reopen votes, even though I have seen multiple diamonds complain that they wish they could cast non-binding close/reopen votes, and have a high enough rep that they could get enough rep for a second account quickly enough.

@b_jonas you might want to talk about this in TREU now the election is over. The general rule though is don’t do something with multiple accounts you otherwise would t be able to do

Of course they'd also have to be careful that the alt account doesn't have gold tag badges, but I think that's not that hard to avoid.

@b_jonas This is usually considered the canonical post on (in)appropriate uses of sockpuppets:

@TheLethalCarrot You could use your newfound mod powers to move messages or freeze rooms ;-)

@TheLethalCarrot Yes, but (1) I don't see that documented as an official policy, and (2) if you mean that literally, that would forbid mods to use an alt account for non-binding close votes.

The election is closed but I think this question may apply to some of the mod candidates, and I assume they have researched how diamonds work and might know something about this.

If there weren't an election, I'd ask this in meta chat, and I'll probably still ask it there, but it's specifically this election that reminded me of it.

On perlmonks, our policy is that if you use multiple accounts, you have to tell about them to the site gods, and request that they remove upvote/downvote powers from all but one. But I believe that site doesn't have the problem where someone with privilages can't cast a less binding vote.

Most of the active site gods have alt accounts, but most non-god janitors don't, or so I believe, but I can't be sure because you needn't tell the general public (or me in particular) about your alt accounts, only to the gods.

perlmonks.com/?node=cabal+matrix even lists most gods' alt accounts.

I have an alt account on perlmonks, but I never really used it for anything useful (yet).

These rules are documented at perlmonks.com/?node_id=538727 by the way