Or if S.E. stick to their rule, then cut the positions available to 1 instead of 2 and let Joe and me fight it out. Which would be silly, but better than no new moderators at all.

@GaneshSittampalam Um, why do you think the rule against sock puppetry is silly? I doubt that we have much trouble with multiple accounts on Money SE but other SE sites, SO and EL&U for example, have ALL sorts of problems with voting manipulation, trolling behavior etc which is facilitated by sockpuppet type behavior.

@GaneshSittampalam There are questions and answers ad nauseum about that on Meta SE.

@GaneshSittampalam I actually think that might be a better idea! It would be a real election if there were only one moderator post. The way it is now is... not good for an election. I hope someone from SE central will consider what you suggested.

@GaneshSittampalam You used the word "silly" in two different comments. I linked to each. Here, chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/21373841#21373841 you were responding to the rule about sockpuppet accounts, as mentioned by MrChrister chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/21372665#21372665

@GaneshSittampalam Here chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/21384679#21384679 you said "cut the positions available to 1 instead of 2" and described your idea as silly. I don't think your idea is silly at all though! I think it is a good idea, which I tried to convey here chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/21387347#21387347

@JoeTaxpayer @JoeTaxpayer I was contemplating this. I'll nominate myself, I have the experience and skills. I'll weigh in from time-to-time, but I can't commit to checking the site even every day. Thoughts?

@AlexB I think (personally) that nominating yourself is a good idea either way - as long as you're fully clear on your commitment in your nomination paragraph. If you're checking it most days, anyway - if it's once a week that's probably too infrequent, but if it's 3-4 days a week at least then I don't see a problem with running.

If you're clear in your nomination paragraph about it, voters can then vote based on that - if they think it's a problem they won't vote for you, if they don't think it's a problem they may vote for you.

I would (personally) in my vote take into account heavily the opinions of the other moderators - if they felt 3-4 times a week was often enough to be useful in balancing the load, then I'd not be concerned about it. If they felt it wasn't ideal, then I would consider it a negative, but take it into account against the various other things.

@Ellie The "silly rules" in the first comment were referring to the election rules, not sockpuppets.

@AlexB @Joe agreed, I personally think it'd be quite reasonable. I've edited my candidate statement to provide an indication of my availability too so there's a fair comparison (Joe had already done that).

Thanks for doing that!

I threw my hat into the ring. :) 3 candidates now so we have ourselves an election. Good luck all. I'm happy if I win and happy if I lose.