We don't have fixed terms for mods. This means that if a mod goes off the rails or loses sight of their role they remain in a position of power and can enforce their personal opinions or agendas on the site irrespective of the site users.

I think this is a bad idea, there should be a fixed term as a check and balance just as most other facets of lives need checks and balances. If they're doing a great or even mediocre job they'll probably be voted back in, if they're actively detrimental or can't be bothered yet won't quietly remove themselves, then the site users have at least an option of removing them.

This is a common check and balance in both work and volunteer situations.

On top of the check and balance scenario currently we have a situation where mods are mods forever, so even if they are inactive they still take up a mod spot.


It is Stack Exchange policy to have moderators for life. They aren't going to change that for one site. You could go to Meta.SE to appeal for a change in network wide rules. If you have a grievance with the moderation team there is an official process, here and here, you can follow.

I doubt this is what you were looking for but unfortunately they are unlikely to drastically change their entire process without a great deal of lobbying and support over on Meta.SE. (And even then, meh.)

  • just putting the idea out there at this point, I see a pattern emerging, best to make it known in some fashion. Usually a 'heads up' works with reasonable adults.
    – Kilisi Mod
    Mar 17 '19 at 13:38
  • 7
    Bruglesco has answered this question more than adequately and has provided an escalation path. Kilisi has made his point. I think the time has come to move forward from this.
    – user44108
    Mar 18 '19 at 7:28
  • 4
    Yes, its time to move forward.
    – Neo
    Mar 18 '19 at 13:39

Mods are not paid, they are not employees. They don’t take salary. They are volunteers. Our mods have to work hard but they don’t get anything tangible in return!

Why wouldn’t they deserve lifetime membership if they are productive but cheaper than the third world? Why would anyone try to push them out?

You must log in to answer this question.

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