They exist at the pleasure of the board owner.
Ergo elections for Moderators are a recipe for disaster IMO.......someone who vociferously campaigned against a chap who had been elected might find himself on the sharp end of the red pointy thing a sight too often. Or he would perceive that to be the case, even if it wasn't so.
Whoever owns the board appoints them as he thinks are best suited to the task.
Having set terms sounds a good idea in theory but if you had a Moderator who was working well why change it?
But keep your ideas coming because we, and other moderates among the silent majority of posters on here, need to get involved now in this debate otherwise the various, more vociferous factions....."cliques" as it were
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)