Canada@RexTari Have you tried talking to the other mods about this? There's 6 different mods for that game, surely one of them must be able to help you, and that level of toxicity is definitely not acceptable.
I think the point was that there are a lot of other countries that would have higher priority to be added than Sealand based on the fact that they're internationally recognized.
Try contacting the current moderator. If you can't contact them, use this thread: https://www.speedrun.com/The_Site/thread/63nr7
Make sure to read the first post in that thread before posting there.
I think it just says "at this time" because they used to, and now they don't. So yeah, probably never.
April Fools Day.
It should be going back to normal tomorrow.
@Twan_Jones I brought it up in the Discord and the games have since been removed.
And another blatant meme page added today by the same person as above: https://www.speedrun.com/twow
Edit: both have since been removed
Well, all their posts have been deleted, so I guess that's that.
"People do not wish to possibly be seen as publicly saying something bad... about someone in a position of authority" I've been on the internet long enough to know that this is simply not true. Also, moderators aren't really supposed to be "authority figures" anyway. They don't control the community, they just represent them and volunteer to maintain the leaderboard for it.
"It is not easy to always know just how inactive a mod actually is" How so? The system wouldn't have access to any information that isn't already publicly visible. Also, if humans with brains can't tell if a moderator is inactive, how do you propose that an automated system is supposed to determine that?
"a majority of runners don't notice or care that much" If most people don't care, then the problem isn't really a problem for them, is it?
"the forum leaves open the possibility of someone with a personal vendetta encouraging the removal of a mod" That thread is going to have to exist regardless of whether there's an automated system or not, so that's kind of a moot point.
"a vast majority of that thread appears to be people applying (often frivolously) to be moderators, not reporting inactivity" It is mostly people asking to remove inactive moderators and then replace them, but I have seen people in there requesting to remove inactive supermods that they couldn't get rid of themselves. And yeah, not everyone who posts there really understands the point of the thread, but nonetheless it gets the job done.
"backlog of weeks or months, and new mods are not added" If a moderation team has months of backlog to deal with and are refusing to add new mods, even when they're desperately needed just because they "already have a lot", I think at that point it's more an issue with that specific moderation team rather than an issue with the site itself, and the solution to that specific moderation team's problem is definitely not a site-wide overkill automated de-mod system.
"the only argument against a well-thought-out de-mod system that holds water for me" This really just sounds like, "I'm ignoring all arguments except...". Also, this statement only works if there actually IS a well thought out system, which there isn't for the reasons already discussed, and may not even be possible in the first place.
"keeping their twitch name prominently displayed on a page that is seen by thousands of potential viewers" This is a really weirdly specific thing to be upset about, and the fact that you've used this exact phrase multiple times now is a little concerning. I'm pretty sure that at least 99% of the inactive mods here aren't just leaving their name on the mod list to rake in Twitch views (and even if they are, I can't imagine that a lot of the Twitch views that come from this site are from the moderation list).
"You're basically talking to me as though you believe I have no idea what speedrunning is" To be fair, you did the exact same thing to everyone earlier when you felt the need to define (in a pretty condescending way) what a moderator is.
"communities do not typically prune moderators who are inactive"
Frankly I don't really see why this is a problem. Like I said above, if the community thinks it's a problem, they can deal with it themselves. The fact that this typically doesn't happen means that nobody really thinks it's a problem.
IMO It seems like you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Ignoring the fact that this is conceptually wrong because of the reasons @Mitsunee brought up, I'm not exactly sure I understand how this works or what the point of it is. You get "unmodded", but then all you have to do is verify a run and you're back? Don't you have to be a mod in the first place to verify a run? And if you're able to verify runs but not do anything else, couldn't you just submit a fake run, self-verify it and then delete it to get your mod status back? I think it would have to be a permanent unmod (which is a very extreme step for an automated system) to be at all effective, and even then it would still cause a lot of problems.
As @Habreno brought up, there might not even BE runs to verify, but there also might not be runs that SHOULD be verified. Having a system like this could encourage mods to verify runs without looking at them as closely as they otherwise would, just so that they can be sure they'll meet their verification quota (especially in games with lots of mods, you want to make sure YOU verify it before someone else can). This is obviously VERY BAD, and could easily lead to increased leaderboard inaccuracy (and possibly even cheating) across the site.
I think this just puts a completely unnecessary burden on moderators without doing anything helpful. And ultimately, I don't think any sort of automated system for removing inactive mods is needed. If a community notices that there are inactive moderators (completely inactive, not just "not verifying runs"), and decides that's a problem, it's relatively easy to "prune" the moderation staff.
I'm under the impression that splitting the boards by platform wasn't a completely conscious decision. Considering that the N64 and PS1 ports have different moderators and that there aren't any series mods, I'm guessing they were both requested and added completely independently of each other. If they really are the same, then they should probably be merged into one board, though you should go to the game's forum (both of them I guess?) and talk to the people that runs these games. There might be a reason for this that we don't know about.
@NintendoBrothers64 "he could be ignoring me" To be fair, their Twitch settings might be set to block messages from random people, so they're probably not just ignoring you. It's more likely that they never got the message.
"runs were submitted and then verified by the same person. Is that something that is common across the site?" This is fairly common. For more competitive games with lots of moderators self-verification tends to be avoided, but for smaller games it's usually fine (and in the case of games with only one moderator it's necessary).
@NintendoBrothers64 One of them was online in the last 24 hours, and the other was online 3 days ago. How long ago did you try contacting them?
Also, generally speaking you have to have a run before becoming a mod.
This has been suggested in the past, and as far as I know it's on the to-do list, as well as following series. Following marathons as @BillyClem98 suggested would also be useful (though I'm not sure what you mean by "teams").
As for what splits to use, unless you're playing a game with an autosplitter it doesn't really matter. I didn't bother using splits at all until I was a bit more comfortable with speedrunning in general. You can just do that for now and add splits in later when you have a better idea of what times you're able to split and what makes sense. Alternatively, you can just look at what some of the other runners for the game use.
@Diogo.Asgard The moderator isn't inactive, they've been online in the last week. Have you tried contacting them at all?
The front page works, but if you try going to a leaderboard with JavaScript disabled it doesn't load any runs (the menu bar also doesn't appear to work, and I imagine other site features don't work either). If you want to be able to use the site properly then enable JavaScript. I really don't see what the problem is.
