I ask this question cause I’m submitted a run on wizards & warriors and it’s not been that long yet so I’m still ok with it not be accepted yet but I see that 2 of the mods have not been online in a year and one was 25 days ago.

The only objective answer to your question is 1.

This 1 mod should then delegate more mods as they deem necessary to help ease the workload for the leaderboard, but that's subjective to only their opinion. In your case, try to get in touch with the mod who was active within the last 25 days if they have social links available.

There should always be at least one active moderator. Beyond that depends entirely on the game in question, how active the community is, and how much free time the moderators have. If the game only gets one new run in a fairly short category every 3 months then a single moderator is more than adequate, whereas if you get like 10+ multi-hour submissions daily then more moderators should probably be appointed.

As @zopney said, in your case you should definitely try contacting the moderators since they are all considered inactive (a moderator is considered active if they've been online in the last 3 weeks), and if that doesn't work out then you can have them replaced by going to this thread: https://www.speedrun.com/The_Site/thread/63nr7 (just make sure you read the first post in that thread before posting anything there).

1-2 max. Depends on how popular the game is though. Most games only need 1.

A leaderboard should have as many mods as is necessary to keep up with the needs of said board.

As many as it needs. In most cases 1 is enough.

In purely technical terms even a small board should ideally have at least two, because moderators shouldn't be verifying their own runs. Sometimes there just really isn't anyone else who plays a particular game though.

For larger games with a constant queue of runs, you just add as many moderators as is necessary to manage the volumes. Keeping a coherent, co-operative team where everyone is on the same page and equally invested becomes exponentially more difficult as the number of people increases though.

thanks all, i'm going to give in a few weeks still just because i submitted 5 days ago. But its good to know all this for the future since this was my first run submitted.

moderators shouldn't be verifying their own runs Why? If you can trust them to verify every other run, why not their own? If it's a cheated run the community will call them out for it. It's not even remotely an issue. And what of games with only one runner?

As much as we'd like them to, typically moderators don't spend nearly as much time on their own run as they do others. They think "Well, I did it, so I probably did it fine."

Not to say that they cheat, but they might accidentally violate rules such as "required audio" and not realize it.

Obviously games with only one runner is an exception, since there is no one else to verify the run, and no community to call them out on mistakes either.

I mean you did the run, if you wanna rewatch it knock yourself out, but you...did, the run. Over complication of the verification process is a hoot.

"Obviously games with only one runner is an exception"

I reckon they know that's the exception, because this topic comes up quite frequently and it's the logical answer, but hey you've just gotta be obtuse for the sake of it sometimes right

A game needs as many mods as it needs to get all runs verified in a reasonable time frame.