Then why bother with elections? Be transparent and just appoint them.

Because they were clearly unsuitable and this avoids drama. It's not a binary on/off thing.

Clearly how? My score was in the tens of thousands, I asked good questions Gave good answers. Strove to avoid downvoting/vtc-ing good questions/answers worded poorly. Tried to participate in the way that leads to the ideal outcomes.

How is that "clearly"?

What evidence do you have that lets you assert that I was "clearly unsuitable"?

If anything, someone like yourself who makes up bullshit and believes it as if it were established fact is the sort they should be trying to avoid allowing to moderate. Which is why I'm guessing you're actually a mod.

I can't judge your specific situation one way or the other from where I'm sitting right now as I have almost zero knowledge of it. All I can say is that I was a moderator for close to five years on a SE site and every time I've seen this happen or be discussed behind the scenes it was for good reasons. On our site we even had a moderator removed at one point, and this was for a good reason too.

These reasons should have been communicated to you. If not, then clearly something went wrong somewhere.

> or be discussed behind the scenes

Ah yes, the "trust us, our secret proceedings against defendants are always highly-principled and just" argument.

How can I argue with that? You've won our debate so convincingly that I must stop and crawl away in shame.