I expect you can see why I read the resurrection of that thread in this way. You did make a point of bringing up the corrupt administration thread when you did it, and also that you found the self appointed mods were dismissive, snide etc.
If it's not meant to be perceived as hostile, the tone was perhaps ill-chosen.
Anyway, I'll take it that it wasn't your intention, that as you say you'd rather there was a debate.
As a result of the problems with Uber, and the Zerg issue, we've updated our constitution as mods, tightened up our policies, ensured that all bannings etc are voted on with equal vote. We don't knee jerk.. time is taken for all parties to discuss. We've also sought to seek mods from a variety of users of all types so as to balance the moderation of the site as best as can be.
The warning (and not just) infraction system, for example, was brought in to try and give a way of just nudging something wrong without coming down heavily on minor points, and also so that infractions had a real weight. The timing and number of them was also codified so that people are treated fairly. Even then, it still has to be pretty extreme for serious action, like a ban, to be taken against someone, and with the exception of just immediate idiots like porn or spammers, they have to have a number of bad posts over a period of time before such a thing happens.
Can I ask what you would do to change the system, if you were asked to moderate? Some constructive feedback would be helpful (as it seems there is some... aggrievement(?) despite protestations to the contrary).