Not a view you consistently hold...
The thing is we all think the Mods are doing a great job when we agree with them, and that they are rubber-truncheon wielding oppressors when we don't.
It's not
quite a thankless job - you've thanked them here, I prefer to do it privately, but I don't think they help themselves by assuming the mantle of complete unaccountability. We can't have arguments dragged out in public, but if a post is to be removed, or a ban imposed, they ought to be able to point to a specific thing(s) written and show how it contravenes a rule, not just delete and ban because of some nebulous undefined "offence" of posting crap/trolling/ad-hominem attacks. That creates an understandable impression that the Mod concerned, who will also be a normal member, is using his powers for personal reasons.
Perhaps there should be a separate group of Mods, recruited from the people in other forums who don't visit GD, to run some sort of appeal process. To be banned from topics before making one post as "punishment", to be told in response to reporting something "Shut up. Now we'll have to find more threads to bar you from" doesn't exactly look like fair, even-handed moderation.
Better, or even some-where-now-there-are-none, definitions in the rules would help people stay on track, I think.
is all well and good, but being told "don't troll" or "don't post ad-hominem attacks" aren't much use without knowing what is considered "trolling"
here (because it doesn't seem to be the same as the definition used outside the forum), or what is considered "ad-hom"
here (ditto).