#What to do?

From my perspective, the moderators should do less. A lot less. The site is fine. It attracts a reasonable amount of quality questions and answers. The next time someone posts an off-topic question and a moderators sees it? Let it slip. Wait 8 hours. By then, the community might have already policed it. And if not, the moderators still can. The next time the moderators see a tag being treated in a way they don't like? Ask an open-ended question. And accept the fact that maybe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is an acceptable answer.

Wielding mod powers always has an air of dictatorship. For example casting a single binding vote using the mod's powers, while other users need a 5 votes consent seems absolutist. Especially to the one whose question got closed. It's unfortunate that mods cannot "unmod" and use only regular user powers. In this light, it would appear a lot less direct and heavy to use the mods powers sparingly and only when the community did not react.

If a moderator wants to lead, do so by being a role-model (you all write great answers, I'm sure that should not be hard), without taking moderator-style actions. Moderator actions are for exceptional circumstances.

(And on a personal note, maybe if you read my meta posts in the light of not asking for actions, but asking for an agreement on how to be a role-model, they might make a lot more sense. The first answer I always got was "we cannot do this within the rules". I wasn't asking for actions or enforceable rules, I was asking on a consensus on how to behave if you want to be a role-model. That's a big difference.)

What to do?

From my perspective, the moderators should do less. A lot less. The site is fine. It attracts a reasonable amount of quality questions and answers. The next time someone posts an off-topic question and a moderators sees it? Let it slip. Wait 8 hours. By then, the community might have already policed it. And if not, the moderators still can. The next time the moderators see a tag being treated in a way they don't like? Ask an open-ended question. And accept the fact that maybe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is an acceptable answer.

Wielding mod powers always has an air of dictatorship. For example casting a single binding vote using the mod's powers, while other users need a 5 votes consent seems absolutist. Especially to the one whose question got closed. It's unfortunate that mods cannot "unmod" and use only regular user powers. In this light, it would appear a lot less direct and heavy to use the mods powers sparingly and only when the community did not react.

If a moderator wants to lead, do so by being a role-model (you all write great answers, I'm sure that should not be hard), without taking moderator-style actions. Moderator actions are for exceptional circumstances.

(And on a personal note, maybe if you read my meta posts in the light of not asking for actions, but asking for an agreement on how to be a role-model, they might make a lot more sense. The first answer I always got was "we cannot do this within the rules". I wasn't asking for actions or enforceable rules, I was asking on a consensus on how to behave if you want to be a role-model. That's a big difference.)

#What to do?

From my perspective, the moderators should do less. A lot less. The site is fine. It attracts a reasonable amount of quality questions and answers. The next time someone posts an off-topic question and a moderators sees it? Let it slip. Wait 8 hours. By then, the community might have already policed it. And if not, the moderators still can. The next time the moderators see a tag being treated in a way they don't like? Ask an open-ended question. And accept the fact that maybe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is an acceptable answer.

Wielding mod powers always has an air of dictatorship. For example casting a single binding vote using the mod's powers, while other users need a 5 votes consent seems absolutist. Especially to the one whose question got closed. It's unfortunate that mods cannot "unmod" and use only regular user powers. In this light, it would appear a lot less direct and heavy to use the mods powers sparingly and only when the community did not react.

If a moderator wants to lead, do so by being a role-model (you all write great answers, I'm sure that should not be hard), without taking moderator-style actions. Moderator actions are for exceptional circumstances.

(And on a personal note, maybe if you read my meta posts in the light of not asking for actions, but asking for an agreement on how to be a role-model, they might make a lot more sense. The first answer I always got was "we cannot do this within the rules". I wasn't asking for actions or enforceable rules, I was asking on a consensus on how to behave if you want to be a role-model. That's a big difference.)

#What to do?

From my perspective, the moderators should do less. A lot less. The site is fine. It attracts a reasonable amount of quality questions and answers. The next time someone posts an off-topic question and a moderators sees it? Let it slip. Wait 8 hours. By then, the community might have already policed it. And if not, the moderators still can. The next time the moderators see a tag being treated in a way they don't like? Ask an open-ended question. And accept the fact that maybe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is an acceptable answer.

Wielding mod powers always has an air of dictatorship. For example casting a single binding vote using the mod's powers, while other users need a 5 votes consent seems absolutist. Especially to the one whose question got closed. It's unfortunate that mods cannot "unmod" and use only regular user powers. In this light, it would appear a lot less direct and heavy to use the mods powers sparingly and only when the community did not react.

If a moderator wants to lead, do so by being a role-model (you all write great answers, I'm sure that should not be hard), without taking moderator-style actions. Moderator actions are for exceptional circumstances.

(And on a personal note, maybe if you read my meta posts in the light of not asking for actions, but asking for an agreement on how to be a role-model, they might make a lot more sense. The first answer I always got was "we cannot do this within the rules". I wasn't asking for actions or enforceable rules, I was asking on a consensus on how to behave if you want to be a role-model. That's a big difference.)

#What to do?

From my perspective, the moderators should do less. A lot less. The site is fine. It attracts a reasonable amount of quality questions and answers. The next time someone posts an off-topic question and a moderators sees it? Let it slip. Wait 8 hours. By then, the community might have already policed it. And if not, the moderators still can. The next time the moderators see a tag being treated in a way they don't like? Ask an open-ended question. And accept the fact that maybe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is an acceptable answer.

If a moderator wants to lead, do so by being a role-model (you all write great answers, I'm sure that should not be hard), without taking moderator-style actions. Moderator actions are for exceptional circumstances.

(And on a personal note, maybe if you read my meta posts in the light of not asking for actions, but asking for an agreement on how to be a role-model, they might make a lot more sense. The first answer I always got was "we cannot do this within the rules". I wasn't asking for actions or enforceable rules, I was asking on a consensus on how to behave if you want to be a role-model. That's a big difference.)

#What to do?

From my perspective, the moderators should do less. A lot less. The site is fine. It attracts a reasonable amount of quality questions and answers. The next time someone posts an off-topic question and a moderators sees it? Let it slip. Wait 8 hours. By then, the community might have already policed it. And if not, the moderators still can. The next time the moderators see a tag being treated in a way they don't like? Ask an open-ended question. And accept the fact that maybe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is an acceptable answer.

Wielding mod powers always has an air of dictatorship. For example casting a single binding vote using the mod's powers, while other users need a 5 votes consent seems absolutist. Especially to the one whose question got closed. It's unfortunate that mods cannot "unmod" and use only regular user powers. In this light, it would appear a lot less direct and heavy to use the mods powers sparingly and only when the community did not react.

If a moderator wants to lead, do so by being a role-model (you all write great answers, I'm sure that should not be hard), without taking moderator-style actions. Moderator actions are for exceptional circumstances.

(And on a personal note, maybe if you read my meta posts in the light of not asking for actions, but asking for an agreement on how to be a role-model, they might make a lot more sense. The first answer I always got was "we cannot do this within the rules". I wasn't asking for actions or enforceable rules, I was asking on a consensus on how to behave if you want to be a role-model. That's a big difference.)