Sure, but some competence in hockey is necessary to be a hockey referee at all, or at least if a hockey referee plays on a hockey court themselves you might expect them to play hockey at all, or at least with enough competence to remove doubt in their calls when they are refereeing - especially if they claim to be competent at hockey when not demonstrating as much.
But the analogy of hockey isn’t perfect, as forum moderation can be a separate skill completely to any main forum topic, whereas hockey referees need to know the rules of hockey as well as civility even if they can’t play themselves. I’m not saying that you necessarily need to have both in the forum context. I’m saying that it can help, especially if you also engage in discussions that you’re moderating rather than using the passive and detached approach that Carleas knows how to use (although he also actually has philosophical competence, which he occasionally treats us to) and especially especially when you claim competence in philosophy all the while.
But keeping to moderation alone, separate from philosophy altogether, you need a more objective approach that sticks minimalistically to indisputable facts, and when facts are disputable you need to show impartial discretion rather than to show personality weakness and resorting to mild name-calling.
And all this assumes moderation is necessary at all, which it is when forums are above a certain size, and/or if there are particularly malevolent posters at work, neither of which we have here anymore. Staying on well after the time has passed, continuing to impose in light of all the above is just bad taste.
This goes regardless of individual attitudes to authority.
I don’t think Ecmandu likes authority other than what agrees with him, whereas I’m fine with appropriate and competent authority that neither claims to be more than it is, nor imposes when unnecessary - especially when imposition is personalised. MagsJ fails in every single account, where others here have succeeded, though I’m sure she’s made the odd appropriate intervention as exceptions - such as communicated by Mowk. I don’t intend to detract from that.
Whilst I’m being direct and not presenting positive opinions, and these are associated with hostility, I have positive intentions and don’t speak out of aggression nor emotionality - I’m just honestly conveying the impression I’ve got over the years towards one individual in a way that could cause conflict, but not because I intend to cause conflict. Under the circumstances of a larger forum, with toxic individuals, where restrictions are impersonal and don’t result in a net negative impact, I’m happy for this place to be moderated. Until recent actions were taken, none of these conditions were in play and hadn’t been for a long time - which is why it’s a good decision to remove a bad moderator when moderation was unnecessary in the first place.