{Princess Crujectra}
"... I was never completely certain of what Rob's criteria was on the old DC Boards, since threads would be locked or deleted with no explanation as to why."

In my experience, either Rob did say why (if a thread wasn't entirely deleted), or the reason was fairly evident from the agreement that we "signed" to get a user ID in the first place. And which, it seemed from comments, very few had actually read. (Nothing implied here about anyone in particular, including 'Cru.)

We don't have that kind of a contract here, just custom and practice. That both makes matters more flexible and calls for being even more informative as to why the mods do what they do ... as I see it.

"... And if I really have a point, I guess it would be that we elected these four moderators because we trust them to do a good job."

That, I have to say, is part of what I call the "democratic illusion." (Small "D".) "We" didn't place any such "trust." Those four received the most votes, and that's not the same thing. Their being the first four on the list doesn't create such trust. They earn that, or don't earn that, through their actions.

This being said, I'm not expressing distrust of them as such, either. I'm asking for definitions, and a conscious effort to avoid being arbitrary about what they do.