If you are at all interested in my actual position, allow me to state it clearly, for the record:
1. The job of the moderator is to enforce the rules of the site. This necessarily includes eliminating violating content and restricting the actions of violators.
2. #1 is independent and separate from what the rules actually are, how they are determined, and how they are changed.
3. If you are unwilling to do #1, you shouldn't be a moderator.
4. The opinions of people regarding #1 are irrelevant and not a factor. If you are worried that you won't win most popular member because of #1, then you shouldn't be a moderator.
5. The majority impact of the moderator comes not through their discretionary powers (though there is some impact from this) but through what the rules are in the first place (this is a position I have consistently held). There should be a minimal (though necessarily non-zero) "judgement calls." Individual mod personality shouldn't be a factor. They should simply be human robots implementing a policy. Any issues with that should be considered issue with the policy itself, not the moderators.
6. Mods should not change or dictate moderation policy unilaterally. There are many ways of implementing the change process. The only person who should change policy unilaterally is the site owner.
7. Public referrenda can provide useful information, and if they are used, should be majority only, no participation thresholds.