Mods seem, to me at least, less of the internet police force that they are intended to be and more of an outlet for socially awkward individuals to anonymously hold (and later, abuse) power. I can't find any mods on this site, other than the site creators, and I think I like it this way. There's no arbitrary banning this way, and the "policing" is done by the community.
On the other hand, mods are useful for getting rid of scammers and hackers who could potentially endanger the community and the quality of the site. So I guess my real question is does Hubski need mods?
Hubski's mechanics are a bit different from the other sites I've frequented, but I don't know of any good website that isn't moderated in some way. Admittedly, 4chan isn't too bad, but there isn't any way to get any more specific than what the site has predefined, as far as I know. I like the Autos section, for instance, but most of the threads aren't interesting, so you still have to browse through a bunch of turds to find a gem. If a system of accountability was incorporated where you could see what, or who, was banned, and by who, then we can probably avoid the problem of bad moderation.
Another thing mk could also do is incorporate a system where you subscribe or unsubscribe to people as moderators, so if you disagree with that person on what is and isn't appropriate, you could unsubscribe so that their moderation doesn't affect your Hubski experience. I don't know if this would really be a good idea since it could complicate things. I think a system of accountability would probably be better.