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.
I agree about the non issue thing. It just seems weird to have a forum-like environment without mods, but this site seems to handle itself well.
I like the idea of that system, but I wonder of it would keep moderators in line. Sure, accountability would be refreshing and maybe deter some mods from waving around their power, but what's stopping them from lying about the reason? If the answer is the community, then who would monitor the banning list for innocent users? Don't get me wrong, I would love mods to be accountable for all the actions they take, and this system would be more attractive to helpful mods. But corrupt mods could bypass this system by lying, turning a simple disagreement into a ban because of "scamming". This would be a good step towards having better control over mods, but it by no means erases all the negatives.