I think the problem, and problem might be too strong a word so we can go with sticking point, comes down to explicit vs implicit moderation.

Hubski is small and there aren't really a large number or a diverse selection of cliques, which seems especially true when a user is new. If that user lurks they meet the common cast and you fall near the top of the bill as the lovable asshole, a good but prickly role that doesn't have the most line but certainly has the most memorable dialogue. In this way you become a figurehead to the community.

This means your personal moderation is often seen for the implicit effects. Explicitly, you (or anyone using mod tools) are only controlling what you see. Implicitly, I think it feels as though you're shunning a person from the "in" crowd.

This, of course, is a hunch based on my thoughts, but the logic is pretty simple - the moderation system is just different enough to not be understood. When a person sees that they are muted, they might assume that blocks them from a much larger portion of the site, similar to being banned on a message board. They might also assume that their mute is a scarlet letter of sorts, something other users can see (which, to be honest, I'm not really sure that they can) and make judgement against.

Even outside of those theories, there's how the implicit moderation effects the person internally. If they do associate you to the in crowd as a public face and you shun them, no matter how privately, the likelihood of implying a feeling of alienation and spreading that to the larger perceived "in" group seems very high.

I would be very interested to see the analytics of a user's first 90 to 120 days, to see who those people gravitate too and to find out if there is any perceived controlling group. I know it's a complaint I've heard about hubski before, and I think understanding it could go a long way in changing how the system is explained.

Or I'm just rambling, work is boring this time of year.