I don't know how games are moderated or what the moderation process is. There have to be some minimum standards of computer software, yes? For example, if moderators check on games by comparing %'s of matching moves against certain software programs, they can't include the opening moves because those are already established from previously published sources, and it can't be counted against a player that they happen to have good source material. And when I read some posters that say "I can just tell when someone is using a computer" or something like "yeah, the Ruy Lopez is known to 10 moves in most lines" when in reality it is more like 20-30 moves, I have doubts that some well-meaning players are capable. Do they have the MegaDataBase from ChessBase to compare? Do they have the Correspondence Database, too? Do they have the Informants? The NIC Yearbooks? Chessbase Magazine (CD)? If they are looking at an endgame that they think is too perfect, do they know that it isn't an example cited directly out of, say, Averbakh's five-volume set of Comprehensive Chess Endings? Do they have the software to compare Fritz, Zappa, Rybka, Shredder, Hiarcs, Crafty, Chessmaster, Naum, Junior, etc etc.?
Can prospective moderators avoid the catch-22:
1)he played too good. he must be an engine user
2)he started out slow, then played well, so he must have turned on an engine when he knew he was losing. he must be an engine user.
3)he started out well, then didn't play as perfect, so he must have been using an engine and then turned it off when he knew the game was in the bag. he must be an engine user.
4)he played some moves really well, some not so well, in no particular pattern, so he must have been turning the engine on and off at different times. he must be an engine user.
5)some games he plays well, some games he doesn't. he must be deliberately losing games to throw the moderators off. he must be an engine user.
I've heard all these above complaints here, and there's practically no way to defend yourself from the mob once they get it in their mind to grab the torches and pitchforks. Just putting people on a ballot doesn't mean they're qualified. I hope that well-meaning candidates are truly ready and capable of performing their duties, and if the moderation process doesn't require any of the above, then I am sorry for taking up everyone's time with this post, and I am crossing my fingers for the best.