Because this community is an intelligence rating community, it does not need a moderator and would be better off without a moderator.
The role of a moderator is to regulate and censor the interaction between members of a community. For example, the government is the moderator of its citizens and parents are the moderators of their children. A moderator's purpose is to subjectively improve the overall outcome of the interactions between members of a community. Usually a moderator exists to remove bias and intimidation so that truth and peacefulness will prevail in the community. To be a moderator, one must ultimately know what interactions are best for members of a community though the members may be unaware that they will benefit from regulation/censorship; for example, parents regulate their children with knowledge that the child could not understand and government regulates its citizens with a perspective that the average citizen could not understand (given game theory).
However, parents objectively have more experience (and better developed brains) than children and government officials objectively have more understanding of macro management than the average citizen. Neither of these claims can be made by anyone wishing to moderate this community, as we mutually accept one another's intellectual merit. Further, no one in this community can fairly claim to be objectively less biased than another because the issues to be discussed have not come up yet. Consider the Supreme Court and whether personal biases (like the Christians on SCOTUS) take a role in supposedly objective judgment. No one can claim to be a moderator of this community without a degree of conceit that is not warranted.
The members of this community and the community itself will benefit from a free flow of information without intimidation from censors. Controversial topics are best discussed in an intellectual community like this one, so let us allow members to post controversial (and potentially offensive) topics. Since we can mutually agree to be rigorously logical, there should be no fear that controversy will lead to fallacies. If a member wishes to post a critique of government or society, it should be acceptable regardless of whether other members disagree. Part of op-eds is judgment and part satire is sarcasm. We must accept and even expect confident and skeptical attitudes from each member, so there should be no provision omitting judgment, sarcasm, or even arrogance. I'm reminded of a Stan Lee who remarked that in any story, the antagonist must be superior to the protagonist or else there is no value in the protagonist's victory; if we are to bring the best out of ourselves then we must allow our opponents to bring out the worst of themselves.