Ok. I got negative rep points for post 5, with the comment, "Do you even know what your talking about in D?" Good job noticing that there is a lot packed in there, so let me explain. This is philosophy heavy, but someone wanted to know, so here it is. And I know this isn't that big of a deal, but this gives me a chance to actually apply something I learned in school.
"D) I'm not harassing the people helping. I'm amusedly bemoaning silly bureaucratic nonsense wherein mods doing what they are supposed to do actually subverts a healthy, functioning forum."
The members of any community have both rights and responsibilities, which must be properly balanced and maintained for the community to be healthy. Each member has rights to protect and promote the expression of autonomy and individuality, but also has responsibilities to maintain the relationships that the community is based on. One way to think about the relationship is that to the extent that people take responsibility for being a member of a community they should be afforded the relevant rights to participate in that community. In this context, the mods are here to maintain this balance, and that is what bureaucracy is - the protocol and practice of this maintenance.
I was annoyed because I was infracted for reporting spam after I got a PM that accords with what dictionaries call (electronic) spam (unsolicited, indiscriminate). I didn't want more spam, because I have a right to that (supposedly protected by mods), and I have a responsibility to report it because I don't want others to have to get the spam too. So I was annoyed because even though I exercised my responsibility, my rights were decreased. This is the opposite of the way things are supposed to work, but again, I don't blame the mod, as he/she was just doing his/her job. This is the "silly bureaucratic nonsense" I referred to - that even in following the protocol established to protect a proper relationship between rights and responsibilities, that very framework was undermined.
This theory can apply to any situation involving a collective - and if in the infinitesimally small chance that anyone found this interesting (lol), John Rawls and the principle of fairness is a good start.
Logic