I don't think she should be sacked perse, I just think that the choice of moderators should be done differently and more democratically. Surely it would be much better if forum users had the chance to vote every couple of years for potential moderators. Obviously the site admin's judgement would play a substantial role in deciding the 'candidates', but it would still be a much fairer system.
I do disapprove of the relentless and needless Kewpie-bashing propagated by the minority of users here, and I think she is probably as good at doing all the behind-the-scenes stuff as the other mods. That said, it's difficult to ignore the fact that her style is often obtrusive and has caused numerous problems recently.
I mostly agree with you. I know Kewpie can be terse, but she's also very hard-working and her freakishly retentive brain is a good thing to have around. I don't think she should be sacked, especially as a knee-jerk reaction to the current unpleasantness, but on a general note, I do think the mods should be re-selected once in a while. Perhaps if people were asked to vote for five mod candidates, to include at least two existing ones (in order to ensure continuity and to train up the newbies), that would maintain a decent balance of freshness and experience. An entitlement culture has grown up around this forum, fuelling all manner of discontent and I suspect that having elected mods would deprive the gripers of some of their ammunition. Just a suggestion.
I'm not sure she'd even post here anymore if she weren't a moderator.
At any rate, if this is a democratic forum then the vote should go to the people. There's no two ways about it.
But it isn't. If you criticise anything you get a warning for being a "troll", threatened with a "f***ing" ban and told to go elsewhere.