That sounds like an interesting twist on the concept of "security through obscurity," and is equally misguided. If the moderators are doing things the community doesn't like, exposing a log of moderator actions will hasten course correction.
Of course, that presumes that the moderators care what the community thinks and are willing to change their behavior accordingly. I do presume that's the case.
Very different from security through obscurity. The problem here is that a vocal minority can sway opinions and make it seem like lots of people are behind something. One lengthy disagreeing rant might seem like a one off. Ten lengthy rants will likely cause a moderator to pause and listen and maybe even respond.
In the end, the mods will need to decide how to handle shit and while input from mere mortals is a good thing, it is not required for them to do their jobs. We already have very democratic tools here and lots of power: more so than inmost other societies. If you really disagree with something, by all means speak up. But mods are not elected officials representing your interests. They are not here to enact the will of the people. They are here to maintain civility and ensure that the rules are followed.
>>If the moderators are doing things the community doesn't like, exposing a log of moderator actions will hasten course correction.
Not on HN. This place can beat a dead horse so bad that it'd get up and run off. I don't think HN mods should be transparent at all. But hey, let them try it out... I assure you we'll have 2 or 3 front-page articles every week about some mod-action and the threads will get so pedantic/specious that the mods will have to take action on those threads too... which will lead to another story... which will lead to more mod-action.... ∞