I have a David vs Goliath case here involving a teen moderator on Stack Overflow. His display name is BoltClock.
I'm a low reputation SO user (less than 150 points) who was recently suspended for Voting Irregularities by BoltClock. Eventually the mistake was corrected by another non-teen moderator. Normally, you cannot argue with a moderator unless you have solid proof. Following is the proof in my case:
Now back to our discussion. How come a moderator can suspend a user without any proof of wrongdoing? Could it be that BoltClock's lack of experience or young age is the factor for his mistake? What is the lesson from this mistake? Do we need to introduce a minimum age requirement for any future moderator on the SE network?