I don't understand what is disheartening about this as criteria. We would not be better off if the mods were selected with low accuracy rates or few posts reported; what good would that moderator be? A moderator that doesn't report many posts would not be useful, and worse yet if their accuracy is low then this means they would be counter-productive and come off as abusive. I expect the moderators to report a lot of posts and it's meaningless unless their accuracy is top-notch. Which part of that is disheartening?

It is very good that you're reporting posts as you come across them, because if everybody did this then the forum would be cleaned up rather quickly. I'm sure not every moderator has 15-hours per day to put into the forum, but some people are unbelievably efficient with their time and sometimes those people are exponentially more efficient at certain tasks in ways you cannot imagine; these are our staff. I'm pretty sure becoming a moderator is an Invite only sort of deal, based on your previous activity around here.