I wouldn't want the people who have put in time and effort to do this job to suffer harrassment on the forum. I think they would be harrassed, goodness knows what sort of whining and moaning they listen to in those abuse reports. They don't need their own posse of harpies following thme around here asking "why why why why."
I think it is important to listen to the community of particpants for feedback on whether the moderators are acting even handedly.
Speaking from personal experience, I can assure you that if the moderators were publicly identified, they would no longer be able to participate in FR as "ordinary" posters to any significant degree.
It is no secret that I used to be a moderator on the CNN forums. Before I was asked to become a moderator there, I lurked and posted in the various forums for over a year. After becoming a moderator, I was REQUIRED by written directive not to post at all unless I appended "CNN" to my screen name. The purpose of that was to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in my replies to other posters, even on completely non-controversial subjects.
My stint as a moderator over at CNN was enjoyable and enlightening and I don't regret it for a moment, but it essentially destroyed whatever value I might have had as a "voice in the crowd" to the various debates and daily life there, and it censored me from disclosing my true opinions on many matters, which bothered me enough to drive me away from participating over there at all.
I firmly believe that publicly identifying the moderators would ruin THEIR online experience in this forum, and I believe that is what Jim is attempting to avoid. I completely support the concept of anonymous moderators here and understand the logic behind the policy.