This seems to be a hard concept for many, so bears a little review as we have both new users and new moderators.
We all have roles. It's important to keep the distinction between the role and the person.
When a person takes on the responsibility of a role, they're not just the person they used to be. They're now two distinct entities, the person you knew, and The Role.
Regardless of their personal thoughts, feelings, tendencies or interests, when acting within the parameters of their role they are for the most part not necessarily themselves.
This separation of self from role is absolutely vital to actually performing the necessary functions of the role.
Take for example Bob and Ted. Best friends for life. Ted is a police officer, this is his role. If Bob does something illegal that Ted is aware of, Ted has to choose between being Bob's best friend, or fulfilling the obligations of his role as a police officer.
To be a good police officer Ted has to disregard everything personal regarding the situation and act as his role, not himself.
To be a good friend Ted would have be untrue to his role, and consequently risk his job and possibly his future and freedom, just to give Bob an unfair advantage. Would a good friend honestly expect someone to do that for them?
Likewise, should a good friend hold a person responsible for fulfilling the obligations of their role? No, for several reasons. First and foremost it isn't Ted choosing to exert power of Bob, it's a case of Bob having done wrong and a duly appointed officer addressing it. The fact the person fulfilling the role of that officer happens to be Ted should not matter. Ted would not be in the position of having to enforce the law if Bob hadn't broken it in the first place. The consequences are the exact same whether it was Ted that caught Bob or someone else. If Bob is a good friend he should be the one apologizing to Ted for having put him in such a crappy situation in the first place, not Ted having to apologize to Bob for having to do his job.
Apply that now to our situation; If a moderator infracts you, it's not personal. It literally has nothing to do with you as a person, or their personal feelings. If you post a scathing comment about someone that's absolutely true and hilarious, as a person they may agree 100% with it and find it funny. As a moderator, they're going to infract it because it was a violation and infracting for flaming is what the role does. Granted, yes, if you're a complete ass to them they may take pleasure in seeing you infracted, but you weren't infracted to please them, you infracted for breaking a rule and any other moderator would've done the same. In many cases if a moderator feels they may be biased they'll report rather than infracting so another moderator makes the call and confirms that they're not acting on bias.
If your thread gets closed or deleted, it doesn't mean the moderators hate you. If you're told to drop a subject it's because the subject is inappropriate, off topic or done, not because your opinion is of any less value than anyone else's.
Rick said this is in is own way long ago and it bears repeating; Get thicker skin people. It's not all about you as a person. You have a role here too as a User. When moderation occurs it's to the user, not the person, in almost all cases. No one should be getting their asses bent out of shape over the interaction of two pseudo-entities with no personal connection to each other.