Yeah, I don't think the issue is lack of clarity, it's an almost total lack of experience, both here and in the SE network in general. And some of the answers demonstrate that lack of experience. @masegaloeh's comment gives some examples. Also: will you continue to delve the review-queues at your current rate? Since my current rate is "none" or "what's a review queue", I'd say yes. I will continue at my current pace. Do you really think that saying, effectively, "I've never done a review before and I don't plan to start" really sells you as a mod candidate? ;)

To be fair...if you say that the audit system addresses an SO problem that doesn't exist at SF, I'll have to defer to you on that, since my reviewing experience comes from SO. However, if that's the case, it's only because SO is an order of magnitude more popular. If SF achieves its goal and becomes the preeminent IT Q&A resource on the Internet, you can bet you'll see those same problems.

In any case, it's hard for me to identify with being personally insulted by a canned message that I know results from an imperfection in an automated system. It should be no more insulting than getting an error message saying you've entered invalid data due to a bug in some program you're using. It may be annoying, but not an insult. In fact, I think you make a case for why it shouldn't be insulting--if you know that you only "failed" because some programmer who doesn't know you from Adam made a tenuous assumption in designing how audits are selected, then what's there to be offended about?

For example, regarding audits being a waste of time, I don't think it would be a bad idea to implement some system for achieving "trusted reviewer" status after one has a demonstrated track record for diligent reviewing. I also think there are some methodological flaws in how review audits are selected, and the case you raised pertains to one of them. Too long for comments, I'll get around to discussing this at MSE one of these days. But, I see these as areas for improvement, not reasons for getting rid of the system.

@Sven Hmmm..."technology can't solve people problems" has a nice aphoristic ring to it, but I think it's too broad and vague a generalization to be very meaningful. My question is whether the audit system serves a useful function, and my answer is absolutely yes. The kinds of things you seem to see as objections to the system as a whole, I see as specific issues that could be improved. That's what I mean when I say it should be honed rather than eliminated.

I do think that the gamification system is a double-edged sword, and that it incentivizes abuse as well as conscientious contributions, but dumping out the baby with the bathwater is the wrong approach. The right approach is the one taken: hand out the badges and stats, but actively weed out those who abuse the system. On the contrary, I think the audit system should be strengthened and honed rather than abolished.

I think getting rid of review audits and badges would be a very bad idea. The "gamification" system flat-out works, and no amount of pontificating about how people "should" be motivated by wanting to improve the site and not by gaining "useless internet points" can change the reality that if those "useless internet points" were removed, reviewing activity would crater, and, I want to emphasize, the supply of diligent reviewers would dry up almost to the same extent as the supply of reviewers who just want internet points for the least amount of effort. I'd put money on it.

If there's anything here I disagree with, it's that, being an avid reviewer myself, I think he's WAY too nice to robo-reviewers and rubber-stampers. :) But I do see the point about the occasional bad reviewer having limited impact that might not be worth risking offending people who are trying to be helpful...perhaps SF has a lower proportion of careless reviewers than what I'm used to at SO, making it less important to weed them out.

If I had just one vote, I think this would be it (though tough call between him and Ward). Excellent mix of relevant experience (reviewing, flagging, editing, meta.sf and MSE participation, participation at multiple SE sites, frequent voting), but in particular I think his answers here and in meta are exceptionally sensible and thoughtful, and show both the right temperament for a mod and exactly the right approach to fostering both the site's participation level and usefulness.

I just want to point out, this guy has the best overall combination of experience in activities relevant to moderation--reviewing, flagging, editing, meta.sf & MSE participation, participation at multiple SE sites. His voting record (both number and up/down ratio) shows understanding of what makes SE sites tick (poor questions should be downvoted, but more importantly upvotes encourage positive participation). And I think his answers show the right approach to helping SF succeed--get rid of truly useless noise without being too exclusive and chasing people off for not being advanced enough.