While I don't really agree with the OP's criticism here, nor do I politically side with him, I would say this one thing: it would be better that the userbase decide whether content is worthy than the mods. Posting arbitrary restrictions on some of the users is hardly fair when a better-tweaked algorithm can handle it more fairly (take Ruqqus's design, for example). I myself have been a victim of overmoderation, so while I might not sympathize with these users specifically, I think the principal is worth considering.

Take for example power posters, who post a significant amount of content, some of which is quite popular. By adjusting the cycle frequency and percentage of content by topic & poster on the front page, you allow these power posters to coexist in the ecosystem without drowning out the less frequent posters (rather than the alternative, which would be banning or post limiting). Ruqqus did these tweaks quite a while back and has a rather diverse and robust range of posts that quickly cycles to new content in a broad range of categories (not overcrowded by any particular sub or user). No sense in punishing people who are providing the gems that brings users here in the first place, when you can just tweak things and give everyone a fair shake.