In reference to the recent changes to the Hot Network Question Bar it had been recommended to shape the new rights of moderators per meta discussions:
Moderators [now] have the ability to remove questions from the HNQ List
There are times when the hotness formula selects a question that a site would rather not have featured. Up until now, the only recourse that was available was to close the question (which may be appropriate anyway but isn't ideal when done purely to manage traffic), or to do nothing. We're putting the power in the hands of our moderators to remove questions that don't set a good example for their sites. I recommend each site have a meta discussion with guidance for moderators about when - if ever - a question should be removed.
This question is supposed to give guidance as to which questions the community wants to have in the HNQs and which not since they shape the impression (and thus expectations) members and visitors of other network communities have about the topics that are discussed here and the form of questions and answers that we want to have.
For example, there regularly are some ill-shaped-but-generally-tolerable-for-a-new-member questions about God, evolution, some obscure alleged "fallacy" or free will that make it into the HNQs, but just may not be a good fit to represent the type and form of question that we aspire to have here.
So, should we leave it at "is not directly close-worthy", for example because every kind of representation is better than none, or should there be some other criteria since this is really a huge factor of how our community is represented in the minds of users all across StackExchange?