I don't agree that it is [perfectly fine](https://meta.superuser.com/questions/1724/is-it-alright-to-use-the-flag-option-to/1726#1726) to use the moderator flags in matters of voting-to-close. 

The Moderators would be the first to say that they are perfectly happy take a look at questions that need attention. That is admirable, but what you are requesting amounts to a *supervote-by-proxy*, and I don't feel that is appropriate.

Flagging should be reserved for *egregious* problems (blatant spam, illegal posts, profanity, etc). If you *feel* a questions should be close as off topic, **that's what voting is for**. If a questions doesn't get the votes, it shouldn't be closed. Otherwise, all you are saying is "my one vote should be enough." If Moderators have to act on these *I-think-the-community-should-close-this* flags, **then the community is not doing their job**.

I agree there are *certainly* scenarios where manual intervention may be warranted: Problems with a very old question fallen out of public view; illegal or personal issues where the community *chose* not to act appropriately; etc. In those cases, certainly, flag for moderator attention. **Moderators are the "human exception" handler.** But moderators should *not* be called to intervene in routine system community self-moderation unless it is absolutely necessary.

> ...I need to document what it is, exactly, we expect moderators to do. The short answer is, **as little as possible!**

> — [A Theory of Moderation](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/)