I would very much like to see this site continue to grow and improve, and am happy to pitch in however I can.
I am a lay person with no professional experience in this field. I do have a Bachelors in Psychology from the University of Toronto in Canada, where I graduated with Honours and was on the Dean's List for scholastic achievement.
My participation on this forum has been limited by a full-time job, plus running my own business on top of that. However, I plan to retire from both next year, and hope to dedicate much of my free time going forward to science and technology, especially cognitive science.
Initially, my availability will continue to be limited, though I am already on the site daily (for over 3 years), answering questions (#3 overall), reviewing posts (#2 overall), and assisting as time permits. I also promote the site whenever I can to people I meet at local science meetups that I attend each week. Starting next year, I will have time to contribute in more ways, regardless of moderator duties.
Currently, a fairly small community of users contribute to the review queues, the meta site, and other administrative functions. As such, it is often necessary for moderators to step in where they might not be needed on more active sites. It is important then for unilateral moderator actions to be representative of what the community wants, and what is best for the site going forward. This is by no means an easy task, and requires being proactive as much as reactive.
My main focus is on the quality of the site's content. As pointed out elsewhere, the Stack Exchange model works well for IT stacks where answers can be easily tested to see if they work as advertised, but suffers a significant shortcoming with stacks that are not easily verified, as OPs and voters may not be well equipped to evaluate accuracy. Combined with a site that is not very active, and much of the user community having limited expertise, there can frequently be highly voted and/or accepted but low quality answers. As such, I do believe that posts here need to be actively curated.
Pseudoscience: I would personally prefer to see this site (as any online reference) strive to improve the accuracy and validity of its content. I am well aware of the characterization of various areas of psychology as pseudoscientific, but my approach is - rather than accepting this as an established standard - to continually strive to improve. As such, one thing to expect from me, as alluded to elsewhere, is a greater emphasis on research quality and reduction of pseudoscience content. That said, communication is key, and I would always prefer to give the user community an opportunity to object to moderator actions before (and after) taking them.