I am aware that my high-visibility position in the community means that I am under higher scrutiny, and that I should act with more responsibility than the regular users. But the question is not about that.
It is about cases where I just want to express an opinion, and others take it to mean that it is sealed in stone. I sometimes purposefully abstain from using the tools at my disposal, choosing to just post the opinion the way a regular user could do, in the hope that it will lead to discussion and give others the chance to disagree. But users seem to think that this is a final ruling, not just an invitation to express their own opinion.
Other times, I can make a post in a situation which requires no moderation (such as writing a Stack Exchange answer), and get lots of positive feedback; then I go back and see that I have made substantial mistakes (I was either unconcentrated when I wrote the answer, or lots of time has passed and I have learned more on the topic in the meantime). But nobody called me out on it, they showed only positive reactions.
I wish to participate in my community in ways beyond enforcing policies. Is this possible? For example, if I see a discussion (not needing moderation) and all sides have failed to notice something which I think is a relevant point, should I bring it up so they don't make a decision based on incomplete information, or should I keep out of the discussion because they are likely to equate my new suggestion with official site policy? How can I balance being a contributing member at times, equal among equals, but keep the authority to resolve conflicts when it's needed?