Not necessarily DS9 per se, but the direction DS9 was moving in is what I think Temis
meant. A direction that Rick Berman and Paramount wanted to restrain out of an insistence that Star Trek be a family show that could be accessible any week, meaning that DS9 could have only ever gone so far.
To quote Ron Moore
in an interview:
IGNFF: It seems like most of the notes that would come down from on high were generally either to deaden or lighten a script. Is that assessment accurate?
MOORE: To an extent. I think it was more like the notes tended to become more conservative. "Don't take as many chances." "Be safer." "Don't go out on a limb with this." "Be careful we still like the character." "Don't let the character make too many mistakes." "Don't get too crazy with the ideas." They were just always conservative. You were always pulling back from something. You were never given a note saying, "Go farther. Go wilder. This needs to be more shocking." It was always "Pull it back. Be safer." Even in humor, "It's too funny." "It's too much of a joke." It was always make it smaller, make it more subtle… just play it safe.
I know you won't but I'll offer anyway: feel free to read the whole interview.
Anyway, considering the post-FC movies, VOY, and ENT all moved away from DS9 and none of them turned out any better, how does actively avoiding anything DS9 either did or try to do any better than not?
Aside from that, DS9 was produced and aired in the Clinton '90s, not the post-9/11 era. Though some people might not think so, they're two different times and a DS9 that was unshackled, unrestrained, and introduced in 2001 or later would've met with a different reception.