Based on Dischino's advice, I will flag this as a Q for AG so they can review the previous thread between SF and YN.

To weigh in on the over-moderation of the CUU forums, there is little doubt that it is over-moderated. I'm not a hub leader there, so I do not have the ability to see if the over-moderation is due to one or two heavy handed moderators. I can tell you that it feels like censorship. I'm in a hurry, so I will be brief on my reccomendations (knowing in advance that I have difficulties being brief):

1) If two moderators are fighting on the forums, it makes zero sense to only demote one of them. Doing so automatically indicates that one "is right" and one "is wrong." AG should avoid taking sides in these circumstances (especially when the right and wrong is mired in mud). You should have demoted them both unless it was painfully obvious that only one was to blame. It takes two to tango (sorry for the cliche). In the specific case of the CUU thread that caused the demotion of YN, I'd argue that WG was equally deserving of a demotion.

Please understand that I'm not attempting to defend YN. I'm simply throwing WG under the same bus. They were both being ridiculous in their attacks back/forth. To demote YN without demoting WG seems highly lopsided, and the actions taken have inadvertantly and wrongly vindicated WG's position. WG was posting with an obviously bad attitude, and he was using inflammatory language that pretty much guaranteed he would receive a negative response. His posting style in that thread was entirely unbecoming of a Hub Leader.

There's no way he should have retained his position while YN was losing his. They were both equally culpable, and they should both have been demoted over it.

2) I understand from YN's public posts on CUU that he received no notice of change from AG leaders. I do not understand why AG would fail to notify any board member of such a severe punishment. I've received notices from AG regarding post removals before. I cannot fathom why a post removal would be deserving of a notification, while something much more drastic like a moderator demotion would not receive some sort of equal notification. PS: If YN has since received such a notice, then this point is moot, and I would then apologize in advance for mudding up the issue.

3) One HL on CUU has publicly stated that another HL reported a violation, and then that same HL processed their own report after 24 hours had passed. This should NEVER be allowed to happen, and in my opinion, such actions by any HL should be grounds for demotion. The only exception I can think of would be the odd forum that only has one HL. In this one instance, a HL should be allowed to process their own violations after a given time period. However, CUU is overrun with HLs, and the "one HL" exception is just not the case here. On the BXX forum, there are two HLs (of which I am one). RogueWolf has been MIA since early August. I would still have severe reservations about processing my own violations. I am thankful that I have not yet been in such a position.

4) Recommendations: I like the recommendation system. Is it possible to have a "do not recommend" of some sort? The value of a thumbs up is lost without the counter possibility of a thumbs down. I've seen many posts where people pine for an ignore system. A system that allowed a poster to "not recommend" could introduce a more balanced view of what a good post is. Even as I type this, I will acknowledge in advance that I DO SEE where/how this type of system could go sideways with unscrupulous people falsely flagging a post as "do not recommend." PS: I refer to this type of system in the case where a post has not violated any rules thus avoiding a violation report, but the post is still is of little value. This is just a paragraph of a suggestion. I'm sure there is much value in discussion for and against. Opinions?

5) Moderators: (cliche alert) The best salespeople rarely make the best managers. The posters most knowledgeable of a stock IS NOT a good litmus test as to whom should be made a moderator of a forum. Proper forum moderation can be done by people who know very little about a stock or company. Proper forum moderation is about managing the posters, and it is not about micromanaging the quality of each individual post. I think there's a suggestion here, but I'm not sure what it is. Perhaps a reconsideration of what it takes to become a Hub Leader? Or perhaps a Hub Leader can be elevated for quality posts, but hub moderation can be only for people that have a clue about forum moderation? I don't know... your thoughts?

6) The deletion of a post by a forum moderator should require a short message from the moderator hitting the delete button much in the same way that reporting a violation requires a short message from the person reporting the violation (and then auto-email or auto-PM the short message to the offender??). "Deleting this post because it broke rule #1 of 6," or "Off Topic" or whatever... would all work. Almost anything is better than utter silence. Having posts deleted with NO hint as to why they are being deleted does not help anyone understand what they've done wrong. Without any indication as to why their post was deleted, the original poster is unable to consider how best to reform their message such that it is not a repeat of the same unknown violation.

PS: I'm sorry it's so long. I tried to be brief, and once again I failed miserably. I do, however, hope there's value here.

Hayz