I don't think having a "long" moderator makes any difference with how posts are adjudicated on I-Hub...aside from what dcbass said regarding the ability to retrieve deleted posts for editing. If a poster adheres to I-Hub's TOUs, then there posts won't (or shouldn't) get deleted.

I think posters need to understand I-Hub's rules for posting and work within their rules/parameters in order to make their points on a stock and not feel like they are being unfairly treated. I'm in no way defending I-Hub as I don't agree with many of their policies and moderation and they already have a proven record of illegal stock manipulation (i.e. Matt Brown):

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21053.htm

However, I have heard countless complaints by posters about I-Hub screwing them and deleting their posts when, accordinig to I-Hub's Terms of Use, their post should in fact have been deleted. In these cases it isn't I-Hub out to get longs, but it really boils down to a poster violating a TOU rule which nullifies their post.

Experienced bashers know I-Hub's rules and have adjusted their posting behavior accordingly so that they rarely have their posts deleted. Any poster can say whatever they want about a company or its BOD. It can be an outright lie and that is allowed to stay as long as the post is considered on topic as far as relating to the company - regardless if it is a bald-faced lie or not. The rules are slanted to bashers in this fashion, like it or not. Although a basher could just as easily argue that a pumper can say any lie they want about the company in their favor and it is incumbent upon the basher to refute it.

The problem is that longs who read lies or distortions about their investment have an emotional response because they have a financial attachment to the company. Bashers don't share that same emotional attachment, so they just keep rolling along saying anything they want about the company, whether it is factual, truthful or not, and the posts remain because they are merely attacking the company, not other posters.

Unfortunately, most longs have not adapted their responsive behavior to conform within I-Hub's TOU parameters and as such, their posts are most often deleted for TOU violations. They begin to attack the poster because the poster is lying (and it pisses them off) when they should be refuting the lies that the poster makes. Oftentimes a long will put together a lengthy and thoughtful post to counter a basher's claims, but they just can't resist getting in a subtle zing about the basher...and that is what ultimately disqualifies the entire post. I know, I've been there.

As moderator on I-Hub, I read the deleted posts and see why they are deleted. Even as a long on the boards I moderate, I have rarely been presented with a deleted post that didn't have a TOU violation in it. The exception being that there are some moderators who delete posts for the wrong reasons...that is actually quite rampant with Rocketstocks on the SFMI board. I have gone back and forth with him a few times on posts that he deleted and I restored and then he deleted and I restored, etc. until ultimately I had to bring in Admin to adjudicate the post. In every case he was wrong. In those cases where you feel your post was deleted in error, you have the right to protest the deletion and have Admin review it. Admin will overrule a post that was deleted in error. Occasionally I don't agree with Admin's rulings and I have found that Admins do make misinterpretations of TOU between each other, but that doesn't occur often.

Anyway, the point I'm making here is that although I-Hub's rules are inherently slanted towards basher's agendas, most of the complaints about I-Hub being unfair to longs is because the longs have not been able to post within I-Hub's TOU.

And for the record, I hate playing devil's advocate for I-Hub.