There are three levels of action possible when a post is flagged by a violation report. If the violation report is not substantiated, no action is taken, and the reporter of the violation loses points. If the violation is modest, the poster is warned about the violation, but the post remains up. If the violation is serious, the post is deleted. In the latter two cases, the reporter should receive (but doesn't always receive) an email confirming the correctness of the violation report. For higher ranked posters, only Agoracom administrators can delete the post, so it can take some time for justice to be done. It could be many hours later, and the post is bumped to the next page before it disappears. You'd really have to pay strict attention to know the ultimate fate of a president's post following a violation report.
For mailroom and treasurer level posts, there is another system that also can be used. Rather than by violation report, there is another option to simply delete the post. Two clicks, and poof. The latter system can be undone by any hub leader, and I do often briefly restore a post just to see what was deleted. If I disagree with the original decision, I leave the post visible. Otherwise, I quickly delete it again.
I can only speak for myself, but I interpret the post in the context of the violation before I look at the status of the poster. My standards do not vary in any way. A violation is a violation. The apparent inequality across different ranks lies with the fact that even an egregious violation of the rules by a high-status poster can still only be dealt with by Agoracom. I disagree with that, not only because it appears unfair, but because I've seen that taken advantage of. That really tarnishes the idea of obtaining privileges in the first place. There should be a demotion in rank for that kind of thing.
Lar
