Could it make use of gifs?, I find images to be funnier than trying to come up with something that doesn't sound like you're delib trolling =P.

Do you have a link to such a post?

However my advice for such specific queries would be to PM Smeags/Trucks about the issue and ask why it was removed. There's a possibility that the post was moderated but a note forgotten; or that the report was removed by accident...however asking in this thread is unlikely to provide you a more in-depth response or as swiftly as sending the PM asking for feedback directly. 

What if the moderator likes the user that was reported and decided to remove the report?

Can you say this kind of thing never happens?

I can't speak for anything which has happened in the past month, but if there was ever a conflict of interest (which happens rarely) then the mod(s) involved would stand aside and not participate in that discussion, thus lowering the risk. It's definitely something I never did or saw happening. 

Can I say for certain it's something that has never happened? Not at all. But the mod team is a professional team and one which works around any potential bias to arrive at a just and fair decision for the user in question; regardless of who they are. On a different note, anyone doing something like this could be caught all too easily (the head mods can see who dismissed the reports) and so you have to ask, what's the point of running the risk?

Having said that knowing the current mod team all too well I sincerely doubt that anyone in the group would do anything like that and if there was a potential conflict would, as I mentioned earlier, offload the issue onto something else and stand back from the discussion surrounding that potential moderation. It's impossible to say for certain it has never happened; but this is where knowing the team, having a large active team to lower these conflict chances and having faith/trust in the moderation on this site is key.

Are you referring to the post by Zero targetted at LurkerJ?

If i remember correctly Leadified gave an in thread warning after those posts were made. We discussed moderation for the above two users but decided against it because of the warning in the thread.

I can state with confidence that the mod team operates with as much impartiality as humanly possible.

We moderate users according to the rules of this forum and based on what's best for the community. We don't seek out bans for people whose opinions are different from our own, and we don't ignore rule-breaking posts if they're made by people with whom we socialize. When we moderate, we do so according to the post(s), the context of the thread, and the user's history. Friendships don't factor into the equation.

We can't say that it never happens. But like Cone, I doubt its happening.

The head moderators can see which mod hid reports, so there's no hiding from your report hiding :P. However I doubt the heads are going over every single hidden report and checking who is hiding what.

Personally i discuss every decision i make in the mod chat before making it, whether its a warning, ban, thread lock or hiding a report. Even if theres no other mods on at that point in time i explain what my thought process is and why i've taken the decisions i have. The mod chat retains all history i believe so if theres ever a query on a decision I can go back to that point in time in the chat and see what my thinking was.

Yeah id feel pretty shitty if people started saying we were bias towards our "friends". I've already had to moderate fellow users i was on good terms with or people i consider friends and in some cases that doesnt go well.

Indeed; but that's part of the job. The mod team can't allow certain users to gave a different set of rules compared to others just because of personal bias, and I'm glad that I can say with confidence that isn't the case. Clarity here (be it between the mods in mod chat or to the community) is the key.

Had a quick look at the posts you referenced earlier too. It probably doesn't mean anything but I agree that an in-thread warning is the way to go here.