Yes, in some ways this is a thread about a thread, although its actually an interesting general point too. Plus, I don't want to carry on the discussion on the actual thread as it would be too damaging and would take it off in a completely different direction.
So... If a poster broke the rules and shouted troll, and then they were chastised (rightly) and the post removed, unless the offending surrounding comments reacting to the troll-hunt are removed too, the damage has been done surely?
We assume when someone posts regarding a personal trauma that they are telling the truth (well I hope we do) and if we suspect anything, we surely just ignore these days: we know the MN guidelines, etc.
And we know that certain situations in life happen to a lot of people (bereavement, loss, break-ups, etc). So when someone goes through a horrible time, the beauty of MN is that we don't just get sympathy and unmumsnetty hugs; we get empathy from folk who have been there themselves. We also often get bloody good advice, practical and emotional.
A thread that contains an accusation of troll-hunting is blindingly obvious even when the offending poster's comments have been removed. And thus, the damage is done.
When my dad died last I had some fantastic support from mnetters who'd suffered the loss of a parent and knew how 'rootless' it can make you. I'd have been confused and beyond upset if anyone had questioned my grief online. It doesn't matter how many positive posters there are on thread; just one snarky comment and the wave of a pitchfork is enough to send the OP packing, at a time when they might need the 'anonymous' support of MN most.
So, what I'm asking MN Towers is: if troll-hunting is banned, and it's fully acknowledged how damaging this could be on a thread that offers support to lots of people, often not just the OP, shouldn't all references and posts regarding an accusation be completely removed so the thread can remain intact and totally focused on the thread subject? Otherwise, it seems pointless.