Can you tell me what the score is with posting a thread and saying you're only wanting it up for a while then you're going to get it deleted?

[mathsgsceresit]

Just I was posting on a thread which has now been deleted or hidden until the MN team can take a look at it.

I have no issue with the OP of the thread (just to make that clear!) but they said from the get go that they were going to put the thread up just for a short time and then get it deleted.

I didn't think that was really how it was supposed to work?

Is it possible to get some clarification on this?

Thanks.

The exact same thing occurred to me on reading that OP.

WB Olivia

Mumsnet is not a place for guaranteed support.
Support I'd not a condition of use.

It was started by two people at the kitchen table to swap advice on family life with younger children.

So if there IS a point to this thread, it's that Mintyy made a really good casserole and then fucked off.

Mumsnet like all other forums is what you make it for yourself.

Bloody hell I mean could you imagine an op where you asked users what the point of mumsnet was? Agreements would not be frequent.

I have indeed started a welcome back thread.

Olivia (welcome back!) has basically said TSSDNCOP and Read The TGs. Which is fair enough.

This is a very rare, perhaps unprecedented, phenomenon that highlights an inconsistency between published guidelines and actual practice.

On the other hand, there is a TIW thati s so "outy" it could prejudice legal proceedings, yet it stands and MNHQ say it doesn't need deleting.

It's none of my business but it is baffling.

Bet Olivia is so glad she's back and having to bang her head on her desk already.

It was a legitimate question, which the OP has had a roasting for. Well done for standing your ground OP despite many posters trying to twist your words.

I don't see the problem with the OP either.

It needed clarification if posters were under the impression deletions would be made without question.

@MrsHathaway

Olivia (welcome back!) has basically said TSSDNCOP and Read The TGs. Which is fair enough.

This is a very rare, perhaps unprecedented, phenomenon that highlights an inconsistency between published guidelines and actual practice.

On the other hand, there is a TIW thati s so "outy" it could prejudice legal proceedings, yet it stands and MNHQ say it doesn't need deleting.

It's none of my business but it is baffling.

Not sure which thread you're referring to MrsHath - would you mind reporting it again and saying we asked you to so we can explain our decision?