MN deleting threads because the OP has a tantrum

[MatildaIThink]

A serious question, why do MN do this?

It seems to be a regular occurrence that an OP will start a thread, when they do not the response they want they will then have a tantrum, start telling posters they are wrong, etc. and MN will then delete the thread.

I don't agree with closing down threads just because someone disagrees (rather than say libel or other legal issues, or personally identifying information), however outside of those circumstances it seems excessive to delete the threads even if there is an underlying mentality of wanting to close down the debate, surely it would make more sense to leave them standing as a record of what has been said, even if they are locked so that no one can post any further (which still seems excessive)?

What is the reasoning behind the daily deletions of threads that happens purely because the OP has a tantrum?

Oh yes, you’re right. Perhaps it was just that it doesn’t immediately disappear from the notifications tab. Thanks

@AtlanticCityProof - a hidden thread should not appear in your 'I'm on" list - if it does, would you mind letting us know, please?

Thanks @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet
I think it was just that it stays in notifications.

I think it depends on how you look at the thread. If you basically consider it a conversation between equals, then I would see why you don't like the idea of one person being able to shut it down. However, if you think of it as someone going to speak to a person, eg citizen's advice or even a health professional, presumably that person can leave the discussion any time , usually if they have the advice they need or if the advice is creating more problems. They wouldn't be "forced" into continuing a conversation.
I understand and agree with what you mean about shutting down discussion on a wider front, but if threads are set up with the primary focus being help for the OP then, they should remain in control of the situation where necessary

I think it depends on how you look at the thread. If you basically consider it a conversation between equals, then I would see why you don't like the idea of one person being able to shut it down.
That is how I generally see it yes.

However, if you think of it as someone going to speak to a person, eg citizen's advice or even a health professional, presumably that person can leave the discussion any time , usually if they have the advice they need or if the advice is creating more problems. They wouldn't be "forced" into continuing a conversation.
I see it as more of a general discussion, but also my issue with the above interpretation is that no one is forcing them to continue the conversation, if they do not want to then they do not need to continue, it is the matter of them stopping other people's conversation that I disagree with.

I understand and agree with what you mean about shutting down discussion on a wider front, but if threads are set up with the primary focus being help for the OP then, they should remain in control of the situation where necessary
The thing is almost every thread evolves and multiple discussions happen, it is the OPs ability to terminate everyone's discussion because they did not get the replies they wanted that I disagree with.