Surely the role of a moderator is to moderate, which probably means to caution where appropriate, edit where necessary and delete as a last resort ... but never without explanation.
I agree entirely, but I think what happened here is that Chrissie didn't provide the explanation immediately
To remove an entire thread seems somewhat similar to throwing the toys out of the pram - or perhaps akin to a child picking up their ball and going home when the game doesn't go their way.
As I said, I haven't read the thread, but from what I understand Chrissie wasn't the one who was upset or was upsetting others, and if that's the case then the analogy isn't really fitting.
However, in removing all of the posts she has removed the useful ones as well as the ones that upset people - but I guess she was between a rock and a hard place here.
With regard to tackling individuals, that then sets up its own problems inasmuch as she would have had to have made judgements about individuals, and that is arguably a worse form of 'thought control'.
Whilst I'm very much opposed to censorship in general, I can see that Chrissie's action was probably the lesser of two evils, inasmuch as matters could have got worse had she done nothing. With that in mind, can anyone think of any other way of calling a halt to a thread when matters get heated and people get really upset?