but see? That's the conundrum. I guess I didn't explain that part well.

When we lock a thread instead of removing a single post, it's usually because BOTH parties/camps are complaining about the other. Both have *some* good points and neither are completely crossing the line. If we intervene when it's questionable, then we get bashed for censoring. And if we let it go to see if members can work things out, then we're being negligent. When posts aren't crossing the guidelines, then it's all so subjective that it's not so easy as 'delete the offending post', because more than half the time, both parties are offending each other. We could delete the entire post, but that causes even more upset because all of the GOOD responses are also removed. So we lock it so that members that posted to the thread can still read/appreciate the good parts.

We always consider most of the points mentioned here (whether Sky believes me or not), but when we decide to lock instead of remove a single post, more often than not it's because the issue isn't completely cut-and-dried and we err on the side of NOT removing a post -- to avoid being the type of moderators that censor subjectively.