This fucking site.

If they disapproved of it, they should have deleted it.

If you delete it, you destroy evidence.

100 post threads are just mini-self celebrations.

Do you think it's a good policy to destroy evidence that justifies moderator action?

When the mods delete posts it tends to inflame accusations of oppression and conspiracy. 

I wouldn't call it bullying, although it'd be pretty rude.

If you delete it, you destroy evidence.

If you really care about that (and that isn't the argument bsh1 gave), then implement a moderator tool to "censor" posts which violate the rules. The general public would be restricted from seeing the inappropriate content, while moderators would still retain access to said content and could use it as "evidence" later if needed.

If it was illegal content, or pornographic content, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

Drafter, if you recall very early back in my modship, many users protested at my removing posts which violated the COC,

insisting that doing so was overkill. This desire was seemingly confirmed when the community voted to lock call out threads rather than simply deleting them.

Moderation no longer deletes posts in less they include links to adult content, doxxing information, or credible threats of violence or doxxing.

I think it is a necessary policy to delete posts and threads that violate the CoC.

Tough shit. What do you want to do, please people, or mod? You volunteered to mod. SO MOD.

You don't need a MEEP process to start moderating. You just need to start fucking doing it.

The scope of the question in the first link was more than just CoC violating posts, at least by how I interpreted the wording.

As far as the second link, it was an easy shot to make

Doing what you ask here would constitute a change in current moderation policy, which would necessitate a moderation policy. This condition of changing policy was something you strongly advocated for several times, including in that first link.

Then you could have easily cast a qualified vote, as some others did. Plus, it's impossible to believe that that was your actual interpretation of the question. If you really believed the scope was wider, you would have read that question as "should moderation lock or delete posts it dislikes," in which case you would have thrown a bitchfest over that dichotomy, which you didn't. Instead you were ambivalent.

There will, given the interest in this topic, be a MEEP process on this question of thread deletion and post deletion. 

It's interesting that one of the most heated complaints from members is that mods are heavy-handed and oppressive tyrants, but another of the most heated complaints is that mods are too democratic and not strict enough.