3 ms·

Thanks for the heads up, I just read the comment guidelines and I don't see which one you think the above comment violated I would say that to a person in pers

Thanks for the heads up, I just read the comment guidelines and I don't see which one you think the above comment violated I would say that to a person in person and I think it highlights that there is another perspective for the person to consider, mentioning those things because I think they would be the closest arguments the tribunal would consider given those guidelines Also thought given the plethory of tech ad startups these days, I figured others would agree with me, but since you called it out, I'll take the hint

Retric 10y ago
Be civil > Well thats a naive opinion. Civil commentary is about more than just language choice. As a rule of thumb object to content, not meta information. You can replacing dumb with naive, but the underlining commentary is about the messenger not the message. Now, with some actual commentary it's less obvious. But, when the entire comment is simply a snippy one liner it's just filler. As it stands I can guess what the objection was, but not in any meaningful fashion. PS: If I would change the rules I would make it clear that it makes boring reading is one of the major things to avoid.