Wrongly warned for threatening violence?
I got a warning (and appeal denied) for a comment in a thread about people cutting down trees unnecessarily, and told a story of a neighbour who had just moved in, cut a lovely large tree down at the front of their house, then moved out shortly after. I ended it with ‘I hope a tree falls on their new house’. Clearly an exaggerated joke.
The warning was for rule 1: threatening or encouraging violence.
First of all, I didn’t threaten or encourage anything. I’m not a tree, and I can’t encourage trees to fall. I’m fairly sure violence doesn’t apply to an inanimate object, from an object that isn’t conscious, but regardless, it’s impossible to encourage it.
Secondly, there’s an example of what this rule doesn’t apply to - ‘people who leave the toilet seat up should be shot’. This clearly aligns with what I said in that’s an exaggerated reaction for effect, except the example is far worse if taken at face value.
So what’s going on here? Why would I get a warning at all and not just the comment deleted if it’s too much? Why would the appeal be denied if the rule obviously doesn’t apply?