[dang]

Please don't copy and paste comments that appear elsewhere in the thread (and especially not as an end-run around moderation, if that happens to be why you did it). We have nested threads here so people can reply to what they read directly.

The issue isn't brevity, but the toxicity that I described in my comment. I'm not sure I can describe it any better than that.

[stonesvsglass]

It was a comment not everybody wants to hear (esp. everybody who got their jobs this way), but that very true accounts how this kind of meetings go -- as you mention Schadenfreude, ask the Germans how the burning of books works, exactly this way

[dang]

> not everybody wants to hear

No, but you're reading this thread inaccurately, in my view, if you think the rage and snark side is in the minority, let alone so weak that it needs additional protecting.

I appreciate that you're concerned about the integrity of the discourse—we share that—but you don't seem to consider the costs of what I just called the rage and snark side. Those are considerable, and probably the largest risk to this community.

If people start getting rah-rah and kumbaya about everything, I don't think we'll have trouble adapting how we manage this site. The goal is the same either way—substantive discussion. But we humans deceive ourselves into believing that the merely bilious is substantive, when it's not.

[stonesvsglass]

I don't support any follow-up comments ala "fuck you" etc. - however, if you consider this sort of "accurate" representation of how things go already as harmful, you know the reason of president-elect Trump.

...just because you don't want to hear it, doesn't mean it does not accurately describe a situation. And the OP was not overly mean - just very concise in describing a typical SV situation.

...I don't have any stakes in convincing you, nevertheless I considered it an overreaction worthwhile to react myself