[lcrz]

> Seems a little ironic to use unprofessional language in this situation.

It's not ironic. Forceful language (and rather tame still) is not just as bad as a 'joke'. The offence was not at the unprofessionalism of the joke, but at the contents of the joke. That is what fuelled a discussion.

Removing the line from the CoC also was not a response to the joke. It was a response to the ensuing discussion about the joke.

Talking about proportionality as if the change was brought because of the joke is as questioning the proportionality of WW I to the death of archduke Franz Ferdinand.

The 'verdict' as you call it, does not go into detail about the contents of the joke, because it was irrelevant to the reason of why they made a change. It could have easily been a different joke.

[type0]

> Removing the line from the CoC also was not a response to the joke. It was a response to the ensuing discussion about the joke.

> Talking about proportionality as if the change was brought because of the joke is as questioning the proportionality of WW I to the death of archduke Franz Ferdinand.

I first thought your response was a joke, but maybe you actually mean that, put some emojis next time to show if you are joking

[angelzen]

Humor has a fundamental role in bounds probing in a social setting. Make a joke, observe the (nonverbal) feedback, preserve social bonds through shared laughter. In a world driven by CoCs, there is no room for laughter.