Intentions aside, the comment does not actually read as a request for clarification. Here's the comment:

> So you don't think Vanessa's behavior is at all wrong or problematic (since you didn't mention it at all here), and the blame lies 100% with the OP? Or, for that matter, with the DM? – TylerH 2 hours ago

This isn't actually requesting the author clarify their post, and it isn't requesting an improvement to the post. The measure of a good request for clarification or suggestion for improvement is that it is **actionable.** As in, I can tell if it has/hasn't been acted on, or there is something in there inviting me to do something which I can either do or decline to do. It's not enough for such a request to be *implied,* it must be *actually said.*

It looks based on your other deleted comment like you wanted the author to comment on Vanessa's part in this.

That wasn't how it came across. Regardless of your intentions, the way this comes across is criticising the author through accusation [of something they didn't say](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman). Comments [aren't for nonconstructive criticism](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment). Further, this kind of discourse generally comes across as a verbal attack, regardless of what we might have actually meant by it. This is the kind of comment that can and did start an argument.

The following comment would've been a clear, reasonable, actionable suggestion for improvement which would not as likely have been deleted (until of course it was actioned or declined); it's paraphrased based on your thoughts expressed in your most recent self-deleted comment:

> I feel adding some commentary on Vanessa's part in this is appropriate too. Even if the OP did something wrong, it's also clear Vanessa was doing something wrong, and other answers are commenting on this as well.