I have written this for a general audience, as I expect the background info may be interesting to other site members, with the part responding to the specific Meta question above near the bottom of this answer - see the section titled "Specifics".
To be clear: The behaviour being referred to in the question here was not very bad. The comment was problematic in the context where it was made, and it was flagged both times. Despite most people not questioning simple "mod comments" from me and the other mods, a site member has chosen to do so today. So, to give some explanations to them and others, I'll explain the process I went through. I won't give this level of explanation every time - life is too short.
One more point: The reason why mods react to (what might seem to some people to be) relatively small behaviour issues, is because time and time again, we see something similar to the following sequence of events:
- Person 1 makes relatively minor but snarky, perhaps unhelpful, perhaps condescending comment(s), perhaps aimed at person 2, or perhaps aimed at the general audience but making fun of (i.e. mocking) person 2.
- Person 2 at some point gets frustrated, perhaps they flag person 1's comment, perhaps they don't. However they are so annoyed that they reply back to person 1 in a way that breaks the Code of Conduct, angrily saying that the comments from person 1 were unhelpful / condescending / whatever.
- Person 1 then flags the angry comment from person 2, even though person 1 started the problem in the first place!
- Then quite quickly we have several flags, some angry people, and we have to sort out the mess, if we're going to rescue that question or answer for the benefit of the site and other site members. We want to stop things before they reach this stage.
(What should have happened is for person 2 to flag the snarky comment from person 1 and then disengage - do not reply further at all, no matter what the provocation. Leave it for the mods to deal with. That way, person 2 does not get into trouble, for the problem caused by person 1.)
People will always be able to criticise what mods do.
If we delete comments and we do leave a comment explaining why, we can be accused of escalating the situation, as everyone can see our comment. And if we don't leave a comment explaining why comments were deleted, then we can be accused of not explaining the reasons.
(And before someone suggests it, it would not be proportionate or appropriate for us to write an official private moderator message to each site member in most cases where comments have been deleted. We already get criticised for sending the more serious warnings using those messages, as some people see them as excessively formal. We will never keep everyone happy.)
So it's a no-win situation for us. Also some people are really aggressive / sarcastic / condescending etc. when they write flags to us, appearing to be very angry. Therefore it's easy to see why those people won't be happy if our actions don't agree with their reason for flagging - and we don't agree with every flag that we receive.
(But thanks very much to the site members who have privately thanked us for the work we do! It means a lot.)
General moderation of comments
FYI there is a guide (not a rulebook) for moderators when moderating comments. That includes the point:
Moderators may generally process comment flags without much deliberation: if it doesn't immediately appear to be needed, remove it; if it might be, leave it. There are almost always more useful things to do than to stress about comments.
In other words, it is up to the writer of a comment to make sure that it clearly doesn't break the Code of Conduct - as we're not expected to go searching around for context, nor to search for non-obvious interpretations. The Meta.SE topic "Let's hold language in comments to the same standard as posts" linked at the bottom of this answer, is worth reading.
Personally I have chosen to usually not add a "mod comment" when I delete the first comment on a question or answer, especially if it wasn't in the "abusive" category, as it might have been (and looking back on previous events, it often was) just a "one-off". No point in shining a light on someone's mistake in that case, and it's simply not always realistic for us to write many comments from a mobile phone, or on a train, or in a restaurant, or with kids running around, or wherever we are. As explained in the linked article above, we generally just action a comment flag and move on.
However, time-permitting (and this can be impossible in some situations - see examples above) I personally may consider writing a "mod comment" if we are getting multiple flags on one question or answer. There I try (within the constraints of comment length and my available time) to explain what problem / behaviour is being flagged and should be stopped. That's because, as evidenced by getting more than one flag on a question or answer, the problem is ongoing (i.e. it's not a one-off) and therefore it may need our active intervention. I did that in this case, as more than one comment had been flagged.
In my early days as a mod, I found that sometimes my gentle warnings was ignored, and problematic behaviour would continue. Therefore these days I am usually more direct. Also, I have had situations where unkind comments would continue despite multiple deletions, as if those site members thought that after the deletions, there would be no repercussions. That is why, if it seems appropriate, I now remind people that deleted comments may count towards further mod actions. If you choose to write something that gets flagged for a valid reason, then self-deleting it (or having it deleted by mods etc.) is not a "get out of jail free" card.
As is my usual approach, I didn't name any specific person in my "mod comment" related to this question above, to avoid causing them unnecessary embarrassment. In this case, they have identified themselves so I'm also free to name them and to explain more.
How comments can be deleted
For those who don't know, there are 4 mechanisms by which comments can be deleted (or 5, if you include that SE staff can also delete comments):
You can always delete your own comment. Of course you will know if you did that.
If a comment includes certain trigger words (e.g. certain profanity) then a single flag from a site member will delete it, without mods being involved.
If multiple site members (minimum 3, but can be more for comments with a positive score) flag a comment then it is deleted, without mods being involved.
After a comment is flagged, it appears on the moderators queue. If actions 1, 2 or 3 above don't happen first, then we will see it when one of us next views the queue. We will review and action the flag (perhaps after a delay) in line with the Code of Conduct and the Guide to moderating comments mentioned above.
The point is that if your comment is deleted, and you didn't do it, then either other site members or moderators (or SE staff) took a deliberate action. Comments don't disappear for no reason. Posting the same comment a second time is unlikely to get a positive response from whoever flagged it, if the first posting didn't. I cannot think of any situation where repeating a comment, that was deleted by anything other than your own action, is a good idea.
One final point that some people don't realise: Comments should be considered as temporary "Post-It" notes so even though most comments don't get deleted, they can be.
In this case, the OP's question included the text:
I don't want to run the simulator everytime to calculate the total charge time so a formula would help so much.
So it's quite clear that the OP knows that a simulator could be used, but wants a maths approach.
In a subsequent comment, the OP also said:
The fact that is that I want to calculate it with a formula without using a simulator or pc .
Again, quite clear, they are looking for a solution that doesn't include a simulator.
Then Andy aka commented:
To reach the exact value takes infinite time.
The OP commented back:
@Andyaka how about the time it needs to reach the %90 percent of the source ? You have a mathematical approach or formula ?
Again, no mention of simulator, which has been unambiguously stated as a constraint earlier.
The next comment from Andy aka was:
I have a simulator.
This was flagged and therefore deleted. The reason is quite obvious - it doesn't answer the previous request ("You have a mathematical approach or formula ?") and the OP has been clear up to that point, and since, that use of a simulator is not the solution to their question.
As explained above, for a first deleted comment, no "mod comment" was added.
Nothing more would have been seen or done if things had stopped here.
However Andy aka later added the same comment (with a notification back to the OP):
I have a simulator @GNY
This was again flagged and deleted.
The problem is three-fold:
a) Repeating the same comment after it was already deleted once, made it appear that the author doesn't respect that the comment had already been deleted once by one of the deletion mechanisms (see above).
b) This was yet another example of similar behaviour which has been flagged recently by other site members - short and/or unhelpful comments which come across as snarky.
c) The OP already made it very clear that use of a simulator is not what they are looking to do. Therefore saying (twice!) that "I have a simulator" while giving no relevant help, comes across as passive-aggressive.
For example, if someone asks "I want to paint my door in blue paint, and I don't want to paint it any other colour. What blue paint do you recommend?" and the other person replies "I use white paint" then, at the very least, that is not constructive. It can also come across as a passive-aggressive condescending criticism of the "asker" for choosing blue paint in the first place.
If the reply had instead been "I only use white paint, so I don't have any blue paint to help with your request, sorry" then that's fine! By being longer and explaining why the comment doesn't answer the original point, it wouldn't come across as being snarky. Or say "sorry, I can't help you", or "sorry, I don't know", or just don't reply - there is no requirement to reply, even if a comment is aimed at you.
The problem in this specific question, was caused by short comments that didn't address the point being asked, which therefore come across as snarky, and were repeated. That caused multiple flags to the mods, so we got involved.
So, to your question Andy aka:
Are my comments to be counted towards another suspension
All aspects of someone's behaviour are considered when that person has caused enough of a problem on the site, that mods or SE staff believe they need a "time out" (suspension) (a) to protect the site from that behaviour, and/or (b) to give them time to cool down. All flags are recorded and may be considered by mods / SE staff when considering if a suspension is appropriate.
It's not as simple as X comment flags = suspension, as we are forced (due to the infinite variety of human behaviour) to consider each situation on its own merits.
if so, on what basis are they seen as being unfriendly (or some other thing)?
I've explained above why the repeating of a short, unhelpful & previously deleted comment warranted a "mod comment" to send a clear warning, and stop the problematic behaviour. I also explained why, being short and not constructive to the point being asked, the comments came across as snarky. And below I have offered some guidance which may help.
As I said at the beginning: Your comments in the specific question you linked, were not very bad. No-one is claiming that they were. But my "mod comment" was trying to give you an early warning that your choice of how to comment, is still causing problems, as evidenced by the flags. I have also explained why mods react to seemingly small problems because they can (and from experience, often do) escalate into larger problems.
This is also in the context of your disagreements with other site members on another topic very recently, which also led to flags being sent in all directions.
And in your recent Meta question, other site members either gave you feedback in comments (or upvoted them) about how your comments sometimes come across as rude, dismissive, hostile and condescending etc.
Your question on this Meta topic said that you didn't intend your comments to be offensive. I accept that, but we've gone over this already - we don't do moderation based on intention, as no-one can be sure of someone else's intentions. As a Stack Exchange staff member said to you recently: "Regardless of intention, we need to moderate based on the negative impact your interactions are having, so we recommend that you review the CoC, our guidance, and adjust accordingly."
In order to try to give you some helpful feedback (even though I guess you will likely disagree): My view is that your comments are often so short that they seem to convey annoyance and irritation partly due to their brevity. If you don't mean to do that, then this is something you can address to change how your comments are perceived by other site members. For example: Add more explanation. Don't be vague. Clearly address the point being raised. Don't be critical of other people (no "ad hominem" attacks) nor say anything which could appear to be making fun of someone else.
Or, if you don't feel like doing that, then don't comment. With very few exceptions, IMHO your answers are well-written and show your great skill & ability. So perhaps comment less and focus on writing answers?