Oh...
That sucks. That was some of my better work of late.
However, this now intrigues my inquisitive side. At times, I have posted other joke type posts in Talkback threads which did not seem to phase anyone. At least that I know of. It's possible you deleted some posts later and I never knew.
Which is a crime against free speech! I'm being oppressed here! So, what is the line as it were? What is ok silly and what is too much silly?
For that matter, what are the Talkback guidelines? When people come and post venomous posts against a review or reviewer they disagree with, the angry stuff is allowed but silly, irrelevant posts are not? For that matter, if you look at other sites, many times you will see comments devolving far away from the actual article topic. Sometime into angry rants of users versus users or into users posting gifs and jokes and doing some creative mocking of something in the thread or that someone said. There are times where the conversation just goes off on a different point into a whole other topic that people just talk more about instead. That latter option will happen here a lot. However, since the comments and discussion no longer have anything to do with the article posted, does that mean those comments should be deleted? Because they are discussed more seriously, does that make them more relevant than posts made for humour? Both are off topic. Both are better than the first option of hostility.
Is it because the articles and then Talkback comments under them are more likely to be read by non forum users that there is fear the comments need to reflect well on the site? I think that would be a terrible reason. It's like how it is cheaper for a business to maintain a current customer than to bring in a new customer. Getting new people to visit the site and post comments on an article is not easy. The article really has to cause a reaction of some sort of either praise or criticism to get some people to go through the process of creating an account and then posting their thoughts. If they do, it's more likely for the criticism reason. Then you have to hope they keep coming back to see more of what you write and aren't just here for this one article or visit and then gone back to other sites they frequent. A site needs traffic. If no one is coming to read your work or pay attention to it, how can you hope to continue it or support it?
With regular forum users, they are the ones most likely to comment frequently on lots of different articles. They are sort of fans of the writers and the stuff that they produce. There's a better camaraderie between themselves and the writers versus someone who posts once a year and is an infrequent user. A bit of that effect came into play during the Mario Kart 8 reviews and the bonds between loyal readers sticking up for the site against the attacks by non-users. To then tell the loyalists as it were that it's great they use the site but their personalities aren't what we want to project or that they bring down the level of the site because they want to appeal to people who don't post or actively support them is a bit of a turncoat move. Moreover, they are the ones who can often be a big force in bringing in more users by encouraging other people to use the site or check it. Or they can reach out to new users and encourage them. I've seen that done plenty of times over the years. Shyguy took the lead in doing some stuff like that a few times. It's going to be easier to bring in new blood with similar personalities as the loyal users than ones that clash. Therefore, trying to present an image that is only partially correct or perfectly polished does no favors in forum and user growth as it will just lead to disappointment from things not being as they appear.