On my experience, 90% of the time there’s more to the story than what people claim to be banned for. I’m not saying that 100% of that 90% of the time necessarily justifies the ban. But it usually changes the context significantly.
Fair enough. Officially I was banned for making a post that violated the subs rules, which I never did. In reality I was banned because a mod didn’t like my attitude. I made a post asking about union materials, but I noticed that the post never went up, so I sent a mod mail asking if there was something wrong with my post. What I got back was a snarky remark about the mods not being bots and they have to manually approve every post and how dare I ask that question again and waste their precious time. To my surprise I made a post about a year ago and it didn’t get approved after 7 hours so I sent a similar inquiry. Naturally I had completely forgotten about this interaction, so I thank the mod for being petty enough to look it up and mention it. Basically a case of give snark get snark, and they didn’t like it and decided to power trip. That’s the whole story.
Did you read what wrote? I was permanently banned and my post was removed because they said it violated the sub’s rules, which it didn’t. That’s officially why I was banned. I didn’t lie about anything here.
I’d consider it a lie to say you were supposedly banned for violating a rule when you yourself acknowledged that you know that’s not the reason you were banned.
You could have included a qualifier such as supposedly or ostensibly and then explained the full context up front.