It was “due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith.” The frequency was a factor but by no means the proximate reason for the ban.
I don’t really agree with that being the metric, but that was what it was for.
It was for spamming. The news and articles weren’t wrong it was just too much at once.
It was “due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith.” The frequency was a factor but by no means the proximate reason for the ban.
I don’t really agree with that being the metric, but that was what it was for.
It was a bad faith ban. Should never have happened.
Liar. You’re were banned for openly admitting your agenda.