The Good Place

First, that was not a ban - it was a brief suspension which was discovered to be unwarranted.

Second, if you have the whole thread to read, you can see that that brief incident was a silly misunderstanding, during a discussion over whether or not Darat was a bit of an ass with respect to moderation (with respect to another member). Darat misunderstood something I wrote, and jumped the gun to suspend me. Once I clarified, it was overturned. Weirdly, it turned out to be an example which contradicted the moderators' previous claim (that I did not need to worry about running afoul of moderation, given that I didn't engage in problematic behavior). 

There had a been a discussion earlier in the thread about giving false information when signing up for the forum, as one of the reasons a member could be banned. At that time, I asked for clarification because I had given the wrong answer to the question "first name?" when signing up. I gave the name I go by, rather than my first name, thinking that it would be confusing to sign my posts with a name which was different from that given on the membership agreement. Darat (if I recall correctly - this was years ago) confirmed that that substitution was fine. Later in the thread, the topic of bannable offenses came up again and I used that example to show that there were caveats to the claim that false information on the membership agreement would get you banned. I said something like, "for example, even though I gave 'false' information on the membership agreement, I am not in danger of being banned for it." I don't know why Darat didn't think I was referring to the "first name/name you go by" thing.

Linda

At Skeptiko it was often called a temporary ban. JREF called it a suspension. Semantics. Anyhow, this post is the last I will post on this because I am not getting into one of your interminable games of last.

Darat wasn't the only one so your claim to being the poster child is still far from credible (only someone with an ego of Trumpian proportions would even make that claim about themselves). Here's another post from the same thread from someone with the username, "remirol", designated "Senior Wrangler". Clearly remirol had precisely the same impression of you that most at Skeptiko had so this should look familiar to those who have been around that long.

ETA: Regardless, the behavior in this thread is near-identical to the behavior in the other thread that I'm referring to -- refusal to speak clearly unless asked 'yes or no' questions, hiding behind semantics, and in general spending a great deal of time obfuscating, being disingenuous, and trying to play 'gotcha' -- none of which are 'honest' means of communication.

That was in response to someone called Francesca who suggested:

Originally Posted by Francesca R

It is because the "correct required information" can still be false information.