[dang]

Re your first statement: certainly I've addressed that issue many times, but I can do it again: I don't believe that claim is true. It merely feels true to people with strong political passions, because everyone always over-weights the contributions of their enemies and under-weights the contributions of their own side. The significant thing—I was going to say "the ironic thing", but it isn't ironic—is that this class of politically passionate users all have the same perception even though they may have entirely opposing beliefs. In this they resemble each other more than they do anyone else.

I don't understand your second statement.

[immibis]

You said you banned me, but what you actually did was reduce my rate limit to 2 comments per rate limit period.

You deleted a comment from me where I said that drugs don't let you access extra dimensions or planes of existence, just alter your mental processes so you feel like you do. Care to explain that one?

Other moderated comments included: "HN has word-based flagging" and "flags should not be used to indicate disagreement".

[dang]

We definitely banned you, for the reasons I gave at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46699941. Banned accounts can still post to HN but their posts are killed by default.

You seem to be asking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46694184 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46691754. Those comments were killed by user flags. That was before we banned you.

[immibis]

The buck always stops with the platform owners. You don't get to blame users for moderation decisions.

[dang]

By that argument, it's we who are doing all the upvotes, downvotes, and flags on the site. I don't think most HN readers would look at it that way.

The distinction between moderation done by users (votes, flags, etc.) and moderation done by admins (killing posts, banning accounts, etc.) is long established and well understood by the community. It's not about blaming.