I don't think the statement reflects their full reasoning when you consider the context of how they had been putting out other statements about why they weren't banning him.
Since his last comment is still visible, it's the comment he left afterwards that may have actually started the ban (and was removed). So this could be disingenuous.
Thanks for giving some context. I really believe that if you are banning someone you should explain your rationale. Personal attacks are not good and if that email is to be believed then it certainly seems like a justified decision. Hopefully the moderators will be able to improve on the optics of their decisions in the future.
> OP didn't say they engaged in no activity, they just didn't know why they got banned. OP probably did/said all sorts of things that would have justified it.
It's possible, but I felt like voicing the general concern regardless because at least some of these random permaban stories seem to be true.
> there is no indication that he was riling people up for the sake of it, and no indication that he would've become the incessant ban-dodger had he known he was banned.
Point of order: he did discover he was banned, and he did dodge it.
(I have no problem with this, because he shouldn't have been banned, and because we long ago reached the point where it's perfectly reasonable for a user to trust their own judgement over that of a moderator.)
The rest of the first paragraph also make it pretty clear he was banned because of cordless.
If you're still not convinced, the author added later in the readme:
> WARNING: Third party clients are discouraged and against the Discord TOS. There have already been cordless users that got banned, including me (Bios-Marcel, the maker and maintainer)
reply