How can a sub-Reddit ban me for this?

[Speedy]

531 upvotes should be enough to keep it active.

Will Collier wrote:

[mattkime]

>You were banned for not having the requisite knowledge to post here.

This would make for a MUCH smaller internet.

[vision63]

USENET level petty.

[Dennis S]

TLDR: 15 YO kid jumps on guys hood. Estimate was $5,000. Guy is suing kid (minor) for $30,000 for damage, suffering, BS, etc. I merely asked shouldn’t the guys insurance pay for fixing it. All hell broke loose.

After I got banned and gingerly made my case I get this from a mod:

ME: Can I defend myself and say maybe I’m naive and that I thought if the injured party was made whole by their insurance company, they would have no reason to sue?

MOD: No. Because you were posting things that were incorrect. And you're still incorrect. The injured party would have no reason to sue if made whole, but the insurer would have reason to sue.

ME: I wasn’t being a jerk or smart alec and don’t think I should be permanently banned for being naive?

MOD: You weren't banned for being a jerk or a smart alec. You were banned for not having the requisite knowledge to post here.”
_________

I still think the guys insurance should pay for it. And why would they go after the remaining $25,000. This is just nuts.
And I can’t argue too much or I’ll get permanently banned and I need the medical forums. I wouldn’t know how to sneak back on.

[Rolando]

You were not offering advice. You asked a question for clarification

[Dennis S]

Rolando wrote:
You were not offering advice. You asked a question for clarification

I know. I have to keep my mouth shut or I’ll get kicked off totally. There are some subs that are very important to me.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

Dennis S wrote:
Some of the subs are run by little nazis.

This. I’ve been banned from two subreddits:

- from r/antiwork for having the temerity to suggest an OP was being less than truthful about not knowing he could have sued his employer after losing a limb to an on-the-job accident that occurred more than a year prior to his post.

- from r/OldSchoolCool for… well, I actually don’t know what for. I reached out to the mod to request clarification three times after being hit by the ban hammer and never received a single response.

You say nazis, I say insufferable twits, but… yeah.

[RecipeForDisaster]

Funny, I was called a vegtard on a sub and reported the post, yet it was fine with the mods. The guy threw other insults at me as well, just because I said I sometimes use a knife on two different items in my kitchen without washing when they are going into the same dish.

[Sam3]

I don't understand, how does a little, petty nazi subforum, have the power to ban one from all of Reddit?

And a legal advice subreddit's mods don't understand the difference between posting advice and asking a clarifying question? They better go back to school, evidently they didn't learn English.

Bunch of idiots.

[Tiangou]

The rules of the sub are pretty clear.

Advice, only. And strictly adhering to these rules.
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wik...eral_rules

Comments should contain a legal answer or a strongly related non-legal answer...

You weren't asking a clarifying question of the sort that would allow one to provide accurate legal advice. You were asking something in order to clarify it in your own head.

I've had posts removed for similar reasons. Didn't perfectly adhere to the topic. And yeah, it felt weird like they were being exceptionally strict just with me because long-timers seemed to have a little more leeway.

Never been banned, but I can see why they banned you. The question demonstrated that you were not an appropriate party to comment there.

The appropriate way to respond to the mod is "Thank you for your response. I understand now."