Me: "O.K., I get that randomness in a chat can lead one to get banned and thus ideally one should be careful with what they say. However, say a person is never given a warning (in-chat or DM) of toning it down, including messages being deleted in-chat or timed out. I mean not once. One day they go to the chat and find out that they got banned. Person DM's a mod asking why! If a mod blocks that person, to me that says either of the following: That mod was in a mod to ban the person to abuse their mod powers? Why do I say this? To me, a good mod would inform the person either in-chat or DM that the non-mod has to tone it down. Now, that is also a concern. Why? Though very rare, it is possible the non-mod is saying stuff that doesn't break the spirit/letter of the chat rules. In other words, the mod know that but is still abusing their mod powers. I have been booted and blocked on many social media pages. To go with the above, I often broke the rules. However, there are times I inquire on why I got booted but am never given a response back. That sucks because it leaves me wondering did I break the rules or was it because some power-hungry mod had a thing against and booted me for no valid reason. Just for once I wish I had a case of where I could I prove was unjustly banned on some social media forum! In the rare cases that it is proven that a person was indeed unjustly banned from a social media page (as in, user didn't break the rules or at least not enough to warrant a ban at that moment), do you agree that the mod who unjustly banned them should be banned and non-mod be unbanned? Here, unjustly means the mod banned them maliciously?"