He banned you for a what seemed like a lot of different issue, but most notably, from you just saying your viewpoint (or the way you phrased your responses) and I don't see a ban justified for this, however if there is even one rule you are actually violating they can ban you. I didn't see anything personally wrong with the conversation on your side, you were mostly calm seeming and decent.

I think that the definition could exclude authoritarianism. However, the way it ended up implemented in popular examples people may point to, is what people see communism as being like. Possibly that's what he might had felt about it as well base don some of his responses .

I don't think correcting this perception of communism would require a specific type or form of communism, but rather just simply do vanilla communism upfront. What I mean by that is, without centralized authoritarianism. Communism by definition, is suppose to be stateless, and classless and a lack of currency. (lack of currency can be hard to achieve for imported goods, so I wouldn't be as upset over that one not being perfect day one.) however, classless and stateless as a foundation shouldn't be difficult. Achieving it in peace with everyone around might be another story, but actually applying it seems simple.

If some countries had actually applied it, then the issue was, there wasn't a large number of them applying it this way and because of that, communism is known for being authoritarian to many, when it is not suppose to be like that.

That's why I edited the comment.

The way you argued it could be taken as apologia. I have no way of knowing your intent, only what you wrote. All I (we) have access to is the thread.

It sucks, but sometimes, no matter how hard you try, shit may not read the same to everyone. People may use inaccurate words, or inaccurate usages, they may just be stupid, or have an axe to grind.

There was a point where that came up, a disagreement over what you meant vs what the mod in question thought you meant. I can't view both this and the original thread to copy/paste a direct quote, so the basic exchange was about whether or not there was a semantic disagreement. So both of you were aware that there was a fundamental barrier in communication.

One of the mistakes made by goat was that they never, that I saw, told you "I am a mod, what you are saying is breaking a community rule". They made their arguments as a user. Hence it being a power trip no matter what else went on.

I agree you weren't endorsing authoritarianism. At most your were pointing to it as a flaw in the specific nations discussed. But, unfortunately, there were other sections that could go either way. Again, I reference my edit that it could be interpreted that way.

This is where it gets sticky for this community, c/ptb. There's a point where discussing the original subject goes off topic here. So there's a limit to how much I'll go into it. That being said, I agreed with the point I think you were making. I just can't ignore for this purpose that the early part of the exchange was open to interpretation, and as both of you got more (for lack of a better term) annoyed with each other that goat crossed the line of acceptable mod behavior, and you got a bit more adamant in defending your position.

Again, this is me crossing past what's on topic for this community, but the way they have the rule written regarding apologia is not good. It could be worse, but it's phrased in a way that's a little too vague. That's why the later parts veer closer and closer to their definition. Their definition is like an ant lion hole. If you're already debating a point around authoritarian nations, as soon as there's a disagreement, one person or another is going to have to defend their stance. Any defense could be deemed apologia after a point in that process, even when it may not be anything other than a passing point in an overall discussion.

It's a badly constructed rule, imo. But, within that, you did cross the big, blurry line it represents. Were you wrong? No. But that's not the point here.

If goat had straight up said, "yo, I'm a mod, you're breaking a rule, stop it", it would be on you entirely after that point, no matter how bad that rule is. But they didn't. And then they kept arguing the points with you, over a decent number of comments where they could have acted as a mod and given you the warning as a mod.

Does that phrase it better? I don't want you or anyone to get the impression that I think the mod action taken wasn't over the line; it was. I'm trying to explain why that is, which includes that some mod intervention would have been appropriate, just not what was done.

Which, one last step into off topic, in the hopes that it might help any further discussion of this particular subject. Sometimes, when a conversation isn't going well, insisting on defining something the way "you" (as in any individual making an argument) see it can be counterproductive, even when that definition is the most accurate one. Sometimes, shrugging off someone else's inaccurate usage of a term or idea isn the only way to progress in a discussion that isn't being mediated by a neutral party. Being right is only useful if being right is the goal you start with (and it's fine to do so!). If the goal is to talk about a subject, being right is less useful than being on the same page.