>>56215628It's about the image and transparency. Take the solarbeam spam incident two months ago as an case example. A fatload of anons who in some form or capacity engaged with the threads about the move or the schizoids who tried to spread their shitposting spree outside of it got banned for a month, regardless of whether it's intentional or not. Think about the public bans page for a second: If they display a permaban or a thirty ban for something that potentially could've been a accident or extreme then it would look really bad on them.
Reposting what another anon posted on the matter:
They mainly highlight ban evasions because they want to show that stuff like VPNs or IP switching won't stop them from going after rulebreakers. Putting a 30 day ban for one thread or general as spam can backfire when looking up the archives to find out that it wasn't actually spammed and was the only one of its topic up at the time where it got deleted. Which is why it's better for them to not display them to avoid exposing potential blunders.
By acknowledging/replying multiple times to a rulebreaker, they'll eventually spread the hammer out to both affected sides.
