Fundamentally any punishment is intended to remedy undesirable behavior
Yet when there is no definition of what is desirable or undesirable, punishment crosses the line into abuse as, it is not possible to prevent a repeat of the behavior without an understanding of that behavior.
One possible suspension reason is, Don't Be A Jerk, which is as objective as a dump cake, but at least it is comprehensible from a democratic perspective.
Then there appears to be another category of magical "rules" of a purely arbitrary nature. These leave you with the message,
This account is temporarily suspended for rule violations.
But a paradox arises when moderators are bound not to discuss what causes suspensions. The penalty as a tool is made moot.
Consider a user who wishes to pursue the Strunk and White badge by bringing updates and improvements to 80 posts. In so doing, I have apparently hit some "speed limit" which suspends your account without warning upon making multiple edits in a short period of time.
If I were to click this very tempting "go get it" button in pursuing this badge on that account (I am not, this screen capture is from another community), what then? Well, here is the how the efficient good housekeeper is dealt with:
I suffered a moderator message with the following language attempting to define the "rule" which was violated:
We have noticed a large amount of edits in a short period of time over a large amount of question (we have counted 15 edits in the span of 1 hour). While editing posts has nothing wrong per se, doing it in such large numbers heavily skews the post queue and gives the edited posts an unfair exposition with respect to other posts.
To be fair, my "crime" was not in pursuit of the badge, but in learning that I had ommitted one relevant tag (extreme-environment) from several questions I had posted in constructing my literal "Hell" planet. Yes, I am now in Hell for tagging Hell with the extreme-environment tag... too quickly.
I shall call this the Unfair Exposition Rule (UFE). I do not feel this qualifies under the "Don't Be a Jerk" suspension, because it is clearly a plain mathematical calculation that any computer can measure. It is a “speed limit” of sorts, which has nothing whatsoever to do with a member’s behavior, if the word “fair” is to be taken seriously. Editing in “large numbers” (a measure of arbitrary undefined personal opinion) may be 15 edits on an off day, or may be 30 edits on a very busy exchange. “Fair” seems to suggest giving members equitable time on the front “activity” page. Edits don’t do anything detrimental to the front “newest” page or “score” pages, but by trial and error we learn those pages don’t matter. SE has decided that the “active” page counts edits and votes equally, and so good community service by fixing posts creates inequity. The SE response, if this moderation action is sanctioned, is to have arbitrary human exception handling instead of an inescapably fair mathematical handler.
This amazingly and curiously unpopular quest for objectivity could serve as a posted speed limit. The definition of such an offense appearing on Meta would greatly enlighten both the community members and moderators who attempt to enforce the UFE rule. Posted speed limits do create work, but they are not as horribly evil as you may think?