They are allowed to post replies, just not using a username with their trademark in it. They can start a post with "This is Ian from ...." and reply to the thread. He recognizes this in his post:
The opposite is true actually. For one, Betfair was rejected because of the Happy Hour bonus and as I understand cannot advertise until they pay everyone. Absolute Poker/Ultimate Bet were also not allowed to advertise after their cheating scandals. Not knowing much about sportsbooks, they once made the mistake of taking a sports forum sponsor that was on Futurebet. Once this was brought to 2+2 management they immediately removed them.
2+2 has some strict rules and really they have to because of their size. OP was handled harshly and if he wanted he could appeal it. I have seen quite a few bannings reversed.
That itself seems harsh. This simply clarifies to other members that the poster works for the company concerned, and is giving an "official" view on something. Having to type "Hi, this is Ian from....." every time they post instead is no different in terms of exposure, but when they do NOT do this they can look like an ordinary member, and could thus HIDE their affiliation in other threads. They could do this, for example, to attack a competitor by posting what appears to be a "player's view" without other participants knowing that this "view" is coming not from an ordinary player, but a competitor.
There is also the matter of "rewriting history" by not just banning someone, but removing all traces of what lead to it. Here, the history is left mostly intact so as to retain a record of what went on. Moderators may make edits to remove links, etc, and may also lock the thread. This does at least mean the history remains available for reference, and can be found later in a search on the subject.
It seems that 2+2 have a policy of removing negative comment, even where it is factual, or at least not disproven. By leaving positive comment alone, this leads to a biased view of that particular operator, and if someone is looking for posts about them, they will retrieve a view biased towards the positive. Similarly, operators that are deemed "negative" by 2+2 have any positive comment removed because it is deemed "advertising", yet negative comment, even factually incorrect, is allowed to remain.
Although an operator can find a way to put their view, they have to negotiate a hurdle of rules which delays a response being posted, and this leaves the incorrect view unchallenged, and thus more likely to be believed.
As with here, many operators only become aware of comment when it is reported to them. They then want to QUICKLY intervene to post their reply in order to minimise the damage being done. The quickest way to do this is to sign up & post a reply straight away, and THEN worry about the "procedure" of becoming an official rep.
Simply challenging a comment is NOT the same as posting offers and advertising. Having a username similar to the brand is also NOT the same as posting offers and inducements to play.
The rules more or less REQUIRE an operator to assume a false identity and sign up as a mere player by choosing a player style username. This happens here, and it is CONFUSING to members because they think they are dealing with another player, rather than a representative of the operator.
The other worry about 2+2 is that once having paid, a representative can post ANYTHING, and anything negative about said operator is not allowed to be posted, not even by another member. This means that paying operators are guaranteed only positive exposure, whereas non-paying operators are likely to find that only negative comment remains, with any positive comment at risk of being removed because it is deemed "advertising".
It also seems that there is no "warning" system in place for those who stray, but rather a FIRST offence merits not just a ban, but a LIFE ban. Here at CM, there are warnings, and "vacation" bans that are designed to educate, and a life ban only comes when the warnings are not heeded, and the poster continues to misbehave.
Whilst 2+2 have banned operators such as Betfair, the system makes it very hard for a new scandal to be exposed involving a paying advertiser, because at first the posters run the risk of being censored because they have started to discuss the issues, but not yet managed to develop the evidence (which is WHY they have started posting at this early stage, they need input from others to investigate and develop the evidence).
It would be interesting to know whether the exposure of major scandals such as UB and AP were initially hampered by the draconian and "protectionist" rules regarding comment about paying advertisers.
We had a similar situation with CAP, where affiliates who had problems with sponsoring programmes were silenced by having their grievances removed, or even being banned from CAP altogether. This structure eventually blew CAP apart from the inside, and when all the "dodgy dealings" that they struggled so hard to keep hidden were exposed, they became a spent force.