TempleOS isn't a standard by which the utility of hellbans should be judged. He's pretty much the definition of edge case.
Most hellbans are probably spam, followed by people unaware of what random and arbitrary rule they broke at some point in the past, followed by trolls.
For those not aware, he's a paranoid schizophrenic who believes that God lives in the OS that he wrote from scratch. He's fairly well known around these parts as TempleOS/SparrowOS/LosethOS.
He's a racist schizophrenic religious fanatic who never, ever posts remotely on topic. Some of his posts advocate death and violence. How in the world could this be considered an edge case? It's the definition of creepy. Isn't Losethos/TempleOS/whatever more like the reference case for hellbanning?
The way I understand it hellbanning is supposed to protect us from both spam and abusive content. TempleOS is both.
You're right, but I don't have a clear picture what the typical hellbanned user looks like. There are spam bots submitting stories, but you don't see them in discussions. Hellbanned users you actually meet in threads are, at least as best as I can recollect, most often posting normal stuff that wouldn't rank as low quality. Sometimes I click on their history to see where things went wrong and it's usually not hard to find this one post that ended their account. It doesn't matter if all the rest of it was pretty good, that's all it takes: one glitch.
I'm not sure if I'd say this is a good system or not. Maybe it would be more productive to have a time limit on bans that result from one-time offenses.
Agreed. I just couldn't help point out a some-what famous example right here. Sometimes I convince myself that it's just random garbage, but then I find comments that are a little bit on topic but still are incoherent rambling. I can't help but be intrigued.
Most hellbans are probably spam, followed by people unaware of what random and arbitrary rule they broke at some point in the past, followed by trolls.