First of all, I looked at your recent account history and it seems fine, so I've unbanned you. I'm sorry you stayed banned for such a long time, even while posting comments that were within the site guidelines (well, mostly within the site guidelines). We always unban such accounts when we see them, but we don't always see them. Sometimes users email hn@ycombinator.com to let us know about a username in this category, and we always look and are happy to unban if the account no longer shows signs of posting abusively.
> Pretty surprising and sad that you would ban me for a comment like that. Reading it back three years later I’m not wildly proud about it but I don’t think it’s ban worthy.
It's clear from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16118062 that I didn't ban you for just one comment. It says: "We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines with uncivil personal attacks and by using the site primarily for ideological battle. Those things are not allowed here, regardless of your politics, how right you are, or how right you feel you are." That's obviously about an overall pattern of behavior, no?
> A ban mechanism that eventuates in the banned user logging on and participating for 3 years before realizing no one can see their comments is a shadow ban! If you wanted it to be clear there should be some messaging besides a comment reply.
Definitional arguments aside, yes—you're making a fair point. It's on our list to fix this, perhaps with a probation system that tells people they're banned for a time period (at least at first) and then unbans them. Most people respond well to feedback, so it's possible this will help in other ways too. However, don't underestimate how much damage is caused by accounts that wilfully abuse the site and take advantage of such systems—it's hard to design something that's both fair to the majority and not so vulnerable to abuse.