Should the post ban message be reworded?

Question

We get tons of posts from users asking about bans, perhaps assuming that their case is somehow different from the others, or that the ban was incorrect, or that they need to ask a question now, etc. Of course, the intent of the ban is to get those who just want to post crap to leave the site, and to get users who genuinely want to learn the guidelines to know the only way out of a ban is to improve their existing posts and have them upvoted. Also, for question bans, users are given the opportunity to ask one new question six months after the ban.

The wording of the ban message, "we're no longer accepting new [questions/answers] from this account", is very contradictory to the above, and seems to encourage people to bypass the block. Let me break it down for you:

We're no longer accepting new [posts]

This wording, by itself, implies that the decision is final, irrevocable, and will not be considered further, which directly contradicts the truth. We are willing to reconsider after they have improved their posts so they're well-received. (But not otherwise, but it still contradicts the truth.)

from this account.

This part, especially the word "account", encourages users to create new accounts and change their IP addresses to keep posting their crap. As the anonymous editor, I was susceptible to getting my IP banned just for submitting one edit that tripped a filter, and I used a VPN to successfully bypass those blocks. I imagine that the post ban IP filter is probably that easy to bypass as well.

Anyway, to summarize, that text implies that the block is final, and the only way to get past it is to create another account. We don't want those users to keep posting crap after having been warned and rate-limited; we just want them to either just leave or learn how to make good posts. For this reason, I think the ban message should be reworded. I'm not quite sure what it should be, but here's one suggestion:

Your ability to [ask/answer] questions has been revoked. For more info, see [help].

That refers to "you" as a person, not a specific account.

If the message can be longer, here's another suggestion:

Your ability to [ask/answer] questions has been revoked, because your past posts were not received well by the community. You must improve those posts before you can post again. For more info, see [help].

Let me cite some example users who recently posted about their bans here on MSE: one user came out to us that they had used 30+ different accounts to keep posting crap after getting banned 30+ times. Another user's more recent questions were very well-received, but their past posts were very negatively received, and even after posting good questions once every six-month allotment a few times, were unable to get out of the ban. Thus, I think it's important that our ban message refers to "you" as a person, not a specific account, and includes instructions on how to get out of it (if they're willing to follow them, of course).

Thoughts?

Answer 1

This is the message you see if you hit the comprehensive question ban:

That links to this page: https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/question-bans

...which explains in detail what the message means and how you should go about getting it lifted.

Now, you might think that the goal here is to get people to read that page and do something about their ban... You would be wrong. The goal is to get them to leave the site and never come back. That doesn't always work, but it has a reasonably good success rate.

For those cases where it doesn't work, there are two options:

1. The asker figures out how to work around the ban.
2. The asker reads the help center article and fixes their posts.

Both of those require a bit of work. Which works in our favor, since for anyone to get to that message in the first place, they have to have ignored a huge whopping pile of guidance and warnings thrown at them repeatedly in the past: first from the warning system, and then from the rolling rate-limit system.

In short, there's a really good chance that folks who see that message aren't willing to edit, read, or even click a link. The other measures present in the system exist solely for those vanishingly rare cases where this assumption doesn't hold.