I am against this idea.

If we disable site features below a certain rating threshold, it weaponizes the rating system in such a fashion as to incentivize down voting to "shut somebody up," especially when they are near the threshold. Further, regaining that reputation is basically impossible once you can't post, since posting is the best way to gain reputation. Not only is the reputation gain from upvoting other posts and whatnot slow and throttled, it provides no way to facilitate teaching the user in question how to improve their behavior and similarly incentivizes gaming the rating system by upvoting one's entire quota per day until one crosses the threshold again. Not to mention the difficulty involved with users who fluctuate on the cusp of the threshold.

Agree!

I'm also somewhat in favor of capping low scores to zero rather than negative, at least for non-mods/staff. But I don't think it is worth the effort.

It would help give individuals the opportunity to change their ways and improve... unfortunately, I can also imagine that implementing it would be somewhat difficult.

For the roughly a full decade since the site got reputation scores, they've basically done their job well. It was extremely effective at removing trolls and idle banter since people feel a bit of pain to their ego when they see their trolling posts harm their reputation. Since 2010 when the votes were tied to a specific post it has been mostly an amazing thing at giving feedback to people to where their comments were not well received. (Occasionally even high-scored people like Hodgman or I get posts with some downvotes and it serves as a great feedback of ways to improve.)

The site is extremely liberal with points, especially since the ipboard transition in 2010. Then even more generous with the 2012 revamping of points. You get a point a day for logging in. You get points for upvoting other posts, you get points for bookmarking posts or being bookmarked, you get points for creating journal entries, points for submitting news articles, and more. I can easily imagine a member picking up a hundred points in a day without posting a single comment to the discussion boards.

So while I think the feature would be great to those few members with negative scores who are trying to improve, I don't think it would be worth the cost or difficulty to implement. There are very few individuals who are active in the board with sub-100 scores, and less than a handful of them who have sub-zero scores. There are plenty of ways those with low or negative scores can jump well into the multi-hundred values within a single week if they try to work the system and make a concerted effort to contribute, or even an effort to game the reputation system.

I really don't think it's appropriate to make this a thread about you, because I absolutely don't think it's necessary, courteous, or professional to do so or to facilitate other users on this forum doing so. That's why I cleaned up any identifying remarks the first time; but as you're the one who made it about you this time, I'll say this:

I don't mind they have a bad opinion but when they are allowed to spam about it and even make threads about it, they are the problem.

"They" (users on this site) are not allowed to spam about it or make threads about "it" (their opinion of you or your behavior). That's why, as above, I have repeatedly cleaned up threads that went off the reservation into "bash the guy with the huge negative reputation" territory. Those users are not being rewarded for this behavior at all.

I see this constantly with pointlessly harsh posts in benign topics.

Your own posts have been flagged for being "pointlessly harsh" several times; you should realize this, as it was mentioned in the messages you were given when you were suspended. Which brings me to

I have been banned three times now, all of them for ridiculous excuses.

No, you've been suspended. Banning is permanent; suspension is a temporary break, usually given to impress upon a user the seriousness of the issue at hand but allow them a chance to turn that behavior around. I don't want to ban you; we (the moderation team) have been exceedingly lenient in your particular case given the number of people who have essentially been calling for your head on a pike.

Since your most recent suspension I've been rather encouraged by the significantly more even-keeled nature of your posts (the "flag mania" thread perhaps notwithstanding, because that's a topic that in general I just don't want to read). I really hope you take this opportunity to continue in that vein.

For everybody: I will be watching further posts in this thread extremely carefully, particularly for signs of "pile on Graelig." Don't disappoint me; I will not be particularly lenient. When you have a problem with a user or the site, the correct response is almost always to flag the post in question or the user's profile or in some other way contact a moderator or staff member rather than engage directly. That applies here just as well.

Don't we have a rep filter like the one on Slashdot?

Such a feature could be useful if optional and defaulting to show all posts. That way, people who want to not see low rated posts, or posts from low rated users could filter them out without it being a blanket ban on someone's opinion...

If we did this, we would need a threshold around the 100 mark if we still wanted to see new users.