It just seems to me he is more being punished for his aggregate behavior than anything he did recently
I think this is correct. I don't think that his recent behavior, taken out of context, would justify a six month ban. Put differently, if any member of this board with no disciplinary history posted as he did, I think six months would be excessive. However, I don't think that we have to view hal's recent behavior divorced from context.
By analogy: Someone with no driving violations who is over 21 in the United States may drive with a BAC of 0.06 (for instance). However, someone who has had a DUI will not be permitted to drive with ANY alcohol in their bloodstream for a period of time; because they broke the rules once, we consider it fair to hold them to a higher standard for a period of time (usually a year, in many jurisdictions.) After they've completed that "probationary" period, they are again subject to the same standards as the rest of us. But, if they again drive >0.08, they're going to face much stiffer penalties than a first-time offender. If they do it four or five times, their license will be revoked for ten years.
hal is like a tenth time DUI offender who has been arrested for an eleventh time for driving with some alcohol in his bloodstream, after being ordered not to drive after drinking period. Sure, he's in trouble for 0.06, where the rest of us would be allowed to skate with that BAC. But that's the downside of repeatedly breaking the rules. Those second, third, fourth, twentieth chances come with stricter conditions attached.
hal will come back in six months, and he will do exactly the same thing again, and the Rangers will be foolish if they do not seize that opportunity to ban him permanently. hal will be satisfied with no less.
ETA LOL, cross-posted with yov and River, who made both of my points in fewer words.