He has been banned or punished several times before and there gets to a stage where it becomes pointless. None of use know how many bans plus infractions he has had so it's fruitless to just say "well he shouldn't be permabanned because IMO he wasn't that bad". Don't forget you have probably missed a large percentage of his worst posts which would have been deleted. I've said this whole time only the mods know the whole picture and unless they outline all his offenses (which they don't have to) then none of us are in a position to say indefinitely if he deserves it or not.
This is a side rant but it makes a bit of a mockery of the moderation that this is even being reviewed. Presumably they probably would have considered permanently banning CD for quite a while now. You'd hope there was a lot of consideration put into it before it was finally done and to have it reviewed almost immediately is not exactly a glowing endorsement on their ability to make the right decision.
leng jai, yes, your situations are/were different. But pertinent logical comparisons can be made.
Whatever the excuse, you knowingly
violated one of the most serious
rules on the site - double or multiple accounts.
I'm would have to guess that the moderators/administrators also reviewed your case before initially banning you for the prescribed period.
Your defenders rushed to your defense claiming that you deserved better and to not just look at the violation, but look at it in context of your posting record and in the context that you were "doing it as a joke". Based on this complaint, the administrators/moderators rightly
re-reviewed your case. This required a completely subjective judgement on the part of the administrators/moderators. They quite rightly
(in my opinion) ended up reducing your penalty.
Clay Death had a relatively minor
infraction that happened to be reported (We know many of these types of infractions are not).
This minor infraction caused him to go over an arbitrary limit of total infractions that got him permanently banned.
This is the point I'm arguing. This kind of infraction should not get him permanently banned, it should get him banned to whatever the penalty of that infraction dictates for him. If he's violated that rule many times, then he should get the maximum penalty for that particular infraction, which shouldn't be much more than the minimum penalty for a serious offense.
Regardless, I find it rather sad that you, you who have had leniency granted to you upon re-review, apparently so dislike the poster in question (this must be the reason, I see no other), that you feel administrators shouldn't even re-review this case. It is the height of double standard/hypocrisy, and should be called out as such.