If you continually break the rules for an extended period of time you're going to be permabanned eventually. If you look at his posting style it's pretty easy to see he probably would have had about 20+ infractions over his MTF career and a few temporary bans.
For the castlers who claim he was never abusive unless provoked - that is absolute rubbish. Most of his "clay warrior" threads were just circle jerks among his buddies with a my way or the highway mentality. How many threads did he asked the mods to "take out and have some random animal relieve itself on" just because he saw it as a Nadal hate thread?
I'm not going to say whether he should be permabanned or not. Do any of us really know how many bans or infractions he collected? We don't. The assertion that he shouldn't be banned for bunch of "minor" offenses is absurd. Why should you be allowed to stay if you continually break the rules and show no sign of stopping? He's been doing this for years now, it's not something new. Realistically if the mods got real CD should be the first of a whole list of permabans. MTF has a ridiculous amount of posters whose only purpose is to troll and provoke their opposing tard bases.
I didn't really want to get involved in commenting among opinions here, but I'll make one exception in this case because it provides an example of one of my main policy complaints.
leng jai, your assertion by inference that someone should be permanently banned for x number of "minor" offenses is similar to saying that an individual comitting x number of misdemeanors offenses should result in life imprisonment, simply because enough is enough. No, "the punishment should fit the crime" logic should be held to here. If he violates a minor offense, give him the appropriate penalty for that. Repeated offenses for that minor offense should result in elevated penalties, but never to a level for a more serious offense. For example, violation escalation should be warning, infraction, 1 week ban, 2 weeks, etc. up to an appropriate maximum - say 1 month. Continued violations should then result in that maximum penalty repeatedly applied.
I realize this is not a court of law, and the owners and administrators have the right to run it in the way they please, but it seems to me that good judgement goes a long way in keeping a site like this open and commentary freely flowing while still providing a measure of control without censorship.
Another example of good judgement I know of, since it was well publicized, was when you got a reprieve for what is considered here to be a rather serious offense - Double account.
I think in your case, the sentence was eventually rightly judged to be overly harsh and reduced.
You should at least be sympathetic to judgements not being made purely by the numbers.