It's pretty light stuff for a debate. If you are looking for a 'dry' debate on the issues of global warming, then begin writing papers and engage in that debate in the journals. Here, the debate has a 'rough and tumble' feel to it, a clash of wits, a riposte, a parry a rhetorical flourish etc.
The guidelines are guidelines to avoid the tendency for flame wars, insult fests and generally more heat than light - not to completely remove spirited debate. The thread is clearly not one of the bests here, but then you are contributing with the 'liberal elite snob' counterthrust. With a dab of 'atheist conspiracy' theorizing and incessant ad hominems against Al Gore for some reason.
If you weren't doing things like that, and you were still getting the attitude you have received, I'd consider stepping in. But you're part of the furball now. Extract yourself and take the higher ground, or try to outwit them with some coup de grace. But don't complain to the moderators if you try the latter and it doesn't succeed as you might have liked. Sorry.
Getting suspended 3 times in about as many hours contains all the hallmarks of someone who is likely to be a bad influence on the quality of discussion here. I don't think I've indefinitely suspended a non-spam bot person here before - but given Matt wasn't even going to play by the rules of a short-term suspension (posting whilst suspended on another ID) I don't feel bad.
It is not permanent. Matt could email one of the Admins and discuss terms for his return - the emails are public.
Starting at around Message 42 and it continues from there. Rrhain's defence when he feels he is being attacked seems to be to become sexually explicit. Onifre's response to this is to push buttons. It could probably do with an admin's attention. Given the history, I'm sure Rrhain wouldn't take moderator direction from me, so someone else I think needs to do the dirty work.
I read through it, and I don't see any significant problem. I mean, I see two people disagreeing, but it does kind of look like you are just arguing past each other. It doesn't seem to me to be dishonest or evasive. Towards the end it got hard to understand your position more and more since it became one line responses to single line quotes.
Perhaps you could post a summary of your actual position regarding the thread topic is as a means of reinvigorating the debate? A lot of the time, I think purpledawn is having the same difficulties with what you are trying to say as I am, and a detailed outline of your position may help overcome the problem of arguing past one another.
So an evolutionist who posts for the sole purpose of calling someone a babbling ***** gets one a 24 hour suspension, but a creationist supposedly being off topic on a science post gets a one month, or else a permanent ban from posting in certain topics?
I looked back at Panda's suspension record and noted that he received a 12 hour suspension back in September. Since he has not been a problem poster, but since he had recently received moderator action I decided to suspend for 24 hours without notice.
Foreveryoung had received two suspensions in April, one for the delightful 'go fuck yourself' and had been problematic without suspension in other places. It was because short term suspensions were clearly not working to bring foreveryoung back into line.
I'm not entirely certain what the problem is. Granted, there are some of frako's posts that aren't excellent, and I'd agree that some are of low quality. Frako has even received recent moderator attention because of this.
I don't have the time to do a complete audit of recent posts by frako, but if you had some examples in mind you could post them so that we can take a look. It would also be interesting to see if you have any suggestions for how this issue should be dealt with.
It would probably wise to note that you too have a tendency to make lots of short posts, some even one word long. Indeed, one of your recent posts managed the economy of just four characters (three of which were letters). You have of course received suspension when you managed to simply reply with a single word insult (Message 25). So if we're going to 'police' 'border-line spam' or 'clogging the forums' or a general low level of quality - you might find yourself hoist on your own petard.