I think this is a tricky one. My immediate reaction is that the post isn't rule-breaking - you're allowed to call opinions silly and nonsensical. But there's a surrounding context which needs to be taken into account, and other factors at play as well.
Firstly, because he's on the permanent points program, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. He seems to think that means we're out to get him, but it simply means he used up all his chances dozens of infractions ago. He has a track record of breaking the rules, and has been told in no uncertain terms that he no longer receives any leniency, as might be afforded to those with limited infraction records, possibly including those he's arguing against. The permanent point policy is very clear - if you find yourself on the program, all rule-breaking behaviour will result in an automatic 3PP infraction, unless there's some compelling countervailing reason. He is on the program, and hasn't made any recent application to be removed from it, as he is able to do. Also, this post wasn't sought out for infraction (though reading through a thread with an eye for rule-breaking behaviour is not a bad thing), but was simply responded to because it was reported (by someone other than the target).
Secondly, there is a hint of an argument in the appeal that "if someone else breaks the rules, then I can too". Which is not the case. If his post is rule-breaking, it doesn't really matter for this appeal whether other people have or have not also broken the rules. That being said, non-RD threads present a particular challenge, in that what is rule-breaking is partially determined by the tone of the discussion. A couple of the basic principles behind non-RD threads were that they'd grant a bit of an opportunity to call a spade a spade, or to give as good as you get. If someone enters a peaceful thread and starts acting belligerently, that will be treated differently to the same behaviour in a thread in which they find themselves under attack, or in the middle of a forthright argument. Obviously there are limits, but my point here is that they are flexible limits, highly dependent on context.
When a poster enters a non-RD thread they are consenting to a bit of rough handling. I think this extends to having your opinions called silly and nonsensical, and I reckon that probably happens fairly often, too. It's probably too simplistic to leave it there, though, because in this case, calling the opinions silly and nonsensical was the sole content of the post. It wasn't that Forma decided to engage with the post and characterise them in that way in passing. He simply made a post for the sole purpose of calling the preceding one silly and nonsensical. The fact that he extended it beyond the opinion in that post, to opinions on the topic generally held by the poster, is also significant. It could with some fairness be said that Forma entered this thread belligerently.
But even so, I just don't think this rises to a sufficient level to be rule-breaking when you look at a number of the other posts in the thread, or in other similar threads. This is hardly a low-point in the discussion. Given the extent of the bickering seen in the last few days, I've no doubt that Forma has made a worse post somewhere else in the thread, and others certainly have as well (for which they have been infracted). We could, I suppose, say that although this individual post is not worth an infraction, Forma's behaviour in the thread has been worth an infraction. After all, the OT moderating guidelines bundle 'repeated' trolling in with 'serious' trolling. But this infraction is not for repeated trolling. It is framed as being for this one incident, which is said to be an attack breaking the 'jerk' rule. I think it's dubious to come to the conclusion that the current infraction doesn't work on the stated basis, so we should just hang the points on behaviour writ large. It would be better to overturn this infraction, and then separately infract any rule-breaking behaviour which happens to arise.
So at this stage I would vote to overturn the infraction, on the understanding that Forma should not take this as an endorsement of his behaviour in the thread.
It's probably worth mentioning the presentation of the appeal as well. The appeal rule states:
Requests for review are required to be presented in a polite manner. Requests which are not presented politely will be denied. This initial PM is your opportunity to tell your side of the story. Once the process starts, you may not be contacted until a decision has been made. Incivility or abusive language will not help your cause.
It could be argued that politeness is a mandatory requirement, and that there is no jurisdiction for a supermod review if it is presented in the rude manner which it has been presented in. But I suppose it's probably better to just warn him about that for future reference, and deal with the appeal that's been made regardless.
