The book of the banned.

If you don't understand what this is, consider yourself lucky.

Pointless- Incapable of participating in debate without getting far too emotionally involved. Mormons came to debate, and I got letters from her roommate saying that it was affecting her health, although I question whether a "roommate" could have figured the board and the pm out so quickly. Always good for a letter over our heads, which we said time and again was bannable. Unanimous decision of the admins.

Fruity- Ditto on most of that. Always good for sending screenshots over our heads, again, we always said all along that was bannable. Theorized many times that a "trad takeover" was in the works and simply took up an inordinate amount of precious time. I don’t remember the vote, probably 2 to 1.

and Gloom - This poster claimed he had "events from his past which made him impolite". Uh huh. Whatever. Durring the Terry Schaivo drama, this poster put up a public poll, the topic of which was whether another board member should be killed. No vote taken, I banned him myself.

Mr. Vortex, the Flying Pig- This person refused to follow the guidance of the Admins on where topics should be posted. Consistently. During those times when he did post things in the proper place, he manipulated one admin into allowing outrageous and stupid topics. Considering how sensitive traditionalism is as a topic on a board for converts, this person made moderating those topics almost impossible by insisting that a program designed to prevent those topics interfering with conversions was “censorship” perpetrated against him by nefarious trad conspirators. Banned. 3 to 1 decision of the Admins.

Mr Mirror. What can I say except we were not the only Catholic board who banned this guy. 12,000+ posts, the vast majority of which contained the very same phrase, over and over. He accused all traditional Catholics of being sedevacantists, which rendered him simply unfit to participate in debate against such people. This necessitated removing him from any such debates. When I attempted this, he became belligerent and disobeyed most of the orders given to him by all of the admins. We always said that repeated rule-breaking would result in banning. It did. 2 Admins voting yea, one abstaining.

S – This person became incensed that any of his posts would ever be moved from one forum to another. He would actually verbally abuse admins just for moving his posts, including outright insults. He also kept multiple user accounts, but apparently he was being grandfathered-in on this violation. In any case, a person who proves themselves to be so volatile and cannot accept even thread-moving has no place posting on a ministry-oriented board. (Also, it was this incident which spawned the very tough rules about listening to admins and being patient about moved posts)

Kreeftfan - This one was ideological. This poster was obsessed with sex, and books could be written about the freudian implications of his posts. He was scandalous in the extreme, despite being polite to the point of meekness. He committed no egregious offenses during the months I administered, but we discussed his career and decided, as a group, that he was a huge impediment to conversion. 2 yea, one abstaining.

Bagdhad/Mexico – This person had been admitted by previous administrations into lofty areas and was privy to deep discussions of sensitive and advanced Catholic topics. This was despite the fact that he was convinced that God enjoys killing his pet cats. Uncatechized is the polite way to put it. Obviously, it was not appropriate for him to be anywhere except a forum about “Catholic basics” and anyone with so little grasp of basic Christian principles needed close watch. When we disciplined him for inappropriate material posted, we were treated to a hate campaign including the colorful phrase “nazi assholes” to describe the admins. Banned, obviously. 2 to 1.

(e) – The poet. Most of his work was cute and kind of funny, but when he started posting things which sounded like numerology in the Basic forum, that was too much. When confronted, he suggested a hiatus. I agreed.

The financial expert- This guy apparently has used board space to sell insurance or something for a long time. He’s also got a problem with the Roman Rite and a chip on his shoulder. I banned him for refusing to submit to moderation. It was a split decision among the admins, 1 to 1 with 1 abstaining, but a person who posts inappropriate topics in inappropriate fora just to prove that Admins can’t control him is more trouble than he is worth, and ALL of the admins agreed that was his program. So I banned him. 1 to 1 with one abstaining.

The Couple – These two were and I suppose are legendary. They were always in trouble on the board for something and never gave the administration a moment of peace, long since before I got there. That was strike one. Being cafeteria Catholics, and very visible ones who were always standing next to the dead body, was strike two. Being discovered trying to convince people to dissent from the Church and sin in private messages was strike three. I didn’t figure SR wanted his bandwidth used, literally for years, by people intent on keeping others from converting fully into the Church. Banned, obviously. Unanimous.

The Ambassador – The ambassador personally didn’t do anything wrong before he was banned. He was found to be in close association (apparently) with a banned person (from years back) whom I was under orders to protect the board from. We had seen people’s accounts used by this banned person before, and so there was a de facto policy in place that anyone whose account might be hijacked by the banned person was expected to cut ties with him. Then they could be re-instated. The Ambassador, however, didn’t even give us the chance to explain. Within hours of deactivating his account, he had threatened legal action (Legal Action!) against the DCF if he didn’t get immediately reinstated. Banned. 2 yes with one abstaining.

The Servant – Unanimous decision of the admins to ban for passing along privileged information to banned individuals.

The Dragon – Banned for letting banned members (from years back) use his account. Unanimous decision.

Charismatic73 – This person meant well, but was frequently unintelligible, and had a habit of accosting new male converts with her prophetic knowledge that they would become priests. When disciplined, she mounted massive retaliatory campaigns which inevitable got nasty. Unanimous to ban.

The Hacker – An IT professional who associated closely with banned individuals (from years back). Also apparently messed around with the board, as in “hacked in”. All the admins were unanimous to ban, but we disagreed on whether it should be immediate or whether we should wait due to fear of retaliation.

The Rabbi – This guy posted excerpts from Judaism nearly every day. He treated the board as his own Jewish blog space. I was given the task of explaining to him that he needed to find another outlet. For my touble, I got a petulant and childish response, and he left. Not banned.

That’s about it. If anyone remembers another one I was involved in, please remind me. I think the rest belong to other Admins. The point of posting this is to show that these bannings (as SC said MANY times) were the result of discussion by the admins for real offenses and problems. The fact that the previous administration had let things become very lax is the reason the house had to be cleaned up. Now you know. If you look, the people above run the gamut: Protestants, Liberal Catholics, Very Conservative Catholic, Eastern Rite, Jewish etc. None of this was personal, although I admit I disliked a couple of them very, very much and was glad to see them go - however, I disliked other people (you know who you are) even more but never bothered them because they didn't cause problems.

That ought to clear that up.