I've been curious as well. I only know enough to recognize the name 'dev/null'... about as much as I know about some of the other names that have come and gone. His aweful deed must have happened during my occasional offtime from Gen and the forums.

dev/null initially got banned because he kept breaking forum rules and kept treating everyone like dirt that he didn't like.  It's one thing to hold a strong opinion, it's another to viciously attack forum members.  The first time around Con banned him because he launched into some big temper-tantrum and called someone a bunch of names I think.  I forget the exact reason.  Anyway, this ban was to last a month.  He comes back under a different name after a long while, calling himself Lord Malchia.  He plays it cool for a bit, but the same sort of undercurrents exist in his posts and then we figure it out that it's dev/null.  After pointing out that we know who he is, he claims his old account was never reallowed to post which is why he used a different name.  I told him he should have informed one of the admins and we'd have corrected it if that were the case.

The problem behavior continues, under this new name.  He continues making more inflamatory posts and launching into personal attacks, derailing topics, and turning just about every thread into a flamewar against, as Woodsman said, Christianity/whitey/capitalism, etc, but mostly Christianity.  Ok, you don't like Christianity, say so and get it done with but that wasn't enough.  He constantly made it personal, usually with me because I'm not going to back down when it comes to defending my faith, nor when it comes to keeping things in order here.  I did everything I could to bring his attention back to how he was acting, show him why it wasn't acceptible, and correct his distorted view of what I believe.  I'm also a hell of a lot more lenient toward people attacking me than I am toward someone attacking other forum members, which is why this ended up dragging on for so long.

Well,  see this thread for the culimination of what happened.  I finally got him to express his true feelings, which basically amounted to "I'm better than everyone else, I'm too good for all of you, I'm just toying with you and this is all a game to me."  Ok, you're a troll.  Goodbye, we don't need you here.  Woodsman is incorrect in that he didn't "take off" at this point.  He kept logging in with several bogus accounts and sending me PM's - rather unapoligetic onces at that.  Ban avoidance is unacceptible, so he got his whole network locked out and the accounts deleted.

Of course, for doing this I'm sure that makes me the intolerant racist dictatorial ignorant religious zealot that he accuses me of being, which of course justifies his thinking process and gives him continued excuse to believe everyone's out to get him, that all Christians are fascists, etc.  That makes him the "winner" in his mind.  That's also where he got it wrong, I never cared about "winning" his little arguments.  I know someone like that is never going to change their mind because he's never, ever going to look in the mirror.   It was his actions - not his beliefs - that got him in trouble, but he refused to understand this.  All I wanted was the problem behavior to stop.  When it was clear it only continue indefinitely, I did the only thing I could.

The reason Deth wasn't happy about it is dev/null aka Malchia was a friend of his.  That's why I offered the clarification for him in the previous post.

Edit:  In re-reading the thread I linked to, it was actually Dr. Jones that banned Malchia, not me.  I only banned the duplicate accounts when he tried to avoid the ban.  I had forgotten about that.  

Wow... that's some intense stuff there. And I was worried about causing trouble and looking like a big ass... I feel good now.

...And Kruzader's typo was awesome because of the topic it was in.

Oops. :p

I would have caught it had you bolded just the words  "illegal immigrant" and "criminal offense" instead.  I will also have to side with Tabun on this one, but you make a good argument too Pho.

Oh that's easy.  See, thousands of years ago a very large and very powerful extraterrestrial being known as Lavos crashed into the Earth.  Some curious apes came into contact with this being and began to unnaturally evolve and thus fall out of harmony with nature.  The Earth is pretty much screwed, but the human race as a whole will eventually be saved by two guys, one with spiky red hair and later by another who likes to wear a bandana.

Either that or you could go with Scientology.

For some reason, I wasn't missing Xypher much in this discussion. Odd, considering the fact that he took the time to read the arcticle, make sensible, well argued points, formulated in a way to indicate he made it past his teens..

I have just as much right venting my frustration over people venting their frustration in a certain manner. You might try walking in my shoes.. etc.
Besides, I didn't say he shouldn't, just that I disagree with both content and format. Besides besides, I've got my own shoes to walk in, and those shoes take me knee-deep through plenty of shit. :]

I don't see where you're getting that idea from at all. I'm suggesting that I appreciate discussions that feature a certain kind of maturity. I have good reasons for that, other than merely 'personal preference', which I can explain to and discuss with you if you like. I'm suggesting that I like nuance and balanced opinion in discussions about controversial matters.
What I'm very much not suggesting is that my suggestions should be indicative of the norm. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm trying to dictate anything. In light of that, there is no conflict to be found in the fact that I won't always sit back and shut up when I disagree with the shape a discussion (or a post in it) takes. The only place I will ever respond in this kind of fashion is within CC boundaries and to people (1) who have known me long enough to realize there's no intended personal attack and (2) who I consider to be quite capable of biting back.

I honestly can appreciate your desire to defend and protect, but I think the father-figure role is slightly out of place in this case. Xypher has a beef with me over my post? Although that was certainly not the purpose of my message, there's no reason we could not resolve that between the two of us.

It looks very much like a rethorical question to me - The question seems to be about my motives, and I'm sure you already knew the answer. Hence the long reply.

If I were to ask someone "Do you support KKK-activity?" they're bound to be offended. Especially if the question is asked in the middle of a disagreement. Add to that the way such a question (w/c)ould sound, like in: "Are you suggesting I'm not behaving well mannered?" (in a Butler Jeeves type voice).
But then, I forget you're not human. Humans are generally unable to ask questions just for the purpose of getting answers.

The answer is: no.

So, seeing my bad, instead of second guessing, I'll ask: What were your motives for asking me that question? If none other than for the info: Why did you want to know it, and why didn't or couldn't you extrapolate the answer from earlier discussions?