IMO, the downvote option is a good feature of this forum, and I have more downvotes (percentage-wise) than most forum members. I don't assume vindictiveness with the downvotes, though it's a possibility.

Downvoting helps to ease arguments, since a downvote can be given instead of argument. Otherwise, this thread would probably be even more contentious.

However, I upvoted Alaric's post #109 on this thread, because it made sense.

I don’t have a problem with the idea per se, but this system on Cathinfo leaves much to be desired. I know, for a fact, that approximately 80% of my downvotes are from Croix under various pseudonyms. If the system only allowed someone to give say 5 downvotes a day to a particular member or if their name was attached to their vote, it would be a great improvement.  One good thing that has come out of this is my reluctance to give others downvotes too hastily. (I just gave you an upvote to make up for any downvotes I gave you in the past. 😀)

I hope you understand that a few of us might be concerned about your above post, Ladislaus.

Your actions, which included the threat of not posting again until Poche was banned, show that you  believe that you have a certain amount of power here. That is a bit disconcerting, since now you are saying that you want someone else to be banned.

I have zero "power" here.  Matthew has always been perfectly free to ignore me, and could have let me gone my way.  He banned me for a few months a while back.  I was making a statement about the gravity of the heresies that poche regularly promoted, things that have been repeatedly condemned by the Church's Magisterium.  He's been caught lying, to the point of slandering St. Pius X as a partisan of his errors.  He refused to explain, when requested, where was coming from (what he believed about the Crisis), and so there was no reason to consider him anything but a Modernist troll whose motivation was to wreak havoc on a Traditional Catholic forum.  Pertinacious propagation of heresy is no light matter, and I was calling attention to how grave a thing it was to allow him continue operating as a purveyor of heresy.  It's important that we not become desensitized to how grave a thing heresy is.  It's easy to just brush it off, "Oh, that's just poche being poche again."  That is simply not the Catholic attitude toward heresy.  Heresy is a matter of life and death, and that is why the Church regularly encouraged the execution of heretics throughout her history.

I never said that I wanted claudel banned, only making a statement that if this were my forum, I would have banned him over the exceedingly vulgar comments (a puerile insult).  This was more a statement agreeing with 2Vermont that his comments were "Disgusting".  I couldn't agree more.

"Spork" never talked at the Fisheaters. And Jayne's pseudo mea culpa is laughable. She's made enemies with the best fora have to offer. 

I hope you understand that a few of us might be concerned about your above post, Ladislaus.

Your actions, which included the threat of not posting again until Poche was banned, show that you  believe that you have a certain amount of power here. That is a bit disconcerting, since now you are saying that you want someone else to be banned.

Just because you frame it in terms of "if it were my forum" doesn't change the idea that you now believe that you are entitled to say who should or should not be a forum member. Your recent victory regarding Poche has emboldened you. Not that it was a bad idea to ban Poche, but now that victory seems to have gone to your head. That isn't right or proper. Just because you are insulted doesn't mean that a forum member should be banned because of it.

Actually, it wasn't a threat.  He DID stop posting (with one exception to explain why he wasn't posting) until poche was banned.  I remember you have expressed your desire that all sedes be banned.  You could try not posting until all sedes are banned.  Who knows, if you get enough people to join you, it might work.  Don't blame Ladislaus for making a very accurate assessment of the situation and then effectively bringing about a change that the vast majority of us were in agreement with.

I appreciate the information, Captain Obvious, that this isn't my forum.

Thank you for recognizing.

Nevertheless, I am as entitled as you are to post my opinions

I never questioned your sense of entitlement. I merely pointed it out.

  Evidently your hypocrisy escapes you in trying to dictate what I can and cannot post here

I'm not dictating anything. i'm merely making an observation. Unlike some on here demanding others disappear and will hold their breath until that happens.

 You'll note that I didn't even request that claudel be banned for his vulgar comments,

Who's claudel? And thanks again for not requesting he be shunned by all the cool people here.

 merely said that I would ban him if he were on a forum that I moderated.

In your own words......."  Evidently your hypocrisy escapes you in trying to dictate what I can and cannot post here" 

Spork, are you actually poche?

If so, it would be be more evidence that the Pocher is a Yid.

Which a vast majority of sedes and sedewhatevers are in agreement with, you mean.

Yeah, I think I did say once that all sedes hould be banned, in a moment of frustration. But I don't parrot the request. And I certainly would never say I'm going to stop posting until sedes are banned (as much as you might like that idea).

I'm going to continue to point things out which may be unpleasant for sedes and sedewhatevers. You can always put me on "ignore" if that's a problem.

I am not a sede at all and I agreed with banning Poche.  He used intellectually dishonest arguments to support modernist ideas.  He did this habitually and pertinaciously.  Not only was this problematic in itself, it drove away many fine posters from this forum.  Whatever one may think of Ladislaus, he did a good thing by drawing attention to the problem in a way that encouraged Matthew to reconsider it.  We should be grateful to both of them and you would realize this if you were not blinded by personal dislike of Ladislaus.

While I would not say that you should be banned, Meg, it does seem strange to me that you continue to post here.  It is a constant them of your posts that you are dissatisfied with this forum.  You are continually complaining:  There are too many sedes.  Resistance views receive inadequate support.  People prevent you from posting your ideas. (This last is patently false and yet I have seen you claim it multiple times.)  I do not recall ever seeing another poster remain on a forum that he dislikes as much as you seem to dislike this one.