Yep a decade or so ago. Many of the posters who contributed then are no longer around, there were approximately 40 and they were indeed quite naughty.
@Rumsfeld do you think it's worth including the lists of the last survey for the non active members? Gives a bigger sample and thus a more accurate result
I would personally not want to see such a thing. After all, in endeavors like this, is there really such a thing as "accurate?" I think any new trends we see with the new lists should happen more organically rather than being led down the path by the previous lists. If I understood what you were saying correctly.
I don't think there's a rule against it. More a near unanimity that they're not good enough to make these lists. Pacquiao aside, obviously.