Tradition Three: The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking.

Tough traditions question here. Online AA meetings often have something I had never experienced in face-to-face meetings. Trolls. People who show up to disrupt the meeting, and who may return day after day to harass the group if not banned.

My group had always banned Zoom-bombing trolls. No discussion or group conscience needed. Immediately banned, gone. So far so good. No one complained about this.

But now we have a troll who has learned of Tradition Three and says we can't ban him because he wants to not drink. So he keeps coming to meetings and playing manipulative games, being disruptive and abusive. When someone addresses his problem behavior, he focuses his abuse on that person. He has driven several people away from our meeting. And all the while he says he never had many problems with drinking, stopped easily, and isn't an alcoholic. But he says he wants to not drink, so he's a member because Tradition Three says so. As a member, he also attends and disrupts our business meetings.

Bizarre and unlikely situation, but here we are. Half the group wants to ban him and the other half says we can't break Tradition Three.

Which is the more damaging option, to continue allowing this toxic trolling presence, or to decide that someone is not a member and ban him?