Something that I've been thinking about a bit in light of the "I don't like it" thread.
<snip>
Normally it would be most effective to specifically ban only the stuff I don't want to deal with (or allow only the stuff that I do)
That is the exact concept behind the "don't like it" thread. What the DM wants to deal with and what s/he doesn't.
Outside of the core books for a game, I would suggest to do what you mentioned next. Ban entire books, or as you prefer, just tell which books are allowed.
For the psionics, your group screwed up. They should have let the first person play it so you started to like the idea, rather than try to force more on you. You could ahve learned psionics from a different view, and the other players could have seen it working form a way that you found interesting enough to use. They might have gotten to use them next time.
But it does boil down to a bit of unfairness.
Someone walks into a game with a new book, if I am running a one-shot that allows anything, the only rule is everyone must get a chance to use something from that book if they want to, and then it will mean only when time to level can they add things from it. That prevents the unfairness form Ms. Moneybags being able to buy every book to have anything in them, but allows every player the same access tot he same content to choose from.
Even if not one of those rare one-shots, and a new book comes out, you have to bring enough for the rest of the class and share it with them if you want to have it yourself.
Either of 2 things happen when I DM:
1. People want to play something specific and I have the time, energy and willingness to run it.
2. People want me to run a game, then I set forth what will be included or not for use during it by the players.
Through PC actions you can destroy the work I put into making the game in much less time than it took me to make it, but a player, well nobody in life, will waste me time for frivolous reasons.
So if the players have decided what to play, and I agree to run it, Then they get the kind of game they want with what they want included and banned. If they want me to run my creation, then I will be the one creating it. I don't mind either so long as I have the time, energy, and willingness to do it. But I won't play tug-of-war with what time I have that should be spent playing D&D.
I solved my problems with assassins, bards, and psionics the same way. I had all-PC versions of those games so that different players could show different things, and NONE made me want to include them outside of those specialized games. So my mind is set in stone and cannot be swayed on those anymore, nor do I allow people to try to do so. Sometimes the foot has to come down, or line be drawn as not everything fits with everyone.
Just make sure when banning things the good idea is banning whole books and to say so up front. Any special thing should be made into some sort of list.
BANNED:
Evil characters
Psionics
Firearms
ALLOWED:
PHB
[insert equipment books here]
That way anything can be picked from those allowed materials, except the banned items and you will have less problems.
This best tells the players what resources they can pull from, and what things to avoid within them.
Nor does the "yes period" have to always be before the game is prepared--that's merely the most obvious time. But nothing wrong (if you can work with it) of playing, say, the first few sessions, or complete adventure, and then allowing tweaks. 
