Steven Estes is either a troll of some kind, a really bad one man bot-net, or on a meth bender. He needs to step away from the keyboard and sleep it off.
What exactly is trollish about his posts?
While he has gone on a sudden spree of asking a variety of questions, I see nothing trollish or particularly unusual about the individual questions.
As mentioned above, he appears to be a retired sociology professor.
He seems to be starting a lot of threads and not coming back to them. But I’d still rather have ten of him and one less D’Anconia.
It’s not the threads per se. It’s the fact that he’s suddenly started a gajillion (technical term) in the last day, and he doesn’t return to them. It’s odd behavior. I am noting it as such.
Hell yeah. I’d probably pay him to stay if it would make D’Anconia leave.
You noted it as possibly trolling, or being on a meth bender, which I don’t see any indication of. I think people have been getting overly quick to call “troll” at the drop of a hat at any kind of unusual behavior.
I do agree his behavior is odd after almost a decade of not posting, and I am keeping my eye on him. However, all of his recent questions have been started in GQ (some have been moved), and there’s no requirement to come back to questions in GQ.
Quick aside. Which forums have such a requirement?
I was gonna ask that too. I read all the forum rules, don’t remember that.
As far as Steven Estes goes, if Colibri is willing to ‘wait and see’ I will too. I am always surprised who is deemed ‘troll’ anyway,
It seems to depend on whether it’s a slow news day.
I don’t think any forum has that as a rule, but the mods will get after you in GD or Elections if you start a lot of threads and then never participate. But I think you have to start a LOT of threads for this to get a mod’s attention.
What does “come back to” mean? If a poster starts a thread in IMHO in order to harvest opinions, do you think they need to post in it to show good faith? What if they come back to read it and cannot think of anything they need to add or clarify? You cannot tell whether a poster ever actually reads a thread they started, but I would assume they probably do, since it will show up in their subs.
IIRC, L-7 used to be, in Education back in the 60s, the category for “totally unable to learn.” L-1 being “instantly grasps and understands the concept.”
Appropriate nick, that.
There’s no rule as such, but if you make a habit of starting debates or discussions and then never participating in them people will begin to get annoyed.
Let us say there is less of an expectation that someone will post additional responses to a thread they start in GQ, because it’s not as much of a conversation as in other forums.
Since we can’t really tell if someone reads their own threads, “come back to” rather obviously means to participate in it by posting. As I said, there is no requirement to do so.
Probably a bit more resonant than the analysis that notes that the characters can be interpreted as forming a “square.”
I get the sense (tingling) that Estes is collecting material for his upcoming novel.
Hope he says “Hi, Dopers!” in the acknowledgements. Somebody should guide him to the NaNoWriMo forums.
Colibri You’re right. The threads are fine. There seemed rather a lot of them, but there’s nothing about the topics that is off.
Looks like he’s up to ~10 threads in just a few days in GQ, although some threads were moved to other forums. If he keeps that rate up for few days more, I suspect he will attract some attention.
Yeah, um, old L-7 is really skating on the edge now.
Jeez , L-7 is pushing the line of appropriate questions. That is just racist. I don’t care what he calls himself. I call him a bigot.
I’ll admit I’m fascinated by the comparison between bisexuality and autism. I genuinely have no idea where he’s going with that, and he’ll probably never explain it.