That’s quite the track record cited in the ban notice. I’m surprised he lasted this long.
Not that I’ve ever seen.
I can kinda see @MrDibble’s point. The former poster did seem to actually talk and consider multiple points in different threads. Other trolly posters just try to insert themselves into everything and stink up a thread, or become stupidly entrenched in a single subject / POV to the point of constant disruption, but AK84 wasn’t in either of those camps.
But snide, personal and/or general snipes at other posters, I’ve seen from them in spades. And apparently quite often in defiance of existing notes and instructions.
AK84 never struck me as one of those people where I wonder, “When will they finally get banned?!” I mean, I was aware of the Pit thread of course. But that was for one issue for the most part (the Russian propaganda) and was all recent. Otherwise, I just noticed the occasional nastiness, but nothing that seemed totally out of line.
When everything was laid out in ATMB though, that’s a lot of rope.
Agreed.
FWIW, my impression of AK was not of a troll, but of a basically OK but oversensitive and snappish poster. Too easy to provoke and too prone to flamage.
Yeah, he wasn’t banned for trolling. I don’t think he was a troll. The ban note lays out the reasons, and they aren’t about trolling.
That didn’t even include this one.
Good grief. I feel like we all deserve a gold star from the mods for only being as difficult to deal with as we are.
AK84 reminded me of Collounsbury just a bit (more recent posters won’t recognize that reference, he’s long gone). Intelligent, educated, generally articulate and as noted he could contribute quality content - remarkably, sometimes even when he disagreed with me 
. But easily riled and unwilling to moderate himself much when he was annoyed.
It’s a bit of a loss in my opinion, but the rules are the rules and he did break or stretch them from time to time over the years. I guess cumulatively it was a fair bit.
As another early Doper, I concur. I regretted the loss of Collounsbury, but in the last analysis it doesn’t matter how intelligent and articulate you are if you can’t stop yourself snarling at people outside the Pit.
And along with intelligence and articulateness one could throw in (heh, very occasional?) even-keeled debate, as when I had a disagreeing back and forth with AK in the World Cup thread, and didn’t detect any snark from him.
Yeah, there’s been quite a few people over the years who would still be here if they could follow that simple rule. I miss several of them, but if we bent the rules for them, they would be bent for less valuable posters as well.
That’s a good comparison, and I agree. Both of them contributed a lot to the board, and while it’s they’re own fault they’re gone, I’m sorry to see them leave…
So, figured I’d ask the thread about my recent confrontation with Yookeroo. To prevent back links, I won’t quote, but it is in the Schadenfreude thread that several of us already participate in. (conflict begins around Post 8470)
The super short version is that they seemed to take offense at my failing to describe a particular RW nutjob as a terrorist, to which I rebutted politely (by the standards of the Pit at least), they double downed, and I flamed them, and then they triple downed.
But - here’s the thing, nothing else in that thread or any of the posting history I’ve read of them seems to indicate this is the norm. It almost reads like a crazed teen took over his account for 36 hours in that one thread! I mean it seemed egregiously blind and over the top compared to the posters prior body of work.
The only thing I can think of is that like our recent discussion of AK84, they’re a ‘normal’ poster who is overly sensitive and didn’t take kindly to me calling them out (admittedly we were all smart enough to do it in the Pit).
So rather than a troll in the board-wide sense, they were trolling ME in that specific thread.
But I’m waaaaaaay to emotionally involved to give it a fair evaluation. Heck, I was (briefly) feeling I went to far when I flamed them after they double downed on their misunderstanding, only to wash my hands of them after the triple play.
Thoughts?
Yes: let it go, and move on. There is no need to adjudicate or masticate it further.
This is much too reasonable an approach for the Pit. We demand drama!
So I’ll have a go. Yookeroo made a stupid post. Sure, shooting up homes is terrorism. Is it valuable and necessary for any mention of it to include the word “terrorism”? No, that’s stupid.
But ParallelLines, you went from 0 to 60 with a 654 word post (yep, I counted, I’m pedantic too) that included personal attacks, multiple “fuck yous”, and ALL CAPS SCATTERED EVERYWHERE. Don’t get me wrong, it was finely written and had some excellent insults. But IMO, it was an over the top response to someone with a bug up their ass about a stupid pet issue.
I sentence you both to one hour of listening to the Macarena on repeat.
It was a series of sick burns, but now you’re fixin’ to lay down in the ashes and make angels. Let it pass.
Cruel and unusual, but perhaps not unjustified.
Look, to be clear, I acknowledge (and did in thread) I went too far, they rubbed me wrong, and I -hate- being misrepresented. That’s why I tried to drop back to the thread’s focus prior to the triple play, which set me off again.
But I went back to thinking about it today, and read several other posts from said poster, which is why I posted here, because it seemed super out of character.
So I was asking if anyone else had seen them having similar hot spots, or if we just raise each other’s hackles. Which is entirely possible.
I am not intending this to be a shadowpitting by any means. And I went with a 3 month ignore just so we couldn’t set each other off until it’s had a chance to leave both our minds.
My thought is don’t drag petty squabbles from other Pit threads into this thread. Let it go or continue it there.
You’re right, WE, but I don’t think ParallelLines was trying to do that, and I didn’t help with my adjudication response.
@ParallelLines, if your question is mostly “was he trolling,” then I’d say no. It reads to me like a usually normal person who feels strongly about an issue and maybe was having a bad day. I’ve felt like that after the tenth IRL argument with people trying to excuse some horrible Republican behavior, and I read too much into the eleventh discussion.
I revise my ruling. Follow everyone else’s advice to let it go, and listen to the chicken dance instead.