Essentially anyone with a different opinion.
I found them all annoying, myself. But would I go out of my way to make sure they didn't post? Surely there should be *some* balance here. Not all of them were trolls: TheStruggle, a fellow PWD member, had actual opinions. I didn't agree with them, but they weren't trollish. He just mass-posted threads with an agenda.
There is the ignore function, as well.
Though to be honest, I would love to know whether rip was a true troll or not.
TheStruggle, Kln, and Wiolent (and possibly RhinoRush, though he managed to catch a ban a few days earlier) were all part of the group with Pwent we've discussed earlier. I think you can agree that coordinating to derail threads and to harass users and staff members (and submit false reports to crave) can be reasonably construed as violating the "rules." I believe that there were subforums where they contributed meaningfully and did not simply troll (i interacted with some in the heavies and videogame forum), but it's not really disputable that they were fucking and were banned for it.
Kone was banned months ago after he ignored multiple warnings to stop referring to the woman who was run over in charlottesville as a terrorist (or similar terms). Not doing that is in the rules.
Ripskater and BLT selfbanned after one (1) reply ban, which they received after multiple warnings to stop posting disinformation into a thread about a then-ongoing shooting (there was an alternate thread to post that sort of thing in).
Lecter simply hasn't posted in a while, though it is connected to the aforementioned bannination. I suspect he also was having less fun, since his gimmick when he was trolling was basically satirizing TheStruggle style posters with some very subtle insults.
I'd like to know that too re: rip. I suspect that he had underlying sincerely held beliefs, but also liked to ham them up and embellish them for his posts.
Most of these bans were closely connected to threads I had created+was active in, or I would not be as aware of them.
Maybe it was my interaction but there were complaints that the forum allowed for sexism. Could've just been an attempt to get other posters in trouble. Not sure.
Her falsedawn comment was almost certainly a reference to the thread in which she ultimately called him a "spearchucker." She had spent the previous few pages accusing him of being a misogynist and trying to bait him, and eventually lost her temper when he just responded with requests for misogynistic comments he had made, rather than engage her "well i'm a woman so you have to trust me on your misogyny" argument.
She also had a few posts early on bragging about pretending to be a black woman on facebook for the express purpose of starting arguments in feminist facebook groups and then calling people racist. (JVS called my attention to those). Later, she made a few references to Nietzche in connection with feminism about undermining a position by pretending to support it (badly). I wouldn't be remotely surprised by the latter.