Washington Has Received a "Time Out"


#1

Washington has been temporarily banned (as at least one RO member has already noticed). The reasons for the temp ban are habitual posts that detract/distract from thread topics and habitual personal jabs. That the ban would be temporary was the decision of RO staff, including WIJG. Washington has shown that he can contribute to topics under discussion, and RO staff hopes that Washington will do just that if he decides to return.

PeteS


#2

Was what little he actually contributed worth giving him another chance?


#3

As far as I could see, the only thing he ever “contributed” to any of the threads on which he posted was nonsense designed to raise peoples’ blood pressure! Oh, some of what he posted was mildly amusing sometimes, but usually only because it was so patently silly, such as his complaint that “speed dating” didn’t work for him because the women always wanted to talk about themselves and (presumably) not allow him to tell the women how wonderful he is.


#4

I suspect at least part of the time Washington’s playing a character, and I guess his latest desire to go to acting school reflects that.


#5

I don’t think Washington would hurt a fly. as for his flights of fancy–and indeed it was impossible to sort fact from fiction–no one was forced to respond to, or even to read them. there’s an ignore button. I vote for another chance.

snarkiness, name calling, mobbing (covert or overt)…those are toxic and I would think could eventually ruin a forum.


#6

It’s intentional! He’s just trying to get out of our bet, I tell you!


#7

He admitted he lies when he’s bored to have fun. Not saying to ban him, but that right there should have had everyone ignore everything he has ever said.


#8

Well, I’ve got him on ignore; he is an irritant, and as PappaDave said, apparently posted stuff intended to raise people’s blood pressure; if you read most to the forum, it’s quite difficult to totally ignore anyone; especially when he’s quoted by someone else. And when he posts so much, I find it totally impossible to ignore him entirely - although, as far as he is concerned, I do, since I don’t respond to him. And often, when someone makes a good sensible response to him, it’s natural to want to see what they are responding to. I think maybe the best solution would be to put him on site-wide ignore - he could post to his heart’s content, but nobody would ever respond, because they couldn’t see what he was posting. That was done to one member here - he kept getting banned, and signing on with a new name, just to mock FC’s screen name.

And the infamous gator of CU was put on site-wide ignore on another site - he was admin on CU, and I guess he was trying to “admin” said site. On CU, he was also reading people’s pm’ls. Never admitted to it, but many people were noticing that he 1) said things that he could only have learned through reading pm’s; also, people’s pm’s would suddenly disappear, and then just as suddenly return. When it was strongly suggested that he was reading them, all of the above abruptly stopped.


#9

[quote=“patriciareed, post:5, topic:44514”]
no one was forced to respond to, or even to read them. there’s an ignore button. I vote for another chance
[/quote]Ignoring the lad is a utopian fantasy, and sets HIM and the members up for failure anyway. Ignoring is not the issue . . . turning threads south IS.

**First . . . why is ignoring him a utopian fantasy? Because it would require EVERYONE to do that, or else it isn’t going to work. The harsh reality is that this is NOT going to happen (unless of course, we apply Susanna’s solution of “site-wide ignore”.)

When just ONE person responds to the kid, that prompts an abrasive exchange and the thread heads south. And that harsh reality is that there will always be at least one person who responds.

Most of the veterans here restrain themselves, although at times get “hooked”. But a new member, and we get a lot of them, looks at this obnoxious hubris for the first time and invariably responds. That’s enough right there to send the thread south.**

Why is this setting HIM and the members up for failure? It’s like passing a student on to the next grade when he/she should have been held back. He/she is going to FAIL sooner or later, and all you’re doing is enhancing the error AND penalizing other students by allowing him/her to continue to impede progress.

When you’re sitting at the kitchen table having a discussion with OTHER adults, and a five year old comes up to the table and says, “Aunt Patsy, let me tell everyone about how brilliant I am on politics.”

Everyone smiles to be polite, but they are thinking, “A little obnoxious to interrupt like that.”

But, they let it go as simply being a precocious child.

Then, about the fourth time that happens, you say with a stern tone, “Go sit down and don’t interrupt the adults again.” Brewer is that 5 year old obnoxiously pushing his way into that adult discussion, and driving it south.

If he is foolish enough to return, one of two things is going to happen. Either:

  1. He will say something, could even be benign, that will prompt an abrasive response. Since brewer is not known for restraining himself (indeed, that’s what led to the ban), he will likely respond with abrasiveness himself, and thus the thread will spiral down and go south . . . as so many that he has posted in have (“habitual posts that detract/distract from thread topics”).

or

  1. In order to save face, he will mention that since the ban was only “temporary”, it wasn’t very “serious” and hence was no big deal. THAT will certainly prompt a response and again the thread will head south. We have had a lot of potentially productive discussions end up that way . . . a significant loss for the membership.

It took me months to finally inoculate myself to where I ignored brewer all the time. Though I don’t know if that would have lasted. My hot button issues are Alzheimer’s (people locked away in a place with no key), off color comments on wives and women, and one that brewer used to frequently hook me on . . . unbridled hubris. (He actually DID make some derogatory comments on wives and women once.) I finally mastered the “unbridled hubris” hook, and for about the past month I was able to ignore his frequent boasts, but knew things were going to degenerate once somebody else did.

But if he ever made a derogatory comment on Alzheimer’s care, or again slurred wives or women, I’d likely respond with an anger like a hot knife cutting through butter. I generally don’t respond while in the heat of anger, but on these topics I would.

And he’s already shown with the timeout that he won’t change his spots. At first, after being meek and mild, he returned to his old ways . . . which ultimately led to the ban. After that, why would anybody think he would change that behavior?

Bottom line, I think making the ban temporary is only setting him up for another failure if he is foolish enough to return.


#10

I had this guy figured out after about 4 posts. I argued with him for awhile and finally put him on ignore. He joined months after I did yet has half again as many posts…most of which were little more than nonsense. When I put him on ignore, he considered that to be a “win” somehow. If I never see him post again, it will be too soon for me.


#11

I can’t believe this thread even exists. Don’t any of you find this to be just a tad bit in bad form?

Or is it a new “feature” now to “Announce” anyone who’s receive a “reminder of the rules”, “a Warning”, or a “Part-time Ban?”


#12

In the case of a “Banning” the inevitable question of “Why” always comes up in multiple threads, I assume having an official announcement when it occurs with a regular poster to say whether it is temporary or permanent is just a way of avoiding multiple thread derailing’s as the issue is discussed.

Just a guess though.


#13

Considering the comments here, why would anybody care?

Frankly, I find it entirely embarassing, and wish it’d just disappear.


#14

If thread derailing and personal insults are reason for banning this is going to become a very empty place.


#15

Not if everyone acts at an adult level.


#16

All I am saying is that Washington/Brewer is not the only one who strays from adult behaviour.


#17

Me! Me!:biggrin:


#18

I did not mean that he was banned for these reasons, I have no idea what prompted the time out.

I meant that the reason for a thread explaining that he was temporarily banned might have been created so the questions about the banning of a regular poster would not derail multiple threads but get confined to here.

And as I said before, that is just a guess.


#19

The purpose of the thread was so that folks would know that his banning wasn’t permanent, since “banned” appears as his current user title.


#20

Especially considering the number of personal insults sitting right here in the thread that explains “personal jabs” is WHY the offender ‘got a vacation.’

How old are we again?