pumaAttack Banned

[iacas]

Today we made the decision to ban @pumaAttack for multiple and flagrant displays of disrespectful, rude, obnoxious, and downright childish behavior.

As any long-time member here can attest, we do not make a habit of banning people, and we generally encourage discussion. Though it's sometimes seen as poor form, "encouraging discussion" is often why I am guilty of quoting and responding at length and with great care to posts in topics in which I am involved - I enjoy being challenged and breaking myths, and I try to give conversations that interest me their attention.

@pumaAttack received multiple warnings in his time here from several members of the moderation team. A PM he sent earlier today made us all realize there was no salvaging anything positive from his ongoing membership.

[iacas]

I cleaned up some PMs, and lo and behold, the only negative ones in there were from @pumaAttack, and many were quite old.

:sigh:

I'm always saddened by these kinds of things, but at the same time, people are people. There are good ones and bad ones out there. And once people start down a path, they often put on the blinders and fail to take a fresh look at things.

Anyway, in the past, we used to ban people quietly, but all that resulted there was the assumption that we were guilty and we were banning saints. @pumaAttack was no saint. He had a long history of being abusive, dismissive, caustic, rude, and so on. We've been a bit more open about this stuff lately, and still ban fewer people than ANY other site with the traffic we have.

[Phil McGleno]

Good riddens.-People who behave like that are not worth worrying bout.

I think your biggest problem is that people are not used to being able to argue with people without crossing the line.-You stick up for yourself and because they get swatted back and can not hang they just say you are abusing your power.

I have been warned many times and I deserved it each time.-You do not hold grudges or ban people that do not deserve it. You allow an awful lot of bad behavior before actions seem to be taken, and leave up clearly rude posts like the one by @pumaAttack where he called you a schlub for not teaching Jason Day or winning a major yourself. Low rent, low class.

[Lihu]

Bummer, he was on this board for some time too! Going to miss his puma attacks. He was sometimes fun, possibly fun to golf with too. Oh, well. Too bad. . .

[Natural Patrick]

Never had a problem with Puma myself, interesting.

[Lihu]

21 minutes ago, Natural Patrick said:

Never had a problem with Puma myself, interesting.

Neither did I, actually, but he did say some pretty "burn the bridge" type of stuff to Erik and Mike.

[iacas]

31 minutes ago, Natural Patrick said:

Never had a problem with Puma myself, interesting.

Hardly.

Fact is the matter is you only get to call the moderators and this site "pathetic" and "ridiculous" and tell them to "grow up" so many times. It gets old.

Puma made an ass off himself repeatedly. The moderators would attest to that. People get a long leash here.

[Natural Patrick]

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

Hardly.

Fact is the matter is you only get to call the moderators and this site "pathetic" and "ridiculous" and tell them to "grow up" so many times. It gets old.

Puma made an ass off himself repeatedly. The moderators would attest to that. People get a long leash here.

What does that have to do with me personally, never having had a problem with him? Are you saying that I have had a problem with Puma in the past?

[mvmac]

Golf is said to be a gentlemen's game and Puma was the antithesis of that. He was given numerous chances to behave like an adult and was given a lot of free personal swing advice.

The moderators made the right choice.

[Jeremie Boop]

22 minutes ago, Natural Patrick said:

What does that have to do with me personally, never having had a problem with him? Are you saying that I have had a problem with Puma in the past?

He was specifically responding to you saying "interesting" and giving the reasons why it wasn't interesting but much more mundane and expected given puma's history.

[newtogolf]

People handle situations differently.  Puma has had a history of blowing up in threads when people disagreed with him.  He, like many of us, is opinionated, he just couldn't accept that his opinion wasn't always thought of as being right.

I don't particularly like banning of members in public forums except as a last resort but if that's what all the moderators felt was appropriate then so be it.

[Buckeyebowman]

I've had several disagreements and differences of opinion with iacas in my brief time on these boards. I try to keep the disagreements civil, I simply state my opinion and don't resort to name calling. I've never gotten so much as a warning! I did notice that some of puma's responses could be pretty snarky! Perhaps its a window into his personality that he chose the username pumaAttack!

[mvmac]

24 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

I try to keep the disagreements civil, I simply state my opinion and don't resort to name calling. I've never gotten so much as a warning! 

Just pointing this out...disagreements will never lead to warnings.

[Ernest Jones]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

He, like many of us, is opinionated,

What did you just ****ing call me???

 

53 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

I've never gotten so much as a warning! 

You just ain't tryin' hard enough!

 

 

Seriously, if I haven't been banned for some of the stunts I pull, you gotta be a world class douche to get tossed from this site. Hasta luego @PutzAttack. 

[Patch]

Agreements and disagreements have to be handled tastefully. That sometimes means keeping one's thoughts private. No name calling should ever be allowed, by anyone. Now I do have to say that some of the "disagreeable discussions" I have followed on here have been entertaining. 

Banishment in any kind of forum is not a good thing in my book. However I do respect the decisions of those in charge.

[Ernest Jones]

20 minutes ago, Patch said:

Now I do have to say that some of the "disagreeable discussions" I have followed on here have been entertaining.  

You're welcome. 

 

[gregsandiego]

I have no opinion about this particular ban but wondered if you have a general forum policy? I ran a board once. I pinned the policy on every page. One of the basics was "no mean spirited posts". 

[iacas]

7 hours ago, gregsandiego said:

I have no opinion about this particular ban but wondered if you have a general forum policy? I ran a board once. I pinned the policy on every page. One of the basics was "no mean spirited posts". 

https://thesandtrap.com/a/welcome-to-the-sand-trap-community/

https://thesandtrap.com/guidelines/

The latter says, in full:

 

Quote

 

This site has one real rule: behave maturely.

Put another way, don't be a jerk. You can be cranky. You can disagree. You can knock, attack, agree with, like, argue with, etc. the posts or ideas or statements other people have made, but the line is drawn at calling other people bad names. Respect others. Give them the benefit of the doubt - text is a difficult medium to use as it conveys no tone of voice. Sarcasm in particular, often used among friends, doesn't often come across as it does in real life.

Please remember that at the end of the day, we are all golfers. Golf is a game of honesty, integrity, and so on. But at the end of the day, it's just a game. Let's not take ourselves too seriously, please.

Enjoy The Sand Trap (TST). Welcome aboard.

 

There are a number of people here who make a habit of disagreeing. Many of them have never gotten a warning.