When a boss reprimands their underlings in a theatrically degrading way, like making an employee sign an admission of guilt, the semantics embedded in such a document can usually be used against the boss in hilarious ways. Case in point: when u/Asleep_Bit_9712 got in trouble for simply sticking up for their coworker, the boss made OP sign something saying they'd 'never talk back again.' When OP totally ignored their supervisor's questions later that day, they were only following the rules to a T.
“Love it! There’s someone at my office who is a total gossip. She walks around at the end of the day reading things in peoples offices and spreading rumors. I’ve decided to just interact as little as possible. ‘Hellos’ while passing in the hallway but I avoid anyyyy conversation if possible.” said u/innom1nat3.
“There was a lady at work who would write all kinds of ridiculous stuff on her desk calendar for snoops to see. Lunch with CEO, Meet with Board of Directors, etc.” said u/bobk2.
"I didn't think of that! But I think it wouldn't have worked anyway, because the manager was there when she made me sign the paper and he didn't say anything about it, so I guess he agreed with her or something." said OP
“Even better, then. You’d have to get a coworker to tell them why you aren’t talking to them, but continue to do so with the other employees. Semantics works best against them, just as much as they want it to work against us. But also. How dare she confront that new girl in front of other people. That’s a sign of a toxic supervisor. She should have, if she really had to say anything (which she didn’t), assisted to get past the rush, then pulled her away (preferably in an office or something), then talk to her — calmly — about the issue. And find out what can be done to help that employee. She was trying her best!” said u/GreenLeafGreg.