# "The Usual Suspects" **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 21, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961 "2010-12-21T15:41:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/181 "2010-12-23T00:09:02Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I’m not kicking you out of the thread. I’m asking you to please leave if you have nothing further to contribute other than “this topic is pointless/stupid,” which is the exact definition of threadshitting. As I said, this is junior-modding. Only mods get to declare violations of the rules and to invite people to stop participating. ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/182 "2010-12-23T00:12:38Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > And not one moderator addressed any of my actual questions. I’d disagree there, but I concede that there’s not much I can do to convince you otherwise. > [@](#): > > Way to pick a single word out of my criticism. “The usual suspects” isn’t just not helpful–it’s _intentionally insulting and dismissive_. And _ **that is against the rules of this board** _, against personal insults (calling a poster a whiner and/or a troll) and threadshitting (calling a topic pointless or stupid). Okay, I’ll address what you’ve said in more detail. 1 - Helpfulness. Why did you bring up the helpfulness issue at all, and ask us to prove why this statement is helpful several times, if that isn’t important to your argument? 2 - Insulting-ness. Pretty much the whole point of what we’ve discussed here is that we don’t feel that this is a personal insult. You disagree. I understand that. But obviously neither the staff nor the general board populace agrees with you here. I’m afraid there’s not much else we can do to gain consensus with you on this; we don’t think it’s an insult, so it’s not against the rules. 3 - Dismissiveness. Again, there’s no rule here, just like helpfulness. You can be dismissive if you want, which is why you can post things like “So I can just claim anything I find inconvenient is irrelevant?” as you did to me. That clearly was dismissive of what I said, without addressing the actual point, which is that we didn’t address your question “Not one person has explained why it is helpful to be able to make blanket, unsupported personal attacks against a group of posters” because it doesn’t matter if it’s helpful or not. Should the staff moderate you for threadshitting because your response to my explanation was (in my opinion, anyway) unhelpful and dismissive? Hell no. In any case, “personal attacks against a group of posters” to me doesn’t really make sense. If it’s against a group, it’s not personal by definition. I don’t think it’s an attack either; I’m assuming this means ‘insult’ (attacks don’t really have a precise definition though in our rules - many things can be perceived as attacks, many of them not rule-violating). In summary: it is not reasonable to expect the staff to take moderator action simply because they’ve indicated that they don’t respect a poster’s opinion on the grounds that they are one of “the usual suspects”, a chronic complainer, or whatever. This is not an insult. Is it a nice thing to do? Maybe not. But not only does it not fall under our existing rules, I would strongly oppose making it so, because the general direction of trying to moderate against people for saying something dismissive/unhelpful/whatever is **impossible to moderate**. Well, to do it effectively and fairly, anyway. In general terms, it’s just not an insult to simply speak dismissively about one group of users, whether it’s because they are staff members, frequent ATMB posters, frequently post to support moderators or frequently complain about them, frequently compliment the board or frequently trash it, or whatever. Those things, unlike calling someone a troll or something obscene, aren’t insults. Pointing out that someone is, or that you feel that they are, in one of those groups isn’t an insult. Can it be taken to insulting levels? Sure. Could it be taken to threadshitting levels? Sure. But so, really, can practically anything. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/183 "2010-12-23T00:21:57Z")
> [@fluiddruid](#): > > In any case, “personal attacks against a group of posters” to me doesn’t really make sense. If it’s against a group, it’s not personal by definition. I don’t think it’s an attack either [nitpicky example] Anybody who moderates a message board is obviously a child-raper and kitten-eater. Also they smell funny[/NE] ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/184 "2010-12-23T00:29:18Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > [nitpicky example] Anybody who moderates a message board is obviously a child-raper and kitten-eater. Also they smell funny[/NE] I’ll have you know that my odor is significantly improved (though one can only do so much). But kittens? Kittens are _fucking delicious_. ---
**Author:** ![Suil\_Dubh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85f322/32.png) [@Suil\_Dubh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suil_Dubh)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/185 "2010-12-23T00:34:50Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > You cannot, however, find a single person in this thread who has demonstrated how the phrase is not a dismissive insult. Labelling a word or phrase as a definite dismissive insult is not that cut and dry. In Discourse Analysis, any example of speech is considered to contain three kinds of meaning: _locutionary_, _illocutionary_, and _perlocutionary_; or more simply, the literal meaning, the intended meaning, and the perceived meaning. If we analyze a phrase like “the usual suspects” we find: The _locutionary_ meaning refers to the actual, literal meaning: “a group of people who are usually considered whenever an offense is committed”. You could argue that this meaning is negative to begin with, but positive or negative connotations are mitigated (or worsened) by the _illocutionary_ and _perlocutionary_ meanings. The _illocutionary_ meaning of “the usual suspects” could range from “outright condemnation” to “dismissive and divisive” or even “affirmation of friendship”. This _illocutionary_ meaning depends solely on the intent of the speaker. The _perlocutionary_ meaning would also range from “condemnation” to “affirmation”. This meaning depends solely on the perception (and cognition) of the hearer, and is affected by such variables such as context, mood, interpersonal relationships etc. So while some of the people in this thread are perceiving the phrase “the usual suspects” with a dismissive intent, others are obviously not. You cannot unequivocally state that the the general use of the phrase is a definite insult, even in the relatively limited context of “About this Message Board” (or even this thread). > **[Locutionary act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locutionary_act)** > > In linguistics and the philosophy of language, a locutionary act is the performance of an utterance, and is one of the types of force, in addition to illocutionary act and perlocutionary act, typically cited in Speech Act Theory. Speech Act Theory is a subfield of pragmatics that explores how words and sentences are not only used to present information, but also to perform actions. As an utterance, a locutionary act is considered a performative, in which both the audience and the speaker m The t... ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/186 "2010-12-23T00:37:00Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Yes, there is a rule against personal attacks on mods _as mods_. \*Any \*complaint about \*any \*action taken by a mod as a moderator \*must \*go in ATMB, which means that it \*must \*comply with the rules of that forum. So there is no way for a user to rant or vent about a mod except as a private poster. I’m starting to think you’re misunderstanding on purpose. Either that or you’re saying that you’re incapable of complaining about action taken by a moderator without personally insulting said moderator. There is a rule against personal attacks outside of the Pit. It makes absolutely no differentiation between mods and anyone else. The only “special” mod rule is that moderator’s actions are to be discussed here in ATMB. This is quite clear. If you think a mod has taken inappropriate action as a mod, discuss it here _and keep the discussion to the action_. No personal attacks. If you think a mod is a jackass and you want to take a few potshots, you can Pit us just like you’d Pit anyone else. If you’re capable of debating in Great Debates–vigorously attacking someone else’s position without personally insulting the individual–then you should be capable of doing the same thing in ATMB. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/187 "2010-12-23T00:47:04Z")
> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > Sadly, I think this _whooshed_ a lot of people, but I see what you did there. Earl Snake-Hips Tucker, I’m seeing the beginning of a great…(forgot the exact phrase). Best wishes, hh ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/188 "2010-12-23T00:48:59Z")
The trouble may be that in this short little thread not one moderator has replied to this request for censorship. The OP feels ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/189 "2010-12-23T00:52:29Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > The OP feels ignored. Can’t have that. If there’s one thing we won’t tolerate, it’s ignore-ance. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Gay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ab097/32.png) [@Enola\_Gay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Gay)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/190 "2010-12-23T01:07:34Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > So you don’t think it’s dismissive? No I genuinely don’t, but even if I did there is no rule against being dismissive. [QUOTE=] You think it’s a compliment? [/QUOTE] No. I don’t think it’s a compliment or an insult. [QUOTE=] Maybe you can find an example of when someone has been called a “usual suspect,” a whiner, a complainer, and the person accusing them of such meant it in a positive way. Because every single time I have seen it, it has been as part of an attempt to dismiss the arguments of the person being labeled, without actually having to address the issues they’ve raised. [/QUOTE] If you’re asking me to sift through the SDMB archives to find examples, I’m going to decline because a) the search feature on this board sucks, and b) I don’t care enough to spend a lot of time on it. But I will offer some examples of when I might use the phrase, which imo is akin to “the regulars”: 1. I went down to my local pub and the usual suspects were there drinking beer. 2. I opened a thread about how intelligent Sarah Palin is, and the usual suspects showed up to declare that she is a moron. 3. A spammer was spamming the board and the usual suspects arrived on the scene and banned him. In none of these cases is the term “usual suspects” used in a derogatory manor, it just means “the regulars”. The closest analogy I can think of is the phrase “the powers that be”…I am sure that at some point in time someone has used that phrase in a manner that was intended to be dismissive, but that is no reason to ban a perfectly innocuous phrase. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/191 "2010-12-23T01:44:46Z")
> [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > In none of these cases is the term “usual suspects” used in a derogatory manor, it just means “the regulars”. The closest analogy I can think of is the phrase “the powers that be”…I am sure that at some point in time someone has used that phrase in a manner that was intended to be dismissive, but that is no reason to ban a perfectly innocuous phrase. Sure it is, because in this case, TUS are people perceived to be whiners and complainers about board moderation, and TUS don’t want to be perceived as whiners and complainers, but as the vanguard for a better SDMB, looking out for everyone who is wrongly satisfied with the overall moderation (which, of course, does not prevent TUM\* from disagreeing with specific decisions). Of course, TUS changes depending on the context. In moderation questions, I know of 3. In threads exhibiting the so-called **Dio** -effect, I’ve only noticed one. In both cases, others may have a larger list, but given my manner of reading the boards (I usually ignore poster names to focus more on the content rather than pre-conceived notions), it means that my TUS are a really loud and annoying hammer that have gotten my attention in a negative way. \*The Unwashed Masses ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/192 "2010-12-23T02:12:25Z")
An observation. The word suspects is rarely IME used in a positive fashion. The fact that they are the usual ones doesnt improve the conotation much IMO. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/193 "2010-12-23T02:14:42Z")
> [@D\_Odds](#): > > In threads exhibiting the so-called **Dio** -effect, I’ve only noticed one. There can be only one! Its like the Highlander. Except it sucks. ---
**Author:** ![AnalogSignal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/analogsignal/32/1085_2.png) [@AnalogSignal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnalogSignal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/194 "2010-12-23T02:29:18Z")
> [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > In none of these cases is the term “usual suspects” used in a derogatory manor, it just means “the regulars”. I agree. The “usual suspects” is a joking way to refer to “the regulars.” I believe its usage was popularized by a running joke in the movie _Casablanca_. The French police kept saying “round up the usual suspects” instead of arresting the people who were actually resisting the Nazis. In the final scene in _Casablanca_, Rick (Humphrey Bogart) shoots a Nazi right in front of the French captain who says “round up the usual suspects” instead of arresting Rick: > [@](#): > > [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/quotes](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/quotes) > > Rick: I was willing to shoot Captain Renault and I’m willing to shoot you. > Major Strasser: [picks up the telephone] Hello? > Rick: Put that phone down! > Major Strasser: Get me the radio tower. > Rick: PUT IT DOWN! > [Strasser draws a gun, he and Rick both fire simultaneously, Strasser falls mortally wounded, shortly afterward, some police arrive on the scene] > Captain Renault: Major Strasser’s been shot. > [Renault looks at Rick, Rick gives him a look] > Captain Renault: Round up the usual suspects. > [the police pick up Major Strasser’s body and leave, Renault looks over at Rick, who is smiling] ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/195 "2010-12-23T02:35:36Z")
> [@AnalogSignal](#): > > I agree. The “usual suspects” is a joking way to refer to “the regulars.” I believe its usage was popularized by a running joke in the movie _Casablanca_. The French police kept saying “round up the usual suspects” instead of arresting the people who were actually resisting the Nazis. Thats fine when its ACTUALLY being used jokingly. The problem is what the OP is complaining about is when its NOT used that way. ---
**Author:** ![AnalogSignal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/analogsignal/32/1085_2.png) [@AnalogSignal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnalogSignal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/196 "2010-12-23T02:47:39Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Thats fine when its ACTUALLY being used jokingly. Here is the most common usage that I hear at work: Jane: I missed the meeting. Who was there? Bob: Oh, you the know, the usual suspects. Bob is not implying that the meeting attendees are potential criminals under police surveillance. Bob is saying the same old crew that goes every week attended the meeting. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/197 "2010-12-23T04:06:01Z")
> [@Moonlitherial](#): > > But whether you’re grouped with them or not it seems clear that it’s intended to insult a group of people and isn’t that a violation of the rules? Is it dismissive? Yes. But I don’t think it’s an insult. > [@](#): > > It serves \*no \*purpose except for you to point out that you don’t like certain people on this forum. It’s a sign of recognition of a pattern of behavior. There are posters who take any incident and turn it into an excuse to blast all mods, to claim the moderation of this board is inept or whatever. Just like whenever there is a complaint filed, and a number of posters step in to defend the moderators, they get labeled as brown-nosers or whatnot. Just like when automatic nested quotes was reinstituted, and then shown to be more hassle than it was worth, so then retracted, comments were made that “the whiny incompentents have won”. Are they constructive to the conversation? Only in the sense that they allow posters to express their feelings about the situation in terms that don’t fall to the level of personal insults. But comments do not have to be _constructive_ to be _allowed._ > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Seriously, **fluiddruid** , you see \*no problem \*with someone posting to a thread, not to discuss the thread topic, but to say that you think the OP and anyone who agrees with the OP is a whiner? :dubious: If someone stated that anyone who agreed with the specific incident complaint was a whiner, I would not see that as proper. But if someone came into a thread about a specific incident and started throwing around blanket accusations of bad moderating, well then I would think it totally appropriate to call them on that. And one way to call them on that is to do it in a generic form. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Well, “usual suspects” was already taken. How about if I were to say “here come the usual suspects to lick the mods’ asses” instead of “here come the usual suspects to whine and troll”? That pretty much happens anytime people defend the mods. In pretty much those terms. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > As in this thread. Where not one single person has yet given any justification for how or why this phrase, or any similar sentiment, is useful, helpful, or not against the rules. I think it has been specifically addressed as how it is not against the rules. It is a matter of interpretation, which history has shown you have different interpretation of the rules than the mods tend to. The pattern you exhibit is not agreeing with their interpretation, so refusing to accept that they have addressed the question because they don’t agree with your interpretation of the rules. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > \*Not one person \*has explained why it is helpful to be able to make blanket, unsupported personal attacks against a group of posters. There’s a difference between not being helpful and being against the rules. ---
**Author:** ![Eutychus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/198 "2010-12-23T10:49:37Z")
I agree with **Shot From Guns**. I think the phrase should now be “The Usual Suspect.” ---
**Author:** ![Quasimodem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Quasimodem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quasimodem)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/199 "2010-12-23T10:52:34Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Just when you thought it was safe to speak the name Keyser Soza three times, suddenly, poof, it’s not. What I wanna know is: WHERE is the damn sequel? At least three years ago, I read there was one in the works! Thanks Q ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/200 "2010-12-23T12:42:40Z")
Since I see my original post has been quoted I thought I should mention that my suggestion that there should be an official moratorium on the phrase was not meant in earnest and I’m surprised that it’s still being genuinely debated. That’s a step onto a very slippery slope. However, my view that it constitutes threadshitting was in earnest and I think that anyone using it seriously, particularly to dismiss the views of other posters, ought to have a damn list at hand ready to post if challenged. If you’re not willing to say who you mean by the phrase “the usual suspects” you shouldn’t use it. And “everyone knows who they are” is not a legitimate argument. Put up or shut up. Ona more important note: > [@fluiddruid](#): > > But kittens? Kittens are fucking delicious. [There’s a reason for that…](http://s7.thisnext.com/media/230x230/Kittens-Pop-Tarts-T-Shirt_34ECF73F-Tasty%21-grey.jpg) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961.md?page=11)