# "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:** 3
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/41 "2010-12-21T21:37:26Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I am shocked, _shocked_ find that complaining is going on in here. 😉 Sadly, I think this _whooshed_ a lot of people, but I see what you did there. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/42 "2010-12-21T21:37:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That was what the rest of the post was doing. The rest of which post, **bucketybuck** ’s? How did it in any way address the specific complaint of the OP? If \*\*bucketybuck \*\*wished to complain about what he felt to be a group of users who make unsubstantiated complaints for the sake of complaining, wouldn’t it be better for him to start a new thread, name specific names, and give specific examples? Because if there really were a group of “usual suspects” doing the kind of pointless complaining he’s talking about, surely the board staff would want to take action and warn or ban them all. To come into a thread just to accuse someone of being part of some nebulous group of “usual suspects” is, to me, pointless, useless, meaningless threadshitting. You’re not addressing the topic; you’re saying that anyone who \*wants \*to address it is stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/43 "2010-12-21T21:40:46Z")
> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > Sadly, I think this _whooshed_ a lot of people, but I see what you did there. [There’s that tune again.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13224242&postcount=87) ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/44 "2010-12-21T21:56:46Z")
I agree with Munch. It’s a very useful phrase as it tells me who I should be adding to the ignore list. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/45 "2010-12-21T22:03:54Z")
Outside of this particular thread, how often has the phrase been used in this forum? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/46 "2010-12-21T22:06:52Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > My attitude is not that the staff is above criticism. I said there’s an excess of _personal_ criticism in this forum, and I was talking about personal criticism of individual posters AND the staff. “You blew this call” can lead to a useful discussion. “Your moderating sucks” probably won’t. By the same token, saying you think a particular poster broke the rules is a valid use of this forum, but dismissing that poster’s entire output usually leads to flaming. Good; I’m glad to hear this. I did not get that sense from the tone of your earlier post that I responded to; whether it was a question of your presentation or my misperception is for third parties to evaluate. Thanks for the response. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/47 "2010-12-21T22:08:51Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > And can anybody point me to a rule that says “You’re allowed X good-faith complaints, after which point your input is meaningless?” I don’t believe there is such a rule. Or at least, there should not be. But we are not talking about good-faith complaints. We are talking about posters who automatically join into any pile-on or complaint about a mod, no matter if it is justified or not. Short hand for that subset of posters, in this instance, is “the usual suspects”. > [@](#): > > Can anybody who thinks that dismissing a complaint as being from “the usual suspects” explain to me how it is an attack against “what the other person says, not the other person”? You are missing the point. The ban is on direct insults. It is the difference between saying “Republicans are douchebags” even if some Dopers are Republicans, vs. “So-and-so-who-posts-on-the-Dope is a douchebag” because he is a Republican. Although, to some extent, you have a point - it is difficult to take even a justified complaint from the chronic whiners as seriously as, in a perfect world, it would be. > [@Shot From Guns](#): > > The rest of which post? The rest of mine. Hence the quote from my post. I guess I will invoke my own rule - if they didn’t read it the first time, they won’t read it the second either. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/48 "2010-12-21T22:18:54Z")
This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. Are there really cases where problems aren’t addressed at all, because of someone being one of the “usual suspects”? I don’t see any complaints being flatly ignored in that way, but sure, some people have worn out their welcome in ATMB a bit more than others. After all, as a mod, if I’ve tried to discuss something 10 times with one person and never reached consensus, I probably won’t try to do so as much as I might for someone who seems open to discussion. I think it’s fairly obvious to everyone that it’s not possible for every mod to debate every point until everyone is satisfied. As such, it’s prudent to sometimes give a user more benefit of the doubt. If someone jumps in every thread to criticize the staff, then is it truly inappropriate to say so regardless of the circumstances, because every comment or concern must be treated equally? I don’t think that makes a whole lot of sense, and I don’t see how that’s really enforceable (even just on the staff, let alone everyone else). The fact of the matter is that the messenger is sometimes relevant information. Unlike many forums, we don’t prohibit criticizing moderator calls or public discussion of moderator actions. Thus, I think it’s fair for the staff (or anyone else) to call a spade a spade; there’s no point in pretending to ignore that a thread participant might not be acting entirely in good faith, based on their posting history, as long as it’s not done in a manner that otherwise violates the rules such as by being insulting. Note that, again, for absolute clarity, I don’t think anyone should be completely ignored or their concerns dismissed out of turn regardless of their content. I do think that some people will wear out the benefit of the doubt and that it’s natural for people to note that, in civil terms. In short, if you, as a user, don’t want to get a reputation for doing a particular thing, the solution is to not do that thing, not to prohibit people posting about it. This isn’t targeted at you, SFG - I mean it towards everyone. If a user doesn’t feel that the community respects their opinion and gives it appropriate weight… well, there’s an element of personal responsibility there, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/49 "2010-12-21T22:19:47Z")
Honestly it strikes me as a way to insult a bunch of posters without mentioning specific names (and thereby getting some kind of mod attention). It seems to me different from the “generalised insults are acceptable” rule in the it feels more like grouping the Dopers in question solely. So less “Republicans are douchbags” and more “Republican Dopers are douchebags”. If anything, it feels equivalent to simply listing out specific Dopers - “Poster X, Y, and Z are all douchebags” - rather than simply outlining a group to which some Dopers happen to belong. “The usual suspects” seems to me to refer to specific posters whom the user has in mind, rather than a specific group to whom some Dopers may belong. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/50 "2010-12-21T22:22:01Z")
> [@Autolycus](#): > > So, are we allowed to say ‘buckeyes’ now? Good question. I hope you’re not holding your breath. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/51 "2010-12-21T22:24:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Outside of this particular thread, how often has the phrase been used in this forum? That’s a good question. It’s hard to tell because the board search apparently doesn’t allow you to search for exact phrases and Google is returning lots of stuff outside of ATMB even with that included as a filter, but apparently not as often as I would have WAG’d. I guess the phrase is more indicative of an \*attitude \*I’ve been seeing lately, of the way certain people are pretty much being labeled trolls, without the person having the courtesy to actually start a new thread to make the accusation. IMO, if someone thinks a person or group of people have a history of making baseless accusations and piling on the baseless accusations of others, then they should make a new thread to deal with the issue; not post to a thread by that person simply to say that a post was useless \*because \*it was made by Poster X. We have a word for going into a thread just to call someone a troll or say that the topic isn’t worth talking about. > [@Shodan](#): > > But we are not talking about good-faith complaints. We are talking about posters who automatically join into any pile-on or complaint about a mod, no matter if it is justified or not. Short hand for that subset of posters, in this instance, is “the usual suspects”. And I am saying, that essentially amounts to a backhanded way of calling somebody a troll, which is against the rules of the forum. Posting to a thread to say that the thread is stupid or the people discussing the topic is stupid is threadshitting. I ask again: Who are the “usual suspects,” and can you provide evidence of their trolling? > [@](#): > > I guess I will invoke my own rule - if they didn’t read it the first time, they won’t read it the second either. No, I’m genuinely confused by what you’re actually trying to say here, because you keep using pronouns instead of being specific. Please tell me \*specifically \*what post you think used the expression “the usual suspects” in a way that it contributed to the discussion at hand (obviously excluding a post discussing the phrase itself). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/52 "2010-12-21T22:24:42Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Good; I’m glad to hear this. I did not get that sense from the tone of your earlier post that I responded to; whether it was a question of your presentation or my misperception is for third parties to evaluate. Thanks for the response. No problem at all. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/53 "2010-12-21T22:27:55Z")
> [@fluiddruid](#): > > Are there really cases where problems aren’t addressed at all, because of someone being one of the “usual suspects”? I’m not concerned with moderator attention so much as I am with posters getting away with essentially calling other posters trolls. > [@](#): > > The fact of the matter is that the messenger is sometimes relevant information. Unlike many forums, we don’t prohibit criticizing moderator calls or public discussion of moderator actions. Thus, I think it’s fair for the staff (or anyone else) to call a spade a spade; there’s no point in pretending to ignore that a thread participant might not be acting entirely in good faith, based on their posting history, as long as it’s not done in a manner that otherwise violates the rules such as by being insulting. I am saying that calling someone one of the “usual suspects” or any similar suggestion is, by definition, insulting. If someone wants to say, “Poster X, you have made other unsubstantiated claims against Mod Y here, here, and here; what makes this time any different,” I think that’s absolutely valid. But that’s not what’s happening. We’re just getting handwaved dismissals without anything to back them up. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Honestly it strikes me as a way to insult a bunch of posters without mentioning specific names (and thereby getting some kind of mod attention). Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/54 "2010-12-21T22:28:06Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > How about we start a poll and each person votes for the phrase that they find most insulting and dismissive, and we ban all those phrases? I vote for “head 'em off at the pass” - I hate that cliche. ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/55 "2010-12-21T22:42:41Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I am saying that calling someone one of the “usual suspects” or any similar suggestion is, by definition, insulting. If someone wants to say, “Poster X, you have made other unsubstantiated claims against Mod Y here, here, and here; what makes this time any different,” I think that’s absolutely valid. But that’s not what’s happening. We’re just getting handwaved dismissals without anything to back them up. But in that case, your proposed rule should be a requirement of proof, rather than this specific phrase. People can be dismissive without using “the usual suspects” at all. Even then, of course, it doesn’t work. We can’t be required to try to verify that everything everyone says in this forum is factually correct and cited; it’s just not possible. Some folks just won’t agree with you and may dismiss you in a way you feel unfair. Some users will remember your name and will treat your posts differently. It happens to many people in every forum on the board. It doesn’t feel good, but it’s not something that the staff is here to fix for you. I don’t buy that this term is the same as calling someone a troll. As far as I’m aware, calling someone one of “the usual suspects” in the context you object to specifically means someone who frequently goes out of their way to dispute moderator actions and complain, probably excessively, about the staff. There’s nothing in that definition that calls someone a troll. To be a troll is to be insincere, causing inflammatory threads for personal amusement. I don’t believe that’s the intent of “the usual suspects”-type comments; at least, I wouldn’t interpret them that way. I would tend to view “the usual suspects” to mean more along the lines of “hey, this person hangs around in ATMB all the time and complains in every thread, take it with a grain of salt”, not “this is someone who’s actively acting in a dishonest way to fool the board for their personal jollies”. The former is an observation of behavior, not an insult; the latter is an insult, or at least a serious accusation best suited for discussion with the moderator staff. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/56 "2010-12-21T22:48:01Z")
I don’t care if someone remembers certain posters a certain way. I do care if they classify various people as being constant whiners, and they then go out of their way to post to their threads to do nothing but accuse them of such, without ever actually saying: a.) These are the people I think complain constantly for no reason; and b.) This is why I think you’re one of them. 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: ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/57 "2010-12-21T22:52:16Z")
> [@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: Why not? It’s a valid comment, applicable in, I dare say, the majority of cases. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/58 "2010-12-21T22:57:11Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Why not? It’s a valid comment, applicable in, I dare say, the majority of cases. And yet, shockingly, \*not one single person \*in this thread has been able to give me: 1.) A list of the actual suspects. 2.) A series of cites for each that shows that all they do is make baseless complaints. I wonder why that is? ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/59 "2010-12-21T23:10:26Z")
IMHO: Saying that the phrase “the usual suspects” is insulting is going overboard. If we disallow it in ATMB, what about in any other forum? What if I start a thread about the Bible, and some people come in there to say “there is no God”, and I say “the usual group of people are saying there is no God, which is to be expected, nevertheless…” Then someone will start complaining that I’m trying to get around the “usual suspects” rule. Not every expression that people don’t like is an insult that should be barred from all forums except The BBQ Pit. You have to be very thin-skinned to take exception to “the usual suspects”. As a matter of fact, I read ATMB frequently, and I agree with the feeling, though I’ve never used the phrase - of the hundreds or thousands of posters here, there are only a few that show up regularly in discussions of moderator actions. I am one of them. I’m one of the “usual suspects”. I just happen to be one that regularly defends the moderator actions when I agree with them, but if someone included me in a group and said “the usual suspects have shown up to defend the moderators” I’m not going to run home crying about it, because this is the kind of expression that should be well within the bounds of what you can say in this forum. And it’s true! ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/60 "2010-12-21T23:13:04Z")
> [@Autolycus](#): > > So, are we allowed to say ‘buckeyes’ now? If it’s relevant to a thread, why not? If it’s just to follow someone around saying buckeyes over and over again in unrelated threads, because you know that person doesn’t like the word, that’s being a jerk. These things aren’t that hard to figure out! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961.md?page=4)