# "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:** 4
**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, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/61 "2010-12-21T23:16:07Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Of course, and this particular OP is not a great example of the chilling effect of having rule and policy discussions in ATMB vs. the Pit, given that there’s no chance the mods are going to ban that phrase. However, there have been many times when a poster does want to discuss another behavior’s poster in the context of rule enforcement, not just call them names, and that’s when having said discussions in ATMB gets tricky, IMO. Whatever line you want to draw, people will be going right up to it and dancing right next to it, and then you will have other posters complaining about where exactly the line is. In 99% of the cases, it’s possible to discuss a poster’s behaviour without flaming them, in fact I don’t remember any threads in ATMB where it _has_ been a problem, but I imagine there could be one somewhere, that’s why I said 99% and not 100%. ---
**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 21, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/62 "2010-12-21T23:24:57Z")
What’s all this buckeye stuff? ---
**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, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/63 "2010-12-21T23:34:45Z")
Someone once said in a thread “I hate the word ‘buckeye’ because it makes me think of the eye of a dead deer” (paraphrasing). ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/64 "2010-12-21T23:36:13Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > 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? Since you’re the one concerned about the phrase, isn’t it up to you to prove that its usage is a problem, not up to everyone else to prove it isn’t? ---
**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 21, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/65 "2010-12-21T23:44:40Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Someone once said in a thread “I hate the word ‘buckeye’ because it makes me think of the eye of a dead deer” (paraphrasing). Ohhhh, now I remember that. But I don’t recall that the word “buckeye” had been banned. ---
**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, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/66 "2010-12-21T23:51:22Z")
As far as I know, the word isn’t banned. My memory could be faulty, but I seem to recall that a bunch of clever people started saying “buckeye” in threads that had nothing to do with buckeyes, but in which the poster who didn’t like the word had posted, and a moderator might have said “that will be enough of that.” ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/67 "2010-12-21T23:53:53Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > 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: But your question has nothing to do with simply using the term “the usual suspects”. The question you’ve asked me here seems to have a lot more to do with threadshitting than a specific phrase, and we already have a rule for that. I don’t think classifying someone as a chronic complainer is necessarily a problem per se, regardless of context; if it fell afoul of being a jerk or what have you, I’d probably feel differently. Can you give us some context here? How about some examples? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/68 "2010-12-21T23:55:36Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > Since you’re the one concerned about the phrase, isn’t it up to you to prove that its usage is a problem, not up to everyone else to prove it isn’t? I think when someone says, “X has no value”, and then someone else says, “X has plenty of value” it wouldn’t be a huge stretch for that second person to at least try to describe that value. The first person already has - zero. ---
**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, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/69 "2010-12-21T23:56:18Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > As far as I know, the word isn’t banned. My memory could be faulty, but I seem to recall that a bunch of clever people started saying “buckeye” in threads that had nothing to do with buckeyes, but in which the poster who didn’t like the word had posted, and a moderator might have said “that will be enough of that.” That’s my understanding. Some folks took it way too far and were basically pursuing the user in question about the board, trying to bait said user repeatedly after the subject had been long dropped. It was obnoxious behavior by a few that was addressed as such. ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/70 "2010-12-21T23:58:13Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > I think when someone says, “X has no value”, and then someone else says, “X has plenty of value” it wouldn’t be a huge stretch for that second person to at least try to describe that value. The first person already has - zero. I thought someone had already explained the usage, but how about this: the expression has some value, it describes the group of posters at the board that like to show up to discuss moderator actions. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/71 "2010-12-21T23:59:12Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Whatever line you want to draw, people will be going right up to it and dancing right next to it, and then you will have other posters complaining about where exactly the line is. In 99% of the cases, it’s possible to discuss a poster’s behaviour without flaming them, in fact I don’t remember any threads in ATMB where it _has_ been a problem, but I imagine there could be one somewhere, that’s why I said 99% and not 100%. I don’t think you understand my point. It’s not about flaming. It’s about certain discussions naturally veering toward the boundaries of what is acceptable for ATMB. Not because certain malcontents are trying to game the rules, but because the topics themselves sometimes require one to give specific, unflattering examples of poster behavior in order to have an open factual discussion of moderation policy. See for example [yesterday’s thread about Diogenes](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=590040), or [Sunday’s thread about pseudotriton ruber ruber](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=589916). Some discussions benefit from restrictions on tone and topic: a panel discussion on global warming doesn’t benefit from letting everyone just yell obscenities at each other. At the same time, you wouldn’t stage an intervention in a public tea room. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/72 "2010-12-22T00:05:52Z")
The usual suspect who is named is not the eternal usual suspect. ---
**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 22, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/73 "2010-12-22T00:09:52Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I don’t think you understand my point. It’s not about flaming. It’s about certain discussions naturally veering toward the boundaries of what is acceptable for ATMB. Not because certain malcontents are trying to game the rules, but because the topics themselves sometimes require one to give specific, unflattering examples of poster behavior in order to have an open factual discussion of moderation policy. See for example [yesterday’s thread about Diogenes](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=590040), or [Sunday’s thread about pseudotriton ruber ruber](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=589916). I don’t see how the second one is an example of what you’re complaining. Calling someone a twat in ATMB is superfluous to discussing poster behaviour, I disagree that a discussion has to naturally veer in that direction. You could say the same about any discussion, even GQ threads. The first one was turning into a thread that was not related to the OP any more, it was a bunch of people arguing with Diogenes the Cynic about his posting style. The problem wasn’t that people couldn’t keep civil - they were disagreeing but keeping within the realm of civility. In short, I reject your premise. ---
**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 22, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/74 "2010-12-22T00:10:02Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > 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? 1. Perhaps they would rather discuss the supposed problem than turn this into an attack on certain posters. 2. You didn’t say the magic word. Seriously, people might be more receptive if some of your posts didn’t seem like a list of demands. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/75 "2010-12-22T00:24:18Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > The first one was turning into a thread that was not related to the OP any more, it was a bunch of people arguing with Diogenes the Cynic about his posting style. The problem wasn’t that people couldn’t keep civil - they were disagreeing but keeping within the realm of civility. . Yet that thread got locked. And nearly post haste IMO as well. ---
**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 22, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/76 "2010-12-22T00:27:22Z")
Because it was turning into a hijack of the OP, not because people couldn’t stay polite. A hijack can happen in any forum. ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/77 "2010-12-22T00:28:25Z")
After considering this for a few hours, I have to be honest and admit that when I use the term ‘usual suspects’, I am not using it in any neutral fashion. If you asked me who the usual suspects were, I would say they were a small group of posters who are very active in ATMB, but who also make a habit of using the Giraffe boards to insult the board and the people who post on the Straight dope. Though this affects me just as much and as little as anything on the internet affects me, it still leaves a sour taste in the mouth, and so I find it extremely difficult to believe those posters are posting in good faith when making complaints: > [@](#): > > I can only think they do it for the laughs, just like the reason many of us still post at the Dope. [SIZE=“1”]Gets called Fucketyfuck on the Giraffe boards in 3..2..1..[/SIZE] That is my reasoning behind the Usual suspects. Your mileage may vary. Your suspects may vary. And yes, I could name names, but I’m not going to. Why not? Because who gives a fuck what ignore lists I am on. So yes, when I say “The Usual suspects”, it is my belief that their complaints are not based on good faith, and should not be taken as seriously as others. I make no apologies for that, it is my opinion and I stand by it. However, following this train of thought, it is obvious that it is inappropriate for me to be using the term in ATMB. Not every complaint is unjustified, and not every complaint is made by the Usual suspects, so it is unfair to tar everybody with the same brush. As such, I appreciate I should not be using the term, I apologise for using the term in the past, and I shall refrain from using the term in the future. ---
**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 22, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/78 "2010-12-22T00:34:59Z")
Good on ya mate! ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/79 "2010-12-22T00:42:08Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Because it was turning into a hijack of the OP, not because people couldn’t stay polite. A hijack can happen in any forum. Baloney IMO. A fact versus opinion debate and how it relates to poster behavior and the rules of the SDMB? Budda on a Biscuit. If Dio isnt the poster child for that type of discussion I don’t know who is. IMO it got locked down because it was perceived as a “pile on”. And as Giraffee observed, if some poster is doing something a bunch of people think is wrong it will invariably (and rightfully) look just like a pile on. But it aint. Its evidence of a real problem. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/80 "2010-12-22T00:45:03Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > 'Twas a cool movie. My name is Kobayashi. I work for Keyser Soze… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961.md?page=5)