# "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:** 6
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/101 "2010-12-22T06:16:30Z")
Just when you thought it was safe to speak the name Keyser Soza three times, suddenly, poof, it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/102 "2010-12-22T06:30:37Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > We have a rule against direct personal insults. So far as I know there’s no broad rule against ad hominem argument or even a rule against fallacious argument in general. Just recently, I was admonished by **tomndebb** for insulting anyone who would disagree with me on a particular point. In other words, After my post, I hadn’t insulted anyone until whoever responded with disagreement. Go figure. ---
**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 22, 2010, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/103 "2010-12-22T06:54:24Z")
According to the [SDMB rules](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697044#post7697044), insults (that are not hate speech) against a large group are permitted: > [@](#): > > And please note the difference between an insult directed against a person and an insult against a large group. > ACCEPTABLE: “Anyone who likes the music of Enema is soulless and lacks taste in music.” > NOT ACCEPTABLE: “You like Enema’s music? Then you’re soulless and have no taste in music.” So even if using the phrase the “usual suspects” is somehow an insult, if the group of “suspects” are large, it should be permitted. ---
**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, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/104 "2010-12-22T06:57:06Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Tell you what. Do what I suggested and act like a thread derailing Dio and see how long you can get away with it. You’ll be warned before you can be pitted even once. I see, the theory is that there is some conspiracy to give Diogenes the Cynic special privileges. Sorry, I don’t buy it. > [@](#): > > Step two : Tell people in ATMB to quit complaining. > > End of problem. I always find this reaction amusing. Posters are upset about something at the board (call it X), so complain vociferously about X. If you reply “well, if we do something about X, then how do we justify it?” And the answer is “if people don’t like it, tell them to quit complaining.” Wouldn’t it be simpler to just start out and tell the people upset about X “quit complaining”? In other words, people often seem to think “if you do something I agree with, you can just tell people to shove it if they don’t like it.” But they would be very unhappy if the same principle was applied when the moderators did something they don’t agree with. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/105 "2010-12-22T12:41:00Z")
The rules on insulting other posters have been quoted selectively. Here’s the whole thing, all together, lifted from [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697044#post7697044](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697044#post7697044) : > [@](#): > > Generally, you may not directly insult other posters. The strictness of this rule varies a bit by forum, but the basic rule is that you should attack what the other person says, not the other person. > > The only exception is the forum called The BBQ Pit, where flaming other posters is permitted. > > Hate speech directed against any race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender is a violation of our rules, as outlined in the Registration Agreement. > > And please note the difference between an insult directed against a person and an insult against a large group. > ACCEPTABLE: “Anyone who likes the music of Enema is soulless and lacks taste in music.” > NOT ACCEPTABLE: “You like Enema’s music? Then you’re soulless and have no taste in music.” Thus, the OP is indeed asking for a variance from, or change in, the rules. Ain’t gonna happen. ---
**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, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/106 "2010-12-22T15:49:11Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > I see, the theory is that there is some conspiracy to give Diogenes the Cynic special privileges. Sorry, I don’t buy it. > . Prove me wrong and behave like him then if you are so damn sure of yourself. I don’t think it a conspiracy per se. But he get aways with alot of “troll like shit”. Which everyone else does at a low level. But, if everyone did it at his level, this board would be worthless. ---
**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 22, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/107 "2010-12-22T16:04:16Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > 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. I’m saying it shouldn’t be used anywhere outside of the Pit. It’s insulting and divisive. It’s saying, “You’re one of _those people_, so what you say doesn’t matter, because you’re just a whiner/troll.” And that’s a personal insult. If you believe that an individual has a pattern of responding in a specific way, then it’s your responsibility to point out the pattern. You can just give some bullshit “usual suspects” broad stroke of the brush and decline to define either (a) who the group is or (b) why you think they belong in the group. > [@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? Well, I have a number of other posters agreeing that the phrase or sentiment is insulting, divisive, and unconstructive, and one person who’s used it agreeing that he meant it in a way that’s inappropriate for ATMB. Is there some further proof that you would like? Do you think it’s a \*good \*thing to allow posters to insult a nebulous and never-defined group of other posters? If so, please explain how that’s useful or constructive. > [@fluiddruid](#): > > 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. Exactly. WE ALREADY HAVE A RULE FOR THAT. I’m asking the mods to start \*enforcing \*it. Because it feels like people can label others in this insulting, dismissive way and get away with it. And not always using the exact phrase, but with sentiments to the same effect. And it has no place anywhere outside of the Pit, because it contributes nothing. All it does is insult the person you’re applying it to without giving them, or the others you’re insulting, any opportunity to defend themselves. Compare: (1) “Here come the usual suspects” a) Accusation: A group of users engages in constant whining about the staff that is baseless b) None of the users are identified c) None of the previous instances are identified (2) “Poster X, you’ve frequently made baseless complaints against the mods here, here, and here, so I’m having problems taking you seriously.” a) Accusation: A specific user engages in constant whining about the staff that is baseless b) A specific user is identified c) Specific previous instances are identified In Scenario 2, we can easily see whether or not the accusation is justified, and the person being accused has the opportunity to defend themselves against it. In Scenario 1, we can’t tell who the people are who are being accused of being whiners/trolls, and we are given no evidence that they are whiners/trolls that they could refute and/or present counter-evidence for. > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t think it’s a problem, either, as long as the person has the opportunity to defend themselves. That’s why this is a problem (see the two scenarios above): people are being accused of being whiners or trolls in a sneaky, backhanded way, so (a) their accusers are able to skirt the edges of the board rules and (b) the accused have no means to defend themselves–they may as well try punching smoke. > [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > 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. Except that the term is clearly derisive. Would you go into a soup kitchen, look at who’s volunteering, and sneer, “Oh, look, it’s the usual suspects”? > [@Czarcasm](#): > > 1. Perhaps they would rather discuss the supposed problem than turn this into an attack on certain posters. It’s already an attack on certain posters. They’re just declining to back up the accusations with proof. > [@](#): > > 1. 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. Seriously? People are refusing to back up accusations with proof because I didn’t say please enough times? :rolleyes: > [@bucketybuck](#): > > 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. [snip] 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. Thank you very much. I appreciate your honesty, candor, and willingness to reconsider your own actions. For the record, if you’ve considered me to be part of this group (which I suspect you do), if I didn’t love this board a lot, I wouldn’t still be here. I bring up the problems I see with staff actions because I want this board to stay a place that I, and others, can enjoy posting. And that means helping to ensure that moderator actions stay in line with the rules of the community, so that when they’re not, either the actions are changed or the rules are. > [@Oakminster](#): > > If you don’t know who the usual suspects on a particular topic are, you might be one of them. Just saying. Oh, I don’t think anyone is confused by who they mean when they say “the usual suspects.” I just want people to be forced to (a) name names and (b) back up their accusations with proof. [quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:84, topic:564961”] There is no SDMB rule against personal attacks on the mods. As far as I know, there never has been. You may feel free to attack me in the Pit at any time. [/QUOTE] 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 not really sure what this post has to do with the topic of this thread, by the way. > [@Munch](#): > > Here’s the beauty of it - it’s vague enough that its intention isn’t to call any specific people out - like SFG said, it’s meant to pre-emptively dismiss anyone who would dare question what the person is defending. Quite simply, it’s poisoning the well. Exactly. > [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Thus, the OP is indeed asking for a variance from, or change in, the rules. Ain’t gonna happen. Please tell me what “the usual suspects” or any similar phrasing means if not “these people are whiners/trolls who make unsubstantiated attacks against the board staff.” And please tell me what “these people are whiners/trolls who make unsubstantiated attacks against the board staff” is if not a personal insult, a particularly insidious one that cannot be refuted because the accuser refuses to name the accused or give examples to support the accusation. You even have \*someone who’s used the phrase \*conceding that what he’s meant by it matches what I’ve purported and agreeing that it’s inappropriate for ATMB, so he’s going to stop using it. How much more proof do you need that this sort of phrasing is outside the boundary for what should be considered appropriate outside of the area of the forum reserved for personal insults? ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/108 "2010-12-22T16:24:21Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s saying, “You’re one of those people, so what you say doesn’t matter, because you’re just a whiner/troll.” And that’s a personal insult. Nonsense. You might as well say that every use of the word “Democrat” means “knee-jerk liberal whinny bleeding heart spender.” > [@](#): > > Please tell me what “the usual suspects” or any similar phrasing means if not “these people are whiners/trolls who make unsubstantiated attacks against the board staff.” And please tell me what “these people are whiners/trolls who make unsubstantiated attacks against the board staff” is if not a personal insult, a particularly insidious one that cannot be refuted because the accuser refuses to name the accused or give examples to support the accusation. For the third time, quoting from the Rules: > [@](#): > > And please note the difference between an insult directed against a person and an insult against a large group. > ACCEPTABLE: “Anyone who likes the music of Enema is soulless and lacks taste in music.” > NOT ACCEPTABLE: “You like Enema’s music? Then you’re soulless and have no taste in music.” You may think “the usual suspects” is a clearly defined group of posters; that’s fine. So are “people who like STAR WARS” and “Republicans” and “Democrats” and “Texans” and … We’ve said that it’s OK to insult groups, so long as it’s not just a thinly-veiled disguise for attacking one poster. Thus, it is permissable to attack “Philadelphians” but not “persons whose screen name imply upper class Philadelphian once married to Katherine Hepburn.” The former is a group of posters. The latter is a single poster. Is that explicit enough? Because I’m not going to repeat this again. It’s been explained, and explained, and explained. I get bored really easily, and sometimes find it hard to distinguish between honest questioning and simple trolling. “But why, mommy?” “Yes but WHY?” “Yes but why?” … ---
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/109 "2010-12-22T16:26:56Z")
Again, how often is the phrase used in this forum? I’m seeing shitloads of smoke-where’s the fire? ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/110 "2010-12-22T16:33:58Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > You may think “the usual suspects” is a clearly defined group of posters; that’s fine. So are “people who like STAR WARS” and “Republicans” and “Democrats” and “Texans” and … We’ve said that it’s OK to insult groups, so long as it’s not just a thinly-veiled disguise for attacking one poster. Thus, it is permissable to attack “Philadelphians” but not “persons whose screen name imply upper class Philadelphian once married to Katherine Hepburn.” The former is a group of posters. The latter is a single poster. Good heavens, the mods\* are a bunch of ignorant, patronizing control-freak whiners. \*A group. ---
**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, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/111 "2010-12-22T16:34:22Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Except that the term is clearly derisive. Would you go into a soup kitchen, look at who’s volunteering, and sneer, “Oh, look, it’s the usual suspects”? I’ve used the phrase “the usual suspects” many times in real life (like at my non-profit group meetings, at my church) and I’ve never met anyone yet that took offense at it. Soon we’re going to have to forbid saying “you people” or “those guys”. In this case it wasn’t meant in a complimentary way, but on the level of rude language, this rates near the bottom of my offense-o-meter, and I can’t believe you are making such a fuss about it. In any case, the guy that was using it has said he won’t use it any more, so insisting on a new rule just for this one expression is becoming more than silly. ---
**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, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/112 "2010-12-22T16:36:58Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > Good heavens, the mods\* are a bunch of ignorant, patronizing control-freak whiners. > > \*A group. And that kind of stuff gets said in ATMB are the time. Are you, Garfield226, saying that there should be a rule against it? Additionally, this is different than “the usual suspects”, since even the people who are so offended by the term seem to think that it doesn’t represent anyone in particular, and are demanding to see a list of the people in that group. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/113 "2010-12-22T16:40:33Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Are you, Garfield226, saying that there should be a rule against it? I was making a statement. I believe the mods lately are being ignorant, patronizing control-freak whiners. I’m happy to hear there’s no rule against my saying that I think the mods lately are being ignorant, patronizing control-freak whiners, because I really do believe that the mods lately are being ignorant, patronizing control-freak whiners. ---
**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, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/114 "2010-12-22T16:41:29Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Prove me wrong and behave like him then if you are so damn sure of yourself. > > I don’t think it a conspiracy per se. But he get aways with alot of “troll like shit”. Which everyone else does at a low level. But, if everyone did it at his level, this board would be worthless. Yes, if everyone posted in a way that irritated a bunch of other people, the board would be less enjoyable. I’m sure I could “get away” with it, but doing it as an “experiment” would be trolling, so I’m not going to bother. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/115 "2010-12-22T16:42:09Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > …Soon we’re going to have to forbid saying “you people”… Who you callin’ ‘you people’? ---
**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 22, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/116 "2010-12-22T16:42:10Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > I was making a statement. I believe the mods lately are being ignorant, patronizing control-freak whiners. I’m happy to hear there’s no rule against my saying that I think the mods lately are being ignorant, patronizing control-freak whiners, because I really do believe that the mods lately are being ignorant, patronizing control-freak whiners. I expect the usual suspects are going to chime in to agree with you. ---
**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, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/117 "2010-12-22T16:42:29Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > I was making a statement. So you disagree with the OP, and think that the phrase “the usual suspects” should be allowed? ETA: OP, what do you think of Garfield226’s post #113 in this thread? Should that be allowed in ATMB? ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/118 "2010-12-22T16:53:10Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > So you disagree with the OP, and think that the phrase “the usual suspects” should be allowed? I think it causes all of the problems mentioned so far in the thread and I don’t think it adds anything to the discussion. When someone posts a thread about being overweight or losing weight or whatever, often there will be a post saying something like “and I’m sure the usual suspects will be along soon to tell you all you have to do is eat less” or something like that. On Fark, whenever there used to be a thread about Homestar Runner, the first five posts would be “in before the haters!” or whatever. It’s predictable, inane and can be used to be incredibly rude and dismissive. I think it can be used to threadshit, and in those cases, it should be moderated. But I don’t think it necessarily always is. I don’t have a problem with posts like that being made against the rules, but I also don’t really have a problem with the way things exist currently (with the exception of threadshitting uses being dealt with instead of left to stink the place up). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/119 "2010-12-22T16:54:59Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I’m saying it shouldn’t be used anywhere outside of the Pit. It’s insulting and divisive. It’s saying, “You’re one of _those people_, so what you say doesn’t matter, because you’re just a whiner/troll.” And that’s a personal insult. I think there is your problem. It is more than a stretch to get a personal insult out of a statement that there is a group of chronic complainers on the SDMB. > [@](#): > > If you believe that an individual has a pattern of responding in a specific way, then it’s your responsibility to point out the pattern. You can just give some bullshit “usual suspects” broad stroke of the brush and decline to define either (a) who the group is or (b) why you think they belong in the group. Sure you can. Some complaints aren’t worth discussing. Maybe one or more of the usual suspects will get all butt-hurt and defensive over it. Boo hoo. > [@](#): > > Do you think it’s a \*good \*thing to allow posters to insult a nebulous and never-defined group of other posters? > [@](#): > > Oh, I don’t think anyone is confused by who they mean when they say “the usual suspects.” You are going to have to make up your mind. > [@](#): > > All it does is insult the person you’re applying it to without giving them, or the others you’re insulting, any opportunity to defend themselves. > > I don’t think it’s a problem, either, as long as the person has the opportunity to defend themselves. I don’t see how you are being prevented from defending yourself. What’s stopping you? > [@](#): > > Seriously? People are refusing to back up accusations with proof because I didn’t say please enough times? :rolleyes: Or else nobody gives much of a shit. I understand what you are saying - you are upset because people are dismissing your complaints as unfounded. That’s because they seem to be, well, unfounded. You are going to have to get used to it - not everything that is important to you is important to the rest of us. So it goes. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/120 "2010-12-22T17:14:06Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > I don’t have a problem with posts like that being made against the rules Would you have a problem with such posts as the one you made slamming the moderators (#113) also being against the rules? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961.md?page=7)