# "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:** 9
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/161 "2010-12-22T20:56:05Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I would request that the thread stay open until (a) at least one staff member can give me a straight answer to my questions instead of just being patronizing and (b) a staff member can make a response to the instance of threadshitting I reported. All of your questions are adequately answered by **Dex** in the quad-post. To summarize, you lose. No rule changes are happening. If it was my post you reported, I’ll observe that I do not believe it is possible to shit on this particular thread. The question has been asked and answered (yes I know you don’t like the answer, but an answer was given). There is no point in continuing the discussion. Maybe you could go post about tanking raids I’ll never be able to do. Those posts are fun to read. These aren’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 22, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/162 "2010-12-22T21:01:46Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I would request that the thread stay open until (a) at least one staff member can give me a straight answer to my questions instead of just being patronizing and (b) a staff member can make a response to the instance of threadshitting I reported. It has already been decided by the mods that a use of the phrase does not automatically constitute a violation of the no insults rule. Unless you’re pursuing a different argument now, there’s no reason to expect that there will be any further explanation. And even if you are now posing a different argument, it has been definitively stated that there will be no broad ban on the phrase for any reason. Sonagain there’s no reason to expect further response from the mods. I can’t see that there’s any chance of your getting satisfaction from taking this further ---
**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, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/163 "2010-12-22T21:04:54Z")
@ **Oakminster** : No, \*none \*of my questions were answered. They were hand-waved away. I have given logical arguments and evidence as to why this phrase, and similar expressions, break board rules. What I have gotten in return is, “No they don’t.” _ **It’s the fucking Monty Python argument sketch.** _ That’s not a real response. And you dont know specifically what I consider to be threadshitting in here because I didn’t point it out, as requested in the official forum definition of threadshitting. Concurrent with [that definition](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6241129&postcount=1), I will politely request that if you believe this thread to be pointless that you simply cease posting in it and go elsewhere. ETA: **ascenray** , I would request the same of you. ---
**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, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/164 "2010-12-22T21:08:17Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Concurrent with [that definition](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6241129&postcount=1), I will politely request that if you believe this thread to be pointless that you simply cease posting in it and go elsewhere. Good idea. Good bye. ---
**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, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/165 "2010-12-22T21:13:13Z")
Was that really necessary? ISTM that the proper route is to simply stop replying; anything else is a roundabout way of saying that you think the thread is stupid and pointless, i.e., threadshitting. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/166 "2010-12-22T21:16:28Z")
Sweetie, I still heart ya in the WoW threads, but you’re going a little **Dio Show** on us here. ---
**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, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/167 "2010-12-22T21:20:32Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > What it adds to the discussion is the legitimate point that some people are chronic complainers, > > But, _ **as I’ve demonstrated repeatedly** _, it \*doesn’t \*do that. > > 1.) It doesn’t name the actual people. > 2.) It doesn’t give evidence that they’re chronic complainers. You haven’t demonstrated anything of the sort. “There are some chronic complainers on the SDMB” is a perfectly legitimate point, even if you don’t name names. Your assertions otherwise are false. And you have already admitted that you know perfectly well who is meant when the phrase is used, so naming names is unnecessary. > [@](#): > > \*All \*it does is insult without any substance to back it up. It is not an insult, and some complaints (as mentioned) are not worthy of the effort of refutation. > [@](#): > > After all, if you fear that the complaints are legitimate, why go to the effort of trying to disprove them when you can just handwave away the people making the complaints as not worth anyone’s time? I can do the same when I am quite sure the complaints in question are not worth anyone’s time. So I do. > [@](#): > > Thank you for providing proof of my assertion that people who see no problem with using “the usual suspects” are just trying to find a way to skirt the board rules against personal insults and accusing others of trolling. As I mentioned, it does not seem to me that anyone else considers use of the phrase to be an accusation of trolling, or a direct insult. Maybe you do, but I think the mods have made clear that your eccentricities will not be made the basis for the rulings. This kind of huffy insistence that everyone needs to stop using a perfectly innocuous phrase because it gets your knickers in a twist is amusing at best, but gets tedious quickly. **C K Dexter Haven** has, I think, made the ruling clear, and in triplicate, no less. Accordingly, if you feel the need to repeat yourself a few more times, go ahead, and don’t be disappointed if you don’t get a response from me. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/168 "2010-12-22T21:21:52Z")
@ **Oakminster** : Absolutely incorrect. I have put forth every effort to engage people honestly in this thread. All of the stubborness and hand-waving is coming from the other side of the fence. I have given logical arguments and evidence; they have given… mockery and dismissal. The only person I’ve seen answer any actual concrete questions have been \*\*bucketybuck \*\*and **Tahssa**. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/169 "2010-12-22T21:27:13Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > @ **Oakminster** : > > Absolutely incorrect. I have put forth every effort to engage people honestly in this thread. All of the stubborness and hand-waving is coming from the other side of the fence. I have given logical arguments and evidence; they have given… mockery and dismissal. So you’ve done nothing bad. It’s all other people being mean to you. That sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before? ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/170 "2010-12-22T21:42:54Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Except that there are many people in the thread agreeing with me, including one of the people who actually used the expression. False. People are agreeing that it’s not meant as a compliment. They are not agreeting that it’s against the rules. And _this_ time I’m really out of here! (Lord, give me strength!) ---
**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, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/171 "2010-12-22T21:44:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > “There are some chronic complainers on the SDMB” is a perfectly legitimate point, even if you don’t name names. How is it useful to say that there are chronic complainers if you don’t say who they are or prove that they are actually complaining? Look, I can do that, too! “There are some chronic child rapists on the SDMB.” Look, I contributed to the discussion! > [@](#): > > And you have already admitted that you know perfectly well who is meant when the phrase is used, so naming names is unnecessary. No, you are putting words in my mouth. I said that we all have a good idea of who is meant. We do not have a solid list. And again, you’re (shockingly) refusing to name names or provide proof of your accusations. > [@](#): > > As I mentioned, it does not seem to me that anyone else considers use of the phrase to be an accusation of trolling, or a direct insult. Apparently you must have most of the people in this thread on ignore. Spoilered proof that you aren’t paying a lick of fucking attention below. > [@Gyrate](#): > > I’d support a moratorium on its use anywhere on the board (except in Cafe Society for film discussions). It’s always one of those big red flags that says “I am threadshitting”. > [@Marley23](#): > > Seriously: we’re not going to make a rule against the term, but I think we need to reduce the amount of personal criticism of mods and posters in ATMB. This isn’t the Pit Lite, it’s for questions and complaints about the rules. That kind of stuff makes it harder to discuss board matters in any kind of productive way. > [@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? > [@Munch](#): > > I think it’s helpful. It says, “I’m either unable or too much of a pussy to name any specific names, so I’ll make a broad categorization and hope that the majority of posters in this thread see it my way”. If called on it, they’re able to weasel out of any specific confrontation by saying, “well, I didn’t mean he was in that group”. > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I agree with Munch. It’s a very useful phrase as it tells me who I should be adding to the ignore list. > [@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). > [@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. […] it is obvious that it is inappropriate for me to be using the term in ATMB. > [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > It’s not a big deal, but I admit, I was a teensy bit put off that buckety seemed to be dismissing my OP as some OotUS shit. Not cool. > [@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. > [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > At the risk of being labelled one, I have to agree with the OP. Not only does calling someone “one of the usual suspects” border on a personal insult, it is also divisive within the community. > [@Garfield226](#): > > 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. That’s almost a dozen people who agree with me that the expression is inappropraite and counterproductive; and one mod who declines to comment on the phrase in specific but observes that the general tone of ATMB needs work. > [@Oakminster](#): > > So you’ve done nothing bad. It’s all other people being mean to you. That sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before? With the case of **Dio** , I can point to reams of evidence from people showing his personal experience isn’t universal. That’s what \*The Dio Show \*is: he posts an opinion as a fact, a bunch of people prove that he’s wrong, and he refuses to admit it. You cannot, however, find a single person in this thread who has demonstrated how the phrase is not a dismissive insult. You will also, if you read the spoilered reply to **Shodan** , see a whole host of people who agree that the phrase is destructive to discussion. See the difference? Again, I politely request that you \*simply walk away \*if you don’t see the point in continuing this discussion. If you’d like to make any personal attacks on me, take them to the Pit or to PM. ---
**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, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/172 "2010-12-22T21:53:24Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Again, I politely request that you \*simply walk away \*if you don’t see the point in continuing this discussion. Actually, I consider asking people to get out of a thread is far more rude than anything you’ve complained about here. And prefacing a rude request with “I politely request” doesn’t make it polite. For now, I’m going to stick around to see how long this dead horse can be beaten. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/173 "2010-12-22T21:57:56Z")
**@SFG** I’m not interested in making any personal attacks on you. Sometimes you frustrate me to the point that I’d like to turn you over my knee, like John Wayne did to Maureen O’Hara in **McLintock** , but that’s a friendly thing. Really don’t get why you keep going on and on and on about this. The mods have ruled. The only possible appeal is to **Ed Zotti** , and I very much doubt he would be inclined to rule in your favor. I don’t know why this is such a big frakkin deal to you, but you ain’t gonna win it. Let it go. Smell the flowers. ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/174 "2010-12-22T22:12:31Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > And prefacing a rude request with “I politely request” doesn’t make it polite. Asking you to comply with the rules of the board is not rude. Did you read the definition of threadshitting that I linked? > [@Oakminster](#): > > Really don’t get why you keep going on and on and on about this. I don’t get why, if you think this is pointless, you keep posting. Personally, \*I’m \*still here because it makes me really, \*really \*fucking angry to bring up a legitimate point with evidence to back it up, have someone who was engaged in the behavior concede my point, and then have several members of the board staff treat me like a fucking child without even the courtesy of responding to a single one of my points. \*Not one person \*has explained why it is helpful to be able to make blanket, unsupported personal attacks against a group of posters. Maybe it’s because those people are all part of the SDMB child rapist faction, who knows. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/175 "2010-12-22T22:19:06Z")
> [@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. SFG, be fair. You have gotten several staff responses. I think a lot of them have been pretty on-point, especially early in the discussion. If we haven’t answered this specific question, it’s because it’s not relevant. It’s not against the rules to post something that is not helpful. This is an impossible standard to moderate to. Even if we chose to moderate to that standard, we would do so globally, not in reference to a specific phrase. Do you honestly want the moderator staff to begin taking action against posts that we perceive to be unhelpful? I doubt it. What you want is to take a specific phrase that you find insulting, but that isn’t perceived in general by either the community or the staff to be an insult, to be moderated as an insult (on various grounds, unhelpfulness being one of them). You’ve gotten a ruling on that. The answer is no. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/176 "2010-12-22T22:23:06Z")
> [@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. Because the mods do not see the phrase “usual suspects” as making blanket unsupported personal attacks. Everyone agrees personal attacks are not allowed outside of the Pit. The disagreement appears to be over whether “usual suspects” is or is not a personal attack. You clearly feel that it is. That appears to be a minority position which relies on a peculiarly sensitive interpretation of the phrase. Put another way, you are attempting to control the debate by defining the terms in ways completely unsupported in routine board practice. You have repeatedly rejected the perfectly valid response that “usual suspects suck” = “all liberals suck”, so both are allowable outside the Pit. Problem with that theory is that your particular definitions are not binding on the mods for the purpose of applying board policy. You do not have to agree with the mod ruling. You are going to have to deal with it. ---
**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, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/177 "2010-12-22T22:37:13Z")
> [@fluiddruid](#): > > SFG, be fair. You have gotten several staff responses. I think a lot of them have been pretty on-point, especially early in the discussion. The only ones that were really on-point were **Marley** ’s and yours. Everything else was dismissive or an off-topic discussion about discussing moderation in the Pit. And not one moderator addressed any of my actual questions. > [@](#): > > If we haven’t answered this specific question, it’s because it’s not relevant. So I can just claim anything I find inconvenient is irrelevant? That’s nice. > [@](#): > > It’s not against the rules to post something that is not helpful. 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). > [@](#): > > What you want is to take a specific phrase that you find insulting, but that isn’t perceived in general by either the community or the staff to be an insult I refer you to the spoilered list in my reply to Shodan. Do you have all of those people on ignore, too? Because that’s a good chunk of “the community” right there that agrees with me. Do you think that \*\*bucketybuck \*\*was lying? Did I pay him off or something to agree with me? > [@Oakminster](#): > > The disagreement appears to be over whether “usual suspects” is or is not a personal attack. You clearly feel that it is. That appears to be a minority position which relies on a peculiarly sensitive interpretation of the phrase. I have enough people agreeing with me, who just happen to have stumbled across this thread, to safely say that it’s not something I just made up. Including, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, _one of the people who used the phrase himself_. If this were just something I was making up myself, how would I possibly have pegged it accurately enough to actually convince someone who’d used the phrase that it was inappropriate? > [@](#): > > You have repeatedly rejected the perfectly valid response that “usual suspects suck” = “all liberals suck”, so both are allowable outside the Pit. Except that I have given entirely valid explanations of why these two classes aren’t equivalent. “Liberals” is a very broad group of people, including millions (billions?) who do not post on this board. “The usual suspects,” in whatever objectionable context, only refers to a subset of this board’s users. Could I say, for example, “People who post in MPSIMS are fucking retards”? How about “Anybody who replies to a thread created by **Bosstone** is a jackass”? After all, those are “groups” of people. (For the record, if it needs to be said, neither of those are opinions I hold.) What if I came into MPSIMS threads or BT’s threads specifically to say those things? Woudln’t that be threadshitting? How is it acceptable when it’s done in ATMB? ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/178 "2010-12-22T22:44:09Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Asking you to comply with the rules of the board is not rude. Kicking people out of threads is rude. Instructing members to take certain actions in the guise of enforcing rules of the board is junior-modding. > [@](#): > > Did you read the definition of threadshitting that I linked? I don’t agree that it applies. It’s completely on-point here to participate in this thread to say any of these kinds of things – - I disagree with you about this phrase - Your question has been answered to the degree it will be answered - I don’t think you’re going to get any better answers. Because all these things directly relate to the topic of this thread. ---
**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, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/179 "2010-12-22T22:52:20Z")
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. If you have anything further to say that is constructive, you’re absolutely welcome to continue posting. Perhaps you could consider tackling one of the myriad questions I’ve posed that remain unaddressed (what a shock). ---
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961/180 "2010-12-22T23:18:53Z")
Since the words I used to state my own definition of “the usual suspects” have apparently been taken as the official definition for Guns to keep hammering at some point or other, I would just like to add something. Mods, can we ban the use of italics in ATMB? We are all grown ups here, and we can read posts well enough to understand what has been said without being spoken to like we were five year olds. Accepting this, I believe the constant, incessant use of italics is insulting to our intelligence. It is belittling that certain people feel they have to constantly highlight certain words and passages as if we were unable to grasp what point was trying to be made. It all smacks of an exasperated teacher, repeatedly stressing what she feels is really obvious, and as such implying that we as readers are a bunch of retarded children struggling to keep up with what is being said. So Mods, once we are done with the current discussion, I demand we then discuss banning the overuse of italics which I believe is much more insulting and obnoxious. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usual-suspects/564961.md?page=10)