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?
In other words why make new rules when enforcing the existing ones is so much fun!
I know I’ve said it before, but this is one of my primary objections to moving rule discussions out of the Pit: it may be preferable for the mods to have such discussions here, but this comes at a cost to everyone else. For regular posters, an integral part of hashing out whether the rules are being applied consistently often hinges on calling out specific examples of poster behavior, which runs right up against the line of calling people trolls or jerks outside of the Pit. Similarly, if 50 people are annoyed by someone they perceive as trolling or gaming the rules or ruining threads, it’s going to be hard to express that without the thread looking like a pile-on. And on the flip side, if someone is being called a troll over and over, it’s pretty natural for them to want to defend themselves without risking warnings.
I’d love to see rule discussions at least allowed in the Pit, if not moved back entirely. You can always maintain a rule against personal attacks of the mods, if y’all are still too delicate to take your lumps with the rest of us. 
Except me!
I don’t follow the rest of your post - a poster can start a Pit thread chastising another poster for their behaviour at the board. e.g. The OP can start a thread flaming the people who use the phrase that is her pet peeve.
BINGO.
Just look at the recent ATMB thread that just got locked down . Apparently, complaints about problem posters in the Pit get ignored by the powers that be and complaints about the same posters get shut down for the reasons you just described in ATMB. I guess that works if you just want to vent in the Pit. But as far as fixing things, I don’t see that working too well.
One of the functions of ATMB is to provide a way for members to criticize the moderation of this boards when moderator errors deserve it for their errors. While I tend to agree that it’s been annoyingly far overdone of late, your movement in the direction of “We are the staff and we are above criticism” is what has destroyed other boards as forums for intelligent discussions of ideas. The staff here deserves, and gets, members’ support when it’s doing the right thing – and justly gets brickbats when it screws up. Change that at your peril.
Really? I don’t post at many other boards, so I don’t know. I’m not saying that it should be illegal to criticize the moderators, that definitely should be allowed, but I got the impression that some of the boards people mention hereas having tons of members (like the something awful forums) are also boards where people get summarily banned with no explanation, and I hear many times people saying “I’ve been on boards where any complaint about the moderation is immediately shut down.” On the other hands, I’ve seen boards allowing criticism of moderators that have died a slow death.
I’m not that convinced that allowing moderator criticism is what makes or breaks a board. I could be totally wrong of course.
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.
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.
I’m asking for the mods and admins to start *enforcing *the rules of this site specifically with regard to this phrase. We already have rules that should be preventing people from using it, and I’d like to see the board staff reminding people that it’s inappropriate to use it outside of the Pit.
It adds *nothing *to any discussion. Ever. All it’s used for is to lump a disparate group of posters together–including, IIRC, people who’ve never brought up anything in ATMB before–and dismiss them as a bunch.
Each comment/complaint should be discussed on its individual merits. If a particular poster is constantly making complaints that the entire staff agrees are baseless, then it’s up to the staff to deal with that person and make it clear that their behavior isn’t acceptable. It is not for fellow posters on the site to constantly, dare I say, *threadshit *by coming into any thread started in ATMB to question a moderator action to dismiss it solely based on who the thread was written by.
You may not like it, but the phrase didn’t just randomly jump from a word-a-day calender into regular SDMB usage. It developed organically, because people see patterns, and it fitted a certain pattern.
In my opinion, there ARE a group of posters that make a practice of posting in ATMB just to complain about Mods. They have their reasons (and I have my opinion of their reasons), but to me, it is ignoring the elephant in the room to pretend that there isn’t such a group. Referring to the usual suspects is in my view an acceptable short-hand.
I personally don’t use it to be insulting to anybody, (I dont feel I need to, I am quite happy to avail of the Pit facilities), but if my use of the term offends you (the generic ‘you’), well, frankly, I am finding it difficult to see how that is my problem. I use the term honestly, and I don’t subscribe to the view that it is my job to couch my words in case I might possibly offend another user*.
*A random as-yet unknown user of course. Targeting individuals is another matter.
You are certainly within your rights to see patterns. You are *not *within your rights as a non-staff poster to *categorically dismiss *any post made by a certain person just because *you *happen to not like them.
If you think a complaint is invalid, say *why *you think it’s invalid. Anything about it coming from one of “the usual suspects” is a useless ad hominem attack. It serves *no *purpose except for you to point out that you don’t like certain people on this forum.
ETA: Can you show me a *single *post where a snide comment about “the usual suspects” added *anything *constructive to the discussion?
Actually, yes, that is clearly within the right of any poster, as long as it is done without violating the applicable rules, which use of the phrase “usual suspects” clearly does not. However, you are not within your rights to insist that the mods enforce, and the rest of the community adhere to, your particular interpretation of the rules.
I’m pretty sure everyone here except maybe the mods is within their rights to dismiss anything they want to dismiss.
Beaten to the punch by Oakminster
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.
You quoted one in your OP.
Whether you agree with it or not, saying that there is a subset of Dopers who simply pile onto any complaint about any mod is a perfectly legitimate point. And I say this as someone who not only has used the phrase “the Usual Suspects” but has done his share of complaining about the mods. Although I hope my complaints are not entirely unjustified.
It is rather like references to the Dio Show, or mod stonewalling, or “circle the wagons”, or a bunch of other phrases. They refer to real phenomena, whether or not the individual use is justified or not. It is a form of shorthand.
Sorry if it hits your hot buttons, but only Ed Zotti gets to ban phrases.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, if you think it added something to the discussion, can you please detail how?
ETA: I can provide definitions and examples of “The Dio Show” or “circling the wagons” (I will agree that the latter phrase, however, is often less than helpful, and I try to avoid using it). Can you provide definitions and examples of “the usual suspects”?
The OP has a point here. That’s a rather long sentence to key each time. Perhaps we could have a custom smiley with a little masked smiley holding a gun pointing at a mod smiley, laying horizontal, holding a flower on his/her chest.
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”.
It’s even more useful when a mod uses it, as it’s usually followed up by an irrational ruling that makes them look like an asshat.
That was what the rest of the post was doing.
That’s how it added something constructive to the discussion - by making a legitimate point.
Regards,
Shodan
C K Dexter Haven in FAQ - Rules for Posting at the Straight Dope Message Boards
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”? And can anybody point me to a rule that says “You’re allowed X good-faith complaints, after which point your input is meaningless?”