Just when you thought it was safe to speak the name Keyser Soza three times, suddenly, poof, it’s not.
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.
According to the SDMB rules, insults (that are not hate speech) against a large group are permitted:
So even if using the phrase the “usual suspects” is somehow an insult, if the group of “suspects” are large, it should be permitted.
I see, the theory is that there is some conspiracy to give Diogenes the Cynic special privileges. Sorry, I don’t buy it.
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.
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 :
Thus, the OP is indeed asking for a variance from, or change in, the rules. Ain’t gonna happen.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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”?
It’s already an attack on certain posters. They’re just declining to back up the accusations with proof.
Seriously? People are refusing to back up accusations with proof because I didn’t say please enough times? :rolleyes:
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.
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.
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.
Exactly.
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?
Nonsense. You might as well say that every use of the word “Democrat” means “knee-jerk liberal whinny bleeding heart spender.”
For the third time, quoting from the Rules:
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?” …
Again, how often is the phrase used in this forum?
I’m seeing shitloads of smoke-where’s the fire?
Good heavens, the mods* are a bunch of ignorant, patronizing control-freak whiners.
*A group.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who you callin’ ‘you people’?
I expect the usual suspects are going to chime in to agree with you.
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?
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).
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.
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.
You are going to have to make up your mind.
I don’t see how you are being prevented from defending yourself. What’s stopping you?
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
Would you have a problem with such posts as the one you made slamming the moderators (#113) also being against the rules?