Well, he could save about 66% of the time he spends on the SDMB if he didn’t have to post them. 
It would be interesting to find an occasion outside this thread where a Mod actually used the phrase. It would be really interesting to find that it has been used by a Mod or several Mods on more than one occasion.
As long as we’re being consistent, I don’t think I would have a problem with that. Consistency is key.
And sure, Tom, I’ve only been here since 1999. That’s the only reason I’ve been around for 11 years is to insult everyone. You figured it out.
Tell me, is it more pathetic to actually have volunteered to spend time here in a position of faux-power, or to just read and post at leisure? I’m less and less sure with each passing day.
After readying your post 113, and your latest one (# 123), I find it hard to believe that you think being incredibly rude and dismissive is a bad thing, or maybe it’s only a bad thing when other people do it?
In any case, I’m happy to here that if the rule is made that it is forbidden to say derogatory things about posters in ATMB, including moderators, you will be a supporter.
When did I say it was a bad thing? Being rude and dismissive is unproductive and it may be against the rules sometimes (depending on who’s moderating that day, it seems), but sometimes it might also be the proportionate response. Especially when someone has already taken the first swing at you.
Your position is, then, if someone calls you names, the appropriate thing is to call them names back. I think it just makes matters worse (e.g. I get the distinct impression that you didn’t welcome tomndebb’s gibe at you after you insulted him in post 113), poisons the atmosphere of a thread, and makes more work for people who want to have a discussion, and the staff trying to enforce civility. We’ll have to disagree on that one.
Would it be threadshitting if I were to say that this thread would probably be a good way to illustrate the concept of “The Airing of the Grievances” when explaining Festivus to someone?
'Cos if it would, then I won’t say that.
Mind you, I can’t even bring myself to do more than skim the thread so far. It might merely be inaccurate.
“Democrat” is neutral. “Usual suspects” is negative, except when it is being used ironically, and even then the irony hinges on the fact that the expected connotation is negative.
“Democrat” refers to a large group of people, including *some *on this board. “Usual suspects” is used to refer *exclusively *to a specific group of posters on the board.
How would you feel about me talking about “the ass-lickers” every time someone came into an ATMB thread to defend the mods? By your reasoning, since it’s directed against a group of people, as long as I don’t name names, it’s perfectly acceptable.
Maybe it would be helpful if you’d actually address any of my actual questions and arguments instead of nitpicking.
1.) What do you think it adds to the discussion?
2.) Do you think it’s a good thing to be able to accuse a group of posters of whining/trolling, without having to identify who those people are or give proof that what they’re doing is whining/trolling?
3.) What do you think about the fact that the very person whose post was the example from my OP has now *agreed *that his meaning was what I suspected (a way of attacking the people he suspected of trolling) and not appropriate for ATMB?
That’s because you were using it ironically, as cited above. When it’s being used here, it’s with a sneer.
Can we please stop bringing up this straw man? I have said repeatedly that I don’t want a new rule; I just want the existing ones enforced. Even when that means requesting polite behavior from people who are defending the board staff.
You don’t think calling someone a complainer or a troll is a personal insult?
You don’t think that when someone is making an accusation, the accused should know who they are?
You don’t think that when someone is making an accusation, they should back the accusation up with facts?
I see no conflict here. Everybody has a reasonably good idea of who falls under the heading of the “usual suspects.” But at the same time, the group is nebulous, so that the people making the accusations can avoid having to provide any real proof.
1.) I don’t for sure know that I’m being accused–I can only suspect.
2.) I can’t refute evidence that hasn’t been given.
For all the evidence you’re giving, I might as well claim that you post all day wearing a silly purple hat. What, proof? I don’t have to give proof. That purple hat really it quite silly.
I ask again, if you think the “usual suspects” is a valid label:
1.) Please provide a complete list of the people you think it applies to.
2.) Please provide evidence as to why each of those people is a whiner or a troll.
And yet, I’m not the only person in this thread who’s saying it’s a problem.
And I’m not the only one questioning if there is an actual problem to begin with. Stop pointing proudly at the smoke-show us where the fire is. How often, outside of this thread, is the phrase used in ATMB?
I don’t think it’s a problem.
Are you just not reading the posts I make? I already answered this question for you. I guess I’ll answer it again.
1.) The phrase itself has not been used as frequently as my impression had been. I conceded that the problem was more with the general attitude than with the specific, literal phrase.
2.) There *is *a problem, because there have been several people other than myself who’ve posted to the thread to agree that the phrase and/or the attitude it conveys is not remotely helpful.
3.) Frequence of occurence should never be an argument for or against enforcing a rule. And the rule exists that you cannot insult people outside of the Pit.
ETA: Here’s the post where I previously addressed this question. It was at the top of Page 2 and posted yesterday afternoon.
I think it would be more helpful if you would explain *why *you don’t think it’s a problem, since the board isn’t run on votes.
1.) Do you think it doesn’t happen often enough that the mods’ attention should be drawn to reminding people to not engage in this kind of behavior outside of the Pit?
2.) Do you think it’s okay to call people whiners/trolls in general?
3.) Do you think it’s okay to call people whiners/trolls as long as you don’t name names and/or give any evidence to back up the accusations?
1.) It may not be the problem you thought it was.
2.) Others agree with you that it is a serious problem.
Might I suggest that the next time you make that heroic run for the goalpost, you pick up a football instead of a whiffle ball.
This argument doesn’t really work for me. “If you allow X, what if I use something just a little bit worse than X? How about a little bit worse than that? How about a little bit worse than that?” ass-lickers is clearly more insulting than “usual suspects”.
OK then, how would you see the existing rules applied to posts 113 and 123 in this thread? Since those are not forbidden, I don’t see any justification for ruling out the expression “usual suspects”.
P.S. The staff clearly enforces civil behaviour from posters that defend them. Latest example here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13268786#post13268786
It is those who criticize the staff who usually get more leeway as far as rude behaviour in ATMB goes, in my experience.
:rolleyes:
So are you actually going to address any of my concerns, or are you going to just have fun nitpicking pointless minutia with Dex? Here are some questions for you.
1.) Do you think that frequency of occurence should determine which rules are enforced?
2.) Do you think that it’s constructive to refer to people as the “usual suspects”? If so, how?
3.) Do you agree that when someone says something like “the usual suspects” that they are labeling a group of posters as whiners or trolls? If not, what do you think they mean? And if not, how do you explain that someone who used the phrase says that this is what he meant by it?
4.) If you agree that they’re labeling a group of posters as whiners or trolls, do you think that it’s an insult? If it is, why isn’t that against the rules? If it isn’t, why isn’t it insulting?
5.) Do you think that people making accusations should be required to back those accusations up with proof?
Well, “usual suspects” was already taken. How about if I were to say “here come the usual suspects to lick the mods’ asses” instead of “here come the usual suspects to whine and troll”?
Did we actually get a comment one way or the other that those comments were or were not out of line? Because ISTM that saying “the mods lately are being ignorant, patronizing control-freak whiners” *is *insulting and not constructive. I agree with Garfield’s point, however, that consistency is what’s important. And that’s why things like “the usual suspects” are a problem: allowing them is *inconsistent *with the board rule against personal insults outside of the Pit.
I really am baffled that any mod could consider the use of the phrase, or the general attitude, to be acceptable. No one has been able to give me a single example of how it’s constructive or useful. Which I don’t expect them to be able to do, because the phrase has no meaning or intent, other than to insult. If someone wanted to start a genuine dialogue as to whether there’s a group of users who posts in ATMB just to troll, they’d be giving names and examples. The only reason to point to some nebulous “usual suspects” is if you know that you can’t back up your insults with proof.
What’s your point? I’m not saying they never do it. I’m just saying that this particular subset of insults have been going ignored for a while and it’s really starting to bother me–and clearly I’m not the only one. What’s interesting is that when I did a search yesterday for “usual suspects,” I actually turned up a couple of examples of people saying that they were worried about responding to threads because they were afraid of being labeled as part of that group–i.e., making any complaints at all, however legitimate, means that your concerns will be dismissed.
Because “lick someone’s ass” is more offensive than saying “whine and troll”. If you were to say “here come the usual suspects to whine about how the mods are being unfairly treated” or “here come the usual suspects to whine about us criticizing the mods” or “here come the usual whining mod defenders” then it would barely raise an eyebrow. I can tell you, as a person that usually comes down on the side of the staff, that I’ve been told that (and probably worse) in this forum. I just ignored it. What I did not do is think “well, if they can get away with that, then I should be able to get away with the same, and maybe something a little bit worse.”
OK! Maybe you can convince Garfield226 to apologize and agree not to use those kinds of expressions any more, like you did with the one person who was using the expression “the usual suspects”. If you spent as much time protesting when a moderator was insulted in ATMB, that would be great, thanks.
The thing is, if you want to be fair, and say expressions like “the usual suspects” is so insulting that it contravenes the decorum of ATMB, then to be consistent you would have to prevent other posters from saying anything remotely disrespectful to a moderator in ATMB. How do you think that would go over? We already have people saying that the moderators are protected too much and have the rules biased in their favour.
So let’s take this seriously.
In the interest of nipping this humongous problem in the bud, are there any other very rarely used phrases that offend you so much that you might want to start a thread in ATMB about them?
So you’ve gotten a couple of examples of people being afraid of the phrase. Wow.