Baloney.
Your not “sure” you could get away with it because you WON’T do it.
Your like a guy telling some other guy that a berry isnt poisonous but you SURE won’t eat it.
No, it isn’t. In this forum, it’s the subset of posters largely known for frequent and often unwarranted mod-bashing. You’re one of them. Oddly enough, I am sometimes also included in the group. Other times, I get lumped in with the ass kissers. <shrugs>
In GD, it’s usually used in reference to the radical lefties like BG, D_T, Dio, etc. Can also be used for the militant atheists…which includes some overlap with the first group. Might also be used in gun threads, by both sides.
The term has different meanings, and includes different people, depending on the forum/context in which it is used.
Bottom line here is the powers that be have heard your plea, and rejected same. Time to move on.
No, I won’t do it because it’s obviously irritating, and why would I change my posting style just to irritate other posters?
Also I found your use of the word “baloney” dismissing, rude, and not constructive. 
Kindly consider that stolen. 
Merry Christmas!
This has already been explained to you, twice. What it adds to the discussion is the legitimate point that some people are chronic complainers, about stuff that hardly anybody else gives a tin shit about. As here.
There isn’t any difference. You want a rule saying that use of the phrase "the usual suspects’ is being a jerk, or trolling, or a direct insult, or something. I don’t think it is, nor do any of the mods, nor many of the other posters.
No. Some complaints, as I mentioned, are too stupid to waste much time over it. The subject of this thread is one of them.
Maybe you don’t see a conflict, but I do. You are all upset over this insult that you aren’t even sure was aimed at you, or even exists as an insult in the first place.
I think you are badly over-estimating your importance on the boards, and in my thinking. Go ahead and believe I am wearing a purple hat, if you like - it will be just as ridiculous an accusation as any you have made in this thread.
No.
It is not worth the bother, like your example about the purple hat.
Because you are correct in believing that the use of the “usual suspects” phrase in this context is dismissive. It is meant to be. Some complaints are stupid, and some posters do a lot of stupid complaining. It isn’t amusing to disprove their nonsense, and the primary purpose of these boards is amusement.
You can demand whatever proof you like - but you can’t enforce the demand. I don’t think your complaint is at all well-founded, so I don’t choose to comply with your insistence that it has to be taken seriously. 'Tisn’t worth it.
Regards,
Shodan
I also don’t think it’s a problem and I will explain why.
Apparently the term “the usual suspects” has different meanings to different people, even within the same context. You seem to interpret “the usual suspects” as being an insult synonymous with “troll” or “whiner” when used in ATMB. I disagree with that interpretation.
IMO “the usual suspects”, when used in ATMB, refers to a group of posters (which includes you) who are inclined to start or participate in threads that discuss and dissect mod decisions. There is no negative connotation imo in labeling someone as a frequent participant in threads about mod behavior.
Again, there you go with a straw man. My point is not, “If you can say X, I can say Y.” I don’t want to say Y, and I also don’t want you to say X. I think that neither of these things is helpful nor constructive; I think it’s against the very point of this forum and contributes to making it impossible to actually discuss problems, because objections are being raised not to the arguments, but to the people making them. That’s useless, unconstructive, and against the rules of the board.
I figured the mods would deal with it, TBQH, seeing as they’re the ones with the power here. But if you think it would help for me to say so: Garfield, I think your comment was out of line, albeit helpfully demonstrative of the *exactly *the kind of unconstructive crap I’m trying to get the mods to start reminding people is inappropriate outside of the Pit.
Wrong. Again with the straw men. What I actually want is for accusations/criticisms to be (a) made against specific people instead of nebulus groups and (b) substantiated with evidence. To bring up again the example I gave upthread, which you apparently missed:
Scenario 1: “Here come the usual suspects.” Useless, bad, and wrong.
Scenario 2: “Poster X, you frequently made unsubstantiated complaints against the mods, as you did here, here, and here. Why is this time any different?” Helpful, constructive, and useful.
Thanks for proving that you care about doing your job. How are your answers to my questions coming?
1.) Please give examples of any time I “mod-bashed” (which I would define as making personal attacks against a mod).
2.) Please give examples of any time that a criticism I made of a moderator action in ATMB was unsubstantiated.
See, that’s exactly why it’s so useless. No one is even willing to define who the group includes.
Sorry, I think my use of “exclusively” was unintentionally ambiguous. My point was not that “the usual suspects” is used in the same way every time, but that in any given context, it’s used to refer to a group of people who are exclusively on this forum. I.e., not all Democrats post here, but no matter what forum someone is talking about “the usual suspects” for any particular activity, they’re always referring to people in this community. Therefore, it’s a way of getting around the restrictions against insulting people on the boards.
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.
*All *it does is insult without any substance to back it up. 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?
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. If you actually thought there was any legitimate use for this expression, you would have no problem giving supporting evidence for how and why you’d like to use it.
So you don’t think it’s dismissive? You think it’s a compliment? Maybe you can find an example of when someone has been called a “usual suspect,” a whiner, a complainer, and the person accusing them of such meant it in a positive way. Because every single time I have seen it, it has been as part of an attempt to dismiss the arguments of the person being labeled, without actually having to address the issues they’ve raised.
Well, as I said before (and after that I’ll bow out of this thread, because I know from previous discussions in the past that you like to say the same things over and over, hoping that if it doesn’t work the first time, it will work the tenth time), I disagree that saying “the usual suspects” is bad enough that it is against the rules of this board, and you seem to be in the minority in thinking that. Also, the people that use that expression might have been encouraged to think it’s acceptable by reading the frequent insults (much worse than an innocuous phrase like “the usual suspects”) addressed to the staff in this forum. So if you want to address a problem, address that one first.
The answer is NO, we are not going to ban a phrase (that is neither obscene, nor racist, nor otherwise in poor taste) merely because one persons doesn’t like it. I said that in Post #3 in this ridiculously long and long-winded thread.
The answer is still NO, we are not going to ban a phrase (that is neither obscene, nor racist, nor otherwise in poor taste) merely because one persons doesn’t like it. I said that in Post #3 in this ridiculously long and long-winded thread.
The answer remains NO, we are not going to ban a phrase (that is neither obscene, nor racist, nor otherwise in poor taste) merely because one persons doesn’t like it. I said that in Post #3 in this ridiculously long and long-winded thread.
We’ve discussed and reconsidered and the answer is NO, we are not going to ban a phrase (that is neither obscene, nor racist, nor otherwise in poor taste) merely because one persons doesn’t like it. I said that in Post #3 in this ridiculously long and long-winded thread.
Sure I’ll explain.
Der Trihs is allowed to call all christians evil. I find that insulting and I’m a non-christian.
The mods have said multiple times when people complain about it that he is insulting a group and not any poster yet how many christian posters do we have?
If the mods aren’t going to do anything about Der Trihs then I would bet money they will not do anything about this. And that is why “the usual suspects” does not bother me.
As for your pointsd 2 and 3. If someone is whining or being a troll I think it is perfectly ok to call them that. Although I personally would not because I’m not a fan of drama.
EDIT: Wow! C K Dexter Haven just quadruple-simul-posted himself. That’s impressive.
Yes, but did you say it three times? 
I take issue with this. The only time I repeat myself is when questions are not answered. As in this thread. Where not one single person has yet given any justification for how or why this phrase, or any similar sentiment, is useful, helpful, or not against the rules.
Except that there are many people in the thread agreeing with me, including one of the people who actually used the expression.
What does that have to do with anything? Why can’t we address all problems at once? Why must we pick and choose and do some things in some sort of weird order? Also, why did you even bother to bring up that ridiculous straw man earlier (“You only want X to be okay so that you can say Y, which is worse”) if you were going to make this argument (“X is okay because other people are saying Y, which is worse”).
Quad post FTW?
I find it interesting that not one single member of the board staff has been able to answer my very simple questions.
1.) What does this add to any discussion? How is it helpful to attack the person instead of the argument? How is it useful to attack a group of people, especially an unspecified group of people, instead of a particular user and their particular actions?
2.) How is it not a personal attack to accuse someone of whining/trolling?
3.) How is it fair to put people in the position of being accused such that they can’t respond to the accusations if they feel they’re unwarranted?
4.) Do you have any response to the fact that one of the people using the expression agreed completely with my assessment as to his intentions and the fact that such language was not appropriate in ATMB?
In which case, I move that this thread be locked. Ya know it ain’t gonna die until you do.
As I’ve already explained, that’s a group that exists outside the board; there are just also some Dopers who are *also *Christians. “The usual suspects,” however it’s used here, is always used to refer *only *to members of this community.
1.) It is actually *against the rules of the board *to call someone a troll outside of the Pit, just as it is also against the rules to call someone a liar or even say that something is a lie.
2.) Again, I think that it could be helpful to say that a particular person, or a particular group of people, are engaging in activity that is pointless whining and/or trolling. However, it’s only useful if (a) specfic people are named and (b) specific activities are named. How can it be helpful if you don’t say who you mean and what you’re talking about? That’s the point, for me, where it becomes insulting and dismissive rather than constructive.
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.
This won’t happen often, but I agree with Shodan.