Posted here for posterity.

The message relates to a display of a gross double standard, premeditated bias in the pursuit of a personal agenda or vendetta, or simply the utter stupidity that is allowed to permeate this forum (at nearly every level) on a regular basis.

Owned sir.

Cow Queen's was a topic
http://runescape.salmoneus.net/forums/inde...=235922&hl=

A. Was it a different mod who handled it?
B. I'd be interested to see his topic.

The mod doesn't matter. The staff is supposed to share an opinion on what is right and what is wrong.

A. You realize Emanick just became a mod?
B. Hidden/deleted.

Not taking sides, just explaining.

Had his topic been simply closed instead of mysteriously deleted, it actually would have been interesting to compare the content and see whether there was a discernible difference in the content and whether that affected way the two were handled. I think everyone can agree on that?

@Gillis- i think Mutt meant Fraff's topic

Emanick is just a new mod.

He is just power retarded.

You don't DELETE topics like that. I am disgusted with his behavior. New mod or not, he should know the basic rules.

Lily Nicole claims that she has swallowed glass and bleach and then mysteriously wakes up the next day fully recovered. Everyone is gravely concerned about her, but no questions are raised about why there is no mention of illness or injury caused by ingesting this potentially lethal combination of substances.

Fraff posts a topic suggesting that he will also attempt to take his own life by swallowing glass and bleach. Some users show due concern for the life a friend. One moderator, essentially, yells "fiddlesticks!", calls Fraff a liar, warns him twice, and deletes the topic.

Cow Queen posts topics and blog entries about planning to overdose, intending to kill herself. The forum jumps to her aid, notifies the authorities, and generally pulls out all stops to save her precious life.

Fraff posts a topic about wanting to kill himself. Some users show due concern for the life a friend. One moderator, essentially, yells "fiddlesticks!", calls Fraff a liar, warns him twice, and deletes the topic.

The staff are not all one person believe it or not. They all have to decide on their own how to handle a situation.

There is supposed to be at least some agreement on the line between right and wrong. If all of the mods agree that a topic is not against the rules and someone that has just been promoted thinks that it is against the rules, something is wrong.

After a more recent "joke suicide" topic it was decided that any more, serious or not, would be hidden. Suicide is not content that should be present on this forum, especially with no age minimum to register or view.

Fraff can ask Emanick to review the punishment.

I think emanick should watch this.

This isn't a question of whether there is a double standard. Max is just using this issue as an argument for bad actions repeated by a moderator. This moderator had happened to warn Fraff twice, today. He knows who he has warned, and some believe that he didn't moderate with rational. This has been expressed here and other threads as well, casually.

"But it's just not right isn't what consider, what judges consider is what the law says." (2:07 at video above)

^I am not against emanick, but this is how Sal's is governed. Yes, it's not as complex as the law, but suicide threads aren't against the law.

To destroy Noisia's argument: I've posted a mock suicide thread. I did not get warned.

Was it justified? Watch the video I liked again, and decide yourself. This goes to Emanick anf everyone else.

I believe that it's isn't Emanick's authority to assume whether Fraff was joking or not, this is where he faulted.

However, Don did say that it was decided that any new suicide topics, joke or not, would be hidden.

The matter at hand is the two warns that Fraff received.

Why not let Fraff pm Emanick then?

yeah that seems pretty harsh for this.
and why two warns though?

In that case, I'm in favor of the removal of his warns.

While it may be true that there's a new policy around about the banning of suicide topics on these forums, this policy or rule has not been made clear anywhere on the forums as of yet. Thus, it wouldn't be fair to warrant Fraff with any amount of warns at all. However, if Emanick gave Fraff the two warns based on his opinion of whether or not the suicide topic was a joke, then as Definition said, it's not in Emanick's authority to decide if Fraff was joking or not. Even then, I don't think that a warn should be given out even if Fraff was joking. Maybe a verbal warning to note that things are getting out of hand, but not a warn.

But, I'm not a moderator so it's not to my discretion as to whether or not Fraff should be punished.

We believe that mods taking it easy on some members and being harsh to other is an ongoing problem that is not exclusive to this one occurrence.

Mind stating why then it was not added to the forum rules, that discussion of suicide is strictly prohibited, warning him without anyone being told about this, in any form of acknowledgment seems excessive. I can understand if it was easily found that it had become a rule, but I can't find any such topic at the current time stating such.

Isn't this topic against the rules?

How is this topic against the rules?

It's sharing warn reasons and the person who warned him.

But how is the topic against the rules? If he took out that part it wouldn't be against the rules. He's just using that as an example.

That's like saying if I made a flame post, and then took it out, it wouldn't be against the rules. Though Emanick does seem to be going overboard

If you removed the flame it wouldn't be against the rules.

No, that's like saying if you made a post with some censor evasion, the post you made isn't against the rules, but the censor evasion is. He is allowed to post this kind of topic.

So if I flamed, two dozen people posted after me, and then I changed it wouldn't be against the rules?

You would have flamed those people, but the post would no longer be rule breaking. It's not up to me to decide whether or not someone should be punished.

I tried editing a flamey post I made once, and still got warned for it.

You can't edit a post that is against the rules and not get warned for it. The point is that you said that this topic is against the rules, when only part of the post is. Noisia could get in trouble for that part, but the topic won't be closed because of it. A spam or flame topic will get closed regardless because that is the intention of the topic.

Welcome to Sal's Realm.


Once again, welcome to Sal's Realm. If the staff were in agreement and then a new participant arose, the new guy needs to act in the way that the predecessors decided. If he/she disagrees with the ruling, he/she should work to change it for everyone instead of acting upon what he/she thinks is right. This thread is only one of the many examples where this problem has arose.


That is not for us to decide or really discuss. It is between the two parties involved. If Fraff wants, he can take things up with Emanick's supervisors.


It's surprising to say, but glad that you're viewing some things from my point of view.


I too would like to see some posting in the forum rules and an announcement of these rules being modified would be nice.

Noisia, what is your approachable solution? The staff appreciates feedback but this is the Suggestions forum, Other Feedback can be used otherwise. If you feel a staff member(s) is dishing out many unfair punishments because of something too personal, you can PM any of the other staff with some evidence and reasoning so it can be addressed.

Committing suicide topics would fall under inappropriate content in this way, for now;
I could have worded my post better but I didn't mean to say indirect discussion of it was prohibited. Instead, topics created solely for one person's thoughts of committing suicide as was brought up. Sorry for the miscommunication, but if you feel it should be made clear that could be arranged if it's within reason.

You can view past revisions at the bottom of the Forum Rules topic, although some changes require more time to be addressed than others.

I think the miscommunication is topics in the past about suicide were not locked, and hidden, people weren't warned about them. Without warning, the thought process that these topics were legitimate was still in effect yet, we were not told they were changed. As far as I'm concerned if something changes as such, from what was once appropriate to what is no longer appropriate or vice versa, I believe at the least we should be entitled to a topic stating a change as such. Is that within reason? Honestly a single edit in the forum rules stating "Discussion of suicide out of the debate room is not allowed" should resolve the matter. Why? Because the topic of suicide still has value in the debate room.

When discussing rules, the term inapproriate usually refers to things vulgar or obscene.

The words vulgar and graphically obscene imply that the other inappropriate things are of that nature. The fact that they warrant a ban implies that even more so.

Its ridiculous that a rule can be changed without even putting it in writing somewhere. Just saying it falls under inappropriate content now when it didn't before and wasn't handled this way before is a terrible way to handle the situation. Yeah you can count it under inappropriate content but considering that there have been a ton of these before how is anyone supposed to know without some sort of notice or change in the rules stating it. Considering the circumstances make an announcement about it or edit it into the forum rules topic and it would be fine.

Thinking that he should know that the rule was changed without any way of him actually being able to find out is idiotic at best.

The rule was never changed. Maybe the moderators decided that the specific situation of suicide threads could now be dealt with under that rule. Frankly, I'm with the staff on this one. This forum does not have an age limit, and some of the members here aren't mature enough to deal with such threads. They are inappropriate.
However, I personally think that the warns were unjust. But that is for Fraff to take up with Emanick, rather than someone complain for the entire forum to view.

if the rule was specific it wouldn't work

because there is always something that isn't included
that is why the rule is general

one can't account for everything in detail

and do know that stances can change with the years

just like in the lounge
the first joke topic is ok
the first parody is ok too
the second however isn't anymore

following the op's logic that is double standards also and it isn't in the rules either

the rules can't include everything, and shouldn't account for every possibility in detail either because that is impossible.

is it that hard to use common sense


p.s. i didn't see the topic where this was based on and i don't have access to warn logs, i just gave my opinion on posts in this thread



i agree


because people rather whine

If the interpretation of a rule has changed for the moderating team, the forum should be told through the form of an announcement (at least).

I think going back to Don's statement, it is time we stop and think what can be considered "otherwise inappropriate for this forum". In my mind, using something as provocative as suicide as a joke topic to attract attention is inappropriate. It encourages flaming, confusion and just plain stupidity.

While we're at it, I agree with Definition. It is the responsibility of a judge to interpret a law and not make new ones. Here in the forum, this could be interpreted into saying that a singly mod cannot create a new rule on his own without referring to other mods or admins. But I believe this does not apply here. The rule stands on Inappropriate Content and I believe Emanick simply interpreted this law as coinciding with this situation.

If u have a problem with his interpretation, we have means to get justice. PM him over ur appeal. If not then refer to other mods and see their interpretation. If not, go to an admin. I think that is a perfectly acceptable process and far more civil than opening a topic and calling for blood and retribution.

Also, I believe this topic deserves to be closed. The OP is referring to a decision on another member's warn log. That is private between the staff and the member in question and we have no right to bring situations like these in public. The rule stands. Warn logs are to be private, between the member and the staff.

Those are my 2 cents.

Her friends jumped to her aid.



I don't know about you guys, but Fraff's topic seemed overtly fake. Not only does that openly mock/slap-in-the-face people who are facing depressive issues, but it is a medical issue, which we do not allow to be discussed here.

Perhaps 2 warns was overly done, but that's something Fraff should have discussed with Emanick.


A lot of what you guys are doing is just ranting. Please make sure that you keep this conversation constructive.

If it was about this incident alone, rather than a comparison of things, then yes it would desrve to be closed.

It's a recurring problem and if the sharing of warn log details was really a problem then a mod/admin could remove the said details from the first post while allowing the topic to remain open. I see Sal is vieiwing this. If he doesn't want the details to be there, he can remove them. If he doesn't, I don't see why anyone should. (keep in mind various mods have also viewed this topic)

Closing note:

First off, leaving this thread open would indeed be a double standard: other threads complaining about warns received were closed with "no sharing warn logs take it up with the mod who warned you etc.". By making this topic, Noisia, you yourself are using a double standard: why should others' threads be reprimanded and yours shouldn't?

That is, Fraff should take it up with Emanick, and if Emanick's answer is unsatisfying, he can take it up with any administrator (though, in practice, many times other moderators are contacted, and those moderators start a staff discussion about it). Trying to find other ways about this IS a double standard.

Second: "The message relates to a display of a gross double standard, premeditated bias in the pursuit of a personal agenda or vendetta, or simply the utter stupidity that is allowed to permeate this forum (at nearly every level) on a regular basis". It also applies to you: see the two paragraphs above. It's hard to think that you weren't thinking of a personal vendetta when making BOTH a PM and a public thread, directly taunting Emanick ("think about it, hot-shot").

Nobody is a machine.

And that's exactly why there is a mod board and there is the chance to contact both the moderator that warned you and an administrator/other member of the staff. It is impossible for anyone to see exactly how every single rule-breaking situation has been dealt with: if a new moderator had to do that, he'd have, at this time, over 45,000 reports (source: click me, check the number of pages in the bottom left and multiply by ten) to check out and see how they were dealt with. I think you'll agree with me when I say that if a new moderator had to check out 45,000 reports he'd take at least a year and it would be entirely useless to promote new people. The judicial system in the real world obviously doesn't work that way, but in the judicial system there are collections of jurisprudence, ways to search for earlier rulings, archives of data easily searchable. To wish all of this in an IPB board is not overboard, it's halfway through the ocean.

And would make the rules about 40 pages long. As if they were short now.

Eh? Not at all. "Otherwise inappropriate" means "inappropriate other than vulgar, or graphically obscene". If it were implied that those other inappropriate things were related to vulgarity and obscenity, the rule would read "or likewise inappropriate".

But the rule has never been changed to include/exclude anything: it's a matter of interpretation, and editing it into the forum rules would do nothing. Yes, it would solve threads saying "ohi killing myself brb", but how would threads implying suicide but not actually claiming to commit suicide be dealt with? What about self-harming without killing oneself but with a chance thereof? You're taking out interpretation in one on over a thousand cases. Not exactly worth doing, is it?

Bottom line: Fraff should PM Emanick, and preferably not by proxy, and also preferably not with such arrogance, otherwise, if you're LOOKING for controversy, you will HAVE controversy. But that doesn't mean you'll win.

Given the fact that this thread proposes to combat double standards, to avoid double standards I'll close this, exactly like the rest.

For any problems with that, http://runescape.salmoneus.net/forums/inde...E=4&MID=440