rec.autos.simulators

    They really are full of it over there aren't they. You would use the
sites messaging system anyway do that so that the next time someone visited
RSC they couldn't miss it - a better "feature" than this stupid public
warning would be to not let them post until it is seen they have read their
warning message.

RSC deleted that thread, what a wonderful site you run. You should be proud
that RSC goes to such lenghts to cover up any complaints about their
policies. Obviously the feel they have something to hide now.

Based on zx12rcr's response, apparently anyone who asks about the rules
ends up getting banned.

Neither one has seemed to work for certain members, so it'd be them with the
problem.....

Go for it.  How could any sane person expect someone to go through every
page on every forum they can find looking for a publicly displayed
warning???

Why did RSC delete the thread you referred to earlier?

[QUOTE=Mikkel]....
For a warning to be effective it should be visible... that is the point ;) I
really appreciate your comment, and I understand your point of view, but I
fear it will not work in a forum this big, the psychology of it would be
lost in the vastness. [/QUOTE]

I still don't agree with it, BUT if you are going to use a free forum that
is not run as a free for all and has certain rules then you should just
abide by them or not use it. You can still download all the stuff you want
without contravening their rules..... There are other forums (not SRMZ)
where you are allowed to swear cuss and just generaly rip anyone apart if
you so wish to. (ie http://witsweb.suddenlaunch2.com/index.cgi )

Two points to be made here:

One is all other racing sim forums do just fine without using a public
warning system. Obviously, it's not required to run a sucessful forum.
In addition, because RSC abuses it, posting warnings for just about
anything, most people at RSC just seem to ignore the public warnings,
so the intended effect isn't happening.

The other point is RSC does not document it's public warning system
in it's new user agreement or in it's rules. Every forum that does have
a public warning system makes this fact clear in it's agreement. In
effect, RSC is violating their own agreement. The real issue here is that
if a new user was aware that a public warning system was in use, that
user would be less likely to use hie/her real name on such a forum.
Some users wouldn't want to have a warning associated with their real
name, but could care less if it's a ficticious name.

Thanks for the reasonable response.

RSC now seems to be banning anyone mentioning it's warning system or
RAS by banning them now. It's getting pretty bad when you see 3 people
in one GPL thread unrelated to the warning system getting banned. All
of them were accused of being me (which isn't true).

For some strange reason, habitual offenders such as yourself seem to ignore
both.  Why is that?

Again, it's currently stated that "If you refuse to comply with our requests
on this matter, we reserve the right to warn/ban a member in the normal
process."  If someone is so damned concerned about a public warning, they
should've questioned what the normal process is.

Depending on the offense, RSC usually doesn't either.  It's not like anyone
runs around handing out warnings all the time either.  Out of 69,782
members, I believe there's under a dozen with some sort of warning right
now......