rec.autos.simulators

> >Right theres the problem, that would get rid of most of the intentional =
> >wreckers. Not for a few bucks a year though.

> I would be perfectly content paying the $13.00 a month I used to pay TEN.  Had
> a hell of a lot more than $13.00 worth of fun each month.

> Well said!

> Of course, I would have been less than happy if I was banned after having a
> communication failure with other drivers. But I would prefer risking a ban
> rather than to be taken out at almost every race I enter by drivers whoose
> only reason for being on track is to take out other drivers.

> Papy isn't banning people involved in race incidents. They aren't even
> banning those that takes out half the field with jump starts and apron
> passes. They are only trying to get rid of the intentional wrecker.

> Surely, noone would want Papy *not* to take actions against intentional
> wreckers?

> Jon Andersen

> Due what Ian P suggested. Buy a new copy, switch the CD's, and then return
> the box to the store for a refund.

> Also, see about a lawsuit.

> David G Fisher

> > Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport.nascar
> > Subject: Nascar 4 Racing (PAPY) BANNED ME FROM RACING ONLINE!!!
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 164.89.253.3

> > The people at Papy Racing has now been banning people TOTALLY from
> > racing online... if you are caught intentionally wrecking somone, they
> > will ban your cd key which will not allow you to play online AT ALL.
> > The offline version AI is so terrible... the online version is the
> > only thing worth a ***to play.

> Keep the wreckers from saying they can't race MP anymore, and make it so
> they can't enter SERIOUS racer's races.
> --

> Sean Higgins

> Redline Racing League
> www.rrlnrs.com

> Redline BGN Division
> http://home.sprintmail.com/~higgy/RRL/


> > No one asked, but my 2cents:
> > Generally speaking, why ban at all?  Couldn't the user's ID just be marked
> > or something for all to see? Maybe have an option for the host to prevent
> > anyone who has been "marked" from joining the race.

> > > Alex.. this banning and blaming stuff is quite dangerous. It's
> > > extremely hard to tell if a crash was intentional even if you have the
> > > replay.
> > > I did not watch the replay, this topic is interesting enough to keep
> > > it general, I don't want to start an endless discussion about this
> > > particulair replay.

> > > Banning should only be used when it's totally obvious.
> > > With totally obvious I mean a driver taking out every possible car,
> > > driving the wrong way, waiting untill a car is behind him and ramming
> > > him off the road.. we've all seen nutcases like these in N4 online.

> > > Everyone can have a bad day, making a totally stupid mistake causing
> > > an accident which looks intentional while watching the replay.
> > > One can even get carried away during a race, getting frustrated and
> > > taking out that frustration on someone else. This is only human, it
> > > even happens to real life drivers, and one should not be banned for
> > > this if it happens once.
> > > Unless it happens more than once ofcourse..

> > > A warning should be given first, with a clear explanation of why the
> > > warning was given. The wrecker should have a fair chance to defend
> > > himself. A second (or third) time a wrecker causes the same stupid
> > > accident a ban would be justified.

> > > Andre

> > > >Thanks,
> > > >Alex

> >Hey,

> >So, you're going to deny writing this now? Do i have to copy the whole
post
> >with your sequence of emails, or will this do?

> Will, I think you are confused.
> The post that B.Hilton made about kids using his computer was sent to
> him by someone else. In other words, it has nothing to do with
> B.Hilton's situation.
> The post is below. Note the first line.

> >here's an interesting email someone sent me:

> >When I purchased the N4 software, the license agreement states that it
> >is a "feature" of the software that enables me to drive on the sierra
> >network. It does not say it is a "privilege". It also makes no
> >statement that feature functionality of the product can/will be
> >removed based upon the "opinion" of someone else as it relates to my
> >driving ability or my driving judgement. If I bought a new car, and
> >Chevy removed the radio after three months because in their opinion,
> >they didn't like the fact I played Perry Como CD's, I would be rather
> >upset.

> >This brings up a second point. I am not the only one that uses my CD
> >key in my household. The game has feature functionality built into it
> >in the player area that allows you to set up more than one player. It
> >holds the sierra account info in this separate player.ini file.

> >In my house I have two kids that are both old enough and qualified
> >enough to drive online. Both are rather good, with better ratings and
> >LPI than I have. LOL. However, in their online sessions, if they get
> >deemed to have intentionally caused an incident, on THEIR account,
> >with THEIR player profile loaded, I think it is quite wrong to ban the
> >CD Key for all players. It is apparent that Sierra and Papy can
> >distinguish what player was logged on, I feel they should ban the
> >player account, not the CD. Also, If they are going to monitor PAPY
> >servers, they should ban only for PAPy servers.

> >With the current policy, I could be hosting on MY server, with MY
> >purchased CD Key, on MY network and still be banned because of someone
> >else's OPINION that I or someone in my household performed in a manner
> >that caused an incident online.

> >I think Papy and Seirra need to take another look at this policy.
> ----------------
> Skotty Flynn
> http://www.nascar-racing-sims.com