rec.autos.simulators

Obviously, no one at RSC is willing to respond as to the reason
they have the public warning system, and is banning anyone who
dares asks about it on their forum.

A summary of the issues discussed here:

No other racing game forum I'm aware of uses a public warning system.
Obviously, a public warning system isn't necessary to run a successful
racing game oriented forum. Of all of the non-racing sim forums that
do have a public warning system, none of them issue public warnings
for a first time minor offense. Most members of RSC ignore the public
warnings. It only seems to have meaning to the moderators that want
to punish it's members.

RSC does not document it's public warning system in it's new user
agreement or it's rules. In the few, non-racing game related forums
that do have public warnings, the rules and reasons for receiving
such warnings are clearly indicated in the new member agreement.
This gives new members a change to decide to use ficticious names
so as not to have a public warning associated with their real name.

Because the public warning system is not documented at RSC, the
public warning system is a violation of their own rule 4.1,
regarding content that is abusive or harrassing. RSC should
update it's new user agreement and/or rules and then allow
it's users to change account names if the users desire to
do so.

RSC is going out of their way to avoid any discussion of their
warning system on their forum, and apparently will ban any member
that brings it up. Sirocco posted a link to a thread made back
in 2002 that reference the warning system (although the main
subject was preferential treatment of some members), and RSC
quickly deleted that thread.

Wow I'm impressed, yet another soon to be "instabanned" member
of RSC (or should I say ex-member?). Obviously it's just another
account I created to start trouble at RSC.

I should get credit for at least thinking ahead far enough to
have created this account back in February, 2002.

I saved an image of this won't as it probably won't last long.
It will be a collector's item soon.

==--==

RSC is a big site and it takes a lot of work to sort it out. Thanks to
all at RSC for all their hard work.

______________________________Case Closed______________________________

You seem to be the only one to post about this and not get banned
by RSC, and/or accused of being me, what's your secret?

Also, what was in the PM? How does RSC justify an undocumented
public warning system when all the sites Sirrocco mention clearly
explain this fact in a new member agreement?

Why is RSC the only site that attaches public warnings to all
posts instead of just the offending thread as the other sites
that use the public warning system?

Why is RSC the only racing sim site to use a public warning
system at all?

If RSC feels that there public warning system is justifiable, then
why do they delete every post made about it?

Regardless of the good they do, it doesn't justify their unfair
treament of a few members. I feel sorry for the members that
were banned simply because RSC accused them of being me. Hitler
initially did a lot of good for Germany as well, turning them
into a world power, unless you count the Jews he killed.

So RSC has a double standard. They have a public warning system,
but don't allow public discussion about it in their forums.

They even deleted a thread back from 2002. What's changed since
2002?

"Appeals may be brought forward to administration staff only - the
involvement of another member in your fight will result in their
punishment also."

It seems that honest advocates are banned.

I had a friend check this and it's still there, just got
moved. There were 3 replies. One or two of them mentioning
that you can't post on behalf of a banned member, (as if
any opinion or question I have can't be also independtly
shared by another person?) and the last one mentioning that
they knew it wasn't me (JeffR). I guess I could actually
create another account, but it would probably get banned
and just add to their claims of me previously creating new
accounts to stir up trouble. I can read all the main
game related forums without logging in. My only purpose
for joining RSC again would be to provide help to others,
with info on setups and the videos, but they've already
told me I was never to post a link to any video again, so
there's not much point in ever joining up with RSC again.

Although I think the public warning system, is unfair,
disrespectful, and uneeded, I would find it a lot more
tolerable if it was clearly documentend in the new
user agreements, so nww members would be making an
informed decision to join RSC.

I don't remember that rule, totally unfair. At least they make
it clear part of their job as moderators is to punish members,
even if the members are just advocates as you noted. In addition,
they equate "appeal" with "fight", unlike a reasonable person.
This is a pretty combative attitude, the moderators versus
their out of control violating members? The purpose of an appeal
is to provide evidence that a claimed violation wasn't an actual
violation, or to clarify a mis-understanding, this should not
be considered a "fight".

Imagine if every defense witness in a trial had to run the risk
of sharing the punishment if the accused party was found guilty
(especially if wrongfully found guilty).

    Awwwww, the ***y poopy pants closed it!

    I was about to lobby for an avator type warning featuring the psycho
robot from Lost in Space chucking a mentacula screaming "WARNING, WARNING,
WARNING, *ALIEN* APPROACHING, WARNING, WARNING, WARNING". (Very high volume
too - freak people right out)

    I think we need to lobby RSC hard for this!

Are you totally unable to read, understand and follow the rules of the
forum?  If so, that'd explain why you repeatedly chose to ignore both
private and public warnings and eventually ended up being banned.  You'd be
banned again now solely because you're already banned, not to add to any
claims of this nonsense you mention.

My being banned had nothing to do with warnings.

Since your memory is so bad, maybe a refresher would help:

I got one yellow warning for posting a link to a video that you claimed
was copyrighted, where you had already removed the link. I sent you a PM
stating that the video had been out since 2002, was in the public domain,
(or at least without a copyright issue, such as fair useage), but it
was OK to leave the link deleted until I verified this.

I then requested that you hold off on the warning to allow me reasonable
time to show that there wasn't a copywright issue with that video.
However since reasonable doesn't seem to describe an RSC moderator
such as yourself, you just stated it would stay for one week until I got
proof before that time, an unreasonable request since the video was 3
years old and it would probably take quite a while to find the source
and verify that it was OK to post a link to the video. The link was
already deleted, I had agreed to leave the link deleted, yet you
felt the need to punish, wether it was justified or not.

I responded that this was the equivalent of guilty until proven innocent,
and violated your own rule 4.1 ... defamation of character.

Then Mbrio jumps into the PM discussion, first demanding that I never
post a link to any video, even one I personally created. He next sends
a PM demanding that I mail a written letter (within 24 hours) agreeing
to a new set of rules made just for me, or be banned. I chose to be
banned rather than be treated so unfairly.

Obviously, this statment by Dan Murray:

"Despite your claim, somebody querying about or even
protesting against a warning/ban in a polite manner
will not result in that somebody being warned or banned
themselves."

(from thread http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=138737)

Is an outright lie, based on my experience. All of my
PM's were polite. I was simply protesting a yellow warning
that thought was unfair, especially since I agreed to not
link to the video in question until I verified it would OK
to do so.

If you've saved the PM's from our discussion, feel free to
post them here and let the folks here decide if anything
I wrote was not in a polite manner.

Dan's statement is also an outright lie based on this response
you sent to whooo / Cliff:

"Appeals may be brought forward to administration staff only - the
involvement of another member in your fight will result in their
punishment also."

(By the way, where is this rule posted at RSC?)

Cliff responded that "It seems that honest advocates are banned."

This response also makes it clear that RSC considers an appeal
to be a "fight", and that it's purpose is to punish not only
the original member, but also to punish any member that stands
up for the accused.