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.
Jeff Reid's 'final' summary of the RSC warning dispute
Jeff Reid posted what he called his final summary of objections to RSC's undocumented public warning system and to bans of people who questioned it. RSC moderator Scirocco disputed his account of how many warnings he had received and why he was banned, and the two traded detailed accusations over private messages and a disputed video link.
community/meta
Automated summary.
> Let's see how long this one lasts: http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=2596854#post2596854
I saved an image of this won't as it probably won't last long.
It will be a collector's item soon.
It stops here, this is the last thread on this I'll make.
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.
Jeff Reid wrote:
Let's see how long this one lasts:
http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=2596854#post2596854
Quoted text (38 lines)
> It stops here, this is the last thread on this I'll make. > > 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. > >Jeff Reid wrote:
RSC behavior is outrageous and uncalled for. I am considering calling
the ACLU.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>>Let's see how long this one lasts: http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=2596854#post2596854 > > > I saved an image of this won't as it probably won't last long. > It will be a collector's item soon. > >>> Jeff Reid wrote:
> It stops here, this is the last thread on this I'll make. <<
Please and Thank you
==--==
"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:gL0Re.150701$E95.132881@fed1read01...
Quoted text (38 lines)
> It stops here, this is the last thread on this I'll make. > > 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. > >whooo wrote:
Well the thread has been closed, but I did get a very nice PM
explaining how things work.
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______________________________
Quoted text (42 lines)
> Jeff Reid wrote: > >> It stops here, this is the last thread on this I'll make. >> >> 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. >> >> > Let's see how long this one lasts: > http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=2596854#post2596854>> Let's see how long this one lasts: http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=2596854#post2596854
> Well the thread has been closed, but I did get a very nice PM explaining how things work.
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?
> 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.
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.
>> Let's see how long this one lasts: http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=2596854#post2596854
> Well the thread has been closed, but I did get a very nice PM explaining how things work.
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?
Jeff Reid wrote:
I don't know. The only bit I disagree with is this:
"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.
Quoted text (17 lines)
>>>Let's see how long this one lasts: http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=2596854#post2596854 > > >>Well the thread has been closed, but I did get a very nice PM explaining how things work. > > > 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? > > > > > >> > Well the thread has been closed,
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 know. The only bit I disagree with is this:
>
> "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 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).
"whooo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:A%0Re.1184$[email hidden]...
>>
> Let's see how long this one lasts:
> http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=2596854#post2596854
Awwwww, the bloody 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!
"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:BwhRe.152319$E95.760@fed1read01...
> 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.
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.
>> they knew it wasn't me (JeffR).
> 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.
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.
> My being banned had nothing to do with warnings.
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.
Quoted text (8 lines)
> 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)Quoted text (8 lines)
> 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)"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:IZPRe.3511$mH.3275@fed1read07...
Errr, you've had one yellow warning?? What about all the other warning PMs,
yellow and red warnings you've had in the past???
BS, you never asked to hold off on the warning. All you did was protest it
by claiming it was in the public domain because someone in some other group
said it was. You also made the brilliant assumption that because it hasn't
been removed from a specific website that it was OK. I guess this means
that warez sites are OK too??
Are you also forgetting the fact that in your defense you sent me a link to
another webiste that hosted the video? This website had the disclaimer
saying the videos were for educational use only, had to be deleted within 24
hours and begged the copyright holders to let them host the videos. That
was really smart.....
>
> I responded that this was the equivalent of guilty until proven innocent,
> and violated your own rule 4.1 ... defamation of character.
>
And what exactly are you doing on these forums by spreading lies and false
accusations about those that help RSC to run smoothly??
Quoted text (7 lines)
> 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.Quoted text (10 lines)
> > 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."Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:HjQRe.3517$mH.770@fed1read07...
LOL, do you really think that anyone who's polite can get out of a warning
just by being nice? Again, when you tried to show the validity of the
video, you posted a link that stated the opposite. Why remove a warning
when you provide evidence indicating that you're guilty?
> Dan's statement is also an outright lie based on this response
> you sent to whooo / Cliff:
What a warped sense of reality. How on earth do you think that I send a
response from Dan to anyone?
>
> "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?)
What this really shows is your lack of reading the quoted text thorougly
before responding. How can you possibly think that a mod or smod could get
in trouble by simply receiving a PM from someone?
> 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.
Nah, it only makes it look like you're trying to make an argument against
something doesn't exist.
Quoted text (21 lines)
>> My being banned had nothing to do with warnings. > > 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. >"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ArQRe.3521$mH.1302@fed1read07...
Are you really that dense? I figured it out by reading the first 2
sentences in that post you refer to.....
Quoted text (14 lines)
>> 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) > > and yet, the very member that Dan Murray is responding to > was instabanned. > > What was impolite in this post that Dan is responding to? >"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:xuQRe.3524$mH.2477@fed1read07...
>
> If you still have my PM's, maybe Dan can read them, and email me
> to explain which of them were impolite. Just reply to this group
> or to me, as I don't use a fake email address or name here.
Politeness has nothing to do with it....
Quoted text (15 lines)
>>> Obviously, this statment by Dan Murray: >>> >>> "Despite your claim, somebody querying about or even >>> protesting against a warning/ban in a polite manner >>> will not result in that somebody being warned or banned >>> themselves." >>> >>> (from thread http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=138737) >> >> and yet, the very member that Dan Murray is responding to >> was instabanned. >> >> What was impolite in this post that Dan is responding to? >> > Are you really that dense? I figured it out by reading the first 2 sentences in that post you refer to.....>> If you still have my PM's, maybe Dan can read them, and email me
>> to explain which of them were impolite. Just reply to this group
>> or to me, as I don't use a fake email address or name here.
>
> Politeness has nothing to do with it....
Perhaps you didn't read this statement by Dan Murray, or is his
statement a lie?
"Despite your claim, somebody querying about or even
protesting against a warning/ban in a polite manner
will not result in that somebody being warned or banned
themselves."
Quoted text (25 lines)
> "Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HjQRe.3517$mH.770@fed1read07... >>> My being banned had nothing to do with warnings. >> >> 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. >> > > LOL, do you really think that anyone who's polite can get > out of a warning just by being nice?Quoted text (8 lines)
>> "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?) > > What this really shows is your lack of reading the quoted text thorougly before responding. How can you possibly > think that a mod or smod could get in trouble by simply receiving a PM from someone?Quoted text (7 lines)
>> 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. > > Nah, it only makes it look like you're trying to make an argument > against something doesn't exist."Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:nQ5Se.157765$E95.105628@fed1read01...
I was pointing out where a reason could be read for the banning of abbakus.
It's not my fault if you keep quoting and responding to yourself and then
get confused when someone else says something.
Quoted text (8 lines)
>>> >> Are you really that dense? I figured it out by reading the first 2 >> sentences in that post you refer to..... > > The first 2 sentences are just stating facts, and aren't impolite. > What rule at RSC did those 2 sentences violate? > I think you just prove that member's point. >"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:z46Se.157772$E95.27671@fed1read01...
OK, please explain how a site that's hosting perfectly legal videos needs to
mention any sort of loophole?
>I pointd out that that site
> did not host the video. Lastly I referred you to another site,
> the site listed below, that has been hosting that video since
> September 2002, in a side by side comparason with Caterham
> on the same track. Scroll down to the end of the page to
> get to September 2002, side by side F1 comparason videos
And? You apparently requested to have your account removed before I even
got that PM, which you already knew.
Why would anyone with some sort of common sense try to appeal a warning to
anyone other than a member of the staff?? Have you ever considered the fact
that staff may have some sort of guidelines as to what their duties are or
do you think everyone just runs around doing anything they feel like?
"will result in their punishment also" would mean that they'd be punished
and does NOT mean that they'll "suffer the same punishment".
fight, appeal, who cares?? How different is "appeal the verdict" from
"fight the verdict"?
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > You have a terrirble memory or or deliberately leaving out > all the facts, or you're simply lying here. First of all that > site doesn't have the video in question, so it proved nothing > one way or the other. Secondly, I sent another PM to you, > agreeing that that site was a bad example, since it used a > USA loophole to host its videos.Quoted text (13 lines)
>>> "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?) >> >> What this really shows is your lack of reading the quoted text thorougly >> before responding. How can you possibly think that a mod or smod could >> get in trouble by simply receiving a PM from someone? > > You're the one having trouble reading english here. It clearly is stating > that if another member stands up for an accused member in an appeal, that > both members will share the punishment.Quoted text (8 lines)
> > Again, you can't read english? ... and again, it was clear to > both whooo and myself. > > That quote is from RSC, not me. They're the ones equating appeal > and fight in that statment. They're the ones stating that advocates > for an accused member will also suffer the same punishment. >"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:z46Se.157772$E95.27671@fed1read01...
>>> "Appeals may be brought forward to administration staff only - the
>>> involvement of another member in your fight will result in their
>>> punishment also."
>>>
>>> (By the way, where is this rule posted at RSC?)
One more thing, who said that everything someone types in a PM needs to be
an officially posted rule?
Quoted text (10 lines)
>> Since your memory is so bad, maybe a refresher would help: >> >> I got one yellow warning for posting a link to a video that you claimed >> was copyrighted, where you had already removed the link. I sent you a PM >> stating that the video had been out since 2002, was in the public domain, >> (or at least without a copyright issue, such as fair useage), but it >> was OK to leave the link deleted until I verified this. > > Errr, you've had one yellow warning?? What about all the other warning PMs, yellow and red warnings you've had in the > past???Quoted text (13 lines)
>> I then requested that you hold off on the warning to allow me reasonable >> time to show that there wasn't a copywright issue with that video. >> However since reasonable doesn't seem to describe an RSC moderator >> such as yourself, you just stated it would stay for one week until I got >> proof before that time, an unreasonable request since the video was 3 >> years old and it would probably take quite a while to find the source >> and verify that it was OK to post a link to the video. The link was >> already deleted, I had agreed to leave the link deleted, yet you >> felt the need to punish, wether it was justified or not. > > BS, you never asked to hold off on the warning. All you did was protest it by claiming it was in the public domain > because someone in some other group said it was. You also made the brilliant assumption that because it hasn't been > removed from a specific website that it was OK."Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:3L6Se.157774$E95.86082@fed1read01...
Well, seeing as you asked, the count should be a bit higher than that.
Don't forget, warnings other than visible, under the avatar, public warnings
do count as a member being warned.
>
> No, I stated that it had been hosted on several web sites since 2002,
> and without issue, indicating that the video was either public domain
> or at least covered under "fair use".
Really? How does something being available on a website since 2002 make it
public domain or "fair use"? It sure sounds like you're saying that someone
could set up a web server somewhere, load it full of software and let it sit
for 3 years. Then, if it wasn't found and shut down within that time, it'd
suddenly be OK for everyone to download and use it solely because it was out
there for 3 years without issue.
You make it sound like everyone gets a yellow warning for a 1st time
offense. If you only knew how wrong you are....
Quoted text (9 lines)
> What does anything that happened in the past have to do with this > incident? > I "served my time", lived with the previous warning icons, what more do > you > want? Although it doesn't matter, exactly how many warnings do you think I > received in the past? > > There were two previous incidents, the first one an honest mistake, the > second one undeserved.Quoted text (7 lines)
> Of all the sites Sirrocco linked to that do have public warning system, > none of them issue a public warning for a first time minor offenes. > None of them attach public warnings to all posts, only the posts > that were in violation. The warnings are also for more serious issues, > like explaining how to implement viruses or denial of service attacks > on web building forums. RSC instead attaches warnings to all posts > made by a member even for first time minor violations.I think I've mistakenly assumed that you were aware of the PM's I was
getting from Mbrio. I thought that RSC moderators consulted with each
other before issuing warnings or sending PMs like that. I didn't
mention leaving RSC until after I received the ultimatum PM from
Mbrio, but you state you weren't aware of this fact when you sent
me another PM afterwards, and I responded that I was not going to
agree to Mbrio's demand to agree to undocumented rules and leave
RSC instead. This indicates to me that you truly weren't aware of
all the PM's I was receiving from Mbrio, however how did Mbrio
get involved in the first place if you weren't consutling with him,
and why wasn't Mbrio keeping you in the loop regarding the PM's
he was sending me?
To be honest, it was Mbrio and not you that turned this molehill into
a mountain. It was Mbrio that demanded that I never post a link to any
video, even ones that I personally created, and later demanded that
I mail a written letter within 24 hours agreeing to the public warning
system policy, or be banned.
I also notice that Mbrio has never responded here, you're the only
RSC moderator willing to speak up for RSC. Other than you, it seems
that no other RSC moderator is willing to defend their actions in
a public forum such as RAS. I have to give you credit for this.
Also your treatment of me, regarding the yellow warning pales in
comparason to Mbrio's PM's to me, first asking to never post a link
to a video, and next demanding I mail a written letter within 24
hours agreeing to the undocumented rules.
Personally, I'd to see the public warning system at RSC done away
with completely, or to at least only attach a warning to the specific
violating post (just treat your members the same as any other forum
would).
Next I would like to see some documentation of the public warning
system, amended or not, included in the new member agreement. Anyone
entering into a contract or agreement deserves to know all the details.
Imagine buying a car and finding out later that you're automatically
being fined for every speeding violation, even though this is never
mentioned in the purchase contract.
>> There were two previous incidents, the first one an honest mistake, the
>> second one undeserved.
>
> Well, seeing as you asked, the count should be a bit higher than that. Don't forget, warnings other than visible,
> under the avatar, public warnings do count as a member being warned.
I'm giving you permission to list them here. I only remember two
previous incidents (three if you count the champ car video as two
incidents). Yet Mbrio claims (falsely) that there were many.
What other warnings or PMs did I ever get while at RSC? I don't
remember any.
I stated that it was available on several popular (within the car racing
world) web sites. Regardless, did you honestly think that that video
was truly in violation of copyright law and not covered by fair use?
Considering it's just one lap of many practice or qualifying laps,
showed no racing footage whatsoever, and therefore is a small sample,
and not the "heart" of the entire footage of that race, then fair
use would apply here. Also note that I agreed to leave the link deleted,
I was just protesting the warning, as it was the second warning I
recieved that I felt was undeserved.
The first undeserved public warning was for posting a link to the LFS S1
slicks for all cars mod. How could anyone know that this was content
made by a banned member?
On a side note, after reviewing stats of F1 cars at Spa in 20002,
it was a qualifying lap or at least using a qualifying setup, assuming
the announcer was accurately stating top speed. For qualifying, top
speeds of 190mph are typical, while racing setups that have to use
less downforce in order to preserve tires end up around 205mph.
No, but only RSC attaches a public warning to every post made by
a member. The other sites only post a warning on the violating post
(I assume that the violating content is editted out). RSC's public
warning system is beyond reasonable, and purely punitive.
Also no other racing game forum uses any public warning system at all,
and yet they all manage to run smoothly.
Also I can only go by my personal experience. I can see my first
warning was justifiable (but not the public nature of it), since it
turned out to be video from a DVD, however, 6 minutes from a 90
minute video sounds like fair use to me. I think I posted a link
to that video twice, which was an hones mistake. I had no desire
to cause RSC any trouble by posting a link to an interseting video.
My second warning was totally uncalled for. As mentioned above,
it was for posting a link to the LFS S1 slicks for all cars mod.
How could anyone possibly know that that mod was authored by
a banned member?
My last warning, about the David Coulthard lap video, bothered
me more because of my experience with the S1 mod warning. Since
another member asked why I got a yellow warning, it also dawned
on my how unfair RSC's public warning system is, since that
thread was totally unrelated to the thread were I posted the
video. I hadn't previously noticed that RSC attaches a public
warning to every post in every thread made by a member. This
is totally uncalled for, unreasonable, and punitive, as I
also mentioned before.
