What is the purpose of publicly attacing warning icons to all
posts made by a member? Is this not an attempt to punish, or
in other words, to cause some level of "harm" to the victim
of your public warning policy?
Why isn't this public warning policy included in the new member
agreement so the new member knowingly gives up the right not
to be abused and harrased by the moderators of RSC?
I have never found another forum that does this. Can you point
out any other forums that have the same public warning policy
as yours? If there are other forums with such policies. are these
policies covered by disclaimers or agreements when a new
member joins?
RSC moderators asked to justify public warning icons
Jeff Reid asked RSC moderators to explain why warnings were displayed publicly on all of a member's posts. RSC moderators Kevin Clark and Scirocco said it was simply how the forum software worked and served as a deterrent. Others called the complaints whining, while Alex Martini alleged that RSC tolerated libellous posts about him.
community/meta
Automated summary.
Jeff Reid wrote:
You should probably say this where someone from RSC may actually read
and reply to it. Like a PM or email to a moderator or administrator.
Quoted text (14 lines)
> What is the purpose of publicly attacing warning icons to all > posts made by a member? Is this not an attempt to punish, or > in other words, to cause some level of "harm" to the victim > of your public warning policy? > > Why isn't this public warning policy included in the new member > agreement so the new member knowingly gives up the right not > to be abused and harrased by the moderators of RSC? > > I have never found another forum that does this. Can you point > out any other forums that have the same public warning policy > as yours? If there are other forums with such policies. are these > policies covered by disclaimers or agreements when a new > member joins?
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
No! The theme here is to punish in public!
LOL.
Quoted text (19 lines)
> Jeff Reid wrote: >> What is the purpose of publicly attacing warning icons to all >> posts made by a member? Is this not an attempt to punish, or >> in other words, to cause some level of "harm" to the victim >> of your public warning policy? >> >> Why isn't this public warning policy included in the new member >> agreement so the new member knowingly gives up the right not >> to be abused and harrased by the moderators of RSC? >> >> I have never found another forum that does this. Can you point >> out any other forums that have the same public warning policy >> as yours? If there are other forums with such policies. are these >> policies covered by disclaimers or agreements when a new >> member joins? > > You should probably say this where someone from RSC may actually read > and reply to it. Like a PM or email to a moderator or administrator. >> You should probably say this where someone from RSC may actually read
> and reply to it. Like a PM or email to a moderator or administrator.
Considering that an RSC moderator is already responding to posts
in the "RSC and their mods" thread here, I think this is the correct
place.
If they truly feel their public warning policy is justifiable, then
they should be willing to respond in a public forum as to the reasoning
and intent behind such a policy.
It's my belief that this policy is just a means for RSC moderators
to "punish" others, with the intent of inflicting some level (small)
of harm in retribution for anything they think violates their rules.
It's an undocumented policy that members only discover when they see
public warnings.
Jeff Reid wrote:
You pose a fair question. I'd like to see some answers.
Quoted text (21 lines)
>>You should probably say this where someone from RSC may actually read >>and reply to it. Like a PM or email to a moderator or administrator. > > > Considering that an RSC moderator is already responding to posts > in the "RSC and their mods" thread here, I think this is the correct > place. > > If they truly feel their public warning policy is justifiable, then > they should be willing to respond in a public forum as to the reasoning > and intent behind such a policy. > > It's my belief that this policy is just a means for RSC moderators > to "punish" others, with the intent of inflicting some level (small) > of harm in retribution for anything they think violates their rules. > It's an undocumented policy that members only discover when they see > public warnings. > > > >Jeff Reid wrote:
It's called forum software.
Most forums, (vB, phpBB, invision) that have user warning systems
installed will auto tag it to the users posts. They can't just stick it
on one post. That's not how the forum software works.
BTW I am a mod on RSC and a awful lot of discussion goes on about posts
and posters before someone gets a warning. They aren't given out for a
laugh.
Quoted text (17 lines)
> What is the purpose of publicly attacing warning icons to all > posts made by a member? Is this not an attempt to punish, or > in other words, to cause some level of "harm" to the victim > of your public warning policy? > > Why isn't this public warning policy included in the new member > agreement so the new member knowingly gives up the right not > to be abused and harrased by the moderators of RSC? > > I have never found another forum that does this. Can you point > out any other forums that have the same public warning policy > as yours? If there are other forums with such policies. are these > policies covered by disclaimers or agreements when a new > member joins? > > >whooo <[email hidden]> wrote in news:w2eOe.15$3n3.13@newsfe5-
gui.ntli.net:
> You pose a fair question. I'd like to see some answers.
>
Why is it so hard to understand that RSC owners can do anything they
want? If you come to visit my house and I don't like the color of your
shirt, I can ask you to leave. We are guests at RSC and dozens of other
sites. For WHATEVER reason, they can do what they wish. Fairness,
publicness, this has absolutely NO bearing on the matter.
They could call any of us green toads and that would be just as fair as
having a public warning system. They have no responsibility to us. We are
guests. A fine lot this is..."Thanks for the Cheese mate, it's a pity the
crackers have too much starch in them."
If you want to piss and moan, then become a stockholder. And no, I don't
care if you didn't know. I don't care if you were only a teeny tiny bit
over the line. IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.
Remind me never to have this lot over for drinks. Good Day.
Dave Henrie
"Kevin Clark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:decdou$pts$[email hidden]...
>
> It's called forum software.
> Most forums, (vB, phpBB, invision) that have user warning systems
> installed will auto tag it to the users posts. They can't just stick it on
> one post. That's not how the forum software works.
>
But they could simply not use it. Seems it's just being used because
it's there. No need to be so prone to the power of suggestion!
> BTW I am a mod on RSC and a awful lot of discussion goes on about posts
> and posters before someone gets a warning. They aren't given out for a
> laugh.
>
I think you should have a very short discussion about whether to use
this "feature" of that wonderful software that concludes with "No, we
shouldn't!". :)
It's good to see that some ppl. don't have short fuses......<rollseyes>
> It's called forum software.
> Most forums, (vB, phpBB, invision) that have user warning systems installed will auto tag it to the users posts. They
> can't just stick it on one post. That's not how the forum software works.
Name one other forum that uses this warning system. If such
a forum exists, does it disclose to its members that it uses
such a warning system? At RSC there's no such discloser.
Why is it that RSC is the only forum using the feature then? I've
never seen it used anywhere else, and it still doesn't answer my
question. What is is the purpose and intent of these public warnings,
if not to punish?
> BTW I am a mod on RSC and a awful lot of discussion goes on about posts and posters before someone gets a warning.
> They aren't given out for a laugh.
I find it hard to believe that any discussion occurred before I
got a warning about posting a link to the DC F1 hotlap video, and that
no one considered providing me reasonable time to show that it was
OK to post a link to that video. Note that I had posted a link
to that video several times before at RSC and never received a complaint.
Did anyone at RSC really think their web site would be jepordized
by having a link to that video?
"Kevin Clark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:decdou$pts$[email hidden]...
> BTW I am a mod on RSC and a awful lot of discussion goes on about posts
> and posters before someone gets a warning. They aren't given out for a
> laugh.
Rubbish Clark - why is there a post about me - a member that has been
banned, and posted weeks AFTER I was banned - alleging that I "said" I had
lied about my article in AutoSimSport, and confessing to being a "lying"
"immoral" "filth"?
And since RSC chooses to allow its admins free access to libelous posts such
as this, why don't you allow me to defend myself in public - or is it just
RSC policy to ban editors of other magazines, then begiun a smeer campaign
against them ...
Please ... don't hide behind legality when you know full well that libel and
illegal posts and acts of speech are fully acceptable at RSC as long as the
target and victim is outside the 'clique'.
"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rIdOe.122427$E95.26581@fed1read01...
You need to distinguish between moderators and moderators at RSC - most
couldn't give a shit about this kind of offensive nonsense.
The best way to discuss RSC is to name those that are behind these
decisions. Because the majoroity of RSC mods don't know and don't care about
the running of RSC - they're just doing a job for the good of the community.
Then there is the small minority led by John Schoen and others that are
doing a job ON the community.
Quoted text (18 lines)
>> You should probably say this where someone from RSC may actually read >> and reply to it. Like a PM or email to a moderator or administrator. > > Considering that an RSC moderator is already responding to posts > in the "RSC and their mods" thread here, I think this is the correct > place. > > If they truly feel their public warning policy is justifiable, then > they should be willing to respond in a public forum as to the reasoning > and intent behind such a policy. > > It's my belief that this policy is just a means for RSC moderators > to "punish" others, with the intent of inflicting some level (small) > of harm in retribution for anything they think violates their rules. > It's an undocumented policy that members only discover when they see > public warnings. > >"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rIdOe.122427$E95.26581@fed1read01...
> Considering that an RSC moderator is already responding to posts
> in the "RSC and their mods" thread here, I think this is the correct
> place.
Loooooong time reader, I just never feel the need to post. :D
> If they truly feel their public warning policy is justifiable, then
> they should be willing to respond in a public forum as to the reasoning
> and intent behind such a policy.
>
I couldn't tell you what the reason is. It's been that way since before I
was a member.
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> Why is it so hard to understand that RSC owners can do anything they
> want?
I want to see them jump over the moon then!
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:430b34ef$0$15503$[email hidden]...
lol - but would they want to?
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> >> Why is it so hard to understand that RSC owners can do anything they >> want? > > I want to see them jump over the moon then!
Jesus H Christ.......
WAAAAAHH, FUCKIN' WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaa
Don't like it don't read it, or start your own forum, but QUIT YOUR GODDAMN
WHINING!!!!!!!!!!
Ed
"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:VWHOe.19342$%[email hidden]:
Thanks Alex...I was gonna get the tacklebox outta the stream but you
already set the hook. :)
dave henrie
Quoted text (18 lines)
> > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:430b34ef$0$15503$[email hidden] > om.au... >> >> "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >>> >>> Why is it so hard to understand that RSC owners can do anything >>> they >>> want? >> >> I want to see them jump over the moon then! > > lol - but would they want to? > > >> Why is it so hard to understand that RSC owners can do anything they
> want?
Why it is to hard to understand that they shouldn't and instead treat
people rightfully?
Byron Forbes wrote:
> I think you should have a very short discussion about whether to use
> this "feature" of that wonderful software that concludes with "No, we
> shouldn't!". :)
The entire purpose of a warning system being public is to serve as a
deterrent. The only alternative would be to insta-ban people, and
personally I'd rather have a system where you need 6 yellow warnings in
1 week than a system where I'm having a bad day and snap on someone
gets me permanently banned.
Quoted text (9 lines)
>> I think you should have a very short discussion about whether to use >> this "feature" of that wonderful software that concludes with "No, we >> shouldn't!". :) > > The entire purpose of a warning system being public is to serve as a > deterrent. The only alternative would be to insta-ban people, and > personally I'd rather have a system where you need 6 yellow warnings in > 1 week than a system where I'm having a bad day and snap on someone > gets me permanently banned. Look, one of Reggie's rels!
Wonder who he's talking too!
"Ed White" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:qvPOe.129$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > Jesus H Christ....... > WAAAAAHH, FUCKIN' WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaa > > Don't like it don't read it, or start your own forum, but QUIT YOUR > GODDAMN WHINING!!!!!!!!!! > > Ed >
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
I see no need for deterents to be in the form of public exhibitions.
Anyone that will ultimately be banned would probably be more likely to rebel
against this shit even more. Seems like a bunch of kids with a new toy to
me.
Quoted text (12 lines)
> Byron Forbes wrote: > >> I think you should have a very short discussion about whether to use >> this "feature" of that wonderful software that concludes with "No, we >> shouldn't!". :) > > The entire purpose of a warning system being public is to serve as a > deterrent. The only alternative would be to insta-ban people, and > personally I'd rather have a system where you need 6 yellow warnings in > 1 week than a system where I'm having a bad day and snap on someone > gets me permanently banned. >Byron Forbes wrote:
> I see no need for deterents to be in the form of public exhibitions.
> Anyone that will ultimately be banned would probably be more likely to rebel
> against this shit even more. Seems like a bunch of kids with a new toy to
> me.
Maybe. RSC is run pretty much the same as any other UBB forum, with
the exception that most of them don't tolerate 6 minor warnings in 1
week.
