RSC and their mods

Is it just me or are the moderators at RSC even more restrictive than ever? It <seems> like more and more ppl. there have threads locked or deleted, get "yellow warnings" and are otherwise muted by the moderators. The mods seem to be the "be all, end all" on what is and is not pertinent to a particular topic. If a mod doesn't like a topic or the way a thread is going, they delete or lock it. I understand that they have rules and a certain level of conduct is needed (i.e. no racial slurs, swearing etc.) but far too many posts are deemed "stupid", "unneeded" or "pointless". As they approach 200,000 threads and 2.5 MILLION posts and 70,000 members, is the censorship of its users going to worsen? One doesn't have to agree with a post or thread, but they can still allow a thread to continue within the posted rules. Certainly, posts soley intended to flame others aren't needed, but a lively discussion on a topic in which ppl. have much passion on both sides should be allowed. I know, I know, "you don't HAVE to post there" or "if you don't like the rules, leave" etc., but what USED to be a superior website for all things Sim Racing, is now a website for supersized egos and mega-powertrippers.

RSC can burn.

Some years ago, this was the place where mods were announced and this without moderators Rolf

It's one thing to give a private warning, it's another to label a person's threads with a warning avatar on ever post that person makes. I got a warning for postig a link to a video of David Coulthard doing a qualifying lap back in 2002. This video was widely available back then, and I believe to be public domain. One of the moderators gave me a warning for posting a link to this video claiming he thought it was copywrighted. I explained that it was widely available, but his response is that the warning only lasted a week, rather than try to defend his position. So it's "guilty" until proven innocent. I responded that labeling a person's posts with warning avatars was similar to defamation of character. Then mbrio jumped in on the thread and asked me to send a letter stating I wouldn't sue then and agree to their terms. Instead I told them I was leaving RSC, considered all of my posts to be copywrighted and that they no longer had permission to host them. So they ended up deleting over 700 posts I had made over the years.

Jeff Reid wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

> It's one thing to give a private warning, it's another > to label a person's threads with a warning avatar on > ever post that person makes. > > I got a warning for postig a link to a video of David > Coulthard doing a qualifying lap back in 2002. This video > was widely available back then, and I believe to be > public domain. One of the moderators gave me a warning > for posting a link to this video claiming he thought it > was copywrighted. I explained that it was widely available, > but his response is that the warning only lasted a week, > rather than try to defend his position. So it's "guilty" > until proven innocent. > > I responded that labeling a person's posts with warning > avatars was similar to defamation of character. Then mbrio > jumped in on the thread and asked me to send a letter > stating I wouldn't sue then and agree to their terms. > > Instead I told them I was leaving RSC, considered all of > my posts to be copywrighted and that they no longer had > permission to host them. So they ended up deleting > over 700 posts I had made over the years. > > >

I understand your annoyance, but they were under no obligation to remove all your posts because you had put them into the public domain. You did still hold the copywrite, however.

Copyright; The RIGHT to ownership. "whooo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aqqNe.798$[email hidden]... > Jeff Reid wrote: >You did still hold the copywrite, however.

Copyright; The RIGHT to ownership. >You did still hold the copywrite, however.

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Copyright; The RIGHT to ownership. > > "whooo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:aqqNe.798$[email hidden]... > >>Jeff Reid wrote: >>You did still hold the copywrite, however. > > >

sorry, yeah, copyRIGHT

> I understand your annoyance, but they were under no obligation to remove all your posts because you had put them into > the public domain. You did still hold the copywrite, however. It would have been tested in court if they didn't remove them. (Read on to see the basis for this). Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives them permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you make. In my experience these are handed out on a "assumed guilty until proven innocent" basis, they aren't fair, and violate their own rule: "4.1 - Any content that is false, abusive, defamatory, or harassing is not permitted." Every warning avatar attached by RSC is "content that is abusive and harassing". In my case they were also "false and defamatory". I consider the attachment of warning avatars to a person's posts to be a violation of the agreement when I joined RSC. My posts at RSC were a part of this agreement, and they had my implicit permission to display my copyrighted posts, until they violated the agreement. They gave me an ultimatim of either sending a letter agreeing to be abused by their posting of warning avatars or be banned. I had already responded that I considered the warning avatars to be a defamation of character. Mbrio responded that they were afraid of being sued by anyone that considered their behavior to be defmation of character, and were going to ban me unless I agreed in writing to accept their abuse and harassment. I responded that I would refuse to agree to accept such behavior, and would seek legal action regarding their behavior (defamation of character), and copyright violations if they didn't remove all my posts.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives them > permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you make. > In my experience these are handed out on a "assumed guilty until > proven innocent" basis, they aren't fair, and violate their own rule: > > "4.1 - Any content that is false, abusive, defamatory, or harassing > is not permitted." > > Every warning avatar attached by RSC is "content that is abusive and > harassing". In my case they were also "false and defamatory".

Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to stop this behavior ...

Jeff Reid wrote: > Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives them > permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you make. It's a private forum that you chose to participate in voluntarily. The administrators and moderators of the site can run it however they see fit, and if you don't like it you can either deal with them personally or go somewhere else.

Darus wrote: > Is it just me or are the moderators at RSC even more restrictive than > ever? I think it's just you. I've been banned from RSC in the past for things I haven't even received a warning for recently. The one area they've become more restrictive of, is when a handful of the same people repeatedly start threads that rehash things that have previously resulted in 10 page flamefests. In those cases, the people involved have previously been told to knock it off, so it doesn't seem like a big deal. If I were given a warning for something I posted, rather than lashing out at the moderators, I'd re-examine my own behavior and if I felt the warning was unwarranted I would contact the moderators privately. I'm certain doing that would provide a positive result in all but the most extreme cases.

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:tRtNe.88839$E95.29094 @fed1read01: > Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to > stop this behavior ... > > maybe you should grow up. RSC provides a huge benefit to the COMMUNITY. Your feelings got hurt. Toooooo Bad. RSC is owned and operated by somebody who is not you or me. They can do whatever the heck they want. If I find something that is incorrect, I challenge it. If I get warned, then fine. BFD. I think I've had a warning on there for a year or more. I don't even know what it is or what it's for. Who cares? If you can show ME that your lawsuit can benefit ME more than all the info and dloads provided FREE by RSC then go ahead, Start listing. Until such time that YOU can show just what amazing things you can contribute to the sim community, I'd strongly recomend you just shut up. I don't know what your beef with RSC is about, I don't care. I find it hugely amusing that you think you have rights on the internet. They are uploading kiddie porn, snuff films, terrorist communications, and on and on and on. And you feel you have a greivance worthy of a court's time? Good God man...did they post pictures of your mother and a goat? I rarely get this crude but I do so for your benefit. Hopefully it will get through to you. Come back when you have some hair down there. We'll wait the 5 or 6 years. dave henrie

> > Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to > > stop this behavior ... > RSC provides a huge benefit to the COMMUNITY. > If you can show ME that your lawsuit can benefit ME more than all the > info and dloads provided FREE by RSC then go ahead, Start listing. Read my post ... I never stated that I might sue RSC for money or to shut them down. I stated that I might sue to stop them from attaching warning avatars on peoples posts. If they want to warn somebody, they should do it privately. What harm could there possibly be in getting a cease and desist order to stop them from attaching warning avatars to peoples posts? > They can do whatever the heck they want. Apparently not, they claim that they were shut down in the past because of a members post. Also, they can't violate laws, and they should abide by their own rules. > If I find something that is incorrect, I challenge it. Which is exactly what I did. > I don't know what your beef with RSC is about, I don't care. You cared enough to respond. It should be obviouse that my beef is that that RSC attaches warning avatars to peoples posts, and that quite often, the warnings are undeserved. In my case, the RSC moderators first ignored, then over-reacted to my private emails about receiving and public posting of warning.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives them >> permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you make. > It's a private forum that you chose to participate in voluntarily. The > administrators and moderators of the site can run it however they see > fit, and if you don't like it you can either deal with them personally > or go somewhere else.

Which is exactly what I did, I dealt with them peronally and went somewhere else. I can also deal with them publicly if I choose to do so.

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:2nxNe.88862$E95.14850 @fed1read01: > You cared enough to respond. It should be obviouse that > my beef is that that RSC attaches warning avatars to peoples posts, > and that quite often, the warnings are undeserved. In my > case, the RSC moderators first ignored, then over-reacted to my > private emails about receiving and public posting of warning. > No I don't care. I can't imagine what could be so gosh darned important that your self-worth is impugned. I DO know that I myself and hundreds if not thousands of others get immense benefits from RSC. So they can be as rude as they like. I only know that your actions, for whatever reason you feel compelled to undertake, can only harm me. I'm not defending RSC, I'm not intellectually curious enough to even briefly examine the merits of either side. For pity's sake...it's a freekin' Race Sim site. It's not a publisher of scientific thesi. dave henrie

> I don't know what your beef with RSC is about Note that I didn't start this thread, just added my opinion to it. I told RSC that I wouldn't agree to them attaching warning avatars to my posts, and told them I no longer was giving them permission to host my posts. They complied and deleted my posts. They also banned me (at least I got an email from Mbrio stating that they banned me). I'm no longer being "abused, harassed, defamed, and/or falsely accused" by RSC, so my personal dealings with them are over. However, it's apparent they still are doing the same thing to other people, which I think is wrong, so I'm just doing my part by adding to this thread.

> I only know that your actions, for whatever reason you feel compelled > to undertake, can only harm me. What actions are you referring to? All I've posted is that I don't approve of RSC attaching warning avatars to the posts on it's forum. How could this possible harm you? Again note, I didn't start this thread, merely added my experiences with RSC to it.

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:tRtNe.88839$E95.29094 @fed1read01: > Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to > stop this behavior ... > > I was ignoring this thread til that line popped into view. dave henrie

>> Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to >> stop this behavior ... > I was ignoring this thread til that line popped into view. I was being sarcastic here. Obviously a class action lawsuit would require building a list of plaintiffs. Do you see anyone posting here about wanting to join in? I think it's wrong for RSC to attach warning avatars on forum posts. If this behavior ever did result in legal action, it would be the fault of the RSC moderators who chose to do this, not the victims of their abuse, harassment, false accusations and/or defamatory content. > RSC contributing to the community It's not RSC, but the people who post there that do the contributing. When RSC went down before, a temporary one was created that served the community just as well.

Jeff Reid wrote: > If this behavior ever did result in legal action Uh...what laws, in what country, are there against giving people warnings on an internet forum? I'd be impressed if people managed to successfully file a class-action lawsuit against a company that provides them a non-necessary service that they don't pay for.

> If I were given a warning for something I posted, rather than lashing > out at the moderators, I'd re-examine my own behavior and if I felt the > warning was unwarranted I would contact the moderators privately. I'm > certain doing that would provide a positive result in all but the most > extreme cases. Extreme cases, like mine: First a RSC moderator edits a post of my to delete a link to a widely available (back in 2002) video of David Coulthard doing a qualifying lap back from 2002. I had a yellow warning avatar attached to all my posts, and a private email stating it was because in that moderator's opinion, that any video showing a F1 car would be copywrighted. Another person posted in a thread asking why I got a yellow warning. I responded to the moderator that the video in question had been in the public domain for a long time, but agreed not to post a link to it at RSC. The moderator insisted on leaving the yellow warning unless I got the FIA to mail a letter to RSC stating I had permission to host the video. I responded back that this was the equivalent of being "assumed guilty until proven innocent" and that it was also the equivalent of defamation of character. Then a RSC moderator responded that I could no longer post a link to any video, including the videos I personally made (I've made a lot of racing game videos, and have posted these at many forums). About the same time, Mbrio privately mailed to me that my reference to "defamation of character" was "extremely serious", and unless I sent a written letter agreeing to their policies within 24 hours, I would be banned. I responded that I never agreed to having a warning avatar attached to my posts, that I no longer wanted to be a member of RSC, and wanted all of my posts deleted, as I considered my posts to be copyrighted, and because of their violation of the original member agreement, I was no longer giving them permission to host my posts. Mbrio later sent me a regular email stating that I had been banned and that all my posts were deleted as requested.

Jeff Reid wrote:

Quoted text (43 lines)

>>>Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to >>>stop this behavior ... > > >>RSC provides a huge benefit to the COMMUNITY. >>If you can show ME that your lawsuit can benefit ME more than all the >>info and dloads provided FREE by RSC then go ahead, Start listing. > > > Read my post ... > > I never stated that I might sue RSC for money or to shut them down. > I stated that I might sue to stop them from attaching warning avatars > on peoples posts. If they want to warn somebody, they should do it > privately. What harm could there possibly be in getting a cease > and desist order to stop them from attaching warning avatars to peoples > posts? > > >>They can do whatever the heck they want. > > > Apparently not, they claim that they were shut down in the past > because of a members post. Also, they can't violate laws, > and they should abide by their own rules. > > >>If I find something that is incorrect, I challenge it. > > > Which is exactly what I did. > > >>I don't know what your beef with RSC is about, I don't care. > > > You cared enough to respond. It should be obviouse that > my beef is that that RSC attaches warning avatars to peoples posts, > and that quite often, the warnings are undeserved. In my > case, the RSC moderators first ignored, then over-reacted to my > private emails about receiving and public posting of warning. > >

Did you post under your real namer? If you used a nickname then you would not have had a case over the warning avatars.

jason moyer wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Jeff Reid wrote: > > >>If this behavior ever did result in legal action > > > Uh...what laws, in what country, are there against giving people > warnings on an internet forum? > > I'd be impressed if people managed to successfully file a class-action > lawsuit against a company that provides them a non-necessary service > that they don't pay for. >

Imagine if just one person tried: fastracer vs RSC

Jeff Reid wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

>>If I were given a warning for something I posted, rather than lashing >>out at the moderators, I'd re-examine my own behavior and if I felt the >>warning was unwarranted I would contact the moderators privately. I'm >>certain doing that would provide a positive result in all but the most >>extreme cases. > > > Extreme cases, like mine: > > First a RSC moderator edits a post of my to delete a link to a widely > available (back in 2002) video of David Coulthard doing a qualifying > lap back from 2002. I had a yellow warning avatar attached to all my > posts, and a private email stating it was because in that moderator's > opinion, that any video showing a F1 car would be copywrighted. Another > person posted in a thread asking why I got a yellow warning. > > I responded to the moderator that the video in question had been in the > public domain for a long time, but agreed not to post a link to it at RSC. > The moderator insisted on leaving the yellow warning unless I got the > FIA to mail a letter to RSC stating I had permission to host the video. > I responded back that this was the equivalent of being "assumed guilty > until proven innocent" and that it was also the equivalent of defamation > of character.

Were you posting under your real name?

> Did you post under your real name? I used jeffr. My profile includes my real name, and a link to my web page (http://jeffareid.net), which also includes my real name and email address.

> Were you posting under your real name? Note that I'm using my real name here. My profile at all the forums I've joined contains my real name, my email address, and a link to my web site (http://jeffareid.net), which also includes my real name. Within the forums, I've made many posts with my email address and my web page. I've received many emails and occasional phone calls from other forum members.

Jeff Reid wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>Were you posting under your real name? > > > Note that I'm using my real name here. > > My profile at all the forums I've joined contains my real name, my > email address, and a link to my web site (http://jeffareid.net), which > also includes my real name. Within the forums, I've made many posts > with my email address and my web page. I've received many emails and > occasional phone calls from other forum members. > >

Point taken.

> Is it just me or are the moderators at RSC even more restrictive than > ever? Getting back on topic (from my previous posts), look at what's happened recently at RSC. One of the (ex?) moderators at RSC now works with or for First / iRacing, which is sending legal threats to a lot of web sites that host NR2003 mods. For example, look for iRacing on this web page: http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php. (Pirate Bay may be a bad example, but no one else posts the legal threats they receive). One of the developers of Live For Speed was (is?) a moderator for RSC's Live For Speed forum. (Live For Speed now has it's own forums). I'm wondering if RSC will allow posts or links to any mod for any game anymore. Finding and downloading mods for games is one of the main reasons I visit game forum sites, so I'll have to search elsewhere now. I started two threads about slicks for all cars in Live For Speed. Mods to allow slicks for all cars have been created for S1 and S2. In the first older thread regarding S1, any link to such a mod was not allowed at RSC because the author of one particular mod is banned at RSC. In the more recent thread regarding S2 alpha, another RSC (ex?) member created such a mod, but RSC also removed the link to that mod. If you're intersted, the LFS S1 slick mod can be found here: http://www.phlos.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6 (you'll need to join and reply to the thread to unlock the mod, but no money is asked for). The LFS S2 slick and other mods can be found here: http://koti.mbnet.fi/kegetys/lfs/

Jeff Reid wrote:

Quoted text (38 lines)

>>Is it just me or are the moderators at RSC even more restrictive than >>ever? > > > Getting back on topic (from my previous posts), look at what's happened > recently at RSC. One of the (ex?) moderators at RSC now works with or > for First / iRacing, which is sending legal threats to a lot of web > sites that host NR2003 mods. For example, look for iRacing on this > web page: http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php. (Pirate Bay may be a bad > example, but no one else posts the legal threats they receive). > > One of the developers of Live For Speed was (is?) a moderator > for RSC's Live For Speed forum. (Live For Speed now has it's own > forums). > > I'm wondering if RSC will allow posts or links to any mod for > any game anymore. Finding and downloading mods for games is one > of the main reasons I visit game forum sites, so I'll have to > search elsewhere now. > > I started two threads about slicks for all cars in Live For Speed. > Mods to allow slicks for all cars have been created for S1 and S2. > In the first older thread regarding S1, any link to such a mod was > not allowed at RSC because the author of one particular mod is > banned at RSC. In the more recent thread regarding S2 alpha, another > RSC (ex?) member created such a mod, but RSC also removed the link to > that mod. > > If you're intersted, the LFS S1 slick mod can be found here: > http://www.phlos.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6 > (you'll need to join and reply to the thread to unlock the mod, > but no money is asked for). > > The LFS S2 slick and other mods can be found here: > http://koti.mbnet.fi/kegetys/lfs/ > > >

I've never really liked web-based forums. Newsgroups are better in my opinion.

Jeff Reid wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>Did you post under your real name? > > > I used jeffr. My profile includes my real name, and a link to > my web page (http://jeffareid.net), which also includes my real > name and email address. > > > > > >

Well, I doubt if you would have had much of a case. Was your standing reduced in the eyes of right thinking people? Probably not.

Some nice stuff on your web site there :)

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4RANe.100042$E95.69983@fed1read01...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> First a RSC moderator edits a post of my to delete a link to a widely > available (back in 2002) video of David Coulthard doing a qualifying > lap back from 2002. I had a yellow warning avatar attached to all my > posts, and a private email stating it was because in that moderator's > opinion, that any video showing a F1 car would be copywrighted. Another > person posted in a thread asking why I got a yellow warning. > > I responded to the moderator that the video in question had been in the > public domain for a long time,

How do you figure it was in the public domain? I would imagine that most, if not all, F1 footage from recent years is (c) FOA. For example, see http://www.f1onboard.com/viewtopic.php?t=6703

> Some nice stuff on your web site there :) Thanks, it's a shame that no one can ever post a link to any of those videos at RSC anymore. However feel free to copy and/or rehost anything you find on my web site. That stuff is there to share, and I'm not worried about getting credit for it. It's sort of a hobby of mine.

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> First a RSC moderator edits a post of my to delete a link to a widely >> available (back in 2002) video of David Coulthard doing a qualifying >> lap back from 2002. I had a yellow warning avatar attached to all my >> posts, and a private email stating it was because in that moderator's >> opinion, that any video showing a F1 car would be copywrighted. Another >> person posted in a thread asking why I got a yellow warning. >> >> I responded to the moderator that the video in question had been in the >> public domain for a long time, > > How do you figure it was in the public domain? I would imagine that most, if not all, F1 footage from recent years is > (c) FOA. For example, see http://www.f1onboard.com/viewtopic.php?t=6703

I don't think it came from an actual F1 event. It's a on-board video of David Coulthard doing a solo run of a single lap at Spa, probably a demonstration for the broadcaster and not an actual F1 qualifying lap (although the time was quick). The commentator has an English accent, but I don't remember what country the broadcaster was located. At the time I downloaded the video, I was pretty sure that the web site hosting the video mentioned that the video was released by the broadcaster, or David Coulthard himself, into the public domain (which is why I believe that it wasn't an F1 event, since the broadcaster or David Coulthard was releasing this video). This was over 3 years ago, and I don't remember that URL anymore, although I've seen it at other web sites. You can download this video from the link, and let me know if you recognize it. This video has been around at many sites since 2002, and other than the passing of time and lack of interest, I assume it's still around at many sites, just harder to find. http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/spaf1.wmv

Jeff Reid wrote:

Quoted text (33 lines)

>>>First a RSC moderator edits a post of my to delete a link to a widely >>>available (back in 2002) video of David Coulthard doing a qualifying >>>lap back from 2002. I had a yellow warning avatar attached to all my >>>posts, and a private email stating it was because in that moderator's >>>opinion, that any video showing a F1 car would be copywrighted. Another >>>person posted in a thread asking why I got a yellow warning. >>> >>>I responded to the moderator that the video in question had been in the >>>public domain for a long time, >> >>How do you figure it was in the public domain? I would imagine that most, if not all, F1 footage from recent years is >>(c) FOA. For example, see http://www.f1onboard.com/viewtopic.php?t=6703 > > > I don't think it came from an actual F1 event. It's a on-board video of David > Coulthard doing a solo run of a single lap at Spa, probably a demonstration for > the broadcaster and not an actual F1 qualifying lap (although the time was quick). > The commentator has an English accent, but I don't remember what country the > broadcaster was located. At the time I downloaded the video, I was pretty sure > that the web site hosting the video mentioned that the video was released by > the broadcaster, or David Coulthard himself, into the public domain (which is > why I believe that it wasn't an F1 event, since the broadcaster or David > Coulthard was releasing this video). This was over 3 years ago, and I don't > remember that URL anymore, although I've seen it at other web sites. You can > download this video from the link, and let me know if you recognize it. This > video has been around at many sites since 2002, and other than the passing > of time and lack of interest, I assume it's still around at many sites, just > harder to find. > > http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/spaf1.wmv > > >

That's Brundle doing the commentary. It must have been a morning practice session. As if Bernie E was ever going to sue RSC for link to a video clip. Some people are so stupid. I suspect some mods just love to use their powers!

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:4RANe.100042$E95.69983@fed1read01:

Quoted text (45 lines)

>> If I were given a warning for something I posted, rather than lashing >> out at the moderators, I'd re-examine my own behavior and if I felt >> the warning was unwarranted I would contact the moderators privately. >> I'm certain doing that would provide a positive result in all but >> the most extreme cases. > > Extreme cases, like mine: > > First a RSC moderator edits a post of my to delete a link to a widely > available (back in 2002) video of David Coulthard doing a qualifying > lap back from 2002. I had a yellow warning avatar attached to all my > posts, and a private email stating it was because in that moderator's > opinion, that any video showing a F1 car would be copywrighted. > Another person posted in a thread asking why I got a yellow warning. > > I responded to the moderator that the video in question had been in > the public domain for a long time, but agreed not to post a link to it > at RSC. The moderator insisted on leaving the yellow warning unless I > got the FIA to mail a letter to RSC stating I had permission to host > the video. I responded back that this was the equivalent of being > "assumed guilty until proven innocent" and that it was also the > equivalent of defamation of character. > > Then a RSC moderator responded that I could no longer post a link to > any video, including the videos I personally made (I've made > a lot of racing game videos, and have posted these at many forums). > > About the same time, Mbrio privately mailed to me that my reference to > "defamation of character" was "extremely serious", and unless I sent a > written letter agreeing to their policies within 24 hours, I would be > banned. I responded that I never agreed to having a warning avatar > attached to my posts, that I no longer wanted to be a member of RSC, > and wanted all of my posts deleted, as I considered my posts to be > copyrighted, and because of their violation of the original member > agreement, I was no longer giving them permission to host my posts. > Mbrio later sent me a regular email stating that I had been banned > and that all my posts were deleted as requested. > > > > > > > >

Thats it? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING? All this angst, all this indignation over a yellow warning icon? Gosh. It is a wonder your kids haven't been run out of school, or that your wife still walks down the street in public with you. I'm suprised that grocers sell you food since EVERYONE knows you have a yellow icon. I'm sorry I ever got involved in this thread. I'm done. I cannot believe that this is the reason for all these posts. Good day to all. Ask me a question about a sim, ask me how to be a really slow sim driver, but don't expect me to contribute to this drivel any further. dave henrie

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> I don't think it came from an actual F1 event. It's a on-board video of David >> Coulthard doing a solo run of a single lap at Spa, probably a demonstration for >> http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/spaf1.wmv > That's Brundle doing the commentary. It must have been a morning practice session. As if Bernie E was ever going to > sue RSC for link to a video clip. Some people are so stupid. I suspect some mods just love to use their powers!

Yeah, now I remember that the announcer was Martin Brundle. Also, if I remember correctly, the video was from a broadcast (or rebroadcast) from ITV. I think my posts about Live For Speed weren't sitting well with the mods at RSC, and I was getting a bit of extra attention. I complained about the physics in S1 making cars like the LX6 unstable (this wasn't popular with the die-hard Live For Slow fans). When S2 alpha was released, I was asking for two things. Slicks for all cars (there's a mod for this now, only 15kb in size, just do a web search), and faster shifters for the race cars. I posted a link to two videos, one of a BMW 320 E36 race car in action with a very fast sequential shifter. Turn down the speakers on this first video, the rear end is really loud (high pitch squeal at high speeds). It's a cool video because there are 4 classes of cars running, and this very fast car is starting from the back of the pack because of a qualifying issue: Click on the Rolf Van Os in een BMW ... E36 link here: http://www.supercarchallenge.nl/videos.asp and I posted a link to that DC (David Coulthard) video, as an example of a fast autoshifter. I had posted the link to that DC video several times before at RSC, without any issue. I think that my LFS suggestions were the real reason I was getting so much attention from the moderators, but it could have just been coincidence that this was the first time they noticed this video. Regarding the LFS stuff, posting this video regarding the quality of LFS collision physics probably didn't help me win over any LFS fans (energy charged walls?): http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/lfsbmpr.wmv

> > Extreme cases, like mine: > Thats it? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING? All this angst, all this > indignation over a yellow warning icon? It started as a yellow warning icon (which I still feel is wrong), but the moderators escalated this by making demands that I agree to never post a link to another video again, even if it was a video that I had made myself. Then Mbrio responds to my comparing the of the warning icons to defamation of character (I was referencing their stated rule 4.1), and demands that I mail a hand written letter that I agree to allow the warning icons within 24 hours or be banned. That is what I would call extreme. In the words of Rambo, "they drew first blood". Please note that I didn't start this thread. The orignal complaint is that the moderators are deleteing or closing threads, and issuing more warnings than they used to. I was just pointing out my specific case as an example of things getting carried away.

Jeff Reid wrote:

Quoted text (45 lines)

>>>I don't think it came from an actual F1 event. It's a on-board video of David >>>Coulthard doing a solo run of a single lap at Spa, probably a demonstration for > > >>>http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/spaf1.wmv > > >>That's Brundle doing the commentary. It must have been a morning practice session. As if Bernie E was ever going to >>sue RSC for link to a video clip. Some people are so stupid. I suspect some mods just love to use their powers! > > > Yeah, now I remember that the announcer was Martin Brundle. Also, if I > remember correctly, the video was from a broadcast (or rebroadcast) from ITV. > > I think my posts about Live For Speed weren't sitting well with the mods > at RSC, and I was getting a bit of extra attention. I complained about the > physics in S1 making cars like the LX6 unstable (this wasn't popular > with the die-hard Live For Slow fans). When S2 alpha was released, I > was asking for two things. Slicks for all cars (there's a mod for this > now, only 15kb in size, just do a web search), and faster shifters for > the race cars. I posted a link to two videos, one of a BMW 320 E36 race > car in action with a very fast sequential shifter. Turn down the speakers > on this first video, the rear end is really loud (high pitch squeal > at high speeds). It's a cool video because there are 4 classes of cars > running, and this very fast car is starting from the back of the pack > because of a qualifying issue: > > Click on the Rolf Van Os in een BMW ... E36 link here: > http://www.supercarchallenge.nl/videos.asp > > and I posted a link to that DC (David Coulthard) video, as an example > of a fast autoshifter. I had posted the link to that DC video > several times before at RSC, without any issue. I think that my LFS > suggestions were the real reason I was getting so much attention > from the moderators, but it could have just been coincidence that > this was the first time they noticed this video. > > Regarding the LFS stuff, posting this video regarding the quality > of LFS collision physics probably didn't help me win over any > LFS fans (energy charged walls?): > > http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/lfsbmpr.wmv > > >

Well, telling some fanboys that their game isn't realistic is one thing, but to post a link to a vid proving it! You only had yourself to blame. ;) In that Rolf Van Os vid, I think his car has an Xtrack box. Very fast sequential shifter those things. Did the cars in LFS have Xtrack boxes?

> In that Rolf Van Os vid, I think his car has an Xtrack box. Very fast sequential shifter those things. Did the cars in > LFS have Xtrack boxes? No, all cars shift at the same rate. The first verion of LFS was mostly low powered street cars, no slicks, the fastest being a Lotus 7 replica (I own such a car, a Caterham SV). Later they added a MRT5, a very light racing car but restricted to 65hp (this is a real and licensed car in LFS), but it had slicks, and a mod was created to allow slicks on the other cars. The standard tire model in S1 was unstable, but the slicks were better, so it the slick mod was a definate improvment to the game. LFS is supposed to be the king of racing sims (at least according to it's fans), but is lacking in some areas. For the most part, LFS version 1 (S1) was Live for Slow. The release of S2 (version 2) includes true racing type cars, some similar to the E36, and a 3 liter Forumula V8 car, "FO8" (similar to the now gone Formula 3000 class, except the LFS versions supposedly have tunnel effects on the underside of the bodies which isn't allowed on the Formula cars (They get skidboards instead)). With the "FO8" the game finally has some real speed to it, but the slow shift rate of the car (and possibly the powerband of the engine), results in a situation where it's faster to setup a car to only use 3 or 4 gears on a track, instead of all 6. This was my complaint or suggestion for improvement to S2. That the all out racing cars should have very fast shifters. I want to use all 6 gears on a car (or 7 in the case of the Ferrari in F1C 99-02). I guess I'm a shift fan, here's a video of a lap at Spa with F1C99-02 RH2004 season mod (very fast manual shifting being used here): http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/f1cspa.wmv My other suggestion was to allow slicks on all cars in S2, but it doesn't matter as a mod to do this was quickly created after the release of S2 alpha.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> This was my complaint or suggestion for improvement to S2. That the > all out racing cars should have very fast shifters. I want to use > all 6 gears on a car (or 7 in the case of the Ferrari in F1C 99-02). > > I guess I'm a shift fan, here's a video of a lap at Spa with > F1C99-02 RH2004 season mod (very fast manual shifting being used here): > > http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/f1cspa.wmv

As a comparson, here's a vid of a fast lap in LFS S2's FO8 car. Speed ranges from about 50mph in the hairpin (taken in 3rd gear) to about 160mph (6th gear), yet only 4 gears are used. The shifts are actaully faster than normal, because auto-lift is turned off, (damage is also turned off, else the engine would blow up from from the excess revs between shifts). http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/s2blf8.wmv

Quoted text (8 lines)

> As a comparson, here's a vid of a fast lap in LFS S2's FO8 car. > Speed ranges from about 50mph in the hairpin (taken in 3rd gear) > to about 160mph (6th gear), yet only 4 gears are used. The shifts > are actaully faster than normal, because auto-lift is turned off, > (damage is also turned off, else the engine would blow up from > from the excess revs between shifts). > > http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/s2blf8.wmv

Oops a typo, make that speed range 60mph to near 160mph (158).

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> As a comparson, here's a vid of a fast lap in LFS S2's FO8 car. >> Speed ranges from about 50mph in the hairpin (taken in 3rd gear) >> to about 160mph (6th gear), yet only 4 gears are used. The shifts >> are actaully faster than normal, because auto-lift is turned off, >> (damage is also turned off, else the engine would blow up from >> from the excess revs between shifts). >> >> http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/s2blf8.wmv > > Oops a typo, make that speed range 60mph to near 160mph (158).

Stepping through the S2 video, it's taking over about 1/3rd of a second to speed shift the car, about 300ms, compare this to the 30ms to 50ms of a sequential no lift shifter, and the shift time is 6 to 10 times longer than it should be. Sorry that this is getting off topic, but as previously posted, I think I stirred up things with my LFS posts, and this contributed to the attention I received by the RSC moderators.

"whooo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rbtNe.12055$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Bruce Kennewell wrote: >> Copyright; The RIGHT to ownership. >> >> "whooo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:aqqNe.798$[email hidden]... >> >>>Jeff Reid wrote: >>>You did still hold the copywrite, however. >> >> >> > sorry, yeah, copyRIGHT

So are you sure you copied that right?

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tRtNe.88839$E95.29094@fed1read01...

Quoted text (16 lines)

>> Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives them >> permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you make. >> In my experience these are handed out on a "assumed guilty until >> proven innocent" basis, they aren't fair, and violate their own rule: >> >> "4.1 - Any content that is false, abusive, defamatory, or harassing >> is not permitted." >> >> Every warning avatar attached by RSC is "content that is abusive and >> harassing". In my case they were also "false and defamatory". > > Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to > stop this behavior ... > > >

Sounds like now they may be guilty of discrimination also. :) Sounds pretty stupid to me. They must be a bunch of dickheads - all they need to do is respond to complaints. Imagine what sort of a no life fuckwit you'd have to be to screen every post on those forums - LOL. Sounds like a league director that screens entire race replays looking for incidents instead of waiting for drivers to protest.

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (30 lines)

> "Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:tRtNe.88839$E95.29094 > @fed1read01: > >> Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to >> stop this behavior ... >> >> > > maybe you should grow up. RSC provides a huge benefit to the COMMUNITY. > Your feelings got hurt. Toooooo Bad. RSC is owned and operated by > somebody who is not you or me. They can do whatever the heck they want. > If I find something that is incorrect, I challenge it. If I get warned, > then fine. BFD. I think I've had a warning on there for a year or more. > I don't even know what it is or what it's for. Who cares? > If you can show ME that your lawsuit can benefit ME more than all the > info and dloads provided FREE by RSC then go ahead, Start listing. > Until such time that YOU can show just what amazing things you can > contribute to the sim community, I'd strongly recomend you just shut up. > > I don't know what your beef with RSC is about, I don't care. I find it > hugely amusing that you think you have rights on the internet. They are > uploading kiddie porn, snuff films, terrorist communications, and on and > on > and on. And you feel you have a greivance worthy of a court's time? Good > God man...did they post pictures of your mother and a goat? > > I rarely get this crude but I do so for your benefit. Hopefully it will > get through to you. Come back when you have some hair down there. We'll > wait the 5 or 6 years. >

So we can associate RSC with "kiddie porn, snuff films, terrorist communications, and on and on and on" can we? It matters not about what RSC may be worth to the sim community. They are not as allusive as the groups you mention and cannot expect to get away with discrimination, defamation, etc, etc. If you choose to police and rule then you can just as easily be policed and ruled. According to you, however, there is no need to police and rule well and fairly, especially if you have a little credit for something else.

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2nxNe.88862$E95.14850@fed1read01...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> They can do whatever the heck they want. > > Apparently not, they claim that they were shut down in the past > because of a members post. Also, they can't violate laws, > and they should abide by their own rules. >

Care to expand on that? - know any details?

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> "Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:2nxNe.88862$E95.14850 > @fed1read01: > >> You cared enough to respond. It should be obviouse that >> my beef is that that RSC attaches warning avatars to peoples posts, >> and that quite often, the warnings are undeserved. In my >> case, the RSC moderators first ignored, then over-reacted to my >> private emails about receiving and public posting of warning. >> > > No I don't care. I can't imagine what could be so gosh darned important > that your self-worth is impugned. > > I DO know that I myself and hundreds if not thousands of others get > immense > benefits from RSC. So they can be as rude as they like. I only know that > your actions, for whatever reason you feel compelled to undertake, can > only > harm me. I'm not defending RSC, I'm not intellectually curious enough to > even briefly examine the merits of either side. > > For pity's sake...it's a freekin' Race Sim site. It's not a publisher of > scientific thesi. > > dave henrie

dave, you seem to fall into the category of "it's only serious or important when it happens to me". Pathetic. I don't give a stuff about what RSC does - If you wish to police then you need to do it properly. What good you do otherwise is irrelevent!

"whooo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:F%CNe.13375$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Jeff Reid wrote: >>>Did you post under your real name? >> >> >> I used jeffr. My profile includes my real name, and a link to >> my web page (http://jeffareid.net), which also includes my real >> name and email address. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Well, I doubt if you would have had much of a case. Was your standing > reduced in the eyes of right thinking people? Probably not.

Not just defamation anyway - it's becoming discrimination. They seem to be insisting he agree to being treated illegaly or they'll ban him. The whole idiotic system is akin to Nazis puting yellow ribbons on the arms of Jews! All they need to do is issue private warnings and bans - sounds like a bunch of kids on silly little parts of the learning curve to me. Another stupid little police state!

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Jeff Reid wrote: > >> Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives them >> permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you make. > > It's a private forum that you chose to participate in voluntarily. The > administrators and moderators of the site can run it however they see > fit, and if you don't like it you can either deal with them personally > or go somewhere else. >

Simply untrue. Private or not, they cannot break the law. The question is Jason, how many of your victims are buried in the backyard? :)

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > If I were given a warning for something I posted, rather than lashing > out at the moderators, I'd re-examine my own behavior and if I felt the > warning was unwarranted I would contact the moderators privately. I'm > certain doing that would provide a positive result in all but the most > extreme cases. > >

They key word here is privately - they may as well have these people in black and white striped convict outfits. Stupid!

Byron Forbes wrote:

Quoted text (30 lines)

> "whooo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:F%CNe.13375$[email hidden]... > >>Jeff Reid wrote: >> >>>>Did you post under your real name? >>> >>> >>>I used jeffr. My profile includes my real name, and a link to >>>my web page (http://jeffareid.net), which also includes my real >>>name and email address. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>Well, I doubt if you would have had much of a case. Was your standing >>reduced in the eyes of right thinking people? Probably not. > > > Not just defamation anyway - it's becoming discrimination. They seem to > be insisting he agree to being treated illegaly or they'll ban him. The > whole idiotic system is akin to Nazis puting yellow ribbons on the arms of > Jews! All they need to do is issue private warnings and bans - sounds like a > bunch of kids on silly little parts of the learning curve to me. Another > stupid little police state! > >

yeah, sigh!

Byron Forbes wrote:

Quoted text (31 lines)

> "Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tRtNe.88839$E95.29094@fed1read01... > >>>Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives them >>>permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you make. >>>In my experience these are handed out on a "assumed guilty until >>>proven innocent" basis, they aren't fair, and violate their own rule: >>> >>>"4.1 - Any content that is false, abusive, defamatory, or harassing >>>is not permitted." >>> >>>Every warning avatar attached by RSC is "content that is abusive and >>>harassing". In my case they were also "false and defamatory". >> >>Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to >>stop this behavior ... >> >> >> > > > Sounds like now they may be guilty of discrimination also. :) > > Sounds pretty stupid to me. They must be a bunch of dickheads - all they > need to do is respond to complaints. Imagine what sort of a no life fuckwit > you'd have to be to screen every post on those forums - LOL. > > Sounds like a league director that screens entire race replays looking > for incidents instead of waiting for drivers to protest. > >

Looks like RSC has gone the way of many a forum. It's clique ridden. Most of the debates have been had now. And anyone foolish enough to ask a question that has already been asked runs the risk of being rudely told to use the search engine.

"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:430742cd$0$15512$[email hidden] .au:

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > "Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tRtNe.88839$E95.29094@fed1read01... >>> Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives >>> them permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you >>> make. In my experience these are handed out on a "assumed guilty >>> until proven innocent" basis, they aren't fair, and violate their >>> own rule: >>> >>> "4.1 - Any content that is false, abusive, defamatory, or harassing >>> is not permitted." >>> >>> Every warning avatar attached by RSC is "content that is abusive and >>> harassing". In my case they were also "false and defamatory". >> >> Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to >> stop this behavior ... >> >> >> > > Sounds like now they may be guilty of discrimination also. :) > > Sounds pretty stupid to me. They must be a bunch of dickheads - > all they > need to do is respond to complaints. Imagine what sort of a no life > fuckwit you'd have to be to screen every post on those forums - LOL. > > Sounds like a league director that screens entire race replays > looking > for incidents instead of waiting for drivers to protest. > >

Byron, feel free to email me if you wish to, but I will not continue in this publicly. remove the 'bite me' from my ras addy. dave henrie

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>> They can do whatever the heck they want. >> >> Apparently not, they claim that they were shut down in the past >> because of a members post. Also, they can't violate laws, >> and they should abide by their own rules. > Care to expand on that? - know any details?

No details, it's just mentioned under their rules section under "Why don't other sites care about the things we do?" http://www.rscnet.org/index.php?&page=siterules They state their site got delete due to a mistake by a member. Does this mean they were actually shut down by the content of a post (which is what they imply), or does it mean that a member somehow caused the site to crash and/or it's database deleted.

>>> Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to >>> stop this behavior ... > It matters not about what RSC may be worth to the sim community. I was just kidding about the class action lawsuit. I don't plan on starting one.

> I'd be impressed if people managed to successfully file a class-action > lawsuit against a company that provides them a non-necessary service > that they don't pay for. How about one that provides a list of 14 year old girls seeking older (21+) men to "date"? Anyway, the comment about the class action lawsuit was just me being sarcastic. I might have started legal action if they didn't delete my posts, as I'm pretty sure that they would have deleted them before it got to the courts. If it had gone to court, I think the fact they were singling me out (discrimination), and the fact that by asking me to agree to things beyond what all the other members agree to or else be banned would have provided enough proof that they were violating orignal agreement since they were now asking me to mail a written letter to accept a new agreement. Their violation of the original agreement, combined with the fact that I would be banned (by not agreeing to their newly imposed rules made just for me) should have been enough to allow me to revoke permission for them to host my posts.

> Looks like RSC has gone the way of many a forum. It's clique ridden. Most of the debates have been had now. The new Live For Speed release and the First / iRacing situation have provide fodder for new debate. For example, I asked for slicks for all cars in S2 (did the same for S1, there are mods to do this for both releases of LFS now), and faster shifters on the S2 race cars. I was suprised at how long those threads got.

Byron Forbes wrote: > Simply untrue. Private or not, they cannot break the law. I agree, that's why you aren't allowed to paste links to copyrighted material there. :) I don't see how deciding what can and cannot be posted on a website that you privately administer is violating the law.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Simply untrue. Private or not, they cannot break the law. > > I agree, that's why you aren't allowed to paste links to copyrighted > material there. :) > > I don't see how deciding what can and cannot be posted on a website > that you privately administer is violating the law.

What can be posted wasn't the issue. First they were violating their own rules with their warning icons on my posts. Secondly they then asked me to send in a written notice that I wouldn't post links to any videos (even ones that I created), which was discrimination against me, and that I would accept their attachment of warning icons on my posts. The fact that they asked me to agree to a further set of rules confirms that they were indeed violating the orignal agreement I made when I joined RSC, otherwise no letter agreeing to a new set of rules would have been asked for. Because their violation of the original agreement, and because they were going to ban me since I wouldn't agree to a new set of rules, I revoked my permission for them to host my posts, which I considered copyrighted, and they did delete the posts. Had they not removed my posts, then they would have been violating copywright laws. I also consider the attachment of warning icons on my posts to be abusive, harassing, false, and defamatory, which I'm sure is covered by some USA law, or at least good enough for a civil suit. I didn't use a ficticous name on that forum, so the circumstances are different than they would be if I had used a ficticous name.

Jeff Reid wrote: > How about one that provides a list of 14 year old girls seeking older > (21+) men to "date"? There are laws in most countries prohibiting that. A forum hosted in a country that does not prohibit that sort of behavior would not need to follow any sort of guidelines.

Jeff Reid wrote: > I also consider the attachment of warning icons > on my posts to be abusive, harassing, false, and defamatory, which > I'm sure is covered by some USA law, or at least good enough for a > civil suit. Good luck trying to convince an American judge that your voluntary participation in a forum which has a policy that involves openly displaying when a user is given a warning for inappropriate posting is somehow violating the law, civil or otherwise.

> > How about one that provides a list of 14 year old girls seeking older > > (21+) men to "date"? > > There are laws in most countries prohibiting that. A forum hosted in a > country that does not prohibit that sort of behavior would not need to > follow any sort of guidelines. Or a more reasonable example, a forum that distributes it's members email addresses to spammers (now illegal in the USA).

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> I also consider the attachment of warning icons >> on my posts to be abusive, harassing, false, and defamatory, which >> I'm sure is covered by some USA law, or at least good enough for a >> civil suit. > > Good luck trying to convince an American judge that your voluntary > participation in a forum which has a policy that involves openly > displaying when a user is given a warning for inappropriate posting is > somehow violating the law, civil or otherwise.

I was never planning on doing this. However, this policy of open displaying of warnings isn't mentioned in the rules of the forum that a new member agrees to when joining the forum. They should indicate that this happens as part of the agreement. Also it's an issue when the moderators can deem any post inappropriate, such as my case where they were stating I had to agree to no longer post links to any video (including ones I had made myself). I don't know if the agreement when a member joins is a contract, but it should be treated as one. For example, what if a forum sent all member's information, like email address to a spammer? When a member joins a forum, the agreement should clearly state what the member is permitting the moderators to do with the information that the user supplies to the forum via profiles and posts. BTW the video I posted was in the public domain, as it was made for ITV during a practice session, and not part of an official F1 event. This means my post wasn't inappropriate. As previously mentioned, I'm done with RSC. I left, they deleted my posts, and then banned me, which doesn't mean much as I can still read the forums, and I don't plan on contributing anything to RSC anymore anyway.

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> I don't think it came from an actual F1 event. It's a on-board video of > David > Coulthard doing a solo run of a single lap at Spa, probably a > demonstration for > the broadcaster and not an actual F1 qualifying lap (although the time was > quick). > The commentator has an English accent, but I don't remember what country > the > broadcaster was located. At the time I downloaded the video, I was pretty > sure > that the web site hosting the video mentioned that the video was released > by > the broadcaster, or David Coulthard himself, into the public domain (which > is > why I believe that it wasn't an F1 event, since the broadcaster or David > Coulthard was releasing this video). This was over 3 years ago, and I > don't > remember that URL anymore, although I've seen it at other web sites. You > can > download this video from the link, and let me know if you recognize it. > This > video has been around at many sites since 2002, and other than the passing > of time and lack of interest, I assume it's still around at many sites, > just > harder to find. > > http://jeffareid.net/cgi-bin/spaf1.wmv

Thanks for replying - it's from the ITV (UK) F1 coverage, commentated by Martin Brundle. Looks a lot like DC's qualifying lap or a quick practice lap - great video. But as ITV licenses footage from FOA, I'd put good money on Bernie owning the copyright to this. Either way, nice lap.

Jeff Reid wrote: > I guess I'm a shift fan, here's a video of a lap at Spa with > F1C99-02 RH2004 season mod (very fast manual shifting being used here): I agree that the shifting in LFS is a tad slow, but of course in a modern F1 car you're going to be able to get instantaneous shifting, it's a semi-automatic transmission.

Jeff Reid wrote: > I think my posts about Live For Speed weren't sitting well with the mods > at RSC, and I was getting a bit of extra attention. I complained about the > physics in S1 making cars like the LX6 unstable (this wasn't popular > with the die-hard Live For Slow fans). When S2 alpha was released, I > was asking for two things. Slicks for all cars (there's a mod for thisThey weren't sitting well because about every one of the regular visitors just about had enough of your links to videos you made, posts of your real caterham/lotus 7/whatever, you complaining about the instability of the LXs' and how your real life caterham/lotus 7/whatever even when it has Ford whatever engine having how much ever more HP than LX6, is more stable, and that you demand slicks for all cars even when the cars are supposed to be pretty much stock and all the babble about biasply tires. The first time was cool, "hey, someone with a real LX, wow" but the umpteenth post about it, starts to get on ones nerves.

> For pity's sake...it's a freekin' Race Sim site. It's not a publisher of > scientific thesi. > > dave henrie The plural of thesis is theses as far as I can tell ...

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:5E4Oe.18377$%[email hidden]: >> For pity's sake...it's a freekin' Race Sim site. It's not a >> publisher of scientific thesi. >> > The plural of thesis is theses as far as I can tell ... so? lol dave henrie

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:5E4Oe.18377$%[email hidden]: > >>> For pity's sake...it's a freekin' Race Sim site. It's not a >>> publisher of scientific thesi. >>> > >> The plural of thesis is theses as far as I can tell ... > > so? > lol > dave henrie

So now you know.

"Krane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:deacnb$q1c$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Jeff Reid wrote: >> I think my posts about Live For Speed weren't sitting well with the mods >> at RSC, and I was getting a bit of extra attention. I complained about the >> physics in S1 making cars like the LX6 unstable (this wasn't popular >> with the die-hard Live For Slow fans). When S2 alpha was released, I >> was asking for two things. Slicks for all cars (there's a mod for this > They weren't sitting well because about every one of the regular visitors just about had enough of your links to > videos you made.

I only made 2 LFS S1 videos, one of the LX6 with slicks, and one showing the bumper problem. > of your real caterham/lotus 7/whatever, you complaining about the instability of the LXs' and how your real life > caterham/lotus 7/whatever even when it has Ford whatever engine having how much ever more HP than LX6, is more stable, > and that you demand slicks for all cars even when the cars are supposed to be pretty much stock and all the babble > about biasply tires. LFS S1 had a poor physics model, both tires and tranny for the car, it affected the LX6 the most because the LX6 is RWD and had the highest power to weigh ratio in S1. S2 fixed this the cars are much more stable now. Regarding slicks for all cars, other people thought it was important enough to create mods to allow this. In the case of S2, the mod was made within 2 weeks of the release of S2 alpha. In the case of S1, with a poor tire model that had been improved when it added slicks, the mod was a good addition to the game. The babble about bias ply tires was to point out that the simplified tire model had traction falling off way too fast once past the limits, and that almost all non-down force racing classes use bias ply tires. > The first time was cool, "hey, someone with a real LX, wow" but the umpteenth post about it, starts to get on ones > nerves. It was just one thread, with a lot of the LFS fanatics trying to defend a game with flawed phsycis, claiming this is how real cars behave, when in fact LFS S1 didn't model how real cars behaved at the limits. Note that none of the moderators complained about any of my posts regarding the flaws in LFS.

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4RANe.100042$E95.69983@fed1read01... > First a RSC moderator edits a post of my to delete a link to a widely > available (back in 2002) video of David Coulthard doing a qualifying > lap back from 2002. "Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dvENe.106010$E95.15842@fed1read01... > I don't think it came from an actual F1 event. It's a on-board video of > David > Coulthard doing a solo run of a single lap at Spa, probably a > demonstration for > the broadcaster and not an actual F1 qualifying lap (although the time was > quick). So, are you finally admitting that you yourself don't even know where the footage is from?

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4RANe.100042$E95.69983@fed1read01...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I responded to the moderator that the video in question had been in the > public domain for a long time, but agreed not to post a link to it at RSC. > The moderator insisted on leaving the yellow warning unless I got the > FIA to mail a letter to RSC stating I had permission to host the video. > I responded back that this was the equivalent of being "assumed guilty > until proven innocent" and that it was also the equivalent of defamation > of character. >

BS. Get your facts straight before posting. I never said anything about the FIA sending anything to anyone. I told you that if you could show me something, anything, saying that this is in the public domain, I'd remove the warning immediately. Otherwise, it'd disappear in a week. Is one week really that hard to take?? In your infinite wisdom while trying to show how the video was in the "public domain", you sent me a link to another website that hosted the video. That site has the following disclaimer word for word: "These video clips are only intended for a 24 hour educational personal preview only, for all other purposes you have to buy the original licensed recording. After your 24 hour personal educational use of these clips you must delete them."

> you demand slicks for all cars even when the cars are supposed > to be pretty much stock In the case of S1, the Road Supers were poorly modeled and unstable. The slicks later added to S1, had a better tire model. This is part of the reason I wanted slicks on all cars. I would have asked for a better tire model, but that wasn't going to happend until S2. In the case of S2, I would have liked slicks seen on more cars than the game allowed, but rather than drawing a line, I suggested slicks for all cars and allowing the players to decide, or a server host. This would allow servers to not allow slicks for all cars, keeping the field level for those that choose not tor race slicks. I wasn't the only one, as another person made a mod to allow slicks on for all cars, and this was 4th post in that thread. (RSC deleted the link, but it was noted that a web search would locate the mod). LFS S2 is a racing simulator, allows setup changes like gearing, differential settings, and all sort of adjustments not available no "stock" cars. So why limit the cars to "stock" tires when they aren't limited to stock differentials or gearing? > and all the babble about biasply tires. This was because so few people that don't race aren't aware of the fact that most non-downforce racing cars use bias ply slicks, and that even radial racing tires, both DOT and slicks, behave more like bias ply tires than the radial street tires that come stock on most cars. Racing tires are more forgiving at the limits, give more warning, and the breakaway grip is much close to maximum grip. The main flaw in S1 was the breakway grip was much less than maximum grip, causing the cars to be unstable. This significant flaw was my main complaint about LFS S1. S2 is much better, but still has it's issues.

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:uOtNe.88838$E95.5394@fed1read01... > > I consider the attachment of warning avatars to a person's posts to be > a violation of the agreement when I joined RSC. My posts at RSC were > a part of this agreement, and they had my implicit permission to > display my copyrighted posts, until they violated the agreement. > Why'd you stick around so long if you feel this strongly about it? It's not like you haven't had publicly displayed warnings before....

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RJWNe.112641$E95.39096@fed1read01... > BTW the video I posted was in the public domain, as it was made for > ITV during a practice session, and not part of an official F1 event. > This means my post wasn't inappropriate. LOL, then why'd you post is as "David Coulthard doing a qualifying lap at Spa in 2002 in a F1 car:" with a link?

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:wO6Oe.18382$%w.8643 @twister.nyc.rr.com:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in >> news:5E4Oe.18377$%[email hidden]: >> >>>> For pity's sake...it's a freekin' Race Sim site. It's not a >>>> publisher of scientific thesi. >>>> >> >>> The plural of thesis is theses as far as I can tell ... >> >> so? >> lol >> dave henrie > > So now you know. > > >

My work station is called the Hays Park Post Office. Every official form I fill out that needs the station name, I use just one word: Hayes. It's wrong. But I do it anyway. kinda like my drivin' dave henrie

>> BTW the video I posted was in the public domain, as it was made for >> ITV during a practice session, and not part of an official F1 event. >> This means my post wasn't inappropriate. > LOL, then why'd you post is as "David Coulthard doing a qualifying lap at Spa in 2002 in a F1 car:" with a link? Well, it's called a qualifying lap at the link below, showing a side by side comparason of a Caterham and a F1 at Spa. Scroll down towards the bottom of the page, back to September 15, 2002, since it's an old video. http://www.jackals-forge.com/lotus/ But other sites that had the same video called it a practice run made for ITV. Now I'm not sure of what it is anymore.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> I consider the attachment of warning avatars to a person's posts to be >> a violation of the agreement when I joined RSC. My posts at RSC were >> a part of this agreement, and they had my implicit permission to >> display my copyrighted posts, until they violated the agreement. > Why'd you stick around so long if you feel this strongly about it? It's not like you haven't had publicly displayed > warnings before....

Just because I put up with it before doesn't mean I didn't think it was wrong. Also like the person who started this thread, I felt that the warnings, deleted or locked threads were getting out of hand at RSC. I just decided not to put up with it anymore and see if I could get a reasonable response from you and the other moderators at RSC, but you proved yourselves to be unreasonable. Your's is the only forum that publicly displays warnings, no other forum does this. The only possible purpose of such public displaying of warnings is to punish, and therefore cause harm, to the victims of your warning system. Since the intent such action is to cause harm, and is not covered in the agreement made when a new member signs up, your on shaky legal ground here, as no member of RSC has consented to your public abuse and harassment with the intent to cause harm. If it ends up causing problems for RSC, then it's your own fault. If you feel that your public warning system is justified, then why don't you include this information in your rules and agreement so a potential new member can decide if he consents to having publicly attached warnings to every post that member makes? Both you and Mbrio turned this molehill into a mountain. You deleted the link, claiming the video was copywrighted (based on your assumption, not fact), this was OK with me. Then rather than suspending the warning for a reasonable time to allow me to detmine if it was OK to have a link to the video (either under fair use or public domain laws), you stated that instead the warning would stay until I had the FIA or FOA sent you a letter stating I had permission to link to that video. This was unreasonable. Next when I mentioned that your public warnings were the equivalent of defamation of character (referring to your own rule 4.1), Mbrio steps in and first tells me I can never post a link to any video, even one that I had made, and later asks me to send a letter stating that I would agree to your public attachemnt of warning labels. This clearly shows you were violating your own agreement and rules, because if the public warning policy was covered by the original agreement no additional agreement would be required. Mbrio also stated that I had many times previously violated the rule about posting links to copyrighted vidoes in the past, which is a lie. There was just one occasion, a link to a video of a pair of CART cars that I did not know was copywrighted, that I had posted in two sub-forums. The only other warning I got was for mentioning the LFS S1 slicks for all cars mod, and the stated reason for the warning is that the mod was made by a banned member, how could any reasonable person know if any content, mod or otherwise was from a banned member?

Quoted text (17 lines)

>> I responded to the moderator that the video in question had been in the >> public domain for a long time, but agreed not to post a link to it at RSC. >> The moderator insisted on leaving the yellow warning unless I got the >> FIA to mail a letter to RSC stating I had permission to host the video. >> I responded back that this was the equivalent of being "assumed guilty >> until proven innocent" and that it was also the equivalent of defamation >> of character. >> > > BS. Get your facts straight before posting. I never said anything about the FIA sending anything to anyone. I told > you that if you could show me something, anything, saying that this is in the public domain, I'd remove the warning > immediately. Otherwise, it'd disappear in a week. Is one week really that hard to take?? > > In your infinite wisdom while trying to show how the video was in the "public domain", you sent me a link to another > website that hosted the video. That site has the following disclaimer word for word: "These video clips are only > intended for a 24 hour educational personal preview only, for all other purposes you have to buy the original licensed > recording. After your 24 hour personal educational use of these clips you must delete them."

Your wrong, that website did not host that video. I just grabbed the first hit I got on google for F1 videos and ended up picking a bad example. You didn't mention that I had emailed you that this particular site was a bad example, taking advantage of a USA law that extend privileges for eductional purposes. I then referred to the site below which includes the actual video in a side by side comparason of a Catherhan and an F1 car at Spa. This site has no such disclaimers, is fairly popular, has had that video available for download since September, 2002, and has never had any legal issues with hosting this video. Many other web sites had hosted that video back in 2002 and early 2003. You'll need to scroll down towards the bottom of the page to get to September 15, 2002 to see the "side by side" videos. http://www.jackals-forge.com/lotus/

> Get your facts straight before posting. I never said anything about the FIA sending anything to anyone. I told you > that if you could show me something, anything, saying that this is in the public domain, I'd remove the warning > immediately. Otherwise, it'd disappear in a week. Is one week really that hard to take?? Since I don't have access to my PM's at RSC anymore I can't know the exact content, but I do remember the mentioning of FIA or FOA as holding all the rights to F1 related content. Was asking for the warning to be withdrawn for a reasonable period until I could get proof that the video was ok to post a link to (public domain or fair use) that hard to take?

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (43 lines)

> "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:430742cd$0$15512$[email hidden] > .au: > >> >> "Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:tRtNe.88839$E95.29094@fed1read01... >>>> Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives >>>> them permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you >>>> make. In my experience these are handed out on a "assumed guilty >>>> until proven innocent" basis, they aren't fair, and violate their >>>> own rule: >>>> >>>> "4.1 - Any content that is false, abusive, defamatory, or harassing >>>> is not permitted." >>>> >>>> Every warning avatar attached by RSC is "content that is abusive and >>>> harassing". In my case they were also "false and defamatory". >>> >>> Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to >>> stop this behavior ... >>> >>> >>> >> >> Sounds like now they may be guilty of discrimination also. :) >> >> Sounds pretty stupid to me. They must be a bunch of dickheads - >> all they >> need to do is respond to complaints. Imagine what sort of a no life >> fuckwit you'd have to be to screen every post on those forums - LOL. >> >> Sounds like a league director that screens entire race replays >> looking >> for incidents instead of waiting for drivers to protest. >> >> > > Byron, feel free to email me if you wish to, but I will not continue in > this publicly. > remove the 'bite me' from my ras addy. > > dave henrie

????? Are you a mod at RSC Dave?

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:I0QNe.112604$E95.108852@fed1read01...

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>>> Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to >>>> stop this behavior ... > >> It matters not about what RSC may be worth to the sim community. > > I was just kidding about the class action lawsuit. > I don't plan on starting one. >

Sure. I am just commenting mainly on what Dave implied with his comparisons.

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Byron Forbes wrote: > >> Simply untrue. Private or not, they cannot break the law. > > I agree, that's why you aren't allowed to paste links to copyrighted > material there. :) >

So a site like RSC can be shut down if someone puts up a link to something copyrighted? Sounds harsh. RSC is not hosting copyrighted material. I would think all that would be required of them is to take that link down immediately, upon request, if it comes to the attention of those holding the copyright. I can see the nightmarish situation that RSC is in if they are liable for mere "links" to illegal stuff, especially considering the size of the joint. Virtually unmanagable! Shouldn't it be the respnsibility of the copyright holder to make it clear that their material is copyrighted - watermarks, etc? The situation with Jeff seems grey at worst - why should that be RSC's problem? Unmanagable!

"Scirocco" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > "Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:4RANe.100042$E95.69983@fed1read01... >> I responded to the moderator that the video in question had been in the >> public domain for a long time, but agreed not to post a link to it at >> RSC. >> The moderator insisted on leaving the yellow warning unless I got the >> FIA to mail a letter to RSC stating I had permission to host the video. >> I responded back that this was the equivalent of being "assumed guilty >> until proven innocent" and that it was also the equivalent of defamation >> of character. >> > > BS. Get your facts straight before posting. I never said anything about > the FIA sending anything to anyone. I told you that if you could show me > something, anything, saying that this is in the public domain, I'd remove > the warning immediately. Otherwise, it'd disappear in a week. Is one > week really that hard to take?? > > In your infinite wisdom while trying to show how the video was in the > "public domain", you sent me a link to another website that hosted the > video. That site has the following disclaimer word for word: "These video > clips are only intended for a 24 hour educational personal preview only, > for all other purposes you have to buy the original licensed recording. > After your 24 hour personal educational use of these clips you must delete > them." >

Ummm.........and thus............ there should be no problem linking to it? Or did the link he provided not contain that info? Was that info in the wmv itself? If not, tough titties for them! :)

"Scirocco" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:uOtNe.88838$E95.5394@fed1read01... >> >> I consider the attachment of warning avatars to a person's posts to be >> a violation of the agreement when I joined RSC. My posts at RSC were >> a part of this agreement, and they had my implicit permission to >> display my copyrighted posts, until they violated the agreement. >> > > Why'd you stick around so long if you feel this strongly about it? It's > not like you haven't had publicly displayed warnings before.... >

Could I have some sort of explaination of what this warning label is all about - how does it serve me exactly? Does it protect me in some way? Why do I need to know someone has a warning flag hanging over them?

"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:43095941$0$15504 $[email hidden]: > ????? > > Are you a mod at RSC Dave? two years ago I was one of two unpaid volunteer help desk moderators for Sim Bin's GTR 2002 mod and it's RSC forum. My partner is currently employed by Simbin, I'm not. lol. But since that time I have been just a user like almost everyone else. We did ban one fellow, I can't remember who, for impersonating himself. He'd make a post, then log on with a new name and insult his prior self, then he'd log back on as the original name and cry for justice. My stand about RSC has nothing to do with the mods or warnings. Recently somebody re-installed SCC and had a problem. SCC users found a cure for that way back when the mod was first released, but nobody could remember the cure. Fortunately, we found the original thread and passed on the info. Stuff like that will not be possible if RSC is vaporized. I could give a crap about how anyone here feels about the owners and the mods there. Nobody here can replace even the tiniest portion of files and knowledge stored there. Until somebody can spend thier money, spend their time, spend there knowledge assembling a replacement, then I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would even wish ill upon those that provide us with such a gift. I beleive, and I don't care if there isn't any law that supports this beleif, I beleive that RSC is privately owned and provides a free service to me and thousands of others. If somebody has a problem with the owners, then he can go elsewhere, After all that person isn't paying all the server costs, the hosting and software fees, the time spent customizing and debugging and correcting programs. Since 'I' am not contributing to these costs, I have ZERO SAY in any action they take. Thats my personal view. No amount of whining or namecalling or groveling will change that. Injury via a warning is just soooo pathetic. "Yer Honor, I'd like to sue the pants off these foriegners cuz they hurt my feelings." I play with toys. I race imaginary cars on imaginary tracks against imaginary people(see you all don't really exist) I can't be bothered with hurt feelings or slights of these kinds because my playtime is all that matters. And it's not just a matter of me only caring if it impacts me. No stuff like this impacts thousands. Whomever started this carping thread, I wonder just how he was abused. His daughter wasn't stolen from her room, his ability to earn a living was not impacted, nothing in any of these messages rises to the importance of the hemoroid that winks from my backside. A real greivance, a real injury, and that I would easily support, but this is all just so beneath grown men. My 4 year old Grandchild has better group-play skills than what I've read here. I don't know the owners of RSC, I beleive I may recognize one of the names if I saw it, but I have no connection with RSC or Blackhole or Racesim or the pits or any other site. I derive benefit from the goodwill of others and it PISSES ME OFF that crybabies think they matter more than the thousands of other users. Let them start their own site, get their own files, collect their own information. But don't even begin to whine about RSC or any other site that provides us with goodies. What happened to the flight sim world after some of the big sites went to a 'pay to play' model? We are so lucky here. How could ANYONE want to lose this? dave henrie Freedom of speach, Freedom of opinion, these things are part of the fabric of my country. But so too is the freedom to shut up.

Dave, hiding behind "I payed for it" and "I do it for nothing" is a cop out and a pet hate of mine. As is over moderation or simply poor moderation that suffocates the confidence with which one can speak to the point where you may as well not speak. If you set out to do something then you are obliged to do it properly - it makes no difference whether you pay for something or are a volunteer or whatever - do it properly or don't do it. If there's nothing in it for you then why do it and/or pay for it in the first place? Places like RSC are a community of people and apparently a service to the sim community. Every member and every post they make is what makes RSC what it is. To use powers of moderation in a vindictive and arguably embarrassing way is not good for the RSC. There are 2 kinds of policemen - those that use their power to enhance a community (correct) and those that seek to dominate with a "them Vs us" mentality worthy of a stupid dog (wrong). Simple as that. I still would like to know how and why RSC was deleted before. Where is the line drawn on illegal links? I could link to a page with pirated stuff on it (or it's sub pages) that I wasn't even aware of! Why should RSC need to work out if something is legal or not where it's not obvious? You won't even be able to post any links at all at this rate. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (72 lines)

> "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:43095941$0$15504 > $[email hidden]: > >> ????? >> >> Are you a mod at RSC Dave? > > two years ago I was one of two unpaid volunteer help desk moderators > for > Sim Bin's GTR 2002 mod and it's RSC forum. My partner is currently > employed by Simbin, I'm not. lol. But since that time I have been just > a user like almost everyone else. We did ban one fellow, I can't > remember who, for impersonating himself. He'd make a post, then log on > with a new name and insult his prior self, then he'd log back on as the > original name and cry for justice. > > My stand about RSC has nothing to do with the mods or warnings. > Recently somebody re-installed SCC and had a problem. SCC users found a > cure for that way back when the mod was first released, but nobody could > remember the cure. Fortunately, we found the original thread and passed > on the info. Stuff like that will not be possible if RSC is vaporized. > > I could give a crap about how anyone here feels about the owners and > the mods there. Nobody here can replace even the tiniest portion of > files and knowledge stored there. Until somebody can spend thier money, > spend their time, spend there knowledge assembling a replacement, then I > can't for the life of me understand why anyone would even wish ill upon > those that provide us with such a gift. > > I beleive, and I don't care if there isn't any law that supports this > beleif, I beleive that RSC is privately owned and provides a free > service to me and thousands of others. If somebody has a problem with > the owners, then he can go elsewhere, After all that person isn't paying > all the server costs, the hosting and software fees, the time spent > customizing and debugging and correcting programs. Since 'I' am not > contributing to these costs, I have ZERO SAY in any action they take. > Thats my personal view. No amount of whining or namecalling or groveling > will change that. Injury via a warning is just soooo pathetic. "Yer > Honor, I'd like to sue the pants off these foriegners cuz they hurt my > feelings." > I play with toys. I race imaginary cars on imaginary tracks against > imaginary people(see you all don't really exist) I can't be bothered > with hurt feelings or slights of these kinds because my playtime is all > that matters. And it's not just a matter of me only caring if it impacts > me. No stuff like this impacts thousands. Whomever started this carping > thread, I wonder just how he was abused. His daughter wasn't stolen > from her room, his ability to earn a living was not impacted, nothing in > any of these messages rises to the importance of the hemoroid that winks > from my backside. > A real greivance, a real injury, and that I would easily support, but > this is all just so beneath grown men. My 4 year old Grandchild has > better group-play skills than what I've read here. > > I don't know the owners of RSC, I beleive I may recognize one of the > names if I saw it, but I have no connection with RSC or Blackhole or > Racesim or the pits or any other site. I derive benefit from the > goodwill of others and it PISSES ME OFF that crybabies think they matter > more than the thousands of other users. Let them start their own site, > get their own files, collect their own information. But don't even begin > to whine about RSC or any other site that provides us with goodies. > > What happened to the flight sim world after some of the big sites went > to a 'pay to play' model? We are so lucky here. How could ANYONE want > to lose this? > > dave henrie > > Freedom of speach, Freedom of opinion, these things are part of the > fabric of my country. But so too is the freedom to shut up. > > >

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Jeff Reid wrote: > >> Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives them >> permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you make. > > It's a private forum that you chose to participate in voluntarily. The > administrators and moderators of the site can run it however they see > fit, and if you don't like it you can either deal with them personally > or go somewhere else.

You mean like banning me after I answered Tim Wheatley's post, as site founder, that all the writers and staff on AutoSimSport were "lying immoral filth"? And not allowing me the ability to answer Crumbut's libelous statement that I had "said" I lied? And his refusal to retract his open, published lie? ... the fact of the matter is that there is a small minority of knuckle-draggers at RSC led by John Schoen who are quite willing to have RSC erased off the ether because what matters to them is not the community, but their own personal glory - but RSc has always been so, and as it says in rule 1.4, "you accept the right to be John Schoen and friends' Biatch by posting here, and moderators/founders and admins of RSC may slander, libel, edit, censure, or otherwise mess with your life as they see fit. And btw, donations are welcome ... and will be well-spent on finding new ways of censuring the community" If these small minority of moderators at RSC want to continue its assault on the free speech of this community, they should do so not by asking the community for donations. And whilst RSc is a private forum, its posts are open and readable without being a member, and therefore fall under direct publication laws - as such, all it would need from me is one call to tele.dk to have RSC erased off the planet. I choose not to do so because the vast majority of this community should not be penalised by the actions of a bunch of wannabe fascists led by John Schoen; having said this, though, it is unquestionably a matter of time before they libel the wrong person, and RSC will become history - John Schoen and moderators like him, who actively promote libel and illegal acts of speech, will oversee the destruction of RSC ... and while at the moment only maybe a few dozen community members have suffered at his - and his acolytes' actions - their actions will eventually result in all the community losing one of its most important facets. And when that time comes, John Schoen and his band of buddies, will only have themselves to blame.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. For the most part, web site BBS's suck. One grand exception to this is the one at HardOCP.com. THAT place is how a web site BBS should be run. True freedom of expression (or at least as true as it can get) can only be had in a newsgroup. For better or worse, the good with the bad. -Larry "Darus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Is it just me or are the moderators at RSC even more restrictive than > ever? It <seems> like more and more ppl. there have threads locked or > deleted, get "yellow warnings" and are otherwise muted by the > moderators. The mods seem to be the "be all, end all" on what is and is > not pertinent to a particular topic. If a mod doesn't like a topic or > the way a thread is going, they delete or lock it. I understand that > they have rules and a certain level of conduct is needed (i.e. no > racial slurs, swearing etc.) but far too many posts are deemed > "stupid", "unneeded" or "pointless". As they approach 200,000 threads > and 2.5 MILLION posts and 70,000 members, is the censorship of its > users going to worsen? One doesn't have to agree with a post or > thread, but they can still allow a thread to continue within the posted > rules. Certainly, posts soley intended to flame others aren't needed, > but a lively discussion on a topic in which ppl. have much passion on > both sides should be allowed. > > I know, I know, "you don't HAVE to post there" or "if you don't like > the rules, leave" etc., but what USED to be a superior website for all > things Sim Racing, is now a website for supersized egos and > mega-powertrippers. >

> Where is the line drawn on illegal links? Appaently, it's only OK for the moderators to do this. One of them started a thread "NR2003 mods", that included links to sites that had the NR2005 mod that RSC supposedly banned. The NR2005 mod was later deleted from that other site, but only because First / iRacing was threatening every web site they could find to delete such mods.

> Nobody here can replace even the tiniest portion of > files and knowledge stored there. And nobody here is out to shut down RSC or cause them financial harm. Some of us just want RSC to do their policing privately and fairly. How could anyone be harmed if RSC switched their warning system so that it was only done privately, the same as every other forum I'm aware of?

> but RSc has always been so, and as it says in rule 1.4, > > "you accept the right to be John Schoen and friends' Biatch by posting here, and moderators/founders and admins of RSC > may slander, libel, edit, censure, or otherwise mess with your life as they see fit. And btw, donations are welcome > ... and will be well-spent on finding new ways of censuring the community" I must have missed that rule when I joined up at RSC.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:30:36 -0500, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I beleive, and I don't care if there isn't any law that supports this >beleif, I beleive that RSC is privately owned and provides a free >service to me and thousands of others. If somebody has a problem with >the owners, then he can go elsewhere, After all that person isn't paying >all the server costs, the hosting and software fees, the time spent >customizing and debugging and correcting programs. Since 'I' am not >contributing to these costs, I have ZERO SAY in any action they take. >Thats my personal view. No amount of whining or namecalling or groveling >will change that.

But as the most visible site in the sim racing community, you don't think they shoulder a responsibility to be professional, impartial, non-hypocritical, and non-confrontational? I do. John DiFool

Typical, The persons who go around shooting people robbing banks, bitch loudest about the conditions & legality of the jail/punishment... go figure Jeff Reid enlightened us with:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives them >> permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you make. >> In my experience these are handed out on a "assumed guilty until >> proven innocent" basis, they aren't fair, and violate their own rule: >> >> "4.1 - Any content that is false, abusive, defamatory, or harassing >> is not permitted." >> >> Every warning avatar attached by RSC is "content that is abusive and >> harassing". In my case they were also "false and defamatory". > > Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to > stop this behavior ...

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tE9Oe.119174$E95.87076@fed1read01...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Your's is the only forum that publicly displays warnings, no other forum > does this. The only possible purpose of such public displaying of warnings > is to punish, and therefore cause harm, to the victims of your warning > system. > Since the intent such action is to cause harm, and is not covered in the > agreement made when a new member signs up, your on shaky legal ground > here, > as no member of RSC has consented to your public abuse and harassment with > the intent to cause harm. If it ends up causing problems for RSC, then > it's > your own fault.

I still don't understand how a warning could someone you any harm. Also, I had nothing to do with the situation going past a simple yellow warning for a week. Hell, I've had a yellow warning myself and never felt like I was harmed or a victim of "defamation of character".

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Both you and Mbrio turned this molehill into a mountain. You deleted the > link, claiming the video was copywrighted (based on your assumption, not > fact), this was OK with me. Then rather than suspending the warning for a > reasonable time to allow me to detmine if it was OK to have a link to the > video (either under fair use or public domain laws), you stated that > instead > the warning would stay until I had the FIA or FOA sent you a letter > stating > I had permission to link to that video.

More BS, the following is a copy/paste of what I said: "Formula One Administrations Ltd should hold the copyrights on videos. If you can show where FOA or another division in the F1 empire such as Formula One Licensing BV has held and since then released the videos into the "public domain", I'll lift the warning. Otherwise, it'll only be a week and yellow isn't that bad a color, is it?" I have NEVER said the warning would stay for longer than 1 week or demanded, or even requested for that matter, a letter from the FIA or FOA....

Quoted text (9 lines)

> This was unreasonable. Next when I > mentioned that your public warnings were the equivalent of defamation of > character (referring to your own rule 4.1), Mbrio steps in and first > tells me I can never post a link to any video, even one that I had made, > and later asks me to send a letter stating that I would agree to your > public attachemnt of warning labels. This clearly shows you were violating > your own agreement and rules, because if the public warning policy was > covered by the original agreement no additional agreement would be > required.

Unfortunately, I can't comment on anything that went on between you and another member of the staff, only what I did or said.

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:D_9Oe.119568$E95.14038@fed1read01... > Since I don't have access to my PM's at RSC anymore I can't know the exact > content, but I do remember the mentioning of FIA or FOA as holding all the > rights to F1 related content. Was asking for the warning to be withdrawn > for a reasonable period until I could get proof that the video was ok > to post a link to (public domain or fair use) that hard to take? > Had you actually asked, I would've given you a day or two. You didn't and let things escalate with your accusations of "defamation of character".

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:QP9Oe.119371$E95.26654@fed1read01...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Your wrong, that website did not host that video. I just grabbed the > first hit I got on google for F1 videos and ended up picking a bad > example. > You didn't mention that I had emailed you that this particular site was a > bad > example, taking advantage of a USA law that extend privileges for > eductional > purposes. >

You sent me that message as 21:37, after I logged off for the evening. By the time I read it the next day, you were already banned.

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Y57Oe.115977$E95.93828@fed1read01...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> It was just one thread, with a lot of the LFS fanatics trying to defend > a game with flawed phsycis, claiming this is how real cars behave, when > in fact LFS S1 didn't model how real cars behaved at the limits. > > Note that none of the moderators complained about any of my posts > regarding the flaws in LFS. >

I think a few were merged or closed because they were duplicate threads or turned into a slugfest, but there's nothing inherently wrong with posting your opinions of flaws in LFS.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:41:02 -0400, "Scirocco" <[email hidden]> wrote: <Snip all> You are so wrong! Cheers! Remco

"Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:41:02 -0400, "Scirocco" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > <Snip all> > > You are so wrong! > > > Cheers! > > > Remco

I most certainly am not - I knwo for a FACT that there are two posts that are both illegal and libelous on RSC about AutoSimSport and me personally - I also know for a fact (and have screenies to prove it) that mods at RSC have messed with the original posts. But yes, Remco, everyone else is definately wrong :-)

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:E7oOe.124386$E95.20724 @fed1read01:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>> Where is the line drawn on illegal links? > > Appaently, it's only OK for the moderators to do this. > > One of them started a thread "NR2003 mods", that included > links to sites that had the NR2005 mod that RSC supposedly > banned. The NR2005 mod was later deleted from that other > site, but only because First / iRacing was threatening > every web site they could find to delete such mods. > > > > > >

ding ding ding...now you have got it. You don't matter. I don't matter. We are users, they are providers. They make rules and they can bend/break rules. And I'm not hiding behind a 'it's my money so what I say goes..' Thats not hiding, thats cold hard truth. If I pay for something, you or God or a Monkey can't tell me what to do with it so long as it doesn't cause injury. Face it..you got a little swat to your behind and have spent all the time since making things worse. Too bad. But it doesn't make the RSC boys evil. I'm sorry you have had problems with RSC. But then my sorrow changes nothing either. Buck up, MOVE ON. Really I mean it this time...thread closed. ta ta. dave henrie

John DiFool <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > But as the most visible site in the sim racing community, you don't > think they shoulder a responsibility to be professional, impartial, > non-hypocritical, and non-confrontational? I do. > > John DiFool >

I don't. So there. Where does this need for a big emotional hug from RSC come from. Alright. All you belly achers...which ones DIDN'T get breast fed as babies? There has got to be a logical reason for this NEED to be validated. dave henrie going ..going..

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:45:25 -0500, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

>John DiFool <[email hidden]> wrote in >news:[email hidden]: > >> >> But as the most visible site in the sim racing community, you don't >> think they shoulder a responsibility to be professional, impartial, >> non-hypocritical, and non-confrontational? I do. >> >> John DiFool >> > > I don't. So there. Where does this need for a big emotional hug from >RSC come from. Alright. All you belly achers...which ones DIDN'T get >breast fed as babies? There has got to be a logical reason for this NEED >to be validated. > >dave henrie > >going ..going..

Straw man. My point was, that, as the most visible and most commonly visited sim site on the planet, that it doesn't show either them or the community in a good light if certain moderators engage in questionable behaviors. This is a likely route to either irrelevance or oblivion (for some community members, RSC has indeed started to become irrelevant). Imagine if an organization in a real-world community somewhere, an organization which has a very high profile there and is able to serve certain needs for its community, started to get all pissy and obnoxious in certain respects. You don't think the community members would have a right to be annoyed?

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > ding ding ding...now you have got it. You don't matter. I don't > matter. We are users, they are providers. They make rules and they can > bend/break rules. And I'm not hiding behind a 'it's my money so what I > say > goes..' Thats not hiding, thats cold hard truth. If I pay for something, > you or God or a Monkey can't tell me what to do with it so long as it > doesn't cause injury. > Face it..you got a little swat to your behind and have spent all the time > since making things worse. Too bad. But it doesn't make the RSC boys > evil. > I'm sorry you have had problems with RSC. But then my sorrow changes > nothing either. Buck up, MOVE ON. Really I mean it this time...thread > closed. > ta ta. > > dave henrie

You're a bloody drama queen henrie!

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> John DiFool <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > >> >> But as the most visible site in the sim racing community, you don't >> think they shoulder a responsibility to be professional, impartial, >> non-hypocritical, and non-confrontational? I do. >> >> John DiFool >> > > I don't. So there. Where does this need for a big emotional hug from > RSC come from. Alright. All you belly achers...which ones DIDN'T get > breast fed as babies? There has got to be a logical reason for this NEED > to be validated. > > dave henrie > > going ..going..

Well, the birds of certain feathers seem to be flocking together dont they?

"Scirocco" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > I still don't understand how a warning could someone you any harm. Also, > I had nothing to do with the situation going past a simple yellow warning > for a week. Hell, I've had a yellow warning myself and never felt like I > was harmed or a victim of "defamation of character". > Speaking of hard to understand, that first sentence is a doozy. I, and many others, fail to understand the use of the warning. Some clown said you were basically using it just because it's there in the software - no need to follow in the footsteps of the fools who put it in there! What purpose does it serve exactly? It probably just makes that person more interesting if anything - they'd have to be more likely to post something good and juicy! I mean, what are other users supposed to do? Stay away from them? Not read their posts? Oh, I'd better stay away from his links else I might end up with some really good, free software? You must be off your fucking head!

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > More BS, the following is a copy/paste of what I said: > "Formula One Administrations Ltd should hold the copyrights on videos. If > you can show where FOA or another division in the F1 empire such as > Formula One Licensing BV has held and since then released the videos into > the "public domain", I'll lift the warning. Otherwise, it'll only be a > week and yellow isn't that bad a color, is it?" > > I have NEVER said the warning would stay for longer than 1 week or > demanded, or even requested for that matter, a letter from the FIA or > FOA.... >

Ok, so anyone posting a link to anything needs to get a supreme court ruling that it is not copyrighted - no worries :) RSC policy - never give members the benefit of the doubt and pass up an opportunity to weild the big, yellow stick!

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:22:46 -0400, John DiFool <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (36 lines)

>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:45:25 -0500, Dave Henrie ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>John DiFool <[email hidden]> wrote in >>news:[email hidden]: >> >>> >>> But as the most visible site in the sim racing community, you don't >>> think they shoulder a responsibility to be professional, impartial, >>> non-hypocritical, and non-confrontational? I do. >>> >>> John DiFool >>> >> >> I don't. So there. Where does this need for a big emotional hug from >>RSC come from. Alright. All you belly achers...which ones DIDN'T get >>breast fed as babies? There has got to be a logical reason for this NEED >>to be validated. >> >>dave henrie >> >>going ..going.. > >Straw man. My point was, that, as the most visible and most commonly >visited sim site on the planet, that it doesn't show either them or >the >community in a good light if certain moderators engage in questionable >behaviors. This is a likely route to either irrelevance or oblivion >(for some community members, RSC has indeed started to become >irrelevant). > >Imagine if an organization in a real-world community somewhere, >an organization which has a very high profile there and is able to >serve certain needs for its community, started to get all pissy and >obnoxious in certain respects. You don't think the community >members would have a right to be annoyed?

And while I'm at it... My only point here is this: when someone in the community does something, does it benefit the community, or does it harm it? And the higher the profile/influence of the party in question, the greater their effect on things, for good or ill: In this vein I see the release of rFactor as being a very good thing. It will bring together racers who formerly probably never did anything together and had little in common. Likewise, all that First/iRacing stuff didn't do the community any good at all. To name just one thing, it was probably a contributing factor to the low number of people who signed up for the recently-canceled Nurby 24 Hours for the GTP mod (as a number of people have publicly said that the First fiasco turned them off to racing NR2003). Say someone visits RSC for the first time, lurks around and sees a huge flame war where the mods are just fueling the fire. His conclusion is likely that he won't be wanting to associate with ANYONE, on both sides-thus we just lost a potential member of our racing fellowship. JD