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:
> 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" > wrote in message
...
> Jeff Reid wrote:
>You did still hold the copywrite, however.

Bruce Kennewell wrote:
> Copyright; The RIGHT to ownership.
>
> "whooo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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.

> 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" > 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.

>> 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" > 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" > 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:
>>>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:
> 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:
>>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:
>>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 he
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 he
http://koti.mbnet.fi/kegetys/lfs/

Jeff Reid wrote:
>>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 he
> 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 he
> http://koti.mbnet.fi/kegetys/lfs/
>
>
>
I've never really liked web-based forums. Newsgroups are better in my
opinion.

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.

Some nice stuff on your web site there :)

"Jeff Reid" > 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. 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.

>> 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:
>>>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" > wrote in
news:4RANe.100042$E95.69983@fed1read01:

>> 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

>> 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 he
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:
>>>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 he
> 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.