RSC warning system, my final thread and summary

> > Well the thread has been closed,

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

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

> I don't know. The only bit I disagree with is this:
>
> "Appeals may be brought forward to administration staff only - the involvement of another member in your fight will
> result in their punishment also."
>
> It seems that honest advocates are banned.

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

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

"whooo" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Let's see how long this one lasts:
> http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.p...54#post2596854

Awwwww, the bloody poopy pants closed it!

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

I think we need to lobby RSC hard for this!

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:BwhRe.152319$E95.760@fed1read01...
> they knew it wasn't me (JeffR). I guess I could actually
> create another account, but it would probably get banned
> and just add to their claims of me previously creating new
> accounts to stir up trouble.

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

>> they knew it wasn't me (JeffR).

> Are you totally unable to read, understand and follow the rules of the forum? If so, that'd explain why you
> repeatedly chose to ignore both private and public warnings and eventually ended up being banned.

My being banned had nothing to do with warnings.

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

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

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

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

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

> My being banned had nothing to do with warnings.

Obviously, this statment by Dan Murray:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Obviously, this statment by Dan Murray:
>
> "Despite your claim, somebody querying about or even
> protesting against a warning/ban in a polite manner
> will not result in that somebody being warned or banned
> themselves."
>
> (from thread http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=138737)

and yet, the very member that Dan Murray is responding to
was instabanned.

What was impolite in this post that Dan is responding to?

"Seems a lot of warnings and bannings going on lately.
There's are some long threads about this on the newsgroup
rec.autos.simulation. I wouldn't say too much though, as it
appears anyone complaining the warnings gets you banned.
Maybe that's what happened to Philippe.

I know better than to use my real name on any forum, and
they can warn Abbakus all they want, it won't bother me."

> Obviously, this statment by Dan Murray:
>
> "Despite your claim, somebody querying about or even
> protesting against a warning/ban in a polite manner
> will not result in that somebody being warned or banned
> themselves."
>
> (from thread http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=138737)


If you still have my PM's, maybe Dan can read them, and email me
to explain which of them were impolite. Just reply to this group
or to me, as I don't use a fake email address or name here.

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:IZPRe.3511$mH.3275@fed1read07...
> Since your memory is so bad, maybe a refresher would help:
>
> I got one yellow warning for posting a link to a video that you claimed
> was copyrighted, where you had already removed the link. I sent you a PM
> stating that the video had been out since 2002, was in the public domain,
> (or at least without a copyright issue, such as fair useage), but it
> was OK to leave the link deleted until I verified this.

Errr, you've had one yellow warning?? What about all the other warning PMs,
yellow and red warnings you've had in the past???

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

BS, you never asked to hold off on the warning. All you did was protest it
by claiming it was in the public domain because someone in some other group
said it was. You also made the brilliant assumption that because it hasn't
been removed from a specific website that it was OK. I guess this means
that warez sites are OK too??

Are you also forgetting the fact that in your defense you sent me a link to
another webiste that hosted the video? This website had the disclaimer
saying the videos were for educational use only, had to be deleted within 24
hours and begged the copyright holders to let them host the videos. That
was really smart.....

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

And what exactly are you doing on these forums by spreading lies and false
accusations about those that help RSC to run smoothly??

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:HjQRe.3517$mH.770@fed1read07...
>> My being banned had nothing to do with warnings.
>
> Obviously, this statment by Dan Murray:
>
> "Despite your claim, somebody querying about or even
> protesting against a warning/ban in a polite manner
> will not result in that somebody being warned or banned
> themselves."
>
> (from thread http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=138737)
>
> Is an outright lie, based on my experience. All of my
> PM's were polite. I was simply protesting a yellow warning
> that thought was unfair, especially since I agreed to not
> link to the video in question until I verified it would OK
> to do so.
>
> If you've saved the PM's from our discussion, feel free to
> post them here and let the folks here decide if anything
> I wrote was not in a polite manner.
>

LOL, do you really think that anyone who's polite can get out of a warning
just by being nice? Again, when you tried to show the validity of the
video, you posted a link that stated the opposite. Why remove a warning
when you provide evidence indicating that you're guilty?


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

What a warped sense of reality. How on earth do you think that I send a
response from Dan to anyone?

>
> "Appeals may be brought forward to administration staff only - the
> involvement of another member in your fight will result in their
> punishment also."
>
> (By the way, where is this rule posted at RSC?)

What this really shows is your lack of reading the quoted text thorougly
before responding. How can you possibly think that a mod or smod could get
in trouble by simply receiving a PM from someone?

> Cliff responded that "It seems that honest advocates are banned."
>
> This response also makes it clear that RSC considers an appeal
> to be a "fight", and that it's purpose is to punish not only
> the original member, but also to punish any member that stands
> up for the accused.

Nah, it only makes it look like you're trying to make an argument against
something doesn't exist.

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:ArQRe.3521$mH.1302@fed1read07...
>> Obviously, this statment by Dan Murray:
>>
>> "Despite your claim, somebody querying about or even
>> protesting against a warning/ban in a polite manner
>> will not result in that somebody being warned or banned
>> themselves."
>>
>> (from thread http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=138737)
>
> and yet, the very member that Dan Murray is responding to
> was instabanned.
>
> What was impolite in this post that Dan is responding to?
>

Are you really that dense? I figured it out by reading the first 2
sentences in that post you refer to.....