RSC warning system, my final thread and summary

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:xuQRe.3524$mH.2477@fed1read07...
>
> If you still have my PM's, maybe Dan can read them, and email me
> to explain which of them were impolite. Just reply to this group
> or to me, as I don't use a fake email address or name here.

Politeness has nothing to do with it....

>>> 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.....

The first 2 sentences are just stating facts, and aren't impolite.
What rule at RSC did those 2 sentences violate?
I think you just prove that member's point.

>> If you still have my PM's, maybe Dan can read them, and email me
>> to explain which of them were impolite. Just reply to this group
>> or to me, as I don't use a fake email address or name here.
>
> Politeness has nothing to do with it....

Perhaps you didn't read this statement by Dan Murray, or is his
statement a lie?

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

> "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?

No, just not banned.


> 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?

You have a terrirble memory or or deliberately leaving out
all the facts, or you're simply lying here. First of all that
site doesn't have the video in question, so it proved nothing
one way or the other. Secondly, I sent another PM to you,
agreeing that that site was a bad example, since it used a
USA loophole to host its videos. I pointd out that that site
did not host the video. Lastly I referred you to another site,
the site listed below, that has been hosting that video since
September 2002, in a side by side comparason with Caterham
on the same track. Scroll down to the end of the page to
get to September 2002, side by side F1 comparason videos:

http://www.jackals-forge.com/lotus/


>> 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?

I meant you in the plural sense, a response sent by RSC, not you
Sirrocco specifically.

>> "Appeals may be brought forward to administration staff only - the
>> involvement of another member in your fight will result in their
>> punishment also."
>>
>> (By the way, where is this rule posted at RSC?)
>
> What this really shows is your lack of reading the quoted text thorougly before responding. How can you possibly
> think that a mod or smod could get in trouble by simply receiving a PM from someone?

You're the one having trouble reading english here. It clearly is stating
that if another member stands up for an accused member in an appeal, that
both members will share the punishment.

whooo / Cliff understood this equally well in his quote:
"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.

Again, you can't read english? ... and again, it was clear to
both whooo and myself.

That quote is from RSC, not me. They're the ones equating appeal
and fight in that statment. They're the ones stating that advocates
for an accused member will also suffer the same punishment.

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:nQ5Se.157765$E95.105628@fed1read01...
>>>
>> Are you really that dense? I figured it out by reading the first 2
>> sentences in that post you refer to.....
>
> The first 2 sentences are just stating facts, and aren't impolite.
> What rule at RSC did those 2 sentences violate?
> I think you just prove that member's point.
>

I was pointing out where a reason could be read for the banning of abbakus.
It's not my fault if you keep quoting and responding to yourself and then
get confused when someone else says something.

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:z46Se.157772$E95.27671@fed1read01...
>
> You have a terrirble memory or or deliberately leaving out
> all the facts, or you're simply lying here. First of all that
> site doesn't have the video in question, so it proved nothing
> one way or the other. Secondly, I sent another PM to you,
> agreeing that that site was a bad example, since it used a
> USA loophole to host its videos.

OK, please explain how a site that's hosting perfectly legal videos needs to
mention any sort of loophole?

>I pointd out that that site
> did not host the video. Lastly I referred you to another site,
> the site listed below, that has been hosting that video since
> September 2002, in a side by side comparason with Caterham
> on the same track. Scroll down to the end of the page to
> get to September 2002, side by side F1 comparason videos

And? You apparently requested to have your account removed before I even
got that PM, which you already knew.


>>> "Appeals may be brought forward to administration staff only - the
>>> involvement of another member in your fight will result in their
>>> punishment also."
>>>
>>> (By the way, where is this rule posted at RSC?)
>>
>> What this really shows is your lack of reading the quoted text thorougly
>> before responding. How can you possibly think that a mod or smod could
>> get in trouble by simply receiving a PM from someone?
>
> You're the one having trouble reading english here. It clearly is stating
> that if another member stands up for an accused member in an appeal, that
> both members will share the punishment.

Why would anyone with some sort of common sense try to appeal a warning to
anyone other than a member of the staff?? Have you ever considered the fact
that staff may have some sort of guidelines as to what their duties are or
do you think everyone just runs around doing anything they feel like?


>
> Again, you can't read english? ... and again, it was clear to
> both whooo and myself.
>
> That quote is from RSC, not me. They're the ones equating appeal
> and fight in that statment. They're the ones stating that advocates
> for an accused member will also suffer the same punishment.
>

"will result in their punishment also" would mean that they'd be punished
and does NOT mean that they'll "suffer the same punishment".

fight, appeal, who cares?? How different is "appeal the verdict" from
"fight the verdict"?

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:z46Se.157772$E95.27671@fed1read01...
>>> "Appeals may be brought forward to administration staff only - the
>>> involvement of another member in your fight will result in their
>>> punishment also."
>>>
>>> (By the way, where is this rule posted at RSC?)

One more thing, who said that everything someone types in a PM needs to be
an officially posted rule?

>> 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???

What does anything that happened in the past have to do with this incident?
I "served my time", lived with the previous warning icons, what more do you
want? Although it doesn't matter, exactly how many warnings do you think I
received in the past?

There were two previous incidents, the first one an honest mistake, the
second one undeserved.

Yellow warning escalated to red warning for posting a link to a video of
a compilation of short clips of Champ cars. I had posted the link
twice, which is why the yellow warning got escalated to a red warning.
There was no way for me to know that this clip was copyrighted.
I eventually found that it came from a dvd. However, 6 minutes out of
a 90 minute video sounds like "fair use" to me, and not a violation of
copyright, but I didn't protest this warning, and apologized for this.

Yellow warning for posting a link to the LFS mod "slicks for all cars"
simply because that mod was created by a banned member. This was
undeservered since there is no way to know that the author of that
mod was ever a member of RSC, or that the author was a banned member,
or that the name "phlos" referred to an individual or to a development
team. However, I didn't protest this warning either.

http://www.phlos.com/forum/

>> 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.

No, I stated that it had been hosted on several web sites since 2002,
and without issue, indicating that the video was either public domain
or at least covered under "fair use".

> 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.....

Are you also forgetting that that web site didn't host the video and that
I responded to you that I agreed that that website was using a loophole
in USA law to host those videos, and referred you to this site instead,
which has been hosting the video in a side by side comparason with a
Caterham since Septermber 2002?

http://www.jackals-forge.com/lotus/


>> 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??

What lies, I've merely stated my observations based on fact. Note several others
have started RSC bashing threads here, and it was another member complaing about
RSC being unfair back in a thread posted at RSC back in 2002, but soon after
you posted a link to that thread RSC quickly removed it. It seems like RSC
feels it has something to hide.

My points:

RSC's public warning system is undocumented. RSC should at least document
it's public warning system policy in the new user agrement, the same as
every other forum site that includes a public warning system. An agreement
is like a contract, every new member has the right to know what they
may be subjected to by the moderators of RSC before agreeing to join
RSC. If a potential new member was properly informed of this rule, that
new member may choose not to join, or to use a false name instead of
a real name.

Better yet, eliminate the public warning system, as it's not needed.
No other racing game forum uses any public warning system at all,
if a member causes trouble, they handled it privately and/or ban
the member depending on the seriousness of the violation.

Of all the sites Sirrocco linked to that do have public warning system,
none of them issue a public warning for a first time minor offenes.
None of them attach public warnings to all posts, only the posts
that were in violation. The warnings are also for more serious issues,
like explaining how to implement viruses or denial of service attacks
on web building forums. RSC instead attaches warnings to all posts
made by a member even for first time minor violations.

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:3L6Se.157774$E95.86082@fed1read01...
> What does anything that happened in the past have to do with this
> incident?
> I "served my time", lived with the previous warning icons, what more do
> you
> want? Although it doesn't matter, exactly how many warnings do you think I
> received in the past?
>
> There were two previous incidents, the first one an honest mistake, the
> second one undeserved.

Well, seeing as you asked, the count should be a bit higher than that.
Don't forget, warnings other than visible, under the avatar, public warnings
do count as a member being warned.

>
> No, I stated that it had been hosted on several web sites since 2002,
> and without issue, indicating that the video was either public domain
> or at least covered under "fair use".

Really? How does something being available on a website since 2002 make it
public domain or "fair use"? It sure sounds like you're saying that someone
could set up a web server somewhere, load it full of software and let it sit
for 3 years. Then, if it wasn't found and shut down within that time, it'd
suddenly be OK for everyone to download and use it solely because it was out
there for 3 years without issue.


> Of all the sites Sirrocco linked to that do have public warning system,
> none of them issue a public warning for a first time minor offenes.
> None of them attach public warnings to all posts, only the posts
> that were in violation. The warnings are also for more serious issues,
> like explaining how to implement viruses or denial of service attacks
> on web building forums. RSC instead attaches warnings to all posts
> made by a member even for first time minor violations.

You make it sound like everyone gets a yellow warning for a 1st time
offense. If you only knew how wrong you are....

I think I've mistakenly assumed that you were aware of the PM's I was
getting from Mbrio. I thought that RSC moderators consulted with each
other before issuing warnings or sending PMs like that. I didn't
mention leaving RSC until after I received the ultimatum PM from
Mbrio, but you state you weren't aware of this fact when you sent
me another PM afterwards, and I responded that I was not going to
agree to Mbrio's demand to agree to undocumented rules and leave
RSC instead. This indicates to me that you truly weren't aware of
all the PM's I was receiving from Mbrio, however how did Mbrio
get involved in the first place if you weren't consutling with him,
and why wasn't Mbrio keeping you in the loop regarding the PM's
he was sending me?

To be honest, it was Mbrio and not you that turned this molehill into
a mountain. It was Mbrio that demanded that I never post a link to any
video, even ones that I personally created, and later demanded that
I mail a written letter within 24 hours agreeing to the public warning
system policy, or be banned.

I also notice that Mbrio has never responded here, you're the only
RSC moderator willing to speak up for RSC. Other than you, it seems
that no other RSC moderator is willing to defend their actions in
a public forum such as RAS. I have to give you credit for this.

Also your treatment of me, regarding the yellow warning pales in
comparason to Mbrio's PM's to me, first asking to never post a link
to a video, and next demanding I mail a written letter within 24
hours agreeing to the undocumented rules.

Personally, I'd to see the public warning system at RSC done away
with completely, or to at least only attach a warning to the specific
violating post (just treat your members the same as any other forum
would).

Next I would like to see some documentation of the public warning
system, amended or not, included in the new member agreement. Anyone
entering into a contract or agreement deserves to know all the details.
Imagine buying a car and finding out later that you're automatically
being fined for every speeding violation, even though this is never
mentioned in the purchase contract.

>> There were two previous incidents, the first one an honest mistake, the
>> second one undeserved.
>
> Well, seeing as you asked, the count should be a bit higher than that. Don't forget, warnings other than visible,
> under the avatar, public warnings do count as a member being warned.

I'm giving you permission to list them here. I only remember two
previous incidents (three if you count the champ car video as two
incidents). Yet Mbrio claims (falsely) that there were many.

What other warnings or PMs did I ever get while at RSC? I don't
remember any.

>> and without issue, indicating that the video was either public domain
>> or at least covered under "fair use".
>
> Really? How does something being available on a website since 2002 make it public domain or "fair use"? It sure
> sounds like you're saying that someone could set up a web server somewhere, load it full of software and let it sit
> for 3 years. Then, if it wasn't found and shut down within that time, it'd suddenly be OK for everyone to download
> and use it solely because it was out there for 3 years without issue.

I stated that it was available on several popular (within the car racing
world) web sites. Regardless, did you honestly think that that video
was truly in violation of copyright law and not covered by fair use?
Considering it's just one lap of many practice or qualifying laps,
showed no racing footage whatsoever, and therefore is a small sample,
and not the "heart" of the entire footage of that race, then fair
use would apply here. Also note that I agreed to leave the link deleted,
I was just protesting the warning, as it was the second warning I
recieved that I felt was undeserved.

The first undeserved public warning was for posting a link to the LFS S1
slicks for all cars mod. How could anyone know that this was content
made by a banned member?

On a side note, after reviewing stats of F1 cars at Spa in 20002,
it was a qualifying lap or at least using a qualifying setup, assuming
the announcer was accurately stating top speed. For qualifying, top
speeds of 190mph are typical, while racing setups that have to use
less downforce in order to preserve tires end up around 205mph.

>> Of all the sites Sirrocco linked to that do have public warning system,
>> none of them issue a public warning for a first time minor offenes.
>> None of them attach public warnings to all posts, only the posts
>> that were in violation. The warnings are also for more serious issues,
>> like explaining how to implement viruses or denial of service attacks
>> on web building forums. RSC instead attaches warnings to all posts
>> made by a member even for first time minor violations.
>
> You make it sound like everyone gets a yellow warning for a 1st time offense. If you only knew how wrong you are....

No, but only RSC attaches a public warning to every post made by
a member. The other sites only post a warning on the violating post
(I assume that the violating content is editted out). RSC's public
warning system is beyond reasonable, and purely punitive.

Also no other racing game forum uses any public warning system at all,
and yet they all manage to run smoothly.

Also I can only go by my personal experience. I can see my first
warning was justifiable (but not the public nature of it), since it
turned out to be video from a DVD, however, 6 minutes from a 90
minute video sounds like fair use to me. I think I posted a link
to that video twice, which was an hones mistake. I had no desire
to cause RSC any trouble by posting a link to an interseting video.

My second warning was totally uncalled for. As mentioned above,
it was for posting a link to the LFS S1 slicks for all cars mod.
How could anyone possibly know that that mod was authored by
a banned member?

My last warning, about the David Coulthard lap video, bothered
me more because of my experience with the S1 mod warning. Since
another member asked why I got a yellow warning, it also dawned
on my how unfair RSC's public warning system is, since that
thread was totally unrelated to the thread were I posted the
video. I hadn't previously noticed that RSC attaches a public
warning to every post in every thread made by a member. This
is totally uncalled for, unreasonable, and punitive, as I
also mentioned before.