RSC warning system, my final thread and summary

>> RSC is going out of their way to avoid any discussion of their
>> warning system on their forum, and apparently will ban any member
>> that brings it up. Sirocco posted a link to a thread made back
>> in 2002 that reference the warning system (although the main
>> subject was preferential treatment of some members), and RSC
>> quickly deleted that thread.

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

Wow I'm impressed, yet another soon to be "instabanned" member
of RSC (or should I say ex-member?). Obviously it's just another
account I created to start trouble at RSC.

I should get credit for at least thinking ahead far enough to
have created this account back in February, 2002.

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

I saved an image of this won't as it probably won't last long.
It will be a collector's item soon.

It stops here, this is the last thread on this I'll make.

Obviously, no one at RSC is willing to respond as to the reason
they have the public warning system, and is banning anyone who
dares asks about it on their forum.

A summary of the issues discussed he

No other racing game forum I'm aware of uses a public warning system.
Obviously, a public warning system isn't necessary to run a successful
racing game oriented forum. Of all of the non-racing sim forums that
do have a public warning system, none of them issue public warnings
for a first time minor offense. Most members of RSC ignore the public
warnings. It only seems to have meaning to the moderators that want
to punish it's members.

RSC does not document it's public warning system in it's new user
agreement or it's rules. In the few, non-racing game related forums
that do have public warnings, the rules and reasons for receiving
such warnings are clearly indicated in the new member agreement.
This gives new members a change to decide to use ficticious names
so as not to have a public warning associated with their real name.

Because the public warning system is not documented at RSC, the
public warning system is a violation of their own rule 4.1,
regarding content that is abusive or harrassing. RSC should
update it's new user agreement and/or rules and then allow
it's users to change account names if the users desire to
do so.

RSC is going out of their way to avoid any discussion of their
warning system on their forum, and apparently will ban any member
that brings it up. Sirocco posted a link to a thread made back
in 2002 that reference the warning system (although the main
subject was preferential treatment of some members), and RSC
quickly deleted that thread.

Jeff Reid wrote:
> It stops here, this is the last thread on this I'll make.
>
> Obviously, no one at RSC is willing to respond as to the reason
> they have the public warning system, and is banning anyone who
> dares asks about it on their forum.
>
> A summary of the issues discussed he
>
> No other racing game forum I'm aware of uses a public warning system.
> Obviously, a public warning system isn't necessary to run a successful
> racing game oriented forum. Of all of the non-racing sim forums that
> do have a public warning system, none of them issue public warnings
> for a first time minor offense. Most members of RSC ignore the public
> warnings. It only seems to have meaning to the moderators that want
> to punish it's members.
>
> RSC does not document it's public warning system in it's new user
> agreement or it's rules. In the few, non-racing game related forums
> that do have public warnings, the rules and reasons for receiving
> such warnings are clearly indicated in the new member agreement.
> This gives new members a change to decide to use ficticious names
> so as not to have a public warning associated with their real name.
>
> Because the public warning system is not documented at RSC, the
> public warning system is a violation of their own rule 4.1,
> regarding content that is abusive or harrassing. RSC should
> update it's new user agreement and/or rules and then allow
> it's users to change account names if the users desire to
> do so.
>
> RSC is going out of their way to avoid any discussion of their
> warning system on their forum, and apparently will ban any member
> that brings it up. Sirocco posted a link to a thread made back
> in 2002 that reference the warning system (although the main
> subject was preferential treatment of some members), and RSC
> quickly deleted that thread.
>
>
Let's see how long this one lasts:
http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.p...54#post2596854

Jeff Reid wrote:
>>Let's see how long this one lasts: http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.p...54#post2596854
>
>
> I saved an image of this won't as it probably won't last long.
> It will be a collector's item soon.
>
>
RSC behavior is outrageous and uncalled for. I am considering calling
the ACLU.

>> Jeff Reid wrote:
> It stops here, this is the last thread on this I'll make. <<

Please and Thank you

==--==


"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:gL0Re.150701$E95.132881@fed1read01...
> It stops here, this is the last thread on this I'll make.
>
> Obviously, no one at RSC is willing to respond as to the reason
> they have the public warning system, and is banning anyone who
> dares asks about it on their forum.
>
> A summary of the issues discussed he
>
> No other racing game forum I'm aware of uses a public warning system.
> Obviously, a public warning system isn't necessary to run a successful
> racing game oriented forum. Of all of the non-racing sim forums that
> do have a public warning system, none of them issue public warnings
> for a first time minor offense. Most members of RSC ignore the public
> warnings. It only seems to have meaning to the moderators that want
> to punish it's members.
>
> RSC does not document it's public warning system in it's new user
> agreement or it's rules. In the few, non-racing game related forums
> that do have public warnings, the rules and reasons for receiving
> such warnings are clearly indicated in the new member agreement.
> This gives new members a change to decide to use ficticious names
> so as not to have a public warning associated with their real name.
>
> Because the public warning system is not documented at RSC, the
> public warning system is a violation of their own rule 4.1,
> regarding content that is abusive or harrassing. RSC should
> update it's new user agreement and/or rules and then allow
> it's users to change account names if the users desire to
> do so.
>
> RSC is going out of their way to avoid any discussion of their
> warning system on their forum, and apparently will ban any member
> that brings it up. Sirocco posted a link to a thread made back
> in 2002 that reference the warning system (although the main
> subject was preferential treatment of some members), and RSC
> quickly deleted that thread.
>
>

whooo wrote:
> Jeff Reid wrote:
>
>> It stops here, this is the last thread on this I'll make.
>>
>> Obviously, no one at RSC is willing to respond as to the reason
>> they have the public warning system, and is banning anyone who
>> dares asks about it on their forum.
>>
>> A summary of the issues discussed he
>>
>> No other racing game forum I'm aware of uses a public warning system.
>> Obviously, a public warning system isn't necessary to run a successful
>> racing game oriented forum. Of all of the non-racing sim forums that
>> do have a public warning system, none of them issue public warnings
>> for a first time minor offense. Most members of RSC ignore the public
>> warnings. It only seems to have meaning to the moderators that want
>> to punish it's members.
>>
>> RSC does not document it's public warning system in it's new user
>> agreement or it's rules. In the few, non-racing game related forums
>> that do have public warnings, the rules and reasons for receiving
>> such warnings are clearly indicated in the new member agreement.
>> This gives new members a change to decide to use ficticious names
>> so as not to have a public warning associated with their real name.
>>
>> Because the public warning system is not documented at RSC, the
>> public warning system is a violation of their own rule 4.1,
>> regarding content that is abusive or harrassing. RSC should
>> update it's new user agreement and/or rules and then allow
>> it's users to change account names if the users desire to
>> do so.
>>
>> RSC is going out of their way to avoid any discussion of their
>> warning system on their forum, and apparently will ban any member
>> that brings it up. Sirocco posted a link to a thread made back
>> in 2002 that reference the warning system (although the main
>> subject was preferential treatment of some members), and RSC
>> quickly deleted that thread.
>>
>>
> Let's see how long this one lasts:
> http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.p...54#post2596854
Well the thread has been closed, but I did get a very nice PM
explaining how things work.

RSC is a big site and it takes a lot of work to sort it out. Thanks to
all at RSC for all their hard work.

______________________________Case Closed______________________________

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

> Well the thread has been closed, but I did get a very nice PM explaining how things work.

You seem to be the only one to post about this and not get banned
by RSC, and/or accused of being me, what's your secret?

Also, what was in the PM? How does RSC justify an undocumented
public warning system when all the sites Sirrocco mention clearly
explain this fact in a new member agreement?

Why is RSC the only site that attaches public warnings to all
posts instead of just the offending thread as the other sites
that use the public warning system?

Why is RSC the only racing sim site to use a public warning
system at all?

If RSC feels that there public warning system is justifiable, then
why do they delete every post made about it?

> RSC is a big site and it takes a lot of work to sort it out.
> Thanks to all at RSC for all their hard work.

Regardless of the good they do, it doesn't justify their unfair
treament of a few members. I feel sorry for the members that
were banned simply because RSC accused them of being me. Hitler
initially did a lot of good for Germany as well, turning them
into a world power, unless you count the Jews he killed.

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

> Well the thread has been closed, but I did get a very nice PM explaining how things work.

So RSC has a double standard. They have a public warning system,
but don't allow public discussion about it in their forums.

They even deleted a thread back from 2002. What's changed since
2002?

Jeff Reid wrote:
>>>Let's see how long this one lasts: http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.p...54#post2596854
>
>
>>Well the thread has been closed, but I did get a very nice PM explaining how things work.
>
>
> So RSC has a double standard. They have a public warning system,
> but don't allow public discussion about it in their forums.
>
> They even deleted a thread back from 2002. What's changed since
> 2002?
>
>
>
>
>
>
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.