If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
> > 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). |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
>> 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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
> 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." |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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?? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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..... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The dangers of DRLs | 223rem | Driving | 399 | July 25th 05 11:28 PM |