RSC back up!

> Perhaps not viewer, but there may be an AI listener. I've had movie soundtracks
> rejected twice within seconds of uploading. They either have a huge team of people
> monitoring things, or some kind of automated process to filter out at least some
> well known tracks with distinctive musical 'signatures'.

I wouldn't know. Usually it takes a few days before audio tracks are removed
from videos (but the videos remain). Did your video have any clues to the audio
track in the text that went with the uploaded video? If there is an AI, reencoding
with a minor pitch or tempo change would probably circumvent it. If the text of your
video includes something similar to the name of a famous musical group in the text
of your video, it will get screened.

> Anyway, this is a side issue. The bottom line in all this is that forums are not
> democratic; they don't have to be 'fair' (whatever that means)

Except in this case, RSC has a rule that includes not making false or
defamatory statements about other members, and at the time no mention
was made of the public violator avatars or recommended use of a false name
because of those public violator avatars.

> I see people like yourself making that harder, not easier.

and yet I've never had an issue with any of the other 20 or so forums
I particpate at. Have you ever read complaints about any forum other
than RSC?

> Your dispute *may* have some kind of tenuous defamatory taint

Which was the point of my neighbor.

> it was within the forum; they didn't stamp your internet passport marking
> you out as a potential troublemaker for all to see wherever you go.

The size of the audience, within reason (more than 1 or 2) doesn't matter
in a defamatory case. I received numerours emails within and without the
group about how unfair this seemed and that similar incidents had occurred
in the past at RSC. Once again, I'm not aware of any other gaming forum that
utilizes such a public violator scheme.

> I could understand the 'my mate the lawyer says' stuff

In this case, my neighbor/lawyer also happened to be a member of RSC, and he
came to me, after I explained what happened.

> As it is... well, I'm just impressed anyone takes forum life so seriously.

There isn't much I can do about the big problems of the world, but here
was a case where I could at least make a statement about unfair abuse from
forum moderators. Yes it's small on the scale of injustices, but it doesn't
justify bad behavior from forum moderators. If anything, they should be held
to a higher standard.

"Andrew MacPherson" > wrote in message
...
> (jeffareid) wrote:
>
>> Youtube has no ability to screen the actual video content with some
>> sort of AI viewer.
>
> Perhaps not viewer, but there may be an AI listener. I've had movie
> soundtracks
> rejected twice within seconds of uploading. They either have a huge team
> of people
> monitoring things, or some kind of automated process to filter out at
> least some
> well known tracks with distinctive musical 'signatures'.
>
> Anyway, this is a side issue. The bottom line in all this is that forums
> are not
> democratic; they don't have to be 'fair' (whatever that means) and they
> must be a
> pain in the arse to run. I see people like yourself making that harder,
> not easier.
> That seems, at the very least, impolite given that it's a free service.
>

They may not be fair or democratic, but they should be, only because that is
best and easiest. Seriously, if it's easy and the best way to go, how can a
person go wrong?

As to the forums being a pain to run, you can't voluntarily decide to put up
a forum, and then complain about what a hassle it is. People are oftentimes
that way: they give something up voluntarily, and then expect some sort of
return.

To the "free service" thing, RSC will soon cost. They haven't gone through
all this crap out of their heart's goodness. Within a year RSC will cost,
period. If there is money to be made, all the spirit goes out of it.


Alan

> The bottom line in all this is that forums are not democratic;
> they don't have to be 'fair' (whatever that means)

Probably not now, but at the time RSC was the official support
site for a few games, and as part of the agreement for RSC to
be the official support site for those games, the behavior of
the RSC moderators would have to hold up to a high standard as
would be required of any support forum.

Can you think of any other forum that has a yellow or red card
infraction system such as RSC?

In the case of forums where legal or medical advice is given,
then higher standards for the posters are required, but even
in these cases, bad posters are simply censored (posts
modified and/or deleted, with repeat offenders posts removed.

"Alan Bernardo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrew MacPherson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> (jeffareid) wrote:
>>
>>> Youtube has no ability to screen the actual video content with some
>>> sort of AI viewer.
>>
>> Perhaps not viewer, but there may be an AI listener. I've had movie
>> soundtracks
>> rejected twice within seconds of uploading. They either have a huge team
>> of people
>> monitoring things, or some kind of automated process to filter out at
>> least some
>> well known tracks with distinctive musical 'signatures'.
>>
>> Anyway, this is a side issue. The bottom line in all this is that forums
>> are not
>> democratic; they don't have to be 'fair' (whatever that means) and they
>> must be a
>> pain in the arse to run. I see people like yourself making that harder,
>> not easier.
>> That seems, at the very least, impolite given that it's a free service.
>>
>
> They may not be fair or democratic, but they should be, only because that
> is best and easiest. Seriously, if it's easy and the best way to go, how
> can a person go wrong?
>
> As to the forums being a pain to run, you can't voluntarily decide to put
> up a forum, and then complain about what a hassle it is. People are
> oftentimes that way: they give something up voluntarily, and then expect
> some sort of return.
>
> To the "free service" thing, RSC will soon cost. They haven't gone
> through all this crap out of their heart's goodness. Within a year RSC
> will cost, period. If there is money to be made, all the spirit goes out
> of it.
>
>
You have no proof that RSC will become a pay service, so shut up.

"David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan Bernardo" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "jeffareid" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> And do I seriously have to agree to the so-called "terms" every time
>>>>> I'm at a new forum for the first time?
>>>>
>>>> < General rule #5:
>>>> < All serious complaints about staff or users should not be
>>>> < publically posted by members.
>>>>
>>>> So non serious complaints about staff are OK then?
>>>>
>>> That's the sort of thing only a **** would do.
>>
>> You have a serious problem. I wonder if you'd talk the same if
>> face-to-face.
>>
>> I doubt it. It's nice and safe to talk like a bigshot when you have the
>> Internet behind which to HIDE.
>>
> Let's meet up then. I'm in the UK. Where are you?

Oh, now you're nice. Do you actually think I'd meet up with some WHACKO who
probably would need a piece to fight with, who couldn't fight on his own,
who wouldn't be willing to go one-on-one, without props?

But anyhow, I used to live next door to you, believe it or not.

I see how you're thinking, though. And mulling over all this, I think you'd
better stay behind your firewall. It's safer there, and you won't get
yourself killed.


Alan

"Alan Bernardo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Alan Bernardo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "David Fisher's Left Testicle" <dfg.myass@aol> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "jeffareid" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>> And do I seriously have to agree to the so-called "terms" every time
>>>>>> I'm at a new forum for the first time?
>>>>>
>>>>> < General rule #5:
>>>>> < All serious complaints about staff or users should not be
>>>>> < publically posted by members.
>>>>>
>>>>> So non serious complaints about staff are OK then?
>>>>>
>>>> That's the sort of thing only a **** would do.
>>>
>>> You have a serious problem. I wonder if you'd talk the same if
>>> face-to-face.
>>>
>>> I doubt it. It's nice and safe to talk like a bigshot when you have the
>>> Internet behind which to HIDE.
>>>
>> Let's meet up then. I'm in the UK. Where are you?
>
> Oh, now you're nice. Do you actually think I'd meet up with some WHACKO
> who probably would need a piece to fight with, who couldn't fight on his
> own, who wouldn't be willing to go one-on-one, without props?
>
> But anyhow, I used to live next door to you, believe it or not.
>
> I see how you're thinking, though. And mulling over all this, I think
> you'd better stay behind your firewall. It's safer there, and you won't
> get yourself killed.
>

No tools, no backup and I'm willing to travel with in the Uk

You're move, **** face.

"PlowBoy," > wrote in message
...
> RAS/usnet is near DEATH. AT&T to stop access to ALL usenet, that is a
> pretty big group of people.
>

Really, now, who really uses their ISP to browse usenet? I stopped doing
that years ago, a year or two before TimeWarner stopped usenet access.

I'll say it again, though: RAS will be a paid deal in less than a year.
That annoying thing you get about donating money for these poor souls is
only the beginning.

I think I've been banned three or so times from RAS, all of them for railing
against some title. RAS is like FOX News, hiding behind its shield of phony
democracy, firing off false bullets of truth

Alan

Alan Bernardo wrote:

> I'll say it again, though: RAS will be a paid deal in less than a year.

T think you mean RSC. Much as I like to learn new words from Byron et
al, I don't think I would pay for the pleasure...

"Tony R" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Bernardo wrote:
>
>> I'll say it again, though: RAS will be a paid deal in less than a year.
>
> T think you mean RSC. Much as I like to learn new words from Byron et al,
> I don't think I would pay for the pleasure...

Yes, most of my posts are priceless I must say!

> Really, now, who really uses their ISP to browse usenet?

I do. Cox cable supports it just fine.

> > > RAC
> > I think you mean RSC.
> > Much as I like to learn new words from Byron et al, I don't think I would pay for the pleasure...

> Yes, most of my posts are priceless I must say!

Hey I've learned a new meaning for a word from Byron ...
So in some areas, priceless has the same meaning as worthless?