RSC, why was Legends Central delted?

As admin of the Mirror Zone I wrote to Mikkel some time ago about the
warning system as I felt it would just inflame any situation. This is an
excerpt of his reply:

Originally Posted by Mikkel

....
For a warning to be effective it should be visible... that is the point I
really appreciate your comment, and I understand your point of view, but I
fear it will not work in a forum this big, the psychology of it would be
lost in the vastness.

I still don't agree with it, BUT if you are going to use a free forum that
is not run as a free for all and has certain rules then you should just
abide by them or not use it. You can still download all the stuff you want
without contravening their rules..... There are other forums (not SRMZ)
where you are allowed to swear cuss and just generaly rip anyone apart if
you so wish to. (ie http://witsweb.suddenlaunch2.com/index.cgi )

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
newsKsQe.133015$E95.66235@fed1read01...
>>> RSC does not include anything regarding their public warning
>>> system.
>>>
>>
>> Under general rules and not attached to any specific rule: "If you refuse
>> to comply with our requests on this matter, we reserve the right to
>> warn/ban a member in the normal process." It just so happens that the
>> normal process includes a public warning.
>
> If your warning system was covered under existing rules, then why did
> Mbrio demand that I mail in a written letter stating I would agree to
> the public warning system? No such letter would have been required if the
> existing rules at the time I joined RSC covered this.
>
> In the case of the forums that optional post warnings, this is clearly
> stated in their rules, unlike RSC's "normal process".
>
>> If someone such as yourself is so concerened about the system,
>> you should've inquired as to what the normal process is. Instead, you
>> prefer to whine about some system that you've known
>> exists for quite some time.
>> It's not like you hadn't been warned with a public warning before....
>
> Just because I tolerated it before doens't mean I think it's right.
> Sort of like the shool kid bully asking why is the kid the bully
> is stealing lunch money from is complaining now when the victim
> didn't complain before. It doesn't make it right.
>
> And this isn't whining, you have still yet to answer the original
> question. What is the purpose of a public warning system if not
> to punish, in otherwords, cause harm to a victim of RSC's
> undocumented publick warning system?
>
> RSC's public warning system is just wrong. There's no need for it,
> and it's just a mean for RSC moderators to abuse and harass
> the victims of it's warning system.
>
>
>
>
>
>

> As admin of the Mirror Zone I wrote to Mikkel some time ago about the warning system as I felt it would just inflame
> any situation. This is an excerpt of his reply:
>
>

Originally Posted by Mikkel

....
> For a warning to be effective it should be visible... that is the point I really appreciate your comment, and I
> understand your point of view, but I fear it will not work in a forum this big, the psychology of it would be lost in
> the vastness.

>
> I still don't agree with it, BUT if you are going to use a free forum that is not run as a free for all and has
> certain rules then you should just abide by them or not use it. You can still download all the stuff you want without
> contravening their rules.....

Two points to be made he

One is all other racing sim forums do just fine without using a public
warning system. Obviously, it's not required to run a sucessful forum.
In addition, because RSC abuses it, posting warnings for just about
anything, most people at RSC just seem to ignore the public warnings,
so the intended effect isn't happening.

The other point is RSC does not document it's public warning system
in it's new user agreement or in it's rules. Every forum that does have
a public warning system makes this fact clear in it's agreement. In
effect, RSC is violating their own agreement. The real issue here is that
if a new user was aware that a public warning system was in use, that
user would be less likely to use hie/her real name on such a forum.
Some users wouldn't want to have a warning associated with their real
name, but could care less if it's a ficticious name.

Thanks for the reasonable response.

RSC now seems to be banning anyone mentioning it's warning system or
RAS by banning them now. It's getting pretty bad when you see 3 people
in one GPL thread unrelated to the warning system getting banned. All
of them were accused of being me (which isn't true).

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
newsY%Qe.150688$E95.62005@fed1read01...
> One is all other racing sim forums do just fine without using a public
> warning system. Obviously, it's not required to run a sucessful forum.
> In addition, because RSC abuses it, posting warnings for just about
> anything, most people at RSC just seem to ignore the public warnings,
> so the intended effect isn't happening.
>

For some strange reason, habitual offenders such as yourself seem to ignore
both. Why is that?

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
newsY%Qe.150688$E95.62005@fed1read01...
>
> The other point is RSC does not document it's public warning system
> in it's new user agreement or in it's rules. Every forum that does have
> a public warning system makes this fact clear in it's agreement. In
> effect, RSC is violating their own agreement. The real issue here is that
> if a new user was aware that a public warning system was in use, that
> user would be less likely to use hie/her real name on such a forum.
> Some users wouldn't want to have a warning associated with their real
> name, but could care less if it's a ficticious name.
>

Again, it's currently stated that "If you refuse to comply with our requests
on this matter, we reserve the right to warn/ban a member in the normal
process." If someone is so damned concerned about a public warning, they
should've questioned what the normal process is.

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:YpOQe.150597$E95.56789@fed1read01...
>
> Note that all of these forums cleary spell this out in their rules.
> RSC does not. Also most of them don't post public warnings on the
> first offense.
>

Depending on the offense, RSC usually doesn't either. It's not like anyone
runs around handing out warnings all the time either. Out of 69,782
members, I believe there's under a dozen with some sort of warning right
now......

>> Note that all of these forums cleary spell this out in their rules.
>> RSC does not. Also most of them don't post public warnings on the
>> first offense.
>>
>
> Depending on the offense, RSC usually doesn't either. It's not like anyone runs around handing out warnings all the
> time either. Out of 69,782 members, I believe there's under a dozen with some sort of warning right now......

and out of 69,782 members how many are actively posting right now?
I'm banned, am I part of that 69,782 count?

Does this include the 5 other members banned or instanbanned by RSC?

How many of these banned members were accused of being me?
I wasn't any of them, it would be pointless to post at RSC
because the post would just get deleted like the one from
back in 2002 that you linked to and RSC quickly deleted.