RSC - banned content

Another stupid rule at RSC regarding banned members
is "content" from a banned member isn't allowed.

Not allowing discussions to be made on behalf of a banned
member (assuming that it can be reasonably proven that
the poster wouldn't have independently made the same
discussion), is OK with me.

However by not allowing content authored by a banned member,
you only deny the members of RSC of access to potentially
helpful content, like guides, links, pictures, setups, or
videos.

The basis for accepting content or link to content at
RSC should be based on the content, not who created the
content.

In my particular case, I've always allowed anyone to freely
copy and/or rehost anything they find on my web site, and
without asking for any reverse links or reference to me.
This means a RSC member could copy something from my web site
(guide, picture, video) and host it himself, but could
never post a link to it at RSC, simply because I was the
author, regardless of how beneficial the content is.

I remember getting a warning for posting a link to the
slick tire mod for LFS S1, simply because it was created
by a banned RSC member, even though would be no way for
a reasonable person to be aware of this fact. Unlike RSC,
Scawen has allowed links to slicks for all cars mods for both
S1 and S2 to be posted at his Live For Speed site, taking
the pragmatic and consumer friendly attitude that as long as
it doesn't affect legitimate servers, he doesn't have a
problem with the purchasers of LFS having more fun with the
game via mods.

In article <lcWRe.3547$mH.3415@fed1read07>,
(Jeff Reid) wrote:

> Another stupid rule at RSC

http://www.andrew.mcp.dsl.pipex.com/useful.gif

;-)

Andrew McP

Jesus H Christ.... Enough of this Bull**** already.... Id of fn banned
your sad sack ass too based on the endless bull**** you feel then need to
spew all over RAS...


"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:lcWRe.3547$mH.3415@fed1read07...
> Another stupid rule at RSC regarding banned members
> is "content" from a banned member isn't allowed.
>
> Not allowing discussions to be made on behalf of a banned
> member (assuming that it can be reasonably proven that
> the poster wouldn't have independently made the same
> discussion), is OK with me.
>
> However by not allowing content authored by a banned member,
> you only deny the members of RSC of access to potentially
> helpful content, like guides, links, pictures, setups, or
> videos.
>
> The basis for accepting content or link to content at
> RSC should be based on the content, not who created the
> content.
>
> In my particular case, I've always allowed anyone to freely
> copy and/or rehost anything they find on my web site, and
> without asking for any reverse links or reference to me.
> This means a RSC member could copy something from my web site
> (guide, picture, video) and host it himself, but could
> never post a link to it at RSC, simply because I was the
> author, regardless of how beneficial the content is.
>
> I remember getting a warning for posting a link to the
> slick tire mod for LFS S1, simply because it was created
> by a banned RSC member, even though would be no way for
> a reasonable person to be aware of this fact. Unlike RSC,
> Scawen has allowed links to slicks for all cars mods for both
> S1 and S2 to be posted at his Live For Speed site, taking
> the pragmatic and consumer friendly attitude that as long as
> it doesn't affect legitimate servers, he doesn't have a
> problem with the purchasers of LFS having more fun with the
> game via mods.
>
>

Feel free to host your own forum.

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:lcWRe.3547$mH.3415@fed1read07...
> Another stupid rule at RSC regarding banned members
> is "content" from a banned member isn't allowed.
>
> Not allowing discussions to be made on behalf of a banned
> member (assuming that it can be reasonably proven that
> the poster wouldn't have independently made the same
> discussion), is OK with me.
>snip<

You need to get on over to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action and hook up with
their own resident crusading moron called Steamkiller.
He's almost single handedly wiped out any interest in posting about action
games because all that comes back is lunatic ravings similar to yours.
If I was running a forum you would most certainly get banned for being a
boring tosser.

Why do you bother with all of this? It's not like it's of worldly
importance. Move on and just ignore these rather innocuous breaches of
freedom of speech.

Alanb

that was freaking riteous, you got more?
Andrew MacPherson enlightened us with:
> In article <lcWRe.3547$mH.3415@fed1read07>,
> (Jeff Reid) wrote:
>
>> Another stupid rule at RSC
>
> http://www.andrew.mcp.dsl.pipex.com/useful.gif
>
> ;-)
>
> Andrew McP

"Riteous"???
What are you trying to say......."Righteous"? "Riotous"?

In either case, the word doesn't make sense when used to describe that GIF.

Bruce.

"PlowBoy" > wrote in message
news:Z53Se.21809$hp.13831@lakeread08...

> that was freaking riteous, you got more?

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:18:45 GMT, "redTed" >
wrote:

>
>"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
>news:lcWRe.3547$mH.3415@fed1read07...
>> Another stupid rule at RSC regarding banned members
>> is "content" from a banned member isn't allowed.
>>
>> Not allowing discussions to be made on behalf of a banned
>> member (assuming that it can be reasonably proven that
>> the poster wouldn't have independently made the same
>> discussion), is OK with me.
>>snip<
>
>You need to get on over to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action and hook up with
>their own resident crusading moron called Steamkiller.
>He's almost single handedly wiped out any interest in posting about action
>games because all that comes back is lunatic ravings similar to yours.
>If I was running a forum you would most certainly get banned for being a
>boring tosser.
>

This same "Steam" bozo also stole my nom de plume for awhile too...

> Feel free to host your own forum.

Don't need to, we have RAS,and plenty of other racing game
oriented forums that don't have the issues that RSC does.