RSC and their mods

"jason moyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> If I were given a warning for something I posted, rather than lashing
> out at the moderators, I'd re-examine my own behavior and if I felt the
> warning was unwarranted I would contact the moderators privately. I'm
> certain doing that would provide a positive result in all but the most
> extreme cases.
>
>

They key word here is privately - they may as well have these people in
black and white striped convict outfits. Stupid!

Byron Forbes wrote:
> "whooo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jeff Reid wrote:
>>
>>>>Did you post under your real name?
>>>
>>>
>>>I used jeffr. My profile includes my real name, and a link to
>>>my web page (http://jeffareid.net), which also includes my real
>>>name and email address.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, I doubt if you would have had much of a case. Was your standing
>>reduced in the eyes of right thinking people? Probably not.
>
>
> Not just defamation anyway - it's becoming discrimination. They seem to
> be insisting he agree to being treated illegaly or they'll ban him. The
> whole idiotic system is akin to Nazis puting yellow ribbons on the arms of
> Jews! All they need to do is issue private warnings and bans - sounds like a
> bunch of kids on silly little parts of the learning curve to me. Another
> stupid little police state!
>
>
yeah, sigh!

Byron Forbes wrote:
> "Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
> news:tRtNe.88839$E95.29094@fed1read01...
>
>>>Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives them
>>>permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you make.
>>>In my experience these are handed out on a "assumed guilty until
>>>proven innocent" basis, they aren't fair, and violate their own rule:
>>>
>>>"4.1 - Any content that is false, abusive, defamatory, or harassing
>>>is not permitted."
>>>
>>>Every warning avatar attached by RSC is "content that is abusive and
>>>harassing". In my case they were also "false and defamatory".
>>
>>Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to
>>stop this behavior ...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Sounds like now they may be guilty of discrimination also.
>
> Sounds pretty stupid to me. They must be a bunch of dickheads - all they
> need to do is respond to complaints. Imagine what sort of a no life ****wit
> you'd have to be to screen every post on those forums - LOL.
>
> Sounds like a league director that screens entire race replays looking
> for incidents instead of waiting for drivers to protest.
>
>
Looks like RSC has gone the way of many a forum. It's clique ridden.
Most of the debates have been had now. And anyone foolish enough to ask
a question that has already been asked runs the risk of being rudely
told to use the search engine.

"Byron Forbes" > wrote in

..au:

>
> "Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
> news:tRtNe.88839$E95.29094@fed1read01...
>>> Nothing in the rules at RSC or the agreement when you join gives
>>> them permission to publicly attach warning avatars to every post you
>>> make. In my experience these are handed out on a "assumed guilty
>>> until proven innocent" basis, they aren't fair, and violate their
>>> own rule:
>>>
>>> "4.1 - Any content that is false, abusive, defamatory, or harassing
>>> is not permitted."
>>>
>>> Every warning avatar attached by RSC is "content that is abusive and
>>> harassing". In my case they were also "false and defamatory".
>>
>> Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to
>> stop this behavior ...
>>
>>
>>
>
> Sounds like now they may be guilty of discrimination also.
>
> Sounds pretty stupid to me. They must be a bunch of dickheads -
> all they
> need to do is respond to complaints. Imagine what sort of a no life
> ****wit you'd have to be to screen every post on those forums - LOL.
>
> Sounds like a league director that screens entire race replays
> looking
> for incidents instead of waiting for drivers to protest.
>
>

Byron, feel free to email me if you wish to, but I will not continue in
this publicly.
remove the 'bite me' from my ras addy.

dave henrie

>>> They can do whatever the heck they want.
>>
>> Apparently not, they claim that they were shut down in the past
>> because of a members post. Also, they can't violate laws,
>> and they should abide by their own rules.

> Care to expand on that? - know any details?

No details, it's just mentioned under their rules section
under "Why don't other sites care about the things we do?"

http://www.rscnet.org/index.php?&page=siterules

They state their site got delete due to a mistake by a member.
Does this mean they were actually shut down by the content
of a post (which is what they imply), or does it mean that
a member somehow caused the site to crash and/or it's database
deleted.

>>> Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit to get them to
>>> stop this behavior ...

> It matters not about what RSC may be worth to the sim community.

I was just kidding about the class action lawsuit.
I don't plan on starting one.

> I'd be impressed if people managed to successfully file a class-action
> lawsuit against a company that provides them a non-necessary service
> that they don't pay for.

How about one that provides a list of 14 year old girls seeking older
(21+) men to "date"?

Anyway, the comment about the class action lawsuit was just me being
sarcastic. I might have started legal action if they didn't delete
my posts, as I'm pretty sure that they would have deleted them
before it got to the courts. If it had gone to court, I think the
fact they were singling me out (discrimination), and the fact that
by asking me to agree to things beyond what all the other members
agree to or else be banned would have provided enough proof that
they were violating orignal agreement since they were now asking
me to mail a written letter to accept a new agreement.

Their violation of the original agreement, combined with the fact
that I would be banned (by not agreeing to their newly imposed
rules made just for me) should have been enough to allow me to
revoke permission for them to host my posts.

> Looks like RSC has gone the way of many a forum. It's clique ridden. Most of the debates have been had now.

The new Live For Speed release and the First / iRacing situation have
provide fodder for new debate. For example, I asked for slicks for
all cars in S2 (did the same for S1, there are mods to do this for
both releases of LFS now), and faster shifters on the S2 race cars.
I was suprised at how long those threads got.

Byron Forbes wrote:

> Simply untrue. Private or not, they cannot break the law.

I agree, that's why you aren't allowed to paste links to copyrighted
material there.

I don't see how deciding what can and cannot be posted on a website
that you privately administer is violating the law.

> > Simply untrue. Private or not, they cannot break the law.
>
> I agree, that's why you aren't allowed to paste links to copyrighted
> material there.
>
> I don't see how deciding what can and cannot be posted on a website
> that you privately administer is violating the law.

What can be posted wasn't the issue. First they were violating their
own rules with their warning icons on my posts. Secondly they then
asked me to send in a written notice that I wouldn't post links
to any videos (even ones that I created), which was discrimination
against me, and that I would accept their attachment of warning icons
on my posts. The fact that they asked me to agree to a further set of
rules confirms that they were indeed violating the orignal agreement
I made when I joined RSC, otherwise no letter agreeing to a new set
of rules would have been asked for.

Because their violation of the original agreement, and because they
were going to ban me since I wouldn't agree to a new set of rules,
I revoked my permission for them to host my posts, which I considered
copyrighted, and they did delete the posts.

Had they not removed my posts, then they would have been violating
copywright laws. I also consider the attachment of warning icons
on my posts to be abusive, harassing, false, and defamatory, which
I'm sure is covered by some USA law, or at least good enough for a
civil suit. I didn't use a ficticous name on that forum, so the
circumstances are different than they would be if I had used a
ficticous name.