RSC and their mods

> Get your facts straight before posting. I never said anything about the FIA sending anything to anyone. I told you
> that if you could show me something, anything, saying that this is in the public domain, I'd remove the warning
> immediately. Otherwise, it'd disappear in a week. Is one week really that hard to take??

Since I don't have access to my PM's at RSC anymore I can't know the exact
content, but I do remember the mentioning of FIA or FOA as holding all the
rights to F1 related content. Was asking for the warning to be withdrawn
for a reasonable period until I could get proof that the video was ok
to post a link to (public domain or fair use) that hard to take?

"Dave Henrie" > wrote in message
. 97.136...
> "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



?????

Are you a mod at RSC Dave?

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:I0QNe.112604$E95.108852@fed1read01...
>>>> 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.
>

Sure. I am just commenting mainly on what Dave implied with his
comparisons.

"jason moyer" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 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.
>

So a site like RSC can be shut down if someone puts up a link to
something copyrighted? Sounds harsh. RSC is not hosting copyrighted
material. I would think all that would be required of them is to take that
link down immediately, upon request, if it comes to the attention of those
holding the copyright.

I can see the nightmarish situation that RSC is in if they are liable
for mere "links" to illegal stuff, especially considering the size of the
joint. Virtually unmanagable! Shouldn't it be the respnsibility of the
copyright holder to make it clear that their material is copyrighted -
watermarks, etc? The situation with Jeff seems grey at worst - why should
that be RSC's problem? Unmanagable!

"Scirocco" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
> news:4RANe.100042$E95.69983@fed1read01...
>> I responded to the moderator that the video in question had been in the
>> public domain for a long time, but agreed not to post a link to it at
>> RSC.
>> The moderator insisted on leaving the yellow warning unless I got the
>> FIA to mail a letter to RSC stating I had permission to host the video.
>> I responded back that this was the equivalent of being "assumed guilty
>> until proven innocent" and that it was also the equivalent of defamation
>> of character.
>>
>
> BS. Get your facts straight before posting. I never said anything about
> the FIA sending anything to anyone. I told you that if you could show me
> something, anything, saying that this is in the public domain, I'd remove
> the warning immediately. Otherwise, it'd disappear in a week. Is one
> week really that hard to take??
>
> In your infinite wisdom while trying to show how the video was in the
> "public domain", you sent me a link to another website that hosted the
> video. That site has the following disclaimer word for word: "These video
> clips are only intended for a 24 hour educational personal preview only,
> for all other purposes you have to buy the original licensed recording.
> After your 24 hour personal educational use of these clips you must delete
> them."
>

Ummm.........and thus............ there should be no problem linking to
it? Or did the link he provided not contain that info?

Was that info in the wmv itself? If not, tough titties for them!

"Scirocco" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
> news:uOtNe.88838$E95.5394@fed1read01...
>>
>> I consider the attachment of warning avatars to a person's posts to be
>> a violation of the agreement when I joined RSC. My posts at RSC were
>> a part of this agreement, and they had my implicit permission to
>> display my copyrighted posts, until they violated the agreement.
>>
>
> Why'd you stick around so long if you feel this strongly about it? It's
> not like you haven't had publicly displayed warnings before....
>

Could I have some sort of explaination of what this warning label is all
about - how does it serve me exactly? Does it protect me in some way? Why do
I need to know someone has a warning flag hanging over them?

"Byron Forbes" > wrote in news:43095941$0$15504
:

> ?????
>
> Are you a mod at RSC Dave?

two years ago I was one of two unpaid volunteer help desk moderators
for
Sim Bin's GTR 2002 mod and it's RSC forum. My partner is currently
employed by Simbin, I'm not. lol. But since that time I have been just
a user like almost everyone else. We did ban one fellow, I can't
remember who, for impersonating himself. He'd make a post, then log on
with a new name and insult his prior self, then he'd log back on as the
original name and cry for justice.

My stand about RSC has nothing to do with the mods or warnings.
Recently somebody re-installed SCC and had a problem. SCC users found a
cure for that way back when the mod was first released, but nobody could
remember the cure. Fortunately, we found the original thread and passed
on the info. Stuff like that will not be possible if RSC is vaporized.

I could give a crap about how anyone here feels about the owners and
the mods there. Nobody here can replace even the tiniest portion of
files and knowledge stored there. Until somebody can spend thier money,
spend their time, spend there knowledge assembling a replacement, then I
can't for the life of me understand why anyone would even wish ill upon
those that provide us with such a gift.

I beleive, and I don't care if there isn't any law that supports this
beleif, I beleive that RSC is privately owned and provides a free
service to me and thousands of others. If somebody has a problem with
the owners, then he can go elsewhere, After all that person isn't paying
all the server costs, the hosting and software fees, the time spent
customizing and debugging and correcting programs. Since 'I' am not
contributing to these costs, I have ZERO SAY in any action they take.
Thats my personal view. No amount of whining or namecalling or groveling
will change that. Injury via a warning is just soooo pathetic. "Yer
Honor, I'd like to sue the pants off these foriegners cuz they hurt my
feelings."
I play with toys. I race imaginary cars on imaginary tracks against
imaginary people(see you all don't really exist) I can't be bothered
with hurt feelings or slights of these kinds because my playtime is all
that matters. And it's not just a matter of me only caring if it impacts
me. No stuff like this impacts thousands. Whomever started this carping
thread, I wonder just how he was abused. His daughter wasn't stolen
from her room, his ability to earn a living was not impacted, nothing in
any of these messages rises to the importance of the hemoroid that winks
from my backside.
A real greivance, a real injury, and that I would easily support, but
this is all just so beneath grown men. My 4 year old Grandchild has
better group-play skills than what I've read here.

I don't know the owners of RSC, I beleive I may recognize one of the
names if I saw it, but I have no connection with RSC or Blackhole or
Racesim or the pits or any other site. I derive benefit from the
goodwill of others and it ****ES ME OFF that crybabies think they matter
more than the thousands of other users. Let them start their own site,
get their own files, collect their own information. But don't even begin
to whine about RSC or any other site that provides us with goodies.

What happened to the flight sim world after some of the big sites went
to a 'pay to play' model? We are so lucky here. How could ANYONE want
to lose this?

dave henrie

Freedom of speach, Freedom of opinion, these things are part of the
fabric of my country. But so too is the freedom to shut up.

Dave, hiding behind "I payed for it" and "I do it for nothing" is a cop
out and a pet hate of mine. As is over moderation or simply poor moderation
that suffocates the confidence with which one can speak to the point where
you may as well not speak.

If you set out to do something then you are obliged to do it properly -
it makes no difference whether you pay for something or are a volunteer or
whatever - do it properly or don't do it. If there's nothing in it for you
then why do it and/or pay for it in the first place?

Places like RSC are a community of people and apparently a service to
the sim community. Every member and every post they make is what makes RSC
what it is. To use powers of moderation in a vindictive and arguably
embarrassing way is not good for the RSC.

There are 2 kinds of policemen - those that use their power to enhance a
community (correct) and those that seek to dominate with a "them Vs us"
mentality worthy of a stupid dog (wrong). Simple as that.

I still would like to know how and why RSC was deleted before.

Where is the line drawn on illegal links? I could link to a page with
pirated stuff on it (or it's sub pages) that I wasn't even aware of! Why
should RSC need to work out if something is legal or not where it's not
obvious? You won't even be able to post any links at all at this rate.


"Dave Henrie" > wrote in message
. 97.136...
> "Byron Forbes" > wrote in news:43095941$0$15504
> :
>
>> ?????
>>
>> Are you a mod at RSC Dave?
>
> two years ago I was one of two unpaid volunteer help desk moderators
> for
> Sim Bin's GTR 2002 mod and it's RSC forum. My partner is currently
> employed by Simbin, I'm not. lol. But since that time I have been just
> a user like almost everyone else. We did ban one fellow, I can't
> remember who, for impersonating himself. He'd make a post, then log on
> with a new name and insult his prior self, then he'd log back on as the
> original name and cry for justice.
>
> My stand about RSC has nothing to do with the mods or warnings.
> Recently somebody re-installed SCC and had a problem. SCC users found a
> cure for that way back when the mod was first released, but nobody could
> remember the cure. Fortunately, we found the original thread and passed
> on the info. Stuff like that will not be possible if RSC is vaporized.
>
> I could give a crap about how anyone here feels about the owners and
> the mods there. Nobody here can replace even the tiniest portion of
> files and knowledge stored there. Until somebody can spend thier money,
> spend their time, spend there knowledge assembling a replacement, then I
> can't for the life of me understand why anyone would even wish ill upon
> those that provide us with such a gift.
>
> I beleive, and I don't care if there isn't any law that supports this
> beleif, I beleive that RSC is privately owned and provides a free
> service to me and thousands of others. If somebody has a problem with
> the owners, then he can go elsewhere, After all that person isn't paying
> all the server costs, the hosting and software fees, the time spent
> customizing and debugging and correcting programs. Since 'I' am not
> contributing to these costs, I have ZERO SAY in any action they take.
> Thats my personal view. No amount of whining or namecalling or groveling
> will change that. Injury via a warning is just soooo pathetic. "Yer
> Honor, I'd like to sue the pants off these foriegners cuz they hurt my
> feelings."
> I play with toys. I race imaginary cars on imaginary tracks against
> imaginary people(see you all don't really exist) I can't be bothered
> with hurt feelings or slights of these kinds because my playtime is all
> that matters. And it's not just a matter of me only caring if it impacts
> me. No stuff like this impacts thousands. Whomever started this carping
> thread, I wonder just how he was abused. His daughter wasn't stolen
> from her room, his ability to earn a living was not impacted, nothing in
> any of these messages rises to the importance of the hemoroid that winks
> from my backside.
> A real greivance, a real injury, and that I would easily support, but
> this is all just so beneath grown men. My 4 year old Grandchild has
> better group-play skills than what I've read here.
>
> I don't know the owners of RSC, I beleive I may recognize one of the
> names if I saw it, but I have no connection with RSC or Blackhole or
> Racesim or the pits or any other site. I derive benefit from the
> goodwill of others and it ****ES ME OFF that crybabies think they matter
> more than the thousands of other users. Let them start their own site,
> get their own files, collect their own information. But don't even begin
> to whine about RSC or any other site that provides us with goodies.
>
> What happened to the flight sim world after some of the big sites went
> to a 'pay to play' model? We are so lucky here. How could ANYONE want
> to lose this?
>
> dave henrie
>
> Freedom of speach, Freedom of opinion, these things are part of the
> fabric of my country. But so too is the freedom to shut up.
>
>
>

"jason moyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jeff Reid wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> It's a private forum that you chose to participate in voluntarily. The
> administrators and moderators of the site can run it however they see
> fit, and if you don't like it you can either deal with them personally
> or go somewhere else.

You mean like banning me after I answered Tim Wheatley's post, as site
founder, that all the writers and staff on AutoSimSport were "lying immoral
filth"? And not allowing me the ability to answer Crumbut's libelous
statement that I had "said" I lied? And his refusal to retract his open,
published lie?

.... the fact of the matter is that there is a small minority of
knuckle-draggers at RSC led by John Schoen who are quite willing to have RSC
erased off the ether because what matters to them is not the community, but
their own personal glory - but RSc has always been so, and as it says in
rule 1.4,

"you accept the right to be John Schoen and friends' Biatch by posting here,
and moderators/founders and admins of RSC may slander, libel, edit, censure,
or otherwise mess with your life as they see fit. And btw, donations are
welcome ... and will be well-spent on finding new ways of censuring the
community"

If these small minority of moderators at RSC want to continue its assault on
the free speech of this community, they should do so not by asking the
community for donations. And whilst RSc is a private forum, its posts are
open and readable without being a member, and therefore fall under direct
publication laws - as such, all it would need from me is one call to tele.dk
to have RSC erased off the planet.

I choose not to do so because the vast majority of this community should
not be penalised by the actions of a bunch of wannabe fascists led by John
Schoen; having said this, though, it is unquestionably a matter of time
before they libel the wrong person, and RSC will become history - John
Schoen and moderators like him, who actively promote libel and illegal acts
of speech, will oversee the destruction of RSC ... and while at the moment
only maybe a few dozen community members have suffered at his - and his
acolytes' actions - their actions will eventually result in all the
community losing one of its most important facets.

And when that time comes, John Schoen and his band of buddies, will only
have themselves to blame.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

For the most part, web site BBS's suck. One grand exception to this is the
one at HardOCP.com. THAT place is how a web site BBS should be run.

True freedom of expression (or at least as true as it can get) can only be
had in a newsgroup.

For better or worse, the good with the bad.

-Larry

"Darus" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Is it just me or are the moderators at RSC even more restrictive than
> ever? It <seems> like more and more ppl. there have threads locked or
> deleted, get "yellow warnings" and are otherwise muted by the
> moderators. The mods seem to be the "be all, end all" on what is and is
> not pertinent to a particular topic. If a mod doesn't like a topic or
> the way a thread is going, they delete or lock it. I understand that
> they have rules and a certain level of conduct is needed (i.e. no
> racial slurs, swearing etc.) but far too many posts are deemed
> "stupid", "unneeded" or "pointless". As they approach 200,000 threads
> and 2.5 MILLION posts and 70,000 members, is the censorship of its
> users going to worsen? One doesn't have to agree with a post or
> thread, but they can still allow a thread to continue within the posted
> rules. Certainly, posts soley intended to flame others aren't needed,
> but a lively discussion on a topic in which ppl. have much passion on
> both sides should be allowed.
>
> I know, I know, "you don't HAVE to post there" or "if you don't like
> the rules, leave" etc., but what USED to be a superior website for all
> things Sim Racing, is now a website for supersized egos and
> mega-powertrippers.
>