A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Simulators
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RSC and their mods



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old August 22nd 05, 06:41 PM
Jeff Reid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Where is the line drawn on illegal links?

Appaently, it's only OK for the moderators to do this.

One of them started a thread "NR2003 mods", that included
links to sites that had the NR2005 mod that RSC supposedly
banned. The NR2005 mod was later deleted from that other
site, but only because First / iRacing was threatening
every web site they could find to delete such mods.





Ads
  #92  
Old August 22nd 05, 06:45 PM
Jeff Reid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Nobody here can replace even the tiniest portion of
> files and knowledge stored there.


And nobody here is out to shut down RSC or cause them financial
harm. Some of us just want RSC to do their policing privately
and fairly. How could anyone be harmed if RSC switched their
warning system so that it was only done privately, the same
as every other forum I'm aware of?




  #93  
Old August 22nd 05, 06:49 PM
Jeff Reid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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"


I must have missed that rule when I joined up at RSC.


  #94  
Old August 22nd 05, 07:25 PM
John DiFool
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:30:36 -0500, Dave Henrie
> wrote:


> 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.


But as the most visible site in the sim racing community, you don't
think they shoulder a responsibility to be professional, impartial,
non-hypocritical, and non-confrontational? I do.

John DiFool

  #95  
Old August 22nd 05, 10:14 PM
Plowboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Typical,

The persons who go around shooting people robbing banks, bitch loudest
about the conditions & legality of the jail/punishment... go figure
Jeff Reid enlightened us with:
>> 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 ...



  #96  
Old August 22nd 05, 10:41 PM
Scirocco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:tE9Oe.119174$E95.87076@fed1read01...
> Your's is the only forum that publicly displays warnings, no other forum
> does this. The only possible purpose of such public displaying of warnings
> is to punish, and therefore cause harm, to the victims of your warning
> system.
> Since the intent such action is to cause harm, and is not covered in the
> agreement made when a new member signs up, your on shaky legal ground
> here,
> as no member of RSC has consented to your public abuse and harassment with
> the intent to cause harm. If it ends up causing problems for RSC, then
> it's
> your own fault.


I still don't understand how a warning could someone you any harm. Also, I
had nothing to do with the situation going past a simple yellow warning for
a week. Hell, I've had a yellow warning myself and never felt like I was
harmed or a victim of "defamation of character".

> Both you and Mbrio turned this molehill into a mountain. You deleted the
> link, claiming the video was copywrighted (based on your assumption, not
> fact), this was OK with me. Then rather than suspending the warning for a
> reasonable time to allow me to detmine if it was OK to have a link to the
> video (either under fair use or public domain laws), you stated that
> instead
> the warning would stay until I had the FIA or FOA sent you a letter
> stating
> I had permission to link to that video.


More BS, the following is a copy/paste of what I said:
"Formula One Administrations Ltd should hold the copyrights on videos. If
you can show where FOA or another division in the F1 empire such as Formula
One Licensing BV has held and since then released the videos into the
"public domain", I'll lift the warning. Otherwise, it'll only be a week and
yellow isn't that bad a color, is it?"

I have NEVER said the warning would stay for longer than 1 week or demanded,
or even requested for that matter, a letter from the FIA or FOA....

> This was unreasonable. Next when I
> mentioned that your public warnings were the equivalent of defamation of
> character (referring to your own rule 4.1), Mbrio steps in and first
> tells me I can never post a link to any video, even one that I had made,
> and later asks me to send a letter stating that I would agree to your
> public attachemnt of warning labels. This clearly shows you were violating
> your own agreement and rules, because if the public warning policy was
> covered by the original agreement no additional agreement would be
> required.


Unfortunately, I can't comment on anything that went on between you and
another member of the staff, only what I did or said.


  #97  
Old August 22nd 05, 10:48 PM
Scirocco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news_9Oe.119568$E95.14038@fed1read01...
> 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?
>


Had you actually asked, I would've given you a day or two. You didn't and
let things escalate with your accusations of "defamation of character".


  #98  
Old August 22nd 05, 10:50 PM
Scirocco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:QP9Oe.119371$E95.26654@fed1read01...
> Your wrong, that website did not host that video. I just grabbed the
> first hit I got on google for F1 videos and ended up picking a bad
> example.
> You didn't mention that I had emailed you that this particular site was a
> bad
> example, taking advantage of a USA law that extend privileges for
> eductional
> purposes.
>


You sent me that message as 21:37, after I logged off for the evening. By
the time I read it the next day, you were already banned.


  #99  
Old August 22nd 05, 10:54 PM
Scirocco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jeff Reid" > wrote in message
news:Y57Oe.115977$E95.93828@fed1read01...
> It was just one thread, with a lot of the LFS fanatics trying to defend
> a game with flawed phsycis, claiming this is how real cars behave, when
> in fact LFS S1 didn't model how real cars behaved at the limits.
>
> Note that none of the moderators complained about any of my posts
> regarding the flaws in LFS.
>


I think a few were merged or closed because they were duplicate threads or
turned into a slugfest, but there's nothing inherently wrong with posting
your opinions of flaws in LFS.


  #100  
Old August 22nd 05, 11:41 PM
Remco Moedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:41:02 -0400, "Scirocco" > wrote:


<Snip all>

You are so wrong!


Cheers!


Remco

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.