 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Simulators / Car Simulators / August 2005RSC, why was Legends Central delted?
Under: "Why don't other sites care about the things we do?" Maybe they didn't have their site deleted once due to a mistake by a site member? That happened to RSC (then Legends Central) in 2001. We also have a good relationship with some publishers and developers simply because of the rules we uphold, without their co-operation we could not continue to develop the site and could not get the access we enjoy. What is the actual story behind this. How can a web site get "deleted"? Does this mean that someone came in and deleted all your databases, or did you just lose an ISP? If so, why couldn't you just find another ISP to host your server? > What is the actual story behind this. How can a web site get "deleted"? 2 quick thoughts: 1. answering your query is fairly pointless given that asking it already shows that you probably wouldn't understand the answer 2. jesus, get over it >> What is the actual story behind this. How can a web site get "deleted"? > > 1. answering your query is fairly pointless given that asking it > already shows that you probably wouldn't understand the answer I think some here are curious about this. The statement that a mistake by a member cause their site to be deleted isn't very clear. Was the mistake related to a forum posting or something else, like a illegal download (pirated software) on the LC web site, not related to the forum? An ISP can shut down a web site, but shouldn't be able to delete any of it's content. The web site can just go find a new ISP and change the domain link. >> What is the actual story behind this. How can a web site get "deleted"? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 2. jesus, get over it I would actually like to know about this too. I assume an ISP has taken the site down after a complaint from someone about a link or post. ISPs would need to be very careful about that. I'd like to know for sure! :) > I would actually like to know about this too. > > I assume an ISP has taken the site down after a complaint from someone > about a link or post. ISPs would need to be very careful about that. > > I'd like to know for sure! :) Based on the wording, someone was doing administration to the site and accidentally deleted it. It's not really an uncommon thing, altho hopefully you'd have at least nightly backups to pull from. >> I would actually like to know about this too. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > accidentally deleted it. It's not really an uncommon thing, altho > hopefully you'd have at least nightly backups to pull from. Well, the main point is, it wasn't legal action against them. And thus, it seems that RSC has never been shut down for legal reasons? So why be so conservative at the expense of those you are supposed to be serving? > And thus, it seems that RSC has never been shut down for legal reasons? > So why be so conservative at the expense of those you are supposed to be > serving? 2 things come to mind: 1. They don't want to invite legal action that could potentially threaten the site. 2. They have a special relationship with all of the major sim developers and don't want to jeopardize that. >> And thus, it seems that RSC has never been shut down for legal >> reasons? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 2. They have a special relationship with all of the major sim > developers and don't want to jeopardize that. 1. Is not a possibility, I have evidence. 2. Then they should cease asking for donations. > 1. Is not a possibility, I have evidence. > 2. Then they should cease asking for donations. You should present some of that evidence instead of constantly sounding like a bitter jackass who was rightfully banned for being a dickhead. >> 1. Is not a possibility, I have evidence. >> 2. Then they should cease asking for donations. > > You should present some of that evidence instead of constantly sounding > like a bitter jackass who was rightfully banned for being a dickhead. Surprisingly eloquent considering you probably just finished your soggy-biscuit. >> And thus, it seems that RSC has never been shut down for legal >> reasons? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 1. They don't want to invite legal action that could potentially > threaten the site. Looks and sounds to me like they need to push the envelope a little more - too timid imo. I mean, who would really give a stuff about someone linking to that fairly poor quality mpg? > 2. They have a special relationship with all of the major sim > developers and don't want to jeopardize that. That link is far from an example of piracy! Especially software piracy. >>What is the actual story behind this. How can a web site get "deleted"? > > 2 quick thoughts: > > 1. answering your query is fairly pointless given that asking it > already shows that you probably wouldn't understand the answer Don't be stupid! It's fair question. The answer can't be rocket science. gee the computer the site was hosted on, had the contents of the drive/folder got deleted by mistake, how hard could tha have been to do? IFIAK easy... whooo enlightened us with: >>> What is the actual story behind this. How can a web site get >>> "deleted"? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Don't be stupid! It's fair question. The answer can't be rocket > science. In 2001, a legends central subsite owner posted some illegal content of some sort on his portion of the site. i'm sorry I don't remember exactly what it was but I remember it wasn't a grey-area and violated the webhost company's terms of service pretty blatantly. The site was shut down (and yes, 'deleted' by them). It was down for a period and rebuilt on another webhost. So... there ya go :) > In 2001, a legends central subsite owner posted some illegal content of > some sort on his portion of the site. i'm sorry I don't remember > exactly what it was but I remember it wasn't a grey-area and violated > the webhost company's terms of service pretty blatantly. The site was > shut down (and yes, 'deleted' by them). It was down for a period and > rebuilt on another webhost. So... there ya go :) So this is a far cry from a member posting a link to a video. I don't know, but you guys feel free (as usual) to construe/add/replace facts in order to support whatever assinine point you're all trying to make against each other, I just mentioned it for those who honestly were curious. Back to lurking. - Carl > I don't know, but you guys feel free (as usual) to construe/add/replace > facts in order to support whatever assinine point you're all trying to > make against each other, I just mentioned it for those who honestly > were curious. Back to lurking. - Carl I was curious. No matter what, though I'll never consider RSC's public warning system as justified. As stated before, it's not needed, as no other forum does this. > no other forum does this. http://www.google.com/search?q=ubb+forum+rules+warnings >> posting public warnings >> no other forum does this. > http://www.google.com/search?q=ubb+forum+rules+warnings Very few of the hits on this site include forums that attach public warnings. Most of the sites that had warning systems mention that moderators send emails or private mails to the accused person. Of the few forums that appear to optionally apply public warning tags, all of those include this fact in their new member agreements. RSC does not include anything regarding their public warning system. > 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 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.... > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you've known exists for quite some time. It's not like you hadn't been > warned with a public warning before.... No one at RSC has explained the reasons for the use of this public warning caper yet. We're waiting! > No one at RSC has explained the reasons for the use of this public > warning caper yet. We're waiting! Has anyone even bothered to try to find someone who would answer this yet or would everyone just prefer to bitch about it? If you had a question on the store policy at Bed Bath & Beyond, wouldn't you ask the store owners/managers about it instead of the customers at Sears next door??? I highly doubt everyone at RSC reads RAS. Of those that do, I'm sure that even fewer respond. If anyone really cared what the answer was instead of just wanting to bitch about it, it's not very hard to figure out where to ask the question.... >> No one at RSC has explained the reasons for the use of this public warning caper yet. We're waiting! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sure that even fewer respond. If anyone really cared what the answer was instead of just wanting to bitch about it, > it's not very hard to figure out where to ask the question.... Well you're responding to this thread, and you're a RSC moderator, why can't you find out and respond here? > Well you're responding to this thread, and you're a RSC moderator, why > can't > you find out and respond here? http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=35566&highlight=public+warning If anyone needs more, they'll need to ask someone other than me. Personally, I've never been able to figure out what's so bad about having a warning attached to an avatar. I've received a yellow before and never thought twice about the visibility of it. >> Well you're responding to this thread, and you're a RSC moderator, why can't you find out and respond here? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so bad about having a warning attached to an avatar. I've received a yellow before and never thought twice about the > visibility of it. Well according to that thread, a RSC moderator stated that members were ignoring private emails (although this doesn't make sense, if you get enough warnings, you get banned), so they use the public warning system, (apparently they think this is more of a deterrent, which confirms my belief that it's simply a vindicitive punishment, that violates RSC's own rules about abuse and harrassment). Private warnings work just fine on every other forum I visit, so why is it that RSC needs a public warning system? I don't think it's the members with the problem, it's the moderators. Regarding the google search previously mentioned, find one other racing game oriented site that has a public warning system. >>> Well you're responding to this thread, and you're a RSC moderator, why >>> can't you find out and respond here? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > my belief that it's simply a vindicitive punishment, that violates > RSC's own rules about abuse and harrassment). They really are full of it over there aren't they. You would use the sites messaging system anyway do that so that the next time someone visited RSC they couldn't miss it - a better "feature" than this stupid public warning would be to not let them post until it is seen they have read their warning message. > Private warnings work just fine on every other forum I visit, so why > is it that RSC needs a public warning system? I don't think it's the > members with the problem, it's the moderators. Neither one has seemed to work for certain members, so it'd be them with the problem..... > Regarding the google search previously mentioned, find one other racing > game oriented site that has a public warning system. Go for it. How could any sane person expect someone to go through every page on every forum they can find looking for a publicly displayed warning??? >> Private warnings work just fine on every other forum I visit, so why >> is it that RSC needs a public warning system? I don't think it's the >> members with the problem, it's the moderators. > > Neither one has seemed to work for certain members, so it'd be them with the problem..... Why did RSC delete the thread you referred to earlier? > Regarding the google search previously mentioned, find one other racing > game oriented site that has a public warning system. It doesn't matter what kind of forum it is and in 5 minutes I've found: http://www.uncommonforum.com/ 2nd Offence: A further Private Message, and a public warning on the Forum and deletion of the offending post. http://www.denden-forums.com/rules.php People who constantly diss persons because of their views, religion, sexuality, gender or origin or spread a general negative atmosphere or otherwise try their best to make the forum less enjoyable for the majority will receive punishment in form of a public warning or ban. http://webdesign.templatemonster.com/forum/rules.php 2. Public warning from moderator http://www.webproworld.com/rules.html 2nd Offense - Public warning on the message board plus deletion of post http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/faq.php Second or subsequent violations: public warning, post(s) edited/moved and account suspension. http://www.dpwr.net/guidelines.php 3rd Warning: Public warning, notification by PM of violation. User will have all contributions to the website moderated for one (1) week. 4th Warning: Public warning, notification through PM of violation. User will have their posting permissions removed for one (1) week 5th Warning: Public warning, notification through e-mail of violation. User's account will be banned and will not be permitted to return under any circumstances. >> Regarding the google search previously mentioned, find one other racing >> game oriented site that has a public warning system. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 5th Warning: Public warning, notification through e-mail of violation. User's account will be banned and will not be > permitted to return under any circumstances. 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. > Note that all of these forums cleary spell this out in their rules. > RSC does not. http://www.rscnet.org/index.php?&page=siterules Additionally, you agreed to this when you created an account: Forum Rules Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index. Although the administrators and moderators of Race Sim Central Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Race Sim Central Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message. By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws. The owners of Race Sim Central Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason. >> Note that all of these forums cleary spell this out in their rules. >> RSC does not. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The owners of Race Sim Central Forums reserve the right to remove, > edit, move or close any thread for any reason. I was banned for following sirocco's suggestion of posting a question about the public warning system at RSC. What rule did this violate? > 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. >> Regarding the google search previously mentioned, find one other racing >> game oriented site that has a public warning system. > > It doesn't matter what kind of forum it is and in 5 minutes I've found: > http://www.uncommonforum.com/ > 2nd Offence: A further Private Message, and a public warning on the Forum and deletion of the offending post. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 5th Warning: Public warning, notification through e-mail of violation. User's account will be banned and will not be > permitted to return under any circumstances. After looking at these forums, it takes a pretty serious post, like creating a denial of service attack in the webdesign forum before you get a warning. Almost all of these sites will not issue a public warning on the first offesne, only issue the warning on the affect thread, and clearly include the information about the public warning system in there rules. RSC doesn't mention anything about their public warning system. Post warning on all threads by a member, and give warnings for much less serious issues than those decribed on other forums. They've gone to the trouble to delete the one thread you referred to, and the one of us (zx12rcr) that did what you suggested and asked about this at RSC, appparently has been banned. Seem likes RSC is doing everything they can, deleting posts, banning members to prevent any open discussion of their public warning system on their site. >> Well you're responding to this thread, and you're a RSC moderator, why >> can't >> you find out and respond here? >> > http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=35566&highlight=public+warning PHP has encountered an Access Violation at 7C83248B > If anyone needs more, they'll need to ask someone other than me. > Personally, I've never been able to figure out what's so bad about having > a warning attached to an avatar. I've received a yellow before and never > thought twice about the visibility of it. No one at RSC has explained the reasons for the use of this public warning caper yet. We're waiting! >> Well you're responding to this thread, and you're a RSC moderator, why can't you find out and respond here? > http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=35566&highlight=public+warning > If anyone needs more, they'll need to ask someone other than me. Personally, I've never been able to figure out what's > so bad about having a warning attached to an avatar. I've received a yellow before and never thought twice about the > visibility of it. RSC deleted that thread, what a wonderful site you run. You should be proud that RSC goes to such lenghts to cover up any complaints about their policies. Obviously the feel they have something to hide now. > If anyone needs more, they'll need to ask someone other than me. Based on zx12rcr's response, apparently anyone who asks about the rules ends up getting banned. >> No one at RSC has explained the reasons for the use of this public warning caper yet. We're waiting! > > Has anyone even bothered to try to find someone who would answer this yet Have you? You're a RSC moderator. As a representative of RSC, I would think you would do the proper thing and respond here. You've had several posts here in multiple threads, but still haven't answered the question. I can't ask myself because I refused to agrree to an additional set of rules made just for me to permit the abuse and harrasement from RSC, and was banned by Mbrio for refusing to this new set of rules. > Has anyone even bothered to try to find someone who would answer this yet? Yes, responded to the thread you posted in GPL section and started a new thread in the rules section. Now I find my account isn't working, and it appears that the threads were deleted. So it appears this is the only place to ask about this, since RSC is apparently too ashamed to discuss this in public. I didn't even receive an email from RSC explainging why my account isn't working. >> No one at RSC has explained the reasons for the use of this public >> warning caper yet. We're waiting! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > just wanting to bitch about it, it's not very hard to figure out where to > ask the question.... No one at RSC has explained the reasons for the use of this public warning caper yet. We're waiting! >> 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: [QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] 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 ) >>> RSC does not include anything regarding their public warning >>> system. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > 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: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 here: 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). > 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? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. > In 2001, a legends central subsite owner posted some illegal content of > some sort on his portion of the site. i'm sorry I don't remember > exactly what it was but I remember it wasn't a grey-area and violated > the webhost company's terms of service pretty blatantly. The site was > shut down (and yes, 'deleted' by them). It was down for a period and > rebuilt on another webhost. So... there ya go :) Thanks for the relevent info. Key word - blatant. Mind you, I still wonder what the circumstances were. If the site took it down as soon as made aware of it then what bloody right does an ISP have to delete the entire site? Maybe the ISP's attitude is that's the price RSC pay for being so large and thus hard to manage? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.