Nothing wrong with that.
When was it ?
And why *WE* ? You are speaking for yourself or for everyone here ?
And you made a picture of it ? For what reason ?
Why not just contact a Staffmember and ASK , why your report was handled like that ?
I don't know when it was exactly.
I am speaking for myself.
I kept a screenshot of it because I thought it was interesting.
Why not contact me about the alert in a manner in which I have an opportunity to respond, instead of anonymously, sarcastically and with no opportunity to continue the conversation?
With regard to your original post - yest I do appear to understand how it works at RD because the alert I received made it abundantly clear.
If people report mods to you that they think are rips, you will only remove them from the site on instruction from the original author.
I'm not sure that the authors of such mods are going to be the first people knocking on your door asking you to take it down.
Recently a Jordan 191 submission was taken down - quite understandably - because the uploader had not first obtained permission from the original author.
How come the same rule was not applied to the two Australian tracks, ACU Albert Park and ACU Bathurst?
Both of which I reported, and both of which give 'credit to ACU' but at no point does the uploader claim to be the creator of the mod. No evidence of the build process is provided in either.
Do different mods apply different rules to takedowns? Do RD take the matter of uncopyrighted submissions seriously?
http://www.racedepartment.com/downloads/albert-park-league-version.8147/
http://www.racedepartment.com/downloads/bathurst.8677/
