bernie
|
|
« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2013, 09:57:30 PM +0100 » |
|
Chill out you guys this is Privateers not Pro , supposed to be fun racing for improvers novices and hopefuls , some like me who are long past there sell by date If you want the kind of serious racing you seem to crave I suggest you might like to move up a level to Pro's and BTW I dont think the FIA rules for 1982 or any other year count in UKGPL
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
maddog
|
|
« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2013, 10:53:17 PM +0100 » |
|
I agree. We are mostly more gentlemanly at Ukgpl, and here to have fun. There are some fast guys who will make their displeasure known, because winning is important. For most, fun racing is most important, and we all have to learn how to make this happen. You're mistaken about F1 rules never being used Bernie. When I appealed a bad decision, I was given a modern F1 rule, as reason for my penalty. I've been racing 65's a lot less since. It's a good job our Moderators are mostly here to help us have fun. That includes sorting out a lapping incident - common sense rules?
|
|
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 10:55:19 PM +0100 by maddog »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BadBlood
Former UKGPL Moderators
Hero Member
Posts: 6107
Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly!
|
|
« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2013, 11:01:48 PM +0100 » |
|
The rule was quoted as it currently is in modern F1, but has been commonly accepted for much longer. That was not why the appeal was disallowed. Four wheels beyond the lines would have been off-track in 1965, let alone 1967.
|
|
|
Logged
|
BadBlood aka Angel Moose GPLRank +71.5ish GPL65Rank +71.1ish Other ranks? Middlin' Slowish
|
|
|
bernie
|
|
« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2013, 11:15:35 PM +0100 » |
|
I agree. We are mostly more gentlemanly at Ukgpl, and here to have fun. There are some fast guys who will make their displeasure known, because winning is important. For most, fun racing is most important, and we all have to learn how to make this happen. You're mistaken about F1 rules never being used Bernie. When I appealed a bad decision, I was given a modern F1 rule, as reason for my penalty. I've been racing 65's a lot less since. It's a good job our Moderators are mostly here to help us have fun. That includes sorting out a lapping incident - common sense rules? Sir , I believe you are putting my good judgement and credability into disrepute ? There is only one way to settle this I must insist Pistols at dawn You will be hearing from my seconds just as soon as I've saved enough green shield stamps to get my guns out of hock
|
|
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 11:28:56 PM +0100 by bernie »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
maddog
|
|
« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2013, 11:54:41 PM +0100 » |
|
"Have a care Sir!" I choose gear sticks at dawn. But I'd like to see the Moderators rulebook first. If either of us were to consequently pass, carelessly, would that be grounds for a penalty? And supposing there were grass under foot, would that cause an unsavory outcoming? And to Paul - it's not in your interest to commence debate on a long past incident. This discussion would follow along similar lines to the recent, mid-season rule change debate. Better to, 'Let sleeping dogs lie.' . . . . . hang on . . . . "Curses!"
|
|
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 11:59:32 PM +0100 by maddog »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BadBlood
Former UKGPL Moderators
Hero Member
Posts: 6107
Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly!
|
|
« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2013, 12:12:20 AM +0100 » |
|
Martin - it is you that constantly brings up the past. You didn't agree with the moderation. The appeal failed. As for the moderator's rulebook - it is here - open to all. It feels like you are quietly sniping at the moderation team which is not the 'gentlemanly' behaviour that UKGPL encourages. Maybe it is mis-interpretation of your 'humour' but that is how it reads. I suspect you know that. "It's a good job our Moderators are mostly here to help us have fun." implies that sometimes the Mod team are there to ensure you don't have fun or that some moderators always do that. Subtle. Actually we are there to do all the boring admin that enables the league to function at all and we are also there to ensure the rules are clear and, where possible, adhered to.
|
|
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 12:39:26 AM +0100 by BadBlood »
|
Logged
|
BadBlood aka Angel Moose GPLRank +71.5ish GPL65Rank +71.1ish Other ranks? Middlin' Slowish
|
|
|
maddog
|
|
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2013, 08:35:34 AM +0100 » |
|
Dear Paul,
Agreed, the technicalities are boring unless personally involved. They are then suddenly of great interest. As you seem interested, here's my perspective . . .
Fairness is a part of Gentlemanly behavior. It's one of the rigors of Moderating. The outcome of my now rapidly becoming famous dispute, was to create a new overarching definition of an offtrack incident, which removes earlier flexibility when Moderators are judging what is fair. A modern F1 approach was adopted, though such was not in use during our racing era.
My irritation was caused by the application of an ill-defined rule, backed up by modern F1 regulations. I believe the purpose of tightening the rulebook, was to lessen the need for the use of common sense by Moderating staff - it's become more black & white. As I've not ventured into this area since it's re-invention, it's had no personal effect.
Such a vigorous response from you, was not expected? A point was raised by Bernie, and I corrected him. A reminder that common sense is an asset, and leads to wiser rulings is not an unusual viewpoint. It's not necessarily in a racers nature to enjoy restrictive rules, but when applied wisely they can help to foster gentlemanly behavior. I believe this is where I came in?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BadBlood
Former UKGPL Moderators
Hero Member
Posts: 6107
Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly!
|
|
« Reply #37 on: April 10, 2013, 10:51:02 AM +0100 » |
|
That is a much more measured reply and is appreciated but you will be aware that there has been a lot of discussion about how moderating decisions have been too subjective and should be based on better defined rules and standards. My issue (and the reason for the reply) is that you keep referring back to that appeal to highlight how 'poor' decisions continue to be made. You have also not addressed the fact that you (even if unintentionally) continue to denigrate the Moderating team - or perhaps just one member of it? Hence the 'robust' reply. I believe the purpose of tightening the rulebook, was to lessen the need for the use of common sense by Moderating staff
You should know that to be untrue. It was to provide a standard by which incidents can be judged. If all four wheels are beyond a well defined track limit you are 'off-track' and have to be careful when coming back on. That does not mean you cannot do it. On some tracks it is unavoidable if you want a quick time. It does mean that you have to be cognisant of other drivers around you and you cannot just wander back onto the track. The ruling (not the rule) implies a specific 'right of way'. Moderators have, and still can, apply the rule in the way they see best fits - using 'Common Sense'.
|
|
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 10:56:09 AM +0100 by BadBlood »
|
Logged
|
BadBlood aka Angel Moose GPLRank +71.5ish GPL65Rank +71.1ish Other ranks? Middlin' Slowish
|
|
|
maddog
|
|
« Reply #38 on: April 10, 2013, 12:57:49 PM +0100 » |
|
My reply was more thoughtful, as this matter threatens to take energy from your other Ukgpl duties. I'm happy to hear in your last paragraph, that the added rules have actually added flexibility to the system. And I have at no time said that poor decisions are being made, in this context. The decision making process has become more automated, and this can create limitations.
There's no doubt here as-to your commitment to a fair, and even handed system of Moderation. It's not a driving requirement to agree with every aspect of that process. Civilized behaviour achieved with the fewest possible restrictions, would be my aim. But I'm not running a clandestine campaign for President, or Ukgpl leadership. I am willing to voice an opinion, where I think it's useful.
When Bernie has a chuckle about a dispute, and I join in his humor, I don't expect a heavy hand from above, for not doggedly towing the line. I will continue to expect an honest opinion to be tolerated. The world is full of checks and balances. I'm not a Czech, so I must be a balance. Wishing you well,
Martin.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BadBlood
Former UKGPL Moderators
Hero Member
Posts: 6107
Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly!
|
|
« Reply #39 on: April 10, 2013, 08:35:23 PM +0100 » |
|
OK. Thanks for the clarifications.
See you on track sometime.
|
|
|
Logged
|
BadBlood aka Angel Moose GPLRank +71.5ish GPL65Rank +71.1ish Other ranks? Middlin' Slowish
|
|
|
maddog
|
|
« Reply #40 on: April 26, 2013, 10:43:14 PM +0100 » |
|
I don't usually have reason to comment on a incident report. I confess a meeting with Tintin, on the occasion of the 1st turn. Judgement is I warped into his car, when both the Server, and my Client replay clearly show a reasonable distance between us. The warp veered him into my path. It's quite possible I would've caught his nose as I squeezed . . . umm, but the diagnosis gives me a slight headache!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BadBlood
Former UKGPL Moderators
Hero Member
Posts: 6107
Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly!
|
|
« Reply #41 on: April 26, 2013, 11:18:27 PM +0100 » |
|
The judgement is that warp was not actually a major factor Martin. I can see no evidence of violent movement in the server or client replay that usually characterises warp. There is some small movement which is usually an adjustment due to collision box overlap but you are correct in saying that there is a gap between the cars. That isn't warp - that is collision box overlap which drivers have to allow for. Do feel free to appeal it if you are unhappy - that would not be something I could take part in but I really don't think warp was much of an issue here.
Take a look at 59secs + 20 frames. Tintins car 'hops' so that it is parallel with yours as your car reaches its closest point. Tintins car than diverges from yours until you hit the wall and bounce back into his path. You clearly did all you could to avoid the collision once it was clear how slow Tintin was but this was the inside of T1 L1 when caution is required. Hence the verdict.
|
|
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 11:30:11 PM +0100 by BadBlood »
|
Logged
|
BadBlood aka Angel Moose GPLRank +71.5ish GPL65Rank +71.1ish Other ranks? Middlin' Slowish
|
|
|
BadBlood
Former UKGPL Moderators
Hero Member
Posts: 6107
Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly!
|
|
« Reply #42 on: April 26, 2013, 11:22:22 PM +0100 » |
|
As you can see, Moderation published. Sorry for the lateness.
|
|
|
Logged
|
BadBlood aka Angel Moose GPLRank +71.5ish GPL65Rank +71.1ish Other ranks? Middlin' Slowish
|
|
|
maddog
|
|
« Reply #43 on: April 26, 2013, 11:49:07 PM +0100 » |
|
I've no reason to appeal - I've no quarrel with Moderation when a warp free outcome might easily have been the same. I've also no reason to recheck a replay as I'm aware of physics, and how it applies to a moving body. It took me years to get it right.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AnGex
|
|
« Reply #44 on: April 27, 2013, 10:05:28 AM +0100 » |
|
As you can see, Moderation published. Sorry for the lateness.
All-right then, thanks for your work Paul. I don´t know what exactly it is, but somehow I like your explanation in the Moderation. So long Andreas
|
|
|
Logged
|
Get up, stand up: stand up for your right! Get up, stand up: don't give up the fight!
|
|
|
|