1. Lewis Hamilton 2. Sebastian Vettel 3. Daniel Ricciardo 4. Kimi Raikkonen 5. Valtteri Bottas 6. Sergio Perez 7. Esteban Ocon 8. Felipe Massa 9. Nico Hulkenberg 10. Romain Grosjean 11. Carlos Sainz 12. Daniil Kvyat Force India 13. Lance Stroll 14. Kevin Magnussen 15. Jolyon Palmer 16. Marcus Ericsson Force India 17. Pascal Wehrlein
Force India Max Verstappen Force India Stoffel Vandoorne Force India Fernando Alonso
Hamilton 1st, Lewis Hamilton Hamilton 1st, Vettel 2nd
Advanced predictions: we'll likely see immediate announcements stating that following this race, William Bennett5 is leaving the Bambi and The Molester team, and that he's officially withdrawing from the Championship.
So, it appears that I am currently on track to hit somewhere between 15 and 25 laps, God willing. Or Way. 😁 I’ll be content regardless of the outcome, though naturally, I would be more satisfied if the number were higher! 😬
This post has been flagged. Generally speaking, a warning is issued when someone opens a thread regarding topics reported less than 24 hours ago. However, this specific topic wasn't even submitted within that 24-hour window. Let's refrain from doing this, please.
Click on the report icon and give the moderators at least 24 hours to review it. Only after that should you even consider opening a formal grievance thread.
darkmarlin16 said:I'm not sure if Smith will even make it to the end of the season😢
Hmm, I’m not entirely sure what kind of specific contract Smith has with Convic, but if he isn't looking to jump ship—or if he fails to post two consecutive predictions—it seems unlikely he'll leave the team, regardless of how abysmal his results might be. At least, that is what Section 8 of the Regulations suggests.
Until someone from the Offtopic management team steps up, I’d like to point out two things: - First, simply maintaining multiple accounts isn't against the rules; what's forbidden is operating them simultaneously to create confusion among the community. - Second, while I truly appreciate the effort people put in to assist the moderators, pointing out profile links doesn't automatically prove someone is running a clone account. Ultimately, the determination of whether an account is an unauthorized clone rests solely with the moderator.
If we were to ban every single user that another member flagged as a clone, there would be thousands more bans on the books than there are currently.
granitefalcon26, you've been part of this community for years now, so you understand the inner workings of this forum. Moderators, much like anyone else in the world, carry their own personal biases; however, their duty is to moderate based on the established rules, not their individual opinions. We are all human, and it is certainly possible for personal views to occasionally cloud judgment—which is precisely why the appeal process exists. But if you truly intend to lodge a complaint regarding a moderator's conduct, I suggest you find specific instances where inconsistent criteria were applied and provide those links here.
Congratulations to everyone in the standings, especially the gentlemen on the podium—and a special shoutout to Tyler Bennett5 for keeping those Bambis afloat.
Terry Carter2 said:Some of us are just going to try and forget this round as quickly as possible. 😁
Michael Morgan5 said:Hey... back again. I wasn't really paying attention when you were outlining the distinctions between those three groups you mentioned, but based on how you replied to J. Wayne's post, I got the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that mocking politicians is perfectly fine, whereas mocking other users or specific social groups is off-limits. If that’s the case, why was I handed a warning for suggesting that Taritaš needs a paper bag over her head, while a whole crowd of people debating Kolinda get away with far more offensive comments without any penalty? If I've missed the point here, could someone please clarify?
I agree; if the rules apply to Kolinda, they should just as easily apply to Anka mrak. Consider your warning rescinded. Moving forward, please use the designated thread for appealing warnings. I am closing this discussion because it has drifted significantly from the original topic and is simply inviting unnecessary friction from all sides.
You’ve completely missed the point here; let’s not drag this into off-topic territory. We have already discussed, more times than I can count, the blatant disparities in how different interlocutors, social groups, and politicians are treated.
Your sanctioned ban was actually two years ago, but I went back and dug through the refugee discussion thread to find this:
How much noise can a few flea-ridden thugs really make? ☕
In short, it was about indiscriminately labeling refugees as nothing more than flea-ridden thugs. Looking at the record today, there isn't much to dispute, and I am glad you aren't trying to argue against it either.
That said, it genuinely concerns me that some group might be allowed to use similarly indiscriminate labels against others without facing any consequences. I ask that you please point such instances out to me.
As for everything else, Michelle Evans already clarified the situation; we haven't had permission requests for quite some time, but if you'd like, you can request them for up to two years.
To be more precise, you really ought to provide direct links to these problematic posts—not just one instance, but several if this is a recurring issue—and specify exactly which of your own replies are being deleted.
Linda Young38 said:There are plenty of other similar instances; take, for example, those with hearing impairments who still have a passion for singing and such.
And now, it seems I am the one under fire. 😳 I’m locking this thread. Look, I get it—some people might find what you’ve mentioned quite uplifting—but it doesn't seem like anyone is going to have the bandwidth to deal with this given everything else that is currently falling apart.