I personally find playing through the championship quite enjoyable because it spans the entire season and allows us to represent actual teams. However, if we are looking strictly at the competition itself, this tournament is hands down the best thing we have in F1—even better than the defunct Super League.
I have mine too. 🙏 Look, our squad certainly has its fair share of seasoned veterans, but yours? Yours is a total goldmine of untapped potential. 😍 (It’s such a shame Pilatus isn't playing; he would fit right in.)
darkmarlin16, why don't you just run the numbers yourself? I can already tell you're going to have a grand old time hanging out with stormybadger8 and Fortin. 🙏
dorade... 1. Lewis Hamilton 2. Nico Rosberg 3. Fernando Alonso 4. Felipe Massa 5. Sebastian Vettel 6. Kevin Magnussen 7. Kimi Raikkonen 8. Valtteri Bottas 9. Jenson Button 10. Daniel Ricciardo
😁 My installation forecast: 1. Lewis Hamilton 2. Nico Rosberg 3. Kevin Magnussen (or however one spells it) 4. Felipe Massa 5. Jenson Button 6. Kimi Raikkonen 7. Valtteri Bottas 8. Fernando Alonso 9. Romain Grosjean 10. Kamui
The concept is conceptually interesting, yet I suspect it remains insufficiently developed and suffers from several logical gaps. Consequently, I have a few concerns regarding the proposer's framework: - If a user were to utilize the services of a public advocate (I believe "public advocate" is a more fitting term than "defender," given that the moderators function as the true defenders of this community, constantly shielding the peaceful majority from an aggressive minority), would that imply they have waived their right to personally contest a decision? When one hires an attorney in a U.S. courtroom, the lawyer conducts the legal arguments; the client does not engage in a parallel skirmish with the judge or the opposing party. Under this proposal, once an advocate completes their task, the user should theoretically refrain from jumping into the thread to dispute the findings. If this isn't enforced, moderators would be forced to manage two separate debates for every single incident—one with the advocate and one with the user—which is frankly absurd. Conversely, if such a restriction were implemented, users might feel even more disenfranchised, especially if they find themselves at odds with the advocate's perspective. This leads me to my next point... - Granting an advocate access to moderator logs and deleted posts would shift their responsibility toward the forum as a whole, rather than solely toward the user who requested their help. And if this were to happen—and believe me, it would occur more often than you might think—an advocate might view the broader context and side with the moderators. In that scenario, we would run into the exact issue Sophia Thomas7 previously noted. This brings me back to a question for darkhawk: what is your personal take on asking someone to represent you, only for them to tell you that you have no standing? Would you accept their ruling and close the matter, or would you view them as being on the opposing side? If it is the former, why don't we apply that same logic to the oversight of senior moderators (much like how certain high-level editors on major news sites will go to great lengths to independently review a case)? If it is the latter—if you believe an advocate should act like an attorney and fight for the user regardless of personal conviction, while simultaneously maintaining a "moderator's perspective"—then this entire initiative is fundamentally flawed. - Furthermore, how do we address recidivism? Suppose we have a user who doesn't grasp the modern understanding of racism as it is recognized by most people in today's society. Every time they receive a warning (with the penalty points increasing with each offense), they approach an advocate to fight their corner. But a racist recidivist refuses to listen to reason and continues their behavior until they are inevitably banned. What is the advocate expected to do? Treat every repeated appeal as if it were the first? Refuse to help after the second or third instance once they realize the pattern? Attempt to lecture the recidivist on how to behave better? Moderators already perform all of those functions! Moreover, moderators possess the full administrative view and bear the responsibility for the integrity of the platform, dedicating significant time and effort to protecting the interests of the general user base. Does it not seem to you that, under these circumstances, the most efficient solution would simply be for the advocate to be a moderator?
Where exactly in the rules does it say that? Is there a rule stating someone can publish their own thoughts? Because that seems to be what you’re using to justify the Templar moderation. Come on, give me a break... Stop pushing this nonsense unless you want to face sanctions.
I have already given you my answer regarding insults.
darkhawk, this is perfectly clear. Thanks for laying it all out for anyone who might still be confused, but I’d ask that we please refrain from drifting further off-topic.
Anyone is free to post their own thoughts here, but on this forum, a moderator's warning is posted according to the rules—not whenever someone feels like rushing things. Therefore, there isn't actually an issue here; Templar simply issued a standard moderator warning.
You can post your own content whenever you like; there aren't any restrictions on that. As for moderator warnings, they are posted consistently on the subreddit. If you want proof, just take a look at the appeals regarding card sanctions or the ban appeal corner.
And frankly, this whole argument feels like you're just grasping at straws at this point. The moderators already laid out exactly why you received a partial ban, and since both the supermods and the admins have backed their decision, there isn't much left to discuss. Nitpicking a moderator's official policy announcement—which the moderator authored themselves—only proves how unnecessary this is.
I fail to see any reason to prolong this debate. The complaints have been filed, the moderators have weighed in, and the claimants simply cannot reach an agreement. At this stage, I believe we should just wait for a higher authority to rule on the matter.
I fail to see any practical reason to prolong this debate. The formal complaints have been filed, and the moderators have already issued their rulings. If anyone possesses a more substantial argument that warrants further discussion, feel free to present it; otherwise, I believe we have reached our conclusion.
Listen, everyone, this is PŽK. If you still feel the need to direct inquiries toward the moderation team, please do so here rather than engaging in petty disputes with your fellow members. There is absolutely no reason to continue with this tone!
Team, just like in the neighboring thread, this is strictly a designated zone for moderator inquiries. If you have questions for the staff, please direct them there. There’s really no point in bickering with one another here.
Listen, everyone, I’ll say this one more time: reports sent to the PŽK need to be substantive. At the very least, provide a few direct links to the posts in question and explain exactly what you find problematic. If we don't follow this approach, the discussion simply won't survive.
Could you please be a bit more specific about what exactly your complaint is? You’ve been around here long enough to know how the process works. First, you report the post using the little triangle icon. If nobody has stepped in to handle it after roughly twenty-four hours, you can send a private message to the moderators to ask about getting it cleared, or you can just come back here. If you choose the latter, just make sure you provide a direct link to the specific post or posts in question—not just a link to a user's profile—and then formally request the moderation action.
The primary inquiries raised in this thread have been addressed. Should the Scotsman happen to glance at this discussion, he is more than welcome to offer his own perspective if he feels it's warranted. I am locking this thread.