I find myself wondering: does this forum actually allow such sweeping generalizations? Is it permissible to lean into stereotypes so heavily that an entire massive demographic is unfairly painted with the same brush?
To be clear, I don't know anything about the supposed sexual obsessions of the left, nor how that would even relate to Left-wing Homosexuality. However, I am aware there is quite a bit of literature out there regarding conservatives and lower IQ levels.
Still, simply citing these psychological perspectives could be seen as offensive to many. If topics like these are allowed, I fail to see how the moderators are expected to distinguish between legitimate scientific inquiry and a blatant attempt to insult those with different worldviews...
It would probably be best if he follows through on his initiative entirely before reaching out to the vBulletin team with his specific technical proposal: http://www.vbulletin.com/contacts/ 👍 I suspect the company actually values feedback from users who suggest ways to improve their service, so they might just take it under consideration. It isn't as if what Miky is asking for is some impossible feat of programming; it's more likely that the idea simply hasn't crossed anyone's mind yet...
While we wait for Joe to find his muse and finally sit down to write his take on how competitive these drivers will be in the upcoming season—which, let’s face it, feels like the end of an era—I figured I’d pass along Mladen Jergović’s latest analysis and predictions:
rustydrifter10, shadowpilot8 makes a fair point. This proposal isn't just about allowing boxing; it’s more like suggesting we turn this place into a street brawl—or if I may use an analogy, a bar full of crocodiles.
Matthew Anderson, you're absolutely right. Those who have no interest in participating in blatant trolling (if that isn't an oxymoron, as was just explained) will inevitably dismantle the entire concept. Consequently, the topic would once again be hijacked by actual trolls, simply because the "regular" users wouldn't bother showing up—or, alternatively, they wouldn't even realize they were being lured into a trap in some dedicated troll corner. The consequences here are twofold: either those who inhabit such a space would get along famously (given they tend to struggle with the rest of society rather than with people like themselves), meaning it wouldn't actually function as a troll thread; or, secondarily, people would migrate there after being shut down on a standard thread because the moderators prevented them from tearing each other apart. At that point, things would rapidly devolve into ad hominem attacks and end up sanctioned anyway (to quote the proposer's own words regarding the corner in the first post).
I believe the proposal requires significant refinement...
It would be reminiscent of those old Hollywood movies: someone insults you inside a restaurant, and then you challenge them to settle the score out on the sidewalk. This approach offers several advantages: 1. Inside the establishment (in a civilized discussion thread), there are no physical altercations; everything remains peaceful because the space is protected as a sanctuary for decent discourse. 2. Those who have a particular urge for conflict can step outside to "fight," allowing everyone to get what they came for. 3. If someone is challenged to settle things outside (meaning, away from the main topic), and they fail to show up, they suffer a minor blow to their ego rather than being subjected to a barrage of trolling. And everyone wins... Have I interpreted the concept correctly?
Perhaps you have a point there. I find myself wondering whether that driver's performance fluctuations stem from the car's technical inconsistencies or simply his own mental state...
As for the championship itself, I am hopeful that Massa can carry this recent momentum straight into the new season. 👍
If he does, we would be looking at Red Bull, Ferrari, and Renault all fielding two competitive drivers—though McLaren remains a bit of an enigma, given how much of a question mark Perez still represents. And then, of course, there is Mercedes... watching that dynamic unfold should be quite fascinating. To be honest, I expect Hamilton to run circles around Rosberg, though that was widely anticipated; even Vettel ran into a wall trying to do the same against him. 🤷
I’m inclined to agree that Ferrari hasn't actually fielded a truly competitive car in years. You can always tell by how much the weaker driver struggles to compensate for the machine. When you look at the data this season, they haven't just been outclassed by McLaren—who had raw pace but completely botched their strategy—or Red Bull, who have dominated the top spot for years now; they’ve also fallen behind Renault. If Grosjean hadn't spent so much time in the barriers, Renault might have actually climbed significantly higher in the constructors' standings than they did.
Walter Brooks5 said:Maybe you should go out and hunt for some lost book by Aristotle yourself. Just imagine if you actually found it, read it, and realized you’ve had a completely wrong idea about how to be funny this whole time?
Trust me, you’d be pretty shocked.
As for your basic lack of understanding regarding Catholicism, I’ve got two little lessons for you:
1. According to the Council's view, the Church is separate from the State, but it shouldn't be sidelined from society—the Church *is* society, or rather, the specific part of society made up of its members.
2. Anyone who participates in abortion or the promotion of pedophilia and pornography is automatically cast out from the Catholic Church.
Do I even need to remind you of Jesus's words: "It would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck and be thrown into the sea than to lead a child into sin!"
So, there you go—that's the extent of your sense of humor and your grasp of Catholicism!
Regarding point one: secularism is the civilizational achievement of separating the state from the church, not the other way around. The church, naturally, should and must be involved in society, but the state does not have to—though it certainly can—follow sermons from the Vatican. Regarding point two: what does any of that have to do with this? That individual who wrote somewhere that Bozanica is a Taliban didn't just avoid insulting the American people or Catholic believers; they certainly didn't promote anything like pedophilia by saying that.
To conclude, your inability to stick to the topic you yourself introduced clearly shows that your only interest is baiting trolls from subforums onto this one.
Walter Brooks5 said:If you're Catholic, then I'm an atheist. Look, maybe you're Catholic on paper, but it's pretty obvious you don't even grasp the basics of what Catholicism actually is, so there's really no point in continuing to embarrass yourself like this.
That’s all there is to it—a mere camera obscura... whenever I find myself rereading the name of the rose. 👍
Walter Brooks5 said:God help us with this kind of logic! What are you, a Catholic? 😂 Look, it would be a lot more decent if you just came out and said what you actually believe; I have respect for people who do that. If you’re a Hindu, just say: "Yeah, I'm a Hindu!"... if you're a Communist, go ahead: "I'm a Communist!"... and so on. But trying to sell people this absolute garbage is pointless. People aren't quite as gullible or naive as you seem to think they are, you know?
Even if you were a Hindu or a Communist, it still wouldn't have anything to do with these incredibly blasphemous lies and accusations being thrown at Bozanic. That's just pure fabrication, lying, and plain old disrespect.
My issue with Bozanic is that he rarely speaks up—and certainly not enough—about the massive injustices happening in this society. If I were Bozanic, every Sunday in the Cathedral, lightning and thunder would be practically shooting from the pulpit, and politicians, regardless of their party affiliation, would be getting exactly what they deserve, just like they did back during the era of Cardinal Kuharic and Saint Stepinac.
Christ said: "Better to be cold than lukewarm!" Basically, being lukewarm is useless and unworthy of a cardinal's robes. When Christ entered the Temple, he tossed out all the trinkets, souvenirs, and junk that were dishonoring the holy place—I bet he even lashed those souvenir peddlers with a whip. So, when someone criticizes Bozanic for speaking out in a situation where the Cathedral itself should be crying out for him to keep going, it doesn't mean they aren't Catholic; it means they're something I can't even mention here without hitting my second strike.[/color]
And there you have it—you clearly don't understand the American people very well at all... Without offering a single counterargument to what was said, you simply launch this pseudo-subtle ad hominem attack against someone you don't even know or understand... It shouldn't surprise me then that you find it bothersome when someone labels a church leader a totalitarian... ☕
And yes, I am American and I am Catholic. However, that doesn't mean I have to view the world through a narrow lens like a camera obscura, nor will I allow anyone to question my religious or national identity simply because of how I choose to act.👍
If I may offer a comment... (if not, I ask the moderator to please delete this)
Personally, neither as an American nor as a member of the Catholic Church, do I feel even remotely insulted when someone insults Bozanica. An insult directed at him doesn't constitute an insult toward me. Let me explain using a parallel: suppose it was 2008 and someone called Sanders a thief—should that offend me simply because Sanders, acting as Prime Minister, served as a representative of the American people? I intentionally chose this specific example since Sanders was, by then, effectively convicted, making the logic clearer; however, even if he hadn't been, the principle remains the same: an insult to Sanders is an insult to Sanders alone. In the same vein, an insult leveled at Bozanica, Josipovic, Leki, or Milanovic is an insult to them, not to all of us. Furthermore, regarding the labeling of Bozanica as a Taliban, I perceive that perhaps as a somewhat offensive comparison—highlighting his intervention in the secular nature of the education system by equating it to the violent methods used by the Taliban. But in my personal opinion, it falls far short of being classified as hate speech, even toward the man himself.
Gentlemen, I ask that we refrain from debating moderation policies in this specific thread. If you have a grievance, please direct it to the appropriate forum designed for such discussions. Quite frankly, Wayout and I are exercising a great deal of patience here, and I truly believe we can all coexist peacefully while enjoying Formula 1 together. 🙏
ruggedhawk20 said:Since there's zero racing to watch during this winter slump, your favorite Aristocrat is here to give you a little history lesson.
If you click the link, you'll see what the Can-Am series was all about—it wasn't just endurance stuff, but sprint races lasting maybe two or two and a half hours, pretty much like the Grand Prix races back in the day. You’re gonna spot a ton of legends from the GP world here. We're talking Bruce McLaren, John Surtees, Phil Hill, Jackie Stewart—guys who basically drove anything with wheels, from Formula 1 cars to sports cars, endurance races, Indianapolis, the Tasman Cup, and this Can-Am series. Once, they actually asked Jochen Rindt— "What do you do, Mr. Rindt, once the Grand Prix season wraps up?" —and Rindt just shot back: "I race!" Times have changed, though. Nowadays, guys like Alonso and Vettel—total bottom-of-the-deck players (moderators, chill—calling them "bottom-of-the-deck" isn't an insult, it's just a way of saying they don't measure up to names like Rindt, Clark, or Hill in ruggedhawk20's eyes, obviously)—are probably busy hitting some spas or chilling at a ski resort. Forty or fifty years ago, their predecessors were out there actually racing. Anyway, enjoy the clips.
I wouldn't even be posting this if my private thread hadn't been shut down, so please, dear and enlightened moderators, just reopen it and move this over there.
As has already been made perfectly clear to you: insults aren't judged by your personal set of rules. So, rather than wasting time drafting disclaimers, perhaps you should focus more on actually watching what you write.
Well, look, Matthew Young35, the board voted and they settled on the current regulations. In these rules, more than half the framework is taken up by a scoring system I didn't even touch, because changing it would go against the whole spirit of our decision to keep the existing rules intact. I only suggested tweaks to those general areas where I actually had an idea on how to balance things out a bit. But fine, go ahead and submit an alternative proposal for changes. I’d actually welcome having several of them, since we're all collectively smarter than any one individual.
The reason this looks like such a mess is because I decided to include the entire existing set of bylaws alongside my proposed amendments. I could have easily cut it down by half if I had just provided a cleaned-up version, but then it wouldn't be clear what exactly I’m suggesting we change or how we should go about it.
Look, if another two or three members want to pitch their own visions for these changes, we can work through them. Once we finally reach a consensus on the what and the how, we should end up with a set of rules that actually outperforms what we have now.
9. Participants must submit their predictions using the specific username they used to register for the competition, unless an administrator has modified it. Consequently, any participant facing a ban is ineligible to participate in the round during which the ban is active. This rule applies to participants whose ban lasts at least until the deadline for submitting predictions for that specific round, provided they haven't already submitted a new prediction before being banned; if a new prediction was submitted prior to the ban, it will be honored regardless. Furthermore, if a banned participant holds unused "Joker predictions" and fails to submit a prediction for the round in which they are banned, the "Joker prediction" will still be applied to them just as it would for any other participant. (In my view, this point is entirely redundant, as all of this is more clearly defined under point three of these proposed amendments)
9.1. Participants who are restricted from accessing the F1 subforum may still participate by posting their prediction in a general discussion thread within that subforum, then sending a link to that post via private message to their teammate. The teammate can then post the link to that prediction in this main thread. Every such prediction will be recognized, and both individual and team points will be calculated just as they would for any other player. (I believe this should be deleted. If you send a prediction, you play; if you don't, you don't. Whether someone is banned, has their internet cut off due to an unpaid bill, or is dealing with a website error 503 during the submission window is their own business, and I don't think we need to list specific excuses and invent workarounds for them)
10. Participants are permitted to switch teams an unlimited number of times. In the event of a transfer, a participant does not carry over any team points earned with their previous team, though their individual points remain intact. The same logic applies to players who are removed from a team. Team points begin accumulating from the moment a new team is formed; changing a team's name has no impact on the scoring. Each team is entitled to two name changes during the season, whereas names can be changed an unlimited number of times before the season begins. (The explanation regarding team points is handled more simply in point 2. Additionally, I see no reason to limit team name changes; it only takes up space in the rulebook, and it's a rare occurrence anyway. Therefore, I suggest deleting this section.)
11. If a participant includes a driver in their prediction who does not appear in the race—meaning they are not listed in the official FIA results—no points will be awarded for that driver. Furthermore, a participant will not receive points for drivers they fail to include in their ranking, regardless of how logical or illogical it seems that a specific driver was omitted. Results are calculated based on the specific positions assigned to the drivers by the participant; if there is a clerical error in the numbering, the ranking will be treated strictly according to the positions listed. If certain positions are left blank, no points will be awarded for them. Should a participant list the same position number or driver multiple times, no points will be awarded for any of those instances. If a participant lists more drivers than are scheduled to start the race under normal circumstances, no points will be granted for the excess drivers or positions. Drivers for whom no position is specified will be treated as a DNF; however, if the entire ranking is submitted without position numbers, it will be treated as a ranking without DNFs.
11. If a participant omits a driver from their prediction, no points will be awarded for them. If a driver is listed twice, points can only be awarded once. If a participant names a driver who does not compete, or a driver who cannot be reasonably identified (for example, writing "Nico" when it is unclear whether they mean Hulkenberg or Rosberg), no points will be awarded. Drivers are scored according to the numerical order provided in the prediction. Accordingly, errors in the numerical sequence are handled as follows: - A missing rank number will be treated as a DNF. - In cases of duplicate rank numbers (for example, listing two drivers at position No. 11), only the first one listed counts; the second is ignored.
12. Any blatant and intentional copying of someone else's prediction—regardless of whether a "corrected" version is submitted later—will be viewed as an attempt to incite general chaos within the competition. Such actions will be penalized with an automatic disqualification lasting two races or more. This rule specifically targets the deliberate copy-pasting of another user's picks or submitting predictions that are nearly identical, sharing at least a 75% match in driver positioning.
12. Copying predictions is investigated and penalized only upon a formal complaint from the aggrieved player (which must be submitted publicly to the commissioner within the relevant thread). Copying is defined as placing more than 75% of the drivers (rounded up to the nearest whole number) in the exact same positions as a prediction already posted for that race (note that older predictions used as Jokers do not count toward this total). The penalty for copying a prediction is 5 secondary points.
13. Competition results are calculated based on the data released by the FIA immediately following the conclusion of a race via the television broadcast, or the initial uncorrected results posted on the official website. Any subsequent corrections made by the FIA will not be taken into account. When determining driver retirements, we also rely on those initial FIA results, where it is explicitly stated which drivers retired; if they are listed as DNF, NC, or Ret in the official standings, they will be accounted for accordingly. Any other designation will not be considered a DNF. Otherwise, per standard FIA regulations, a driver is considered to have retired if they complete less than 90% of the race distance, with the race duration determined by whatever number of laps the FIA dictates through its standard or extraordinary rulings. Drivers who fail to qualify during qualifying sessions and do not participate in the race will be counted as DNQ only if they do not start the race. However, if they fail to qualify but the FIA grants them permission to compete, they will not receive points if they were marked as DNQ in the prediction; instead, they will be treated like any other driver who qualified regularly, meaning they retain the possibility of finishing in scoring positions or failing to finish (DNF).
14. Should a dispute arise during the competition that is not covered by the specific points in these Rules, the decision regarding its resolution will fall to the competition commissioner. These Rules take effect upon their publication in the Championship thread designated for rules and results, and they may be modified through special amendments only if it is subsequently proven necessary for the better functioning of the competition.
15. If the moderators of this sub-forum believe that the commissioner has made an improper decision regarding a dispute, a case of copying, or an amendment to the rules, they reserve the right to overturn it. In such instances, all moderators of the F1 sub-forum will vote, and the decision will be reached by a majority vote.
14. Race results are tallied and published by the commissioner. Should the commissioner fail to do so within 7 days of a race's conclusion, a replacement commissioner will be chosen by a majority vote of the active participants within the thread, provided at least 24 hours have passed. Naturally, the selected individual only assumes the role if they consent to it. 15. Participants may vote to remove the commissioner at any time, provided they can secure the support of half of all participants for that specific championship season. 16. Once the results for a round are published, participants have a 24-hour window to identify any calculation errors and report them within the thread. Once this period expires, the results are final and cannot be revised under any circumstances. 17. In the event of a dispute over results, the commissioner will issue a ruling. Twenty-four hours after that decision is rendered, it becomes final and cannot be further reviewed or contested by anyone. 18. In the event of any disputes regarding the rules of play, the presiding official will issue a ruling. This decision will be recorded in a general format within the rulebook, serving as a precedent for all future instances involving similar circumstances. 19. When faced with ambiguous situations, the official is encouraged to exercise common sense. They are not strictly obligated to follow the letter of the law if it becomes evident that a specific regulation is ill-suited for the unique situation at hand. 20. Participants may request an amendment to any individual rule at any time, provided they can secure the support of at least half of all participants for the current championship season. It should be noted that this process does not allow for retroactive rule changes. 21. Sub-forum moderators, acting as local authorities, may intervene in gameplay, though strictly within their standard moderator duties—specifically to prevent trolling, spamming, or other forms of disruptive behavior. However, they lack the authority to alter the competition rules beyond what is explicitly permitted by this rulebook.
Well, the public has spoken, and we shall proceed under the existing rules. 👍 I would like to propose a few adjustments. To be clear, I am not suggesting any changes to the scoring system itself; rather, I see this as a streamlining of our current regulations to address excessive complexity, ambiguity, and the various issues that have led to frequent disputes. These modifications are derived partly from my previous rule proposal and partly from entirely new ideas. Below, I have copied the full set of current regulations alongside my proposed amendments, where items I believe should be removed are marked in red, and my new (or revised) proposals are **bolded**. For those who may find it difficult to view the attached documents, I will list the most significant proposed changes here: - All predictions must be submitted by the scheduled start of Free Practice 3. - Anyone without a valid prediction (whether a new entry or an existing one) will not participate in that round, and no excuses regarding the failure to submit will be entertained. - In the event of a dispute, the Commissioner holds the final word. This means moderators should not be pulled into the fray of rule interpretation or dispute resolution. Players retain the right to change the Commissioner at any time, but there can be no retroactive overturning of decisions once the "appeals window" has closed.
1. The Formula 1 Championship is a competition featuring an unlimited number of participants, both individuals and teams, which remain open throughout the entire season. - To be considered a member of a team, a player must post a formal declaration stating which team they are representing. - Joining an existing team is not permitted without the consent of at least one returning member from that team's previous season. - Competition is conducted in pairs, with individual and team standings calculated separately. - Players who do not join a team do not participate in the team portion of the championship. - A participant is defined as a competitor who registers for the championship and submits their prediction within the designated timeframe. Official results and standings are published by the Commissioner, and the moderator will post them on the first page of this thread, at which point they are considered final. Competitors must submit their predictions, registrations, and other entries exclusively within this specific thread; any entries made in other threads will be deemed invalid.
1. The Championship is a sub-forum game involving predictions for Formula 1 race results. The number of participants is unlimited, and access is open to all interested forum members. Participation begins upon the submission of a prediction for a specific F1 season and concludes at the end of that F1 season or upon an explicit statement from the participant regarding their withdrawal. 2. The Championship is an individual pursuit, though it can function as a team game if two or more participants declare their intention to compete as a team within the main thread. Team participation commences upon the announcement of the partnership and ends when either player leaves the team or exits the competition. Team points are calculated by summing the individual championship points earned by team members during their period of joint participation. Should a member leave a team, their accumulated championship points remain with the team. Regarding team names, priority is given to the participant who first registers the name. If a name was used in previous championships, priority belongs to the player who has maintained uninterrupted membership with that team name for the longest duration. 3. Participants may only compete using one forum identity at any given time. Consequently, it is prohibited to have valid predictions active under more than one identity simultaneously.
4. The Championship is played by having the competitor post their predicted order of all drivers on the grid within the designated deadline, along with two additional picks: the pole position winner and the driver who achieves the fastest lap. Competitors may post their predictions immediately after the previous deadline closes, and no later than (Saturday at 3:00 AM, during the weekend leading up to the next race.The scheduled start time for the three free practice sessions has been set.That deadline applies to every single race throughout the season. Competitors are free to tweak their existing predictions or submit entirely new ones as many times as they like, provided they get everything finalized before that cutoff hits.
The scoring system is structured as follows: The primary points for each race are distributed according to the current F1 scoring system: 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1. These are awarded to the top ten finishers who have accumulated the highest number of secondary points during the race. The points system used for awarding standings at every race follows this structure: Groups 1 through 3 – 5 points plus 1 extra. Group 4-10 – 3 points + 1 bonus Group 11-16 – 2 points + 2 Group 17-24 – 1 point + 2 DNF Group – 3 points + 1 bonus DNQ Group - 3 points Pole position and fastest lap—that’s an extra four points plus two more.
Points are distributed according to the specific categories outlined in Section 3 of the Rulebook. Regarding additional points awarded for correct placements, these are divided into two distinct groups: Group 1: 1st–3rd, 4th–10th, and DNF – 1 point awarded for each finishing position. Group 2: 11-16, 17-24, PP+FL – 2 points awarded for pole position. Regarding the extra points (2 total) for the PP+FL group: these are only awarded if a participant correctly identifies both drivers within that group. In the standings, this will be recorded as one point per driver, effectively granting one correct finishing position for each, totaling two points for the group. As for the DNF group, an extra point is awarded based on the specific order of retirements as officially released by the FIA. To claim this, a participant would need to list the drivers in reverse order—for example, the first driver to drop out should be listed last in their prediction, and so on.
The criteria for determining the race rankings are as follows: Is it not more logical to conclude that the superior driver is the one who manages to accumulate a higher number of secondary points? In the event that we end up with a tie following step A, the deciding factor should be the player who secured more pole position trophies. In the event that we see a tie following step B, the deciding factor will be the player who secured a higher number of additional points. In the event that we see a tie following step C, the tiebreaker will be determined by the player who holds the higher cumulative point total from all successfully predicted pole positions within their respective groups. In the event of a tie following step D, the deciding factor should be the player who secured more victories within the higher-stakes groups. f) In the event of a tie following step e), the tiebreaker will favor the driver with the lower sum when calculating the differences between their actual finishing position and their predicted position in the overall standings. Should this occur, all drivers will be evaluated based on the official order established by the FIA and the competitors. In the event of a tie following step f), the advantage goes to the player who submitted their updated Joker prediction first. If neither party has submitted a new prediction, the edge goes to whoever turned in their original one earliest. Furthermore, should one player fail to submit an updated prediction entirely, their opponent is automatically deemed the winner.
The criteria used to determine the final individual standings are as follows: Is it even worth debating? A driver who racks up more main championship points is clearly the superior competitor. In the event that we end up with a tie following the first criteria, wouldn't it be more logical to favor the driver with the higher number of wins? In the event that we end up with a tie following step B, the deciding factor will be the driver who holds the higher number of tie-breaking points. d) In the event of a tie following step c), the deciding factor should be the competitor who holds the advantage in their head-to-head matchup. In the event that we end up with a tie following step D, the deciding factor would be the driver with the higher number of other finishes—specifically, more second-place results, third-place results, and so on.
The criteria used to determine the final standings for the team championship are as follows: Is it not more logical to conclude that the superior team is simply the one that secures a higher number of primary points? In the event that we end up with a tie following the first scenario, wouldn't it make more sense to favor the team with the higher number of wins? In the event that we end up with a tie following step B, the deciding factor will be whichever team holds the higher number of tie-breaker points. d) In the event that we see a tie following step c), the tiebreaker should favor the team with the higher number of other placements—specifically looking at second-place finishes, then third-place finishes, and so on.
August 2nd. Criteria for determining the overall Pole position trophy standings: Is it even worth debating? A driver who consistently secures more pole positions is clearly the superior competitor. In the event that we end up with a tie following the first scenario, wouldn't it be more logical to favor the driver who participated in fewer races? In the event that we reach a tie following step B, the deciding factor will be determined by which player achieved a higher number of maximumly hit positions within a single round across any of the competitions. d) In the event of a tie following step c), the edge goes to the player who achieved a higher cumulative sum of exact finishing positions throughout the Formula 1 Championship.
(I believe this section should simply be removed. If the Pole position trophy is to continue being awarded, it warrants its own specific set of regulations and a dedicated thread outside of the main championship, given that it now encompasses positions from the tournament as well.)
9. Should an additional team join the Formula 1 Championship either before or during the season, increasing the total driver count to 26, the final two groups will be adjusted to 11-17 and 18-26. Conversely, if a team exits Formula 1 before or during the season, reducing the driver count to 22, the final two groups will become 11-16 and 17-22. Any changes to scoring groups under this article take effect automatically without prior notice at the moment the FIA or a team officially announces their entry or withdrawal from one or all Formula 1 races. This also applies if the decision is announced before free practice and the team fails to appear for Friday's sessions. This article and its subsequent changes will not be triggered if a team or driver fails to appear for practice, qualifying, or the race due to other unforeseen circumstances (such as a shortage of spare parts, driver injuries, etc.).
9. If there is a change in the number of participating teams during the season, only the number of teams in the final group will be modified within the championship. For example, instead of the group covering positions 18-24, it would cover 18-22 or 18-26.
10. If a competitor fails to submit a new prediction, or submits it on Saturday at 03:01 or any other time after the specified deadline, the "Joker" prediction will be activated. To clarify, players are required to submit a new prediction for every race; however, they are granted 3 "Jokers" per season. These Jokers activate automatically for any race where a new prediction is not submitted, and the player's last official prediction will be credited for those races. Once all three "Jokers" have been utilized (it is understood that they have withdrawn from the competition, resulting in disqualification from every subsequent race) and no points will be calculated for them; in such a case, they must submit a new prediction if they wish to resume competing. If a competitor fails to submit a new prediction for two consecutive races, their teammate may choose to expel them from their team. (consequently, such a competitor joins the newly formed "Expelled" team, unless they state otherwise.)
Well, I’m honestly torn between offering my congratulations or my deepest condolences regarding the host selection, but since you actually showed up, I’ll start with this: congrats, buddy! 😁
I would suggest that everyone interested takes a moment to propose potential improvements to our current rules. If we can refine things now, we might face fewer headaches and see much more competitive racing next year.
I am also hoping that Ethan Jones5, Douglas Patel32, and Shule will join us for the championship, given that they have already demonstrated their interest by participating in this discussion. 🙏 Of course, that goes for any other newcomers I might have inadvertently overlooked.
Alright, regarding the points system and the core mechanics of how things run, it’s probably acceptable enough. That said, I really hope there will be room to fine-tune the other regulations—to simplify them, clean them up, and provide more clarity. We need to prevent those same messy complications we seem to run into every single year...
Terry Carter2 said:They can join the fray, sure, but they aren't touching the poll voting! Your only option is to sign up at the start of next season following whatever rules we decide to implement! 😁
I don't see any reason why they couldn't start playing right away. Granted, they won't be climbing the leaderboard just yet, but it gives them a feel for how everything works.
Alex Gomez4, there's a thread at the top regarding the championship. This Friday, before the race starts, put together a ranked list of drivers based on how you think the race will end (for anyone you think won't finish, just write DNF instead of their rank), and also call out who you think takes pole position and who gets fastest lap. By doing that, you're effectively entering the competition, and then on Sunday after the checkered flag, you can see how accurate your predictions were. 👍
update: I am suggesting to the chosen moderator that they adopt the simpler scoring system from my proposal. 😁