Setting the rules for the Reddit F1 championship 2013

stormybadger8 said:Well, you've got that wrong.🤣🤣🤣
I know we have three lawyers on this forum😁 they don't hang out here much, but they drop by... two of them even played in all the competitions, as far as I know.😁

The other way is for the Host to write their own set of rules, state their decisions clearly and loudly, back them up with logic, and then refuse to backtrack.
If trolling or arguing starts up, then the moderator can just hand out bans without hesitation...
People can complain all they want afterward, but they chose this Host and these rules themselves; they chose to play.

That's exactly why I'm saying I'll only play if the Host writes their own rules. If we stick to the old ones, I'm out—mostly because of the constant whining and trolling about whether the moderator is biased due to their own results and all that.
But yeah, if I have to ban someone... oh, I definitely will.😍

To be honest, I haven't seen much point in punishing posts like "this is how I thought it meant," or "that's how he intended it," or "this is how we've always done it," because Max wrote those rules... so clearly, nobody can interpret them better than Max, right?
And besides, how is the Host supposed to interpret what Max was thinking when he wrote them? Other players can try to interpret them the same way.
It's ridiculous how many times we've seen nonsense where the Host's decisions are challenged using the logic of what the rule-writer supposedly meant—like, "it says A here but B there," or "why use A instead of B right now?" and so on.

Here’s my take on it:
Max can spend the rest of his life explaining whatever he meant regarding Bjesomar's rule, but for me, the only person who matters when clarifying doubts about that rule is Bjesomar himself.☕
And unfortunately, that same logic works both ways.😬

And even if he actually gives a wise explanation... and then uses that chance to go on a massive trolling spree... if I give him a warning card, it just looks like I'm trying to shut him up, while he plays the poor, innocent guy who's just trying to help explain the rules...
And he’s definitely not the only one pulling that stunt. There are plenty of others... honestly, pretty much everyone involved in those debates ends up doing the same thing eventually.

Most people would be incredibly grateful if you actually did shut him up.
☕
Besides, we might actually have a larger field of competitors.

What we have here isn't a real competition; it's an endless loop of debating the rulebook.
The rules aren't here to facilitate the competition; rather, the competition exists merely as an excuse to argue about the rules.

Some people enjoy that dynamic, but most don't. And that is precisely why the number of participants keeps dwindling.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's my take on it.

stormybadger8 said:Well, you've got that wrong.🤣🤣🤣
I know we have three lawyers on this forum😁 they don't hang out here much, but they drop by... two of them even played in all the competitions, as far as I know.😁

The other way is for the Host to write their own set of rules, state their decisions clearly and loudly, back them up with logic, and then refuse to backtrack.
If trolling or arguing starts up, then the moderator can just hand out bans without hesitation...
People can complain all they want afterward, but they chose this Host and these rules themselves; they chose to play.

That's exactly why I'm saying I'll only play if the Host writes their own rules. If we stick to the old ones, I'm out—mostly because of the constant whining and trolling about whether the moderator is biased due to their own results and all that.
But yeah, if I have to ban someone... oh, I definitely will.😍

To be honest, I haven't seen much point in punishing posts like "this is how I thought it meant," or "that's how he intended it," or "this is how we've always done it," because Max wrote those rules... so clearly, nobody can interpret them better than Max, right?
And besides, how is the Host supposed to interpret what Max was thinking when he wrote them? Other players can try to interpret them the same way.
It's ridiculous how many times we've seen nonsense where the Host's decisions are challenged using the logic of what the rule-writer supposedly meant—like, "it says A here but B there," or "why use A instead of B right now?" and so on.

Here’s my take on it:
Max can spend the rest of his life explaining whatever he meant regarding Bjesomar's rule, but for me, the only person who matters when clarifying doubts about that rule is Bjesomar himself.☕
And unfortunately, that same logic works both ways.😬

And even if he actually gives a wise explanation... and then uses that chance to go on a massive trolling spree... if I give him a warning card, it just looks like I'm trying to shut him up, while he plays the poor, innocent guy who's just trying to help explain the rules...
And he’s definitely not the only one pulling that stunt. There are plenty of others... honestly, pretty much everyone involved in those debates ends up doing the same thing eventually.

Alternatively, we could just ban MAXYM from the subforum, and I suspect about 90% of all arguments regarding gaming would vanish instantly.

Just kidding, obviously. MAXYM is a helpful and respected member of this community, and I'm glad he's here—but that doesn't mean my fundamental premises are wrong.

Alright, I’m putting my name in the hat too.

Here is how I propose we run things.

1. All predictions must be submitted no later than the start of qualifying.

2. Your prediction should consist of a top 5 driver selection.

3. Scoring works like this: you get 3 points if you nail the winner, and 1 point for every other driver you correctly place in the top 5, regardless of their specific position.

4. The final standings will be announced by the host or an authorized deputy.

5. In the event of a tie, the player who submitted their prediction earlier takes the lead.

6. Copying others' picks is permitted.

7. If a participant is unhappy with a call, they may appeal to the host. If the host stands by the decision, the player must either accept it or exit the competition. Should a majority of the participants side against the host, a change in leadership will occur.

8. Points will be awarded as follows:
1-25
2-18
3-15
4-12
5-10
6-8
7-6
8-4
9-2
10-1

9. The host and the moderators are responsible for ensuring the smooth operation of the competition.

10. Rules are to be interpreted in good faith. If anyone attempts to exploit a loophole for points or simply to troll for the sake of it, they will be ignored, and I call upon the moderators to issue appropriate penalties according to the site's rules regarding trolling.

ADDENDUM:
We might see minor tweaks to these rules during our discussions, but the core principles will remain unchanged.
The primary goal here is to simplify the process and eliminate the kind of trolling that ruins a good competition.

Matthew Young35 said:Most people would be incredibly grateful if you actually did shut him up.
☕
Besides, we might actually have a larger field of competitors.

What we have here isn't a real competition; it's an endless loop of debating the rulebook.
The rules aren't here to facilitate the competition; rather, the competition exists merely as an excuse to argue about the rules.

Some people enjoy that dynamic, but most don't. And that is precisely why the number of participants keeps dwindling.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's my take on it.

Interesting "arguments," especially coming from someone who spent the last 24 hours on this thread complaining about how "certain people are trolling."

Since stormybadger8 brought it up...
If MAXYM knows the rulebook better than anyone, we've seen it in every single instance where he's used logic to prove his point during debates over rules—or rather, how they apply to current racing.
Because of that, I honestly think MAXYM would be the perfect candidate for host.
But there's a catch: he can't participate in the next championship as a competitor.

It’s either me or MAXYM. There isn't a third option that works just as well.

Bjesomar said:5. In the event of a points tie, the player who submitted their prediction earlier takes precedence.

If nothing else, I'm glad my suggestion was so well received, whether through the current rulebook or as part of the proposals for a potential one.

William Bennett53 said:Alternatively, we could just ban MAXYM from the subforum, and I suspect about 90% of all arguments regarding gaming would vanish instantly.

Just kidding, obviously. MAXYM is a helpful and respected member of this community, and I'm glad he's here—but that doesn't mean my fundamental premises are wrong.

I've thought about this quite a bit, but I really don't think that's the fix. 🤷
Because even if Max leaves, some other Max will just take his place...

Max isn't the sole culprit here, and honestly, he might not even be the biggest one... he’s mostly just settling the score for everyone who attacked him while he was leading the championship, doing exactly what a good chunk of people are advocating for now.😉
It was total dictatorship—zero respect for anyone else's opinion... and that wasn't working either. Plus, there was always that talk about favoritism toward him and his teammate, and so on...
And I don't recall Max ever budging even a millimeter on his stances or decisions... though he usually argued them pretty damn well.

The real issue lies primarily with the players. Everyone wants things handed to them on a silver platter, but they won't give that same credit to anyone else... because then they lose something, or they just don't like the guy, or blah blah blah...
Some people just live for finding flaws...

Anyway, I'm heading to bed. I'm done with this for today.🙂

Jason Campbell70 said:Interesting "arguments," especially coming from someone who spent the last 24 hours on this thread complaining about how "certain people are trolling."

Since stormybadger8 brought it up...
If MAXYM knows the rulebook better than anyone, we've seen it in every single instance where he's used logic to prove his point during debates over rules—or rather, how they apply to current racing.
Because of that, I honestly think MAXYM would be the perfect candidate for host.
But there's a catch: he can't participate in the next championship as a competitor.

It’s either me or MAXYM. There isn't a third option that works just as well.

If nothing else, I'm glad my suggestion was so well received, whether through the current rulebook or as part of the proposals for a potential one.

Here are the most critical points from my proposal that I would like others to incorporate into their own rules.

4. The final standings shall be announced by the championship host or someone specifically authorized by them.

6. Transcribing results is permitted.

7. If a player is dissatisfied, they may lodge a complaint with the host. If the host stands by their decision, the player must either accept the ruling or withdraw from the competition. However, if they can gather more than half of the competitors to support their grievance, the host shall be removed from their position.

9. The HOST and the MODERATORS are responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the competition.

10. Rules are to be interpreted in good faith. Therefore, if anyone exploits a loophole to gain a scoring advantage or simply to troll for the sake of it, they will be ignored. Furthermore, moderators are encouraged to issue appropriate penalties in accordance with the site's anti-trolling policies.

Everything else is secondary.

Jason Campbell70 said:Interesting "arguments," especially coming from someone who spent the last 24 hours on this thread complaining about how "certain people are trolling."

Since stormybadger8 brought it up...
If MAXYM knows the rulebook better than anyone, we've seen it in every single instance where he's used logic to prove his point during debates over rules—or rather, how they apply to current racing.
Because of that, I honestly think MAXYM would be the perfect candidate for host.
But there's a catch: he can't participate in the next championship as a competitor.

It’s either me or MAXYM. There isn't a third option that works just as well.

If nothing else, I'm glad my suggestion was so well received, whether through the current rulebook or as part of the proposals for a potential one.

Honestly, I totally agree.
But then again, you have to wonder if we'd see some... uh... questionable calls whenever someone he doesn't personally like gets involved. 😬
I hope not, but let's be real—there’s way too much bad blood between people for me to be certain.

And your point about having a host who isn't also a player holds water...
If that were the case from the start, we wouldn't have all this constant arguing over technicalities and rulebook loopholes that happen in basically every competition today just because someone wrote them to favor their own teammate.

Matthew Young35 said:Here are the most critical points from my proposal that I would like others to incorporate into their own rules.

4. The final standings shall be announced by the championship host or someone specifically authorized by them.

6. Transcribing results is permitted.

7. If a player is dissatisfied, they may lodge a complaint with the host. If the host stands by their decision, the player must either accept the ruling or withdraw from the competition. However, if they can gather more than half of the competitors to support their grievance, the host shall be removed from their position.

9. The HOST and the MODERATORS are responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the competition.

10. Rules are to be interpreted in good faith. Therefore, if anyone exploits a loophole to gain a scoring advantage or simply to troll for the sake of it, they will be ignored. Furthermore, moderators are encouraged to issue appropriate penalties in accordance with the site's anti-trolling policies.

Everything else is secondary.

I'm in. ☕

Matthew Young35 said:Here are the most critical points from my proposal that I would like others to incorporate into their own rules.

4. The final standings shall be announced by the championship host or someone specifically authorized by them.

6. Transcribing results is permitted.

7. If a player is dissatisfied, they may lodge a complaint with the host. If the host stands by their decision, the player must either accept the ruling or withdraw from the competition. However, if they can gather more than half of the competitors to support their grievance, the host shall be removed from their position.

9. The HOST and the MODERATORS are responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the competition.

10. Rules are to be interpreted in good faith. Therefore, if anyone exploits a loophole to gain a scoring advantage or simply to troll for the sake of it, they will be ignored. Furthermore, moderators are encouraged to issue appropriate penalties in accordance with the site's anti-trolling policies.

Everything else is secondary.

I am in agreement with these proposals, and I suggest we leave the door open to refining the rules once a candidate is selected—provided, of course, that they agree to the terms.
Rules can always be polished, and it is far better to settle these details before the season kicks off.
😁

Whatever happens, happens.
I’ll step up as host, provided we play by the rules I’ve laid out.
In my view, they’re solid rules—practical, enforceable, and straightforward.
Are they perfectly fair? Perhaps not... but then again, life isn't exactly fair, is it?
All I'm offering is blood, sweat, and tears... specifically for the trolls.

Matthew Young35 said:Whatever happens, happens.
I’ll step up as host, provided we play by the rules I’ve laid out.
In my view, they’re solid rules—practical, enforceable, and straightforward.
Are they perfectly fair? Perhaps not... but then again, life isn't exactly fair, is it?
All I'm offering is blood, sweat, and tears... specifically for the trolls.

Maybe it really is time for some revolutionary changes in this championship.
😁

Matthew Young35 said:Here are the most critical points from my proposal that I would like others to incorporate into their own rules.

4. The final standings shall be announced by the championship host or someone specifically authorized by them.

6. Transcribing results is permitted.

7. If a player is dissatisfied, they may lodge a complaint with the host. If the host stands by their decision, the player must either accept the ruling or withdraw from the competition. However, if they can gather more than half of the competitors to support their grievance, the host shall be removed from their position.

9. The HOST and the MODERATORS are responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the competition.

10. Rules are to be interpreted in good faith. Therefore, if anyone exploits a loophole to gain a scoring advantage or simply to troll for the sake of it, they will be ignored. Furthermore, moderators are encouraged to issue appropriate penalties in accordance with the site's anti-trolling policies.

Everything else is secondary.

In short... "get lost, because I'm the host"—which is basically what we already have.😁

redheron12 said:In short... "get lost, because I'm the host"—which is basically what we already have.😁

You’re twisting things a bit, but that’s how the rulebook lays it out. (Section 14.)
😁

redheron12 said:In short... "get lost, because I'm the host"—which is basically what we already have.😁

No, what we have now is pure anarchy.
And not the good kind.

Matthew Young35 said:No, what we have now is pure anarchy.
And not the good kind.

Still, I’d take anarchy over a dictatorship any day... in every sense of the word.

redheron12 said:Still, I’d take anarchy over a dictatorship any day... in every sense of the word.

Then by all means, carry on.
Without me.

Matthew Young35 said:Then by all means, carry on.
Without me.

Well, there will likely be a vote—just have a little confidence in yourself.😁

redheron12 said:Well, there will likely be a vote—just have a little confidence in yourself.😁

To be honest, I’m completely exhausted by all of this. If we don't see some drastic shifts in how moderation works and how trolling is handled, I'm done participating in these threads. It isn't an empty threat; 🤷, I know you're all preoccupied with whether I'll stick around or not, but I'm simply stating a fact.
It has become genuinely exhausting having to wade through mountains of legalistic jargon just to figure out if someone earned a single point more or less.
It's exhausting, my friend.

Matthew Young35 said:To be honest, I’m completely exhausted by all of this. If we don't see some drastic shifts in how moderation works and how trolling is handled, I'm done participating in these threads. It isn't an empty threat; 🤷, I know you're all preoccupied with whether I'll stick around or not, but I'm simply stating a fact.
It has become genuinely exhausting having to wade through mountains of legalistic jargon just to figure out if someone earned a single point more or less.
It's exhausting, my friend.

Like I said, get a solid manager and decent rules in place, and moderation will fix itself.
I can't see a way to start handing out bans or deleting posts regarding scoring debates and the general regulations because, in this current mess, I honestly can't tell who's right anymore...
who's actually trying to explain the rules and who's just being a jerk... and frankly, I don't want to make calls based solely on my own opinion of a disputed rule.

For example, specific points in the regulations are designed to prevent this kind of nonsense.

Matthew Young35 said:Here are the most critical points from my proposal that I would like others to incorporate into their own rules.

4. The final standings shall be announced by the championship host or someone specifically authorized by them.

6. Transcribing results is permitted.

7. If a player is dissatisfied, they may lodge a complaint with the host. If the host stands by their decision, the player must either accept the ruling or withdraw from the competition. However, if they can gather more than half of the competitors to support their grievance, the host shall be removed from their position.

9. The HOST and the MODERATORS are responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the competition.

10. Rules are to be interpreted in good faith. Therefore, if anyone exploits a loophole to gain a scoring advantage or simply to troll for the sake of it, they will be ignored. Furthermore, moderators are encouraged to issue appropriate penalties in accordance with the site's anti-trolling policies.

Everything else is secondary.

By choosing the manager themselves, the players are agreeing to his leadership and, by extension, his interpretation of the rules... so, goodbye.👋 There won't be any more arguing over who does what or why... it'll be crystal clear who is responsible for what.
☕

Matthew Young35 said:To be honest, I’m completely exhausted by all of this. If we don't see some drastic shifts in how moderation works and how trolling is handled, I'm done participating in these threads. It isn't an empty threat; 🤷, I know you're all preoccupied with whether I'll stick around or not, but I'm simply stating a fact.
It has become genuinely exhausting having to wade through mountains of legalistic jargon just to figure out if someone earned a single point more or less.
It's exhausting, my friend.

Tell me, though—how can I actually help you with any of this? If a permanent ban would make your time on the forum more pleasant...