GPRejects Original Content: Now available!

[Ataxia]

Dear forumites,

If you've missed out on the various posts across our social media accounts, we've been busy working on some fresh new content on GPR! Here's the home-page; hopefully you enjoy all of the pieces we have so far, and keep your eyes peeled for new content we have in the works on Facebook and Twitter. Simtek is also handling the #OnThisDay posts across both platforms, so keep an eye out for them!

Thanks for sticking with us, and thanks to everyone who has contributed so far!

[DemocalypseNow]

We're also excited to announce a brand new column to GPR! We've signed up the world's largest hot air producer to waft his strong, pungent opinions throughout the internet. You can check out John Newhouse's first GPR column with this link.

[dinizintheoven]

"John Newhouse".

That should be "James Newtown", surely, or is that a bit too close to the bone?

[shinji]

After the famine a flood

[DemocalypseNow]

"John Newhouse".

That should be "James Newtown", surely, or is that a bit too close to the bone?

I thought you were a Microprose aficionado? I had imagined you'd definitely be one of the people who'd catch the origin of the name

[dinizintheoven]

GP2 was a bit before "John Newhouse"'s time in F1...

Of course, what you could have done to invoke the greatness of Microprose and their Grand Prix games is bring in such luminaries as Robert Davies, Luigi Rivellini and Enzo d'Angelo. Or even he who made his car as wide as his nose, André Lux.

[DemocalypseNow]

NEWSFLASH! F1 announces the creating of an retrograde safety committee after events in Melbourne. Read more here!

[AndreaModa]

NEWSFLASH! F1 announces the creating of an retrograde safety committee after events in Melbourne. Read more here!

Sorry, but that's disgracefully poor taste.

Leave the fake news to Sniff Petrol if you can't do it properly and with a bit of respect.

[DemocalypseNow]

NEWSFLASH! F1 announces the creating of an retrograde safety committee after events in Melbourne. Read more here!

Sorry, but that's disgracefully poor taste.

Care to elaborate? Who exactly do you feel we're being disrespectful towards, and why?

[AndreaModa]

NEWSFLASH! F1 announces the creating of an retrograde safety committee after events in Melbourne. Read more here!

Sorry, but that's disgracefully poor taste.

Care to elaborate? Who exactly do you feel we're being disrespectful towards, and why?

Oh I don't know, maybe the deaths of recent drivers perhaps?!

I get that you want write funny spoof news articles, fine by me. I find most of that sort of stuff hilariously funny. But what would you say if someone died this weekend in Bahrain? I don't really think driver safety is a laughing matter.

And this:

The youngest of the three panellists, who goes by the pseudonym “imola94rofl”

I mean, what the f*ck? Is that honestly meant to be funny?

[DemocalypseNow]

Oh I don't know, maybe the deaths of recent drivers perhaps?!

I get that you want write funny spoof news articles, fine by me. I find most of that sort of stuff hilariously funny. But what would you say if someone died this weekend in Bahrain? I don't really think driver safety is a laughing matter.

And this:

The youngest of the three panellists, who goes by the pseudonym “imola94rofl”

I mean, what the f*ck? Is that honestly meant to be funny?

So, to understand, the main point of contention is we shouldn't be tackling difficult issues facing the sport, instead sticking to fluff pieces?

I'm sorry if tackling the worrying attitude coming from some quarters regarding safety is offensive to you. Me, personally, I'm tired of safety innovations being batted back on the grounds of gladiatorial attitudes toward how the sport should be carried out. That we should avoid considering any tried and tested safety innovations based on aesthetics or other irrelevant factors.

If you don't find it funny, that's absolutely fine. We're not comedians, we're just trying out something new and seeing how it goes. But for me, to always feel the need to take on a subject with a glum outlook, that one cannot make use of tools like satire to delve into the absurdity of the opposition's argument, is a sad position to be in.

I am sad still that Jules had passed away, but sadder still that people attempt to fight safety innovations; ones specifically in this particular case that perhaps may not have saved Jules himself, but several others lost in the last decade.

[AndreaModa]

Literally couldn't agree more with your point of view. There's a small bunch of conservative fans who have always resisted safety changes and I guess that's no different today and I think you've got to be pretty dumb to oppose improvements in safety in any aspect of motorsport.

But to trot out an article that lampoons the current situation with no respect paid to the fact that neither Bianchi, De Villota, Wilson, Wheldon or any of the other recent tragedies had cars good enough to save them is cold.

Let me repeat myself again, there's nothing funny about driver safety.

You guys want to write an article about how the Halo, or any other measure, that should be taken more seriously, honestly please do so. I'll read it, I'll applaud it and support it. But do it at a level, as you say, that does the topic justice, not lower it to cheap humour. You and Ataxia can do so much better than that, I know you can.

I don't suppose you've seen the reports on Twitter today that suggest Alonso may sit out the Bahrain GP because of his crash? Does that change how you view the article? I dare say he and any other driver wouldn't be impressed with what you've written, considering they put their lives on the line every time they leave the pitlane.

[madmark1974]

NEWSFLASH! F1 announces the creating of an retrograde safety committee after events in Melbourne. Read more here!

Sorry, but that's disgracefully poor taste.

Leave the fake news to Sniff Petrol if you can't do it properly and with a bit of respect.

I feel that I have to agree with AndreaModa here, the Sniff Petrol comment is very valid. It's fine to be a bit cynical and sarky in an article, but the balance here was just not right for me either. I understand this was an early attempt at something like this from the forum community, but perhaps too soon to be going full on with something on such a subject?

The Paul Walker comment was the bit where I took offence, I don't think you would have made a joke about Jules Bianchi, but why is it OK to make a joke about Paul?

Anyway, we'll see what other members have to say, but I think this article is a just a bit of an error in judgement, when the main site was finding its feet again.

[Nessafox]

I agree with Andrea Moda's point of view entirely.

Altough you have the right to post such pieces on a separate satirical website, i'd rather not have GP Rejects do it. Because it really devalues what the website is supposed to stand for: being critical and talking about the obscure. Using humour is a style-element, not a goal on itself.
But then again, if you're creating a seperate website you're going on Sniffpetrol territory, who are a lot sharper and more funny in their style. So if you want to do it right, you need years of practice and experience in writing satirical stuff. I'm not suggesting you give up on it, but i'm suggesting to practice it first before you associate it with the main website. In my humble opinion, i think Dinizintheoven is the only forum member who's got the right touch for satire and funnyness to be able to pull it off. Even then, i doubt he could do sensitive subjects like safety. Jenoch wouldn't be able to pull it off either in their glory days.

It is not in our best interest to create confusion between serious articles and comedy, because it looks like it's written just to have some content, rather than have good content. It feels a bit too much like filler material. It's best to wait until you've established the website as relevant, because now you're reaching out for the wrong public. Also the additional danger is that it will most likely attract torrents of forum trolls.

[DemocalypseNow]

So then my follow-up question has to be; why did no-one make these comments after the HWNSNBM piece? I understand it was not controversial in its subject matter, but it still marked a departure from the norm, and no-one suggested we were headed in the wrong direction there.

We cannot follow the previous direction. It is simply not open to us, it isn't available to us. Jenoch have made it very clear to me that we are not F1 Rejects. I am therefore really not sure what direction we can take. Post-Bahrain there will be a new driver profile, yes, and also a Super Aguri retrospective is in the works, but these are only two things. How often are people expecting new content? Of what form should it take? What can we do that makes us more than simply a passive bystander? What should we be formulating which actually attempts to participate in relevant discourse, rather than simply being different for the sake of being different? And who is actually willing to go out there and do these things? The final question is the most challenging of all.

I'm actually now quite happy with the article's outcome. It's finally started a form of discourse, which in a sense it was always supposed to, just not about this exactly.


And now, a sidebar to address This' comments specifially;

How would one accrue feedback on whether the trial and error at improving their skills is working, to a non-existent audience? The only way to know for sure if something works or not is to trial it in front of others. To be brave and willing to take that risk, that sometimes you will go over the line whilst simply trying to find where it is located to begin with. We are still essentially in our infancy, and we must consider and explore the options available to us before finally settling on a direction. It seems perhaps this is not it, which is disappointing given the only feedback from the last article of this nature was positive.

[AndreaModa]

I'm not knocking the format, I think the HWNSNBM piece was done well. The only problem I have is with the subject matter itself. If you can pick less sensitive, more humourous topics then you're onto a winner in my view.

This website exists to cover the heroic failures of F1 in a respectful and reverent way. Keep that in mind and focus your content around that. The HWNSNBM piece was spot on in that respect.

[Meatwad]

I have to admit I liked the article. It certainly was a bit morbid but funny. Not all humor has to be of the pie-in-the-face variety.

[Nessafox]

Well, by having a separate website for the satire pieces, but still link to it via GP Rejects. Not using the GP Rejects domain, but stating that you are 'one of the GP Rejects writers' isn't that harmful, as it only harms or boosts your own reputation, but posting it on the general website makes it look like it's 'what we all stand for', and what we stand for is a lot more than that.
And i'm not saying 'we' as claiming i'm contributing to the website. It's for a lack of a better word to adress the whole community.
Am i willing to do write stuff myself? No, because it's proven regularly that i don't have the required talent to sound cohesive. Quite an important talent. That's not an excuse to get out of the way, but a very well-known fact. Yes, i can probably write opinion pieces as i used to do concert reviews which my collegues considered to be quite good. But then again, i just don't care enough for the sport to do that. (i also stopped doing the concert reviews because i didn't care enough, so i'm only focussing on one specific festival. I actually only started to do it to help out a friend (visit festivalblog.be if you can understand dutch )

To answer the other question: HWNSNBM is established in-forum humour so most of us didn't really give it a second thought. Personally i barely noticed it because ithought wtf1 was doing something similar at the same time with Haryanto. But that turned out to not be satirical, after all. (in fact, there's been plenty of overlaps with wtf1 content and content people posted on the forum, which suggest that either we read their stuff or either they read our stuff)
Whilst altough the Villeneuve piece wasn't a success, most people were still thinking 'i'll give it a chance'. Now that you got on a very controversial subject, we are a bit worried.
Also i don't always have the time nor energy to post my opinion, because even though i might sound impulsive, a comment like this often takes more than half an hour to write, because i do re-check what i write. (and i still don't sound cohesive...)

You know, we won't stop visiting the website or forum because of those kind of articles and in the end, it is still your site. But it isn't exactly thought trough properly, and considering your usually well-planned game tactics, we didn't expect this randomness from you.
Look, your point of having your own style compared to the old F1 Rejects is valid, but i'm really afraid that it will attract a troll audience to the forum. And that's not being paranoid, but internet psychology.
And as said before: for the moment, try not to go too controversial yet. Again because of the above mentioned reasons: that it will give GP Rejects the reputation of a troll website, regardless of how it is intended.

Satire can be a part of what we're doing. But not random satire thet feels like filler content. I suggest opinion pieces are at the moment a better way to get started. Even though it might be controversial too, it isn't associated with trolling, and i think you probably have more qualities for opinion pieces than for humourous pieces.
Besides, with satire, you'll run out of ideas pretty soon, whilst with opinion pieces, theres always plenty of stuff that happens where you can have opinions on.

[Ataxia]

It's kinda funny that the articles with some time spent on them pretty much went up without so much as a whisper, but this one manages to draws all the attention.

I might as well pause the Super Aguri retrospective and write "Top 10 Best Crashes"...

(for those who might take offense, tongue-is-firmly-in-cheek.)

[AndreaModa]

So I'm assuming that new visitors to the website are going to remain being greeted with an enormous picture of Lauda's near-death crash until the next new piece of content comes up? Classy.

All that's missing is the David Purley/Roger Williamson sequence for added effect.

I'm concerned that there appears to be little appreciation for the concerns raised by forum members, not just myself. You guys at the top of the tree can run things how you want, I'm not interested in a slice of the pie, or changing anything. But if you want to run a website visited by what I suspect must be hundreds, if not thousands of people a day, then you're going to need to do it with a level of professionalism. I don't know what the bigger picture goals are here, but if the ambition is to one day approach the level of respect that had been earned by the former F1 Rejects site, to the point it was quoted and referenced by many other sites, then you need to buck up your game.

Because having thought about it more this evening, it's not necessarily that the safety story was in bad taste that I primarily took issue with. That in itself is disappointing, but more saddening is that I could never imagine in my wildest dreams either of Jamie or Enoch signing off on something like that.

So as a polite request, keeping in mind the ethos, background and history of this website and community, I'd like to see an acknowledgement given that posting that story was the wrong decision, have it removed, and that efforts will be made not to continue in a similar ilk please.

[Ataxia]

I'm concerned that there appears to be little appreciation for the concerns raised by forum members, not just myself.

We DO appreciate the concerns, but you have to keep in mind that we're trialling some stuff here. As we've pretty much started from scratch, we're trying to find our own identity in comparison to the old F1Rejects content. The humour is dark, yes, but some people have responded positively, and some of you have responded negatively. It's satirical. It's a statement about some of the current F1 fanbase. Is it perhaps too early to do this, considering we've built up a readership of about five people? Possibly, but we're going to give it a bit to settle and then decide what to do with it. Personally speaking, I love dark humour so I'd like to see it stay, but I appreciate it's not everyone's cup of tea.

Thing is, this is the first thing that anyone seems to have actually cared enough to talk about. Until posting this article, we've not had any real feedback on what people would actually like to see, so we're taking potshots in the dark for the most part. Obviously, continuing on in the theme of the old site is a must, but apart from that we have nothing to go on.

[AustralianStig]

Add me to the list of people who are offended by this article.

[DemocalypseNow]

So as a polite request, keeping in mind the ethos, background and history of this website and community, I'd like to see an acknowledgement given that posting that story was the wrong decision, have it removed, and that efforts will be made not to continue in a similar ilk please.

This will not be happening. We had already indicated this was simply a case of testing the waters, and the last part of your request was already fulfilled in that regard. But what we don't do is take things down at the behest of a handful of people requesting we do so, when the reception is mixed rather than universally negative.

Minor changes will be made to its presentation, but this is the only step we will take - it seems counter-productive to give in to demands made by the most outspoken of the commenters, given this is essentially one of the core principles of the post to begin with - that those who shout the loudest don't necessarily have the most valid opinion.

We have attempted to meet certain people half-way here, and again I state this was part of a trial run, but we won't be forced into drastic, reactionary decisions by individuals.


What we might end up doing though is moving The Gravel Trap, if it is to continue at all, to a subdomain (e.g. graveltrap.gprejects.com) to increase that separation. Anything else that isn't factual in nature (like the 'John Newhouse' experiment) will follow suit.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

I think those who feel closed cockpits are against the "DNA of Formula One" (oh, how much it's mutated over the years!) are a wonderful target for satire, it's just that this piece seems to have given off the wrong impression. It didn't seem clear at first whether it was mocking safety or those who were opposed to it, and there were parts of it that did probably go too far and should not have been inserted in the first place (the Paul Walker comment, for example).

Overall, might have been a good idea on paper, it's just that the execution didn't go smoothly, and you can see the results. Let's hope we can learn from it, put it behind us and do better in the future.

[CaptainGetz12]

NEWSFLASH! F1 announces the creating of an retrograde safety committee after events in Melbourne. Read more here!

Sorry, but that's disgracefully poor taste.

Leave the fake news to Sniff Petrol if you can't do it properly and with a bit of respect.

I feel that I have to agree with AndreaModa here, the Sniff Petrol comment is very valid. It's fine to be a bit cynical and sarky in an article, but the balance here was just not right for me either. I understand this was an early attempt at something like this from the forum community, but perhaps too soon to be going full on with something on such a subject?

The Paul Walker comment was the bit where I took offence, I don't think you would have made a joke about Jules Bianchi, but why is it OK to make a joke about Paul?

Anyway, we'll see what other members have to say, but I think this article is a just a bit of an error in judgement, when the main site was finding its feet again.

I agree with this sentiment. I did not find the joking in the style of the website and I feel that it anger quite a bit of readers. I don't support taking down the article and I can understand the appeal of dark humor, but I hope that the "gallows humor"-styled articles don't become the norm on the frontpage.

As someone who wishes to follow the tradition of looking into F1's less-known ventures I hope that the site doesn't depart too greatly from this philosophy. I understand that the owners of the site wish to expand GPrejects but I hope that the articles posted will not make this website be seen as one that relies on clickbait or controversy. There is more than enough of that on the Internet

[AndreaModa]

Well, what it boils down to is what do you boys at the top of the tree want this site to be about? Clearly Jamie and Enoch have no input into what's going on. Inevitably, if the site is to be the 'successor' to F1 Rejects, then comparisons will be drawn, and if anyone recalls Enoch's opinion pieces and reviews, then it's clear by the content that's been trotted out today that GP Rejects is some way from that standard.

If you want to distance yourselves from F1 Rejects, and build a different identity, then that's fine, but it needs to be communicated properly and then everyone understands. At the moment I see GP Rejects as a continuation of F1 Rejects, just without the old content. If that's what you're going for, then low-brow childish filler should be left to one side because it just tarnishes the legacy of what Jamie and Enoch put into that website. It's an insult to their hard work, and to the people who used to eagerly anticipate it.

If you are going to continue with articles like today's, which have absolutely no relevance to the heroic failures of F1 whatsoever, then for the love of God get some practice in and trial them in a controlled environment within the forum before putting them in the public domain.

The first time I saw the safety satirical piece was via the post by the Twitter account, and then on Facebook. To say I was stunned, both with the image choice, and wording, was an understatement. I'm familiar with the forum, the site and its members. What does Average Joe who has none of that knowledge think when he sees that post? I just get the impression that we've got a gang of trigger happy kids at the controls behind the scenes, not really sure what they're doing. I know the reality is different, so what's Average Joe thinking? Try not to make it look that way okay?

Simply putting these, as you admit yourselves, untested pieces out there into the public domain is just not the smart thing to do. Get a plan together of the sort of stuff you want to publish on a regular basis, trial it out in here, tweak if necessary, maybe get a list of topics to cover, and then push the button and go public properly.

As a sidenote, I see the image of Lauda's crash has been removed, that's good to see. I have to say the structure of the front page with a row of four articles along the top looks much better than the single large image in the carousel.

[Ataxia]

It's a shame you feel that way, looks like nobody's interested in 16 Caterpillars Which Look Like One Of Esteban Gutierrez's Eyebrows, or 9 Gifs From Friends Which Sum Up Rosberg And Hamilton's Relationship.

On a serious note, with regards to the other content, do you think you could direct us to why it falls short? It's very well taking shots at the parodical work since they were meant to divide opinion, but there's a lot more time taken to produce the serious work so we obviously want them to be next level before we put them up.

After the Super Aguri article is finished (it'll be a three-parter, it's that long), I'll be sticking to what I know in terms of modern F1, and perhaps I'll look at HRT or Caterham, or even the entry process in 2010 which was loaded towards the teams who wanted the Cosworth/Xtrac combo. I'd personally like to have more people aboard, so we can cover a greater time period. Moda, despite your protestations that you don't want a piece of the pie, it's clear you want some say. Why not come and help us out?

[DanielPT]

I am also on AndreaModa's side and others here. He already said much, but I think I can contribute on where the article went wrong. First of all, I think, looking at F1Rejects, that the site had absolutely no need to be controversial at this point. At most, let others be controversial and then try to jump on it on a pleasant manner. Secondly, it isn't even one bit subtle. I also feel that, sometimes, this kind of humor works better with more subtlety and less obvious references to real life accidents with bad outcomes. If a humorous piece is constantly reminding the reader of less pleasant feelings that he went through, like Imola, then it already failed. I think for that people must feel at least emotionally disconnected. Perhaps I am too old and clearly remember that painful day in 1994, but I am guessing that, other than being too recent, it is also a reason why you didn't go with a more recent reference. And being a F1 specialized website, most won't be disconnected enough. I know some like to dwell in dark humor in this manner but those are controversial comedians and tend to go with niche audiences which I believe is not what you are aiming for. Third, I think it fails to connect with those who you are trying to mock here. No one connected to F1 (there could be the odd sociopath) would wish bad on those involved. Jokes work better if they are either based on reality like that John Newhouse piece or are totally absurd situations that either no one goes through. I think this piece falls in the middle. Anyway, this is my feedback. All the rest I am enjoying in the most part.

[AndreaModa]

Ataxia - as far as I'm concerned, the race reviews, retrospectives on drivers/teams and other well researched high-brow pieces have been (and I'm sure will continue to be) excellent. No need to change them. I took issue with the safety article specifically because I felt it was inappropriate. The responses I had to me raising my concerns gave me the impression that irrespective of what I think or write, you guys will continue to put out what you see fit for the website. Thus, faced with a stubborn response, I wanted to make it clear what I thought of such pieces that trivialised safety with complete disregard for any respect at all and why I feel it would be a mistake to continue hosting and publishing articles of a similar ilk.

Turns out I was right about Alonso being barred from racing in Bahrain due to his crash. How does that paint the article now? Regardless of your taste in comedy, it doesn't look professional does it?

With regard to your offer to help, I appreciate it, but I have neither the time nor motivation to research and write long-form articles at the present time. In addition, and I mean this with no disrespect to any of you guys steering the ship, I have doubts about the long term future of the site, and I'm not a huge fan of Biscione's management style - his response to my request above being a good example, but by no means the only example - I've been around long enough to know. Again, no disrespect to him, just my own personal feelings. The fact I've had to write all of this stuff is enough evidence for me to say it wouldn't work.

I think I've said enough now. I've made my points quite clear so there's no need to elaborate further. All I want you boys to do is take what I've written on board and use it to help mould a better GP Rejects site. I like this place, I've spent a considerable amount of time here since 2009 and I don't want to see it all go to sh*t because of some poor decision-making.

[Miguel98]

So, hum... Ignoring this, and going on something a bit more positive...

AndreaModa, what do you recommend we change in our race reviews?

[AndreaModa]

So, hum... Ignoring this, and going on something a bit more positive...

AndreaModa, what do you recommend we change in our race reviews?

You've misunderstood me:

Ataxia - as far as I'm concerned, the race reviews, retrospectives on drivers/teams and other well researched high-brow pieces have been (and I'm sure will continue to be) excellent. No need to change them.

[Nuppiz]

It seems people here are far more sensitive than what I thought of before. I guess I should've known though, given how over-sensitive the world seems to be these days.

Since I also happen to have my username painted red, I think its reasonable that I elaborate how I feel about the article, and the subject in general, so members know what kind of people are running the show (although I generaly have little input as regards to what goes on the main site). I was not offended at all, nor do I consider the article to be in poor taste. It aptly satirizes the way how some of the less sensible fans actually think, and that its silly to believe that reducing safety would improve the show. Of course, satire is very fine line to tread on and unless written very well it can fail to provide any comedic effect, which seems to have happened here. Like Biscione said we're still testing the waters here so it'll take some time before we can establish a more permanent style of writing which is both funny and not too offensive.

My reaction may be related to the way how I handle serious injury and death in general. Unless it happens to someone I have a deep personal connection with, I see no reason to be sad and sensitive about to matter. Of course its unfortunate when stuff like that happens and I certainly don't wish it upon anyone, but I personally find it pointless to be broody about the matter for days, weeks, months, even years. It might sound like I'm an emotionless robot, but I just find it irrational to have strong emotions towards a person who in the end is a complete stranger on a personal level.

Seems that I'm in the minority with this though, given the reactions here and the fact some people are still carrying Bianchi avatars. But that's totally fine, people have different ways of dealing with serious matters.

So the final verdict is that extreme satire like this doesn't enjoy a broad audience and won't be continued. The article itself will eventually get buried under others once more of them are published so I see no reason to delete or edit it further. As for attracting potential "troll members", they are welcome to test the patience of our moderating team...

[madmark1974]

In case anyone has forgotten, there has been around a year's worth of discussion as to what we would like to see
on the main site, in the "Editiorial Direction" thread here :

http://gprejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7388

To be fair, a lot of what was debated on there has now actually happened. Race reviews, proper posts for
ROTR and IIDOTR, etc, all good.

Now, there's a lot of posts in that thread above, but I don't explicitly remember seeing anyone asking for 'joke' articles.

Copy/pasting from the subtitle of the JDD Forum - "The place for respectful and reverent discussion of Reject drivers and teams" - surely that's the ethos of the site right there and should apply to current relevant topics as well.

To be honest, I don't have a lot of time to trawl the internet, I know if I want current F1 news to look at the BBC
site, or James Allen's, if I want jokes about Lewis Hamilton or McLaren I'll look on Sniff Petrol or WTF1. Maybe you
don't want to just be a 'continuation' of F1 Rejects, and without the old content you probably can't be, but I think
that's our USP here, it's a case of getting the right 'vibe' - I didn't like either the Safety Article or the John
Newhouse column, but I'll likely just avoid clicking on things like that in the future and stick to what I know I will like.
Do what people like and they will keep reading, don't try to do it all, as the quality will suffer and people will look elsewhere.

That's my feelings on the subject as of now, I notice that a lot of the people have responded are the more long-term
and established members who are therefore also of more advanced years - it'd be interesting to see what some
of the young'uns think.

[dinizintheoven]

ACHTUNG:
Long post ahead, full of opinions only tangentially related to the current boiling cauldron which will either spark a round of applause or will see me run off the forum for ever, and I'm not entirely sure which it will be.

At least I'm not DonTirri...?

But then again, if you're creating a seperate website you're going on Sniffpetrol territory...

...In my humble opinion, i think Dinizintheoven is the only forum member who's got the right touch for satire and funnyness to be able to pull it off. Even then, i doubt he could do sensitive subjects like safety. Jenoch wouldn't be able to pull it off either in their glory days.

Interesting that you should invoke both me and Sniffpetrol in the same comment; it's happened before, back on my days on the Final Gear forums. If you don't believe me, go there and search for the phrase "Ironlord should write for Sniffpetrol" - that was my canonical username in those days (still is in some parts, I only made this one for a bit more reject-cred) - and then search further and you'll find it was that forum, not the Perry McCarthy subdivision of this one, that saw the creation of Marktin Brundell. If I am lying on this one, may I be struck down with every possible disease it's possible for a 36-year-old Englishman to suffer from, including the cancers that killed both my parents, slowly and horribly.

Satire is a very hot potato. And I'm not even sure that's what I do (or intend to do) on this forum; usually I try to come up with comparisons I find amusing, and which other people might do as well, and as is my way, many of them will be as long and convoluted as the excellent title track of The Wolves Of Avalon's latest album (at 30 minutes and four seconds). I'm not sure I know, or anyone else knows where the line is any more between satire and real life... call it Poe's Law, call it The Onion Effect (as I usually do)...

See it this way. American Conservative Christians are easy to satirise, aren't they? We all had a good laugh at Don Pentecost and his foam-mouthed dribblings, whether it was about his questionable ability to be a World Champion well into his fifties, his blatant Ponzi scheme that nobody was falling for, his slavish dedication to every single redneck stereotype under the Arizona sun, or the cognitive dissonance between the loudmouthed redneckery and his "clean energy solution" that is anathema to everyone else of his disposition. But heed my warning: the Onion article about the Christian Right trying to overturn the Second Law of Thermodynamics isn't quite as satirical as it looks. They think they invented every aspect of the story because nobody could ever be that thick, could they? But somebody, somewhere out there, genuinely does believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be overturned. The name will be different, the location will be different, but "Ralph Reed" of Topeka, Kansas is overwhelmingly likely to a real person with the exact views the satirical article thinks are too ridiculous to exist. Who knows, his name might even be Don Pentecost who lives in Scottsdale, Arizona.

There is now a second and even more invidious group who have usurped even the American Christian Conservatives as the peak of lunacy, and are far more dangerous to deal with; the social justice warriors. You know the type; those who cluster around Tumblr like worms round a rotting cadaver, loudly shrieking at each other with much the same fervour and at much the same level of aural shrillness as the ACCs about how all people who aren't part of their favoured group of minorities are inherently evil and must be wiped off the face of the Earth, how they're offended and "triggered" by mugs of tea, Mills & Boon novels and other such mundane, everyday objects (condemning them as racist or misogynist or something similar by leaps of Insane Troll Logic that even a tinfoil-hatted 9/11 conspiracy theorist would find outlandish), how the world is against them because the gender and pronouns they just made up two minutes ago aren't automatically accepted by the Oxford English Dictionary, and how white, straight men are to blame for absolutely everything including the eruption of Krakatoa, the extinction of the dinosaurs and the return of Sauron to Middle Earth. Again, invoking The Onion Effect, The Ultimate SJW is a parody blog - it's written by someone who's been observing their behaviour for longer than is healthy for those who wise to remain sane (and openly says so on the front page, strange how so many viewers have missed that) - but every single opinion expressed on it will, if you search for long enough (and please, for the sake of your own well-being and continued existence, don't!), be found to be a real belief or opinion of a real SJW, somewhere out there.

Dealing with American Conservative Christians isn't hard. Do something they don't like, and they'll instigate a serious prayer campaign asking God to strike your house down; God seems unwilling to comply. About the worst they'll do is picket your house or place of work the way the Westboro Baptist Church do, and the usual upshot is they'll be laughed at - after all, that's an organisation that's always been held up as "it would have been satire except it really exists". The SJW lunatics, though, don't consider prayer to be a valid attack mechanism. Say something, anything, that runs even remotely contrary to their rigid orthodoxy (which resembles a religion far too closely, even though 100% of them will claim to be atheists) and you can expect a sustained campaign of online harassment... all the time while they decry the mere act of doing so! Being run out of Twitter is the least you can expect - not very convenient if you're trying to use it to attract new people to your website only for the chief recruitment tool to be overrun with comment after comment after comment after screeched comment about how said website is racist and misogynist and something-else-ist and this-and-that-ophobic (often with terms for prejudices that nobody else knew existed but everyone is inherently guilty of). But it can get worse... the doxxing follows soon after, which is - and I don't care who it's used on, even if it's Don Pentecost - one of the most vile and despicable practices I've seen in recent years. "The owner of this website is "Alessandro Linari" (cough) who is (string of insults, all of which are untrue but will be lapped up by the Tumblr audience as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth), he lives at (address), his mobile number is (you get the idea), his email is ([email protected]), his favourite food is (haggis, what else?), his credit card number is (don't think for a minute they wouldn't do this), he works at (respectable company)... NOW GET HIM FIRED AND BLACKLISTED FROM EVERYTHING IT'S POSSIBLE TO BE BLACKLISTED FROM BECAUSE HE SAID SOMETHING WE DIDN'T LIKE!" ...and so on and so on, until the lives of everyone in the SJW gunsights are irreparably ruined, none can ever get a job again and will wither and die in the gutter, destitute, homeless, and all because of one comment on the internet. And they get away with it, because, while most reasonable people look at the ACCs and decide they're a bunch of crazies, the SJWs have painted themselves to be on the side of righteousness, so a lot of people who should really know better consider them to be some kind of force for good, despite being even crazier than the ACCs and far more likely to raise an army who will stop at nothing to cause unimaginable damage to the target of their vitriol until said target has been declared an unperson by the vast majority of observers.

Mostly, I like to think of myself as being somewhat level-headed (even though some might take all my waffle above to be contrary evidence). And I must have been one of the few here who thought "imola1994rofl" was a bit close to the bone but didn't deserve the public flogging it's been given. I've been watching Top Gear since 1992 - back in the days of Chris Goffey and Tony Mason - so I'd had a decade and a half to be forewarned of what a certain seven-foot-tall orang-utan might spew out at any given moment. My reaction to that infamous Mexicans episode, most of which came from Richard Hammond: "Hamster... seriously?" That was pretty much it. Not once did it cross my mind to jump on the Twitter account I barely even use and throw him to the lions in a saga that would drag on, and on, and on, for weeks. And so it is with the Gravel Trap. I'm not given to jumping on every single little thing considered "offensive" and publicly shaming the original author into a humiliating climbdown, and I certainly won't go reposting the original article all over Twitter and Tumblr to whip up a frenzy of outrage, with concomitant escalation in the volume and frequency as each Twitterer and Tumblrtard tries to outdo the last in the "I'm more outraged than you!" competition that all such campaigns invariably turn into.

I've seen this tree grow from its rotten roots, I've seen its fetid flowers pollinated by the bees of hate and I've seen its poisonous fruit eaten by the horse of virulent hypocrisy which gallops off to a new field, previously thought to be unfertile ground, where it dumps out the seeds in the festering dung of self-righteous virtue-signalling, a sapling sprouts, and the whole ruinous cycle begins again, where it should never even have been allowed to flourish.

I have watched the SJW lynch mob's deranged lunacy for long enough to know I have absolutely no intention of deliberately jumping into their firing line. The snipers are already stationed; I am pale in hue, XY in genotype, a phenotype to match the genotype and no intention of ever changing that, and nominally at least I am attracted to those of an XX genotype, though that's declined to practically zero primarily due to the actions of a certain sub-section of that lynch mob. You know, the one beginning with "F". My mere existence (and that of 95-99% of this forum, don't forget) is enough to be the target of a social justice fatwa without further poking this rabid dog with a pointy stick, or tickling it with a feather, or looking at it funny, or even just leaving it alone, all of which will provoke much the same reaction.

So, in short - much shorter than the above - the chances of me writing any form of satirical article for The Gravel Trap is zero, lest it invoke the attention of those who are living, breathing satire and who are determined to erase everyone who is not their own kind.

However...

After the Super Aguri article is finished (it'll be a three-parter, it's that long), I'll be sticking to what I know in terms of modern F1, and perhaps I'll look at HRT or Caterham, or even the entry process in 2010 which was loaded towards the teams who wanted the Cosworth/Xtrac combo.

...waaaaaaaaay back in the old days when we were still F1 Rejects, I'd considered writing something like this at the end of a season, probably 2013 when the three "new teams" (or CRTs in MotoGP-speak...) had still not been able to score any points, were still way off the pace, and one was already defunct. It was supposed to be an opinion piece as to why I think it happened, but because I suspected it would be loaded with anything from minor untruths to outright hideous mistakes that (say) Mario would soon pick up on, I never wrote it. All the time I was thinking "if only I could write like Enoch"...

[Nuppiz]

*Very long post*

10/10

Exactly my thoughts.

[Nessafox]

That post again proves that you can pull off a lot of things, because of your writing talent. I'm not saying you should try it, i'm just saying you have the required talent.
I'm sure that next to nobody on this forum would argue that you and Mario are the best writers in here, with both of you having their own style and specialisations. If you guys would team up, in theory ,it could reach the level of Jenoch.


But you know what? It is a good thing that we are free to have discussions like this. Not for a single second has this turned into a flamewar. And as long as we can state our opinion like this when we have one (we don't always have one), and you guys are open to our opinions, progress will be made.
Yes, you guys sure need a way to test your audience. But yes, you should also define what audience you are reaching for.
Then again, remember you don't have to start from scratch. You do have a part of the former F1 Rejects audience as a foundation. It's the best to keep the same type of audience as a target. Widening? Sure, but think it trough before you widen. Just don't forget where you came from, and that you have the luxury of a somewhat loyal audience to start with. We are all very happy about the previews/reviews so far, so it's unlikely much of us will leave you anytime soon.

And Simtek, i'm sure you can handle the trolls, but lot of forum members don't have the mental stability to handle a constant stream of troll members. The question is not only if the admins and adminstrators can handle it, but also if the community can handle it. We're used to being in a remarkably pieceful state for a long period (rarely are there fights on here), and even that was too much for some members to handle, and we did lose valuable members over time (altough the decline in interest for F1 in general is also partially to blame for that, and of course some personal problems of some members). So yeah, i'm pretty convinced that if troll members or members who think we're only about being funny are increasing, not much will be left of this forum. And i'm 100% convinced they will increase if you're doing controversial stuff. Remember that you are only webmasters and administators by proving your worth inside the community, so don't forget that the support of the community is important. As mentioned above, because you're in a luxury position to start. You're in the luxury position to build upon the community and part of the legacy of what was a unique website.
Even though this wasnt wat dinizintheoven was trying to point out, it did sort of confirm some of my points.
If the articles are funny or not is a matter of taste, but we can by no means handle the crowd it will attract. That is my main worry. I'm not an established member because of my contributions because they aren't much. But i am an established member because of simply being there for a long time and having seen everything evolve. I do have opinions and concerns, and i do hope you value them.

To the Bisciones, Ataxias and Simteks i would like to point out that we are by no means angry. We're just concerned. We speak our concerns because we genuinely feel you, the community and the website are worth it to put our time into giving you feedback.

[dinizintheoven]

Now that it seems the axe hasn't been wielded, I can add this:

Look back again at the Onion article and the SJW troll account and my explanation for why I put them there - i.e. that it's pretty much impossible to distinguish between the parody and the real ACCs/SJWs out there if it's not explicitly pointed out.

Now look at the bit that caused so much grief in the Gravel Trap: "imola1994rofl". This is where the satire hasn't worked - because nobody out there would be stupid enough to open an account on any media platform with that name.

Let me spin you a story of an Irish bloke called Paul Stenson. He runs the Charleville Lodge and White Moose café just north of the centre of Dublin, and has a habit of getting himself into hot water - deliberately, so it seems, to drum up publicity. First of all he had a huge rant about vegans being overly sniffy because his café didn't cater to them enough, pasted it all over Facebook and then continued laying into them whenever there was any backlash, knowing that any publicity was good publicity and it would actually attract custom from those in the Dublin area, and anyone visiting, who are sick to the back teeth of the sanctimonious posturing and moral grandstanding that has given vegans their unwanted reputation. It seems that worked well. But then, he took on a rather larger foe. He saw fit to mock his new Brazilian kitchen worker's inability to see the difference between "chicken" and "kitchen", presumably from having just learned English reasonably recently (and who might have been further confused by the Irish accent, who knows). This drew the ire of some local Brazilians, who drummed up the support of a Brazilian comedy site (which I think wants to be their answer to Private Eye or similar) which openly called for 200 million Brazilians to flood the Facebook page with one-star reviews for the White Moose café. Never mind that most of them were written in Portuguese, and were clearly from reviewers who had never even left Brazil, let alone visited Ireland - there's only so many times that all the comments can be ignored before, blatant lies though they are, those who don't know the truth start to believe them. "If a lie is repeated often enough..." and all that. Many of the comments weren't exactly the product of literary legends: "HUEHUEHUEHUEHUE SENHOR ES RASISTA HUEHUEHUEHUEHUE (Portuguese comment about cockroaches in the kitchen, food served with bodily fluids in it, plates and cutlery being used for activities that even Max Mosley would consider beneath him) HUEHUEHUEHUEHUE BRASIL ES NUMERO UM HUEHUEHUEHUEHUE" is about par for the course. (Note: unlike DanielPT and the more level-headed Brazilians we have here, I barely know a word of Portuguese, but this is the gist of it - and a lot of the HUEHUEHUEHUEHUE was genuine.)

And every time the comments started to die down and were interspersed with real reviews that said "actually, I've been to the White Moose café and it's grand", Paul doubled down and challenged his Brazilian tormentors to leave even more ridiculous comments... "I'll be very disappointed in your country if we don't get 20,000 one-star reviews by the end of the day!" and so on. Of course, they rose to the challenge. The café's average start rating plunged below two stars. More and more blatant lies were trotted out. And Facebook's admins flatly refused to intervene, even though it was obvious that most of the one-star reviews were false. So in the end, Paul's big middle finger to Brazil was to change the "business" page to one for an "artist" which can't be reviewed so every comment, positive or negative, was wiped out.

Remember: this all snowballed from one comment made about a Brazilian kitchen porter (the "chicken porter" in his own words) that was meant in jest - you know, much like the way we might give Jean-Denis Délétraz a mild ribbing for his overly-involved three Grands Prix, or refer to our favourite crash-happy GP2 driver as Sergio Can'tamasas. So never underestimate how much of a massive lynch mob there might be out there... especially if they're Brazilian.

And so, via this long and convoluted route, what chance would anyone on Twitter or Facebook or any of the other media-twonk sites stand, should they choose the name "imola1994rofl"? To us, that horrific race makes us think of Roland Ratzenberger, but to the rest of the world, and especially to Brazil, it means Saint Ayrton, The Good Christian Boy™ who was incapable of any wrongdoing in their eyes - and so, anyone with such a username would be ripped to shreds like a pack of angry wolves with the smell of blood in their nostrils who saw a lame and defenceless sheep. To those who would say "it's only the internet", I am (un)fortunate enough to live in the city where internet trolling met its ultimate conclusion - I can even point out to you all, should you ever visit Nottingham, where the man who made an unfortunate comment on the internet was shot dead for it - and his assailant had travelled from Germany to carry out his assassination.

That would almost certainly have also been the fate of "imola1994rofl" had he (she? it? Tumblr-pronoun that has only existed for 30 seconds?) been real, so... that level of unsubtlety is where I'd say one of the problem lies with that article... even if I've taken a thousand words to explain what could have been done in ten.

But heed this other warning: what if the Grand Prix fans of Brazil were to find that article, what if they were to have the same sense of humour failure as those who besieged the White Moose café, what if they were to be encouraged to join this forum en masse and spam it to within an inch of its life?

Remember the time Joey Zyla went mad?

Think of that as the tip of a very large iceberg.

[Miguel98]

Diniz, I'm fairly certain that DanielPT is portuguese, not brasilian

[Ataxia]

After having a couple of days to percolate, I'll leave with this. I stand by any of the minor contributions to that article I made, and I still think it's a fun piece. However, I understand the criticism. I think that these articles have a future, but I don't necessarily think they should be on this page. I suppose we have a duty to continue what Jamie and Enoch could not, and whilst we can dip into humour so dark you'd need a candle to read it, we should perhaps link a separate page so that people who like the Gravel Trap pieces can follow it at their free will.

Anyway, for what it's worth I've drawn up a list of things I'd like to write about in a long-form piece over the future, and these might be punctuated by smaller opinion pieces, just to increase the direction we have.

[dinizintheoven]

Diniz, I'm fairly certain that DanielPT is portuguese, not brasilian

I knew that - the fact that Portuguese is his native language will be enough to point out the hideous flaws in my very rejectful attempt at it...