The ASMF Canon Council Topic

In honour of our fallen comrade. Archive of all previous canon series across all disciplines.
User avatar
Rated
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 529
Joined: 14 Oct 2012, 14:06

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Rated »

1. Yes
2. Yes
2i. Yes
3. Abstain
4. Abstain
5 Yes
Last edited by Rated on 18 Mar 2017, 11:15, edited 1 time in total.
BORDAS BORDAS BORDAS
User avatar
Klon
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 7184
Joined: 28 Mar 2009, 17:07
Location: Schleswig-Holstein, FRG
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Klon »

1. Yes.

2. Yes. (please note, that, unless well prepared, I will automatically reject any DTM proposal that fails to account for the special circumstances in DTM)

2 (i). Yes.

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Yes
User avatar
Aerond
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 3504
Joined: 25 Mar 2010, 19:26
Location: Anschlussland

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Aerond »

1. Abstain
2. Abstain
3. No
4. Abstain
5. Abstain
Tread lightly in ARWS. Every decision might be your last.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Automated championships are now permitted for inclusion into the ASMF; nevertheless, specific automated series proposals still require ratification via council vote.

Evora Type 124 Cup, Viper Cup, and Ford GT GT3 Cup have all been successfully ratified. The respective managers of the series in question are welcome to begin preparations, though I would strongly recommend for the deferral of the series starts for all three to 2020.

The Indy Star Mazda proposal has failed to meet the necessary conditions for ratification, and is rejected accordingly.

Given the proximity of final exams, the discussion/proposal window will be extended to a period spanning five weeks, closing on 22 April, 2017.

For the moment being, TCBY's BTCC proposal is tabled for discussion.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

With the news of Star Mazda's rejection, I would like to take it on myself as an automated series that would be more or less the same as what Gonzalez has proposed, unless an experienced hand wants to step in and run it themselves.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
Gonzalez
Posts: 555
Joined: 19 Jun 2015, 20:10
Location: Somewhere in North London

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Gonzalez »

I would like to request an explanation and feedback (if possible) regarding why my proposal was rejected as I felt I had put a lot of work and effort as I can give my best shot on and now it's almost all for nothing.

I'm not mad though, i'm just feeling baffled.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Gonzalez wrote:I would like to request an explanation and feedback (if possible) regarding why my proposal was rejected as I felt I had put a lot of work and effort as I can give my best shot on and now it's almost all for nothing.

I'm not mad though, i'm just feeling baffled.


I can't necessarily speak for the rest of the council, but I rejected your proposal primarily on the basis of the unsuitability of the platform you chose; running a bottom-tier open-wheeler series using a V8 IndyCar mod on a game designed to simulate stock car racing isn't exactly a combination that inspires confidence. I'll also openly admit that I took your previous record with regard to running PMMF championships into consideration when making my decision.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by DemocalypseNow »

I would like to raise a point. A lot of the council's voting patterns lately have made its existence somewhat redundant. Too many people are voting 'Abstain' on raised issues. This was not created so people could sit comfortably on the fence. The idea was to review submissions and make sensible judgements, including turning ideas down when they lacked the necessary refinements.

To illustrate the point, here is the total tally of votes in ASMF Council history;

Yes - 53
No - 6
Abstain - 23

One reply I received to this was suggesting that it was to be expected when the issue in question is not pertinent to the individual. The whole point of the council though was to give judgement on any and all issues, regardless of personal relevance. From where I stand, you have two options;

1. Increase the number of members, bringing in more decisive individuals who will even out the fact current members are too keen to vote 'Abstain' when they should be taking a stance.
2. Disband the council. If the majority of its members cannot take positions in areas for which it solely exists for, its reason for existence is lost.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

DemocalypseNow wrote:I would like to raise a point. A lot of the council's voting patterns lately have made its existence somewhat redundant. Too many people are voting 'Abstain' on raised issues. This was not created so people could sit comfortably on the fence. The idea was to review submissions and make sensible judgements, including turning ideas down when they lacked the necessary refinements.

To illustrate the point, here is the total tally of votes in ASMF Council history;

Yes - 53
No - 6
Abstain - 23

One reply I received to this was suggesting that it was to be expected when the issue in question is not pertinent to the individual. The whole point of the council though was to give judgement on any and all issues, regardless of personal relevance. From where I stand, you have two options;

1. Increase the number of members, bringing in more decisive individuals who will even out the fact current members are too keen to vote 'Abstain' when they should be taking a stance.
2. Disband the council. If the majority of its members cannot take positions in areas for which it solely exists for, its reason for existence is lost.


I certainly won't deny that this is a problem, but I maintain that it's more a byproduct of the disparity between ASMF-wide administrative proposals and specific series proposals, particularly those pertaining to entry-series. I'll concede to having worded my initial, informal reply rather badly; it isn't so much a question of personal relevance, but rather personal familiarity with the field in which the proposal is situated.

The abstention instance rate generally points to this; the considerable majority of abstentions are made in regard to an entry-level series proposal, which makes sense, given that the circumstances are compounded by the tacit understanding that entry-level series effectively constitute a de facto gateway for new users into the ASMF, which, incidentally, is something I'd like to address. In regard to ASMF-wide proposals, and even non-entry-level ASMF series, where the actual observed rate is unfortunately occluded by informal ratification, the abstention rate is significantly lower, reflecting the additional consequence and comprehensiveness of those proposals likely considered by council members in those votes.

I'd thus argue that there are two different potential solutions to the issue. One, revise the voting on entry-level series such that only the representative of the area in which the new series falls is permitted to make a decision on the series; we've already seen a relatively successful instance of this, where Rated ultimately rejected Roblomas' Mini Cooper series on the basis of insufficient linkages to the rest of the GT/TC ladder. By concentrating the decision-making power in the hands of "specialists" familiar with the implications involved, or lack thereof, with the series proposal in question on other ASMF championships, we'd likely observe an increase in substantive votes on the matter.

Two, revise the entry-level qualification system entirely; whilst it did serve well at the start of the council system, when the ASMF was legitimately facing something of a drought in entry-level championships, we've now reached a point where there now exists substantial saturation in both open-wheeler and tin-top entry-level series. To add on to my previous point over the concentration of abstentions on entry-level series, the choice is increasingly becoming one between ratifying a series that appears surplus to requirements and blocking a user from even getting his or her foot in the figurative ASMF door. It's a problem that I haven't yet considered well enough to construct a substantive proposal out of, but it is something that I feel needs to be addressed relatively promptly.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
Pilot
Posts: 280
Joined: 22 Sep 2016, 20:48
Location: America

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Pilot »

kevinbotz wrote:
DemocalypseNow wrote:I would like to raise a point. A lot of the council's voting patterns lately have made its existence somewhat redundant. Too many people are voting 'Abstain' on raised issues. This was not created so people could sit comfortably on the fence. The idea was to review submissions and make sensible judgements, including turning ideas down when they lacked the necessary refinements.

To illustrate the point, here is the total tally of votes in ASMF Council history;

Yes - 53
No - 6
Abstain - 23

One reply I received to this was suggesting that it was to be expected when the issue in question is not pertinent to the individual. The whole point of the council though was to give judgement on any and all issues, regardless of personal relevance. From where I stand, you have two options;

1. Increase the number of members, bringing in more decisive individuals who will even out the fact current members are too keen to vote 'Abstain' when they should be taking a stance.
2. Disband the council. If the majority of its members cannot take positions in areas for which it solely exists for, its reason for existence is lost.


I certainly won't deny that this is a problem, but I maintain that it's more a byproduct of the disparity between ASMF-wide administrative proposals and specific series proposals, particularly those pertaining to entry-series. I'll concede to having worded my initial, informal reply rather badly; it isn't so much a question of personal relevance, but rather personal familiarity with the field in which the proposal is situated.

The abstention instance rate generally points to this; the considerable majority of abstentions are made in regard to an entry-level series proposal, which makes sense, given that the circumstances are compounded by the tacit understanding that entry-level series effectively constitute a de facto gateway for new users into the ASMF, which, incidentally, is something I'd like to address. In regard to ASMF-wide proposals, and even non-entry-level ASMF series, where the actual observed rate is unfortunately occluded by informal ratification, the abstention rate is significantly lower, reflecting the additional consequence and comprehensiveness of those proposals likely considered by council members in those votes.

I'd thus argue that there are two different potential solutions to the issue. One, revise the voting on entry-level series such that only the representative of the area in which the new series falls is permitted to make a decision on the series; we've already seen a relatively successful instance of this, where Rated ultimately rejected Roblomas' Mini Cooper series on the basis of insufficient linkages to the rest of the GT/TC ladder. By concentrating the decision-making power in the hands of "specialists" familiar with the implications involved, or lack thereof, with the series proposal in question on other ASMF championships, we'd likely observe an increase in substantive votes on the matter.

Two, revise the entry-level qualification system entirely; whilst it did serve well at the start of the council system, when the ASMF was legitimately facing something of a drought in entry-level championships, we've now reached a point where there now exists substantial saturation in both open-wheeler and tin-top entry-level series. To add on to my previous point over the concentration of abstentions on entry-level series, the choice is increasingly becoming one between ratifying a series that appears surplus to requirements and blocking a user from even getting his or her foot in the figurative ASMF door. It's a problem that I haven't yet considered well enough to construct a substantive proposal out of, but it is something that I feel needs to be addressed relatively promptly.

Here's a thought that I ponder. What if we go back even farther than F4? Has anybody ever tried to make a karting series for youngsters? It would solve that issue, because karting is way, way, way more regional than F4 is at this point. It could also help the series runners of F4 with stats, and the like.
Biscione wrote:Can you stop being such a snowflake for five minutes?
User avatar
Ataxia
Not Important
Posts: 6860
Joined: 23 Jun 2010, 12:47
Location: Sneed's Feed & Seed (formerly Chuck's)
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Ataxia »

Pilot8 wrote:Here's a thought that I ponder. What if we go back even farther than F4? Has anybody ever tried to make a karting series for youngsters? It would solve that issue, because karting is way, way, way more regional than F4 is at this point. It could also help the series runners of F4 with stats, and the like.


...and if it's more regional, you'd need about 10 series just to cover the F4 championships we have now. It'd become so bloated that I think people would lose interest.

I think the "regional tier" requirement has worked in that it's brought new members forward who are willing to run races. For now, I would suggest sticking with the lineup of series we have for 2019 and let the council consider a potential new direction of getting people involved.

For example, it could be that the council provides a mandate for a touring car ladder, and as such new members can contribute to running a support package for it much like that seen on the TOCA calendar.
Mitch Hedberg wrote:I want to be a race car passenger: just a guy who bugs the driver. Say man, can I turn on the radio? You should slow down. Why do we gotta keep going in circles? Man, you really like Tide...
User avatar
Nuppiz
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 5922
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 12:10
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Nuppiz »

Yeah, let's just see how the current F4 system pans out before considering a further extension downwards. These things take a lot of time to develop; five years ago Biscione suggested a Formula BMW series but it was shot down at the time due to being "too junior". Now we have just recently introduced a number of F4 series which are more or less at the same level as FBMW. With us still struggling to find people to run certain series, I don't see a point in attempting to spread canon all the way down to karting. To be honest, even I'm running AR 3.5 mostly out of obligation now...

As regards to the Abstain problem, it will be fixed in time for the next council lineup. What this fix will be is still up to debate.
Eurosport broadcast for the 1990 Mexican GP prequalifying:
"The Life, it looked very lifeless yet again... in fact Bruno did one, slow lap"
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

Simple proposal:

Series owners can't tweak calendar dates without a very good reason to do so. Someone (who I won't name) did that to allow a driver to double-duty in two series, and I feel kind of bad for not really saying anything about it when I probably should have. :P
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

I'd like to table a proposal for discussion, in regard to the entry-level congestion/council abstention issue raised earlier.

1. Whilst the entry-level probationary period condition certainly functioned as intended during its initial phase, as far as stimulating new series entries and completing the lowermost rungs of existing ASMF ladders is concerned, it's also resulted in something of a superheated, congested environment for that particular level of ASMF competition. Additionally, as the probationary period is presently the only method by which prospective series managers can enter into the ASMF, it invariably compromises the canon vote, which was alluded to by Biscione earlier in regard to the disproportionate number of abstentions as of late.

As such, I'd like to propose that a successful, competently managed 18-Metre Debut Forum championship, as assessed on a case-by-case basis by the Council, also be considered as a sufficient condition for a user to submit a non-entry level ASMF series bid, in addition to the existing entry-level path. The inclusion of an additional avenue of entry should not only allow the Council to be more selective in regard to the ratification of entry-level series proposals, but also allow for the possibility of a more flexible fulfillment of ASMF series requirements, given that most existing gaps in canon are no longer situated at the bottom-tier, such as the continued absence of a touring car series.

As the submission of this proposal is more than slightly belated, due to my preoccupation with finals in the past month, I'm extending the discussion cycle deadline to April 29, 2017.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
Klon
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 7184
Joined: 28 Mar 2009, 17:07
Location: Schleswig-Holstein, FRG
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Klon »

I fully agree with Simtek. Calendars should not be changed after a season has started (or very shortly before it starts), unless there exists a very good reason in- and out-of-character.

As far as kevinbotz's idea is concerned, I think we should go even further. As the F4 project has been a massive failure on virtually every account and has resulted in major dilution of the open-wheel ladder, I hereby suggest that we now SOLELY use the 18MDMF as the testing grounds for new users wishing to run canon stuff. I agree that using this method would allow those users to fill needs of the canon, not run MOAR 4MULA FOA

I would like to throw in another suggestion: name changes for canon series must be approved by the Canon Council, otherwise the series in its entirety loses canon status. We have seen it way too often that a series changes its name and with it its entire concept after merely one year of (semi-)successful running. There is a reason even the most retarded names in real life (Super Formula, Formula Vee etc.) stick around for a relevant amount of time. Adding the above-mentioned rules ensures realism in that regard and prevents users from pointlessly expanding or modifying their portfolio or adding nonsense (to drop names, because I can, normal32 and aerond being recent prime examples of that). Certain exceptions like adding corporate sponsorship or expanding regional portfolios without interfering in other business may not need approval.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

So, quite a few items on the agenda to clear off the board. Here goes:

1. Any alterations made to a series calendar, once set, must be accompanied by a correspondingly appropriate justification. Arbitrary calendar changes without sufficient basis will no longer be recognized.

2. Experience gained through managing series in the 18-metre debut forum will be conditionally recognized as sufficient grounds for full entry into the ASMF, with specific series proposals continuing to be ratified and rejected on a case-by-case basis.

3. An indefinite moratorium to be imposed upon the entry-series program, such that 18MDF participation shall now comprise the sole basis for ASMF consideration.

4. All substantial name changes, in regard to ASMF series, are to be vetted through the Council, with trivial changes, such as changes to a series' corporate sponsorship, excluded.

5. Simtek to appropriate the stillborn Indy Star Mazda proposal as an automated championship.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

Sorry for any disruption caused, but will there be a vote for my taking over Gonzo's Star Mazda proposal? Looking back on the post I probably should have gone into more detail but, as I said there, it would be more or less identical to the original proposal, the only differences being that it will be run through GP2 and I might go for a larger grid. It will also be postponed until 2020 so people have time to decide on a career path for any current F4 drivers that might go that route. It will also probably be a QuickSim-type series, hence why a vote would be somewhat important given the current rules on that type of setup.

Carry on. :)
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Simtek wrote:Sorry for any disruption caused, but will there be a vote for my taking over Gonzo's Star Mazda proposal? Looking back on the post I probably should have gone into more detail but, as I said there, it would be more or less identical to the original proposal, the only differences being that it will be run through GP2 and I might go for a larger grid. It will also be postponed until 2020 so people have time to decide on a career path for any current F4 drivers that might go that route. It will also probably be a QuickSim-type series, hence why a vote would be somewhat important given the current rules on that type of setup.

Carry on. :)


Apologies for that; that particular omission's on my head. I've amended the vote accordingly.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
tommykl
Posts: 7062
Joined: 07 Apr 2010, 17:10
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by tommykl »

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
kevinbotz wrote:Cantonese is a completely nonsensical f*cking alien language masquerading as some grossly bastardised form of Chinese

Gonzo wrote:Wasn't there some sort of communisim in the East part of Germany?
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

As all five proposals have been successfully ratified, voting will now close, accordingly.

The discussion/proposal window is open, once more, until May 26th, 2017.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
pi314159
Posts: 3660
Joined: 11 Aug 2012, 12:12

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by pi314159 »

I'd like to propose that the rules that were passed by the council are added to the first post of the thread to make it easier to follow for new, returning or infrequent users.
pasta_maldonado wrote:The stewards have recommended that Alan Jones learns to drive.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

pi314159 wrote:I'd like to propose that the rules that were passed by the council are added to the first post of the thread to make it easier to follow for new, returning or infrequent users.


Honestly, this is something I've been procrastinating over for months. I'll just compile a post now.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
This Could Be You
Posts: 1373
Joined: 05 Jun 2016, 16:40
Location: Somewhere else

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by This Could Be You »

Just to check, but what happened regarding the vote approving my 2020 altBTCC proposal, which appeared to drop off the agenda despite being up for discussion? Has this been approved/denied already, or is this simply an oversight on the council's part?
Your Signature Here

Named after HRT, now on HRT
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

This Could Be You wrote:Just to check, but what happened regarding the vote approving my 2020 altBTCC proposal, which appeared to drop off the agenda despite being up for discussion? Has this been approved/denied already, or is this simply an oversight on the council's part?


The BTCC proposal's actually been on the agenda for a while, but as there hasn't been any further expansion on the concrete details and specifics of the proposal since the initial mention, (series calendar, driver requirements, car development system, etc.), I didn't feel that it was ready to be subject to a vote. You're more than welcome to flesh out the proposal at this time.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
This Could Be You
Posts: 1373
Joined: 05 Jun 2016, 16:40
Location: Somewhere else

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by This Could Be You »

Here's a pretty much complete overview of my altBTCC 2020 proposal, with some more details clarified (I had one done two hours ago, but it deleted itself :evil: ):

altBTCC 2020

Simulator
The series will be simulated on GP2, using the BTCC/WTCC carshape, a setup identical to that used in my 18m-Debut series, with the same limitations (26 car grids, only two car teams with identical liveries, difficult to replicate reverse grids) but the advantages of being reliable ( fingers crossed... :oops: ) and easy to produce new cars for (see below), while providing decent racing.
Calendar
Same as the current BTCC calendar, although if significant demand is there, I could fit another round in July, maybe at Mondello Park or Pembrey to make the series cover more of the UK & Ireland. There would also be a Media Day Test from which the first set of (12) automatic pre-qualifiers (if applicable, see below) are calculated (this will change to instead reflect the 2020 standings from 2021 onwards).
Therefore, it would look something like this:

0. Media Day (Donington Park)- 21/22 March (Pre-Q list calculated
1. Brands Hatch Indy- 4/5 April
2. Donington Park- 18/19 April
3. Thruxton- 9/10 May
4. Oulton Park- 6/7 June (Pre-Q recalculated on championship standings)
5. Croft- 27/28 June
6. Snetterton- 8/9 August
7. Knockhill- 22/23 August
8. Rockingham- 5/6 September
9. Silverstone- 26/27 September
10. Brands Hatch GP- 10/11 October

Race Format & Points
Race Format
This would differ from real-life, and follow the system used in TCBY Virtual BTCC; the grids for the first two races would be decided by separate Quali sessions, and the third using a pseudo-reverse grid setup; the top 6-10 (the amount reversed is decided at random) are reversed and this becomes the top 6-10 of the Race 3 grid, although from 7th-11th backwards a normal quali session is run. Success Ballast will not be simulated.

Points
The current (2012-) points system and championship setup will be used (including the ForeverForward award), only with one point also given for Race 2 pole as well as Race 1's.

Teams
Up to twenty teams can enter, and can so at any point in the season, with an ARWS-style aggregate pre-qualifying used if over 14 teams do enter the series. Users can enter real-life BTCC teams if they so choose, and in these and other British-based outfits will be preferred over any foreign outfits (that'll keep Brexiteers happy... :( ). Each team must also run two cars, both with the same chassis and similar liveries
Works Status
Teams can apply for BMW, Honda, MG, Subaru or Vauxhall works status, which will allow them to compete for the Constructor's championship, develop the pre-existing NGTC chassis of these makes, and have slightly better RNG odds for upgrades/design or driver signing. This will be decided by RNG, which can be influenced by providing a paragraph or two explaining why your team deserves such status, and of course just how competent/hopeless your team is in other series. Works Status is nice to have, but isn't that much of a benefit over running as an Independent, but this is much like real-life.

Sponsors/Livery designs are dictated by the team owner, and I can provide (admittedly fiddly) templates if users want to make their own liveries, but I can just work from an given idea if required.
Cars, Engines and Upgrades
Cars
Teams can either choose to run an existing 2017-spec NGTC chassis, which cannot be upgraded (unless they are the works team for that manufacturer) and has its competitiveness based on its approximate form that season, or they can choose to develop a new car based on any Production C/D segment hatchback, saloon or estate (think VW Golf/Passat sized) on sale new from a manufacturers normal UK dealer network on 01/01/18. The stats for these new designs will be decided by RNG, with odds of competitiveness again depending on the team's perceived competence/ choice of vehicle.

Engines
Likewise, on the engine front teams can either choose the TOCA Swindon engine, which can only be upgraded by TOCA (read: me, and only if teams moan enough), or they can design their own engine, provided that the marque of their chassis also produces a suitable 2.0 litre engine for one of their production cars (it doesn't have to be the same model). Again power and reliability will be decided based on the choice of engine and competence of the team weighing an RNG's odds.

Upgrades
Teams can choose to upgrade their self-built chassis in the areas of either Race Pace, Quali Pace or Setup Consistency after every other race weekend (that is, Weekends 1,3,5,7 & 9), and their self-built engines in the areas of Power or Reliability after weekends 2,4,6 & 8. The success of these upgrades is dictated by, you guessed it, another RNG (seriously, we must be keeping Random.org afloat right now!).

Drivers
Real-Life
Any driver who has competed in the BTCC or comparable series (TOCA package, WTCC, TCR) between 2015-17 and is over 18 as of 01/01/20 is allowed to compete for a team, subject to (yet another) RNG. British drivers are preferred, and as such have much higher odds of racing for teams.
Fictional
Any (again, preferably British) canon driver who is not eligible for Platinum-ranked status and who is over 18 as of 01/01/20 is allowed to compete in the series subject to their DEC holder's approval.

Please feel free to point out any issues/loopholes/catastrophic flaws in this proposal so I can fix any issues that would hinder running this series if you can see any.
Your Signature Here

Named after HRT, now on HRT
User avatar
Nuppiz
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 5922
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 12:10
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Nuppiz »

Unrelated to the current discussions at hand, but it should be noted that the current's council's term will run until 31st May. Make sure your table is cleared of any open proposals by then.
Eurosport broadcast for the 1990 Mexican GP prequalifying:
"The Life, it looked very lifeless yet again... in fact Bruno did one, slow lap"
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

This Could Be You wrote:Fine and detailed plans

For the calendar, I might suggest adding Birmingham; F3 and F4 will be going there in 2020, and I think it would be great to have the Superprix run to its full former glory. :D
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
This Could Be You
Posts: 1373
Joined: 05 Jun 2016, 16:40
Location: Somewhere else

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by This Could Be You »

Simtek wrote:
This Could Be You wrote:Fine and detailed plans

For the calendar, I might suggest adding Birmingham; F3 and F4 will be going there in 2020, and I think it would be great to have the Superprix run to its full former glory. :D

I've had an idea; TOCA have talked about adding a non championship round during the mid season break in recent years, so I feel having Birmingham as a NC BTCC round in July would make sense.
Your Signature Here

Named after HRT, now on HRT
User avatar
Miguel98
Posts: 2450
Joined: 30 Mar 2014, 09:18
Location: Somewhere in Portugal

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Miguel98 »

It's time to bring into canon coucil something that has been bothering me for the last couple of weeks.

The fact that some series in canon are using "bugged" tracks for bathplug proposes, and have restarted a session or replaced said tracks with functional tracks is starting to concern me. I've seen it more than once, especially with GP2 mostly, and although I ain't a saint on this - Norisring ended up having bugs in the rain which I couldn't trace until the last moment in WTCM - I removed the track once I found the bug within the track.

I think that council should setup a rule regarding bugs on tracks, or purposedly setting bugs on tracks, in order to encourage bathplug from the game. Because it legits pisses me off. I wonder why it does.
Mario on Gutierrez after the Italian Grand Prix wrote:He's no longer just a bit of a tool, he's the entire tool set.


18-07-2015: Forever in our hearts Jules.
25-08-2015: Forever in our hearts Justin.
User avatar
Klon
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 7184
Joined: 28 Mar 2009, 17:07
Location: Schleswig-Holstein, FRG
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Klon »

Regarding the bug issue, I'd say it should only be limited to tracks where the bugs have an effect that cannot be justified within canon limitations. For example I use one questionable track (Nürburgring) and I don't really don't want to give that up. I can justify it within characters by using the fact that the Nürburgring is not the smoothes or easiest of tracks and therefore more accidents happening there than in other locations is not too unacceptable.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

With F1RGP2C conflicting with several series presently projected to extend into the mid-1990s, as well as certain series preparations expected to begin within that particular period of time, I'd like to propose that F1RGP2C be officially declared non-canon. Whilst certainly an entertaining championship for its time, it's nevertheless founded upon a particularly implausible foundation that is very much incompatible with much of the ASMF as it presently stands.

As for Miguel's proposal, whilst I can certainly sympathize with the circumstances behind the proposal itself, I do nevertheless feel that the proposal, in its present guise, is largely unenforceable; a blanket ban on all bugged circuits, as well as a compulsory standard on series organizer intent, simply do not seem viable for implementation.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by dr-baker »

kevinbotz wrote:With F1RGP2C conflicting with several series presently projected to extend into the mid-1990s, as well as certain series preparations expected to begin within that particular period of time, I'd like to propose that F1RGP2C be officially declared non-canon. Whilst certainly an entertaining championship for its time, it's nevertheless founded upon a particularly implausible foundation that is very much incompatible with much of the ASMF as it presently stands.

I thought its status had already been decided: either as non-canon, or that it was like an eSports series for retro car models for the early F1RWRS/ARWS drivers (like the BMW Procar series but a eSports series).
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

dr-baker wrote:
kevinbotz wrote:With F1RGP2C conflicting with several series presently projected to extend into the mid-1990s, as well as certain series preparations expected to begin within that particular period of time, I'd like to propose that F1RGP2C be officially declared non-canon. Whilst certainly an entertaining championship for its time, it's nevertheless founded upon a particularly implausible foundation that is very much incompatible with much of the ASMF as it presently stands.

I thought its status had already been decided: either as non-canon, or that it was like an eSports series for retro car models for the early F1RWRS/ARWS drivers (like the BMW Procar series but a eSports series).


There's apparently still a good deal of uncertainty over the issue, so this is simply to officially clarify F1RGP2C's status, as a matter of formality.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
FMecha
Posts: 5145
Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 16:18
Location: Open road
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by FMecha »

dr-baker wrote:
kevinbotz wrote:With F1RGP2C conflicting with several series presently projected to extend into the mid-1990s, as well as certain series preparations expected to begin within that particular period of time, I'd like to propose that F1RGP2C be officially declared non-canon. Whilst certainly an entertaining championship for its time, it's nevertheless founded upon a particularly implausible foundation that is very much incompatible with much of the ASMF as it presently stands.

I thought its status had already been decided: either as non-canon, or that it was like an eSports series for retro car models for the early F1RWRS/ARWS drivers (like the BMW Procar series but a eSports series).


That decision was for Jeroen's F1CC, IIRC. :ugeek:
PSN ID: FMecha_EXE | FMecha on GT Sport
User avatar
Klon
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 7184
Joined: 28 Mar 2009, 17:07
Location: Schleswig-Holstein, FRG
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Klon »

Alright, one more thing so it is on the agenda:
To fill a gap in the canon, I plan on simulating 1998-2009 in a sim series run with Grand Prix 2. My track record with current Alt-F1 speaks for itself.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Given that no other proposals are likely to be forthcoming and considering the proximity of the next Council reshuffle, we shall now proceed with the final vote of this first Council cycle, a couple of days ahead of the deadline.

With Miguel's permission, the "bugged circuit ban" proposal has been withdrawn from consideration.

1. TCBY's proposed 2020 Alt-BTCC championship to be officially sanctioned as an ASMF series.

2. F1RGP2C to be officially struck from the canon continuity.

3. Klon's proposal for an Alt-F1 series covering the gap between 1998 and 2009 to be officially green-lighted.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
Klon
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 7184
Joined: 28 Mar 2009, 17:07
Location: Schleswig-Holstein, FRG
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Klon »

1. Yes
2. No
3. Mayb... I mean Abstain
User avatar
tommykl
Posts: 7062
Joined: 07 Apr 2010, 17:10
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by tommykl »

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
kevinbotz wrote:Cantonese is a completely nonsensical f*cking alien language masquerading as some grossly bastardised form of Chinese

Gonzo wrote:Wasn't there some sort of communisim in the East part of Germany?
User avatar
Rated
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 529
Joined: 14 Oct 2012, 14:06

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Rated »

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
BORDAS BORDAS BORDAS
Post Reply