The ASMF Canon Council Topic

In honour of our fallen comrade. Archive of all previous canon series across all disciplines.
User avatar
AndreaModa
Posts: 5806
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 17:51
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by AndreaModa »

Yeah, that's a fair cop. Apologies for pissing anyone off. I just don't think you can talk about the PMMF dying without at least looking at the chat.
I want my MTV...Simtek Ford

My Motorsport Photos

@DNPQ_
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 »

Not really a discussion topic, but more a stern warning and notification to certain people.

Although I somewhat understand the reasoning behind such plans, I must ask people to exercise caution when entering the same driver(s) for multiple F4 series (or any series for that matter). Each series tends to run at a different pace, so there's always the chance of continuity errors should something happen to the driver(s) in question.

Also, no matter how many series you enter your drivers for, I will only count 1-2 series from the past couple of years when making AR 3.5 stats, so trying to gather maximum "experience" by entering your driver everywhere won't do you any good. It might even be counterintuitive as the first thing I look is final ranking (which might suffer due to missed races) and only then the actual results.
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
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by dr-baker »

Nuppiz wrote:Not really a discussion topic, but more a stern warning and notification to certain people.

Although I somewhat understand the reasoning behind such plans, I must ask people to exercise caution when entering the same driver(s) for multiple F4 series (or any series for that matter). Each series tends to run at a different pace, so there's always the chance of continuity errors should something happen to the driver(s) in question.

Also, no matter how many series you enter your drivers for, I will only count 1-2 series from the past couple of years when making AR 3.5 stats, so trying to gather maximum "experience" by entering your driver everywhere won't do you any good. It might even be counterintuitive as the first thing I look is final ranking (which might suffer due to missed races) and only then the actual results.

And surely, if things are to be vaguely realistic, most drivers in real life stick to one of the regional series, and may have the occasional cameo in another, so this seems sensible to me. Not that it concerns me...
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
Miguel98
Posts: 2450
Joined: 30 Mar 2014, 09:18
Location: Somewhere in Portugal

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Miguel98 »

Nuppiz wrote:Not really a discussion topic, but more a stern warning and notification to certain people.

Although I somewhat understand the reasoning behind such plans, I must ask people to exercise caution when entering the same driver(s) for multiple F4 series (or any series for that matter). Each series tends to run at a different pace, so there's always the chance of continuity errors should something happen to the driver(s) in question.

Also, no matter how many series you enter your drivers for, I will only count 1-2 series from the past couple of years when making AR 3.5 stats, so trying to gather maximum "experience" by entering your driver everywhere won't do you any good. It might even be counterintuitive as the first thing I look is final ranking (which might suffer due to missed races) and only then the actual results.


Continuing the F4 discussion: I would like to point some rule regarding minimal entry age in Formula 4 Regional Series. In real life, most of this series have a 15 year age limit, and in canon so far, we've seen some 14 and 13 year old beeing entered.

I think the council should look into this, since this isn't the first time in canon way too inexperienced drivers are entered in bottom tier series.
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
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 »

dr-baker wrote:
Nuppiz wrote:Not really a discussion topic, but more a stern warning and notification to certain people.

Although I somewhat understand the reasoning behind such plans, I must ask people to exercise caution when entering the same driver(s) for multiple F4 series (or any series for that matter). Each series tends to run at a different pace, so there's always the chance of continuity errors should something happen to the driver(s) in question.

Also, no matter how many series you enter your drivers for, I will only count 1-2 series from the past couple of years when making AR 3.5 stats, so trying to gather maximum "experience" by entering your driver everywhere won't do you any good. It might even be counterintuitive as the first thing I look is final ranking (which might suffer due to missed races) and only then the actual results.

And surely, if things are to be vaguely realistic, most drivers in real life stick to one of the regional series, and may have the occasional cameo in another, so this seems sensible to me. Not that it concerns me...

Actually, in real life a lot of drivers and teams compete regularly in both Italian and ADAC F4, so there is some precedent, although the potential for problems in continuity could still be a problem.

Miguel98 wrote:Continuing the F4 discussion: I would like to point some rule regarding minimal entry age in Formula 4 Regional Series. In real life, most of this series have a 15 year age limit, and in canon so far, we've seen some 14 and 13 year old beeing entered.

I think the council should look into this, since this isn't the first time in canon way too inexperienced drivers are entered in bottom tier series.

Introducing a minimum age limit is already part of my plans for the 2019 edition of the Anglo-Irish series, although John-Paul Casciaro is putting a dent in that as we speak.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
Miguel98
Posts: 2450
Joined: 30 Mar 2014, 09:18
Location: Somewhere in Portugal

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Miguel98 »

Simtek wrote:
dr-baker wrote:
Nuppiz wrote:Not really a discussion topic, but more a stern warning and notification to certain people.

Although I somewhat understand the reasoning behind such plans, I must ask people to exercise caution when entering the same driver(s) for multiple F4 series (or any series for that matter). Each series tends to run at a different pace, so there's always the chance of continuity errors should something happen to the driver(s) in question.

Also, no matter how many series you enter your drivers for, I will only count 1-2 series from the past couple of years when making AR 3.5 stats, so trying to gather maximum "experience" by entering your driver everywhere won't do you any good. It might even be counterintuitive as the first thing I look is final ranking (which might suffer due to missed races) and only then the actual results.

And surely, if things are to be vaguely realistic, most drivers in real life stick to one of the regional series, and may have the occasional cameo in another, so this seems sensible to me. Not that it concerns me...

Actually, in real life a lot of drivers and teams compete regularly in both Italian and ADAC F4, so there is some precedent, although the potential for problems in continuity could still be a problem.

Miguel98 wrote:Continuing the F4 discussion: I would like to point some rule regarding minimal entry age in Formula 4 Regional Series. In real life, most of this series have a 15 year age limit, and in canon so far, we've seen some 14 and 13 year old beeing entered.

I think the council should look into this, since this isn't the first time in canon way too inexperienced drivers are entered in bottom tier series.

Introducing a minimum age limit is already part of my plans for the 2019 edition of the Anglo-Irish series, although John-Paul Casciaro is putting a dent in that as we speak.


Casciaro is 15, so he fits the limit set in ADAC F4. Under 15 don't.

And since you and Getz are using GP2, you can't simulate that the fact this drivers are so young, they are incredibly reckless. You can't, unless you use rFactor. Which is also another factor to take apart in this discussion.
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
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 »

Miguel98 wrote:Casciaro is 15, so he fits the limit set in ADAC F4. Under 15 don't.

He was 14 at the start of the season :P
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
Racing Heart
Posts: 75
Joined: 15 Sep 2016, 19:37
Location: Entering the Arena

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Racing Heart »

Hello ASMF Council,

I would like to propose that, with some minor rules revisions, that the Pacific Endurance Series I am proposing will be run as an approved canon series. The only major rules revisions will be that teams will be allowed to create their own drivers, and that Group 1 teams will be limited to an overall rating of 90 or lower. Races will be livestreamed on my Twitch channel, and, hoping that I don't forget to do so, will be highlighted there for archive purposes.

My experience both in participating and running series is larger than most GP Rejects rookie league organizers; I am the administrator of Global Racing League (sorry Cynon, didn't realize you had a series by the same name! Don't kill me please ;n; ) and have a number of races for you to sample on my Twitch channel.. As a competitor/participant, I have competed in GTPlanet's World Sportscar Championship and Formula B-Spec, where I earned the heart of several team principals as well as the league organizers (though sadly only three wins to my name across both series).

Should this be approved by the Council, I am planning to have Pacific Endurance Series (perhaps with a new name if you believe it should be changed) start up roughly four to five weeks from approval.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Given RacingHeart's extensive experience in running virtual series elsewhere, and considering that the F4 prerequisite condition was implemented solely with inexperienced managers in mind, I feel that an exception for PES would be fully in the spirit of the regulation in question.

On an entirely separate note, I'd like to initiate a discussion concerning the AutoReject series nominally representing Formula Nippon/Super Formula, particularly in regard to the name; "ANUS" would not hold water under even the loosest constraints of hypothetical reality. Furthermore, three clean-sheet name changes, without much in the way of explanation, in three years, is more than slightly excessive.

Whilst I am slight wary concerning the implications of a blanket regulation regarding the propriety of a series name, I'd nevertheless like to suggest the institution of a loose standard to ensure that series titles meet at least the bare minimum standard in reasonability.
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 have to agree. I have been taking the step recently of simply referring to the aforementioned series as "FNippon" until Aerond can decide on a more appropriate name.

I'd also suggest, kevinbotz, to think about the language you're using when discussing matters here. It's needlessly convoluted, and simplifying it may help encourage a dialogue between everyone.
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 »

Christ, I'd actually even tried to make an effort to tone the bathplugging thing down this time. I'll keep it in mind.
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 »

kevinbotz wrote:Christ, I'd actually even tried to make an effort to tone the bathplugging thing down this time. I'll keep it in mind.


Do not listen to him: whilst your vocabulary may be a significant challenge for our ESL users, it is a valueable experience which could help them expand their options when writing in the English language.

If native speakers think your way of writing is too complicated, they should overcome tall poppy syndrome and work on their reading ability.

Obviously I fully agree on the ANUS topic, kevinbotz & biscione said everything I would have said.
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 »

Before we begin voting on a F4 limitation, I want to point out that in real life German F4 and Italian F4 make for easy double work, as most of German motorsport happens in the Southern part of the country, from which a journey to the Northern part of Italy, where most race tracks of Italy are, is a minor journey, so it is generally speaking much more easier than traveling to Italy from the UK or even North America.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

The council will now proceed to vote on the following items:

1. A limitation to be imposed on the maximum number of teams that a user may run, distributed either according to four teams per entity, or twelve wholly independent teams.

2. A minimum age limit of 15 to be imposed across the spectrum of F4 series.

3. An exemption to be made for RacingHeart's proposed Pacific Endurance Series with respect to the existing probationary period for new series managers, given his extensive experience in series management elsewhere.

4. A vetting process to be introduced for future series names.

A restriction/ban on double-duty in F4 will be deferred to the next voting cycle.

I'll proceed to kick off voting:

1. Yes
2. Abstain
3. Yes
4. Yes
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
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
4. Yes
BORDAS BORDAS BORDAS
User avatar
AndreaModa
Posts: 5806
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 17:51
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by AndreaModa »

Unsurprisingly I'm totally against the limit of 4 teams per entity.

If it's just a pet hate from a few users, then that's a bit unreasonable.

If it's because it's allegedly unrealistic, allow me to illustrate.

Carlin - competing in seven different categories.
Fortec - competing in six categories, plus a Euro F3 testing program.

Plus a whole plethora of teams from McLaren to Penske who have competed in a wide range of championships over their history.

Sure, if you've got an organisation with 15 active teams then that's too far. But four is way too low. I'd set it at six or seven.

I know I don't have a vote and considering my petulance and history I probably hold very little influence! But let's try not to cause too much disruption for the sake of it. A limit is a good idea to stop things getting silly, but it shouldn't be a mandate to force numerous teams to have to re-write and ret-con a load of stuff.
I want my MTV...Simtek Ford

My Motorsport Photos

@DNPQ_
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 »

AndreaModa wrote:Unsurprisingly I'm totally against the limit of 4 teams per entity.

If it's because it's allegedly unrealistic, allow me to illustrate.

Carlin - competing in seven different categories.

I'm inclined to agree with this, and again using Carlin, let me demonstrate why specifically.

Even though Carlin have seven series in their scope, they essentially break down into two main paths - Road to Formula 1, and Road to Indy.

The former is composed of GP2, Euro F3, British F3 and British F4, whilst the latter is made up of Indy Lights and US F2000.

I think a more sensible rule than a hard and fast 4 team limit is a limit to the number of streams a single entity may partake in. We already have the three established lineages in Road to F1, Road to ARWS and Road to Indy. Any single entity realistically shouldn't be fielding a team in more than two of these groups at once, and then perhaps one non single seater series on top of these, so one of FIA PC or GTSS, but not both, and so on.

But really, I'd urge people to think twice before voting such an imitative through. The canon will fail if people do not take the flexible approach first. This hasn't been even attempted yet when it comes to the team reach issue.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
CaptainGetz12
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 1848
Joined: 06 Mar 2013, 03:19
Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by CaptainGetz12 »

AndreaModa wrote:Unsurprisingly I'm totally against the limit of 4 teams per entity.

If it's just a pet hate from a few users, then that's a bit unreasonable.

If it's because it's allegedly unrealistic, allow me to illustrate.

Carlin - competing in seven different categories.
Fortec - competing in six categories, plus a Euro F3 testing program.

Plus a whole plethora of teams from McLaren to Penske who have competed in a wide range of championships over their history.

Sure, if you've got an organisation with 15 active teams then that's too far. But four is way too low. I'd set it at six or seven.

I know I don't have a vote and considering my petulance and history I probably hold very little influence! But let's try not to cause too much disruption for the sake of it. A limit is a good idea to stop things getting silly, but it shouldn't be a mandate to force numerous teams to have to re-write and ret-con a load of stuff.


I support increasing the maximum bar up to 6 or 7 series per team.

To clarify: This is only a TEAM having a max amount of series, or a USER having a maximum amount of series? If it's the latter than I have to protest this vote due to the lack of active users to warrant a cap on number of series a user can participate in.
Klon wrote:What did poor André do to you for him to be insulted like that?
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Whilst the input is very much appreciated, these suggestions, though constructive, would best be offered during the period before the vote is called. A portion of the responsibility for this situation does fall on my shoulders; certain proposals are, at times, buried underneath other proposals or tangential discussions, and it's perhaps predictable that they'd fall under the radar over the discussion period.

As a measure for the next voting cycle, I'll probably post a brief summary on the proposals tabled about a week before the vote's actually called, just to refresh memories and to allow people a last chance to offer their opinions.

Given that this topic seems to be particularly contentious, I'll suspend voting on Prop. 1 for now, to be resumed after concerns have been addressed and possible amendments made.

Now, on the subject of the four team entity restriction, my personal position is that, with the number of series currently being run within the ASMF, it still shouldn't present too many obstacles to a reasonable entity expansion; a Carlin-esque organization, for example, could set up shop in any one of the single-seater ladders and cover the entirety of the progression from F4 up to F1, ARWS, or Indycar, with one or more teams to spare. Likewise, a GT/Sportscar organization, even with the impending addition of PES, could cover FIA PC, GTSS, PES, and be left with a team to spare. The intent, ultimately, is to discourage the further spread of singular entities with specialization and backing, ostensibly, across the entire motorsport spectrum; AF Corse, as an example, in spite of being Ferrari's GT and Sportscar works team, aren't realistically going to be able to displace Prema as Ferrari's de facto single-seater feeder team.

With all that said, the question of what necessarily constitutes an entity is admittedly problematic. To use AndreaModa's example, McLaren is technically involved at a high competitive level in two separate disciplines, Formula One and GT; however, the divisions responsible are virtually independent of each other, with McLaren Racing and McLaren GT, as a subdivision of McLaren Automotive, in effect separate entities connected only by their ownership group. In any case, this is something that will require a sufficiently clear definition prior to implementation, irrespective of whether the vote passes or not.

As a final addendum, for now, the proposal itself doesn't contain any reference to its scope; realistically, however, given that retconning past entries was never mentioned, and preparations for 2019 are already fairly advanced, any implementation of a team restriction, whether it be a hard numerical limit or a "softer" limit along disciplinary streams, will not be applied to previous years or the "present" year.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Apologies for the double post, but as the process for entry-level series has been slightly chaotic thus far, in the future, all entry-level series proposals will need to first be vetted through the council. As a reminder, an entry-level series should feature relatively low-performance cars and rookie to low-level drivers, so as to minimize the complexity and risk present during the acclimatization period.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
User avatar
Racing Heart
Posts: 75
Joined: 15 Sep 2016, 19:37
Location: Entering the Arena

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by Racing Heart »

I don't wish to sound impatient, but have we reached an official conclusion on Proposal 3 of the current vote yet? I'll be pretty much done with vehicle balancing by the end of this weekend, and the majority of tracks I have are set to go. Ideally I would like to start PES during the second half of November, if not sooner.
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 »

Racing Heart wrote:I don't wish to sound impatient, but have we reached an official conclusion on Proposal 3 of the current vote yet? I'll be pretty much done with vehicle balancing by the end of this weekend, and the majority of tracks I have are set to go. Ideally I would like to start PES during the second half of November, if not sooner.

By the looks of things, Aerond, Klon and tommykl still have to vote, so, uh, hurry up, guys. :P
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
tommykl
Posts: 7062
Joined: 07 Apr 2010, 17:10
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by tommykl »

Sorry about that, I've been crazy busy this past week :P

1. Abstain
2. Abstain
3. Yes
4. 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 discussion on Prop. 1 has been non-existent since the temporary suspension, I'll restart voting on the proposal in question, with a slight modification to incorporate the proposed amendments to the team/entity restriction.

1. A limitation to be imposed regarding the maximum number of teams a user may enter within the ASMF, with the particulars concerning the scope and implementation of the limitation to be discussed and determined during the following voting cycle.

My vote on the matter remains unchanged.
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 »

kevinbotz wrote:As discussion on Prop. 1 has been non-existent since the temporary suspension, I'll restart voting on the proposal in question, with a slight modification to incorporate the proposed amendments to the team/entity restriction.

1. A limitation to be imposed regarding the maximum number of teams a user may enter within the ASMF, with the particulars concerning the scope and implementation of the limitation to be discussed and determined during the following voting cycle.

My vote on the matter remains unchanged.

I thought the position was clear, really. A handful of individuals seem to want it, the rest do not. All I'd be doing is reiterating my stance on self-policing of the issue. Though this new wording seems even worse, as it doesn't even tackle the originally proposed problem - not number of teams entered, but the number of series a single team is entered into. So if anything I'm even further confused than before, and with the above wording, would wholeheartedly reject and actively block any attempt to implement it.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
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 »

Biscione wrote:
kevinbotz wrote:As discussion on Prop. 1 has been non-existent since the temporary suspension, I'll restart voting on the proposal in question, with a slight modification to incorporate the proposed amendments to the team/entity restriction.

1. A limitation to be imposed regarding the maximum number of teams a user may enter within the ASMF, with the particulars concerning the scope and implementation of the limitation to be discussed and determined during the following voting cycle.

My vote on the matter remains unchanged.

I thought the position was clear, really. A handful of individuals seem to want it, the rest do not. All I'd be doing is reiterating my stance on self-policing of the issue. Though this new wording seems even worse, as it doesn't even tackle the originally proposed problem - not number of teams entered, but the number of series a single team is entered into. So if anything I'm even further confused than before, and with the above wording, would wholeheartedly reject and actively block any attempt to implement it.

I'm going to have to agree that - while some users have tended to go a little over the top with the number of series they enter the same team into - putting it to a vote now when there seems to be a lack of consensus on what a fair limit is seems like a mistake to me. I was quite surprised to see it as low as four when I saw the initial proposal and would agree that six or seven is a little fairer. However, I really think it should be looked at on a case-by-case basis; the problem isn't necessarily the existence of "superteams" in the ASMF, it's that there are (in my view and others') too many of them.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
kevinbotz
Posts: 1142
Joined: 08 May 2013, 21:36
Location: True North

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by kevinbotz »

Biscione wrote:
kevinbotz wrote:As discussion on Prop. 1 has been non-existent since the temporary suspension, I'll restart voting on the proposal in question, with a slight modification to incorporate the proposed amendments to the team/entity restriction.

1. A limitation to be imposed regarding the maximum number of teams a user may enter within the ASMF, with the particulars concerning the scope and implementation of the limitation to be discussed and determined during the following voting cycle.

My vote on the matter remains unchanged.

I thought the position was clear, really. A handful of individuals seem to want it, the rest do not. All I'd be doing is reiterating my stance on self-policing of the issue. Though this new wording seems even worse, as it doesn't even tackle the originally proposed problem - not number of teams entered, but the number of series a single team is entered into. So if anything I'm even further confused than before, and with the above wording, would wholeheartedly reject and actively block any attempt to implement it.


To clarify, the revised proposal, rather than any specific directive regarding an implementation, is largely meant to be a vote in principle; should there be a team limitation imposed on ASMF users? It's essentially deferring discussion, and voting, on the 6-7 per entity expansion proposed over the original limitations, the isolation of entity presence to disciplinary motorsport streams, the original limitations proposed by Klon themselves, and the possible repudiation of the team/entity restriction altogether, if there exists too much popular opposition, or if there exists no satisfactory resolution.

To put it another way, all Proposal 1 currently stipulates is a notional commitment to the principle of a user team restriction, without any mechanism for implementation.
Klon, on Alt-F1 wrote: I like to think it's more poker than gambling, though.
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. No

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Hell. bathplug NO
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 »

RacingHeart's Pacific Endurance Series is officially designated as an ASMF series. A minimum age limit of 15 will be imposed across all ASMF series from the start of the 2020 season. Additionally, names of all future series, as well as name changes to existing series, will be vetted and assessed accordingly by the council; in light of this, I'd like to propose that the series currently going by "ANUS" have its name reassessed from the next season onwards.

In light of the controversy over the suggested limitations concerning the number of series an ASMF organization can participate in, the first proposal was amended to allow for a more substantive discussion regarding how such a limitation should be implemented, or whether there exists a tenable implementation at all, to take place.

As a reminder, the current proposals over how such a limitation could be structured are:

1. Klon's initial proposal of an aggregate number of twelve teams per user, distributed either according to four teams per entity, or twelve wholly independent teams.

2. AndreaModa's suggested amendment of at least six or seven teams per entity, with no defined upper bound on how many teams a single user can manage.

3. Biscione's proposal of a limitation imposed instead on the number of racing disciplines any one entity may participate in, with a suggested limit of two disciplinary commitments for a particular organization, with no defined bounds on number of teams that may be fielded by either user or entity.

4. Insufficient consensus amongst the userbase exists for the implementation of any such limitation, and the issue should thus be set aside until explicitly raised again.

Other issues and proposals unrelated to the aforementioned are free to be raised as well during this discussion period. This particular discussion cycle will end on December 12th, 17:00 PST. No further proposals or amendments will be considered after this deadline.
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'd actually like to table another alternative, that requires no overall oversight and enforcement. All I'd suggest is that series owners be a little more aggressive in their implementation of team nationality rules. This will have a knock-on effect of limiting the scope of any single team in the canon.

So for example, an Asia-Pacific series allowing only entries from that region will automatically block-off any kind of other 'superteams' that are usually European or American based. Likewise, making Indy teams base themselves in the two American continents stops European or Asia-Pacific superteams. Things can be done to keep things realistic without creating a hard-and-fast numerical limit.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
pasta_maldonado
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6429
Joined: 22 Apr 2012, 16:49
Location: Greater London. Sort of.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by pasta_maldonado »

I bring to the table today a proposal to rectify the unorganised mess that was rFAF1, and fill in some more gaps in canon.

The proposal is to run an Alternate F1 series starting in 1976, using GP2. The series would then run through up until 1985/6, where it would feed into Klon's 1987 season.

What are your views on this?
Klon wrote:more liek Nick Ass-idy amirite?
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 there was already some discussion in regard to replacing the original 1979-1980 Alt-F1 seasons, this is a fairly timely proposal. The use of GP2 should significantly reduce the potential number of complications and possible anomalies, as well.

There would, however, need to be significant coordination with Klon and Normal32 to ensure that no discontinuities emerge within the Alt-F1 timeline. Aside from that, I don't see any particularly salient issues with this.
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 »

I'm fine with this proposal, as it reduces my job by 12 seasons :D Obviously there would be a transition period on my end in terms of slowly pushing what is currently Alt-56 towards what F1 was like in the 1970s, but I don't yet have to worry about it too much.
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
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by DemocalypseNow »

Again, it's a long term concern, but perhaps it needs to be made clear to potential participants that they will lose some control over their choices as time progresses. For example, the pay-driver system in place currently will be helpful, and simply ramping up its extremity as we come closer to 1986 will be helpful.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
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 »

I'm Ok with Pasta's proposal; just one wish, though, which is to try that 1987-1989 managers that want to try their luck here can have preference to choose the teams they are running in the 1987-1989 period for the sake of continuity where it's possible.
Tread lightly in ARWS. Every decision might be your last.
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 »

DemocalypseNow wrote:Again, it's a long term concern, but perhaps it needs to be made clear to potential participants that they will lose some control over their choices as time progresses. For example, the pay-driver system in place currently will be helpful, and simply ramping up its extremity as we come closer to 1986 will be helpful.

I think it would work better to leave a season or two out of the game and leave it as some scripted thing to properly bridge the gap. That way we can give a bit more freedom to people who can royally screw up everything in the meantime. :twisted:

Admit it, we all love when shite like that happens. It's, like, 60% of what makes the chatroom interesting. :P
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
pasta_maldonado
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6429
Joined: 22 Apr 2012, 16:49
Location: Greater London. Sort of.

Re: The ASMF Canon Council Topic

Post by pasta_maldonado »

Simtek wrote:
DemocalypseNow wrote:Again, it's a long term concern, but perhaps it needs to be made clear to potential participants that they will lose some control over their choices as time progresses. For example, the pay-driver system in place currently will be helpful, and simply ramping up its extremity as we come closer to 1986 will be helpful.

I think it would work better to leave a season or two out of the game and leave it as some scripted thing to properly bridge the gap. That way we can give a bit more freedom to people who can royally screw up everything in the meantime. :twisted:

Admit it, we all love when shite like that happens. It's, like, 60% of what makes the chatroom interesting. :P

I'm sure tommykl wouldn't mind finishing a year earlier to script 1975 if need be, and I do not mind scripting 1986.
Klon wrote:more liek Nick Ass-idy amirite?
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 »

pasta_maldonado wrote:
Simtek wrote:
DemocalypseNow wrote:Again, it's a long term concern, but perhaps it needs to be made clear to potential participants that they will lose some control over their choices as time progresses. For example, the pay-driver system in place currently will be helpful, and simply ramping up its extremity as we come closer to 1986 will be helpful.

I think it would work better to leave a season or two out of the game and leave it as some scripted thing to properly bridge the gap. That way we can give a bit more freedom to people who can royally screw up everything in the meantime. :twisted:

Admit it, we all love when shite like that happens. It's, like, 60% of what makes the chatroom interesting. :P

I'm sure tommykl wouldn't mind finishing a year earlier to script 1975 if need be, and I do not mind scripting 1986.

Of course I'm suggesting things like driver lineups and performance files are particularly rigid to make a competitive order clear, but still have simulated races (these can be quicksimmed) to ensure an organic result, free of any potential biases.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
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 »

At the end of 2019, I plan to hand over AutoReject 2.0 to someone who can run the series smoothly. Unfortunately (or fortunately, in terms of life satisfaction), I have less free time at the moment and can barely provide enough attention to one series, let alone two.

I mention this now so that the council and I can perform a lengthy period of due diligence in helping me select a successor, should any be forthcoming.
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...
Post Reply