Quote :

Making a system doesn't give you power. Making a system you retain control over gives you control. Using that control delivers power. Abusing that power is a BIG leap from making a system.

What is the implication of what you are saying? That the proposal i've put forward is wrong or that the concept of diasy chaining is fine provided nobody controls it?

For me, the reason tier 2 is workable, is because I can view a small number of new drivers and check they are ok, the existing tier 2 drivers can report issues, having 200 drivers in two weeks is a lot more manageable than the 3500 connections to the tier 1 public servers.

In terms of control and power, I can on my own servers say to a driver - ok, you're not ready for this, but you can race server 1 - in terms of the practical application this hasn't happened yet because server 2 is a nicer environment to be in. This is all fine and dandy.

The problem comes if I could retain this ability, and be expected to administer this ability, on other servers. If server admins look to me to penalise drivers for their infringements, we get into the sticky muddy waters that I want to avoid - which is why I would only be happy for other servers to have access to the STCC license system on a non-update basis - no progress, no regression.

EDIT: But I am more than happy for them to maintain their own license system.

EDIT2: Likewise, giving server operators the ability to interlink licenses not only creates confusion over what licenses are required to join what appears to be a public server - but also gives other server operators the ability to effect the membership of other servers.

Quote from Becky Rose :

What is the implication of what you are saying? That the proposal i've put forward is wrong or that the concept of diasy chaining is fine provided nobody controls it?

I'm saying two things:

one) that I can't see any reason why two mutually trusting servergroups can't securely tandem in a daisychain with a healthily coded API, the latter server exchanging local usage data with the database on the former server in order to decide to allow or deny access to the latter server in a cross-servergroup daisychain.

two) that there's no reason that I can see why developing a system that is delivered into the community's (or even Dev's) control, risks accusations of abuse of power being levelled at the system's developer. The central system begins with no drivers and no points. Points are awarded by the program for driving and winning. Penalties are administered by the community-appointed body.

Becky, what we're saying is that the only part of the system you would control is one that doesn't affect much and it would be completely useless for you to tamper with it. The remainder of the system is completely controlled by the owner of the server - hence the two DBs. Bans won't be an issue handled by the system at all - there's already the wrecker barricade which is well thought-out for that.

If you wanted to do this, you would run your current database alongside another that would just hold "qualifications" that each racer has and the qualifications required for each host running the system so people can easily check what hosts they can access. You have control over your own server and no-one can blame you for that. You would never have to touch the other database.

EDIT: I think Sam has a few different ideas for the system and he wants daisychaining to be independent of the central database but easily possible using the software.

On point one)
There is no reason why two operators cannot use the same SQL database if they each trust each other enough to do that, but i'm still not convinced that data should be shared between license databases.

point two)
A global license would require a sim motor racing body, and from earlier in the thread I think the concenssus is that isn't a good road to go down. I dont see how a global license would work without a licensing authority prepared to accept responsibility for the drivers on all the servers partaking in the system, and penalising drivers licenses where necessary.

Such an authority would need a constitution and an electorate, like real motor racing bodies, in order to be seen to be impartial and above forum bickering. They'd need to be bigger than any individual involved in them, and they would need to follow the charter upon which the body was founded. It would be workload without reward, and as such, could probably only realistically be pulled off if it was a paid for system supported by the devs.

For the... ~7rh time, my idea of the central database:

The central database only gets things added to it and is merely a representation of all qualifications earned on servers running the system so that servers can daisy-chain freely without having to mess with others' databases. It bears no responsibility apart from storage. Each server admin running the system bears entire responsibility for his own database. There will never be need for non-automated intervention in the central database. Does that make more sense?

EDIT: My idea has evolved a bit over time and was only really where it is now when I wrote post #99 in this thread.

Quote from Becky Rose :

On point one)
There is no reason why two operators cannot use the same SQL database if they each trust each other enough to do that, but i'm still not convinced that data should be shared between license databases.

Why? I don't follow. Perhaps we're talking about two different concepts. In the one I'm thinking of, there aren't any reasons why this shouldn't happen, and couldn't be secure. The one I'm talking about, I'm all for. Any other, I can't say because I guess I just don't follow. I'll have to re-read the thread and see if I can get myself up to speed.

Quote from Becky Rose :

point two)
A global license would require a sim motor racing body, and from earlier in the thread I think the concenssus is that isn't a good road to go down.

That's not how I've read it. Some people approve, some don't. It's not an authoritative conclusion, and at the end of the day if people didn't want to participate, there's never going to be an obligation.

Quote from Becky Rose :

I dont see how a global license would work without a licensing authority prepared to accept responsibility for the drivers on all the servers partaking in the system, and penalising drivers licenses where necessary.

That's the point of that aspect, I thought. As I've said before, I personally would have no interest in participating with that system. If that were the only possible path for the system, then it wouldn't offer anything to me. I'd only be interested in daisychaining for UKCT.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Such an authority would need a constitution and an electorate, like real motor racing bodies, in order to be seen to be impartial and above forum bickering. They'd need to be bigger than any individual involved in them, and they would need to follow the charter upon which the body was founded. It would be workload without reward, and as such, could probably only realistically be pulled off if it was a paid for system.

Another for the community, IMO. But crucially, I don't see any point at which it's necessary for the system to move from a community/voluntary preoccupation to a paid-for occupation.

As for impartiality and bickering, point me the way to a motorsport authority that achieves this, either by being financially driven, or by being an elected body of representatives and I might just concede that point. That should keep you busy for a bit

what exactly do you mean by daisychaining please?

EDIT:

Quote :

I don't see any point at which it's necessary for the system to move from a community/voluntary preoccupation to a paid-for occupation.

I was jumping ahead several pages of conversation to where it would end up...

Quote from Becky Rose :

what exactly do you mean by daisychaining please?

EDIT:
I was jumping ahead several pages of conversation to where it would end up...

Quote from SamH :

If, for example, Birder at ConeDodgers decided to run a GTR tier, and I decided I wanted to daisychain licences with Birder for a SS tier (good example actually, because I know his approach to server admin fits with mine), then Birder grant query access from UKCT to his database, and allow a chain query for me. Picture the scene:-

Driver1 joins UKCT1 - Local database query doesn't find the driver. Database query with ConeDodgers responds with "150". UKCT1 isn't accepting ConeDodgers drivers with less than 300 points. /kick Driver1.

Driver2 joins UKCT1 - database query with ConeDodgers responds with "305". UKCT1 records Driver2 in the database, and credits him with 305 points. He's now officially been "handed over" to the UKCT1 server from ConeDodgers.

Daisychain!

Quote from axus :

If the system does become more universal, it should not be open-source as anyone can abuse it on their server and dish out excessive points.

You're mixing up access to the source code of the license system with access to the license data.

There is little risk in opening up the source code. It'll even help in making it better (faster, more secure, more features, etc.)

But one should be very careful with access to the data. It's risky to give any server admin the right to modify the license scores. Unless, of course, there are separate scores for each individual server. (Which is, I think, what you suggested later on.)

Quote from birder :

I dont see how i can ask D1 champion, Csimpok, D1 runner up, Lucky Luke and several others to take a driving test to get their Licence.

At first you can run the scoring system without imposing any access restrictions. That way, all your regulars have time to get earn their top license, without being hampered. Later on, you can add the access restrictions.

If licenses are shared between servers then the point awards have to be fixed.

Quote from Becky Rose :

If licenses are shared between servers then the point awards have to be fixed.

Becky, you still don't get what I'm saying. The points aren't global - the points are specific to each server or set of servers. Each server decides - "once you get x points in our system you get a certain qualification". Points for that server or set of servers are tracked on their own little database, much like the current STCC database. Once you get the required points, the qualification (for example STCC gold license) is added to your name in the global database. Then other servers can querry this global database and check if you have the required qualifications to race there.

IMO, the way the points system works right now is fine. The logic is comprehensive and considered, and rewards everyone in a really good way.. for participation and for winning, for doing well in a race and for doing well on a track. I don't see anything wrong with it as-is. It ain't broke, so don't fix it.

As for individual servers' points ramp, I think that needs to be configurable. This provides for a true network of associated servers and a path. For example, after 300 points on UKCT1 you could move onto server UKCT2, or after 150 points you could, instead, jump over to [CD]B and earn points until you had enough back to UKCT2. At 500 points, you're able to try the vMax LX server and earn points until you can jump over to the T7R GTR server, or.. if you should prefer.. wait until you have 900 points and gain access to the [CD] XRG server

Quote from Quint999 :

Would you be pleased Gunn if the few busy US servers all applied this system and then you find your banned from all of them because one of your team mates spoke out of turn ?

Currently any server you join is controlled at the whim of the admin who runs it. So you get banned, move on. There is no shortage of servers and most broadband users like myself can simply run their own LFS server. Besides, I run my own team and I consider myself responsible to some extent for public team behaviour. I wouldn't be surprised if one or more team mates negative actions reflected badly on the whole team or myself. The thing is, in such a case I would take action within my team and would attempt to rectify the ban in a civil and mature manner if I valued the server access at all. If the server admin was truly unreasonable then it is more likely that my judgement was in error to begin with regarding that server administration. I mean, it's like admitting that you are a Coldplay fan and then acting confused and surprised when people throw rotten fruit at you in public then come around to your house and kick your dog.
Server admins aren't there to tuck you and night in and wipe your arse. It's their show and they run it how they like.
Some community members have made an attempt to foster a serious goal-oriented racing environment that helps people to gauge their progress via a points system and gives them something to strive for while providing full race grids most of the time. I would never attempt to tear that down no matter how bad my racing skills were.

I don't particularly think that cops n' robbers is a good use of LFS. Should I now protest against any more CnR servers coming online and make dramatic claims about how it will divide the community and impose bad habits on my fellow racers thereby limiting the number of potential servers I can join? Or should I let those players enjoy their game on a server that I wouldn't enjoy anyway and refrain from spoiling their online gaming time with my unjustified attack on their server rules or config? Best to butt out and let them be, they're having fun after all and there's a miriad of other servers I can join that are better suited to my tastes.

It's not up to the devs to manage our races for us, even if it was the case I bet there would be people complaining about how unfair it all is. Woe is us, the sky is falling.

*puts Coldplay Fanatic placard back in the drawer*

yeh, Coldplay suck..

/me hopes no-one checks my Last.fm page....

/me stands in front of Tristan's drawers

You din't see nuffink. Nuffink, ya hear?

(Tristan, I don't think pink drawers suit you)

Mind me blooming bloomers!

Quote from Quint999 :

Expect devs and admins to tuck me in at night ? , sorry i dont quite understand, where did i request nannying by either?

It's a metaphor, but I'm sure you already realise that.

Quote from Quint999 :

I dont disagree in principal to a licensing or points system but i still feel this should be controlled by LFSW and server operators be allowed to use that if they wish.

This would be my preference, but it's not there and so a community-driven alternative is our only option at *this* point. If it's superceded later by an LFSW-driven system, that's life, Jim, but not as we know it now (Star Trek parodying).

Quote from Quint999 :

i dont agree that any one racers ability to join a large group of servers should be dictated by one admins opinion and personal grudges.

There's no potential, in the scenarios being proposed, where this could feasibly happen, EXCEPT in the case of daisychained servers. Since that is a decision sourced in trust, between two differing server operators.

If I wanna trust ConeDodgers' admins' judgement, that's my shout as an individual server operator. If he makes an admin decision that prevents DriverXYZ (sorry if you exist! ) earning enough points to enter MY server, that's my choice when I create the server association. If I don't trust him to make good calls, I don't have to pair with his servers.

Quote from Quint999 :

Im certainly not trying to tear anything down due to my "bad racing skills" . I dont recall being banned from any servers be that STCC or well admined others due to my less than yours skills and have no intention of doing so either in the future.

...let me check my notes...

It is my feeling that the STCC system has added something good to the community and taken nothing good away. I hope that's not just me being pigeon-chested with pride that I was involved in supporting the project. Nobody who is uninterested, or dissinterested, is disadvantaged by it, and those that are interested and wish to partake are having a whale of a time

Quote :

There's no potential, in the scenarios being proposed, where this could feasibly happen, EXCEPT in the case of daisychained servers. Since that is a decision sourced in trust, between two differing server operators.

This is actually something I am keen to avoid, if I can't trust myself with power, I sure as hell can't trust anyone else ! lol... More seriously, in the case of daisy chaining I wont be allowing remote servers to deduct points.

example: UKCT have their own license system, they also have a relationship with it's [evil ] twin, USACT. If a driver connects to a tier 2 server on UKCT and does not have a license then the USACT license would be checked and copied into the UKCT database if it is sufficient for entry. In accordance with the license agreement of the software, UKCT are running a tier 2 server so they must also have a tier 1 server - so UKCT's license system would be completely independent and not 'above' the USACT system in any way, and any penalty issued to a USACT licensed driver would not effect their UKCT license access.

This way no other server admin could impose an over-zealous ban on a driver.

Of course that doesn't stop an admin on USACT saying, "these guys are gits, they really upset me and i'm banning them..." and the UKCT admin then saying "wow, wot dey did woz outta ordah, imma ban em 2 !!!111".

Quote :

Becky, you still don't get what I'm saying. The points aren't global - the points are specific to each server or set of servers. Each server decides - "once you get x points in our system you get a certain qualification". Points for that server or set of servers are tracked on their own little database, much like the current STCC database. Once you get the required points, the qualification (for example STCC gold license) is added to your name in the global database. Then other servers can querry this global database and check if you have the required qualifications to race there.

Sorry for the double post, but i've been glossing over the centralised database concept all day at work because, whilst at work, I didn't really get it (attention span).

I want to avoid having a central database for two reasons, firstly what if the server is temporarily unavailable? Does all racing in LFS stop? If it was LFSW that's fine (and does happen every now and then anyway) but if it's a second server owned by a 3rd party then that is a problem.

Also, the same effect can be achieved by getting agreement from another licensing server group to do license lookups via the daisy chain system, and this method requires less dependancy on a system that is up 24/7 (if the other licensing server is down it's no big loss).

Quote from Becky Rose :

the UKCT admin then saying "wow, wot dey did woz outta ordah, imma ban em 2 !!!111".

Except that the UKCT admin has an IQ >5

Quote :

Except that the UKCT admin has an IQ >5

I'm actually not a member of UKCT Jak, so, um, which one?

well im not an admin of UKCT, so that fact im stupid (*cough* buying Xbox headset *cough) wont "drag the team down"

Anyway, Sam is much close to oh... 6?

Sam, i love you really, please dont ban me!

Quote from Becky Rose :

I want to avoid having a central database for two reasons, firstly what if the server is temporarily unavailable? Does all racing in LFS stop? If it was LFSW that's fine (and does happen every now and then anyway) but if it's a second server owned by a 3rd party then that is a problem.

Perhaps you could use something other than a points program. For instance, have a script that would look up the users best lap time on the currently running track/car combo on lfsworld and compare it to the other drivers or to the "benchmark" time set by the server. LFSWorld has a lot of stats that could probably be leveraged for a multi-server, non-centralized system.