A suggestion about penalties after the race. Please forgive me if it has been suggested before, as my search button on my keyboard is broken and I'm too lazy to look for the one on the forums.

If there is a penalty that would incur a DT during a race, then the equivalent should be assessed post-race, in the form of a time penalty equal to the time it takes a GTR to go from pit entrance line to pit exit line (the boundaries of the pit lane, not the entrance or exit lanes) with pit limiter on, plus 5 seconds to account for decel/accel.

For The Record & For What Its Worth-

This was mainly written pre-explanation. As such, we understand the situation and will move on; however, it does bear repeating.

It is known that the goal of the IGTC is to acurately re-create realistic sports-car racing through LFS. As such, we find the SC period in round 8 to be quite against this mantra.

The incident involving the Safety Car was questionable with regards to the rules:

1) The SC will be deployed by race control if a car is heavily damaged and is a danger to other cars on track, is stranded in the gravel, or is flipped somewhere on the course. The SC will remain on track for a minimum of two (2) laps.

As the car had a blown tire, it was not heavily damaged. The car was never out of control, never leaving the track. The lap he turned was a 2:07, ~10% off the pace of the average lap time, including the entrance to the pit lane. Obviously this was unknown to Benji, and we cannot fault him for that.

There are almost NO examples of a Safety Car being thrown for flat tires in real life. Flat tires are a part of racing, as is dealing with it. I cannot recall a single instance where a non-delaminated tire has warranted a SC/full course caution.

Examples where Safety Car Periods/Full Course Yellow are warranted included, but are not limited to, cars trapped in precarious places and extensively damaged vehicles (i.e. flipped). In the instance where one car ran out of gas, we agree he was in a safe spot. For the flipped car instance, we believe this would have been an acceptable, reasonable situation where a SC would be called.

The questionable aspects of the SC call are numerous:
-The team with the flat is the same as the admin of the series
-The team drivers were in direct voice contact with the admins, marshalls, and SC driver
-The SC took off before the Yellow Flag message had even been sent.

These discrepencies are independant of the fact that the SC period seriously hindered our chances of keeping 2nd place in the team championship directly and indirectly. Yes, I think we are warranted in being a little perturbed in this situation, while we understand that the circumstances may or may not have play integral parts to the SC being called.

Two things have to be addressed in the future for the series to maintain integrity:
-The defination of what consititutes a Safety Car warranting event.
-The seperation between drivers and teams from marshalls and administration.

We very much appreciate the honesty of Benji admitting the SC was not rightfully called. As one of only 2 teams to compete in every event this season, we feel privileged to have been with this series from the begining, and we look forward to growing with it in the future.

Thanks,
|||Stu
|||Land of the Free Racing

You're on target with most of that, and I appreciate your understanding/honesty.

I feel that admins can race, as long as their involvement is devoid of in-race administration. I am a primary admin of LOTA, and I race. I've been the subject of protests (because of a bonehead move), during which I only responded and had no bearing on the outcome of said protest. What I do from an admin role relative to protests on me is to discuss the protest circumstances and how the rules may need adjusted, but only after the protest is processed and any penalties are assessed. There is only one case in which I assessed penalties during a race in which I am a series admin, and that was in the SimFIA DTM series, where I had already fallen out of the race.

I agree that racers should not be on the same VOIP channel, and that the race stewards should be the only people on a password secured channel.

I agree in your circumstance Basnhee. However, the IGTC has dynamic challenges of Safety Cars, evolving race strategy and in-race pentalty accesment, and I feel these are too challenging to allow admining and driving concurrently while maintaining the level of integrity.

Nothing against anyone in the position of the behind-the-scenes stuff, I just believe as long as these duties are kept independant of the race, we all will benefit equally.

I partly disagree. I just think its 2 ways:
1. No teams are allowed on the same channel
2. All teams are allowed on the same channel. In this case the team leaders will be muted, to prevent unnecessary discussions. This way does give each team the opportunity to have real time info.

Note (1) that discussions are ought to be dealt with afterwards through a clearly defined procedure for protests (I've PM-ed DWB a suggestion for that on AIM).
Note (2) the key of this discussion is no teams or all teams, not some teams.

Quote from srdsprinter :

I agree in your circumstance Basnhee. However, the IGTC has dynamic challenges of Safety Cars, evolving race strategy and in-race pentalty accesment, and I feel these are too challenging to allow admining and driving concurrently while maintaining the level of integrity.

Nothing against anyone in the position of the behind-the-scenes stuff, I just believe as long as these duties are kept independant of the race, we all will benefit equally.

Indeed, which is what I was saying that admins should be precluded from during-race duties.

I'm not convinced that any race team people should be on a channel that includes series admins, including going there to ask about a violation, or to make a complaint. I think those things can be done via IRC. The VOIP channel with the admins should never be visited by team members (even if they are series admins that happen to not be racing at that moment) from the time the qualifying starts to the time that the final car has crossed the line. If the race chatting thing is controlled and people adhere to the rule, as I saw for the vast majority of the race on Saturday, then the admins can communicate race-wide info via regular text messages, and team-only messages via RCMs w/usernames.

EDIT: These protests also need to be handled outside the general forum, where anyone can post. Only the admins should be discussing the protests. What should be in these threads are the original complaint and the response (which can be communicated to the admins via PM), and the admin's decision. Ideally, you guys need to get a forum of your own where you can control permissions. ProBoards offers a free forum that you can do that with. LFS Forums just don't offer enough organizational control to keep things where they should be.

Quote from banshee56 :

Indeed, which is what I was saying that admins should be precluded from during-race duties.

I'm not convinced that any race team people should be on a channel that includes series admins, including going there to ask about a violation, or to make a complaint. I think those things can be done via IRC. The VOIP channel with the admins should never be visited by team members (even if they are series admins that happen to not be racing at that moment) from the time the qualifying starts to the time that the final car has crossed the line. If the race chatting thing is controlled and people adhere to the rule, as I saw for the vast majority of the race on Saturday, then the admins can communicate race-wide info via regular text messages, and team-only messages via RCMs w/usernames.

Appie's suggestion was to have a representative from each team in the admin channel but muted, so that everyone has equal access to the information the marshals have (i.e., total transparency). I don't have a problem with this in theory, though maybe it'd be good for the admins to also have a private channel where they can discuss behind closed doors, as it were.

You basically had big brother watching you on the track too with how many eyes were on the track. It wasn't just our team that was getting fast reponses by the admins. (3 or 4 eyes spectating the track and then a bunch of people on race spectator/in the race.) If there was an off or a blowout for anyone, someone knew about it pretty damn quick. IMO, the safety car was a weird call too and I kind of expected this discussion to be happening now when it was made, but my team had nothing to do with the call itself.

Quote from banshee56 :

EDIT: These protests also need to be handled outside the general forum, where anyone can post. Only the admins should be discussing the protests. What should be in these threads are the original complaint and the response (which can be communicated to the admins via PM), and the admin's decision. Ideally, you guys need to get a forum of your own where you can control permissions. ProBoards offers a free forum that you can do that with. LFS Forums just don't offer enough organizational control to keep things where they should be.

Agree with this entirely... LOTA's system seems quite effective to me.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Agree with this entirely... LOTA's system seems quite effective to me.

TBH, i don't see the problem with this. With disconnects and LL pentalties, the final standings are often far from the posted LFS order.

If everyone is not able to view the discussion, confusion will abound. Also people will not concretely learn from others mistakes, i.e. names, no talking, pit exit cutting, etc.

Add-in that every team has 2-6 drivers per car, there's a lot of information that needs to be disceminated down the chain.

The results of the protests would be posted publicly but would not be open for debate. It'd just cut out the endless bickering between the time the protest is posted and the time it's resolved.

This would go hand in hand with the new procedure for actually deciding protests and the proposed new tribunal of marshals (possibly drawn from competing teams).

Quote from srdsprinter :

TBH, i don't see the problem with this. With disconnects and LL pentalties, the final standings are often far from the posted LFS order.

If everyone is not able to view the discussion, confusion will abound. Also people will not concretely learn from others mistakes, i.e. names, no talking, pit exit cutting, etc.

Add-in that every team has 2-6 drivers per car, there's a lot of information that needs to be disceminated down the chain.

That's why you need one person to be the liason from each team to the admins. It should be the team leader (relative to IGTC) that should originate or respond to protests, and it is his/her responsibility to get all the information required to do so. The admins need a place to effectively talk about the situation thoroughly and then respond with an decision/explanation. It's not a democracy, and admins decisions should not be potentially tarnished or affected by a continuing discussion where arguments for or against a protest are based on previous posts. It's a never ending cycle of opinions, and in the end, the admins are responsible for writing, interpreting, and enforcing the rules, right or wrong.

Obviously, if a situation arises that exposes a loophole or inconsistency in the rules, the admins must decide according to the rules as stated prior to the incident, and adjust afterward if needed. Conversely, it is the racers' and team leaders' responsibility to know the rules and said loopholes, and their right to be able to initiate or defend a protest based on what rule they are being governed by as they are written.

I just want to mention one thing, which fell into my mind concerning communication between admins and drivers.

I don´t think, this has much influence on a endurance or the result of this race, but I would like it to be sorted out for the future.

If a teammember is in direct communication with an admin under a yellow flag period, he can hear exactly when it´s going to be green and be much more ready than others. This can be misused and I think, it should be hindered somehow. Under yellow flag, there should be no others on the channel the admins are using. Problem is that there can be used parallel voice or text chatting programs.

Quote from Humbleridderen :

I just want to mention one thing, which fell into my mind concerning communication between admins and drivers.

I don´t think, this has much influence on a endurance or the result of this race, but I would like it to be sorted out for the future.

If a teammember is in direct communication with an admin under a yellow flag period, he can hear exactly when it´s going to be green and be much more ready than others. This can be misused and I think, it should be hindered somehow. Under yellow flag, there should be no others on the channel the admins are using. Problem is that there can be used parallel voice or text chatting programs.

The admin doesn't mention the green flag on voice chat, besides there being a couple second delay. (No reason to mention it, it's just whenever the admin throws it.) Plus the admins were only in the same channel as the race team for the first hour or something, which was nice when they left considering there was a lot of random banter on the race channel. :P Dunno why it wasn't split up from the start this time, guess just poor organization (first drivers sitting in the main channel when the race started so everyone ended up on the main channel from then on).

The only person that knows when it's going to be green is me. For the record, there is a separate admin channel that we use and i did use toward the end of that race. I used the CoRe channel for the first hour or so because Appie was new to IGTC marshaling and did not have the password.

Quote :

It's not a Democracy.

Nowhere have it been claimed as such. It's an open forum, where voices can be heard and the admins can make there decisions.

Quote :

admins decisions should not be potentially tarnished or affected by a continuing discussion where arguments for or against a protest are based on previous posts.

The admins have admitted that they are in fact human, and prone to the occassional error. There is no danger in having open conversation, and its absolutely baffling to quel open speech in order to protect the untarnished view of any person.

I'd like to see a IRC channel be available for during-race questions or complaints.

Quote from srdsprinter :

It's an open forum, where voices can be heard and the admins can make there decisions.

That statement reflects the basic foundations of democracy. And because opinions by the masses are often affected by the desire for personal gain, I don't see why the admins' decision making process needs to be carried out in an environment that can affect what needs to be and unbiased interpretation and enforcement of the rules.

Quote from srdsprinter :

The admins have admitted that they are in fact human, and prone to the occasional error. There is no danger in having open conversation, and its absolutely baffling to quell open speech in order to protect the untarnished view of any person.

I agree that open conversation is good, because more often than not, positive advancement of rules are the result. However, when it comes to admins discussing an incident relative to rules as they were in effect prior to that incident, they need to be able to decide based on the facts of the incident, not by the continually changing interpretation of the incident. Especially when those continually changing opinions are basically reactions to opinions that they may not agree with.

Quote from Gil07 :

I'd like to see a IRC channel be available for during-race questions or complaints.

This is a good idea that we'll be looking to implement.

Quote from banshee56 :

That statement reflects the basic foundations of democracy.

Not exactly. The Fundamental Feature of democracy are competitive elections. The Basic foundations of Democracy is where everyone has a vote. A True Basic Democracy is far different than a Representative Democracy, which is similar to what is in place now. Everyone can speak, and the Admins make their decisions.

Quote from banshee56 :

I agree that open conversation is good, because more often than not, positive advancement of rules are the result....

The rest of your post is you trying to push LOTA strategy onto the IGTC, and has little to do with the suggestion at hand.

Admins are as error-prone as the rest of us. They are no better, no worse, but they are the one's chosen to make the decisions. Holding them and their decisions on a pedastel just because they are admins is foolish.

And again, fundamentally you are promoting the restrictions of free speech in attempts to raise admins above the humans that they are.

- Without open forums admins can make mistakes, poor decisions, corupt decisions without the chance retribution or fairness to the afflicted parties. -

Quote from srdsprinter :

Not in the least. The Fundamental Feature of democracy are competitive elections. The Basic foundations of Democracy is where everyone has a vote. A True Basic Democracy is far different than a Representative Democracy, which is similar to what is in place now. Everyone can speak, and the Admins make their decisions.

Yeah, sure, everyone can speak in a democracy. But we're really not talking about a democratic situation in which everyone has a vote on how laws are created to govern the individuals at large. Rather, this is a judicial scenario in which those that argue the merits or demerits of a violation of rules are the ones directly involved, along with those charged with making the ultimate decision.
In the case of the Round 8 protests that are being currently considered, there are opinions from drivers/teams that won't be directly affected by the outcome. By signing up to compete, you've agreed that the admins are the only people that are charged with making decisions on protests.

Quote from srdsprinter :

The rest of your post is you trying to push LOTA strategy onto the IGTC, and has little to do with the suggestion at hand.

Admins are as error-prone as the rest of us. They are no better, no worse, but they are the one's chosen to make the decisions. Holding them and their decisions on a pedastel just because they are admins is foolish.

And again, fundamentally you are promoting the restrictions of free speech in attempts to raise admins above the humans that they are.

- Without open forums admins can make mistakes, poor decisions, corupt decisions without the chance retribution or fairness to the afflicted parties. -

My opinions have nothing to do with LOTA. In fact, they have everything to do with how protests were handled by the World Karting Association (WKA) at regional events, in which I was involved as a Race Director in 2000-2003. For the record, the LOTA method of processing protests is a close parallel with WKA's method. With it's ability to facilitate and govern seven different racing series and it's 10,000+ membership, I would say that their methods are a sound basis for racing regulations, simulated or real life.

Anyway, I know admins are human, which is why there is a need for several people on a competition committee that processes protests. And that committee needs to be made up of competitors on a revolving basis, as we did in WKA.

I am not promoting the restriction of free speech when it comes to the formulation of rules. What I am suggesting is that we hold to the ideal that people can be judged by a select group of peers, and have the right to argue their side of a dispute, void of outside influences...i.e. those not directly involved in the protest.

Quote from srdsprinter :

Admins are as error-prone as the rest of us. They are no better, no worse, but they are the one's chosen to make the decisions. Holding them and their decisions on a pedastel just because they are admins is foolish.

And again, fundamentally you are promoting the restrictions of free speech in attempts to raise admins above the humans that they are.

That's not what it is at all. It's simply acknowledging that they are the humans who are in charge. You acknowledge as much when you sign up for the league, and you agree to abide by their decisions. As has been stated, we are looking into ways to develop a more fair protest review board for the next season, but that review board will in all likelihood be private (with their decisions and reasoning posted publicly).

I challenge you to show me one professional racing series in which the drivers/teams can directly lobby the organizers during their decision-making process.

would it not be bennificial to open 1 thread per issue per race (ya there could be a lotta threads), post one by the admin, as the stated offence was presented to them, then a discussion on the issue - with a defined close time. admins would be banned from taking part in the discussion. discussion reaches it's close time and the admin can then (behind closed doors) make their decision and post a final entry with their ruling - with no more discussions to be had.

I challenge you to find a professional racing series in which the active drivers/teams are the marshalls/admins.

Your failing to include the point that with the exception of Kaw, all admins/marshalls are current or once were drivers involved with the series. As such, they are as motivated/driven as anyone-else.

If there is nothing for them to be fearfull of, why hide behind the cloak of admin.

FTR, this season, decisions that have been clearly thought out and rendered have had little to no noticible reprecussion.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

I challenge you to show me one professional racing series in which the drivers/teams can directly lobby the organizers during their decision-making process.