Ok, so then what do you do when other leagues make a decision you think is unnecessary? You speak up, you make suggestions, right? You barking up other threads in other leagues for the past year, doesn't this all seem hypocritical of you to say I am the one stuffing your face with crap? And then to tell me to shut up? God damn!
What I say here is purely my suggestion, my 2 cents, whatever the hell you want to call it. 2 drivers for a country is a bad idea... and on top of that, excluding the other highly-potential countries is a real shame. It is sad to read the posts of excluded nations with their defense that they can no longer participate.
I am sure A LOT of other people here would like to see those countries still participating, why must you just get rid of them and think all is well. Don't these posts of ours give a clue? I certainly expected a great number of nations competing, but now it is only 16, and what am I to think?
Get as many countries as you can to sign up, you don't need to have a full grid... the first season is expected to be light I am sure. But by the time you have things established and if all is a success, the second season will surely have more interest from surrounding nations and drivers. If you go in and do a 16 country season, what will you do when next season starts? More countries will want to participate, and if you are open to more nations and want to do a one driver system, then are you fully prepared for it?
I can assume all I want, and doing a 2-driver system to fill a void is not what most nations were expecting to see. We expected to be up against 20, maybe 30, different nations on the track.
I already knew you had a rule Josh. What you quoted was trying to support the argument of ONE driver per nation along with that rule.
Maybe you should write more clearly in future, because obviously what you have written suggests otherwise; namely that we did not consider the possibility that countries would use certain drivers for the entire season.
There are several of us who've been discussing the rules and format of the competition, and none of us objected to having two drivers per team. Appie suggested that two drivers, generally, will prepare better than one, which I personally think is a good point. It also promotes more of a team or togetherness feel imo, which would seem key to this kind of competition.
Finally, I don't personally see a problem with a format similar to that of BoTT. It has been a successful competition, and, just because this is a competition for nations and not teams, the principal idea is still the same.
Yes, That was completely on topic, and wow, your so right, it was very constructive, offered amazing support to the organisation. Its true, we were very scared of what you had to say, this Austrian does seem to know what he's talking about... yawn.
Why oh why did we chose to delete your post considering ALL it had to offer!?
Yet more unconstructive moaning from you, you'll noticed that the post hasnt been edited for almost 48hrs, and that clearly gives you the explanation of why those countries have been picked, and despite those reasons being very clear and being factually accurate to the teams selected, yet again your rant is pointless.
Promise? Who said anything about promising? The announcement 2 weeks ago made it very clear, you knew that then, and its still true today, stop whining! If only 1 person signed up, does that mean they're GUARANTEED to be in the series because apparently its a 'promise'? Of course not, so quit playing with words.
1) You've yet to suggest a suitable way in which those 40-50+ people could take part, you've only whined.
2) We need to TEST the connections and be sure they're fine for 16 different countries from around the world, it should be fine, but its not that often you'd have 32 people from 16 countries spread widely around the world, normally its within 1 continent and the odd one from outside there.
3) You were ranting on about packet loss between Austria and Germany making racing unpredictable, so who's talking rubbish there?
I think the World Series is trying to get into action as small as its possible, which I consider a good idea.
Why? Because, if I were involved in the project,
I would be worried about the servers behaviour when everyone is online,
I would have to produce some kind of stats structure for the series,
I would need to run a website featuring the series and information about the current competition (which would be gratefull to keep small at start),
I would have to control the nations managers with the line up for every round (to ensure no one is racing more than the 3 times propossed),
and many, so many other things I'm not capable or foreseing right now as Im not involved in the series administration.
So Tweaker, Blacklion, whats the point in shouting, getting angry and keep posting againts the admins? I dont get the point, this is just a game, and Im not speaking comfy because we (Argentina) got a spot in the series, I can ensure that if I was out because of all things already said by Paul, Arrow, etc, we wont be systematically complaining about that.
We do understand the necessity of getting this started as smaller as posible, and therefore, the actions taken seems good ones. Dont forget this is just the start, things can get messy, so smaller the thing is, smaller the mess
Ok, so hows about Argerntina swap with Slovenia, just out of pure testing purposes, then I guess you and your fellow Argentinians will stil; speak comfortably?
I know it was said that a qualification or something would be messy and I agree, it could be, but then it really would stop any complaints about who's in and who isn't. Would also means that the countries who get to run in the league would be doing so because they deserve it, not because they got lucky and put in over a team who are head and shoulders above them.
I guess that wouldnt be right according to the LFSWorld Series spirit, as far as I know and understand. More EU nations will make a regional champ instead of World series, although it isn't quite representative right now 'cos of lack of non-EU nations sign ups, not because of admins decision.
Swaping Argentina for Slovenia, would make this even more non-representative of World series, but... If the original nation set would have included Slovenia instead of Argentina, I wouldnt be shouting or moaning all around, thats for sure.
Anyway Bawbag, the only point I try to make clear, its this is a 1rst fresh start of the league/champ/series, so why complain so much? Its not like this is the 16th time the series is run and your nation isnt signed in, thats my point.
It's a revamp of a series which has been around before, it may look differnt and be run by differnt people, but it's still the same idea.
The team that wont he last nations cup has just been written out of this series before it even begun, quite unfairly at that. Other countries with less drivers have been invited to the series.
I think most people whos nations havn't been invited don't want to post to much because it will look like they're just being bitter because their team didn't make it. My country did however make it into the series which is why I find it more important to post my views and opinions.
just want to put a coment on reserves list. lets say a country that did 3 races allready suddenly stops racing. ther is a slot open. but inviting other team is total nonsense. who would want to just be there after 3 races withouth points. + if the points of other team would be signed to the team entered later wouldnt make any sense either, thats if they scored small amount of points which wont do the team any good.
@PaulC2K:
I tried to point out, that the reason "post of topic" for deleting my post is not believable, since it was also not done for many other off-topic posts. So it would have been appropriate to either bring another reason for the deletion or arguments, why my opinion regarding the reason was not valid in that case.
And if the intended policy to manage this thread contains to immediately delete every single off-topic post, it should be properly pointed out in some kind of thread rules at the beginning of the thread. Then it would be legitimate to delete every off-topic post, but it also has to be done consistently.
I admit that my post was not free of provocation, but has to be bearable for someone, who acts as a spokesman for a series like the LFSWS. Anyway, I want to apologize, that I made my point not more factually.
Your response to this pat of my post didn't help me to see, what was that bad in my post, that forced you to immediately deleted it, without any previous admonishment. In my opinion, the arguments didn't really match to what I said, since I never claimed, that my post was on-topic and they also didn't consider my previous contributions to this discussion, which I was referring to.
So, if there really is a good reason, why my post needed to be deleted, I'd be happy to hear and learn from that to avoid the same mistake in the future. It was deleted because it wasnt helpful, constructive or relevent, it was bickering. I've said at least 3 time if people want to offer helpful suggestions etc then keep posting, but if its not constructive, dont bother it'll be deleted and the thread possibly locked as a result if there excessive needless posts. Nothing more than that. Plenty of post ive come close to just deleteing, but havent because they'd only complain their opinion is being muted, but tbh with yours there wasnt a need to keep it there. The other admins can still chose to read it and it can be revived (which is how i could quote it) but as you've said, it had no merit and wasnt going to help find a solution or calm the situation.
Regarding the editing of posts, I also want to try to express my opinion in a more detailed an emotionless way: I wanted to point out, that editing already publicly read posts is no good idea. If someone wants to join in to the discussion, he/she might want to know about the already discussed things by reading the posts from the beginning. And with edited posts in the thread history, it would be a problem, because many posts make no sense because they refer to content not available anymore or only in an altered version most likely expressing something else. Also later references to supposedly earlier expressed opinions cannot be validated anymore, resulting in worthless discussions about what was said and what wasn't.
It's o.k. to edit the first posts in an information thread to have the actual status up to date, but it shouldn't be done in a discussion thread. And even in an Information thread, it would be good, to document the changes by adding a post like "I changed this to that because ...".
So regarding the argument, that the post wasn't edited the past 48 hours - I wanted to point out, that posts in the discussion thread shouldn't be edited at all, but since it happened, we have a problem with references to previous declarations. Hopefully in future the initial post will be updated with the rules as they are, then additional posts to the thread will detail updates and additions to the rules, stating what is added/changed at each point. However its much easier to just make sure the rules are up to date, we're all busy with other things so keeping a log of changes isnt something high in priority, but i think its probably worth doing whenever we remember to.
I also don't understand the reference to the reasons and criteria, as a response to the part, that you made a mistake, when you pointed out, that it was never suggested, that we will have more than 16 teams. Maybe you meant that it was not guaranteed to have ore than 16 nations, but then you should response with something like: "Thanks to bringing that to my attention. What I really meant was..."
To call my opinion "unconstructive moaning" and a pointless rant is also something I cannot follow. It may not been well presented, but it pointed out a problem and a mistake. Therefore in my opinion, at least the factual essence of this part of my post qualifies as being constructive. It was intended as it was never said it *would* have more than 16 teams, as in may or may not, but no guarantee was given that we would have any number of teams, be it 2 or 50
Regarding the "Promise": Yes, I guess, I played the words a bit. But the problem is, that the LFSWS raised expectations, which it doesn't want to or cannot fulfill. This maybe could have been counteracted, even after the damage was done by posting a comment that sets things straight, as early as possible. But I'm not sure about that. We did, Arrow posted the teams, i editted it minutes later giving reason for the decisions, explainations as to the method we came to this decision, and people started telling us we were wrong, and passed comment on topics they have no full understanding of, as if because they havent seen it infront of them, then it couldnt possibly have been decided ages ago.
We left it as long as possible, and gave everyone a weeks warning, that we'd be making our decision, in the hope of encouraging any sitting on the fence to take the leap, if there was sufficient teams (24-28) then we'd undoubtably have run 2 servers *despite* our joint opinion that just 16 teams would be the best way to start this series.
In general my experience tells me, that a league should be set up with having the important topics already lined out from the very beginning, so that everybody signing up at least knows what he gets himself/herself into and therefore will accept certain facts or decisions. And especially for decisions to be done by the organization, where there is a high risk they will be accused to be illegitimate/misconducted. Taking the 16 nations limit as an example, this would mean announcing this limit right from the start including the reason for it (test season) and also announcing the parameters, on how the selection is done. E.g. "We want the first season of the LFSWS to be a test season and therefore the number of participating nations will be limited to 16. The nations allowed to participate will be selected by the number of signed-up drivers. But for the reason of having a representative test season, at least one nation per continent will be allowed to participate, if the respective nation has 6 or more drivers signed up."
Also, when asking the community for their opinion and people respond to that, a decision made, contrary to any of the received suggestions and opinions should be reasoned - at least out of respect for the people using their free time to contribute to the series. And it should be done, when the decision is announced and not only after someone posted a complain about the decision. I've only just read this post, but said almost exactly the same thing (in our forum) about an hour after you'd posted it here , unfortunately the beginnings of the series were already in motion before the organising group were put together to go over the various matters, it would have been far better to have had the majority of the series structure known (or at least the important aspects) before the sign-up began, signups began 10 days before we'd got together in our secret hideout to discuss these things, As ive already mentioned in one of my recent replies, the number of teams & format was the first thing discussed, unfortunately that forum was created by arrow hours before he went away for 10-14 days, so we could discuss a few things, but couldnt confirm much for certain, and we also didnt know just how the signups would go. I have absolutely no problem saying im fully for having 16 teams, but not at the cost of p*ssing off half a dozen communities when we could run 2 servers instead, however for 19, maybe 20 teams it doesnt really split too well, and it made more sense to stick with 16 teams, and fill a server and see if it all works, than having 10+10 in 2 servers and run 2/3 full.
Also, as ive already said, everything has been explained, reasons were given in the post listing the selected countries
Coming to the numbered part:
I want to point out, that 1) is a false accusation.
Since my posts containing my suggestions regarding a different mode and also the ones regarding the connection issue are gone, I cannot reference them here. It must have got lost, when Arrows merged the posts from the information thread into the discussion thread. But seeing, you remember at least part of my connection issue posts, you might also remember the elimination mode using groups I suggested, to be able to handle any number of nations but also get quickly to a full grid of really committed nations. post 20-40 of this thread, somewhere in that region anyway. I was refering to since the announcement, not months ago, but even that suggestion had problems as i pointed out straight after.
I used the example of the Austria-Germany connection to strengthen my argument that having 32 drivers from 16 nations on one server most likely wouldn't work well. It was meant to show, that even the simplest setups can already bring big problems. You chose to post a video from the last 24h MoE race to do the same for your opinion, accenting, that it is an example for a full server with participants all over the world. Later you posted, that MoE is not a good reference for race with participants from all over the world. I wanted to point out, that you contradicted yourself. You claimed Aus-Ger was a bad connection, i pointed out MoE shows this isnt true, and as ive said more recently, it has about 90% of its connections(driver) based in Europe, there are a couple of non-EU teams, but they only hold 1 connection each, compared to LFSWS having 5 non-EU teams in this selection of 16, meaning much more worldwide coverage, completely different countries rather than 11 all in 1 continent on a strong internet backbone. Its not contradicting, its knowing the difference between 2 full servers when one has maybe 3 NA/SA/Aus connection at a time, compared to one planning to have 10 at a time, all the time
I think in situations like this, it is just the best to confirm and explain the change in mind. For e.g., that you took another look onto the MoE and noticed, that it was a bad example. Or e.g. for the other case, that your intentions where to find a way to have as many drivers as possible involved in the series, but meanwhile where convinced, that other topics also have to be considered or maybe that it wasn't you that voted for or made that decision - depending on what it was, that happened.
Well, it took me four and a half hours to write this post, but I hope it helps transporting my thoughts better than my last one. If it does, it was worth it.
kr
Lion
PS: @chanoman315 - I felt, that I had the right to be pissed off, after my post was deleted, but you are absolutely right. It wasn't a very useful style for bringing my opinions closer to the audience - especially to PaulC2K.
PPS: @bbman - seems, I'm also not flawless (that's one for insiders)
May i just ask what was the criteria for choosing the selected countries that can participate in this league? From what i see it was neither the number of S2 registered users, nor their past experience and success in similar competitions (ie LFS NC). If the main problem is the number of driver slots, I just don't see a good reason why some of them should get a privilege over some other countries, which have many more competitive drivers and whose strength can be clearly visible also on the LFS World (the first 2 that come to my mind are Spain and France).
You state that with this series you want to find the LFS's fastest nation within the nations with all the best drivers in the world. Well, by ignoring and not giving a chance to a half of the world, the results won't really be objective, don't you think?
By not reading the discussions for the last few weeks or last couple of days, maybe your not best qualified to say whats right or whats wrong??
The information your asking for, has been mentioned half a dozen times in the last 48hrs, and the assumptions and statements arent accurate either.
The teams were picked based on 3 things, signups, strength of line-up, and their location. We needed all 3 aspects in this competition from the offset, to determine whether the series had any long-term prospects, if there were clear issues then it makes no difference whether whateverland arent competing, so the relevence of their participation isnt of high priority, what is, is ensuring the format will work for in order for there to be any future success.
This isnt a 3rd generation series, its the first, and people need to accept this, wanting it to be the ultimate experience, perfectly answering this 'whos the fastest' question at the first time of asking etc etc. LFS-NC didnt get close to answering it, they tried first attempt and got things wrong, iirc teams in the qualification rounds and half the finalists (3 of the 6) didnt even bother showing up for their rounds, so something wasnt right there. So in terms of past experience, what is there? Nations cup.... we'll say no past experience then ey.
Also, its been said some time ago, that the first season wouldnt be a true/full example of what the series is aiming for, but a smaller version which can be extended upon in future seasons. The series organisers wanted something managable, small group of countries where any problems can be dealt with in a much easier manner, get some experience behind the the project and then use that to promote future series where we'll actively try and get as many countries involved and hopefully ensure additional communities know of its existance. The entrants, such as yourself, want Formula 1/A1GP/World Cup all rolled into 1, every single country taking part, with every driver getting a race, and all in a lag-free server. Apparently our opinions on how to start up a series arent allowed, instead were being told to follow in the footsteps of Nations Cup... brilliant.
Dont mind my cynicism, ey.
Eitherway, if you want to comment on objectivity, what we aim to do, and how were not fullfilling that, at least check what your commenting on first, dont assume because you havent looked, thats not really objective, dont you think?
