RACEONOZ Penalty Table

I'm all for it like the idea of bigger penalty's that would carry through the season forcing drivers to brush up on safe race craft and be more aware of surrounding's I know for Ac the pack is getting so close that you so much as sneeze and you would ruin someone's race. was there one for redress? I'm on a phone so hard to see

Love the idea hat and fully support this idea. At least everyone knows beforehand how serious we are and takes the pressure off the mods deciding on a suitable penalty.

Intimidation and threats shouldn't even be tolerated here.
Should be an instant DSQ then a ban.

With regards to driving conduct offenses, do the different categories "stack"? For example, a driver receives a warning for careless driving. Later in the season, the same driver commits an offense for reckless driving. Does the driver receive another warning or a 25 second penalty?

thats how i read it...progressively accumulating bad karma til you get booted from a race or two

@Hatfield
does the disobey moderators mean generally or just in regard to taking the penalty dished out

It means do not rebel against the dictatorship otherwise punishment will be swift and/or fatal.

I disagree. It will be slow and cruel.

Just 'cruel' or cruel AND unusual?

but i prefer the rebel music

Judging by Hatfield's thought processes, very unusual indeed.

is there an appeals process

Only if you can directly quote where in the constitution you have been wronged rather than by just the vibe of the thing.

I agree with the Alpaca... Blue flags are blue fags and need to be obeyed right away

The tyre offences should never result in a ban, only a proper length pit stop each time

Here's a good blog post: https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-rules-of-racing/

It discusses where blame should lie in a collision (element #2).

There should be fours areas of discussion to a successful protest:

1. Findings of fact
Using onboard video available, a discussion concerning the actual logistics of the incident - ie. what physically happened. Where onboards between two drivers are contradictory, that's the primary grey area in this discussion as otherwise, objective findings of fact can be nailed down unequivocally. ie. 'this is what happened'. Only then can the rules be truly applied...

2. Breach (element #1)
According to the facts that have been nailed down, using direct reference to the rules and regulations, identify whether a breach has actually occurred according to the rules. This has nothing to do with opinion; it's about whether the rules say 'in this situation that has occurred (on the findings of fact), there is a breach.' For example, collisions always constitute a breach, so this isn't an area of much contention. But a breach might not apportion blame...

3. Blame (element #2)
According to the facts that have been nailed down, using direct reference to the rules and regulations, identify which drivers have been apportioned blame according to the rules (eg. https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-rules-of-racing/). This has nothing to do with opinion; it's about whether the rules say 'in this situation that has occurred (on the findings of fact), blame lies with this driver.' Once this second element has been satisfied, an offence has been committed, and this mandates a penalty...

4. Severity (remedies)
Reference is made directly to the penalty table to determine an objective penalty value.

That's how you eliminate personal assessments in disputes. All 4 of these areas will have grey areas (ie. where the rules do not give an exact answer) and that is the nature of legal argument - legal reasoning 101.

The table is very good at guiding the fourth discussion. If each classification has corresponding rigorous explanatory notes for them (including how the table works), you can nail down the objective penalties that need to be handed out according to the rules. It matters not what the table says, so long as the table answers the fourth discussion. It could be brutally harsh on penalties, but the rules would still be fair. If the system is robust, you can change the contents of the rules at whim. It would be a luxury. If procedurally the system is sound, the rules can say whatever they like.

My thinking is penalties for the "General Offences" should be more severe, especially abuse or threats. People need to put the club before themselves.

Minor racing accidents with redress shouldnt attract a penalty, we want people to race eachother without fear a small mistake could be penalised. Fail to redress should be a penalty always.