RACEONOZ Penalty Table

Are you replying to the voices in your head mine are quite intellergent especially when I ask a good question I surprise myself with my answer

In regards to breifing will there be a point on Turn 1 at Brands hatch, such as lap 1 restarts?

The reason i can think of would be having every circuit in line so an argument regarding what Pit Entrances can be exploited to advantage does not occur. Of course not every Pit Entrance can be used to an advantage, however if we could completely skip the debate about which ones are and which are not, that's a positive.
As for Pit Exits, i suppose this has more to do with not having a monster incident on the Pit Straight; like you said. It's not just with unsafe pit exit's though, Nobody is perfect when seeing where cars around us are, and there is the possibility of a driver thinking he is clear from the Pit Exit, theres no advantage to cutting the line, so he moves over early across the White Line, buuuuuuut he has now had a huge accident as there was a car just out of his line of sight when he checked. I'll provide an 'Extreme' real life example below.
I totally understand where you're coming from with 'There needs to be a reason for a rule' and 'Not having a rule for the sake of rules' as i agree with you. However i do see the logic for this rule. Saves thread debates and if we enforce it at every single round, every single circuit, then this is the last we'll ever hear of it i'm sure.

Spoiler: Example

Let's pretend that Rubens was not forced over the white line, but just alongside it and that there is a car coming out of the Pitlane. He thinks he is clear, there is no penalty for crossing the Pit Exit line so he begins to rejoin the Racing Line.

By not having this ruling on every circuit for the simple fact of 'It does not provide an advantage', if somebody is not following Pit Exit procedure and they wander onto the track because they 'Thought' it was clear, they have now just caused a monumental crash, one car has his race ruined through no fault of his own and the other has been pile drove from behind due to not staying with the set boundaries.

Then remove all community input otherwise it sends people into a frenzy like wild animals, Last thing you want is competitors driving around like sniffer dogs waiting for someone to drive over a dotted line. Let the competitors race and the moderators do moderator stuff & race.

I scroll back a page and people aren't even talking about rules anymore its just one person being that guy

Nicely put. I once sent someone a link to a youtube video explaining how to replicate my network setup. If enough people really want it then I'm more than happy to write up a how to guide, in as close to plain english as I can manage without too much tech jargon.

Yeah mostly. Was also referring to the process of setting up pfSense on a PC to use as a router/firewall which has been my setup for a while with tweaks along the way.

Not sure about everyone's connection but it seemed to work for mine. Used to be shocking. I'll try to get a write up done soon about it.

I have been too embarrassed to log-on after my rubbish performance on Sunday... luckily.

I've got only three talking points (quality ones and not boring, I swear!) to contribute to this discussion, and both @Beau_Albert and @stucar17 have already provided the first two exact views, but I would like to give addendum information.

On 23 January 2017 (a month ago) in this very thread, I already talked about the problem with the pit lines. You can find the discussion on page 6 of this thread. It was literally the first point that I raised substantively concerning the penalty table - my first point I ever raised, and I believe, the second post I ever made in this thread:

The discussion went on:

I replied:

This last post is the point that Crunch the Second has made already, and I applaud and thank him for his insight.

If I may go back to Hatfield's comment (quoted above again), he disparaged my recommendation and contributions as coming down to just talking about changing the penalty from 25 seconds to 5 seconds, when it says clearly that the words 'For Advantage' are nebulous.

Lo' and behold, a month later, the words 'for advantage' have been removed exactly as I recommended. To say that I'm on a high horse would be an understatement, but I won't parrot on about that beyond saying 'I told you so.' I saw this coming on a single reading of the rules...
-----

Secondly, @stucar17 has already said all that needs to be said, but I'll ask once again to @seth123 who has a history of similar sentiments, whether he enjoys his freedom of expression and input into the community, just like we have in Australia, or whether he wants to be oppressed and forced to live under a dictator, just like they have in North Korea.

Why would you be an advocate for shutting down opinion?

It is the responsibility of everyone here to help the discourse in making ROOZ a better place to race online, and that only happens when everyone in the community gets a say, so that the majority opinion can be adhered too. We all have the equal aim of making ROOZ better - every person's opinion is valuable to the whole. There is no merit in suppressing dissenting opinion once again. As Voltaire is commonly attributed to saying: 'I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.'

Don't try and kill intelligent discussion. State your opinion, and argue your opinion. Without your freedom to speak, you have no rights. You are a slave.

---

Third and finally, having got the first two things out of the way, I think quite frankly we all deserve a big round of applause and congratulations to everyone for the progress and work that has already been put in. The road is not going to always be easy and will be very difficult at times, but SO MANY positive things have changed over the last few months that it's easy to give up - truly remarkable improvements as well.

I'm deliriously happy about the 'Incident Reports' thread especially. It provides a basis of knowledge on incidents and it provides the oversight of stewards that drivers need to see whether the stewards are doing a good job (just like politicians and judges)! It's quite remarkable and such a step forward. It's a sign of absolute strength when a government, regulator or company have nothing to hide, and have open disclosure of things. Only shifty or bad governments, regulators or companies need to hide information. It's fantastic that we can see and align the rules with how protests work.

So much improvement - let's keep it going! Things happen so then you change the rules afterwards because an outcome is not what we desire as a community. That's healthy, not a sign of weakness. That's a sign of progress.

Answer me this...

Why the has the term "do not cross the white line" gone into this much discussion????

It is pretty simple and the rules have worked for 5 years now.
Stop pissing your pants about this and just race, the more bigger and confusing the rule book gets, the less people you will have to race against

I wouldn't respond to this comment but for it says at the beginning 'Answer me this...'

So I will.

Let's say we have a rule (or as you phrase it, a term) saying 'do not run a red light.'

That sounds really simple.

Here's a link to the Queensland Road Rules (where I live):

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/legisltn/current/t/trantoprurr09.pdf

Section 56 outlines your responsibilities at a red traffic light. If you do not abide by it, then you will accrue a maximum of 20 penalty units (see page 53). What that means is governed by other legislation.

Or let's say we have a rule saying 'don't speed.'

Section 20 outlines your responsibilities in relation to how fast you drive your vehicle. Likewise, you might accrue some maximum penalty units. Note also, that at the very bottom of section 20, they refer to Criminal Code provisions, using very similar language to our driving offences here at ROOZ: notably, 'careless driving of a motor vehicle' and 'dangerous driving of a motor vehicle.'

You need to specify the rules in relation to what exactly 'don't speed' and 'do not run a red light' means. If I shine a red laser light on the side of the road into the eyes of other drivers, would that mean they are running a red light? Or a racing driver might think that going 100km/h in a built-up area is acceptable, and that he isn't speeding. is he speeding? We need to define WHY he is speeding, HOW he is speeding, and what PENALTY he will receive. That is currently how road rules work, and the ROOZ rules work.

You will find all the similar details from the FIA:

http://www.fia.com/regulations

That's why "do not cross the white line" needs to be defined.

'Oh but stewards! There is no white line at Tokyo Route 246! it's yellow! Hahaha! I guess I didn't break a rule!'

'Oh but stewards! I didn't cross the pit line because I still have a piece of my car over the line. Even though I'm hogging the entirety of the road, I still didn't cross. Hahaha, I guess I didn't break a rule!'

Finally, I'll debunk your assertions by asking you:
Do less people drive on the roads in Queensland because 'the more bigger and confusing the rule book gets, the less people' will drive?
Do less people race in FIA championships because 'the more bigger and confusing the rule book gets, the less people' will race?

So yes, it is very important - incredibly important - to have thorough rules.

We need to define what a pit lane cross is, what the penalty is, and before the rules were changed, what 'for advantage' meant.

EDIT: Also, immoral rules are referring to very different things to rules. To say 'they lasted for 5 years, so we should keep them that way and not worry' is wrong. The Roman Empire lasted for hundreds of years, and throughout most of that period, the right to own slaves was a fundamental right of citizens. If you were ever interested in finding out why saying 'it lasted this long, so it must work and must be good for the community' isn't a valid argument, I recommend H.L.A. Hart's 'The Concept of Law.' I would say it's one of the three seminal texts in modern political science.

My apologies for double posting...

RaceOnOz Rules and Regulations 2.0

I have updated the document. See schedule 2 and schedule 3 for details.

As stated previously, old hyper-links are identical and don't need to be re-traced.

My own spiel/rant as a guy who has made a rulebook that bloated out to 29 pages and likes to complain a lot.

Why and how did this become such a colossal cluster?

The aim of the penalty table is to clearly outline what the stewards group has been doing for 5 years so everyone could readily see the cause and effect of breeches in the regulations. This is a move to increase transparency and inform drivers what consequences exist.
When creating a regulation there are scenarios where "at stewards discretion" is needed in lieu of a word-perfect definition that covers all scenarios when defining a breech.
In an effort to outline what constitutes each breech, the Penalty Table qualified certain aspects of the rules. As a result, we saw "FOR ADVANTAGE" in the original definition of the penalty table.
The sticking point is the Penalty Table, in an attempt to provide clarity has defined some of the regulation.
The Penalty Table should NOT define the regulations, it should only refer to them, as in - "Crossing the Pit Blend Line as per Article 3.8" and then define what ACTION is taken as a result.

What happened on Sunday was a massive Platform wide failure to heed the Driver's Briefing and saw something near 30 breeches of Pit blend lines. This wouldn't have been an issue, however what happened next was people pointing to the penalty table in order to try and defend their actions by attempting to define "FOR ADVANTAGE". Due to the Penalty Table going some way to define the regulation, it has caused a lot of confusion and work for the Stewards Group.

For my mind, this should not have been an issue. When arguing about regulations you do not point to the penalty table for the consequence. You point to the rulebook, or the Driver's Briefing (which are event specific 'supplementary' rules). Once you have determined if rules have been breeched, your stewarding team looks to the penalty table and decides what action is taken based on the violation that has occurred.

As yet there has been no official post in the Stewards Thread or Incident Report of a decision.

So what have we learned? The Penalty Table should list offences, and the action taken as a result. It should not define or qualify what constitutes a breech of the regulation. It can (as it does) define different actions based on WHEN a breech occurs (in QP, or for reoccurring breeches).
Definitions of regulations and what constitutes a breech are for the rulebook, which we now have thanks to Crunch and probably needs an update to mirror the change in penalty table definition.

So in summary - Rules go in "Rules, Consequences to Actions go in Penalty Table, Cars don't cross the Pit Line and we go racing and have fun.

Edit - it appears Crunch has beaten me to the punch by already amending the regulations to reflect the updated penalty table.

Thanks for such a brilliant and articulate post @StigsTC

I echo your thoughts in that, rules were broken in this instance and the stewards did NOT punish and they absolutely IGNORED the rules and regulations. I didn't really want to point it out because I deemed it to be too hostile and I'm already a very vocal commentator here when it comes to fixing up the rules. I am glad that you said this because I could not in my current position as a critic of the rules.

Unequivocally, the rules state:

Section 5A

(a) When entering the pits a driver must stay within the pit lane, including the pit entry lines.

(b) When exiting the pits a driver must stay within the pit lane, including the pit-out exit lines.

Every single driver who broke this has breached the rules.

Section 7A

Cut Pit Entry Lines = Breach of 5A(a) = 25 seconds
Cut Pit Exit Lines = Breach of 5A(b) = 25 seconds
Track Limit - Time Gain = Breach of 5A(a), 5A(b) = DSQ

Was there time gained? No.
Were the pit lines cut? Yes.

25 second penalty is the only outcome.
---
We need to ask the question: why did the stewards decide to not follow the rules?

I wrote an essay for my legal blog last year about how legal formalism is the best indicator of fairness, but I've been asked to not share that here.

But basically, it's difficult sometimes for laypeople without legal training to exhibit proper legal formalism, let alone know what it is. It is difficult, without a doubt.

In my opinion, the only fair outcome for the stewards was to give everyone a 25 second penalty, because that was in the rules, that was in the driver briefing, and those who adhered to the rules by not crossing the lines deserve the rules to be followed. If the rules are not followed, why should those people even stick between the lines? A mass amount of people doing it is not a defence, and not knowing about the rule is not a defence either.

Yes @StigsTC : I echo you in that the rules were not applied correctly. I say this as a person who received a warning for cutting the pit exit myself last Sunday. It is quite unfair to those who have appeared to follow the rules, including yourself. It is unfair.

I'm not a steward or a moderator though. I'm just a guy critiquing the rules and trying to help out, and the fact that you have made this post is of great service because I couldn't say it myself without looking like an angry man who spouts stuff.

EDIT: I am looking forward to the Incident Report on this.

Well done Crunch, If you look around these rules have already kicked up a stink about a white line, Now to assume I want to be oppressed is wrong. Removing all community input right now in this very topic sure why not, What is actually being gained? you get too much freedom of speech here how does the moderator have power. We are here to race not debate everything. As soon as something happens the mods or whoever is running a series gets flooded with angry drivers, How can the site have any ownership if the basic members are running around like angry children, Some order in this place would go a long way. For example the fact Stu had to stand a few posts ago and I think a page or so ago really shows how great keyboard warriors are.

I am pretty sure no one here acts like this without their keyboard in front of them, so why does all the BS wash up here,

Like Ben said how has this become an issue now...