Read this BEFORE posting a Reject of the Race

[Captain Hammer]

Guys, I'm kind of going off on a bit of a tangent here, but there is somethng I'd like to say about these threads. When I logged on this morning, I noticed there was already a "Your Reject of the Race - Bahrain" thread. I would have posted this message there, but by the time I'd logged on, the Mod Squad had already been through and locked it, so here is going to have to suffice. The message is this:

PLEASE DO NOT CREATE "YOUR REJECT OF THE RACE" THREADS!

When I came up with the concept of having a thread for user-nominated Rejects, I envisioned it as being my baby around these places. In other words, I'm the only one who creates them, now and always. I have a very specific way of approaching the thread and a way that I like to do it: until now, I've created the thread on the Friday afternoon with people who have qualified for Reject status; if no-one shows any particular failings, I'll wait until the Saturday afternoon because you can be sure someone will have blown it by then. I know it's a minor thing and has a lot to do with my considerable ego, but these threads are my baby and I'd prefer it would stay that way. I know the moderators will probably lock this in about ten minutes (I'm angling for a sticky here), but it's something I want known.

I've also thought about it, and I've come up with some ideas as to who you should voting for, given that someone went and nominated Vettel:

1) Only nominate someone if they've made a particular case for it. Flavio Briatore was a valid nominee for Shanghai because he was willing to tear FOTA apart simply to deny Brawn GP television rights. It doesn't matter that he's technically right as Brawn are considered a new team, but he wasn't trying to keep to the rules: he was trying to cripple Brawn beause he doesn't like the way they're competitive. On the other hand, Nelsinho Piquet was not a valid nominee. Sure, he might not have impressed much for the past year and two races, but he didn't actually do anything worthy of Reject status until the race.

2) Think about who you're nominating and why you're doing it! Robert Kubica was nominated because he collected Trulli ... but if you watched the race, Trulli was going slowly and Kubica hit a patch of standing water and couldn't see the Toyota for all the spray that was falling about. Likewise Sebastian Vettel for causing an accident with Buemi. No-one was out of the race because of it, and Vettel was forced so slow down for the safety car conditions.

3) From now on, I want to turn this whole thing into a poll (if it's possible), which means the structure is going to change. The Reject of the Race thread will NOT be created until after the race so that all potential candidates have had a chance to prove themselves. However, as I'm Australian and don't get digitial television yet, this means the thread will have to wait until AFTER I have seen the race, and given that the delayed telecast usually ends at around one-thirty in the morning, this means that I won't be able to post until the next day, so I'll say it again: PLEASE DON'T CREATE THESE THREADS!

[noisebox]

Wouldn't it be better if the thread was created after the race?

As for the 'rules' you suggest, there are no rules! As long as you attempt to justify your choice, anyone is fair game!

[noisebox]

sorry - just read your post in full - i see that they wil be created after the race. I'm not for a poll though.

[CarlosFerreira]

I think we might skip the poll altogether, so we won't be conditioning the final podcast's decision. Either way, I'm OK with it: you go ahead and create the thread the way you're programing it.

[Nuppiz]

Okay, you create the threads, but I'd skip the poll too. Let's just keep it as it is, only that you're the only one to post the topic.

[Captain Hammer]

Actually, I don't think it's possible to create a poll.

[noshpit]

soz i was prettty drunk at the time.

booze + internet = bad stuff happening

[runningboots]

Is Captain Hammer a moderator or authority figure here ? Just wondered as he seesm to be telling us not to post things under his rules. Happy to understand the rules/guidelines, that's all

Regards

[CarlosFerreira]

Is Captain Hammer a moderator or authority figure here ? Just wondered as he seesm to be telling us not to post things under his rules. Happy to understand the rules/guidelines, that's all

Regards

Mod? Probably not. But he's an authority figure all right: the CAPTAIN!

Seriously, the man has an idea. Let's see what he has in mind.

[Captain Hammer]

Nope, not a moderator at all. But what I lack in authority, I make up for in ego.

[TomWazzleshaw]

So does that mean once you do get a position of authority will that mean you lose some of your ego?

Anyways I've read through the rules and I think it'll be pretty easy to abide by

[Captain Hammer]

Nope, it's likely to increase exponentially.

[Kuwashima]

G'day Captain. You seem to be one of our most keen posters. Glad you enjoy being here, and that you like the site! (You also seem to be something of a control freak - which is fine - join the club!!)

It was a great idea you had for ROTR threads, so thank you for that. Enoch and I are happy for ROTR threads to become your baby if you wish and support you in asking people to let you create them. However, like the government tells you how best to care for your baby, we have a couple of requests:

1) No ROTR polls (and yes, it is possible to create them. There's a tab next to 'options' when you create a new thread.)
2) Get the thread up some time in the race weekend before the race so people can comment on those nominees as they nominate themselves. Noone should have to wait for Channel 10!!

I understand these are two sides of the same coin, since the poll idea meant opening the thread late. Let's just have you do what you've been doing, it's been great!

ROTR is yours, and in return, please refrain for further "No one but me can post threads on topic X" posts!!!

Cheers,
Jamie

[runningboots]

Does Cpt.Hammer get a special title ? "ROTR thread owner", "ROTR uber fuhrer" or "ROTR domain controller" for example ?

[captainhappy]

I think this moment is a good time to change my screen name. I don't want to see a thread offering a duel over the use of the word "captain"

Captainhappy - out

[Ross Prawn]

Surely its up to Jamie and Enoch to decide ROTR. All we are doing in these threads is giving them some useful,and some useless, advice.

I don't really get these rules about who we can and can't discuss as ROTR. Captain Hammer's rule seems to be that we can't put forward something that he doesn't agree with. This does have the merit of being a clear policy, but may be alittle control freakish.

For instance Sebastian Vettel, who I nominated.

He was put forward for a number of well thought out reasons.

1. It would provoke a bit of discussion. (This obviously worked.)

2. He caused a crash which, but for some incredible luck, would have wiped most of the Red Bulls of the leader board. (Don't think it had anything to do with a safety car by the way.)

3. He admitted it was his fault. Which though very commendable, is hardly the behaviour we expect from a top German driver.

4. I mistakenly thought this forum was a bit of fun.

Now Jamie and Enoch may, possibly correctly, think that the above arguments are bollocks, and not choose to damn Sebastian this time.

But lets not have too many rules about what we can or can't say.

Please can I start the ROTY thread?

[LionZoo]

Surely its up to Jamie and Enoch to decide ROTR. All we are doing in these threads is giving them some useful,and some useless, advice.

I don't really get these rules about who we can and can't discuss as ROTR. Captain Hammer's rule seems to be that we can't put forward something that he doesn't agree with. This does have the merit of being a clear policy, but may be alittle control freakish.

For instance Sebastian Vettel, who I nominated.

He was put forward for a number of well thought out reasons.

1. It would provoke a bit of discussion. (This obviously worked.)

2. He caused a crash which, but for some incredible luck, would have wiped most of the Red Bulls of the leader board. (Don't think it had anything to do with a safety car by the way.)

3. He admitted it was his fault. Which though very commendable, is hardly the behaviour we expect from a top German driver.

4. I mistakenly thought this forum was a bit of fun.

Now Jamie and Enoch may, possibly correctly, think that the above arguments are bollocks, and not choose to damn Sebastian this time.

But lets not have too many rules about what we can or can't say.

Please can I start the ROTY thread?

I have to agree with Ross here. I'm happy with letting the captain create the ROTR threads, but I don't think it should be an official policy of the F1Rejects forum since I've been in forums where certain posters have rights to a thread, but when they disappear there's a bit of a confusion. Perhaps a gentlemen's agreement to have the captain own the thread unless it doesn't appear by a certain time in the Grand Prix weekend? It definitely shouldn't be a part of the Reject forum's official rulebook as rulebooks are open to interpretation and have loopholes and well, then Flavio gets angry. I think a gentlemen's agreement works out best here.

Finally, I think Vettel has a case for being a Reject of the Race simply because he didn't do a good enough job of trying to take himself out. If he had done it better, he'd be out of the race and Mark Webber would've won the Grand Prix, allowing Jamie and Enoch to die happy. His failure resulted in more agony for our Lord Rejects and so that made him worthy of consideration for the award.

[Ross Prawn]

I have to agree with Ross here. I'm happy with letting the captain create the ROTR threads, but I don't think it should be an official policy of the F1Rejects forum since I've been in forums where certain posters have rights to a thread, but when they disappear there's a bit of a confusion. Perhaps a gentlemen's agreement to have the captain own the thread unless it doesn't appear by a certain time in the Grand Prix weekend? It definitely shouldn't be a part of the Reject forum's official rulebook as rulebooks are open to interpretation and have loopholes and well, then Flavio gets angry. I think a gentlemen's agreement works out best here.

Finally, I think Vettel has a case for being a Reject of the Race simply because he didn't do a good enough job of trying to take himself out. If he had done it better, he'd be out of the race and Mark Webber would've won the Grand Prix, allowing Jamie and Enoch to die happy. His failure resulted in more agony for our Lord Rejects and so that made him worthy of consideration for the award.

I think we should have an official rulebook. Then if we have a disagreement we can all go to Paris for a couple of days to argue about it. Jamie and Enoch can buy lunch.

Very happy for the Captain to create the ROTR threads, provided we can post lots of stuff that annoys him in them.

And I think you have made a conclusive argument for Vettel.

[LukeB]

Remember, the internet is Serious Buisness.

[CarlosFerreira]

I think we should have an official rulebook. Then if we have a disagreement we can all go to Paris for a couple of days to argue about it. Jamie and Enoch can buy lunch.

Oh no. I feel a Max Mosley joke cracking just around the corner...

[Bort]

This entire thread makes me want to cut my own head off.

[Kuwashima]

Bort, I tend to agree.

Topic locked.