The Formula 1 Rejects Teams Association (F1RTA) Thread

[Aerond]

Well, seeing there's no agreement on the matter of the pay driver cap, the F1RWRS commission will abandon the idea for a while.

[Salamander]

The nationality your team has been registered as will be considered your home country. This means Kamaha, despite all their protests of 'oh, but we're based in the UK!', will have their home status in Japan, because they registered themselves as a Japanese team.

After a discussion about this topic in the chat, me and SuperAguri have agreed that this system is unfair. Simply put, a team which is registered in a country where it is cold and snows heavily in the winter, such as Canada, Russia, or Finland, will not be able to have effective private pre-season tests without having to pay more for the priveledge, as they will have to leave their registered nation and thus have to pay more than a team registered in a country where this is not such an issue. As far as I'm concerned, this is blatantly unfair for no justifiable reason.

As such, I'd like to call for a vote on this matter. Currently, there are a few possible solutions to this that have been suggested, which I will outline here:

- SuperAguri has suggested that there be a private pre-season testing venue where all teams may test, regardless of nationality, for 10 credits.
- SuperAguri has also suggested that teams can test where their base of operations is located.
- kevinbotz has suggested that the home nation test discount is expanded to cover the continent.
- Aerond has suggested that teams in this situation either get a second nationality like MRT, or just deal with it.

Personally, my preference would be for the second suggestion, as to me, this makes the most sense in the canon, and making the canon make sense is kind of my job around here as Canon Manager.

[DemocalypseNow]

I'd rather propose a fifth idea, than take any of the first four;

10 credit test costs applies to tests conducted within 7 days of the end of a race weekend, or 7 days either side of an official test session, at the same track either of the aforementioned were run at. So for example, teams from Asia could test at Paul Ricard by themselves, less than a week before or after the public Jerez test is run, for example.

This means we don't have to concern ourselves with such frivilous things as team bases, multiple nationalities, etc etc.

[FMecha]

The nationality your team has been registered as will be considered your home country. This means Kamaha, despite all their protests of 'oh, but we're based in the UK!', will have their home status in Japan, because they registered themselves as a Japanese team.

After a discussion about this topic in the chat, me and SuperAguri have agreed that this system is unfair. Simply put, a team which is registered in a country where it is cold and snows heavily in the winter, such as Canada, Russia, or Finland, will not be able to have effective private pre-season tests without having to pay more for the priveledge, as they will have to leave their registered nation and thus have to pay more than a team registered in a country where this is not such an issue. As far as I'm concerned, this is blatantly unfair for no justifiable reason.

As such, I'd like to call for a vote on this matter. Currently, there are a few possible solutions to this that have been suggested, which I will outline here:

- SuperAguri has suggested that there be a private pre-season testing venue where all teams may test, regardless of nationality, for 10 credits.
- SuperAguri has also suggested that teams can test where their base of operations is located.
- kevinbotz has suggested that the home nation test discount is expanded to cover the continent.
- Aerond has suggested that teams in this situation either get a second nationality like MRT, or just deal with it.

Personally, my preference would be for the second suggestion, as to me, this makes the most sense in the canon, and making the canon make sense is kind of my job around here as Canon Manager.

What about teams whose registered country have no decent (by Aerond's standards) track for GP2? Consider that too.

[dr-baker]

- kevinbotz has suggested that the home nation test discount is expanded to cover the continent.

I suggest this, but with the proviso that it applies only in the off-season if the justification is:

Simply put, a team which is registered in a country where it is cold and snows heavily in the winter, such as Canada, Russia, or Finland, will not be able to have effective private pre-season tests without having to pay more for the priveledge, as they will have to leave their registered nation and thus have to pay more than a team registered in a country where this is not such an issue.

Foxdale already have a slight exemption as the Isle of Man has no permanent car-racing track so tests in Britain (as technically it is a British Crown Dependency).

But talking sensibly, why would you set up a race team in a country where you couldn't test your car? I'm looking at you, Herr Peter Sauber!

[AndreaModa]

I'd rather propose a fifth idea, than take any of the first four;

10 credit test costs applies to tests conducted within 7 days of the end of a race weekend, or 7 days either side of an official test session, at the same track either of the aforementioned were run at. So for example, teams from Asia could test at Paul Ricard by themselves, less than a week before or after the public Jerez test is run, for example.

This means we don't have to concern ourselves with such frivilous things as team bases, multiple nationalities, etc etc.

I'd say this is the best suggestion so far. Nice and easy to stick to, and makes most sense. I agree with Salamander that in terms of the canon, testing in the same country as the base of operations is a good idea in terms of canon, but bear in mind that at one point or another there will be confusion about bases of operations and registered nationalities. Easier to just discard that for the purpose of this rule and use Biscione's suggestion.

[Aerond]

What about teams whose registered country have no decent (by Aerond's standards) track for GP2? Consider that too.

Those can test at an approved circuit in a nearby country. It's in the rules. In your case, you can test at Sentul.

[Aerond]

I'd rather propose a fifth idea, than take any of the first four;

10 credit test costs applies to tests conducted within 7 days of the end of a race weekend, or 7 days either side of an official test session, at the same track either of the aforementioned were run at. So for example, teams from Asia could test at Paul Ricard by themselves, less than a week before or after the public Jerez test is run, for example.

This means we don't have to concern ourselves with such frivilous things as team bases, multiple nationalities, etc etc.

I think this doesn't exclude my idea. But I'm ok with it (half of it is already part of the rules). Just to clarify, teams can test at championship venues after the race within the following 3 days (which sounds sensible, specially as tracks may be booked for another event the following weekend), for 10 credits/day, except at street tracks, for obvious reasons.

[pasta_maldonado]

I'd rather propose a fifth idea, than take any of the first four;

10 credit test costs applies to tests conducted within 7 days of the end of a race weekend, or 7 days either side of an official test session, at the same track either of the aforementioned were run at. So for example, teams from Asia could test at Paul Ricard by themselves, less than a week before or after the public Jerez test is run, for example.

This means we don't have to concern ourselves with such frivilous things as team bases, multiple nationalities, etc etc.

I think this doesn't exclude my idea. But I'm ok with it (half of it is already part of the rules). Just to clarify, teams can test at championship venues after the race within the following 3 days (which sounds sensible, specially as tracks may be booked for another event the following weekend), for 10 credits/day, except at street tracks, for obvious reasons.

Yes, that is all well and good during the season, but during pre-season that approach leaves you so far up shite creek you're at the source of the River Turd. The problem here is that with the advent of private pre-season testing, there is no Grand Prix to stick around after and test at, which means teams based in countries with colder climes are being unfairly punished for their choice of base.

(Yes, you could argue it mimicks real life, but then we'd have all but 2 teams based in the UK and that prospect is more boring than a 'Flog It!' omnibus. Oh, and this isn't real life.)

[Salamander]

Yeah, the 'being able to test immediately before and after a public test' seems the best solution to me. It also means you can have your team's base in a cold winter country without having to worry about being disadvantaged in the pre-season.

[AndreaModa]

I'd rather propose a fifth idea, than take any of the first four;

10 credit test costs applies to tests conducted within 7 days of the end of a race weekend, or 7 days either side of an official test session, at the same track either of the aforementioned were run at. So for example, teams from Asia could test at Paul Ricard by themselves, less than a week before or after the public Jerez test is run, for example.

This means we don't have to concern ourselves with such frivilous things as team bases, multiple nationalities, etc etc.

I think this doesn't exclude my idea. But I'm ok with it (half of it is already part of the rules). Just to clarify, teams can test at championship venues after the race within the following 3 days (which sounds sensible, specially as tracks may be booked for another event the following weekend), for 10 credits/day, except at street tracks, for obvious reasons.

Yes, that is all well and good during the season, but during pre-season that approach leaves you so far up shite creek you're at the source of the River Turd. The problem here is that with the advent of private pre-season testing, there is no Grand Prix to stick around after and test at, which means teams based in countries with colder climes are being unfairly punished for their choice of base.

(Yes, you could argue it mimicks real life, but then we'd have all but 2 teams based in the UK and that prospect is more boring than a 'Flog It!' omnibus. Oh, and this isn't real life.)

It doesn't because Biscione's suggestion includes the option of testing up to 7 days before or after an official test at the same venue for 10cr, so that solves anyone's problems during pre-season surely?

[Ataxia]

After the preview of the F1RWRS sponsor system devised by Wizzie, I would like to formally declare my opposition to the system as-is and propose that the system should only be given the go ahead when it reaches a form that all F1RTA members agree with.

Right now, I feel the system is far too restrictive to possibly serve as a popular extension of the series. It denies the current team owner a) the chance to sign the driver pairing they feel is the best for them going forward, and b) the choice of continuing with their existing sponsors, since unreasonable clauses may result in teams going with a different sponsor against their will.

Moreover, another problem is the cloak-and-dagger method to the new system's introduction. It would have been great if the teams had been informed in thread that a new sponsorship system was in the pipeline, and whether they had any constructive criticism to add to the mix. However, we've been given a huge spreadsheet and pretty much told that "this isn't going to be changed, so shut up and put up with it".

[Nuppiz]

After the preview of the F1RWRS sponsor system devised by Wizzie, I would like to formally declare my opposition to the system as-is and propose that the system should only be given the go ahead when it reaches a form that all F1RTA members agree with.

Right now, I feel the system is far too restrictive to possibly serve as a popular extension of the series. It denies the current team owner a) the chance to sign the driver pairing they feel is the best for them going forward, and b) the choice of continuing with their existing sponsors, since unreasonable clauses may result in teams going with a different sponsor against their will.

Moreover, another problem is the cloak-and-dagger method to the new system's introduction. It would have been great if the teams had been informed in thread that a new sponsorship system was in the pipeline, and whether they had any constructive criticism to add to the mix. However, we've been given a huge spreadsheet and pretty much told that "this isn't going to be changed, so shut up and put up with it".

With all due respect towards the people who put time and effort into planning the new sponsorship system, my honest opinion is that in its current form it most certainly doesn't make the series more fun or interesting. Just because things like this happen in real life doesn't mean we have to include them in a virtual game where the whole point is to escapefrom IRL problems. Especially if it's planned by only a few guys and then introduced to the 19 other team owners right out of the blue.

One of the bigger issues in the clauses is the inclusion of F1 drivers in them. Now the last time I checked Alt-F1 was still in 2014 and I most certainly won't want Klon to be pressured into rushing it to reach 2018 in time. And besides that, Alt-F1 contains only a few fictional drivers and their possible quality as F1RWRS drivers remains a huge question mark.

So yeah, I definitely support Ataxia's proposal.

[Salamander]

I completely agree with the above two posts.

[AndreaModa]

As do I. Way too much interference, no-where near enough dialogue.

[dr-baker]

KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. This series is only getting more and more complex.

[Aerond]

I don't think a 100% agreement can be ever reached over this matter or any other. 51% should be the norm for regular stuff and a 75% agreement for more important matters like this sponsorship system proposal. Anyway, despite whatever image Wizzie is portraying, I'd like to hear less whining and more ideas as to how improve it. Tbh I'm not 100% sure about his proposal too as it might unbalance again things. I also have an idea for a much simpler sponsorship system that I'll bring into discussion when the time is right

[roblo97]

I agree with Ataxia's points and I am 100% against the proposal.

[dr-baker]

I don't think a 100% agreement can be ever reached over this matter or any other. 51% should be the norm for regular stuff and a 75% agreement for more important matters like this sponsorship system proposal. Anyway, despite whatever image Wizzie is portraying, I'd like to hear less whining and more ideas as to how improve it. Tbh I'm not 100% sure about his proposal too as it might unbalance again things. I also have an idea for a much simpler sponsorship system that I'll bring into discussion when the time is right

A simpler sponsorship system? My suggestion would be NO sponsorship system. I have not seen much demand from anybody for bringing one in, and each suggestion for bringing one in always seems to have been unpopular (this isn't the first time, right?). So I think there should be a vote as to whether there should be any sponsorship system.

[AndreaModa]

I don't think a 100% agreement can be ever reached over this matter or any other. 51% should be the norm for regular stuff and a 75% agreement for more important matters like this sponsorship system proposal. Anyway, despite whatever image Wizzie is portraying, I'd like to hear less whining and more ideas as to how improve it. Tbh I'm not 100% sure about his proposal too as it might unbalance again things. I also have an idea for a much simpler sponsorship system that I'll bring into discussion when the time is right

A simpler sponsorship system? My suggestion would be NO sponsorship system. I have not seen much demand from anybody for bringing one in, and each suggestion for bringing one in always seems to have been unpopular (this isn't the first time, right?). So I think there should be a vote as to whether there should be any sponsorship system.

100% agreed. Let's test the water before even coming up with ideas. One step at a time folks.

[Ataxia]

I would like to see Aerond's "simplified" proposal first before passing any further comment. I guess it's fair to hear things from the other side of the coin.

[Salamander]

A simpler sponsorship system? My suggestion would be NO sponsorship system. I have not seen much demand from anybody for bringing one in, and each suggestion for bringing one in always seems to have been unpopular (this isn't the first time, right?). So I think there should be a vote as to whether there should be any sponsorship system.

Personally, I don't see any problem with a sponsorship system - for example, the ones in Klon's and pi's alternate F1 series both work quite well, in my opinion. For those complaining about complexity, you'll have to explain your complaints in a little more detail to me, because I fail to see the problem in that regard. The system as stated seems pretty basic to me - you pick a tier 1 sponsor, and some number of tier 2 and tier 3 sponsors that get you to 100% car coverage. Then you fulfil their stated sponsorship clauses to earn credits. The only complexity I see comes from the vast number of clauses possible, and if that's your problem, then simply consider what the system would be like with only 3 or 4 clauses to fulfil.

-----

My first suggestion on the sponsorship system is to scrap the idea of individual sponsors altogether, and just have a few generic sponsor archetypes. This will solve both problems I have with the system as it is - problem 1 being the absurd number of restrictive clauses. For example, there are a lot of 'Hire X nationality driver' sponsorship clauses - instead, roll these all into one 'Nationalistic sponsor' archetype which simply requires a driver of the same nation as the sponsor's home country. Another archetype could be, 'Youth-oriented sponsor', which requires rookies and/or a driver under a certain age or 'Championship-oriented sponsor' which wants a driver that has either won a championship or come within X points of it, and so on and so forth. You could also pick championship clauses separately, which would be based on your Constructors' Championship standing from the year previous, with the option of also picking a championship clause from a bracket above or below the one you are currently in - the brackets being the same as the TV rights payout brackets.

The second problem it solves is painting us into a corner with a specific sponsor - I think RWS1 would lose something if, instead of picking sponsors because we want them, we pick them because their clauses are the best for us to attain.

The second suggestion I have is to heavily limit the number of possible clauses - as it is, I think 6, the maximum possible, is a bit too much to keep track of. Tier 1 sponsors should have an individual clause and a championship clause, Tier 2 sponsors should just come with a weekend clause, and Tier 3 sponsors are just instant credits.

If anyone has difficulty picturing this, basically, I see the system as I am stating, looking like this:

Tier 1 sponsor type: Nationalistic (French)
Tier 1 championship clause: 6th-10th: Points
Tier 2 weekend clause 1: Win a GP
Tier 2 weekend clause 2: Qualify 1-2 for any race

Now, if anyone has any problems with complexity in that, I don't blame you because I probably haven't done the best job of explaining myself. But basically, what it boils down to is: Limit the number of sponsorship clauses, and only pick those instead of picking an actual sponsor. Does that seem fair?

[Ataxia]

Hmm, that seems like a pretty solid plan, Salamander, and I like the freedom of being able to select the clauses that suit you. I assume that if you exceed the clause, you get a little bit extra for your efforts?

[DemocalypseNow]

For me, one of the large issues is how complex the new system is, in comparison to what we get out of it. I don't have a problem with a major change that isn't simple, if it makes a vast improvement, and has been discussed openly for an extended period of time in the open.

Here's what I want to say - this new sponsorship system doesn't add any difficulty. I mean difficulty, in terms of increasing risk and reward. It's essentially red tape to money we already get. It breaks down the existing system in a more complex way to access the same money as we already have. That doesn't benefit anybody.

What I want is a combination of uniform performance bonuses and team-specific performance targets. Envision this - nobody is competing with each other for the same sponors, let's make this clear. However, the choice you make with your sponsor, is Short Term vs Long Term. High Risk vs Low Risk. You can ask them to cough up 400 credits, but if you don't win the championship with it, they'll abandon you. You only ask for 50 credits out of them, and they don't care if you can't get out of Pre-Qualifying. There is no RNG to decide what amount you're given - you get what you ask for. But with it comes a very large responsibility. Go too ambitious and fail, and your team is on the rocks financially in the next season. Maybe even the season after that if you really screwed up. It's no longer about RNG, about luck of the draw, about taking what you can from the restricted criteria and live with it. Only then is the game going to truly pan out the way you play it. It's no longer about ticking off a few boxes, about changing the way things have been for years, just for a little more money. The risk becomes ours to take once again.

So what do I say? Forget about assigning specific sponor names to monetary amounts, forget tiers, forget all of it. We don't need it. It's all for show. What we need is something that seperates those who can play the game to its finest, those who go about it half-hearted, and those who are plain terrible. Isn't that what competition is? Aren't we all trying to beat each other? The proposal on the spreadsheet is only more paperwork. We need changes that make the series require more skill, but without requiring a lot more time. This is why we must be in charge of choosing our budgets; we roll the dice, we play the game right, get the results, and we win. We get too ambitious, forgetting to consider our own resources, failing to think ahead, finish behind expectation, and it gets us back. The aforementioned system creates winners and it creates losers. It creates more competition.

[the Masked Lapwing]

Here's a nice simple solution:

Let's not have sponsorship! All these systems that have been thrown out here are needlessly complicated, and they are going down the F1 route of solving problems that don't exist, and most skirt down the path of screwing the canon up somewhat (especially Biscotti's, which while I like as an idea and would be my favourite if we absolutely HAD to have one, I don't like the fact that I could potentially lose Mobil sponsorship for one bad season despite them sponsoring ZimSport in multiple series). Anything that's even remotely restrictive in terms of what drivers we can sign and what our cars have written on them is not something I'm going to ever vote for.

There. That's my two cents. Now continue like I was never here

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Here's a nice simple solution:

Let's not have sponsorship! All these systems that have been thrown out here are needlessly complicated, and they are going down the F1 route of solving problems that don't exist, and most skirt down the path of screwing the canon up somewhat (especially Biscotti's, which while I like as an idea and would be my favourite if we absolutely HAD to have one, I don't like the fact that I could potentially lose Mobil sponsorship for one bad season despite them sponsoring ZimSport in multiple series). Anything that's even remotely restrictive in terms of what drivers we can sign and what our cars have written on them is not something I'm going to ever vote for.

There. That's my two cents. Now continue like I was never here

Somebody buy this man a beer. I would if I wasn't too young

[DemocalypseNow]

(especially Biscotti's, which while I like as an idea and would be my favourite if we absolutely HAD to have one, I don't like the fact that I could potentially lose Mobil sponsorship for one bad season despite them sponsoring ZimSport in multiple series). Anything that's even remotely restrictive in terms of what drivers we can sign and what our cars have written on them is not something I'm going to ever vote for.

Like I already said, very clearly in my post, sponsorship money and sponsorship logos are completey disconnected. I spelled that out in black and white.

As for those who say there should be no sponorship system in any shape or form; no f***ing way. What is the point in participating if we are sitting here doing nothing? It's not a game if everything is decided for us. It's completely passive. And that's something I am completely against happening.

[AndreaModa]

I want a vote on whether we should have a sponsorship system at all. I count at least 4 people, myself included, who are already against it. Straight off the bat that's a fifth of the grid, or 20% depending on your preference.

Vote on whether we want it, and if 75% vote yes, then we can proceed with working out a suitable system. Otherwise don't bother wasting time writing out these elaborate ideas!

[DemocalypseNow]

I want a vote on whether we should have a sponsorship system at all. I count at least 4 people, myself included, who are already against it. Straight off the bat that's a fifth of the grid, or 20% depending on your preference.

Vote on whether we want it, and if 75% vote yes, then we can proceed with working out a suitable system. Otherwise don't bother wasting time writing out these elaborate ideas!

Now this is an over-reaction. It's been public knowledge for a reasonable time now that some form of a sponsorship system would materialise in 2018. That in itself shouldn't be a shock to anybody. The bothersome part is how the specifics of it were worked away on by one or two people in secret, and nobody else agreed was involved in that.

[roblo97]

Here's a nice simple solution:

Let's not have sponsorship! All these systems that have been thrown out here are needlessly complicated, and they are going down the F1 route of solving problems that don't exist, and most skirt down the path of screwing the canon up somewhat (especially Biscotti's, which while I like as an idea and would be my favourite if we absolutely HAD to have one, I don't like the fact that I could potentially lose Mobil sponsorship for one bad season despite them sponsoring ZimSport in multiple series). Anything that's even remotely restrictive in terms of what drivers we can sign and what our cars have written on them is not something I'm going to ever vote for.

There. That's my two cents. Now continue like I was never here

Somebody buy this man a beer. I would if I wasn't too young

I would buy him a 4 pack of beer, but my age means that I can't

[Salamander]

I want a vote on whether we should have a sponsorship system at all. I count at least 4 people, myself included, who are already against it. Straight off the bat that's a fifth of the grid, or 20% depending on your preference.

Vote on whether we want it, and if 75% vote yes, then we can proceed with working out a suitable system. Otherwise don't bother wasting time writing out these elaborate ideas!

Now this is an over-reaction. It's been public knowledge for a reasonable time now that some form of a sponsorship system would materialise in 2018. That in itself shouldn't be a shock to anybody. The bothersome part is how the specifics of it were worked away on by one or two people in secret, and nobody else agreed was involved in that.

Furthermore, is it too much to ask for people to state their specific reasons as to why they think sponsorship is so complicated? As I have already said, other series have implemented sponsorship, and what is being proposed here is, in concept, no more complicated than either model currently in use. Models which have had little-to-no complaints about complexity. Can't we at least try to work together to make a feasible sponsorship system that please everyone anyway? Rather than just dismissing the entire concept out of hand without a second thought?

[the Masked Lapwing]

I want a vote on whether we should have a sponsorship system at all. I count at least 4 people, myself included, who are already against it. Straight off the bat that's a fifth of the grid, or 20% depending on your preference.

Vote on whether we want it, and if 75% vote yes, then we can proceed with working out a suitable system. Otherwise don't bother wasting time writing out these elaborate ideas!

Now this is an over-reaction. It's been public knowledge for a reasonable time now that some form of a sponsorship system would materialise in 2018. That in itself shouldn't be a shock to anybody. The bothersome part is how the specifics of it were worked away on by one or two people in secret, and nobody else agreed was involved in that.

I would have thought that having a vote would be the first thing to happen for something that will become so important. AndreaModa is correct, we should have a vote on whether we introduce sponsorship at all, and then if you get 75% voting yes, start figuring out a system. Otherwise we might as well scrap the F1RTA altogether, since it will be clear it serves no purpose.

[Salamander]

I want a vote on whether we should have a sponsorship system at all. I count at least 4 people, myself included, who are already against it. Straight off the bat that's a fifth of the grid, or 20% depending on your preference.

Vote on whether we want it, and if 75% vote yes, then we can proceed with working out a suitable system. Otherwise don't bother wasting time writing out these elaborate ideas!

Now this is an over-reaction. It's been public knowledge for a reasonable time now that some form of a sponsorship system would materialise in 2018. That in itself shouldn't be a shock to anybody. The bothersome part is how the specifics of it were worked away on by one or two people in secret, and nobody else agreed was involved in that.

I would have thought that having a vote would be the first thing to happen for something that will become so important. AndreaModa is correct, we should have a vote on whether we introduce sponsorship at all, and then if you get 75% voting yes, start figuring out a system. Otherwise we might as well scrap the F1RTA altogether, since it will be clear it serves no purpose.

This is not how democracy works. You do not hold a vote on whether to start drafting a proposal - you vote on the drafted proposal. It's pointless to hold any sort of vote whatsoever until we have an idea of what any sort of sponsorship system would look like.

[Ataxia]

I want a vote on whether we should have a sponsorship system at all. I count at least 4 people, myself included, who are already against it. Straight off the bat that's a fifth of the grid, or 20% depending on your preference.

Vote on whether we want it, and if 75% vote yes, then we can proceed with working out a suitable system. Otherwise don't bother wasting time writing out these elaborate ideas!

Or on the flipside, if we provide a solution that team principals who were previously against sponsorship agree with then it might be worth going forward with it.

The way it is, it's far too easy for the teams at the top to carry on signing good stuff, sit it out and collect enough money at the end of the season to roll with it again. If another means of obtaining credits is brought in, then it encourages team owners to actually show a little bit of ambition and try and collect the most they possibly can.

However, these issues are not going to be solved by having half the members involved in the F1RTA showing nothing more than flagrant lethargy. Some people are FAR too content to let things stay as they are in order to save themselves some bother, rather than contribute to the discussion. If you're opposed, don't just say "I don't like this". Explain why! Elucidate! It might help push towards a common solution that the vast majority agree to. Don't just say "I agree" or "I disagree". It's not helpful if you don't contribute.

If you want to sit on your arse, collect credits, spend them and wait for the rest of the year to pass to repeat the process, then fine, you do whatever. If you want to have a real say in the way you run your team and the way the series moves, then please, share YOUR thoughts.

[DemocalypseNow]

I would just like to say at this point, the F1RTA will not be holding a vote on whether rules should be tweaked from their current form in any way shape or form, as a question on its own. I see people who previously complained of frivilous red tape and poll taking now asking for this to be voted on. This truly is frivilous.

I'll tell you exactly what will happen; instead of roadblocking every single suggestion that is made from this point on, credible suggestions will be evaluated, tweaked and reworked until they have been formed into workable formats. Only then will there be a vote. And we could still end up with none of them.

Suggestions that make the game more complex with little benefit will be rejected. Suggestions that throw some actual skill and genuine challenge into the mix without taking up too much time and effort will be seriously considered. I won't play ball with rejection of change for the sake of keeping the status quo or straight up lethargy.

[Nessafox]

And this is exactly why i pulled myself out of the F1RWRS waiting list. You guys are taking this all waaaaay too serious.
If my opinion counts for anything: i've got the idea that the less serious sponsors are slowly getting replaced by characterless cliché companies. Whilst this is more realistic that way, this also takes away the uniqueness. The most iconic liveries are still those from rejectful or unusual sponsors. They are part of the identity of F1RWRS, and makes the difference between what we are doing, and what other forums are doing. I don't care what you people decide, but don't take away the very core personality of the PMMF, that is that we do things our own way, because we know better than to do things 'like it should'.
This is not criticism, i'm just asking you people make sure the soul stays in all these games. It should not be representation of how real life is, it should be a representation of how we want real life to be. I'm sure you will all come with a solution where i don't need to worry about these things.

[the Masked Lapwing]

Suggestions that make the game more complex with little benefit will be rejected.

Yet we're still talking about sponsorship...

Once again, we don't need it. That's why I'm against it. It's completely unnecessary, and all it does is add anther thing we need to keep track of. If you guys can prove exactly why any form of sponsorship system is needed, then I'll start considering these options. Until then, I'm going to continue calling for, at the very least, a vote on whether any system should be implemented at all.

[Salamander]

Suggestions that make the game more complex with little benefit will be rejected.

Yet we're still talking about sponsorship...

Once again, we don't need it. That's why I'm against it. It's completely unnecessary, and all it does is add anther thing we need to keep track of. If you guys can prove exactly why any form of sponsorship system is needed, then I'll start considering these options. Until then, I'm going to continue calling for, at the very least, a vote on whether any system should be implemented at all.

Okay, since clearly I didn't write it big enough last time...


This is not how democracy works. You do not hold a vote on whether to start drafting a proposal - you vote on the drafted proposal. It's pointless to hold any sort of vote whatsoever until we have an idea of what any sort of sponsorship system would look like.

[the Masked Lapwing]

Suggestions that make the game more complex with little benefit will be rejected.

Yet we're still talking about sponsorship...

Once again, we don't need it. That's why I'm against it. It's completely unnecessary, and all it does is add anther thing we need to keep track of. If you guys can prove exactly why any form of sponsorship system is needed, then I'll start considering these options. Until then, I'm going to continue calling for, at the very least, a vote on whether any system should be implemented at all.

Okay, since clearly I didn't write it big enough last time...


This is not how democracy works. You do not hold a vote on whether to start drafting a proposal - you vote on the drafted proposal. It's pointless to hold any sort of vote whatsoever until we have an idea of what any sort of sponsorship system would look like.

Very mature mate.
My voting problem could be fixed very easily by explaining why it's needed. You know, like I said in that bit of my post that I clearly didn't write big enough last time.

[Ataxia]

Suggestions that make the game more complex with little benefit will be rejected.

Yet we're still talking about sponsorship...

Once again, we don't need it. That's why I'm against it. It's completely unnecessary, and all it does is add anther thing we need to keep track of. If you guys can prove exactly why any form of sponsorship system is needed, then I'll start considering these options. Until then, I'm going to continue calling for, at the very least, a vote on whether any system should be implemented at all.

Lappy, my friend, you ain't reading everyone's posts.

all it does is add anther thing we need to keep track of

No, it adds another element of gameplay to let people take control of their own destinies. If you want a shite team, fine, play shite. If you want a good team, then you've got to put a bit of effort into it. You can't just sit back and reap the rewards in exchange for no effort, and that's what the system aims to stop.

As I said before, people are far too content to scrape by from season to season and not bother, whilst other people are trying and getting nowhere since some of the teams ahead are just doing enough to stay ahead. How is that fair? Explain that to me. The idea is that people start taking a little more responsibility for their team. Where's the challenge if half the people don't turn up half the time, or don't even try? Or rather, where's the FUN?

For example, if a team selects some clauses where they have to do the bare minimum, then they should be given less in the way of money since they've made no real effort to earn it. If a team has excelled through good planning and good effective management, then they should be rewarded for actually taking the initiative.

Why should the lazy be rewarded?

If you guys can prove exactly why any form of sponsorship system is needed, then I'll start considering these options.

I think that's enough proof. If it stays as it is, things will continue to stagnate, and we'll still suffer the problem of having rarely-contributing members.