Re: MSA TORA TCC Season 8 - General Discussion

by Beanz Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 19:46

PLOW tubbi wrote:This is exactly what I operate on, going just a tenth later means I don't have to worry about a jump start, plus the majority of the time the guy along side you is gonna win the corner or not, that's not important, win the race after the first corner OR we could all just go and race in a public lobby.......coz that's so much fun.

MSA TORA TCC Season 8 - General Discussion - Page 29 Okbrs4

by TG Wormburner Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 20:17

Under .074 - No penalty

.100 up - Penalty

Anything from .74 - .99 gets a warning.

Two warnings then a penalty. You nip people on the slight chance they can try to exploit the rules with this and you eliminate replay discrepancies. I would not advise retroactively applying these penalties but I would institute them from here on out.

I would also look at what's lost/gained. If someone only picks up 3 spots they shouldn't be penalized 5. I would do a 3, 5, 10 system. Any multiple offender escalates the jump start penalty scale and anyone caught jumping by a large margin or gaining substantial time should receive a higher penalty. Anything over .3 is done purposely.

Just my suggestion.

by CQR Vapor Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 20:38

Richy59 wrote:
The penalties will stand. I am prepared to back the stewards on the calls that have been made as I have seen the lengths they have went to for finding out the penalties that were required. However going forward there will be an appeal process for jump starts for the near future, and if this issue persists then we will look at reverting back to Forza countdown starts. Currently the starts are done in such a way to make them look good on MotorsTV.

Jump starts are against the rules in our competition, but of course there will always be errors and differences between replays that we can't eliminate. The stewards have to make a decision to try and prevent jump starts from happening in the future, especially to the degree that we saw in the last round. Some decisions will not go down well with some of the people receiving them and in this thread we have had some mixed reactions and questions raised.

If the stewards wish to carry out an appeals process for this round on a case by case basis then I will leave that decision to them. I'm sorry that this won't address everyone's concerns for this round but hopefully we can work on the procedure going forward.

I was looking through the Steward's handbook posted in the Steward inquiry procedure thread and I was unable to find a single section where the stewards are allowed to impose a penalty without the opportunity to appeal. I also failed to find the section where the stewards were allowed to give penalties to any driver who had not been formally accused by another driver of an infraction/violation.

I am really upset that you upheld rulings that you know very well could penalize people who did nothing wrong. Just because the stewards worked long and hard does not mean all the penalties are right.

Richy - You should simply do the right thing. No way you can tell me all these penalties are the right thing.

Finally, IMO, You are setting three very bad precedence here -

1. TORA has now officially reserved the right to give penalties that are not subject to appeal. If it is allowed to happen once, then it can happen again.

2. TORA Stewards can now actively look for rules violators, circumventing the procedures outlined in the Steward's handbook. Do you really want your steward's acting like the TORA police?

3. By allowing the stewards to actively look for rules violators you open up a world of conflict of interest angles that cannot ignored. (EXAMPLE - I noticed that two BG guys were involved in the jump start violation process, I also noticed that three CQR drivers were penalized while only one BG driver was penalized.) Can you see where I am going with this? I am not saying this is what happened, and knowing the BG guys I would say that it did not happen, but I can see how an argument could be made that questions the integrity of the entire process.

Apologies if I sound like a lawyer, but I come by it honestly.

by Beanz Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 20:47

Members or "X" team cannot judge on a decision involving a member of team "X", only team "Y" and other racers...

by CQR Vapor Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 21:03

BG Beanz wrote:Members or "X" team cannot judge on a decision involving a member of team "X", only team "Y" and other racers...

True, if there is a steward's inquiry filed... I am failing to see where one was filed. There are no official rules for this type of steward action. In fact it is completely out of the scope of anything that is covered by those rules, so how do they apply.

An entirely new procedure for dealing with rules violations was created out of thin air, but you are telling me that it is governed by the existing rules. How do you know for sure?

by BG Wumba Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 21:06

TG Wormburner wrote:Under .074 - No penalty

.100 up - Penalty

Anything from .74 - .99 gets a warning.

Two warnings then a penalty. You nip people on the slight chance they can try to exploit the rules with this and you eliminate replay discrepancies. I would not advise retroactively applying these penalties but I would institute them from here on out.

I would also look at what's lost/gained. If someone only picks up 3 spots they shouldn't be penalized 5. I would do a 3, 5, 10 system. Any multiple offender escalates the jump start penalty scale and anyone caught jumping by a large margin or gaining substantial time should receive a higher penalty. Anything over .3 is done purposely.

Just my suggestion.

Whats to stop people from then going, 'Oh on my replay I did not go .100 up but instead .74 to .99 or even under that' you are simply moving the goalposts which will result in the same disputes we see here.

by CQR Vapor Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 21:15

BG Wumba wrote:
TG Wormburner wrote:Under .074 - No penalty

.100 up - Penalty

Anything from .74 - .99 gets a warning.

Two warnings then a penalty. You nip people on the slight chance they can try to exploit the rules with this and you eliminate replay discrepancies. I would not advise retroactively applying these penalties but I would institute them from here on out.

I would also look at what's lost/gained. If someone only picks up 3 spots they shouldn't be penalized 5. I would do a 3, 5, 10 system. Any multiple offender escalates the jump start penalty scale and anyone caught jumping by a large margin or gaining substantial time should receive a higher penalty. Anything over .3 is done purposely.

Just my suggestion.
Whats to stop people from then going, 'Oh on my replay I did not go .100 up but instead .74 to .99 or even under that' you are simply moving the goalposts which will result in the same disputes we see here.

Same as a standard SI before, you are entitled to appeal the process and the decision will be made whether or not to uphold the ruling based on the merits of the appeal.

by CQR Vapor Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 21:32

EDIT: Looking at my example, I admit it was a poor choice to use actual teams. I should have made a completely hypothetical example, and for that I apologize.

by **CQR Rogue** Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 21:41

Guy please calm down, sorry ive missed most of the discussion this week about tcc jump starts.

Me and Chris have raised our concerns with the steward team regarding the jump starts and points raised here, this is been looked at and steward team are awares, the stewards are not police and will never be, they are here because they want to see cleaner racing, they are you the community and you the community are stewards if you want to be.

The Steward team are an independent group and staff are not associated with decisions reached here, we can guide and recommended actions which would be suite the wider community.

I understand you all would want to talk about what is going on but this is been discussed with stewards and staff, so please my I ask that we refrain from a less than heated debate to return it to a debate

by Guest Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 21:41

YO YO YO PEEPS!! I haven't read what goes before so forgive if this has been covered but I learnt something today on CQR from our leader CQR Magic......JUMP STARTS being penalised for anything less than 0.033 seconds is unjust and unenforceable as no factual evidence can exist due to the below explanation:

Quote CQR Magic

"I hate to open a can of worms but Forza 4 replays are, by definition, only accurate to the nearest 0.033s, so penalising somebody for a jump start of less than that is unjustified.

**Geek mode alert**:

A Forza replay is not a 'live recording' of what happened in the game, the 'game' runs at 360Hz, the controller inputs, physics etc, so you had a fidelity of 0.003s (1 second / 360Hz). That's far greater than is even displayed on your TV screens - the graphics update at 60Hz (0.017s), so your car is only moving on-screen every 0.017s. When you save a replay, it saves the car position data, speed, throttle/brake positions etc of the car at just 30Hz - Forza 4 replays run at 30fps. So the fidelity of a replay is just 0.033s (1 second / 30Hz). When you play back the replay, Forza is re-creating the race based on those data points of where the car was every 0.033s, what the throttle/brake/steering inputs are etc. If you slow-forward/slow-rewind the replay (to points in-between each 0.033s data point), the game is 'interpolating' (guessing) where the car should be at that point - it has no data, other than the previous and next data point in the replay.

So, at best, a Forza replay can only be accurate to 0.033s - that's 1 frame of the replay. You could make a perfect start in the game with your 360Hz (0.003s) fidelity and go at 2.30.000, but when viewing the replay, the nearest data points could be 2.29.970 (point #1) and 2.30.003 (point #2) - Forza knows you car should be moving at #2, but not at #1, so when you shuffle the replay back and forward your car will start moving before you actually did, making it look like you jumped the start. Penalising people for < 1 frame of a replay is ludicrous, there's no actual proof that your car moved within that 0.033s window, it's interpolated data, so anything < 0.033s is within the margin of error for the replay.

**geek mode off**"

by BG Wumba Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 21:56

CQR Vapor wrote:
BG Wumba wrote:
TG Wormburner wrote:Under .074 - No penalty

.100 up - Penalty

Anything from .74 - .99 gets a warning.

Two warnings then a penalty. You nip people on the slight chance they can try to exploit the rules with this and you eliminate replay discrepancies. I would not advise retroactively applying these penalties but I would institute them from here on out.

I would also look at what's lost/gained. If someone only picks up 3 spots they shouldn't be penalized 5. I would do a 3, 5, 10 system. Any multiple offender escalates the jump start penalty scale and anyone caught jumping by a large margin or gaining substantial time should receive a higher penalty. Anything over .3 is done purposely.

Just my suggestion.
Whats to stop people from then going, 'Oh on my replay I did not go .100 up but instead .74 to .99 or even under that' you are simply moving the goalposts which will result in the same disputes we see here.
Same as a standard SI before, you are entitled to appeal the process and the decision will be made whether or not to uphold the ruling based on the merits of the appeal.

Well we can just do that with the current system without adding leeway and do it individually on each appeal, just let this one go and move on and then the stewards can progress with the system for the next meeting, simple.

by Beanz Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 22:02

by CQR Vapor Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 22:25

BG Wumba wrote:
CQR Vapor wrote:
BG Wumba wrote:
TG Wormburner wrote:Under .074 - No penalty

.100 up - Penalty

Anything from .74 - .99 gets a warning.

Two warnings then a penalty. You nip people on the slight chance they can try to exploit the rules with this and you eliminate replay discrepancies. I would not advise retroactively applying these penalties but I would institute them from here on out.

I would also look at what's lost/gained. If someone only picks up 3 spots they shouldn't be penalized 5. I would do a 3, 5, 10 system. Any multiple offender escalates the jump start penalty scale and anyone caught jumping by a large margin or gaining substantial time should receive a higher penalty. Anything over .3 is done purposely.

Just my suggestion.
Whats to stop people from then going, 'Oh on my replay I did not go .100 up but instead .74 to .99 or even under that' you are simply moving the goalposts which will result in the same disputes we see here.
Same as a standard SI before, you are entitled to appeal the process and the decision will be made whether or not to uphold the ruling based on the merits of the appeal.
Well we can just do that with the current system without adding leeway and do it individually on each appeal, just let this one go and move on and then the stewards can progress with the system for the next meeting, simple.

I would love to let it go, but I just can't... It's a character flaw, I know, but I can't in good conscience let go of the fact that people are being penalized that did not break the rules and the powers that be know this, yet they uphold the penalties. Yes, I am one of the ones being penalized and that is what started it all for me, but the decisions made since this started are in my opinion bad for the entire community. I love TORA and it has enriched my racing game experience beyond measure, but the decision to knowingly penalize people that did nothing wrong is not something I can just brush aside and act like never happened. I think it is time to go and pick up a copy of GTA V and waste a month or two in Virtual LA. Putting the soap box away.

by **Richy59** Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 22:31

If we open up appeals to this raft of penalties and people send in their own replays will that put the argument to bed? If for example people send in their own replays and it still shows the same outcome then the penalties will stand. Will this continue the argument or will it put an end to it because appealing has been an option?

Either way people are not going to like being penalized for something they do in a race. The stewards have been very fair in this as it has involved other stewards, team members, staff and everyone else. I'm not sure on why an appeal was not initially allowed, but if it is then that will bring it back in line with the rule book and keep the system balanced.

by **HCR Motorhead** Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 22:37

If this continues, my suggestion of biting the bullet and going for a standard Forza start seems more and more appealing. If we're going to have this every week then I don't see the attractiveness of having a launch lottery.

If it eliminates this petty argument of "player x jumped by 0.00001s" then it sounds viable to me.

by BG Wumba Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 22:41

Richy59 wrote:If we open up appeals to this raft of penalties and people send in their own replays will that put the argument to bed? If for example people send in their own replays and it still shows the same outcome then the penalties will stand. Will this continue the argument or will it put an end to it because appealing has been an option?

Either way people are not going to like being penalized for something they do in a race. The stewards have been very fair in this as it has involved other stewards, team members, staff and everyone else. I'm not sure on why an appeal was not initially allowed, but if it is then that will bring it back in line with the rule book and keep the system balanced.

I think allowing appeals will be the only way forward with this, but then people may still not like what they hear at the end of it.

by Ax4x Kane Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 22:41

A jump is a jump in my opinion. Know one has reactions down to the thousandth. Even if you set off bang on time, you still reacted before the start time. The majority of people didn't jump the start.

This is absolutely ridiculous.
MSA TORA TCC Season 8 - General Discussion - Page 29 1459-oh-god-meme

MSA TORA TCC Season 8 - General Discussion - Page 29 1459-oh-god-meme

Your move, Beanz.

by Guest Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 22:43

Reading all this from someone who hasnt been affected by it I see where all racers given the penalty are coming from.

They should of all been informed with a appeal period as TORA rules state and this looks like there main frustration.

As for the rule being enforced so close the the actual launch time were pausing, rewinds and fast forwarding of a replay would take place the games limits do not allow for it to be that accurate. As Worm mentioned and Magictaps copied geek post from Magic it is impossible to give a reading that close. Worm gave a perfect workaround which can not be altered or launch earlier as this gives a closer accurate reading to the launch time, anyone before that leway is a 100% jump start. The facts needed to be explained before a rule is put in place to all TORA staff/stewards, I dont think enough people understand the games capabilities and ways in which you have to alter your thinking towards a start at 2.20.000 or 2.19.977.

by Ax4x Chaddy Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 22:44

Drivers

The stewards and staff are working on this issue, please if you have any ideas or any issues please PM either staff or a steward we will be happy to listen and help you in anyway we can.

We would like to call for calm and that this thread is kept on topic.

by Beanz Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 22:47

Kilroy8 wrote:Your move, Beanz.

Check.

MSA TORA TCC Season 8 - General Discussion - Page 29 Post-3999-Oh-the-hue-manatee-CI5N

by BG Wumba Thu 26 Sep 2013 - 23:50

CQR CHRiS wrote: Worm gave a perfect workaround which can not be altered or launch earlier as this gives a closer accurate reading to the launch time, anyone before that leway is a 100% jump start.

As I explained earlier, it is not a 'perfect workaround', it is simply moving the goalposts. All that needs to happen is allowing people to appeal and view their own replay.

by TG Wormburner Fri 27 Sep 2013 - 0:08

Wumba, your own replay can differ if you rewind and go to the same spot. Camber, rpms, mph, everything can change. If you do it three times you can have three results or you can have the same one three times in a row followed by three different results afterwards. It's inaccurate at best and there is nothing we can do about it.

by Ax4x Kane Fri 27 Sep 2013 - 0:16

Where is the really going? Are we looking for a change in the rules? or just another thing to bitch about... MSA TORA TCC Season 8 - General Discussion - Page 29 1314029819767

MSA TORA TCC Season 8 - General Discussion - Page 29 1314029819767

by TG Wormburner Fri 27 Sep 2013 - 0:34

Well with the exception of your trolling picture and accusation I think people are having a legitimate discussion about something. I don't believe anyone is upset here. How are you supposed to know the inaccuracy of replays unless informed of them?

by **CQR Rogue** Fri 27 Sep 2013 - 0:38

agree no 1 is trolling if the replay are in accurate it needs to be discussed calm and collective which it is no issue

by Sponsored content