(Re) Defining Fair Play Rules

[luques]

As the Fair Play Jury is being renovated, and all the Fair Play procedures too, i think it is the right time to discuss about Fair Play Rules, what to mantain, what to change and what to add.

Actually i think we can make a division between Off-Game Fair Play Rules and In-Game Fair Play Rules.

OFF-GAME FAIR PLAY RULES

Off Game Fair Play Rules are what you find in General Rules, they give indications about the behaviour on the web site:

1. The user commits himself not infringing the laws of his country.

2. It is recalled to the user that the other players of this play can be minors and that he commits himself to adapt his language and acts with the laws and manners protecting the minors.

3. The user commits himself not to employ terms or names with racist, pornographic, sexists connotations or other terms going towards manners usual.

4. It is prohibited to create several accounts of play. Multiaccounts will be dissolved.

5. The user commits himself not to manipulate directly or indirectly the game.

6. The user commits himself not to use possible bugs.

7. The user declares himself in agreement with the rules of fair play (s. Instructions).

8. Any Infringement to these rules could be sanctioned by a prohibition of play.

IN-GAME FAIR PLAY RULES

In-Game Fair Play Rules are instead what you accept when inscribing for a race, and they give you indications about what you can't do during a race:

You have to accept the following rules:

Clearly forbidden team attacks are:

1. Attack (no following) with more than 2 riders of one team at the same km out of the same group.
This rule is deactivated for the last 10 km of every race.

2. Successful attack (no following) with more than 5 different riders of one team during 20 km ( out of the same group) if these riders end up in the same group.
This rule is deactivated in the second half of every race.

3. Chained Attacks.
More than 2 riders of a team, who, through attacking or following, escape out of a group.
This rule is deactivated if more than 10 riders from at least.4 teams are represented or if the original group has less than 15 riders.
This rule is deactivated too, in the last 20km of a race and if the road rises 4% and more.

No exception for offline players!

Other fair-play rules:
- It is forbidden to be sitted in 1 day races
- unrealistic arrangements are not allowed
- every manager must do the best for his team . Separation of private and RSF is required.
- read the fair-play article at http://www.radsportfreaks.com/radsport/ ... p#fairness

IPs are controlled during races and if some correspond, that will be shown for all players.

POSSIBLE CHANGES

For my personal experience i have noticed that Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the In-Game Fair Play Rules are often misunderstood, in this case we can maybe join them or remove some exceptions or reformulate them.
Then another problem raised by the community was the sitting problem (viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3887) should we introduce a % of minimum presence of the owner at a tour?
These are only some suggestions taken from some other topics in the Fair Play Section. Write down every suggestion for new rules or critics for the old ones

[team fl]

First IN GAME FAIR PLAY (then maybe something about OFF GAME FAIR PLAY and stuff)

Contrary to some/many users, I think the in-game fair play rules are perfectly clear. It's just a lot to remember and sometimes hard to comprehend in a situation where the race might be stressful.

There have been a lot of different approaches over the years to this problem. The two most extremist ones:

1) Abandon all fair play rules considering team attacks (kind of a liberal approach). Let such things be handled with by the other teams in the game.

2) Implement technical means to prohibit breaches of these fair play rules, e.g. make it tech-nically impossible to attack with more than two riders at a certain km.

Ad 1) One of the most heard reasons for this approach was that an attack with two riders at km n and km n+1 (an maybe on again at n+2) might be considered as a team attack than just attacking with three or more riders at one km. Thus, the “team attack” rule could be “worked around” anyway. Of course there were also idealists who thought that the idea of in game fair play rules is obsolete anyway and could be handled by the peloton/group itself, as it happens in reality.

Of course this would be a radical change. And it would be an incentive for some to use every new possibility to their advantage. The question also is if there would be enough informal control to have decent race action without complete chaos.

Ad 2) Control freaks and technic junkies raved around and pleaded for this solution. Well, at least it would make sure that the fair play breaches would be held at a minimum number. Anyway, hard to tell what impact this would have for the race, esp. regarding rule 2 and 3, rule 1 would not be such a big problem I guess.

I think the current in game fair play rules strike a good balance between these two ap-proaches. Of course some details may be discussed, the wording could be adapted, etc. But in general, it’s good as it is. And I hope with a working penalty guideline, also the discussions about what should be treated is not that overheated as it was in certain cases.

POSSIBLE CHANGES
As Luques already wrote, Rule 2 and Rule 3 are often misunderstood (although they seem pretty clear and simple to me). I agree that esp. exceptions could be reworded (and made clear and consistent for every C4F language version!), maybe like this:

New parts = green
Parts to delete = red
Explanation = blue italic

1. Attack (no following) with more than 2 riders of one team at the same km out of the same group.
This rule is deactivated for the last 10 km of every race.

There are very very few cases (mostly placement fights far away from victory) when a team attacks with more than two riders out of more than one group. Therefore for simplicity reason, just delete this. Two riders max. per km, no matter from which group.

2. Successful attack (no following) with more than 5 different riders of one team during 20 km ( out of the same group) if these riders end up in the same group.
This rule is deactivated in the second half of every race.

Delete this rule. It’ hard to detect, breached in a very few cases and can be handled by other teams quite easily. Anyway, an attack with four riders over two km (or five over three km) has almost the same effect and is not forbidden.

3. Chained Attacks.
More than 2 riders of a team, who, through attacking or following, escape out of a group.
This rule is deactivated if more than 10 riders from at least.4 teams are represented or if the original group has less than 15 riders.
This rule is deactivated too, in the last 20km of a race and if the road rises 4% and more.

This is perhaps the most complicated but also one of the most important in-game rules; breached frequently, leads to heated up discussions frequently. At least I would take out the 4% thing. This is also happening very rarely and leads to confusion often. The rest of the rule should be enough, even for high climbs. AND for the sake of good mem-ories: remember downhill was not meant by this exception (isn’t it Allagen?). Otherwise I can’t find a proper way to follow the spirit of this rule by making it simpler. Of course, basic counting skills should be sufficient to understand it, but well, some cases tell us different stories. The only thing to make this easier is to abandon this rule completely. Would be worth a thought, as far as there is a rule for unrealistic arrangements anyway in the in-game rules. Maybe that’s the way…

No exception for offline players!

Other fair-play rules:
- It is forbidden to be sitted in 1 day races
- It is forbidden to be sitted more than 2/3 of stage races
- unrealistic arrangements are not allowed
- every manager must do the best for his team . Separation of private and C4F is required.
- read the fair-play article at http://www.radsportfreaks.com/radsport/ ... p#fairness

IPs are controlled during races and if some correspond, that will be shown for all play-ers.

And the offline rules esp. for stage races should be adapted. It’s too easy to finish a tour with being offline almost constantly.

[IDF]

" - It is forbidden to be sitted more than 2/3 of stage races "

Hmm , i've a question :

If we need a sitter during 30 mn , do you consider this sitting like a " sitting day " or not? Because if it's true... this is a bit hard...

[team fl]

" - It is forbidden to be sitted more than 2/3 of stage races "

Hmm , i've a question :

If we need a sitter during 30 mn , do you consider this sitting like a " sitting day " or not? Because if it's true... this is a bit hard...

That's a good question. I would answer it with no, rather going here with the 60% offline rule to adapt to a "60%"-sitting rule to count a stage as online. But in general, a stage race sitting rule would have to be discussed more in detail of course.

[team fl]

What I forgot about a more liberal approach: the tougher the fairplay-rules are, the more restricted are the tactical options you have. That would call for rule 1 and the 4% exception in rule 3to be left like it is, not like in my proposal for the rewording of the in-game fair play rules.

Seeing it from the liberal approach point of view, the exceptions can be seen as more tactical freedom, which means more complexity and more responsibility too.

[Rockstar Inc]

the problem with cancelling some rules for me is the fact that it's only wishfull thinking that a peloton reacts against it...without being too cocky i'd bet that in 4 of 5 races the mantra "let the favo ride" would be posted and the guys in the breakaway will love to profit from it instead of "talking" or "acting" against it...adjusting rules is the correct appoint imo...

the offline-rule has to be changed for sure...in let me give you an example...10 stage tour, 1 tt...tt counts automatically as online...now then it would be enough to be online for 4 km in 10 days to stay in the tour...as extreme example...read a line a few days ago: change the 60% rule in a way that you need to be online 60% of the whole km-distance of the tour...for me that would be a good solution...some others may think it's too much...so i can deal with a proposal which is a little bit softer

[RS Ostfriesland]

im with franco.

[Hunsrueck]

We should also note that a banned team may not sitting.

[Pokemon Club]

And what about the -100K rules ?

[Pokemon Club]

SO.

[team fl]

I quote myself (how narcissistic of me ):

I think the strength of a rule is, how good you are able to react to a not wanted action by another team. The worst thing to happen is of course the forbidden team attack. And yes, in some cases the result is in fact almost the same with an action that stays within the rules. But then again: Let's say a team attacks with 2 riders at km n, with 2 riders at km n+1 and with one rider at km n+2 during the first half of the race. He does not breach any of the the fairplay rules, but ends up with 5 riders in one group in front of the peloton. So you could argue that the result is the same as if he would have attacked with 5 riders at km 1. Well, no it's not. The peloton hat time after the first attack to react. It also had time after the second attack to react. THAT's the difference.

Anyway, in Tulpengeneral's case here, its a bit different. Because all three attacks took place during the same km. The BUT here is the following: at least one rider attacked from a group behind the other group the riders attacked. I don't know the time difference between the two groups, but there was at least one second. Well, in the end that won't make a big difference, but at least a very litte: at least one more second to react that a three rider attack out of the same group at the same km. Now, is that still in the spirit of the rule? In my opinion, it depends. But as the rule can be bended to that one little second, which won't make any difference at all, I would tend to discuss that issue rule 1 has and try to make it more spiritlike. But then again, in this situation it would have been easy to prevent this attack, but the situation offered Tulpengeneral this opportunity. Is he wrong to use it? Not so far according to the rules. But is it wrong in general to allow such actions in the spirit of the rule? I say yes to a certain extent. But I think that should be discussed more in detail in another, new thread.

[olmania]

So, I also quote myself then

Is it something we want to keep ?
Have rules and follow them from A to Z without any exception or consideration of context ?
It's the easy way, cause then we will need discussion to find a limit of the ''spirit'' of the thing. and it's quite impossible.

But this situation showed a limit (or even a problem) in the fair-play rules (and I am talking only about that one, not about other ones that exists, like FL mentionned). In that exact situation (and I am sure others slightly or totally different can happen) the rule was respected in a way but the result of what happen is the same than if the rule was broken. So, do we allow the results generated by a situation that was not breaking the rules if the these results/effects/consequences/actions are the same that if the rule was broken ?

Maybe fair-play rules need to be a little bit improved to avoid a bit more such situation, where people can trick the rule, say that the rule is not broken even if the action+result are the same than breaking the rules.

In this exact situation, we could add a feature to the rule mentioning a certain gap of time between 2 groups has to exist when multiple attacks are coming from different groups. Here the gap was 4sec (on a medium mountain stage) as far as I remember, clearly not much. if the allowed gap for such stage is 15 or 20secs, it changes things and effects of such (legal) team attack are totally reduced/inefficient. (need a bigger gap when attacks are on steep kms).

Plus, it's quite unrealistic to see a guy dropped by a sieb coming back and attacking straight by passing the group in front (in stages with D+)

Important stuff and my proposition are in bold for the ones who did not follow the topic that brought to our posts.

My proposition would be to make the rule more complete to avoid the legal team attacks in such situation.

I am sure you can react on that proposition, and as we somehow re-opened that thread, that could be the moment to propose other things you have in my mind to improve our fair play-rules. If we decide to bring some additional things or changes, better do the few we want at the same time than change do it little by little every 3months.

[Pokemon Club]

Not sure if I should post this here or in technic part, let's post here.
In fairplay rules, about chained attacks, there is the exception that if we have more than 2 riders who are in a group, there is no team attack if the attack is on a 4% or more. Can't we have the same exception with a pave kilometers ? For example if we attack with 2 riders and an other foloow in a 0*** there is no team attack.