Banning of Players from N4 Online

I am starting this thread because I would like to talk about this from a General point of view. Not based on the incident in the thread before this. Personally, I like what Papy is trying to do, but I really do not like the way they are executing it. We have all had bad days while racing. We have all made mistakes that if someone of a neutral party looked at the replays, they may take it as intentional wrecking. I personally do not want to race under the "threat" of being banned for a mistake. The way they are approaching the matter right now is pure black and white. The problem is, most incidents are not just black and white. In most cases it is someone trying to do one thing, the other trying to do something else and unfortunately they clash. The problem is, neither was trying to wreck the other but I bet if you look at the replay it will definately look like one persons fault. Heck, just look at a real WC race.. last nights race for example. There were a whole bunch of accidents. I forget who it was, but there was one last night where they came out of turn 4 and one of the cars just drifted up and punted the other in the back left of the car. Do you think it was intentional? Heck no, but it would sure look that way. Now, as I said.. everyone makes mistakes. However the constant execution of those horrible mistakes is the problem. That is why I truely believe there should be some sort of warning system involved. Maybe set it up so you get a warning the first time something like this happens. They can just put your CD-Key in a list and when you log on it tells you that you have a warning. If you go 30 days without any other problem, it automatically removes you from that list. If you have another problem within the 30 days "probation period" then you are banned. Maybe have it ban you for 30 days. If after your CD-Key is re-instated, if you are banned again, it is permanent I know that some of you say "go buy another game". Give me a break. Sure, I could afford to go out and buy another one, but not everyone can. Try looking at it from others view. I have been poor enough in my life where I could not even afford a color tv and where I had to scrap together money to go buy a loaf of bread. Some people are not as well off as you are. Do not use the argument about "how did they get the computer" Who knows, there are a million ways. Do not persume to know everyone elses situation.

We shouldn't jump to premature conclusions. Papy wouldn't ban people lightheartedly, and they state this clearly enough in their report guidelines. Nobody knows how many reports Papy has rejected on the premises that the facts aren't hard enough to ban the accused drivers. We've seen one case that might have been debatable, although I personally think it wasn't, and immediately there's an outcry that Papy bans drivers too lightheartedly. We should have a little more confidence towards Papy who have shown time and time again their determination to help and support their customers. A small error margin remains, and we'll just have to live with that fact. That's none different in real racing, or all other sports. A referee's decisions aren't _always_ right, just most of the time. But this is how things work. I am apalled at the lack of support among the people whom Papy is trying to do a favour by having started the anti-wrecker campaign. We asked them to do it for us, they complied in a very careful and res�nsible way, and the first time someone who got banned accuses them of having made a mistake we all start an uproar against the anti-wrecker campaign we asked Papy to start for us instead of supporting them? Especially since the guy in question seems to have lost a lot of his credibility throughout the thread!? Achim

Very well said! -- Sean Higgins Redline Racing League www.rrlnrs.com Redline BGN Division http://home.sprintmail.com/~higgy/RRL/ "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9mbq34$1cip1$[email hidden]... > We shouldn't jump to premature conclusions. Papy wouldn't ban people > lightheartedly, and they state this clearly enough in their report > guidelines. > > Nobody knows how many reports Papy has rejected on the premises that the > facts aren't hard enough to ban the accused drivers. We've seen one case > that might have been debatable, although I personally think it wasn't, and > immediately there's an outcry that Papy bans drivers too lightheartedly. We > should have a little more confidence towards Papy who have shown time and > time again their determination to help and support their customers. > > A small error margin remains, and we'll just have to live with that fact. > That's none different in real racing, or all other sports. A referee's > decisions aren't _always_ right, just most of the time. But this is how > things work. > > I am apalled at the lack of support among the people whom Papy is trying to > do a favour by having started the anti-wrecker campaign. > > We asked them to do it for us, they complied in a very careful and > res�nsible way, and the first time someone who got banned accuses them of > having made a mistake we all start an uproar against the anti-wrecker > campaign we asked Papy to start for us instead of supporting them? > Especially since the guy in question seems to have lost a lot of his > credibility throughout the thread!? > > Achim > > > >

It is not as simple as that. Was this person warned? Do you not think that someone should get a warning or at least have Papy talk to them to find out their side of the story? Like I said, I like what Papy is doing, I just think they could do it a bit differently. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9mbq34$1cip1$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> We shouldn't jump to premature conclusions. Papy wouldn't ban people > lightheartedly, and they state this clearly enough in their report > guidelines. > > Nobody knows how many reports Papy has rejected on the premises that the > facts aren't hard enough to ban the accused drivers. We've seen one case > that might have been debatable, although I personally think it wasn't, and > immediately there's an outcry that Papy bans drivers too lightheartedly.

We

Quoted text (9 lines)

> should have a little more confidence towards Papy who have shown time and > time again their determination to help and support their customers. > > A small error margin remains, and we'll just have to live with that fact. > That's none different in real racing, or all other sports. A referee's > decisions aren't _always_ right, just most of the time. But this is how > things work. > > I am apalled at the lack of support among the people whom Papy is trying

to

Quoted text (14 lines)

> do a favour by having started the anti-wrecker campaign. > > We asked them to do it for us, they complied in a very careful and > res�nsible way, and the first time someone who got banned accuses them of > having made a mistake we all start an uproar against the anti-wrecker > campaign we asked Papy to start for us instead of supporting them? > Especially since the guy in question seems to have lost a lot of his > credibility throughout the thread!? > > Achim > > > >

Whether Papy are fair in their decisions or not is not really the point, IMO. The real trouble is when someone reports an honest mistake by driver as wrecking, because it looks like wrecking. The people at Papy can't know everybody, so they have to take it at face value. Suppose <insert racing buddy you've been racing with since the Hawaii days here> causes a REALLY bad wreck. Moreover, it looks intentional. Would you report him to Papy? -Of course you wouldn't. We all *know* <good ol' racing buddy here>, right? He would never do such a thing on purpose. Right, now suppose I was in that race instead. You don't know me, you've never had me sitting on your gearbox for twenty laps, applying pressure yet patiently waiting for an opportunity to pass. You don't know I would never willingly chop someone's nose off. Suppose I caused that bad wreck by, I don't know, spinning down to the inside off a corner, or having a car pop into view as I'm trying to move up the track or whatever. Anyway, the whole things blows up and I take out the top 6. It looks intentional.... would you report me? Sorry, but as it stands I'm not willing to take that risk. Which means I am missing a piece of functionality just as much as that banned guy is. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. "Joachim Trensz" wrote... > We shouldn't jump to premature conclusions. Papy wouldn't > ban people lightheartedly, and they state this clearly > enough in their report guidelines. <snip>

Do you really know all the details over his banning or are you basing it on what he has told us only? How many drivers, that you know are decent drivers, have been banned? I personally would have to have all the facts in order to make a judgement, and I doubt we'll ever know all the facts. Don Burnette "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lUci7.1400$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I am starting this thread because I would like to talk about this from a > General point of view. Not based on the incident in the thread before > this. > > Personally, I like what Papy is trying to do, but I really do not like the > way they are executing it. > > We have all had bad days while racing. We have all made mistakes that if > someone of a neutral party looked at the replays, they may take it as > intentional wrecking. > > I personally do not want to race under the "threat" of being banned for a > mistake. > > The way they are approaching the matter right now is pure black and white. > The problem is, most incidents are not just black and white. In most

cases > it is someone trying to do one thing, the other trying to do somethingelse

Quoted text (7 lines)

> and unfortunately they clash. The problem is, neither was trying to wreck > the other but I bet if you look at the replay it will definately look like > one persons fault. > > Heck, just look at a real WC race.. last nights race for example. There > were a whole bunch of accidents. I forget who it was, but there was one > last night where they came out of turn 4 and one of the cars just drifted

up > and punted the other in the back left of the car. Do you think it was > intentional? Heck no, but it would sure look that way. > > Now, as I said.. everyone makes mistakes. However the constant executionof > those horrible mistakes is the problem. That is why I truely believethere

Quoted text (12 lines)

> should be some sort of warning system involved. > > Maybe set it up so you get a warning the first time something like this > happens. They can just put your CD-Key in a list and when you log on it > tells you that you have a warning. If you go 30 days without any other > problem, it automatically removes you from that list. > > If you have another problem within the 30 days "probation period" then you > are banned. Maybe have it ban you for 30 days. If after your CD-Key is > re-instated, if you are banned again, it is permanent > > I know that some of you say "go buy another game". Give me a break.

Sure, > I could afford to go out and buy another one, but not everyone can. Try > looking at it from others view. I have been poor enough in my life whereI > could not even afford a color tv and where I had to scrap together moneyto > go buy a loaf of bread. Some people are not as well off as you are. Do > not use the argument about "how did they get the computer" Who knows,there > are a million ways. Do not persume to know everyone elses situation. > > > >

I was the one that was banned... of course I've bought a new game now... I like what they are doing regarding getting rid of wreckers.. HOWEVER... shouldn't the rating system they designed take care of this? Opps... maybe they need to work on that. ALSO... I was racing as usual... no problems.. even in the race that I got banned NO ONE called me a wrecker or said anything to me cause lots of people wrecked that race.... then I log on a few days later...and BANNED. It's not fair to pay for a game and then have them later decide to take part of it away when they feel like it. They honestly cannot tell 100% whether it is intentional or not unless the guy is parked on the track or going the other way. I made contact with one car... yes my fault...but no not intentional... and I was banned. I SERIOUSLY WARN all of you to NOT RACE IN A PAPY SERVER RACE... go in the others and have fun... but why risk being banned whether you are a wrecker OR THE BEST DRIVER IN THE WORLD... . if the real nascar guys like Dale Jr. got online to race...and wrecked someone, they would ban him??? there's just too many thinks that CAN go wrong online... that's why it's called ONLINE RACING!!! If you expect good drivers most the time... that's why we form leagues right? Banning entirely is just not right for anyone... (******* HERE IS AN EMAIL SOMEONE SENT ME IN REGARDS TO THIS ********) here's an interesting email someone sent me: When I purchased the N4 software, the license agreement states that it is a "feature" of the software that enables me to drive on the sierra network. It does not say it is a "privilege". It also makes no statement that feature functionality of the product can/will be removed based upon the "opinion" of someone else as it relates to my driving ability or my driving judgement. If I bought a new car, and Chevy removed the radio after three months because in their opinion, they didn't like the fact I played Perry Como CD's, I would be rather upset. This brings up a second point. I am not the only one that uses my CD key in my household. The game has feature functionality built into it in the player area that allows you to set up more than one player. It holds the sierra account info in this separate player.ini file. In my house I have two kids that are both old enough and qualified enough to drive online. Both are rather good, with better ratings and LPI than I have. LOL. However, in their online sessions, if they get deemed to have intentionally caused an incident, on THEIR account, with THEIR player profile loaded, I think it is quite wrong to ban the CD Key for all players. It is apparent that Sierra and Papy can distinguish what player was logged on, I feel they should ban the player account, not the CD. Also, If they are going to monitor PAPY servers, they should ban only for PAPy servers. With the current policy, I could be hosting on MY server, with MY purchased CD Key, on MY network and still be banned because of someone else's OPINION that I or someone in my household performed in a manner that caused an incident online. I think Papy and Seirra need to take another look at this policy. "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<DPei7.1409$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (44 lines)

> It is not as simple as that. > > Was this person warned? Do you not think that someone should get a warning > or at least have Papy talk to them to find out their side of the story? > > Like I said, I like what Papy is doing, I just think they could do it a bit > differently. > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9mbq34$1cip1$[email hidden]... > > We shouldn't jump to premature conclusions. Papy wouldn't ban people > > lightheartedly, and they state this clearly enough in their report > > guidelines. > > > > Nobody knows how many reports Papy has rejected on the premises that the > > facts aren't hard enough to ban the accused drivers. We've seen one case > > that might have been debatable, although I personally think it wasn't, and > > immediately there's an outcry that Papy bans drivers too lightheartedly. > We > > should have a little more confidence towards Papy who have shown time and > > time again their determination to help and support their customers. > > > > A small error margin remains, and we'll just have to live with that fact. > > That's none different in real racing, or all other sports. A referee's > > decisions aren't _always_ right, just most of the time. But this is how > > things work. > > > > I am apalled at the lack of support among the people whom Papy is trying > to > > do a favour by having started the anti-wrecker campaign. > > > > We asked them to do it for us, they complied in a very careful and > > res�nsible way, and the first time someone who got banned accuses them of > > having made a mistake we all start an uproar against the anti-wrecker > > campaign we asked Papy to start for us instead of supporting them? > > Especially since the guy in question seems to have lost a lot of his > > credibility throughout the thread!? > > > > Achim > > > > > > > >

Well, I was going to stay out of this- I don't own a copy of N4, and probably never will- but I have to chime in on this regardless. This isn't aimed at anyone, so I hope nobody takes offense(someone will, I'm sure- it's inevitable). I'm as big a racing sim fan as there is- I have a long, if quiet, association with the community and hope I'm usually a beneficial member. I do, however, feel that this has gotten out of hand- far out of hand. I seem to recall a certain Dale Earnhardt taking Terry Labonte out at Bristol a few years back. Was it intentional? DE said no, TL said yes- but the way many of you think, that should have gotten him banned from NASCAR. Michael Schumacher did it to JV awhile back, and Coulthard had contact with MS a couple seasons ago, causing a DNF for Schuey. Guess we can't have those guys racing in the FIA, right? Oriol Servia made a boneheaded move at Surfers last year, and basically took Paul Tracy out of the championship- and Servia is racing this year. These are guys with real concerns- a lot of money at stake, not to mention their health- and they whine and complain less than a bunch of guys racing pixels around a track made of 0s and 1s. I don't see this from everyone, but it sure seems to be the norm in the N4 community. Way too many knee-jerk reactions when you consider that there is NOTHING at stake in those races- no monetary loss of any substance, no wrecked equipment, and no broken bones. Get over it, guys- N4, and sim racing in total, isn't reality. It isn't a big thing to the majority of the world, and probably never will be. If you have a problem with guys making mistakes, or not being the perfect driver every lap, find a group that are and race with them. Sure, there are guys who need to be banned- idiots driving backwards, being blatantly obvious about intentional contact- but I'd bet it's a small portion of the guys who will lose the right to race on WON. The majority of the incidents will be unprovable either way- and it's a pretty unfair set up. Guess that's enough on the subject- feel free to comment in any way you choose, but at least think about what I just wrote.... -- Scott Moore The Pits: PowerSims Magazine http://www.theuspits.com "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lUci7.1400$[email hidden]... > I am starting this thread because I would like to talk about this from a > General point of view. <snip>

With the way this is working, if Kevin Harvick played Nascar 4 he would be kicked off for ever. the way he boots everyone out of the way. "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lUci7.1400$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I am starting this thread because I would like to talk about this from a > General point of view. Not based on the incident in the thread before > this. > > Personally, I like what Papy is trying to do, but I really do not like the > way they are executing it. > > We have all had bad days while racing. We have all made mistakes that if > someone of a neutral party looked at the replays, they may take it as > intentional wrecking. > > I personally do not want to race under the "threat" of being banned for a > mistake. > > The way they are approaching the matter right now is pure black and white. > The problem is, most incidents are not just black and white. In most

cases > it is someone trying to do one thing, the other trying to do somethingelse

Quoted text (7 lines)

> and unfortunately they clash. The problem is, neither was trying to wreck > the other but I bet if you look at the replay it will definately look like > one persons fault. > > Heck, just look at a real WC race.. last nights race for example. There > were a whole bunch of accidents. I forget who it was, but there was one > last night where they came out of turn 4 and one of the cars just drifted

up > and punted the other in the back left of the car. Do you think it was > intentional? Heck no, but it would sure look that way. > > Now, as I said.. everyone makes mistakes. However the constant executionof > those horrible mistakes is the problem. That is why I truely believethere

Quoted text (12 lines)

> should be some sort of warning system involved. > > Maybe set it up so you get a warning the first time something like this > happens. They can just put your CD-Key in a list and when you log on it > tells you that you have a warning. If you go 30 days without any other > problem, it automatically removes you from that list. > > If you have another problem within the 30 days "probation period" then you > are banned. Maybe have it ban you for 30 days. If after your CD-Key is > re-instated, if you are banned again, it is permanent > > I know that some of you say "go buy another game". Give me a break.

Sure, > I could afford to go out and buy another one, but not everyone can. Try > looking at it from others view. I have been poor enough in my life whereI > could not even afford a color tv and where I had to scrap together moneyto > go buy a loaf of bread. Some people are not as well off as you are. Do > not use the argument about "how did they get the computer" Who knows,there > are a million ways. Do not persume to know everyone elses situation. > > > >

In article <lUci7.1400$[email hidden]>, "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>I am starting this thread because I would like to talk about this from a >General point of view. Not based on the incident in the thread before >this. > >Personally, I like what Papy is trying to do, but I really do not like the >way they are executing it. > >We have all had bad days while racing. We have all made mistakes that if >someone of a neutral party looked at the replays, they may take it as >intentional wrecking. > >I personally do not want to race under the "threat" of being banned for a >mistake.

Makes sense. I'm sure we've all seen replays that could have been looked at as intentional, even when they're not. There are the facts as I understand them: 1. Someone has to actually *report* you to Papy. Meaning, they don't lurk and monitor. 2. If they agree that the wreck was intentional, you're banned. Can't login to WON anymore. Sure, you can still run direct connect. But if everyone else is still on WON, you're basically SOL - no one to race with. That being the case, now you don't *really* have the multiplayer feature available in usable form. That opens a whole NEW argument<g>. Ok, now a few questions(sorry, I haven't been online to check the procedures): Does the person who reports you HAVE to be the person involved? Meaning, I see a wreck in front of me that I think was intentional. I report it, even though it didn't affect me personally. How does the reporting work? Someone says "Today, at 5:30pm in x race on x server, lap 20, this incident occured"? Then, the moderator scans the replay of that particular race? Or does the person making the report send the replay in question to an e-mail address for review? Does the person accused get to find out who reported them? If you just send a replay, I see a BIG problem. I'm sure most of us have replays saved of various online races. Here's a hypothetical situation. I'm in a league, 2nd in the standings. I want to use every possible option to win. I know of a fun race where we were screwing around, testing the crash dynamics, playing demo derby, or whatever. That replay shows the points leader deliberately wrecking someone. I send that replay to Papy saying, "This guy is a menace! Take a look at this!" The driver gets banned(because Papy has no way of knowing these wrecks were all in fun), I win the championship because he can no longer compete on WON(where the races are held), and he never knows who reported him. Since there isn't an 'appeal' process, and the banning currently seems to be permanent, he now has a game that is useless for multiplayer. Given my 'assumptions', does anyone else think this scenario could happen? Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

He does play N4....or maybe I should say, he did. Probably has had his CD banned by now :-) Randall Johnson wrote:

Quoted text (66 lines)

> With the way this is working, if Kevin Harvick > played Nascar 4 he would be kicked off for ever. > the way he boots everyone out of the way. > > "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:lUci7.1400$[email hidden]... > > I am starting this thread because I would like to talk about this from a > > General point of view. Not based on the incident in the thread before > > this. > > > > Personally, I like what Papy is trying to do, but I really do not like the > > way they are executing it. > > > > We have all had bad days while racing. We have all made mistakes that if > > someone of a neutral party looked at the replays, they may take it as > > intentional wrecking. > > > > I personally do not want to race under the "threat" of being banned for a > > mistake. > > > > The way they are approaching the matter right now is pure black and white. > > The problem is, most incidents are not just black and white. In most > cases > > it is someone trying to do one thing, the other trying to do something > else > > and unfortunately they clash. The problem is, neither was trying to wreck > > the other but I bet if you look at the replay it will definately look like > > one persons fault. > > > > Heck, just look at a real WC race.. last nights race for example. There > > were a whole bunch of accidents. I forget who it was, but there was one > > last night where they came out of turn 4 and one of the cars just drifted > up > > and punted the other in the back left of the car. Do you think it was > > intentional? Heck no, but it would sure look that way. > > > > Now, as I said.. everyone makes mistakes. However the constant execution > of > > those horrible mistakes is the problem. That is why I truely believe > there > > should be some sort of warning system involved. > > > > Maybe set it up so you get a warning the first time something like this > > happens. They can just put your CD-Key in a list and when you log on it > > tells you that you have a warning. If you go 30 days without any other > > problem, it automatically removes you from that list. > > > > If you have another problem within the 30 days "probation period" then you > > are banned. Maybe have it ban you for 30 days. If after your CD-Key is > > re-instated, if you are banned again, it is permanent > > > > I know that some of you say "go buy another game". Give me a break. > Sure, > > I could afford to go out and buy another one, but not everyone can. Try > > looking at it from others view. I have been poor enough in my life where > I > > could not even afford a color tv and where I had to scrap together money > to > > go buy a loaf of bread. Some people are not as well off as you are. Do > > not use the argument about "how did they get the computer" Who knows, > there > > are a million ways. Do not persume to know everyone elses situation. > > > > > > > >

Don as stated, I am not basing this on the thread up above, I am talking in general. I just do not like the idea of no warning, you are banned... especially without getting the other guys side of it "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rlgi7.117984$[email hidden]... > Do you really know all the details over his banning or are you basing iton > what he has told us only? > How many drivers, that you know are decent drivers, have been banned? > I personally would have to have all the facts in order to make ajudgement,

Quoted text (12 lines)

> and I doubt we'll ever know all the facts. > > Don Burnette > > > "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:lUci7.1400$[email hidden]... > > I am starting this thread because I would like to talk about this from a > > General point of view. Not based on the incident in the thread before > > this. > > > > Personally, I like what Papy is trying to do, but I really do not like

the > > way they are executing it. > > > > We have all had bad days while racing. We have all made mistakes thatif > > someone of a neutral party looked at the replays, they may take it as > > intentional wrecking. > > > > I personally do not want to race under the "threat" of being banned fora > > mistake. > > > > The way they are approaching the matter right now is pure black andwhite. > > The problem is, most incidents are not just black and white. In most > cases > > it is someone trying to do one thing, the other trying to do something > else > > and unfortunately they clash. The problem is, neither was trying towreck > > the other but I bet if you look at the replay it will definately looklike > > one persons fault. > > > > Heck, just look at a real WC race.. last nights race for example. There > > were a whole bunch of accidents. I forget who it was, but there was one > > last night where they came out of turn 4 and one of the cars justdrifted > up > > and punted the other in the back left of the car. Do you think it was > > intentional? Heck no, but it would sure look that way. > > > > Now, as I said.. everyone makes mistakes. However the constantexecution

Quoted text (11 lines)

> of > > those horrible mistakes is the problem. That is why I truely believe > there > > should be some sort of warning system involved. > > > > Maybe set it up so you get a warning the first time something like this > > happens. They can just put your CD-Key in a list and when you log on it > > tells you that you have a warning. If you go 30 days without any other > > problem, it automatically removes you from that list. > > > > If you have another problem within the 30 days "probation period" then

you > > are banned. Maybe have it ban you for 30 days. If after your CD-Keyis > > re-instated, if you are banned again, it is permanent > > > > I know that some of you say "go buy another game". Give me a break. > Sure, > > I could afford to go out and buy another one, but not everyone can. Try > > looking at it from others view. I have been poor enough in my lifewhere > I > > could not even afford a color tv and where I had to scrap together money > to > > go buy a loaf of bread. Some people are not as well off as you are.Do

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > not use the argument about "how did they get the computer" Who knows, > there > > are a million ways. Do not persume to know everyone elses situation. > > > > > > > > > >

I dont wish to comment on your assumptions, its prob better if you read this http://www.papy.com/html/n4_wrecking.htm . >1. Someone has to actually *report* you to Papy. Meaning, they don't lurkand > monitor. > 2. If they agree that the wreck was intentional, you're banned. Can'tlogin to > WON anymore. Sure, you can still run direct connect. But if everyoneelse is > still on WON, you're basically SOL - no one to race with. That being thecase, > now you don't *really* have the multiplayer feature available in usableform. > That opens a whole NEW argument<g>. > > Ok, now a few questions(sorry, I haven't been online to check theprocedures):

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Given my 'assumptions', does anyone else think this scenario could happen? > > Eldred > -- > Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On 27 Aug 2001 03:48:42 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >How does the reporting work? Someone says "Today, at 5:30pm in x race on x >server, lap 20, this incident occured"? Then, the moderator scans the replay >of that particular race? Yes >Or does the person making the report send the replay >in question to an e-mail address for review? No, Papy uses server replays. > Does the person accused get to >find out who reported them? Not by the sounds of it.

Quoted text (13 lines)

>If you just send a replay, I see a BIG problem. I'm sure most of us have >replays saved of various online races. Here's a hypothetical situation. I'm >in a league, 2nd in the standings. I want to use every possible option to win. > I know of a fun race where we were screwing around, testing the crash >dynamics, playing demo derby, or whatever. That replay shows the points leader >deliberately wrecking someone. I send that replay to Papy saying, "This guy is >a menace! Take a look at this!" The driver gets banned(because Papy has no >way of knowing these wrecks were all in fun), I win the championship because he >can no longer compete on WON(where the races are held), and he never knows who >reported him. Since there isn't an 'appeal' process, and the banning currently >seems to be permanent, he now has a game that is useless for multiplayer. > >Given my 'assumptions', does anyone else think this scenario could happen?

It could. :) ---------------- Skotty Flynn http://www.nascar-racing-sims.com

Yes No, Papy uses server replays. Not by the sounds of it. It could. :) ---------------- Skotty Flynn http://www.nascar-racing-sims.com

I would LOVE to know if there has been anyone reported that papy HAS NOT ruled intentional and not banned them. they prob. get and email and just ban away...thinking "he'll go buy our game again woo hoo!" BH Skotty Flynn <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (36 lines)

> On 27 Aug 2001 03:48:42 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > >How does the reporting work? Someone says "Today, at 5:30pm in x race on x > >server, lap 20, this incident occured"? Then, the moderator scans the replay > >of that particular race? > > Yes > > >Or does the person making the report send the replay > >in question to an e-mail address for review? > > No, Papy uses server replays. > > > Does the person accused get to > >find out who reported them? > > Not by the sounds of it. > > >If you just send a replay, I see a BIG problem. I'm sure most of us have > >replays saved of various online races. Here's a hypothetical situation. I'm > >in a league, 2nd in the standings. I want to use every possible option to win. > > I know of a fun race where we were screwing around, testing the crash > >dynamics, playing demo derby, or whatever. That replay shows the points leader > >deliberately wrecking someone. I send that replay to Papy saying, "This guy is > >a menace! Take a look at this!" The driver gets banned(because Papy has no > >way of knowing these wrecks were all in fun), I win the championship because he > >can no longer compete on WON(where the races are held), and he never knows who > >reported him. Since there isn't an 'appeal' process, and the banning currently > >seems to be permanent, he now has a game that is useless for multiplayer. > > > >Given my 'assumptions', does anyone else think this scenario could happen? > > It could. :) > > ---------------- > Skotty Flynn > http://www.nascar-racing-sims.com

In article <9md6a0$jb4$[email hidden]>, "BowtNetterToDo" <[email hidden]> writes: >I dont wish to comment on your assumptions, its prob better if you read this >http://www.papy.com/html/n4_wrecking.htm . > Fair enough. I'll check it out. Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"B. Hilton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >If I bought a new car, and > Chevy removed the radio after three months because in their opinion, > they didn't like the fact I played Perry Como CD's, I would be rather > upset. Anyone playing Perry Como CDs should, at the very least, be required to keep their windows rolled up and their volume down ;) -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

Or send them to Perry Como Hell & make them listen to *one* of his songs 24/7 for 60days, tied down, gagged & use a huge headset cranked all the way up blind folded!! :) "GTX_SlotCar" wrote: | Anyone playing Perry Como CDs should, at the very least, be required tokeep

Quoted text (10 lines)

| their windows rolled up and their volume down ;) | -- | Slot | | "B. Hilton" wrote: | >If I bought a new car, and | > Chevy removed the radio after three months because in their opinion, | > they didn't like the fact I played Perry Como CD's, I would be rather | > upset. |

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 143 - Release Date: 8/16/2001

Hi BH, what would you suggest how could the rating system deal with the wrecker issue? > It's not fair to pay for a game and then have them later > decide to take part of it away when they feel like it. Obviously, they don't take it away out of sheer spite but because they felt you used them game in a way unacceptable to all other users, i.e. by wrecking others on purpose. If they were wrong, this is certainly a sad situation, but unfortunately, there is never a perfect indication of intention, other than what the car does on the track. Therefor, there'll always be a margin of error. But this is none different from real racing. Most of the time the referee is right, but sometimes he's wrong. But let's face it, your move looks like intentional wrecking, especially since it concerned the leader, the preferred target of wreckers. If that wasn't intentional, you can't seriously blame Papy for not recognizing this. I concede, it would probably be better if they talked to you before banning you. OTOH, you have to see that doing such a job is extremely time-consuming. I've been the commissioner of online racing leagues for several years, and know how much time is required to really discuss all aspects and views with all involved drivers. We'd have to pay someone extra to do it, really. It's not a job that can be done on the side, not if you're marshalling something as big as WON. The fact that you didn't actually hit the car does BTW have nothing to do with whether the incident was wrecking or not. A failed attempt at wrecking is just as bad as a successful one. > I ...WARN all of you to NOT RACE IN A PAPY SERVER RACE... >... why risk being banned ...if the real nascar guys > like Dale Jr. got online to race...and wrecked someone, > they would ban him??? That's not an argument. Papy's anti-wrecker measures were successfull. The wrecking has decreased tremendously, and the huge majority of drivers has greatly profited from this. And I and a lot of others made a couple of stupid moves on Papy servers as well and we're all still racing. Achim

Hi Jan, I didn't say it was fair, I said that there's a risk of errors in marshalling sim races just as it exists in marshalling real races. And I said that this risk needs to be tolerated if we want to do something about the wrecker issue. There is just no way to get rid of wreckers without risking a wrong decision from time to time. I'd like to also repeat that we're making too much of this. This is the first or second time someone says he was banned unrightfully. The replay looks a lot like purposeful wrecking, and we know Papy to be dedicated, fair and sensible towards their customers. The threads we're seeing here would be justified if half of us would have gotten banned, but that's not the case. We're talking about one driver vs. a substantial improvement of the quality of the WON racing. > Suppose <insert racing buddy ...> causes a ...wreck ...it looks > intentional. Would you report him to Papy? I haven't even reported guys who I thought tried to wreck me intentionally conceiling their actions as 'dumb driving'. I'd only report blatant attempts at wrecking which I've seen so often before Papy installed their anti-wrecker measures, and which I've never seen again since Papy installed their anti-wrecker measures. The current system isn't perfect, but it works. There is no such thing as a perfect system and I am all for suggesting sensible improvements, but we should not forget Papy is doing all this in an attempt to help us - and at our own request! > ... would you report me? I'd watch the replay, I'd see if you apologised after the race, and I'd ask you what happened (and have done so with real wreckers). And then I'd decide. I'd most likely not report you, simply because I want to leave the wrecker reporting for really serious cases. But Justin decided to report, and did so in his full right because he felt that Dodgefan had wrecked him, so we have to accept this. It's like in real racing. Some teams will denounce their competitors, others won't. That's life. > ...I'm not willing to take that risk. Which means I am missing > a piece of functionality just as much as that banned guy is. The risk has posed a threat upon us which has been most beneficial to the overall racing discipline on Papy servers. I find the racing on these servers to be quite good recently. Completely the contrary of what it was like before. The pressure has been beneficial to the racing fun. Achim

Hi Scott, Papy's setup is neither fair nor unfair. It's an attempt at helping us enjoy racing on WON, and it has so far worked very well. > Sure, there are guys who need to be banned- > idiots driving backwards, being blatantly obvious > about intentional contact Exactly. Moves that are beyond the tolerable limit have to be punished, and that's what Papy is trying to do. Achim

Hi Cliff, there's always room for improvement, and I'm all for finding better ways as well. But, I do appreciate a lot that Papy is doing something at all, and also the fact that it has had a substantial and positive effect on the quality of races on WON. Therefor, IMO we should discuss the issue with a little less high pitched emotions and not cuss Papy out just because someone we don't know and whose story has lost some credibility during this discussion says that they were wrong. Especially since the incident indeed looked like purposeful wrecking. If we want to discuss and suggest improvements to how Papy is currently dealing with this, I'm all for it, and I am sure Papy would be glad to hear sensible suggestions. But we should give Papy support and constructive criticism, not bash them when all they are trying is to help us. Achim "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DPei7.1409$[email hidden]... > It is not as simple as that. > > Was this person warned? Do you not think that someone should get awarning > or at least have Papy talk to them to find out their side of the story? > > Like I said, I like what Papy is doing, I just think they could do it abit

Quoted text (12 lines)

> differently. > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9mbq34$1cip1$[email hidden]... > > We shouldn't jump to premature conclusions. Papy wouldn't ban people > > lightheartedly, and they state this clearly enough in their report > > guidelines. > > > > Nobody knows how many reports Papy has rejected on the premises that the > > facts aren't hard enough to ban the accused drivers. We've seen one case > > that might have been debatable, although I personally think it wasn't,

and > > immediately there's an outcry that Papy bans drivers too lightheartedly. > We > > should have a little more confidence towards Papy who have shown timeand > > time again their determination to help and support their customers. > > > > A small error margin remains, and we'll just have to live with thatfact.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > That's none different in real racing, or all other sports. A referee's > > decisions aren't _always_ right, just most of the time. But this is how > > things work. > > > > I am apalled at the lack of support among the people whom Papy is trying > to > > do a favour by having started the anti-wrecker campaign. > > > > We asked them to do it for us, they complied in a very careful and > > res�nsible way, and the first time someone who got banned accuses them

of

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > having made a mistake we all start an uproar against the anti-wrecker > > campaign we asked Papy to start for us instead of supporting them? > > Especially since the guy in question seems to have lost a lot of his > > credibility throughout the thread!? > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > >

Speak for yourself, I don't think on even my worse day, anything I do, could be a reason for banning. Yes I have pulled a skinner before, but believe me it would have only happened while racing very close for several laps. I don't think Papy is going after "racing wrecks", but rather the guys that never get up to speed from wrecking over and over again. -- Kevin Anderson [email hidden] "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lUci7.1400$[email hidden]... > I am starting this thread because I would like to talk about this from a > General point of view. Not based on the incident in the thread before > this. > > Personally, I like what Papy is trying to do, but I really do not like the > way they are executing it. > > We have all had bad days while racing. We have all made mistakes that if > someone of a neutral party looked at the replays, they may take it as > intentional wrecking. > > I personally do not want to race under the "threat" of being banned for a > mistake. > > The way they are approaching the matter right now is pure black and white. > The problem is, most incidents are not just black and white. In most cases > it is someone trying to do one thing, the other trying to do something else > and unfortunately they clash. The problem is, neither was trying to wreck > the other but I bet if you look at the replay it will definately look like > one persons fault. > > Heck, just look at a real WC race.. last nights race for example. There > were a whole bunch of accidents. I forget who it was, but there was one > last night where they came out of turn 4 and one of the cars just drifted up > and punted the other in the back left of the car. Do you think it was > intentional? Heck no, but it would sure look that way. > > Now, as I said.. everyone makes mistakes. However the constant execution of > those horrible mistakes is the problem. That is why I truely believe there > should be some sort of warning system involved. > > Maybe set it up so you get a warning the first time something like this > happens. They can just put your CD-Key in a list and when you log on it > tells you that you have a warning. If you go 30 days without any other > problem, it automatically removes you from that list. > > If you have another problem within the 30 days "probation period" then you > are banned. Maybe have it ban you for 30 days. If after your CD-Key is > re-instated, if you are banned again, it is permanent > > I know that some of you say "go buy another game". Give me a break. Sure, > I could afford to go out and buy another one, but not everyone can. Try > looking at it from others view. I have been poor enough in my life where I > could not even afford a color tv and where I had to scrap together money to > go buy a loaf of bread. Some people are not as well off as you are. Do > not use the argument about "how did they get the computer" Who knows, there > are a million ways. Do not persume to know everyone elses situation. > > > >

I haven't been running N4 with my AMD chip cooked. But I tried it out with the ol Piii 500 a week or so ago...with little practice I joined a race at Charlotte(Lowes) Early on I clipped the infield comming off of turn 4 and looped the car 180 degrees. Got going with some damage but now already off the pace. After a time I caught another damaged car but in trying to pass I looped again in the same place and came to rest facing the leaders bearing down on me. Fortunately the pack cleared my backwards car and I got off the racing line and limped back to the pits...but...if the leader had tagged me while I was helpless on the wall....It could have EASILY looked like I was waiting for him. Here is the hurdle newbies face when joining ranked races. Everyone says practice offline. But if I do, then I lose the oportunity to increase my rankings above zero. It is getting more difficult to find open races that aren't passworded or a Superspeedway. (btw..I did gain a few points in that Charlotte race) so I took the chance and brought my shakey driving with my 'puter only managing about 23fps online. It could have been a disaster. But fortunately, this time...nobody got banned or wrecked by me. dave henrie "Kevin Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:i_xi7.48746$[email hidden]... > Speak for yourself, I don't think on even my worse day, anything I do,could > be a reason for banning. Yes I have pulled a skinner before, but believeme

Quoted text (15 lines)

> it would have only happened while racing very close for several laps. I > don't think Papy is going after "racing wrecks", but rather the guys that > never get up to speed from wrecking over and over again. > > -- > Kevin Anderson > [email hidden] > > "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:lUci7.1400$[email hidden]... > > I am starting this thread because I would like to talk about this from a > > General point of view. Not based on the incident in the thread before > > this. > > > > Personally, I like what Papy is trying to do, but I really do not like

the > > way they are executing it. > > > > We have all had bad days while racing. We have all made mistakes thatif > > someone of a neutral party looked at the replays, they may take it as > > intentional wrecking. > > > > I personally do not want to race under the "threat" of being banned fora > > mistake. > > > > The way they are approaching the matter right now is pure black andwhite. > > The problem is, most incidents are not just black and white. In most > cases > > it is someone trying to do one thing, the other trying to do something > else > > and unfortunately they clash. The problem is, neither was trying towreck > > the other but I bet if you look at the replay it will definately looklike > > one persons fault. > > > > Heck, just look at a real WC race.. last nights race for example. There > > were a whole bunch of accidents. I forget who it was, but there was one > > last night where they came out of turn 4 and one of the cars justdrifted > up > > and punted the other in the back left of the car. Do you think it was > > intentional? Heck no, but it would sure look that way. > > > > Now, as I said.. everyone makes mistakes. However the constantexecution

Quoted text (11 lines)

> of > > those horrible mistakes is the problem. That is why I truely believe > there > > should be some sort of warning system involved. > > > > Maybe set it up so you get a warning the first time something like this > > happens. They can just put your CD-Key in a list and when you log on it > > tells you that you have a warning. If you go 30 days without any other > > problem, it automatically removes you from that list. > > > > If you have another problem within the 30 days "probation period" then

you > > are banned. Maybe have it ban you for 30 days. If after your CD-Keyis > > re-instated, if you are banned again, it is permanent > > > > I know that some of you say "go buy another game". Give me a break. > Sure, > > I could afford to go out and buy another one, but not everyone can. Try > > looking at it from others view. I have been poor enough in my lifewhere > I > > could not even afford a color tv and where I had to scrap together money > to > > go buy a loaf of bread. Some people are not as well off as you are.Do

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > not use the argument about "how did they get the computer" Who knows, > there > > are a million ways. Do not persume to know everyone elses situation. > > > > > > > > > >

Thought you were switching to Heat?? Don Burnette "B. Hilton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> I would LOVE to know if there has been anyone reported that papy HAS > NOT ruled intentional and not banned them. > > they prob. get and email and just ban away...thinking "he'll go buy > our game again woo hoo!" > > BH > > > > > > > > Skotty Flynn <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>... > > On 27 Aug 2001 03:48:42 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > > >How does the reporting work? Someone says "Today, at 5:30pm in x raceon x > > >server, lap 20, this incident occured"? Then, the moderator scans thereplay

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > >of that particular race? > > > > Yes > > > > >Or does the person making the report send the replay > > >in question to an e-mail address for review? > > > > No, Papy uses server replays. > > > > > Does the person accused get to > > >find out who reported them? > > > > Not by the sounds of it. > > > > >If you just send a replay, I see a BIG problem. I'm sure most of us

have > > >replays saved of various online races. Here's a hypotheticalsituation. I'm > > >in a league, 2nd in the standings. I want to use every possible optionto win. > > > I know of a fun race where we were screwing around, testing the crash > > >dynamics, playing demo derby, or whatever. That replay shows thepoints leader > > >deliberately wrecking someone. I send that replay to Papy saying,"This guy is > > >a menace! Take a look at this!" The driver gets banned(because Papyhas no > > >way of knowing these wrecks were all in fun), I win the championshipbecause he > > >can no longer compete on WON(where the races are held), and he neverknows who > > >reported him. Since there isn't an 'appeal' process, and the banningcurrently > > >seems to be permanent, he now has a game that is useless formultiplayer. > > > > > >Given my 'assumptions', does anyone else think this scenario couldhappen? > > > > It could. :) > > > > ---------------- > > Skotty Flynn > > http://www.nascar-racing-sims.com

Thats what I thought he said? Hmmm? Contradiction in terms or just couldnt stay away from N4 online..eh? :) "Don Burnette" wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

| Thought you were switching to Heat?? | | Don Burnette | | "B. Hilton" wrote: | > I would LOVE to know if there has been anyone reported that papy HAS | > NOT ruled intentional and not banned them. | > | > they prob. get and email and just ban away...thinking "he'll go buy | > our game again woo hoo!" | > | > BH

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 143 - Release Date: 8/16/2001

In article <2vvi7.144139$[email hidden]>, "Thom j." <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Or send them to Perry Como Hell & make them listen to *one* >of his songs 24/7 for 60days, tied down, gagged & use a huge >headset cranked all the way up blind folded!! :) > >"GTX_SlotCar" wrote: >| Anyone playing Perry Como CDs should, at the very least, be required to >keep >| their windows rolled up and their volume down ;) >| --

I heard of a punishment like that. A guy(late teens/early 20's) got a ticket for blasting rap music from his car while driving. The judge sentenced him to 2 hours of listening to Perry Como...or someone else just as bad...<g> Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"O" Hells Bells Eldred that judge had to be a whimp :) "EldredP" wrote: | I heard of a punishment like that. A guy(late teens/early 20's) got aticket | for blasting rap music from his car while driving. The judge sentencedhim to | 2 hours of listening to Perry Como...or someone else just as bad...<g> | | Eldred --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 143 - Release Date: 8/16/2001

you never saw a youngster listen to Perry have you? :) dave henrie "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gRFi7.145473$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> "O" Hells Bells Eldred that judge had to be a whimp :) > > "EldredP" wrote: > | I heard of a punishment like that. A guy(late teens/early 20's) got a > ticket > | for blasting rap music from his car while driving. The judge sentenced > him to > | 2 hours of listening to Perry Como...or someone else just as bad...<g> > | > | Eldred > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 143 - Release Date: 8/16/2001 > >

Yea!! On his tv Xmas programs :)~ "Dave Henrie" wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

| you never saw a youngster listen to Perry have you? | :) | dave henrie | "Thom j." wrote: | > "O" Hells Bells Eldred that judge had to be a whimp :) | > | > "EldredP" wrote: | > | I heard of a punishment like that. A guy(late teens/early 20's) got a | > ticket | > | for blasting rap music from his car while driving. The judge

sentenced | > him to | > | 2 hours of listening to Perry Como...or someone else just as bad...<g> | > | | > | Eldred | --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 143 - Release Date: 8/16/2001

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Subject: Re: Banning of Players from N4 Online >From: "Cliff Roman" [email hidden] >Date: 08/26/2001 6:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <DPei7.1409$[email hidden]> > >It is not as simple as that. > >Was this person warned? Do you not think that someone should get a warning >or at least have Papy talk to them to find out their side of the story? > >Like I said, I like what Papy is doing, I just think they could do it a bit >differently. >

I do believe that we ALL get a warning when we log onto Papy's server network.....Message-O-The-Day.....??? (Don't gimme NOCRAP in E-mail)

PHYDEAUX99 wrote: > I do believe that we ALL get a warning when we log onto Papy's server > network.....Message-O-The-Day.....??? Absolutely. In no uncertain terms. -- Fester