Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

[Pirkio]

I have 1 proposal for fairplay jury.

OFFICIAL AND ONLY LANGUAGE = ENGLISH

99% of the text in the Jury isn't in english in perfect Luciano Moggi style.
Who's the italian now!

[team fl]

*push* as there are several suggestions about it these times.

[Buhmann]

Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

General remarks

Aim and purposes

The FCRC helps to build a common procedure in handling fairplay cases in RSF/C4F. It states the duties and the rights of the Fairplay Committee (FC) as well as its structures. Furthermore, it states the recruiting for (new) members of the FC and their behaviour in the chat, the forum and in general when discussing internally.

The FCRC goes in detail how a fairplay case should be managed by the FC and its members. Finally, the FCRC offers a penalty guideline. The penalties mentioned in the guideline are not fixed but more to be seen as – that’s why called this way – guidelines.

The Fairplay Committee

The Fairplay Committee is the organisation in RSF/C4F that is responsible for:
- handling cases that affect the fairplay in the game, most importantly violations of the fairness rules,
- reading and responding in the fairness section of the forum and investigating accusations,
- interfering in the race chat if there is a fairplay incident.

The Fairplay Committee and its members are objective in any case. If a member is biased in any way, this member will leave the floor to the other members and will not be involved in any decision regarding the case.

Structure

Staff

The FC consists of 8 members. Additionally Buhmann is the 9th member and holds the balance of power. He has all rights (that are stated below) of all members. The FC staff is divided in:

- 2 case coordinators:

They search open cases in the forum and assign them to 2 case dealers. They always have an overview about the assigned cases and their status. Case coordinator may also actively discuss in the forum and internally if it does not affect their main duty.

- 6 case dealers:

They deal with the cases in the forum and lead the discussion in public and in the FC. They gather the information for the basis of a final decision. A Case dealer may answer in a fairness thread of an open case independently but has to report the case to one of the case coordinators immediately that assign the case to a case dealer.

Recruiting members

A FC member has to fulfil the following conditions (counts for case dealers and coordinators):
- active in the forum
- good manners with other users, in the forum as well as in the chat
- objective ability to judge
- thick-skinned (not mistaken with mellow)
- enough time to be active in fairplay discussions and decision making
- a good common sense
- some sort of “loyalty” to the FC and the game

The FC recommends possible new personnel to Buhmann, who finally decides who is going to join them. The recommendation is developed in the internal chat. The decision is made by consensus among the FC members, finally approved by Buhmann.

Before Buhmann’s decision is made, the potential new member has to be addressed with the intention to make him a FC member. Thus, in a positive answer, the user has to give a short explanation for his decision why he will be a useful asset as a FC member. This is the final basis for the decision.

Duties

See also in “Staff”. In general there are the following duties:

A FC member has to check the Fairplay section of the forum regularly. This means first the international Fairplay section, second the Fairplay section in his mother tongue’s part of the forum. Third, the FC member visits occasionally the sections of the other languages he is able to communicate in written form.

A FC member has to take part of internal fairness discussions regularly and therefore has to vote for a decision of the FC regularly (besides cases he is/should not be involved).

Rights

A FC member has the right to take part in internal discussions of the FC.
A FC member has the right to vote for a decision of the FC (if not stated otherwise).
A FC member has the right to discuss fairplay cases in the forum.
A FC member has the right to indicate violations of the fairness rules during a race via chat.

Behaviour

There will delicate situations, when a FC member has to find solutions for problems, either in a hot tempered discussion in the forum or difficult cases. Thus here are some Dos and DON’Ts for a FC member when discussion cases in public. This is not a closing list!

DOs

- always try to be as neutral as possible
- be friendly but decisive
- write clearly and understandable
- If your not sure about something, ask another FC member for help
- if you are biased, ask another FC member to take over a case and let the decision to the other FC members

DON’Ts

- don’t use bad language in any situation a fairplay case is discussed in public
- don’t judge a user beforehand. Never.
- don’t discuss a final FC decision in public
- don’t discuss the penalty guideline in public. Never.

If the handling of a case is not described in the rules or in the guidelines explicitly, the FC has the power to act in the spirit of the game. Additionally, any conversation with the FC members is confidential and must not be made public in any case (or form).

Case Management

Creating a case

Usually, a case is created by a user when open a fairness thread. A fairness thread may also be opened by a FC members, if there is a spotted violation of the fairness rules.

Assignment of a case

A case dealer of the FC may answer the opening posting independently. Immediately afterwards, he or she has to contact a case coordinator. The case coordinator finally assigns the case to 2 case dealers that lead the main discussion in forum and internally.

If a case dealer is biased in any way, he must not deal with this case. The case dealer must not participate in the discussion and in the decision making process of the FC. Furthermore He or she stays out of public discussion.

If a case dealer is not able anymore to deal with a case - for whatever reason - , he contacts one of the case coordinators, who assigns it to another case dealer.

Decision making

The FC makes decisions about cases and penalties internally. The discussion is leaded by the affected 2 case dealers. Every other member is allowed to share its opinion (besides the mentioned exceptions. Best case, every member – according to the guideline – proposes his opinion about the case and the final decision. In the end, the 2 case dealers make a final decision. If there is no severe doubt by another member or a Veto by Buhmann, the decision is carried out.

Appeal

Every user has the right to appeal the decision that affects him or her. He may write his position with his arguments to one of the case dealers with a personal message. The appeal has to be presented in the FC. If the appeal is justified, the decision will be lifted. If the appeal is not justified the decision will stay. In any case, the user has to be informed about the final decision.

Penalty Guideline

The penalty guideline is added as Excel file. Sorry, it is in German, but hopefully understandable to the most of you. Of course, the mentioned penalties are randomly chosen an may be adapted by the FC. This guideline of course is open for discussion. The final guideline should not be made public!




Now stone me

But before that, please join the discussion about the concept and your ideas about a Fairness Committee. Thanks.

Okay, we really need a new fairplay committee.

So my questions here:

Who would like to be in the committee?
Fl, you want to be in the committee?
Should we use the penalty checklist?

[AlmavivaItalia]

In my (little) opinion, first the "FC" chief (FL, for example?) has to purpose some users for asking them if they want to be in "FC"

second one, the "FC" chief should have the power of deleting team in a race, or blocking them, or some to react quicly after some wrong things. ... waiting the "FC" with his Bureocracy may slower the "punishment", while the race is gone...

[Widar]

Who would like to be in the committee?

I would like to remain on the committee / Ich möchte im Komitee bleiben

[Eagle]

I think, we need an active chief, who is always there , or two chiefs. Maybe Fl and Quick can do it.

[Robyklebt]

No no no

We need: Petit Singe and Samurais as masters, nothing else will do.

[Quick]

I think, we need an active chief, who is always there , or two chiefs. Maybe Fl and Quick can do it.

Maybe FL can do it. I dont want a chief-position anywhere! Dont even know if i'm really the right one for beeing a future fairness member...

[Robyklebt]

FL back from holidays, but boycotting the thread it seems.... ok, an apepost to see what he'll say to Buhs question.

Who would like to be in the committee?
Fl, you want to be in the committee?
Should we use the penalty checklist?

And to Buh.... one question is missing. Who shouldn't be in the committee...

[team fl]

Okay, we really need a new fairplay committee.

So my questions here:

Who would like to be in the committee?
Fl, you want to be in the committee?
Should we use the penalty checklist?

1. Don't know
2. No
3. Yes, but it should be YOUR checklist

[NoPikouze]

I want FL in the comittee, even if he's not really clever, he's at least able to reason in a correct way.

[deuseburger]

moin miteinander...

really apreciate this thread is back to live and especialy buhman finaly seeing a need to do something. that beeing said i go with nopi

I want FL in the comittee

fl´s no to buhs question even qualifies him more... so give yourself a "ruck" and bring the fcrc back to live from an inside position!!!

cheers deuse....

[Robyklebt]

Anti Ape, Anti Ape!
Ape and Samurais, the winning solution!

[Robyklebt]

Ok, more seriously

moin miteinander...

really apreciate this thread is back to live and especialy buhman finaly seeing a need to do something. that beeing said i go with nopi

I want FL in the comittee

fl´s no to buhs question even qualifies him more... so give yourself a "ruck" and bring the fcrc back to live from an inside position!!!

cheers deuse....

The bolded part (by me) IMO is the wrong approach. IMO the first step if you want a reform has to happen here, on the outside, make clear what the duties and rights of the committee will be. Not from the inside, not by just changing first the members and then continue from there.
If you want a reform:
First step: Discuss, decide here on how it should work. How do the FC members have to proceed in which cases. What is made public, what not. etc etc. And for this just FLs first post isn't enough, the discussion had gone further, we would all have to read the whole thing again, think a few guys (you? Chense? probably me too) had made some other proposals too.
Second step: 'Chose' members of for the FC.

Without reform, just new members of course would be another way, then having FL and others reform it from the inside, but it wouldn't really be what FL demanded as far as I understood it, which is some sort of clear rules accepted by the majority, understood, some clear way of proceeding. By having the members in place first and reforming it from the inside that goal wouldn't be reached. Even if the new FC would then post its own rules here.
Of course just new members would be a step forward anyway, agree on that.

My position of FL in the FC: In my asshole mode: opposed. Because Buh was stupid enough to give him a warning for an offense that didn't deserve one... And a guy with a fairness warning in the FC? Pff. Not good.
In my non-asshole mode (happens, rarely, but it happens) of course FL is one of the guys who seems to fit the job description best. Active in the forum (which is important too), seems to have an understanding of fairness that comes close to mine (we all define fairness a little differently, so of course if we want fairness we want judges that have a similar understanding of it, this doesn't mean that I would expect not to get fines anymore (have to write that for the dumb faction around here, who wouldn't understand that without this sentence (mmh even with...), I would have given myself a few fines over the years too.....), and he doesn't seem to lose his calm that fast. Good guy for the committee. Very good. Same as you Deuse btw, except one thing, a bit less active on the forum, long breaks.... while being in the FC you would have to be more active, reading our cool threads and depending on what the reform is, answering etc. Ok, maybe you just read a lot, then no problem, but you for example for sure would be another good candidate.

Anyway, first decision has to be what is wanted. A REFORM? Then first this thread needs activity, figure out how the FC has to work. If a improvement of the situation is enough, then let's just kick the whole FC now, get new members (some can stay the same..) and see what happens.

[Rockstar Inc]

all great ideas about reforms, new members, new way to do things are useless when the FC members are still handcuffed like now...

FC is talking about a case, all gave their opinon...or maybe almost all cause team xy is in holiday for two weeks...and then the case lays open for 1,2 weeks or more cause the executioner aka Buhmann has little time and don't react...

so imo you got to choose 1,2 "senior-members" who got the rights and abbilitys to enforce judgement

[flockmastoR]

Some things i want to mention that are not working well or could work better in the FC:

1) Mutli-Suspects: Its the majority of all cases and noone of the FC-members can do anything about it, just ask the managers in the chat if they have a second team. Than we can make up a thread and conect it to the FC part ingame. And than nothing happens for at least 2 weeks. As long as noone else than buhmann has the rights to do IP checks and bannings this won't improve.

2) Teamattacks: second most committed crime here in RSF.
Proposal a) make it technically impossible to make a teamattack (if possible). Would be the best thing in my opinion. A manager puts in 3 attacks, but just 2 riders attack. which ones? not really important. Make it random. Include the last 10km extra rule if possible. Same for chaned team attacks. Just analyse the race log and if no extra rule is concerned (20km to goal, more than 10riders from 4 different teams, +4%, group smaller than 15 riders). The third rider in the log just doesnt follow anymore(or he gets a "unable to follow" with the power loss of trying it). Could be the leader or a helper, doesnt mind. Just dont hang everybody on everybody. Focus on your leaders or live with the probability that maybe your leader isnt in the right group.
Proposal b) Give the members the chance to intervent in CLEAR CASES. Exemple: A 08/15 3 guys teamattack. Everybody tries to explain it to the manager. The FC member writes in the chat and waits 15km for a reaction. No reaction and he can just kick the riders back into the group they attacked from. Than all settings for tempo and attacking are deactivated and in the meantime a Warning popup shows up to inform him about the fairness rules and that he broke them etc.

3) Insults: should be the same procedure as now but maybe with a list of earlier insults and their fines. Intern or extern or only buhmann. For me it should be in the FC because its easier to propose a fine when you have a reference value.

4) Change the >10 riders >=4 teams extra rule. Right now that would mean that 9 riders from a team+ 3 riders from 3 other teams wouldnt be a changed Teamattack right now. Thats just awfull. But maybe we should think about the rules in a different part

[team fl]

At the moment, I don't have much time, so I make it short:

1.) It's good, that the FCRC is discussed again. My version is only a PROPSAL and for sure not the one and only thing that works. Thus it's like Roby wrote, there were some good addings to my initial posting and there still could be more. The more people participate and the broader the consensus about the system, the better it will work. The same counts of course for the penalty checklist. My list was a PROPOSAL with numbers than came to my mind and looked reasonable. In the end, it's still Buhmann who has to decide things about his game.

2.) I support Roby about the critics about a "reform from inside". First we have to build the framework of the FC, the structurs, the methods, the instruments, etc. Then we can talk about the persons that will work with it and fill it with live. But at that points everything else should be already fixed.

3.) I can only repeat myself: I don't want to be in the FC. I like to spend time for this game, but not on a "have to" level. Some people maybe still know my pariticpation in the NC... It would be the same in the FC. I am not good for such a serious (muahaha) thing. There are enough people that can do it (Roby & Samurais for president!). Well, If I would be paid for it, I would think about it, hihi. Nevertheless, I always would help if needed to build the required framework. Hence, the proposal...

Back o the Concept: Perhaps I have time enough to summarise the worthy suggestions and overwork the proposal accordingly. Until then, I will repeat the three points above. Some good points:
- technical possibilites for FC (senior?) members
- different working divisions (Multi accounting, inappropriate behaviour in chat and forum, fairness rule breaches, etc.)
- thinking about an asshole-mode

[team fl]

Here is the new Version! New things are marked with NEW: . Please discuss this. Penalty guideline is not topic for the moment. Anyway, if you want to add something about it, feel free

Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

General remarks

Aim and purposes

The FCRC helps to build a common procedure in handling fairplay cases in RSF/C4F. It states the duties and the rights of the Fairplay Committee (FC) as well as its structures. Furthermore, it states the recruiting for (new) members of the FC and their behaviour in the chat, the forum and in general when discussing internally.

The FCRC goes in detail how a fairplay case should be managed by the FC and its members. Finally, the FCRC offers a penalty guideline. The penalties mentioned in the guideline are not fixed but more to be seen as – that’s why called this way – guidelines.

The Fairplay Committee

The Fairplay Committee is the organisation in RSF/C4F that is responsible for:
- handling cases that affect the fairplay in the game, most importantly violations of the fairness rules,
- reading and responding in the fairness section of the forum and investigating accusations,
- interfering in the race chat if there is a fairplay incident.

The Fairplay Committee and its members are objective in any case. If a member is biased in any way, this member will leave the floor to the other members and will not be involved in any decision regarding the case.

Structure

Staff

The FC consists of 8 members. Additionally Buhmann is the 9th member and holds the balance of power. He has all rights (that are stated below) of all members. The FC staff is divided in:

- 2 case coordinators:

They search open cases in the forum and assign them to 2 case dealers. They always have an overview about the assigned cases and their status. Case coordinator may also actively discuss in the forum and internally if it does not affect their main duty.

- NEW: 8 case dealers:

They deal with the cases in the forum and lead the discussion in public and in the FC. They gather the information for the basis of a final decision. A Case dealer may answer in a fairness thread of an open case independently but has to report the case to one of the case coordinators immediately that assign the case to a case dealer.

Recruiting members

A FC member has to fulfil the following conditions (counts for case dealers and coordinators):
- active in the forum
- good manners with other users, in the forum as well as in the chat
- objective ability to judge
- thick-skinned (not mistaken with mellow)
- enough time to be active in fairplay discussions and decision making
- a good common sense
- some sort of “loyalty” to the FC and the game
- NEW: writes English fluently
- NEW: at least one of the FC Members has to be able to communicate in one of these languages: French, German, Italian

The FC recommends possible new personnel to Buhmann, who finally decides who is going to join them. The recommendation is developed in the internal chat. The decision is made by consensus among the FC members, finally approved by Buhmann.

Before Buhmann’s decision is made, the potential new member has to be addressed with the intention to make him a FC member. Thus, in a positive answer, the user has to give a short explanation for his decision why he will be a useful asset as a FC member. This is the final basis for the decision.

NEW: FC Members will be listed in the System Part of the Forum and ingame (below the fairness rules?).

Duties

See also in “Staff”. In general there are the following duties:

A FC member has to check the Fairplay section of the forum regularly. This means first the international Fairplay section, second the Fairplay section in his mother tongue’s part of the forum. Third, the FC member visits occasionally the sections of the other languages he is able to communicate in written form.

A FC member has to take part of internal fairness discussions regularly and therefore has to vote for a decision of the FC regularly (besides cases he is/should not be involved).
NEW: The case dealer informs the public about the progress of the case in the respective fairness thread.

Rights

A FC member has the right to take part in internal discussions of the FC.
A FC member has the right to vote for a decision of the FC (if not stated otherwise).
A FC member has the right to discuss fairplay cases in the forum.
A FC member has the right to indicate violations of the fairness rules during a race via chat.

Behaviour

There will delicate situations, when a FC member has to find solutions for problems, either in a hot tempered discussion in the forum or difficult cases. Thus here are some Dos and DON’Ts for a FC member when discussion cases in public. This is not a closing list!

DOs

- always try to be as neutral as possible
- be friendly but decisive
- write clearly and understandable
- If your not sure about something, ask another FC member for help
- if you are biased, ask another FC member to take over a case and let the decision to the other FC members

DON’Ts

- don’t use bad language in any situation a fairplay case is discussed in public
- don’t judge a user beforehand. Never.
- don’t discuss a final FC decision in public.
- don’t discuss the penalty guideline in public. Never.

Sollte die Behandlung eines Vorfalls nicht ausdrücklich in den Regeln beschrieben sein, haben die FC-Members die ausdrückliche Genehmigung, im Geiste der Regeln zu handeln. Auch ist jegliche Konversation mit den FC-Members streng vertraulich und darf nicht in irgendeiner Form veröffentlicht oder weitergeleitet werden.

NEW: Things that are very important in the work of the FC members: communication, transparency, accountability and traceability.

Case Management

Creating a case

Usually, a case is created by a user when open a fairness thread. A fairness thread may also be opened by a FC members, if there is a spotted violation of the fairness rules.

Assignment of a case

A case dealer of the FC may answer the opening posting independently. Immediately afterwards, he or she has to contact a case coordinator. The case coordinator finally assigns the case to 2 case dealers that lead the main discussion in forum and internally.

If a case dealer is biased in any way, he must not deal with this case. The case dealer must not participate in the discussion and in the decision making process of the FC. Furthermore He or she stays out of public discussion.

If a case dealer is not able anymore to deal with a case - for whatever reason - , he contacts one of the case coordinators, who assigns it to another case dealer.

Decision making

The FC makes decisions about cases and penalties internally. The discussion is leaded by the affected 2 case dealers. Every other member is allowed to share its opinion (besides the mentioned exceptions. Best case, every member – according to the guideline – proposes his opinion about the case and the final decision. In the end, the 2 case dealers make a final decision. If there is no severe doubt by another member or a Veto by Buhmann, the decision is carried out.

NEW: Fields of activity

There are four fields of activity, each case dealer has to work in periodically with a cycle of about two weeks in every field, for example.

- General rules (Multi accounting, hacking, etc.)
- Fairness rules (Team attacks, illicit race fixing, etc.)
- Behaviour in the Chat (Insults, etc.)
- Behaviour in the Forum (Moderation rules -> Moderators?)

Of course, case dealers can also be asked for statements in other fields of activities assigned to them. The field of activity just shows their current responsibility in the FC.

Appeal

Every user has the right to appeal the decision that affects him or her. He may write his position with his arguments to one of the case dealers with a personal message. The appeal has to be presented in the FC. If the appeal is justified, the decision will be lifted. If the appeal is not justified the decision will stay. In any case, the user has to be informed about the final decision.

Penalty Guideline (or similar)

The penalty guideline is added as Excel file. Sorry, it is in German, but hopefully understandable to the most of you. Of course, the mentioned penalties are randomly chosen an may be adapted by the FC. This guideline of course is open for discussion. The final guideline should not be made public!

NEW: The guideline itself is only a recommendation. If the a FC member feels a case deserves a harder or softer penalty, it's within his rights to propose that to Buhmann. The same of course is true for Buhmann; if he feels an offense that fits this category deserves a harder or softer penalty, it’s in his rights to hand out a harsher or more lenient penalty!

NEW: Publication of Punishments:

- All FC members should be informed about the outcome of a case
- In cases of insults the victim should be informed too. But, he/she shouldn't publicize it.
- Multiaccounts: Action taken at least will be posted in the resp. fairness thread. That can be done by the case officer or Buhmann himself.
- Racism etc.: The outcome may be posted in the thread.
- Acc.-Hacking: Will be decided for each case separately.

These are only recommendations. For any case, if needed, the penalty may be published or held off in accordance with Buhmann.

NEW: Possible Instruments for FC Members:

In general, the FC part should be external. That means that it is accessible via an own web-based GUI with it’s own access details. Of course Buhmann would have to develop such a thing, but I am sure it would be very helpful and it would solve the sitting problem for FC members. A question is, if the FC-members should be able to write ingame messages. I would recommend that. Furthermore, the messages should be logged.

Buhmann:

- penalties
- close and delete accounts
- all about the races
- IP check (log in times of which accounts on a certain IP)
- Account check (log in times of a certain account incl. IP used)
- PW check (log in times, log in IP and accounts for a certain PW)
- live chat interaction
- ingame messages

Case coordinators:

- Labelling cases
- IP check (log in times of which accounts on a certain IP)
- Account check (log in times of a certain account incl. IP used)
- PW check (log in times, log in IP and accounts for a certain PW)
- live chat interaction
- ingame messages
- moderation rights in the fairness section of the forum

Case dealers:

- IP check (log in times of which accounts on a certain IP)
- Account check (log in times of a certain account incl. IP used)
- PW check (log in times, log in IP and accounts for a certain PW)
- live chat interaction
- ingame messages
- moderation rights in the fairness section of the forum

NEW: Account logs:

For a better tracebility, all decisions made be the FC/Buhmann in a certain case should be logged in the account of the user(s) concerned (f.e. penalties, ingame messages, warnings, etc.). This logs should be only visible for FC Members and Buhmann.

[team fl]

My first comment: If Buhmann creates the mentioned external tool, count me in for the FC.

[NoPikouze]

Imo a decision should be made regarding the possibility for the Fc members to interact and intervene during the races... (kick people, un-tempo them, cancel teamattacks... whatever...)

Personally I don't know whether they should be able to or not. But this is an important point to think about.

[team fl]

Imo a decision should be made regarding the possibility for the Fc members to interact and intervene during the races... (kick people, un-tempo them, cancel teamattacks... whatever...)

Personally I don't know whether they should be able to or not. But this is an important point to think about.

Thought about that too. In my eyes it's difficult to intervene in a race when you (perhaps) don't know the context, especially during one day races. For stage races it's different, because you can observe the behaviour and have a better basis to decide. Anyway, I think it's a big thing to have such rights and use them trustworthily.

Hence, I left them out, or in other words: In my proposal, the FC member DON'T have these kind of rights.

[AlmavivaItalia]

A FC member has to fulfil the following conditions (counts for case dealers and coordinators):
- active in the forum
- good manners with other users, in the forum as well as in the chat
- objective ability to judge
- thick-skinned (not mistaken with mellow)
- enough time to be active in fairplay discussions and decision making
- a good common sense
- some sort of “loyalty” to the FC and the game
- NEW: writes English fluently
- NEW: at least one of the FC Members has to be able to communicate in one of these languages: French, German, Italian

1) a bit...
2) no... some past cases try to accomodating races
3) i hope
4) can i suffer pain?
5) Time? i have money... money=time, or not?
6) stupidity is the common 6th sense? or not?
6) I have... i still love the game and i still have 2 accounts^^
7) ok, this definitely eliminates me
8) ai dont spich inglish veri uell, what about ItaGliano?

[Robyklebt]

Lots of comments... sad, you often see complaints, but if something constructive is needed... silence.
Ok, FL made the "Klebt mistake".. make the post so long and so many different issues (that are all connected) that people don't really know where to start.
So I take it apart a bit and don't comment on all at once. I try at least... Just a few paragraphs of your post each time!

Here is the new Version! New things are marked with NEW: . Please discuss this. Penalty guideline is not topic for the moment. Anyway, if you want to add something about it, feel free

Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

General remarks

Aim and purposes

The FCRC helps to build a common procedure in handling fairplay cases in RSF/C4F. It states the duties and the rights of the Fairplay Committee (FC) as well as its structures. Furthermore, it states the recruiting for (new) members of the FC and their behaviour in the chat, the forum and in general when discussing internally.

The FCRC goes in detail how a fairplay case should be managed by the FC and its members. Finally, the FCRC offers a penalty guideline. The penalties mentioned in the guideline are not fixed but more to be seen as – that’s why called this way – guidelines.

Yep, all good.

The Fairplay Committee

The Fairplay Committee is the organisation in RSF/C4F that is responsible for:
- handling cases that affect the fairplay in the game, most importantly violations of the fairness rules,
- reading and responding in the fairness section of the forum and investigating accusations,
- interfering in the race chat if there is a fairplay incident.

The Fairplay Committee and its members are objective in any case. If a member is biased in any way, this member will leave the floor to the other members and will not be involved in any decision regarding the case.

maybe add somewhere that it's an advisory committee? It is now, and I think it should stay that.
Plus, personnally I think the goal of fines and other punishment should not be the punishment per se, but prevention, "rehabilitation" something like that.

Structure

Staff

The FC consists of 8 members. Additionally Buhmann is the 9th member and holds the balance of power. He has all rights (that are stated below) of all members. The FC staff is divided in:

- 2 case coordinators:

They search open cases in the forum and assign them to 2 case dealers. They always have an overview about the assigned cases and their status. Case coordinator may also actively discuss in the forum and internally if it does not affect their main duty.

- NEW: 8 case dealers:

They deal with the cases in the forum and lead the discussion in public and in the FC. They gather the information for the basis of a final decision. A Case dealer may answer in a fairness thread of an open case independently but has to report the case to one of the case coordinators immediately that assign the case to a case dealer.

I see the point for the case coordinator. Not first one who happens to run accross a case, but cases are assigned. Cases that nobody wants to touch, are not left without a case coordinator. Both positive things.. but I fear it makes it a bit complicated in a way no? But ok, if the system works, why not. But, IMO it should be more than "may discuss internally"... they should discuss and vote internally as much as possible, not just as an option. They should be involved there too, don't "waste" 2 guys in the committee for just assigning cases. Or, if we want 2 guys above the case dealers, kind of "neutral" guys, that just assign cases, and we don't want them to be in a position that they are accused of assigning case dealer that what similarly to them to certain cases, to get a heavier or lighter sentence for the accused.... then go the opposite way. They don't vote, don't discuss internally about the sentencing, they just assess how the case dealers handle their cases. Should be one or the other, either fully integrated as voting and discussing members, or fully separated, not this half-way solution.

[NoPikouze]

Well I dont have a problem with the proposed guidelines, but it remains a discussing, non acting comittee. And it sounds still as if it would work slowly. Good for the serious/ discussable cases.
But I believe an improvement is needed regarding the clear cases, multis & teamatacks especially. Those are probably 90% of the cases, and fast action would be really meaningful.
2 weeks after a race, there is nothing to do vs a teamattack.

Im not saying every teamattack should be "corrected" right away. Sometimes they dont make a difference... But having some kin of game-moderators around would be nice. Even if they cannot be present at 100% of the infringements...

If its all about mid-term discusions, advice, and giving the final clic to buhmann, i dont see a big difference with the current situation, and imo it's really not good enough if you guys stick to this goal.

[Robyklebt]

Then make a proposal on how it should work....

But even in clear cases like AVC for example is one, it would already be an improvement. We would at least know if there is a internal thread about it, right now we don't know even that. If there isn't one, we can insult the FC members, if there is one, we have to insult Buh. With the new system we would know if there is a thread. And yes, everyting, like the whole game anyway, hangs on Buhmann. If he doesn't click on the right buttons, nothing happens. With this system too. If you want another one.... go on with the proposal. In what situations should who have the power to do what?