Abolish the Fairness rule.

[Cerro Torre RT]

Don't think this is just a protest, I mean that honestly, for all fields and races.

Like it is dealed with nowadays, this rule just does not make sence anymore. Explanation in several points:

1. The splitted team attack: Rule says to attack with 4 in one km is forbidden. But it is allowed to attack with 2 riders each on following km. So in the end, there are 4 in the group. Is there something you can do against it: Yes. You have to chase each and every group immidiatly, no madder what it consists of. This is no reaction, it is prevention. Is there a difference if the rule wouldn't exist ? No. Then you have to make tempo no madder if there is a group or not. Exactly the same for the group and the teams in the field. So the rule does not change anything.

2. 200k for a teamattack while keeping the win. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=940 So it is allowed to win a race with a teamattack by only paying 200k. So tactical advantages can be bought.

3. Is there a difference in a group of 9 or 4 riders of one team? No, the race is destroyed anyway. So again, the rule does not change anything.

In conclusion we have to state that this rule was overcome through the developement of RSF. It just makes nothing more than a formal difference. It can be seem right now to be similar as the Anti-Doping-Declaration the UCI (or ASO) forced the riders to sign. Juristical null and void. With no important impact to the races. On the other side, it causes us the following disadvantages:
- scroll down and make the hoke on every sign-in to a race (2 seconds, wear of mouse wheel)
- neverending discussions in the races and in the forum
- some bytes of storage space on the server
Every of those disadvantages alone is to much to take for a rule that does not have an impact to the races. So abolish it. Save our time, money and nerves.

[team fl]

ad 1)

In general, I agree with you, Cerro. There is only one thing: Some teams haven't any idea about cycling. So, for them, RSF is just another game, bits and bytes with rules that set limits to the technical given possibilities in a browser game. But I think also this point can be ignored when they learn about it during the races. Thus, I would abolish the rules like you propose but provide some guidelines about cycling in general. Tactical tipps if you want to call it like that.

ad 2)

I think after the discussion in the NM Germany fairness thread, Buhmann will do something like that. Highly recommendable to overthink consequences for the breaking remaining rules and set some standards for the sanctioning process.

ad 3) see ad 1)

[Buhmann]

We integrate tese rules because we had some teams, which (as fl said) are not really interested in cycling. So they played a arcadegame, not a simulation what RSF should be. Abolish the rules will means more acade races.

[Cerro Torre RT]

Why should there be more Arcade Races if with or without the rule attacks with equal results are permitted? (Like I read it you didn't question that)

[team fl]

Why should there be more Arcade Races if with or without the rule attacks with equal results are permitted? (Like I read it you didn't question that)

Because there are probably more gamers that will try without the rules. And 4 riders in a group by a splitted team attack is not the same situation like 9 riders from the same team attacking at the same km. Just imagine what chaos would happen if everybody would be allowed to do that by the rules. Now, there is still time to react because you would need at least 3 km to have 5 riders in a group, according to the rules. Without it, you only need 1 km for 9 riders without any reaction time for the peloton (except tempo in advance). And these attacks will be done exactly by the teams that don't know cycling very well or are too over-ambitious, etc.

[Cerro Torre RT]

9 riders and 4 riders is no real difference. It destroys the whole stage or at least the first part of it (maybe even a whole tour). The other riders of the group are robbed their chances, the favourite that normally gets very few help against those groups probably looses the stage because of that. 9 just rises the chances a bit that he will, 4 strong riders have a quite similar impact.
And for 4 riders, you have no possibility to react.

[team fl]

Ok, I try to visualise it

First to say that it always depends on the race situation if such an attack is really dangerous. But this is just very simplified

1. with the rules:

km 1:
team xy blocks

km 2:
team xy blocks

km 3:
Team FL attacks with 2 riders
several other attacks

-> time for teams in the peloton to react.

km 4:
Team FL attacks with 2 riders

-> time for teams in the peloton to react.

2.1 without the rules: moderate version

km 1:
team xy blocks

km 2:
team xy blocks

km 3:
Team FL attacks with 4 riders
several other attacks

-> time for teams in the peloton to react

km 4:

...

2.2 without the rules: chaos version

km 1:
team xy blocks

km 2:
team xy blocks

km 3:
Team FL attacks with 9 riders
several other attacks with more than 2 or even 9 riders

-> time for teams in the peloton to react

km 4:

...


I see a clear difference in the situation with rules compared with the two situations without the rules, even if it is only like 2.1

Nevertheless, as I already stated, I am for your proposition to abolish the rules, IF there is a tactical GUIDELINE or sth. similar new members HAVE TO READ.

[Buhmann]

Only option i see: Abolish the fairness rule, but avoid more stupid action by the programm. Means. Attack with 9 riders per km is not possible.
But we will ever have rules like "You have to ride your own race" and so on.

[Cerro Torre RT]

Ok, I try to visualise it

First to say that it always depends on the race situation if such an attack is really dangerous. But this is just very simplified

1. with the rules:

km 1:
team xy blocks

km 2:
team xy blocks

km 3:
Team FL attacks with 2 riders
several other attacks

-> time for teams in the peloton to react.

km 4:
Team FL attacks with 2 riders

-> time for teams in the peloton to react.

2.1 without the rules: moderate version

km 1:
team xy blocks

km 2:
team xy blocks

km 3:
Team FL attacks with 4 riders
several other attacks

-> time for teams in the peloton to react

km 4:

...

And exactly there I see no difference. Why? Because normally you want to let a group go. So you don't chase immidiatly. The group at km 3 is all right with you, you want to let it go. But you attack with 2 more on the next km. So the situation of 1. after 4 km is exactly the same as in 2.1 after 3 km. What you call "reaction" has nothing to do with that, because that would mean to just chase any group immediatly. So it is prevention, not reaction. So if I do tempo in case 1. at km4 or in 2. at km3 is no real difference. Prevention both, and one would have to do it the whole race.
2.2 you may discuss about it, what I say is 4 strong riders and 9 riders both really hurt the race in a quite similar way. The difference is much smaller than it seems at the first view.

Technical restrictions would be a siutable solution to prevent case 2.2, but probably won't solve the the stated problem of the similarity of those cases 1. and 2.1 as I don't think that will be included.

[team fl]

matter of perspective. for me, there is a difference, also according my experience. for you, there is no difference.. hmm... hard to discuss this. so I stop here and the fact reamains, that we don't agree.

[Buhmann]

We tried it without the fairnessrules and it did not work. So the experience says: Yes, there is a big difference.

[Luna]

Once there was the thought about "yellow tempo". A sort of Tempo that doesn't cost huge amounts of energy, just controlling the peloton. But as soon as anybody attacks the yellow tempo automatically switches to green or blue tempo in order to keep the gap to the attackers smaller and easier to chase down if their is a monster group constructin going on the road. Then the managers who don't like that move still have the possibility to eliminate that move. That could be kind of solution to that. Then nobody has to make yellow or blue tempo for the whole race only to prevent those actions. Just keep somebody with cheap "yellow tempo" at the head of the peloton and things are easier to control.

[NoPikouze]

You're only talking about attacks in the begin of the race, though.

When you want to attack in a later point of the race, abolishing the rule will actually make a big difference. Usually when you attack with 2 at, let's say 30 km of the finish, you cant send 2 others in the next km since the peloton will react. If you can attack with 4-5 guys in one km... very important change!

[Cerro Torre RT]

you are allowed to do allready on any km that is 4 or higher. within the last 20 with 2 guys hanging and 2 attacking. Within last 10 without regulations. Again the step is not that big.

[deuseburger]

if its not a big step (though i claim it is...) why having a change? if the rule (as you claim) does not change anything (i claim it does) and has no important impact on the race, why change it? the only reason according to you would be to get rid of

the following disadvantages:
- scroll down and make the hoke on every sign-in to a race (2 seconds, wear of mouse wheel)
- neverending discussions in the races and in the forum
- some bytes of storage space on the server

cant be serious...

[Luna]

Confusion of the users would be different without the rules, in races as well as outside the races in the forum, in the fairness area, no discussions about higher or lower punishments etc pp.

[Luna]

After reading Radunion questioning rule no. 3 in Aux' fairness thread i started thinking, too, why we need that rule. It's such an complicated monster. It regularly leads to confusion and discord. Each time there are more than 2 riders in an attacking group the users have to start a discussion about if it was allowed or not.
Just throw away that rule! We don't need it. Then it would be allowed to directly attack with a maximum of two (plus rule no. 2), and what happens in addition to that doesn't matter. If riders follow the wheels of other followers then be it so.
Furthermore there are indeed many situation where it's absolute nonsens to disallow following wheels with more than 2 riders (protecting a lead in several classifications for example, being forced to shadow 3 or 5 riders in the run-in to an intermediate sprint or so).
It could be so easy without rule no. 3. Everybody immediately would know if a move is legitimate or not.

[auxilium torino]

i think that rule number 3 is only to prevent that 2 or more teams get according with a big chained team attack...
and, at this moment i don´t want abolished, to we have a solution for this

[Luna]

i think that rule number 3 is only to prevent that 2 or more teams get according with a big chained team attack...

That's true. But "unrealistic arrangements" are forbidden anyway, with or with out rule no. 3

We could add that it's forbidden to follow the same wheel with mor than 2 riders.

[Zentaron]

i think that rule number 3 is only to prevent that 2 or more teams get according with a big chained team attack...

That's true. But "unrealistic arrangements" are forbidden anyway, with or with out rule no. 3

We could add that it's forbidden to follow the same wheel with mor than 2 riders.

Not the same wheel, the same team!

[auxilium torino]

that´s unrealistic arrangment are vorbidden, we know this, but you cannot vorbidden to follow the same team...

[Radunion]

I also think that limitations in the following of riders would be a better solution. I would suggest that you cannot follow a rider with more than 1 rider of you team. I do not think that limiting the riders you can follow of a single other team is a good idea. Sometimes it could be a good idea to shadow more riders of a very strong team, without being unfair.