GAR rules draft

[Duplode]

I have drafted a set of written GAR rules for use in ZakStunts, to hopefully clarify edge cases and give us an unified document to refer to. Here is a link to it. I plan to have it kept as a draft at least until the Z236 deadline, so that you can review it. In the meantime, I will prepare screenshots to illustrate some of the rules. Criticism and suggestions on all aspects of the draft are most welcome.

To begin with, I would highlight the following rules as deserving extra scrutiny:

• Topics recently discussed at the shoutbox: 3.28.1 (airtime on banked roads), 3.55.2 (entry and exit of l/r corks), 3.42.2 (jumping over tunnels), 3.71.1 (jumping over slalom blocks), 3.44.4 (airtime inside pipes).
• Extra rules I am proposing, mostly based on analogies: 3.40.2 (loop exit), 3.44.2 to 3.44.6 (various edge cases involving pipes), 3.4a.1 and 3.4b.1 (extent of the track on crossroads and splits), 3.6d.2 (edge cases involving highway dividers), 3.73.2 (dodging slalom blocks by the outside).

(Don't worry, there aren't hundreds of rules, as the high numbers might suggest; it's just that I have used track element hex codes for indexing.)

[KyLiE]

Great work!  I've read through it and it is certainly a comprehensive list of rules.  I don't think anything needs changing, the most important thing is that the rules are clearly defined.

[Cas]

Very good and thorough analysis of the GAR rules!  It really was necessary to put them down to virtual ink. The thing with GAR rules is that, in the broadest of appreciations, they feel like the most restrictive of all rule sets, while in fact, some things are allowed in GAR that are not allowed in strict OWOOT such as IRC original rules or R4K, so a pipsqueak will normally prefer not to risk it and will assume the most restrictive scenario.

In R4K, we have a vague definition of "GAR". We never manage GAR races, but we allow setting "GAR" as the driving style when you upload a replay for a permanent race, as a way to give the lap the desired value (not the same to have completed a 1:21.05 lap for a track in free-style as in GAR). So we don't really judge GAR replays. On the other hand, if somebody ever posts such replay on the permanent competition, we will have to verify it and use our criteria. This makes me doubt whether we should continue to adhere to Marco's rules (official GAR rules) in such cases (that have not occurred yet) or if we should rather change the name of the racing style in R4K to something like "absolute rules".

[Akoss Poo a.k.a. Zorromeister]

Well, I find the whole description quite unfriendly. It is really like some legislation text... It is very unusual for a competition in which the whole concept is about trusting in each other. I guess you have completely forgotten The Most Important Rule http://zak.stunts.hu/rules/2021 : Enjoy racing!

Thus, I really miss first of all, what is GAR racing, what does this acronym mean at all, why is it good to race this way, why it is enjoyable, how and why do we trust in each other (=no replay handling, no pause at all without video recording of the drive). A call for r@cers to drive GAR style.

I would also add a section with the history of GAR, starting from Pershing II's ISA (he just wasn't good at finding shortcuts and started his own competition with his rules), then Mingva's and Alain's IRC. Maybe Juank23's insistence on no-RH driving, Alain's multi-lap live competitions could also be mentioned.

Maybe briefly highlighting the most debatable rules in a table should also be shown, in comparison with ISA and IRC rules (rows: e.g. cutting a corkscrew, jumping over tunnel roofs, pushing the pause button, jumping over slalom blocks etc., columns: ISA, IRC, GAR).

[Daniel3D]

Well, I find the whole description quite unfriendly. It is really like some legislation text... It is very unusual for a competition in which the whole concept is about trusting in each other. I guess you have completely forgotten The Most Important Rule http://zak.stunts.hu/rules/2021 : Enjoy racing!

I personally was a bit disappointed in learning about the rules Marco created for the GAR [watched his explanation on YouTube]. They feel quite strict and I do not enjoy racing it. (Although I'm better at it than freestyle)

I usually just start driving and follow the road, always the easiest way. Left right corkscrew I cut, loopings I follow. Long pipes upside down.
Just whatever I like. I don't really care about the time. That's fine with me.

Gar is very strict, easy to mess up and that raises questions. This ruleset gives all the answers. The tone doesn't bother me because it already matches how I feel about it. It's fitting for gentleman, kind of business like.

[Cas]

Uhm... I don't really have a problem with the strictness of GAR. I like participating both in very free and very strict racing formats. I'm a little more concerned with consistency. Of course, some people don't like one rule set as much as the other, but that's personal preference. It's great that there's something for everybody. In my opinion, writing down the rules does not mean every pipsqueak will have to read through all that to be able to participate. The rules are initially presented in their simpler way, like Marco did, but it's good that there be a well defined "book" to go to in case of doubt. Otherwise, lots of confusion can occur. Seeing it that way, I am very happy with this.

My only little discomfort comes from things like having to be careful to avoid little speed-ups and even apologise if they happen, but then being allowed to overfly a slalom block or a tunnel. And yet, I admit this is also personal preference, because when I participate in a tournament, the organiser sets the rules and I respect them, but yeah, I like to have a voice.

[dreadnaut]

I share in part the feeling that Akoss describe: the rules are not particularly friendly. In defence of Duplode's detailed work, I would point out that GAR itself is not actually friendly, and rules are always quite dry to read.

I would assume that the document is meant as a reference, rather than as promotional material. Looking at it from that perspective I would say:

- A minimal introduction, maybe just a link to the wiki, would go a long way to ease readers into the document.
- Paragraphs numbered after the hex value of track tiles bring home tons of nerd-points, but it's difficult to understand how many rules are actually there! Have I really scrolled through 75 paragraphs?

The GAR driving rules aim at approximating a realistic racing experience

- Is that the actual aim? Sounds a bit like a later rationalisation


Overall, I'm not particularly attracted by GAR racing, although completing a lap can be an interesting challenge. I find it a brittle construction of principles, aiming at some vague ideal that cannot be reached. Because it cannot be reached, it reaches into "gentlemanship" to shore up its foundations. But gentlemanship cannot be reached either, and so it requires very detailed and narrow rules, which guarantee heated discussions. Which altogether decrease the fun factor.

I'm now tempted to start a scoreboard based on a single rule: the grass is lava

[Daniel3D]

I'm now tempted to start a scoreboard based on a single rule: the grass is lava

Now, that is a rule set I can live with. 
I'm in.

[Cas]

Ha, ha... I once suggested somewhere a rule set in which the only thing you can't do is have the car completely standing on grass, but you can overfly whatever you want and even take shortcuts as long as you are not completely on the grass at any point. I think that would classify as the "most free, free OWOOT" (I felt "freeest" probably wasn't a word ).

[Duplode]

Useful feedback and interesting discussion!

I really like Akoss' suggestion of a friendlier introduction, and will prepare one over the next few days. History and rule comparison sections are also good ideas, though some of that might be better housed at the Wiki (in that case, we could link to the Wiki articles from the introduction, as dreadnaut has noted).

The legalistic character of the text is rather unfortunate indeed, but I find it hard to avoid if we're going for precision and comprehensiveness. Once ambiguities become enough of an issue to call for going beyond informal specifications, I think it's better to err on the side of punctiliousness. Besides that, the detailed rules are  primarily meant as a reference, as dreadnaut and Cas note. Introducing GAR to pipsqueaks will ideally be done by other means, such as Marco's video explainer and the newbie guide (which has a paragraph about GAR since the beginning of this season), as well as the soon-to-be-expanded introduction to the rules.

I indexed the rules in section 3 with hex codes merely to avoid having to renumber them in case we ever need to add or remove a subsection. In any case, doing so is indeed inessential, and I'll get rid of that.


A few words on how I make sense of GAR. I enjoy NoRH without shortcuts, and as far as no-shortcuts racing goes I believe having to follow the yellow line makes for a more interesting challenge. Beyond that, I find GAR's extra strictness in forbidding most small tricks reasonable, as it stops such small tricks from deciding a race. Having to care about doing small tricks in a setting in which bigger ones are forbidden feels off. In addition, many of those small tricks are very annoying to pull off without RH.

(It is worth noting that, given the point of view I have stated above, I do sympathise with Cas' unease at GAR not going all the way in terms of strictness. "Nothing is allowed" makes for a much simpler mental model of the rules. Still, I find it hard to shake off the impression that some things come about too naturally to be worth banning, banked road hops being the clearest example. I feel that also applies to jumps over slalom blocks; jumps over tunnels are a less clear-cut case.)

[Duplode]

I have added an introduction along the lines of what Akoss had suggested to the draft. Let me know what you think of it

[Cas]

I like the introduction. As I've mentioned before, I think GAR is really difficult to analyse since its original concept only refers to the NoRH rule and the rest is only defined by extension. Therefore, your work is arguably the best that can be done in an attempt to re-conceptualise it. I couldn't have done it half as well!

[KyLiE]

I've just read the introduction and I think it sounds good!

[alanrotoi]

Wow! The first mention of a "Gentlemen Agreement" for noRH replays was in January 2002 by Bismarck!

It was in a topic about "Permanent Competition":

Such a list for the Standard-Tracks is a good Idea. But I think there should be a Separation between times with Replay-Handling and without. But i know, that it?s impossible to control, there should be a kind of "Gentlemen Agreement".
<i>Edited by: DukeBismarck   at: 1/18/02 11:09:30 am
</i>