Herr Otto Partz says you're all nothing but pipsqueaks!

Main Menu

ISM 2009: What do you think about the management?

Started by Mark L. Rivers, January 29, 2009, 04:03:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ISM 2009: What do you think about the management?

5 - High
1 - Low

Mark L. Rivers


First explain please what do you exactly mean under management...

Site design: great, I like the ordering and the colors too. Menu is absolutely logical. Maybe a PHP site would be better with replay uploading option (like at Zak), but I think I'm the last person on Earth to criticize it... :D
News content: long quality comments about replays, possible future answers from rivals, etc. Maybe a little bit too much compliments for the pipsqueaks - if you use superlatives too often, it won't have a real value. Updates are frequent and well detailed.
Site stuff: analysis section is a good idea; while rules are easy to understand in that interpretation.
Tracks: the usual high standards, closer to my taste than in the late SDR/ISM 2008 era.
Car choice: the weakest point of the competition. Despite of the fact I hate Indy, I think it should have been placed in the main round instead of qualification. Speedgate is okay - the manager's creation, it fits. But if we have that car, IMSA gets a bit useless (even if I like it very much). Maybe Ferrari/Countach could be a better choice. Audi is reasonable.
Evaluation system: qualification bonuses were a bit unfamiliar for me, current bonuses seem to be a lot better.

Overall: hmmm... quite a good competition only with small imperfections. I'm hesitating: if I say ZakStunts 2003-2006 is the ethalon, I have to give 4. If I compare the current championships then it's a weak 5.

Let's say 4 this time.


Daily updates and comments = good implication of the manager. I remember the time I spent doing this for WRC Stunts and IMSA Cup, I could not do it again now. Nice job Mark, but it also explains why this can't be a yearly competition.


Great management, I vote 5. Live deadline update would be cool though...
But we can't be quite sure.