Jump to content


Photo

Future of the MT


  • Please log in to reply
394 replies to this topic

#1 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • NASF Committee
  • 861 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 18 February 2018 - 06:30 PM

I am opening a separate topic to further discuss the idea I brought up in the Draw Refusals thread. Namely, I believe that there needs to be more transparency in the MT's actions and deciding who is on the Moderation Team in the first place. Being a moderator is a thankless job, but a committee that is insular and does not adapt will grow ineffective. It seems that a number of players are dissatisfied with some of the current actions of the MT, so it is worthwhile to discuss possible improvements.

 

I propose that:

 

The MT be a 5 person committee

There must be an American, Dutch and Greek member. The other two spots should have no country restrictions

Any person is eligible to join the MT provided that they complete the alias register

Each term is one year

Elections should be every 6 months, with half of the team getting re-elected each time

No term limits, a player may continue to be a moderator as long as there is public support

Voting should be an open poll, any player is eligible to vote if they complete the alias register (to prevent ballot stuffing) and have been a forum member for 6 months

All voting on draw refusal and abusive behavior is made public.

 

Thoughts, additions and/or criticisms?


Edited by malcom.jansen, 18 February 2018 - 07:34 PM.

  • don mitsos likes this
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#2 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,741 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 18 February 2018 - 07:07 PM

Thank you for starting this discussion. For my point of view one very important condition is to be volunteering for this task and have the necessary availability. I suggest this conditions to be added to your proposal above.

 

For your information MT has not received any announcement of any dissatisfaction. Some people called us names and were unhappy with some decisions and that is always likely to happen, if you look at the whole history of verdicts there are plenty of cases where a punished player was unhappy with the verdict ... this is "normal life" for MT. Those decisions have always been made according to the rules (or shall be ... if not you are welcome to describe what and when something has been decided not according to the rules), and if something is dissatisfactory in the rules let's talk about it in an open and constructive way.


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#3 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 701 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 18 February 2018 - 07:08 PM

Ok here is my announcement of dissatisfaction and you know exactly why.

 

 

Morx

 

To add from the other thread and show my support to Malcom on this subject:

 

"Maybe the position of moderator should be an elected one with a set term. Having the committee change or be re-approved from time to time might be best for everyone."

 

What I like in this thought is the best for  everyone part. At the moment the method chosen to create the team seems to result in get more of the same. I also like the re-approve part. Right now the team seems to operate strickly by the book on some of the policies, but clearly not on all.

 

When these things are put in the open they are laughed away or simply ignored or the person questioning them is not taken serious. To have the respect from all the players that is not the best way to run things.


  • Nortrom likes this

#4 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • NASF Committee
  • 861 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 18 February 2018 - 07:13 PM

I have stated previously in the topics of abusive behavior that I feel their is disparity in how punishments are enforced.

 

Maybe people are generally satisfied. In that case, the current MT would not have a problem being re-elected. Right now, the MT is not accountable to the player base. Even if the majority feels you guys are doing a good job, this is something that should change.


  • Morx likes this
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#5 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,515 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 February 2018 - 07:29 PM

For your information MT has not received any announcement of any dissatisfaction. 

I actually considered starting a no-confidence motion to relieve the current dysfunctional Magic Team from duty (which isn't being carried out anyway). Everyone that has his/her eyes open can see that the current MT has no business staying.

 

1. Still nothing about enforcement of ISF rules (oct 2017).

2. Site policies being randomly enforced (multiple occasions).

3. Favoritism.

4. Editing of posts, overruled by MT, refusing to restore post to its original state.

5. Still no improvements of draw refusal terms/rules.

6. No action / search being done upon certain players that are suspected to be using unfair practices in order to gain ranking.

7. High level of inconsistency (e.g. : mods liking a post that later is taken down by their colleagues ).

 

If I put some more effort into it, I could probably make it a 15 point list, but just quick and short summary should give one a good indication.


  • Morx and TemplateRex like this
"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

#6 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 854 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 18 February 2018 - 07:54 PM

My thoughts are that Malcom has a nice idea. Democratic voting is not a bad idea. However some reactions are pretty radicale. I believe the MT does their best for the community and stratego in general. I think everyone with half a brain can see this. Mistakes are sometimes being made but a new mt will probably make no difference, everyone makes mistakes. 


  • DarthRemark likes this

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#7 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 701 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 18 February 2018 - 07:57 PM

One of the mistakes is not giving you a ban/warning/punishment for clear violation of some of the site policies.

 

@MT if you like I can send you a case about this?

Oh no I already know you will not do anything with that.

 

Morx



#8 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 February 2018 - 09:00 PM

As a former MT member and someone with experience running an online Stratego club I feel comfortable saying the current arrangement is pretty good all things considered.  I don't think a lot of folks realize how many hours are required to be effective on the MT.  That we have some as dedicated as we do is really incredible.  No, they're not perfect.  They're unpaid volunteers giving a best effort. 
 
Stratego.com isn't a democracy or club.  It's a commercial website that's owned by someone.  The MT has no power except what's been delegated by the owners because they find their services valuable.  I doubt they'll be inclined to turn their website over to a vote. 
 
And voting is more challenging that you think.  First you have to identify who is eligible to vote.  Then you have to ensure they're unique persons.  Then you have to have recourse if it's not working out for any reason.  Sadistic was a popular fellow (is he still around?).  Imagine an MT with some Sadistics on it.  That's what you're opening yourself up to.  And on top of all of it you have to ensure the website owners will support these things.
 
The best solution is for the MT to take extra steps to address the community concerns.  

  • GaryLShelton, Don_Homer, maxroelofs and 2 others like this

#9 Fairway

Fairway

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,963 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 18 February 2018 - 09:14 PM

 Sadistic was a popular fellow (is he still around?).  Imagine an MT with some Sadistics on it.  .  

God save us all


  • Don_Homer likes this
WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#10 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,515 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 February 2018 - 09:20 PM

 

As a former MT member and someone with experience running an online Stratego club I feel comfortable saying the current arrangement is pretty good all things considered.  I don't think a lot of folks realize how many hours are required to be effective on the MT.  That we have some as dedicated as we do is really incredible.  No, they're not perfect.  They're unpaid volunteers giving a best effort. 
 
 
 
And voting is more challenging that you think.  First you have to identify who is eligible to vote.  Then you have to ensure they're unique persons.  Then you have to have recourse if it's not working out for any reason.  Sadistic was a popular fellow (is he still around?).  Imagine an MT with some Sadistics on it.  That's what you're opening yourself up to.  And on top of all of it you have to ensure the website owners will support these things.
 
The best solution is for the MT to take extra steps to address the community concerns.  

 

As a former Metaforge (head)admin and someone with experience running Stratego related things I feel comfortable saying the current arrangement is absolutely worthless, and this is being friendly. I don't think a lot of folks realize how little effort it requires to build a strong and solid MT. That we have some incompetent, but dedicated is half a blessing. No, they are not completely bad. They're unpaid volunteers hiding behind the fact that they have no admin back-up and definitely do not make any effort making the best out of the situation.
 
A MT with multiple Sadistics would mean lots of arguments, but also people who would be willing to make steps forward, not backwards. I would happily trade 5 Sadistics for the 5 we currently are dealing with.
 
The best solution is for the MT to step down and let a new MT to be formed. The extra steps to address community concerns have not been made and there has been no indication this is subject to change for the past months.

  • texaspete09 likes this
"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

#11 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,741 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 18 February 2018 - 09:40 PM

ok now we have received one (your)  announcement of dissatisfaction. Thank you. Let's talk about it. First of all read my remarks in blue in the quote below. As you would certainly agree, in order to make sure this discussion to be constructive, everything has to be transparent and clear, all questions can be asked and all answers are expected.

 

I actually considered starting a no-confidence motion to relieve the current dysfunctional Magic Team from duty (which isn't being carried out anyway). Everyone that has his/her eyes open can see that the current MT has no business staying.I sincerily hope that the large majority of our forum members appreciate what MT is doing (it would be a real frustration for all of us if it is not) and that we will all find a solution to reduce your personal level of dissatisfaction and make you feel better. All ideas are welcome in that sense. We do not pretend everything is at the top and cannot be changed, there is always room for improvement.  Let's see if this constructive discussion will let emerging some new ideas.

 

1. Still nothing about enforcement of ISF rules (oct 2017). The main role of MT on stratego.com is to handle cases of abusive behaviour, draw refusal and cheating and overall to make sure that stratego fans from around the world find this forum a nice place to share experiences and communicate with other stratego fans. This service is provided on a pure voluntary basis. MT's role is not to implement ISF rules or not (this is role of ISF management in coordination with admins) and MT's role is not to implement changes in the software (this is role of admins and site owners). However MT's role is to support any activity or initiative that is pushing the promotion of stratego forward. MT's role is not to execute the personal desires of a few folks only.

2. Site policies being randomly enforced (multiple occasions). This is a vague personal opinion of you, be factual. When and where and who?

3. Favoritism.This is a very vague personal opinion of you, be factual. When and where and who?

4. Editing of posts, overruled by MT, refusing to restore post to its original state. MT's decisions are made based on rule of majority of MT members, not on requests coming from player X or Y. If player X or Y does not like the decision of MT that can happen. We are not there to make everybody happy but to service this website as described above. Again be factual, if MT has in a case not followed the rule of majority please precise who when and where.

5. Still no improvements of draw refusal terms/rules. Same answer as 1. above, however if you have constructive proposals to improve the rules on draw refusals please explain them. be factual. We welcome constructive proposals.

6. No action / search being done upon certain players that are suspected to be using unfair practices in order to gain ranking. This is not true, if MT agrees at a majority that investigating in more details certain accounts is the right thing to do, then an action for admins is always requested. Again if you have reason to believe MT did not do that, then be factual, who, when and where?

7. High level of inconsistency (e.g. : mods liking a post that later is taken down by their colleagues ). I must smile on that one ... Yes MT is a team but each MT member is free to like or not any post on this forum, there is no obligation of majority for likes ! :)

 

If I put some more effort into it, I could probably make it a 15 point list, but just quick and short summary should give one a good indication.


  • Luckypapa, Don_Homer, tobermoryx and 2 others like this
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#12 Fairway

Fairway

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,963 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 18 February 2018 - 09:44 PM

 

A MT with multiple Sadistics would mean lots of arguments, but also people who would be willing to make steps forward, not backwards. I would happily trade 5 Sadistics for the 5 we currently are dealing with.

 

I hate to disagree but this would transform the site into an intentionally idiotic clown circus and would further chase away those that are left after dealing with the admin's unwillingness to change or improve anything.


  • Napoleon 1er likes this
WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#13 Fairway

Fairway

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,963 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 18 February 2018 - 09:45 PM

ok now we have received one (your)  announcement of dissatisfaction. Thank you. Let's talk about it. First of all read my remarks in blue in the quote below. As you would certainly agree, in order to make sure this discussion to be constructive, everything has to be transparent and clear, all questions can be asked and all answers are expected.

 

I think a majority of the community would like an investigation into spion..., hello124, and their aliases.

 

Do we?


WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#14 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • NASF Committee
  • 861 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 18 February 2018 - 09:50 PM

In response to point 3 raised by Nortrom, Unladen Swallow and KMC were given a permanent ban by the site owners. The MT chooses not to enforce this ban because they are popular within the Stratego community.
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#15 Fks

Fks

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 February 2018 - 09:53 PM

In response to point 3 raised by Nortrom, Unladen Swallow and KMC were given a permanent ban by the site owners. The MT chooses not to enforce this ban because they are popular within the Stratego community.

It is simply not possible where we can go one day of Malcom not mentioning Unladen Swallows ban. :)


  • Fairway likes this
Proud Member of the North American Stratego Federation (NASF)

#16 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • NASF Committee
  • 861 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 18 February 2018 - 10:05 PM

Wasn't my New Year's resolution, maybe next year.

You'd also probably be get annoyed too if a banned player was repeatedly rude to you.
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#17 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,515 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 February 2018 - 10:47 PM

ok now we have received one (your)  announcement of dissatisfaction.

You seem to have trouble counting. I've seen more than 1 complaint about the Malicious Tyrants.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

#18 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 701 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 19 February 2018 - 12:08 AM

Posted 4 hours ago

Ok here is my announcement of dissatisfaction and you know exactly why.

 

 

Morx



#19 rgillis783

rgillis783

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 19 February 2018 - 02:04 AM

As a topic of discussion, bringing in new MT members sounds worthy as a thread. I believe our one and only Queen Bee used to post a lot about this. As I have started to pay more attention to things I would have to side with Darth Remark. The current MT does deal  well with multiple site/game issues in my opinion. The members are fairly responsive to players complaints and only have so much impute on what goes on. I also would add that I am big believer in Democracy but I don't think practicing it here would help. We do need to keep discussion alive and look to improve the current situation Malcom and Nortrom each have interesting points and perspectives.



#20 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,269 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 19 February 2018 - 03:13 AM

One issue i am surprised not to see raised by the dissatisfied is that people are allowed to post about Gravon on here.

 

We had taken some steps towards preventing discussion of Gravon , but it soon became apparent that the people that liked to discuss it were going to continue to do so . At that point we had to consider whether we were prepared to issue warnings  , and ultimately , bans  , to those forum members . But that would involve banning some of the very best players and very best forum contributors .

 

So we decided finally that the 12 or so people that like to talk about their stratego experiences on the other site should not be silenced by just 3 people that had complained about these threads . And also that a site with about 70 players was not seriously a threat to a site with 10,000 .

 

But the Anti Gravon policy does not appear to be in the manifesto of the Alternative MT . Maybe they wait til the votes are counted to reveal it.......

 

Regarding complaints on draw refusal judgements . These usually occur when a 'clear draw' complaint is rejected , or we ask for further evidence .This is necessary for a number of reasons .

 

If we see a case of a game lasting an hour of running around lakes , but no screenshots of tie offers , then for all we know the person bringing the case is actually the draw refusing troll himself , who , being more familiar with the process , decides as a final insult to his opponent  to bring a bogus case for draw refusal against them .

 

When a player shows a screenshot of an 'obvious draw'  ( 2 bomb triangles and no miners ) that the opponent rejected , but then no indication that the game lasted more than a few seconds after that point . The opponent has the right to lotto if they wish , so we'd like to see they were given the opportunity  . They should of course do so immediately . I have had 2 or 3 games when my opponent refused the draw in those circumstances and then proceeded to lotto onto obvious bombs . And one time i played someone about 400 points lower and finished up with the same scenario and rejected the draw myself . I was going to lose a lot of points with a draw anyway and 'the bomb in front of the flag' turned out to be the flag.

 

The other issue usually is when there is no defeat screen . Maybe the draw refuser actually agreed the draw .Maybe he won somehow ( or lost ) so we would like to see evidence of forfeit .

 

Posts get liked and/or hidden etc because it is important that any especially bad post can be hidden just by the first member that sees it ( rather than leave it up 48hrs til everyone votes ) . Individuals have different ideas about what should be hidden .So often something is hidden and then ( after a vote ) is unhidden . I guess the person that did the hiding did not check who did the likes beforehand in that instance mentioned as it did seem rather silly to be honest. 

 

If the Alternative MT sees the investigation of a bunch of accounts that mysteriously rise and fall in the rankings as a priority , and assume nothing is done because the useless MT can't be bothered  , then they will be in for a disappointment when they find their Admin contact has no access to game logs to find out who the accounts play against . And that the higher up people who might have such access are always too busy with what they consider more important matters - developing apps etc - to help out either . Every such request for that kind of info has been rejected for years. 


  • GaryLShelton, Don_Homer, Lonello and 1 other like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users