Jump to content


Photo

Future of the MT


  • Please log in to reply
394 replies to this topic

#321 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 707 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 10 March 2018 - 12:59 AM

@MTKinsley: are you familiar with the Rule book of free associations and the Woodstock procedure?

 

No seriously, some of the examples are from cases that are currently outstanding.

 

Others are from cases that have been reported, but not yet opened despite being in the queue for quite some time. One of those is Morx vs Lonello #1.

 

I might give my thoughts when I have access to a real computer.



#322 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,577 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 10 March 2018 - 02:18 AM

Yes, he has clarified his position. I asked him to rectify the dirty crimes as it heavily implies using dishonest tactics in order to gain advantages. As a 4 times live WC and 10 times Dutch champion, I do not wish to be associated with any "dirty tactics". It's like accusing a winner of the tour de france of doping. 
 
I also asked him to rectify another libelous comment
"First you harass our Greek MT-member last week up to the point he even resigns, for so much as opening an PM thread discussing some fun in ALTERNATIVE PLAYING OPTIONS. After all that abuse we had to talk like Brugman, as the Dutch call that, to keep him in MT. While the young man has just been appointed!" http://forum.strateg...he-mt/?p=447094
 
This statement holds exactly 0% truth regarding the things I am accused of here. Again, no rectification. 
 
-
 
To your comments:
1. He directly addresses me by naming it "Nortrom's crimes"
2. By addressing me together with "misdeeds", he makes it appear that I was involved in those "misdeeds". I don't care whether it's a law/rule broken or not. It's like saying "well, you laughed at a hungry homeless man but its not against the law!"
 
3. Yes. I have offered my help, so far it has not been accepted. In fact I'd like to inform you that 6 months ago, after discussion on the forum about the pros and cons, I held a poll (24 : 1 in favor) whether ISF anti-multiple chasing should be enforced. Now I believe it was question 9 of this abomination called "Survey" that asked the same question, again. I also like to mention that in a PM with the MT about this topic, after several weeks I gave up on them. There is either a clear lack of will or just plain incompetence.
 
4. As for "delivering to MT" I delivered them some things to think about: http://forum.strateg...he-mt/?p=448735 which thus far has not been acknowledged (yet).
 
5. Incorrect. He says I can not be burdened with more than one tourney as volunteering work, whether I am currently involved with one (WCO) or multiple activities does not matter (and I am involved in more, so even then, it still is an incorrect and hurtful statement, essentially discreditting my effort and making it look like I am not willing to help out). You can call it a hyperbole if that makes lonello sleep better.
 
6. No idea. I don't know of any pictures removed or not. If so, I was not informed and I don't feel like checking all my posts to try to find the missing picture.
 
7. Lonello says "with as only goal to keep this an unbiased and impartial forum which goal we have clear knowledge of the opposing party has not."
- MT / Admin goal: Unbiased and impartial forum
- "Opposing party goal": Not unbiased or/and impartial forum
As per usual, no facts are presented to backup this claim. Since "Clear knowledge" is mentioned, it would be interesting to see this "clear knowledge", preferably with atleast one factual statement.
 
8. I never implied that he claimed I posted pornographic material on the forum. Empty statement. 
 
9. He says that the new MT (which I would be part of in his doom scenario) , this new MT (not even regular members, thus preferential treatment) would be allowed to:
- Swear
- Post pornographic material
- Post vulgarity
 
Again, you can call it a hyperbole. I prefer to look at what's actually being said.
 
 
 
Spoiler

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#323 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 707 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 11 March 2018 - 12:41 PM

@MTTinsley:

"The MT and administrators already, I believe, reached a similar verdict internally after an admin review, and Lonello could not vote on those cases."

 

We have not seen any published results of any form of admin review including evidence and a documented set of decisions/rulings. Just noise about it from MT.

 

Important note for all readers: It does not matter if Lonello could not vote about this, if he already obstructed the process of fair trial by making all sorts of claims of a conspiracy by unhappy users to Admin, as was admitted in an earlier post by MT.



#324 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • NASF Committee
  • 868 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 12 March 2018 - 05:51 AM

You know perfectly well what the status is. The case for your serious warmongering harassment remains open under constant review, or as my colleague said earlier, you remain under close scrutiny (and ofcourse we do not accept farce cases from you). If/when MT comes to a verdict we're sure to let that know but we will be monitoring this for a while to come yet. I have not been reading your posts for weeks now but you have been properly answered by my colleagues, and now hopefully you have accepted Darth's perfect solution: http://forum.strateg...-15#entry448622.
Since it's the right thing to do morally I have accepted that and I trust you have too so then all is fine. If you reject it, you again expose that peace is not your goal and your positions can not be defended for they have sincerity level zero.


You are just throwing fuel on the fire with every post like this.

Regardless of the merits of Morx's and Nortrom's posts, you have handled this situation poorly. I'd have a lot more respect for you if you owned that you have made mistakes and contributed to the ongoing forum drama. Making snide posts with veiled threats directed at the players whom you are telling to move on just makes you look petty.
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#325 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 707 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 12 March 2018 - 02:33 PM

Please open the following case:

 

Morx vs (Major Nelson, tobermoryx, GaryLShelton, Napoleon 1er) #1

 

Case description:

Derelict of duty, refusal to act in line with site policy rule 1.5

 

"Each case that is brought before the MT in a public post will receive a careful review of the evidence"

"All such complaints and the accompanying evidence must be made in the correct public forum"

 

This refers to your apparent refusal to open the following cases involving a fellow member of MT:

 

Morx vs Lonello #1 (intentionally spreading lies)

Morx vs Lonello #2 (Abuse in Forum - posting parts of private PM)

 

@Lonello) : I do not consider your post from earlier today as a status update because you are the accused in both cases.

 

In line with 1.3 of the site policy: I would like to have no MT members involved in the handling of this case.

In line with 1.2 of the site policy : there are no 3 impartial judges for this "However, three will be the minimum to judge all cases less than a permanent ban or permanent forum ban"

 

 

This means this case should be handled by Admins.

 

Note that if Napoleon 1er is not part of the underlying chat or voting in the MT private threads, he can take his name of the list of accused. He has resigned, but he still has his green leaving this unclear for me.

 

If the mentioned cases are opened by one of the other members of MT (Not Lonello) within the next 24 hours, you can disregard this case.

 

Kind regards,

Morx



#326 Major Nelson

Major Nelson

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,188 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 12 March 2018 - 03:27 PM

Please open the following case:

 

Morx vs (Major Nelson, tobermoryx, GaryLShelton, Napoleon 1er) #1

 

Case description:

Derelict of duty, refusal to act in line with site policy rule 1.5

 

"Each case that is brought before the MT in a public post will receive a careful review of the evidence"

"All such complaints and the accompanying evidence must be made in the correct public forum"

 

This refers to your apparent refusal to open the following cases involving a fellow member of MT:

 

Morx vs Lonello #1

Morx vs Lonello #2

 

@Lonello) : I do not consider your post from earlier today as a status update because you are the accused in both cases.

 

In line with 1.3 of the site policy: I would like to have no MT members involved in the handling of this case.

In line with 1.2 of the site policy : there are no 3 impartial judges for this "However, three will be the minimum to judge all cases less than a permanent ban or permanent forum ban"

 

 

This means this case should be handled by Admins.

 

Note that if Napoleon 1er is not part of the underlying chat or voting in the MT private threads, he can take his name of the list of accused. He has resigned, but he still has his green leaving this unclear for me.

 

If the mentioned cases are opened by one of the other members of MT (Not Lonello) within the next 24 hours, you can disregarding this case.

 

Kind regards,

Morx

28833232_1976458685951253_739198473_n.pn

 

I suppose if I answer something similar to you and a few others around here who for an unbelievably noticeable period have been writing completely pointless posts that drive the overwhelming majority of this forum's users nuts, it would be considered "unprofessional" behaviour by a staff member.


Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is.

#327 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 707 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 12 March 2018 - 03:56 PM

@Major Nelson

 

I think that this was part of the actual handling in a PM of a case in PM by the WCO team after x attempts to try resolve getting a game played.

 

From what I see you are taking the words out of context a bit. The 2nd sentence explained my anger there:

 

"You are pushing this bullshit to the max. We asked you a question and you were avoiding this for a few days."

 

 

Spoiler

 

This specific dispute handling was  put online for transparency reasons and to show how we handled this very complex WCO dispute and because one of the parties involved was quoting only parts of it on the public forum and not in the correct timeline.

 

I agree with your comment on the language, it was only intended for the person that was seemed to actively sabotage our dispute handling process by not answering questions.

 

Important note: WCO team did work on this dispute  and handled it in line with our procedures as impartial judges.

 

I would ask MT to do the same with the cases I want to open.



#328 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,298 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 12 March 2018 - 04:14 PM

I won't have time to look back at things til tomorrow , but it seems to me the 'new cases' are simply rehashes of previous ones and so would not lead to any more cases being opened.

'Lonello said this and it is wrong '

'Lonello took my words and repeated them without clarification '

These things were matters of different opinions and subject to different interpretations , so we decided no case.

As for Admin reviewing things , it is quite unlikely.

Indeed this is precisely why we have MT as it is now. The people running the company simply do not have time to be looking at cases and they have no plans to employ people on their staff to do so.

We did ask admin to look at the complaints about us and our contact told us they simply did not have time to read it all at that point but had glanced through some of it.
  • Lonello likes this

#329 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,226 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 12 March 2018 - 04:16 PM

Yes, completely.

 

And about WCO tournament, I didn't expect this to be brought up again, but yes, in the case against Aris (the nr. 1 for WCO at the time) WCO team showed just utter and complete bias, that is for sure. They expected the decision would cause controversies so Nortrom asked us, MT, directly in PM not to react at all publicly.

We complied (I for one did 'like' roeczak who again had the best solution of all by the way) but none of us said something. Then all of a sudden TC did comment, a lot, as they joined WCO team in their decision their WCO counterpart was to have the game won without it having it played... and that was just that.

OK, so this piece is exposed a bit too now. Just to show MT is impartial here but there is indeed a lot of bias going around this forum. Now, let us not filth this topic anymore but please have GENUINE cases here.


Lo

#330 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,577 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 12 March 2018 - 05:46 PM

Not sure if Tober is responding to Morx's cases only or also mine, but at any rate, your logic is flawed. 
 
"but it seems to me the 'new cases' are simply rehashes of previous ones and so would not lead to any more cases being opened.
 
Interesting to look at it like that, I suppose you'd have a point, if, the cases were about the same statements. New libelous statements = new cases.

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#331 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,577 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 12 March 2018 - 06:28 PM

@ lonello, am I right that you feel the Aris - KARAISKAKIS game was handled unfairly by the WCO team(represented by Morx and myself)?
 
"They expected the decision would cause controversies so Nortrom asked us, MT, directly in PM not to react at all publicly."
 
Mznw2iQ.png
 
My request was very simple: Aris is posting PM's, which is considered against the site rules, but we have no objection to transparency. MT's opinion on this WCO matter would not have been taken into account anyway. (individual members, sure, but MT as a body, no) Most interesting that you, once again, try to twist this around. The screenshot from my text should suffice to sort your propaganda out. I did not ask MT(members) not to react (as in posting / taking positions) only to NOT interfere by removing PM related posts.

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#332 Aris1970

Aris1970

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,703 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 12 March 2018 - 06:50 PM

Nortrom

 

Posted 18 January 2018 - 12:44 AM

To the greek community (and others),

 

The WCO team is more than willing to share the match arrangement thread between Aris1970 and KARAISKAKIS, aswell as the CZ chat. We trust Aris1970 has no objection to this (please confirm, Aris) as we do like transparency in cases like this.

 

WCO team



#333 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,226 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 12 March 2018 - 07:09 PM

Yes, well, Aris, did KARAISKAKIS made the first mess up? Sure, but you did the next moves wrong, imho. Still, ofcourse there was a lot of bias involved. If they had presented themselves as anything impartial, while MT was couffed, they would have called:

YES Aris obstructed.
YES Aris should be penalized (with f.e. a yellow card or more serious sorts for AFTER the tourney).
but NO they shouldn't have given this a direct win to their fellow teammate KARAISKAKIS, but simply followed roeczak's lead there to have the game played, actually.

You made every attempt after this affair to have the game played simply, but WCO called for their rulesfetishism and gave the win to their own peers. It was just embarassing to watch but MT was couffed and we let it go, as we promised.

 

Again, this is not the topic for such though so if you wish to discuss these things, best to open a thread for it.


  • Aris1970 likes this
Lo

#334 Aris1970

Aris1970

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,703 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 12 March 2018 - 07:35 PM

@Major Nelson

 

I think that this was part of the actual handling in a PM of a case in PM by the WCO team after x attempts to try resolve getting a game played.

 

From what I see you are taking the words out of context a bit. The 2nd sentence explained my anger there:

 

"You are pushing this bullshit to the max. We asked you a question and you were avoiding this for a few days."

 

 

Spoiler

 

This specific dispute handling was  put online for transparency reasons and to show how we handled this very complex WCO dispute and because one of the parties involved was quoting only parts of it on the public forum and not in the correct timeline.

 

I agree with your comment on the language, it was only intended for the person that was seemed to actively sabotage our dispute handling process by not answering questions.

 

Important note: WCO team did work on this dispute  and handled it in line with our procedures as impartial judges.

 

I would ask MT to do the same with the cases I want to open.

 

@Morx

you have deliberately hidden 3 words ;)



#335 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 707 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 12 March 2018 - 07:52 PM

@Aris, in the first version of the message I probably said "Not so kind regards? "

 

Is that what you mean? I rectified that after, because it was not professional. It just showed my frustration at that moment with everything what happened before that point. The tone in the top of the message must also been seen in that context.



#336 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,445 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 12 March 2018 - 08:20 PM

Yes, well, Aris, did KARAISKAKIS made the first mess up? Sure, but.....


Lonello
Please stop write nonsenses and lies. I challenge you to prove what you state above. Otherwise the best for you the community and the site is to resign now.

#337 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 12 March 2018 - 08:23 PM

...nearly sure there is a missclick somewhere ... :)


  • OVERLORD and TemplateRex like this
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#338 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 707 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 12 March 2018 - 08:38 PM

@Napoleon 1er: Most of the requests for Lonello to step down are in another thread, but all the reported cases against him for lies and slander and various other breaches of the site policy are here, so I am not sure about a misclick?



#339 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,406 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 12 March 2018 - 11:02 PM

Then all of a sudden TC did comment, a lot, as they joined WCO team in their decision their WCO counterpart was to have the game won without it having it played... and that was just that.

.

 

To correct you, TC did not make any comment (let alone a 'lot' of comments). I really shouldn't have to be correcting a member of MT like this, who appears to consistently have no regard for the truth.

 

I can appreciate the difficult position that WCO found themselves in. While this was a unique example, similar situations occur often, and finding a balance between leniency and rules fetishism - as Lonello calls it - is often a hard one to maintain. In my view, leniency should not necessarily be considered a 'right'. For example, if a player is being extremely difficult for no apparent good reason, then they should not be afforded the same leniency as say - a player who has had an emergency and through no fault of their own cannot play a game.

 

I recall a difficult situation that TC had to make in the Backstabbers tournament this year, where one game was proving so difficult to schedule that it had taken three weeks. We finally got an arrangement before one player cancelled a game at the last minute and tried to enforce the default time instead (knowing that his opponent was unavailable). That same player then later lied to TC (in the very same PM) that he had tried to enforce the default time! The difficult decision was whether to show leniency and allow that player to remain in the tournament or to risk being labelled a practioner of rules fetishism. (In case you are wondering who the player was - it was Lonello).


  • Nortrom, KissMyCookie and Unladen Swallow like this

#340 Unladen Swallow

Unladen Swallow

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 826 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 12 March 2018 - 11:45 PM

I was the other player vs that game with Lonello.

 

I can confirm the story TheO wrote above


  • Nortrom and rgillis783 like this

I used to play against a few drunken idiots in College and University. I just recently discovered this game online, playing my first matches against real-world opponents. After 100 games, I'm now one of the top 10 players in the world. 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users