Jump to content


Photo

Future of the MT


  • Please log in to reply
394 replies to this topic

#41 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,899 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:11 AM

After your pathetic lies, I find myself still waiting for my well deserved rectification on

 

Let me get some things straight here. 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! I demand an immediate, public rectification of this 100% pure bs, preferably in a seperate thread pinned for a week in the general forum.

 

 

 

I like it how you change your accusations on the "dirty tactics". I'd like to remind you that I was one of the first to suggest to play with clocks on every board during the teamcup to avoid difficult situations like the one you're referring to. Since many on here don't know anything about this "teamcup" and "board 4, I invite you to describe "teamcup" and "board 4" and explain how I, personally (your first accusation), have used any dirty tactics. You can try to hide behind your words, but you know very well you chose them carefully, aiming to damage my reputation. 

 

Let me make this very clear, I have not and will not, ever, use any form of cheating or as you call it "dirty tactics". Your lame insinuations on this topic, I must admit, I did not expect this. Not even from you.

 

 

 

Lol, now there is also opened a case against ME...??? " speaking of which, I'm surprised, despite lots of Mods being online after the report against both you & napoleon, that there seems to be a lack of "A case has been opened" message? favoritism? ;)


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 


#42 don mitsos

don mitsos

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:24 AM

I think you are way out of the point if this topic which is, as i understand it, how the MT will improve. 

Malcom has made a serious request/proposal and i totally agree with him. Why shouldn't elections for your positions take place? That way you will realize whether the majority is in favor of your work or the opposite.

I am under the impression that you are way too fond of the power you have and you are not willing to step down no matter what. Is that the case? If it is there is a problem. If it is not then elections should take place. Details of the procedure and the requirements for the position should start. That way players will feel they are in control of their own future in the game as it should be on democratic communities.


  • ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΑΣ likes this

#43 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,382 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 20 February 2018 - 08:30 PM

 

 

Why shouldn't elections for your positions take place?

 

I am not against elections . 

 

Some people here seem to think that there are many members who want to be moderators but are prevented because a small group of people 'seized power' and refuse to allow elections in case they should be replaced and lose this 'power' .

 

My understanding is that there are very few members who ever wanted to be moderators but that some people came forward and volunteered .

 

Here is a post by KARAISKAKIS that is the most liked post in the history of this forum  . That seems to have been the beginning of the MT and the other members were TheProf and Midnightguy .It seems most players were just happy that someone was going to be doing it , and no complaints that they were not elected .

 

So it seems either there were those volunteers or nothing.

 

Later there is a post by Midnightguy explaining something about how different people became moderators later on.

 

Now all the original MT members have left it long go . Also a further 6 people did it for some time and have also left . 

 

We may look around at the forum and see some people make impressive posts , and think 'why are they not in MT  ?' . Well , one consideration is they make an impressive post , and then make no post for weeks , so they likely do not have the time to be judging things day by day . Also they may not like getting involved with feuds and arguments on here , being called morons etc  .Also they may have an idealism of wanting fix things and then find , when they do join , that what they can do is very limited . And so they feel it is all futile .

 

People may read Nortrom's posts and think he would be ideal . But he already said he doesn't want to do it.

 

 

 

I am under the impression that you are way too fond of the power you have and you are not willing to step down no matter what

 

 

Not the case for me certainly ! I will let the others speak for themselves . If we all stepped down though would we be replaced by better people , or just nothing ?  As it is we have members saying the current MT should be replaced but they personally don't have time etc

 

Perhaps that is not the case and there are several people ready to step up , but i'm not seeing it yet. 


  • Don_Homer, Napoleon 1er and Fks like this

#44 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • NASF Committee
  • 931 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 20 February 2018 - 08:38 PM

I would be willing to serve as a moderator if there was an active effort to standardize punishments, simplify draw refusal cases and much greater transparency on the part of the MT.

I would not join the MT to simply replace a current member and have nothing else change.
Cheesecake

#45 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,899 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 February 2018 - 09:02 PM

I've served +- 8 years as (head) admin of Metaforge. I know very well how this job should be carried out. You can probably understand I have no interest of taking on this job again. I wouldn't mind to do it for a month or 2, 3, to "teach" new MT members how to do it, but definitely not as a permanent / long position.

 

People may read Nortrom's posts and think he would be ideal . But he already said he doesn't want to do it.

 

Please note that I have no desire for a permanent / long term MT position, but as expressed before, I would have no objection to guide and give advise a new team for an amount of time if requested. Many years of experience that I would gladly use to get some improvements going on.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 


#46 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,530 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 20 February 2018 - 10:05 PM

Below, in no particular order, is a summary of all the criticisms raised by some Forum members in this thread. These are either directly lifted or paraphrased from the last few pages. I offer no opinion on the validity or justification of each criticism.

 

In an effort to be constructive (my opinion) I would propose that MT internally discuss this list and for each point either decide on an appropriate action to take or agree that no action is required  (publishing the findings). 

 

Criticisms of current MT

 

1. Lack of transparency in MT’s actions

2. Insular

3. Unadaptable

4. Inconsistent decisions  

5. Issues ignored and not taken seriously

6. MT not accountable to the player base

7. No progression of issue of enforcement of ISF Rules

8. Some site policies enforced, some ignored

9. Disparity in how punishments are enforced

10. Favouritism

11. Failing to restore edited/hidden post once approved

12. No improvement/simplification/standardisation of Draw Refusal Rules

13. Lack of investigation into potential unfair practices

14. Opposite approaches within MT – one likes a post, another hides it

15. Failure to address community concerns

16. Lack of attempt to get feedback

17. Too fond of power/unwilling to step down no matter what

18. Lying/MT member making accusations and insinuations/Antagonizing players

19. Misuse of MT Private Message privileges

20. Failure to disclose details of MT votes



#47 imperium

imperium

    Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Lieutenant

Posted 20 February 2018 - 10:42 PM

1) Too many players were banned permanently. Don't ban players permanently because it kills the forum and damages the stratego community. When someone breaks the rules, delete some posts and when the player does it again, give him a ban for a week. When he returns and breaks some rules again, do it again. This is some work, sure, but it keeps the community alive.

 

2) Publish a list of who was banned in the past and why exactly. I know of a case were a player didn't break a single rule of this forum. He was banned! MT banned him because they didn't like what he was writing and they got some complaints from other players, who also didn't like what he was writing. Well, is it a rule that everyone has to like what one says? No!


Edited by imperium, 20 February 2018 - 10:47 PM.


#48 don mitsos

don mitsos

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:09 PM

 

If we all stepped down though would we be replaced by better people , or just nothing ?  As it is we have members saying the current MT should be replaced but they personally don't have time etc

 

Perhaps that is not the case and there are several people ready to step up , but i'm not seeing it yet.

 

I believe the same thing, there would probably be little change to the MT but that is not a serious reason not to follow the road of democracy. After all if you really believe that, you (the current MT) have nothing to fear.

 

 

In an effort to be constructive (my opinion) I would propose that MT internally discuss this list and for each point either decide on an appropriate action to take or agree that no action is required  (publishing the findings). 

 

Criticisms of current MT

 

1. Lack of transparency in MT’s actions

2. Insular

3. Unadaptable

4. Inconsistent decisions  

5. Issues ignored and not taken seriously

6. MT not accountable to the player base

7. No progression of issue of enforcement of ISF Rules

8. Some site policies enforced, some ignored

9. Disparity in how punishments are enforced

10. Favouritism

11. Failing to restore edited/hidden post once approved

12. No improvement/simplification/standardisation of Draw Refusal Rules

13. Lack of investigation into potential unfair practices

14. Opposite approaches within MT – one likes a post, another hides it

15. Failure to address community concerns

16. Lack of attempt to get feedback

17. Too fond of power/unwilling to step down no matter what

18. Lying/MT member making accusations and insinuations/Antagonizing players

19. Misuse of MT Private Message privileges

20. Failure to disclose details of MT votes

 

This is a step/method towards the improvement of every team and should be followed not only by the MT but from the other teams also (TC, WCO, etc)


  • ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΑΣ likes this

#49 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,530 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:35 PM

 

 

This is a step/method towards the improvement of every team and should be followed not only by the MT but from the other teams also (TC, WCO, etc)

 

 The Forum to air any criticisms/suggestions as far as TC is concerned is here:

 

http://forum.strateg...uggestions-box/



#50 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,899 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:50 PM

While not elections of any sort, the WCO team is currently holding, for the third consecutive time, a feedback survey so that we may improve our ways, rules, communication, tournament structure and also are looking for people willing to help us out with tasks we sometimes can't give the attention it deserves (e.g. writing match previews).

 

I am pleased to announce, after taking a sneak peek ;) that 23 participants so far have taken the time to fill in the survey, the results so far are overwhelmingly positive and feedback we will certainly discuss after the survey has ended. 

 

@ Don Mitsos, I see you have also filled in the survey, thanks! :)


  • KARAISKAKIS likes this

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 


#51 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,879 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 February 2018 - 12:05 AM

Thanks Theo for this summary ... not that i like it but I definitively agree this is a necessary step in order to allow open and constructive discussion. Please find my personal views of each point in blue below. Apologize if I don't go back to MT and discuss as team as you are asking for but this is not something MT has to vote on and come with one single verdict. Each mod may perceive and wishes to approach these criticisms in a different way and i guess each mod's personal view is more important than a "MT overall" view with which none of the mods would fully agree with.

Below, in no particular order, is a summary of all the criticisms raised by some Forum members in this thread. These are either directly lifted or paraphrased from the last few pages. I offer no opinion on the validity or justification of each criticism.

In an effort to be constructive (my opinion) I would propose that MT internally discuss this list and for each point either decide on an appropriate action to take or agree that no action is required (publishing the findings).

Criticisms of current MT

1. Lack of transparency in MT’s actions This is a general statement that says everything and nothing, please be factual, give 1-2 example of situations where MT is supposed to have had a lack of transparency, who, when and where?
2. Insular ... at first glance i would say this is certainly right for my colleague coming from UK but i guess it is meant in a different meaning, again be factual, provide an example of situation where MT is supposed to have been "insular"?
3. Unadaptable ... please precise to what in particlalr MT shall be adaptable to. We are working on the base of a set of rules which are adapted from time to time. If more things have to be adapted in the rules feel free to make proposals. I'm more than happy if we can improve them. Note that the role of MT is to judge for abusive behaviours, draw refusals and cheating cases only in adition to maintaining this forum a nice and appreciated platform for exchanges between stratego fans from around the world. MT's mandate is limited to that. If the idea is to add tasks to MT then I'm not sure I would agree.
4. Inconsistent decisions be factual, who when and where
5. Issues ignored and not taken seriously would be good to put a fact here to be clear, however I agree it may sometimes be perceived that something is ignored (for example Malcom Jansen might perceive now that his post above http://forum.strateg...he-mt/?p=447052 has been ignored) but it is not, it's only that the answer takes some time due to some verifications. In other cases it may also well be that I ignore something that i consider of minor importance o rnot sufficiently important to be worth some further action. I apologize but it is not possible to read and follow up on each and any question that is raised on this forum. I'm sure that it is the same for anybody else. If somebody here reads and comments on any single question that is raised on this forum please raise your hand! ... only KMC may sometimes do it ... lol :)
6. MT not accountable to the player base ... I do not understand the question, any fact or example to illustrate what is meant?
7. No progression of issue of enforcement of ISF Rules as I already said above MT's role is to handle abusive behaviour, draw refusal and cheating cases. MT has strictly nothing to do with ISF, I guess all of MT members support making progression to enforce ISF rules but it is not MT's task nor responsibility to do it. This is responsibility of ISF management team. If ISF wants stratego.com to become fully compliant with ISF rules then why don't they buy stratego.com and make the changes themselves? If site owners do not have the desire to make what is necessary to be fully compliant with ISF rules then it is their choice. MT is not responsible for this decision.
8. Some site policies enforced, some ignored be factual, provide 1-2 examples who where and when
9. Disparity in how punishments are enforced I disagree, all cases are voted with a majority of minimum 3 mods. When a case is similar to a previous one we judge the same. The limit between 2 cases may sometimes be close so I do not exclude that a first level warning in one case becomes a 2nd level in another that is close but certainly never a no case for a PB.
10. Favouritism already answered above, only Malcom jansen provided a factual example and yes he is right the case of PB by admins of the previous accounts of Unladen Swallow and KMC is a kind of unique case where admins have decided to PB somebody. Their PBing decision happened that fast while MT was still discussing the cases internally and we haven't got the time to reach our verdict. I can only say the verdict of MT would have been lower than PB, somewhat harsher for Unladen Swallow and somewhat soft for KMC. Malcom you are wrong if you assume we did not enforce the PB because these are popular players, the main reason why we did not enforce it was because our internal verdict was not PB. I have to say this case is probably the only one like this and is an exception.
11. Failing to restore edited/hidden post once approved ... this is done according to our procedures, any mod can freely hide or edit posts but he has to inform the others immediately that he did it so a discussion can occur within MT. If 3 mods think then that a hidden or edited post has to be unhidden then the mod who hid it shall unhide it. I recognize there is no real "tracking" system in place to verify if posts that have been agreed by 3 mods for unhiding have effectively been unhidden but if you have factual examples I can have a look
12. No improvement/simplification/standardisation of Draw Refusal Rules again there is a lot of ideas, if we ask 10 people we have 10 different ideas but i have never seen a consensus. Within MT we are in agreement that the current rules are ok (but there are still some improvement under discussion right now which i hope will be available soon) but are absolutely welcoming new proposals that are not just "single man proposals" but that have reach a certain consensus. Changing rules and finding the right formulation is something that takes usually more time than just voting for a case, so apologize if it takes sometimes long but things are not forgotten.
13. Lack of investigation into potential unfair practices if it is referred to Spion... case there is absolutely no lack of investigation. The difficulty is double here. Because Spion... and hello124 are brothers they share smae IP, so impossible for MT to verify if one is playing for the other or vice versa. We are at the limit of our capabilities here. Second is that game logs histories that we have been able to receive in the past are no more available. So I would appreciate this criticism to be removed as it is not under control of MT even if the desire to do it good exist within MT.
14. Opposite approaches within MT – one likes a post, another hides it ... as i said above there is no obligation of majority for likes, each mod is free to like or not any post on the forum, why does this appear in the list of criticisms? diversification of opinions is not a bad thing within MT?
15. Failure to address community concerns ... what is a "community concern" that has not been adressed by MT and that is not already listed in the list of criticisms elsewhere?
16. Lack of attempt to get feedback be factual, who where and when
17. Too fond of power/unwilling to step down no matter what ...like my colleague Tobermoryx said above definitively not my case and I would frankly be surprised one of my colleagues feels "fond of power". What do you mean by "unwilling to step down"?
18. Lying/MT member making accusations and insinuations/Antagonizing players be factual, who when and where
19. Misuse of MT Private Message privileges ... I have no particular comment on that one, Why is that brought up up like a state affair while i personnally see it as a very minor issue with no negative impact on anybody?
20. Failure to disclose details of MT votes this is not a failure this is desired. MT's verdict is one and unique, it is a team decision so there is no disclosure of individual votes. Give me one single reason why it would be good to disclose individual votes? What does it add to the verdict?


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

#52 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 724 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 21 February 2018 - 07:57 PM

To start with some input on your list:

 

18 Current running case Nortrom vs Lonello - case in progress.

19 Misuse of mass mail facilities while also breaking site rule policy 5.1.1, Soliciting and advertizing other sites.

Major Nelson in the first week of his duty - case in progress



#53 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,899 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 February 2018 - 08:36 PM

# 10 of Theo/Napoleon's list

 

"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 ."

 

http://forum.strateg...he-mt/?p=447065

 

 

 

 

Please put that into perspective with

 

"We can't have elitist favoratism, Nortrom. Believe me. We can't. This forum is for Bronzes as much as for Platinum uber Marshals."

 

http://forum.strateg...e-2#entry446236

 

 

 

Lonello appears to be much against favoritism (EtEu7qd.png) while Tobermoryx does not seem to have any issues with it.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 


#54 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • NASF Committee
  • 931 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 21 February 2018 - 08:40 PM

Below, in no particular order, is a summary of all the criticisms raised by some Forum members in this thread. These are either directly lifted or paraphrased from the last few pages. I offer no opinion on the validity or justification of each criticism.

 

In an effort to be constructive (my opinion) I would propose that MT internally discuss this list and for each point either decide on an appropriate action to take or agree that no action is required  (publishing the findings). 

 

Criticisms of current MT

 

1. Lack of transparency in MT’s actions

2. Insular

3. Unadaptable

4. Inconsistent decisions  

5. Issues ignored and not taken seriously

6. MT not accountable to the player base

7. No progression of issue of enforcement of ISF Rules

8. Some site policies enforced, some ignored

9. Disparity in how punishments are enforced

10. Favouritism

11. Failing to restore edited/hidden post once approved

12. No improvement/simplification/standardisation of Draw Refusal Rules

13. Lack of investigation into potential unfair practices

14. Opposite approaches within MT – one likes a post, another hides it

15. Failure to address community concerns

16. Lack of attempt to get feedback

17. Too fond of power/unwilling to step down no matter what

18. Lying/MT member making accusations and insinuations/Antagonizing players

19. Misuse of MT Private Message privileges

20. Failure to disclose details of MT votes

 

 

Thanks Theo for this summary ... not that i like it but I definitively agree this is a necessary step in order to allow open and constructive discussion. Please find my personal views of each point in blue below. Apologize if I don't go back to MT and discuss as team as you are asking for but this is not something MT has to vote on and come with one single verdict. Each mod may perceive and wishes to approach these criticisms in a different way and i guess each mod's personal view is more important than a "MT overall" view with which none of the mods would fully agree with.

 

1, 15, and 20. I believe that the MT lacks transparency because the MT does not disclose votes in abusive behavior and draw refusal cases. The MT should be able to justify any decision that it makes and by having to defend their decision players are more likely to feel they are receiving equitable treatment. It also allows the community to address potential mistakes made by the MT in determining verdicts

 

2 and 6. The MT is insular because it chooses its own replacements and given the inactive state of the site owners, the community has no way to seek reparations from or the removal of poor moderators (I am not alleging anyone is doing a poor job). This potentially reduces the incentives for the MT to respond to the player base.

 

3. There has been no update to the draw refusal system since 2014. A possible upgrade would that if Player A reports a case with one refused draw and Player A has no possible way of losing then Player A could be refunded without going through the 10 minute process.

 

4 and 9 and 12. I believe that there was inconsistency between how Unladen Swallow and potredas were punished. I offer a more in-depth discussion of this in Topics of Abusive Behavior (2018).

 

5 and 10. The MT's primary responsibility is to enforce the directives given by Jumbo. Jumbo stated that KMC and US were to be permanently banned. I believe the MT appealed this verdict and got the same response. The fact that the MT disagree with the admins' decision is irrelevant. You are blatantly disobeying the site owners and if owned the site, I would remove all of you for that.

 

7. No comment.

 

8. No comment

 

11. No comment

 

13. No comment

 

14. No comment

 

16. I do not believe that the MT attempts to solicit feedback from the player base.

 

17. No comment beyond what was expressed in one.

 

18. While I do not believe the MT has acted abusively towards players in recently reported case. I agree that some members have antagonized players. The MT should hold itself to a higher standard because they have the right to recommend punishments. If the MT engages in petty squabbling, then players may worry if they can get a fair evaluation when they present a case.

 

19. I believe that GaryLShelton sells fireworks. Imagine Gary is not active in his business and has other people running. Also imagine Gary hosts a July 4th fireworks show that gives publicity to his shop. Now imagine one of his employees, Major Nelson, organizes his own July 4th firework show and advertises it with flyers in Gary's shop. In doing so, he may be indirectly stealing viewers from Gary's show and hurting Gary's shop. Gary may not stop him because he is not actively running his shop, but this is still wrong. This is basically what is going on when Major Nelson promotes a tournament that he is running on an alternative site.


Cheesecake

#55 Fks

Fks

    Major

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

Posted 21 February 2018 - 08:50 PM

Regarding Gravon. There are only three players who solely play on Gravon whilst still having a Stratego.com account now or in the past. And started playing Stratego.com first. Admins should have a hands on role if they want to start crying about tournaments on other sites. Stratego is not exclusive to stratego.com it's a game let people enjoy it where ever they want to.
  • tobermoryx and DarthRemark like this
Proud Member of the North American Stratego Federation (NASF)

#56 Major Nelson

Major Nelson

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,238 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 February 2018 - 09:01 PM

Did you ever read a post I made at the forum announcing a tournament at Gravon? Or advertising Gravon? What you've heard about what I write at my pm's does not concern you.


  • Don_Homer, tobermoryx and DarthRemark like this

#57 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • NASF Committee
  • 931 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 21 February 2018 - 09:10 PM

As an agent of Stratego.com you advertised an event on a competing, even if insignificantly, website that is inappropriate no matter the intent.
Cheesecake

#58 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,879 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 February 2018 - 10:08 PM

Thanks for bringing some factual inputs, see my comments in blue below:

 

To start with some input on your list:

 

18 Current running case Nortrom vs Lonello - case in progress. case in progress, let's wait for outcome.

19 Misuse of mass mail facilities while also breaking site rule policy 5.1.1, Soliciting and advertizing other sites.

Major Nelson in the first week of his duty - case in progress ...Fact is that there was no public soliciting nor advertizing other sites by mods. If I'm wrong please paste the link to it in this topic. Some (like me) may find it constructive to discuss from other stratego websites and as long as such discussion are helping top promote Stratego "with a big S" as a whole this is rather positive minded and in line with the spirit desired by site owners on stratego.com. With regard to the "State Affair" your are creating against Major Nelson, frankly when a great player like you with 20 years of stratego experience behind him is pointing his fingers against a young stratego talent who is in all good faith willing to service this website as a mod and at same time willing to organize a new kind of tournament ... I would frankly expect some kind of indulgence and understanding to let him pass his "first 100 days" with the support of the stratego community. Experienced people shall support the young talents and help them if they have some weaknesses instead of nailing him on the wall


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

#59 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,879 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 February 2018 - 10:32 PM

# 10 of Napoleon's list

 

"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 ."

 

http://forum.strateg...he-mt/?p=447065

 

 

 

 

Please put that into perspective with

 

"We can't have elitist favoratism, Nortrom. Believe me. We can't. This forum is for Bronzes as much as for Platinum uber Marshals."

 

http://forum.strateg...e-2#entry446236

 

 

 

Lonello appears to be much against favoritism (EtEu7qd.png) while Tobermoryx does not seem to have any issues with it.

 

Thanks for bringing some factual inputs, I have no particular comment, you are right that who compares these 2 statements out of their context like this will see discrepancy. On the other side (and Tobermoryx explained it very well) as this gravon discussion involved a lot of stratego.com forum members and generated a lot of passion we decided to not punish anybody and grant grace, as an exception to the rule, because we recognized that the main intention of this discussion was "in the spirit of  the promotion of Stratego with a big S". This has however lead MT to open a case in mod forum in order to adjust the rules accordingly. The main consideration here is that it is not the action of pronouncing the word gravon that is violating the rules but only when such word is linked with an intention to hurt stratego.com. I hope we can soon publish the rule adjustment.

... and I'm sure that even any "alternative MT" would have decided the same instead of banning 30-40 regular forum members. Frankly Nortrom, between us, if you were MT would you have banned 30-40 palyers because of that?

MT has to keep the big picture in mind and I'm convinced this was the right decision for this forum.


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

#60 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,899 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 February 2018 - 10:42 PM

Napoleon,

 

Thanks for asking. You can see how I would handle this, if in MT's position here: http://forum.strateg...-2018/?p=446976 . Can you elaborate on whether you would think this is a reasonable approach or not? 

 

Please note that my questions raised also have not (yet) been answered. This question was directed at Major_Nelson, but I do like to bring back some attention to it while at it.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users