Jump to content


Photo

Future of the MT


  • Please log in to reply
394 replies to this topic

#81 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • NASF Committee
  • 921 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 22 February 2018 - 06:05 PM

The cases raised by KARAISKAKIS, highlight the need for transparency
  • Nortrom, Morx and texaspete09 like this
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#82 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 22 February 2018 - 06:45 PM

@MT  could you please add Lonellos recent post above in this thread as evidence to the slander case to be forwarded to the Admins?

I am sure we can sort out the proveable untrue statements later, because they are plenty again.

 

Let me pick two out to show you:

" But he can't be burdened with anything more than 1 tourney as volunteering work"

 

Nortrom is also making a blog  on this very site and involved in various other activities:

http://forum.strateg...allow/?p=444756

 

 

"and replace it by a clone Team of Sadistics as trained by him in the Nortrom University"

Not even sure where to start on that sentence.

 

 

To be complete: I did check the number of posts made and that was what Lonello claims in the post.



#83 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,832 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 22 February 2018 - 07:59 PM

thanks again for your factual way of presenting your points. My comments in blue below:

1, 5, and 20: Transparency is always better, it is not like you guys are discussing state secrets. Furthermore, you should be able to defend any verdict that you reach. I agree with you, as I said in previous post when a verdict is decided we tend to post the verdict on the appropriate forum topic but we usually miss to provide the rationale behind a verdict. This is because in most of the cases no rationale is necessary. On the other side if you feel more explanations are necessary it is not forbidden to ask for them. I have no problem providing more details about how a decision has been reached. If you cannot clearly define why you voted a certain way in a draw refusal case, then you are not knowledgeable enough to be a moderator. Now, the MT would not need to give a detailed justification after every case, but you guys should be able to if it is requested. Agree. Furthermore, standardizing punishments for abusive behavior would help eliminate subjectivity. For instance, you could come up with a standard punishment for sexual comments, a different one for profanity, another for violent threats, etc...

 

2 and 6: I find your answer is troubling. If members of the MT refrain voting on cases involving each other, then who is going to deal with a potentially bad moderator. The admins certainty are not. They should. Therefore, some form of elections is essential so that the player base can remove bad moderators. I am not suggesting that this needs to be done for any of the current MT members, but this check needs to be added. No problem for me, what do you think about making a satisfaction survey (on the model wco has done for wco)?

 

3. In my suggestion, a clear draw would be a case such as Player A has a bombed in flag and a marshal and Player B only has a general. Player A can never lose in this situation. Player B never has a chance to win and is not hurt if Player A leaves early. Note Player B would not be penalized in this scenario. Maybe this is not a great suggestion, I have posted others previously in the forum. However, I question how much discussion is occurring if the rule are largely static over 4 years.

 

4, 9, and 12: I felt US and potredas described basically the same sexual act and got different punishments. Again, see my discussion in that thread; I do not want to get off topic.

 

5 and 10: I am not sure how you can disagree you are not being derelict in your duties by refusing the orders of a direct superior. However, lest Fairway and Fks, make fun of me, I will leave it at that and am glad you can understand my concerns.

 

18: Personally, I have not felt antagonized by the MT. However, I believe Nortrom feels that way as he as opened cases against you and Lonello. Furthermore, the MT is active is political and religious discussions. I fear that players may not see the MT as objective if they disagree with the views expressed by the MT. This is a good point. As free volunteer for MT I'm doing this for the service of this website. I consider this is not incompatible with expressing personal opinions on various topics in particular in the off topic which is precisely foreseen for that. If a MT member shall be forbidden the right to express personal opinions as well then I guess there will be zero volunteer for that job. I note you didn't mention this in your first post above where you listed the conditions you would propose MT members shall fullfill. Do you maintain MT members shall not be allowed to express personal opinions?

 

19. I do not believe the Major Nelson situation is a big issue, thank you for agreeing with me! as I did not raise it. I consider his behavior to be unprofessional for the reasons I described above. However, I would not remove him as a moderator because of it. glad to read that! I find it troubling, if true, if other members of the MT told him that what he was doing is okay.


  • DarthRemark, Great Manos, hellinon and 1 other like this
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#84 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,832 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 22 February 2018 - 08:10 PM

 

@ Major_Nelson : I request you (again..) to give answer to my questions raised at: http://forum.strateg...-2018/?p=446976
 
@ Tobermoryx : I request you fix your untruths in your messages http://forum.strateg...he-mt/?p=447302
 
@ Napoleon : You may have missed my response to you, but I'd like to bring it to your attention again : http://forum.strateg...he-mt/?p=447290

 

 i did not reply because i do not understand how your question on the link is answering my question about if you would have banned 30-40 players for having discussed about gravon? Could you answer that question more precisely?

 

however regarding your previous question  why there was a discrepancy between my reaction and Major Nelson's reaction on ouwesok's post the reason is only because Major Nelson and I  didn't coordinate our answers in the mod forum preliminarily as we should have done it. As you can see within MT there is diversification of opinions which makes it precisely strong and positive for team work. We were then all glad to see you have also been laughing at this post and are all happy this issue found a natural nice end.


  • DarthRemark, Great Manos, hellinon and 1 other like this
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#85 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,336 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 22 February 2018 - 08:34 PM

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.

 

OK . So you would be prepared to do it for 'an amount of time'  as opposed to ruling yourself out completely. 


  • Nortrom likes this

#86 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,832 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 22 February 2018 - 08:40 PM

Thanks again for being factual, see my answers in blue below:

 

"If the community has strong grievance against some mod it is not forbidden to raise a claim against him. As per our rules the other mods have to open and handle a case" Can you explain why initially your stance was that no case could be opened by MT? http://forum.strateg...-2018/?p=447163
See my explanation to malcom somewhere up. Personnally i consider that on that particular case you've made against Lonello, I'm unable to be impartial due to a long history in MT together with him with ups and downs and I don't feel I'm able to guarantee that these ups and downs would not influence my vote. Therefore my vote would be a blank vote on that case. If only one other mod has same consciousness issue as i have, then MT will be unable to reach the required 3 votes majority, so the only way for the plaintiff will be to go to the level above which is admins.
 
"I'm thinking of preparing a kind of survey (like wco team did after wco) in order to track the average opinion of forum members towards MT" Thus far no effort on receiving feedback has been made, while it may be a satisfactory answer / response, this does not take away that untill now, such thing has never been done. I agree what you do in wco with this survey is a very good thing, we shall have thought to it earlier for MT, cannot tell you why it was not done, nobody thought about that before, never to late to start. Question: You mention that the WCO team holds this survey, you know that the WCO has been around for 3 years now (=3 surveys). Does it take MT, on average, 3 years to think about such possibilities? or is this just a response to the concerns raised by Malcom Jansen? frankly speaking this idea has never been raised by anybody inside or outside MT since i'm in there, nevr to late to start
 
"The real situations of clear draw a very few so that's why we are not fast in improving this rule, but i confirm it is an item discussed inside MT." Why has MT never asked for any public input? surely 100 members know more than 5 that were appointed moderators. Again, this just feels like trying to make it look like MT is trying to improve things. I may or may not have offered my assistance in the past on this topic, I'm not sure anymore (no sarcasm), but have definitely offered ideas regarding ISF anti-chasing enforcement. as you can see in my last post in that dedicated topic http://forum.strateg...les/?p=445082  I had some open questions left which nobody deem useful to answer, so while a huge number of people express desire to see such chasing rules implemented nobody is willing to provide ideas "how" this shall be made, what penalties shall be applied etc .... and mor eimportant than anything is to reach a consensus among ISF fans and others. As I said somewhere above MT is not responsible to implement ISF rules, MT can help and support any initiative in that sense but who defines and proposes the exact details of how such double chasing rule shall be implemented online could be made by a task force of specialists which is not necessarily MT. So if such rule proposal is slow to come it is only because nobody from all those people who voted positively in the poll expressed any interest in contributing to find a viable solution.
 
As for 'weird language' by (maybe not at that time) MT members  (despite not reported)
 
 

 


  • DarthRemark, Great Manos, hellinon and 1 other like this
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#87 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,336 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 22 February 2018 - 08:42 PM

 

Finally decision was made in 10th December which was  guilty  with 3-2 votes and 1 WP has been given as penalty. Here it is arising a big questionmark. Who are these 2 members in MT who voted not guilty in a such a clear case and why ? In combination with your post above I can guess the one of them and the second most probably was influence  of your favoritism. # 20 of Theo/Napoleon's list
 
It it is not important who the 2 members are .There was vote that was 3-2 so that is guilty . Actually it does not matter if it was 3-2 or 4-1 or 5-0 .It is all the same .
 
Announcing who voted for what is not something we will do  . Then , immediately , the people who voted in the minority are asked for their reasons .They give their reasons and then those who were the majority give theirs .And the whole debate is public , so the whole case may just as well have been debated in public to begin with . So , logically , every case may just as well be thrown open to the votes of every member on the forum .But if that happens then players with many forum friends will find they win all their cases.
 
 
MT NEVER  post the decision for Overlord in forum exactly with what is happening for all the players who have be found guilty for abusive behavior.# 9 of Theo/Napoleon's list
 
Cases reported in the abuse topic - usually for game chat - have the outcome posted there . Cases brought by PM usually do not.
 
 

 


  • GaryLShelton likes this

#88 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,832 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 22 February 2018 - 08:54 PM

see my comment in blue below:

As a former MT member, I could express my opinion on that topic.

 

Before few weeks I announced that I stop my activity for everything of online stratego and the reason was the actions(or non actions) of MT. The decisions of MT don't protect the healthy part of the online stratego community and there are many cases that prove that. please be factual, 1-2 examples who where and when?

 

From my experience the problem is that some MT members and first of all Napoleon, don't follow the forum rules in order to take decisions.your accusation is pure fantasy, if you like me to consider it then be factual, provide 1-2 examples ... if you don't know how to be factual please ask malcom Jansen he is very good at that  beIt is sure that some of them want to support an alternative way to act, that is far away of the fairness and equality to the rules. Many times Lonello tried to keep a good level of judgment, but the majority of MT doesn't want to follow. The newest MT member Major Nelson, should get good guidance from the other MT members and not to mislead him from the beginning of his service. As member of the Greek community I can say that Major Nelson is acceptable for that role and someone should support and protect him in order to get some good experience.

 

It is sure that MT is volunteer and that is a hard work. If someone wants to be MT member should think about that carefully. Maybe elections is a good idea, but only that It is not the end the case. There should get delimitations for who can be MT member and also Admins should give more support and powers to MT.

 

I expect a reorganization of MT in order to

for community: get the necessary support and to believe on a fairness MT

for me: be active again and protected in the online part and online tournaments


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

#89 dalee

dalee

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Captain

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:03 PM

If I show the examples, what are you going to do next?



#90 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,832 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:24 PM

see my comment in blue below:

 

Hi Napoleon1er,
 
Since you asked for favouritism (and not only) cases, I would like to present to you:
 
In 30th November there was a clear abusive post from Overlord in topic ΓΑΛΑΝΟΛΕΥΚΑ ΝΕΑ.
In this post (which has been hidden now   from MT) Ovelord has expressed a really abusive behavior against me and dalee . The severity of the abusive behavior was in such degree which was the cause of locking the topic from the greek member in MT for several days. Immediatelly after the post i made report using the report button as MT has recommended .
Until 6th December there was absolute  no respond from MT to my report.  # 16 of Theo/Napoleon's list
I already knew that there was discusion with dalee for the same issue but never understood why i was not invited in this pm/discusion.
After my complain for the delay to make decision you wrote the following:
" Yes Overlord is probably accusing you of wrong things and yes he has been banned and yes he is undisciplined .... but he is THE BEST GREEK STRATEGO PLAYER ... and in 2-3 years from now he will become THE BEST STRATEGO PLAYER IN THE WORLD ... so my humble message to you is only to try to think otherwise ... forget about his person ... look at the talent he is only. It is all in your favor to have such a great talent in Greece, better support him than ban him."
 
As I told you already in that same pm the sense of my statement above was to tell you that experienced people like you should rather support and help the young stratego talents. In particular in Greece you have the chance to have a lot of younger stratego fans and talentuous players. Experienced people with over 50 years of age like you and me shall  help and guide these talents to become even better and correct them if they may be somewhat undisciplined sometimes. Undiscipline is normal when you are young and dynamic. Have you never been undisciplined? So rather than pointing the fingers at Overlord, reporting him, exclude him from your live stratego events in Greece and nailing him on the wall like with a claim, I would have expected from you a different behaviour. Teach him to be better instead of rejecting him. ... MT's vote on that case was very tied between no case and first warning so we were unanimous saying what Overlord did was something really minor and absolutely not worth all the "mountain" you've made around it. An senior guy like you should definitively have been able to manage that issue locally without involving all the world stratego community in it.
Having said that as the MT's verdict was almost unanimous i don't know were you see any favouritism in my behaviour?
 
 
This is what you wrote about Overlord οn  9th December 2017 .
dalee replied in your message :
"For last, to remind you your role. You are obligated to follow the rules of the forum. If you don't like them, change them. If you don't like to follow the rules, change your role." see my question above to dalee, be factual, what did I do that was not according to the rules?
Finally decision was made in 10th December which was  guilty  with 3-2 votes and 1 WP has been given as penalty. Here it is arising a big questionmark. Who are these 2 members in MT who voted not guilty in a such a clear case and why ? In combination with your post above I can guess the one of them and the second most probably was influence  of your favoritism. # 20 of Theo/Napoleon's list
 
MT NEVER  post the decision for Overlord in forum exactly with what is happening for all the players who have be found guilty for abusive behavior.# 9 of Theo/Napoleon's list correct, simply because there have never been any formal claim raised against him, only a hidden active report from you and above pm again hidden to the public. Why was it so important for you to keep this case hidden to the public in december and why is it so important for you to bring it to light now about 2 months later? I'm sure all people from the stratego community who will read that would be interested to know what your real personal intentions are with those posts?
 
Personally I have no intention and no  interest in the banning of overlord but your logic is purely based on favouritism.# 10 of Theo/Napoleon's list.

 


  • DarthRemark, OVERLORD, Great Manos and 2 others like this
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#91 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:27 PM

Announcing who voted for what is not something we will do  . Then , immediately , the people who voted in the minority are asked for their reasons .They give their reasons and then those who were the majority give theirs .And the whole debate is public , so the whole case may just as well have been debated in public to begin with . So , logically , every case may just as well be thrown open to the votes of every member on the forum .But if that happens then players with many forum friends will find they win all their cases.

 

 

 

@tobermoryx–Thank you for your post. We may agree that the United States Supreme Court is not an international court of law, and that it is not representative of all nations, but there is a model of operation here which is solid, influential, and formidable.

 

MT functions as a “court of law” in that, cases are opened, judged by the individual merits presented as evidence, and a decision is ultimately reached through a process of deliberation. Finally, the “decision” is published in the forum. Now, when the U.S. Supreme Court publishes its decisions, there are either one, or two (sometimes a third) statement(s) which are published: the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion (the third may be a concurring opinion). It is this level of transparency that helps to strengthen the credibility of the court, even if there are those dissenting views that are a part of the record. When details of these matters are sequestered, it is only a logical conclusion that the discontent of suspicion will allow a dramatic situation to foment; hence, one of the current complaints against the MT.

 

You argue that “…immediately, the people who voted in the minority are asked for their reasons. They give their reasons and then those who were the majority give theirs. And the whole debate is public, so the whole case may just as well have been debated in public to begin with. So, logically, every case may just as well be thrown open to the votes of every member on the forum.” This is a false conclusion and not a sound argument. In fact, and please forgive me, tobermoryx, but this is a classic “Slippery Slope” fallacy. You start with a premise and it has moved by multiple steps to an illogical conclusion. The fact that the MT would publish the results of the voting is not to make the public a part of the proceedings as you indicate in your argument–this is patently false. Reporting to the public the results is just a report. This level of transparency does not allow the public to argue within the court proceedings–it is only a report. The U.S. Supreme Court relies upon the diversity of its judges and trusts in its judge’s integrity to vote their individual point of view. If the results of the court were to be hidden, as you advocate, the system of jurisprudence in ANY nation would ultimately collapse because of the suspicions of the commonwealth. Each and every justice on the Supreme Court feels no shame for the verdict they have reached, as there will always be a body of the public which will concur or disapprove–it is the nature of the beast. In other words, the judges will stand behind their convictions openly.

 

Based upon your argument, the current MT is afraid to stand behind their decisions because they may face an opposing opinion from a forum member. This is not how justices should ever operate. Justices do not have the luxury of anonymity. Thus, I disagree with your argument and I believe this is a matter that must be discussed among the MT.

 

KMC


Edited by KissMyCookie, 22 February 2018 - 09:28 PM.

  • KARAISKAKIS likes this

#92 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,336 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:40 PM

The verdict of a particular Supreme Court judge may be public , but he doesn't then have to defend it in public if it is not popular . He just gives his reasoning with the verdict and that is that  . 

 

Based upon your argument, the current MT is afraid to stand behind their decisions because they may face an opposing opinion from a forum member.

 

 

If people disagree with the decisions then we do respond to that .

 

Having every member individually post his reasoning on the public forum when they already did that on the MT Forum creates an awful lot more work.

 

In most cases the reasoning is pretty self evident and there are no responses at all from other members so i don't see why this is a problem anyway.



#93 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,832 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:56 PM

If I show the examples, what are you going to do next?

this is top secret! :)


  • GaryLShelton, Don_Homer and Great Manos like this
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#94 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,472 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:57 PM

see my comment in red below:

 

 

Finally decision was made in 10th December which was  guilty  with 3-2 votes and 1 WP has been given as penalty. Here it is arising a big questionmark. Who are these 2 members in MT who voted not guilty in a such a clear case and why ? In combination with your post above I can guess the one of them and the second most probably was influence  of your favoritism. # 20 of Theo/Napoleon's list
 
It it is not important who the 2 members are .There was vote that was 3-2 so that is guilty . Actually it does not matter if it was 3-2 or 4-1 or 5-0 .It is all the same .
 
Announcing who voted for what is not something we will do  . Then , immediately , the people who voted in the minority are asked for their reasons .They give their reasons and then those who were the majority give theirs .And the whole debate is public , so the whole case may just as well have been debated in public to begin with . So , logically , every case may just as well be thrown open to the votes of every member on the forum .But if that happens then players with many forum friends will find they win all their cases.
KMC has already gave a nice reply. I will add in his reply that keeping secret who voted not guilty an dthe reason for that , this is pure lack of transparency  and strenghthen the accusation for favoritism # 10 of Theo/Napoleon's list
 
MT NEVER  post the decision for Overlord in forum exactly with what is happening for all the players who have be found guilty for abusive behavior.# 9 of Theo/Napoleon's list
 
Cases reported in the abuse topic - usually for game chat - have the outcome posted there . Cases brought by PM usually do not.
 
As I have already wrote I used the report button exactly in line with the  instrucions of MT in greek forum , something which you in MT ignored . Never used pm to bring this case.
So, concluding. If you have objective proof or a genuine complaint which is about this forum and you want to make a formal case, use the Report center (simply hit "Report") and we will view at the case impartially. We have a good translator within MT so you may even do that in Greek but we prefer it's in English.
I used the same procedure  few weeks later in another report against vspy (father of Overlord)  . In this case everything run smoothly from MT and decision  was public http://forum.strateg...-2018/?p=445397

Posted 4 weeks ago

For comments made by vspy13 against KARAISKAKIS in the 

 

ΓΑΛΑΝΟΛΕΥΚΑ ΝΕΑ η εφημερίδα μας  topic in the Greek forum on 20 January, 2018

 

the MT has issued a Warning Point to vspy13 and sent him a warning letter.  Please remember we cannot tolerate threats of violence in our forum at any time. 

 

I never brought this case via pm     # 9 of Theo/Napoleon's list

Secondly as you have already read in the pm where i have asked the same question ,  Gary  has given a totally different answer  

Can you decide im MT to give common answers or not? # 4 of Theo/Napoleon's list

 
 

 

 



#95 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:59 PM

The verdict of a particular Supreme Court judge may be public , but he doesn't then have to defend it in public if it is not popular . He just gives his reasoning with the verdict and that is that  .

 

And this is what MT's report should be, and usually is, but it lacks who voted for and who voted against.

 

 

Having every member individually post his reasoning on the public forum when they already did that on the MT Forum creates an awful lot more work..

 

MT does not need to publish each individual's (all 5 members) opinions: one majority opinion (who are the majority), and one dissenting opinion (who are the opposers). This level of transparency does not invite debate, but merely clarifies the process. Again, keeping the MT's proceedings secret plants the seeds of discontent as this whole uproar illustrates.

 

 

In most cases the reasoning is pretty self evident and there are no responses at all from other members so i don't see why this is a problem anyway.

 

You cannot assume that all members who are following these cases have the level of understanding or insight which the MT collectively possesses. By providing these statements also allows a basis of education which is very beneficial to the community.


Edited by KissMyCookie, 22 February 2018 - 10:00 PM.


#96 dalee

dalee

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Captain

Posted 22 February 2018 - 10:04 PM

this is top secret! :)

 

I am waiting for your answer and I am not playing as a child. The situation is not for fun.



#97 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,472 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 22 February 2018 - 10:08 PM

After my reply to tobermoryx I will not answer to ridiculous comments from Napoleon. 

Everybody now can understand which is his role

The soonest he resigns from MT the best for the site and the community.

 

p.s. the only thing i want to inform him now is that report against his false and defamatory statements  (e.g.exclude him from your live stratego events in Greece ) will follow  shortly



#98 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,832 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 22 February 2018 - 10:20 PM

I am waiting for your answer and I am not playing as a child. The situation is not for fun.

Sir,

 

Stratego is a game where everybody shall have fun. Same thing is valid on this forum. As your accusation is pure fantasy i prefer to make fun out of it hoping that we can both come out of this with a big smile and a strong shake hand instead of immediately jumping into legal like your friend Karaiskakis is doing .... why don't we go on the game side and have a friendly together instead of fighting on this forum?


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

#99 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 22 February 2018 - 10:30 PM

I think that based on the current amount of complaints that seem to involve favoritism and unfair rulings, including severe critisism by some of his ex-team members who have worked with him, it seems that Napoleon 1er should indeed keep the honor to himself and step down.

 

Note that he has now 2 report against him coming for false statements and in the libel case against Lonello he seems not to trust his own judgement to make the right decision.

 

He is defending a position that has become unholdable.

 

@Napoleon 1er: Instead of trying to make me look like a bully as in the case of Major Nelson, where I was just telling him he was wrong in the background in a harsh way, please do the right thing this time and step down.


  • KARAISKAKIS likes this

#100 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,472 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 22 February 2018 - 10:33 PM

I think that based on the current amount of complaints that seem to involve favoritism and unfair rulings, including severe critisism by some of his ex-team members who have worked with him, it seems that Napoleon 1er should indeed keep the honor to himself and step down.

 

Note that he has now 2 report against him coming for false statements and in the libel case against Lonello he seems not to trust his own judgement to make the right decision.

 

He is defending a position that has become unholdable.

 

@Napoleon 1er: Instead of trying to make me look like a bully as in the case of Major Nelson, where I was just telling him he was wrong in the background in a harsh way, please do the right thing this time and step down.

Otherwise you have another point   

# 17 of Theo/Napoleon's list

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






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users