Jump to content


Photo

Future of the MT


  • Please log in to reply
394 replies to this topic

#121 Fks

Fks

    Major

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

Posted 23 February 2018 - 09:47 AM

Stratego isn't big enough to afford to ban top players ... Even in more popular games there is a very big hesitation when and if to use the ban hammer. I personally wouldn't be the one to ever place a ban for example on someone like Nortrom or Overlord. I also don't like to see players banned for just verbal abuse which just happened. It's a competitive game people sh*t talk and if that is hurting you enough for you to report it to mods honestly ....


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

#122 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 23 February 2018 - 09:59 AM

@Fks, the discussion here is not about banning players.

It is about few other things:

 

- Favoritism as requested to be proven. I think that point is 100 percent clear from all the facts coming out against  Napoleon 1er

- Napoleon 1er lying about stuff, aka libel/slander which is hurting KARAISKAKIS

 

If you read the argument made you will see that this is what they are saying.


  • KARAISKAKIS and Fks like this

#123 Lonello

Lonello

    General

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

Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:36 AM

I, for one, was of the erroneous impression that whenever a warning point (a WP) was given to a forum member (WP's are only given for forum abuses) that the entire community could view the result just like we could. For example, we on the MT can clearly view the 2 warning points for Aris and one WP for zoografos. But can regular members see these same WP's? I never thought they couldn't. In fact, I have only recently confirmed with regular member KMC that he cannot see those same WP's. So my point is until recently this moderator, at least, didn't know the full extent of the concealment of WP decisions that we reported "low-key".

The MT will have to discuss these "low-key announcements" internally. Just please know this fact. These types of announcements by us have only been an exceedingly small percentage of the total decisions we do make and publish publicly over the course of a year. Our transparency is really very high.

 

Lol Gary, I must have told you this half a dozen times over the years but you keep forgetting. In any case yes, it's transparancy on top, always. But this feature gives to think. It's a build-in system so it is expected the WP-system is an off-community system. This is its intent. You can doubt if you can then announce the WP's still. Also, it's irrelevant to know how many WP's one has. If it's 3 the next is 4, thus PB, but if it's 2 and we jump 2 next, then it's also PB.

Why is it needed to know 'how far off' someone is from being PB'd anyway? Let's say one great forumattributor has a vendictive tendency towards another great forumattributor here of whom MT had indeed decided to jump to 3 WP's. The first can then easily try provoking the other in doing that one last step, to get him PB'd.

There have been a couple of good members who do have control issues. I've had one case in my time as MT actually, which was trickz. He was a nice contributor most of the time but he showed abuse so we penalized him to the final PB in the end. Swallow is a loose canon as well and Malcom wants to get rid of him, to name the two everybody already knew I was talking about. It seems easy to provoke Swallow into PB then. But as I said above, it's irrelevant to know if he's at 2 or 3. So why make a public document about it if that is not in the intended system at all?

Now Fks makes the point not to PB him-period (for he too ofcourse is a top player). Ergo, MT has to deal with constant demands going all ways. The one would say we must ban this or that top player regardless, the other would say never to do that period.
 

 

My real intention with my post is to prove that this man should have resigned YESTERDAY.

 

 

2 WP for the same thing and 1 week ban which means one step before PB

As explained above, this is incorrect. It is now announced that Aris has 2 WP's so that is not 1 step way from PB, or MT must jump offenses, but Aris has been really nice since so he probably gets relieved of his 2 WP's after sunset. The problem we faced on both Aris and Swallow was indeed their tourneypresence. So we had to explain their bans in any case, where for instance with 1 mere WP there is no reason at all to announce to the community we have WP'd. Did you announce it when WP'ing Nortrom, KARAISKAKIS? It was 1 WP so I am curious. It is not standard protocol to do so but maybe back then it was?

And yes, I completely agree with your argumentation in that PM-thread but the point here is that yes you asked for his resignation... but he didn't resign. You do so again now, and it's still the same answer.

To his defense I must say he was in favor of some kind of MT popularity contest up to elections, well before this famous week. Seeing lack of support then I'm sure he would resign.

Same goes for me. If the forum wants the Fake News University to run things, or as Malcom pleaded to go sit in some Ivory Tower away from the community, then I'm outta here. We're just a couple of normal members around here like everyone else. We only have a couple of moderating tasks costing us about 40 hours a week. A normal job but then without pay.


Lo

#124 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

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

Posted 23 February 2018 - 01:08 PM

Napoleon,
 
What was asked of you:
 
1. Look at the represented facts (both regarding Lonello's comments and the definition of "libel")
2. Come to a verdict
 
This has nothing to do with"banning your free volunteering team mate". The fact that the "free service" card has to be played out also implies that incompetence should be forgiven and taken for granted.
 
What you did:
 
1. Come up with a very weak story about how you consider yourself incompetent on the area of impartial judgement
2. Make some story about "to ban your free volunteering team mate if necessary" 
 
What you should do:
 
1. Look at the represented facts (both regarding Lonello's comments and the definition of "libel")
2. Come to a verdict
3. Wait for other MT members to do the same
4. Share the verdict (may be done by another MT member too)
5. Optional: Assign one or multiple WP's. If this offense (if found guilty) would be severe enough for enough WP's for a ban (I assume libel is quite a severe case) you should follow the procedure.
 
 
 
As for the issues raised by KARAISKAKIS, I must admit to being shocked you take ☆OVERLORD☆'s future potential into consideration when coming to judgements. While true, overlord having great potential, one of your MT members, lonello clearly stated, and I suppose this also is an MT policy, that no "uber platinum marshal favouritism" must happen. The issues raised by KARAISKAKIS clearly show you are either not willing or / and not capable of coming to impartial fair judgements.


You are only missing one important detail:
There are 3 options to vote:
Guilty
not guilty
Blank

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

#125 dalee

dalee

    Sergeant

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

Posted 23 February 2018 - 01:12 PM

Napoleon, only the way you act here in this topic, shows that you are out of control.

 

The Stratego game is for fun when you play. When you have a role to control and calm as best as you can the community is not a funny game, it is a serious job.

 

I could show to the community your favouritism to some players (such Overlord, as that is already written) publishing pms and conversations between me and MT. But here is a question, is that against the rules? Is that good for the community?

 

You even didn't answer, what are you suppose to do if I bring you 1-2 examples. Your answer should be that you should resign from MT, but as you know that you already don't follow the rules, there is no honor in your soul.

 

I don't want to make troubles to the community. That is not my purpose. So the best is to report you to Admins, and they should decide about.

As someone wrote that before, this is a commercial site and Admins represent Jumbo. So they can do what they want to. But in the other hand, here exists a community of humans and that is the reason that we have the forum rules.

 

The best action is the report you to Admins. Anyone who agrees with that, can follow.


Edited by dalee, 23 February 2018 - 01:14 PM.

  • KARAISKAKIS and Morx like this

#126 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,715 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 February 2018 - 01:24 PM

A job with no pay ! If Jumbo want 'professional' moderators , then they recruit them and pay them and instruct them. Seemingly they don't want to do this.

 

The 'site policy' referred to , supposedly to prevent discussion of Gravon , is to me a simple , standard , 'anti spam' policy .

 

 

Tober,

 

Your first comment may look "nice", and MT has received lots of slack by many players in the past, but this is not an excuse for incompetence. You're essentially saying "Yes we are incompetent! but we are free incompetent mods". 

 

"

Do not:
Post spam or re-post closed, modified, or hidden/deleted content
"
 
This takes care of anti-spam. No need to have two rules about the same thing. Based on the facts of the site policy Morx presented, I feel MT does not interpret and definitely not enforce this the proper way.

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#127 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,715 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 February 2018 - 01:30 PM

You are only missing one important detail:
There are 3 options to vote:
Guilty
not guilty
Blank

Like anywhere else

This falls under "Come to a verdict". Abstaining (blank) to me sounds like " guilty by rules, decided not guilty for other reasons ". Small amount of options makes it easier to choose though :).


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#128 hellinon

hellinon

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 23 February 2018 - 08:43 PM

«Mayrokordate. You've written your betrayal in a paper and soon I hope I will write it in your own face. Then you're true face will be seen».

 

''Greek revolution 1821-1829''


Edited by hellinon, 25 February 2018 - 12:01 AM.

  • morias and virusgr like this

#129 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 24 February 2018 - 07:23 AM

 

@ DarthRemark

Look again Napoleon's respond in my post ( blue letters)and tell me if it is reasonable:

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.
 

 

 

1. He asks me why it was important for me  to keep the case secret  because I followed the appropiate way (using the report button)  exactly as it is described in MT"s  instructions over here : http://forum.strateg...nt/#entry442285

2. He asks me why it was important for me  to bring this case here after 2 months when HE  has asked a douzen times in this thread to provide examples/ cases for favoritism etc.

3. Finally he does not lose the opporunity to give his own conclusion and attack me with his question about my real personal intentions when i have already underlined in my post which are these. 

I have already explained my true intentions to Major Nelson before my post in this thread. I call him to confirm it public.

 

My real intention with my post is to prove that this man should have resigned YESTERDAY.

 

After all the above do you believe that is reasonable such persons to be still member in MT?

I read into this that Napoleon has some history with Karaiskakis. :)   So maybe I dismissed this part of his original post.  I remember some arguments between you too when I was on the MT.  I honestly don't remember what they were about now, but my impression at the time was that you both needed to cool down.  I think you ended up resigning over it though. 
 
So I'll let Napoleon reply further this.  I think your responses are perfectly reasonable too.  Napoleon asked for these facts and you delivered them.  The ball is in his court.
 
I think his earlier comments about Overlord are understandable. Without getting into the minutia of the case I'd say conceptually that Napoleon is wrong and I'd vote against him on the MT.  But his perspective is still valuable and his goals were pure.  As a practical matter we want players to be engaged in the community so what's the best way to do that for a promising young player in trouble?  Napoleon eyed the betterment of the group, but his position was flawed.  It's not an unpardonable sin.  The MT is a group and not one person precisely to mitigate these kinds of mistakes.  

Edited by DarthRemark, 24 February 2018 - 07:23 AM.

  • GaryLShelton, Don_Homer and Lonello like this

#130 Lonello

Lonello

    General

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

Posted 25 February 2018 - 08:15 PM

On Transparancy, I can add a bit. As remarked MT is busy making a survey. Everyone can already contemplate for themselves on one question I'd bring since it's a long debate and about 10 weeks ago I raised a formal matter within MT. It's about the Private Feature.

The reason Staff gets approached often is because members see us online. That we can't see them I don't care about at all and that Admin uses it is understandable as well given their jobrequirements but Staff must be set to the highest community standard. This imho should come with its limitations.

Staff needs to approachable and visible preferably at all times so the community feels watched over and protected. Any Staff member must be open and full of transparancy. I've been hammering on not to use bilaterals and always open up to the rest of the Team, and this is part of that policy. It's also unfair to the other Staffmembers one goes stealth and dugs a part of the workload. My vote was to have it as requirement for all new Staff not to use the private option. This honors what we've allowed in the past but will set the good precedent for the future.

Staff gets status updates by notifications so there is zero need to use the "cloaking device", as the Romulans would say. Others raised they don't like it as they believed a cop should be in a marked cop car, not an unmarked one ("Blue on the street" is quite the thing in my country, for appearances).
 
There was a fair reason mentioned to use it in the past. The one argument raised was that people would not be on their computer all day and they didn't want to have to sign out every time they were away for you will lose your avatar. It is a nag to be in need to upload it again all the time indeed but it's no longer necessary to log out as you're automatically timed out by inactivity. So you will not appear online when you are not for a long time, just a couple of minutes maybe, but you see the name drop to the right and then vanish so everyone can estimate the amount of inactivity.

Downside to it obviously is to be secretively anti-transparant. It's a way to ambush. The way it operates is you can hide behind your activity while actually present... someone called it just sneaky schemes. With me, what you see is what you get... literally in fact via my avatar which is my face. And MT does not select these secretive people in their midst, so should not the other bodies.

This is why I made a point about this... that every new Staff should have the feature off. We have the one Mod in MT that holds this feature but he was here before any of the rest of us. I am happy to see besides the green of MT all the nice coloring of all active bodies who feel they do not need to privatize; in Juniors, NASF and TC. WCO we sadly do not see any color of, and for the rest just a few disappeared members are on the private list but they are gone for real and will be taken off http://forum.strateg...tats&do=leaders.

In my country we have elections coming in March and I for one would only elect open people and not the closed ones for I would only doubt their intent. So this is how it is supposed to be for communityworkers imho.

Since the programming fix a long time ago to make it so that we "time out" after inactivity there's no argument any more for it. We don't want to become some high Elites sitting in ivory towers, hard to approach. I would actually like to see Moderators around on a forum, whatever forum that may be. Which is why I motioned this as one of the fair prerequisites for Staff. We had The_Prof advising about the matter earlier too, as to hold a poll so MT could estimate how to act. This is a perfect time to question the community about it.


Lo

#131 Unladen Swallow

Unladen Swallow

    Captain

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

Posted 25 February 2018 - 08:20 PM

I don't see why it is important for someone to know when I am online. 

 

E.g. there are times when I'm on Stratego.com but busy with other things, or times I'm browsing via phone, and am just checking in on discussions rather than entering into anything serious. 


Edited by Unladen Swallow, 25 February 2018 - 08:21 PM.

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. 


#132 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,715 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 25 February 2018 - 08:33 PM

Basically what Josh said. While the first attempt (correct me if I'm wrong on this) from MT to gather feedback is appreciated, it is about a total non-issue. If the forum wouldn't show one's activity I, personally, would have less issues revealing the online status. 

 

Also should you visit anyone's profile while logged in "anonymously" it will not show on their profile as "latest visitors"

 

eMoqhVs.png


  • Unladen Swallow likes this

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#133 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,715 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 25 February 2018 - 09:51 PM

Based on the post to be found at: http://forum.strateg...e-4#entry447337 and my earlier consideration ( http://forum.strateg...e-4#entry447344 ) of opening a new case, after re-reading the post by lonello, I feel there is no other choice but to submit a new case.
 
"As what Nortrom is pulling is no rocket science either."
This is a clear insinuation that I would be up so something deceitful, unethical or even manipulative. This statement is clearly meant to damage my reputation but also a false statement without any facts in it. (Libel).
 
"We've left the farce cases Nortrom brought to the Abusive section open for everybody to witness."
An ongoing case has been judged by lonello already. This does not look ethical and totally devoid of any fair, impartial and objective judgement. (prejudiced about ongoing cases)
 
"All he is doing is testing us out to divide... he stretches and stretches to become the New Sadistic and hopes to be PB'd for it, that's what he begs for anyway.."
Again a statement without any facts meant to harm my reputation, making it look like there is an evil plot conjured by yours truly. The Sadistic part is also completely untrue, please quote where I have said I would like to be "The new Sadistic" and for the PB remark, I consider this to be a veiled threat (Libel + Power abuse).
 
"What he has relayed is very obvious... wanting to purge an entire impartial team with members of all countries divided"
The case presented against Napoleon 1er earlier demonstrates that the "Entire MT" is not impartial as favouritism has been admitted. I don't require the entire MT to step down either. (False statement and libel).
 
"replace it by a clone Team of Sadistics as trained by him in the Nortrom University"
I have not trained any clone(s) of Sadistics (False statement). The way he speaks of 'Sadistic' in general is negative, the insinuation that I want to put clones of (in his eyes) bad people is libellous. (Libel).
 
"Always demanding things but as asked of him earlier, then you should also deliver. But he can't be burdened with anything more than 1 tourney as volunteering work"
Another "damage the reputation" post without any merit. http://forum.strateg...allow/?p=444756 clearly shows I am doing more than "just one tourney" and I also have offered my services ( http://forum.strateg...e-3#entry447193(Libel).
 
"So what he wants is to turn this forum in to what it has been this week alltogether[sic]. You'll see the constant infights[sic] and the petty wars prolonged for a couple of more decades I'm sure"
Facts? evidence? I already have explained how I would ensure forum issues would be dealt with effectively and have asked feedback on my proposed procedure ( http://forum.strateg...e-3#entry447290(Libel).
 
"Take the Elitist ploys to the ivory castles"
This is yet another total false statement. In many earlier comments you can find I wish that every member be treated as equal. This comment implies I would like to create an environment that benefits me or/and other "elite" players. A very bad comment (Libel).
 
 
Summary:
Libel: 7x
Prejudiced: 1x
Power abuse: 1x
False statement: 2x
 

Please judge each claim separately.

 

"As explained several times before, your behavior is currently under review and we'll let you know when this is complete. We have left your posts open for the community to judge for themselves still however." ( http://forum.strateg...-2018/?p=447643 ). As for the farce cases, I'm glad you've left your posts up, so the dear people of the forum can judge whether they are "farce cases" or not. 

 

Since this is the "future of the MT" thread, I trust the readers of the forum can see this kind of libelous behaviour from an MT member is not to be taken lightly.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#134 Aris1970

Aris1970

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 25 February 2018 - 10:27 PM

When the going gets tough, the tough get going .......  :)



#135 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 3,201 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 25 February 2018 - 10:34 PM

 

Summary:

Libel: 7x
Prejudiced: 1x
Power abuse: 1x
False statement: 2x

 

Sounds like a CNN summary of a Trump rally, LOL  :lol: 

 

 


  • tobermoryx, DarthRemark and Fks like this
WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#136 smu_qa

smu_qa

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 25 February 2018 - 10:36 PM

Summary:

Libel: 7x
Prejudiced: 1x
Power abuse: 1x
False statement: 2x
 

Please judge each claim separately.

 

 

Haha. You clearly have no background in law. Thanks for a great laugh though!


  • roeczak likes this

#137 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 3,201 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 25 February 2018 - 11:01 PM

Maybe it's chewtoy after all  :rolleyes: 


WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#138 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

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

Posted 26 February 2018 - 02:26 AM

Haha. You clearly have no background in law. Thanks for a great laugh though!

 

You're quite wrong, kevin. Don't be so rude. Nortrom has made solid conclusions based on fact and legal precedent. 

You know the old proverb?

"Silence is golden."

So, kevin, stay quiet and get rich.


Edited by KissMyCookie, 26 February 2018 - 02:27 AM.

  • KARAISKAKIS likes this

#139 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

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

Posted 26 February 2018 - 07:51 AM

 

I read into this that Napoleon has some history with Karaiskakis. :)   So maybe I dismissed this part of his original post.  I remember some arguments between you too when I was on the MT.  I honestly don't remember what they were about now, but my impression at the time was that you both needed to cool down.  I think you ended up resigning over it though. 
 
So I'll let Napoleon reply further this.  I think your responses are perfectly reasonable too.  Napoleon asked for these facts and you delivered them.  The ball is in his court.
 
I think his earlier comments about Overlord are understandable. Without getting into the minutia of the case I'd say conceptually that Napoleon is wrong and I'd vote against him on the MT.  But his perspective is still valuable and his goals were pure.  As a practical matter we want players to be engaged in the community so what's the best way to do that for a promising young player in trouble?  Napoleon eyed the betterment of the group, but his position was flawed.  It's not an unpardonable sin.  The MT is a group and not one person precisely to mitigate these kinds of mistakes.  

 

@ DarthRemark

As you can notice the ball is still in Napoleon's court with no respond yet to my strong arguements. 

His false statements  lying about stuff, aka libel/slander which is hurting me , have already put fire in greek forum.

I have no other way than to open a case against this member of MT who still has not resign and ask from him to provide all the needed proofs for his statement.

MT please open a case against Napoleon1er for liber/slander stuff in his post over here  http://forum.strateg...e-5#entry447367 in association with his clarifications in the related pm.

 

KARAISKAKIS



#140 Great Manos

Great Manos

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 26 February 2018 - 08:17 AM

Personally speaking I believe that MT is doing its job very well.
I also believe that WCO team does the same (very pleasant news the increase of participants).
It is farcical to report each other just for different points of view.
  • Don_Homer, Losermaker, Napoleon 1er and 4 others like this

Never bring a sword to a gunfight.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users