Jump to content


Photo

Future of the MT


  • Please log in to reply
394 replies to this topic

#161 Lonello

Lonello

    General

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

Posted 28 February 2018 - 03:46 PM

Tinfoiled hats are enough for us!


Lo

#162 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 28 February 2018 - 08:24 PM

We unanimously want to have a nice and peaceful atmosphere on the forum.

Actually you are the only one in this thread suggesting this in words, not in actions, with 2 libel/slander cases running against you and evidence stacking up.

 

There is a list of 20 issues that were coming from various users. Most people want something done of that list or were adding evidence.

 

But in earlier post you also seem to confuse "We and I" or you dont want to disclose who we is: Nortrom already correcty asked you a question about this.

 

:"We consider the Sadistic clique properly warned now." May I ask who "We" refers to in this sentence? I would also like to ask you clarify you who you refer to as "the Sadistic clique"

 

or here:

 

"and we'll monitor the behavior closely for a while" > Again that is just you again right?

 

"It is Admin's and our's wish" > Again that is just you again right?

 

There is only one statement in the last few posts you made that I was eager to hear about: To give the users the option to purge non-functioning members of the MT. I am honestly suprised nobody gave any likes on this yet.

 

"In the meanwhile we are also constructing ways to have the option for the community to purge us, MT."  > I am looking forward to the questions in the survey.

 

One suggestion I can make for the survey is: "Do you think that MT members should use libel and/or slander, defamation of character and/or threads of Permaban to stay in power?" Full disclosure: I would vote No on that one.


Edited by Morx, 28 February 2018 - 08:30 PM.

  • dalee likes this

#163 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 01 March 2018 - 03:53 AM

I don't know who fired the first shot but it's time for both sides to lower the weapons.  Some act like this forum is something other than a private website that they have no control over.  They imagine it's a small country with courts and leaders that can be voted or forced out.  They think people here can change programming or enforce ISF rules when the game doesn't support it.  It needs to stop now.  The MT isn't evil or incompetent. They're volunteers trying to keep this a fun place.  It's tragic that they've reacted badly to the badgering but it's easy to appreciate that they feel ambushed.  They're human beings.  The goal of some to remove them is a big fantasy.  You can spam customer support and try to cause a ruckus, but the admins work with the MT and know them.  It's easy for them to see they do most things reasonably well.  It's highly unlikely they'd remove them and the site would be worse off if it happened.  If they see too much dysfunction though they might just turn the forum off.  It's not like a ton of people use it. 
 


  • Luckypapa, Don_Homer, Napoleon 1er and 3 others like this

#164 Fks

Fks

    Major

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

Posted 01 March 2018 - 04:01 AM

I don't know who fired the first shot but it's time for both sides to lower the weapons.  Some act like this forum is something other than a private website that they have no control over.  They imagine it's a small country with courts and leaders that can be voted or forced out.  They think people here can change programming or enforce ISF rules when the game doesn't support it.  It needs to stop now.  The MT isn't evil or incompetent. They're volunteers trying to keep this a fun place.  It's tragic that they've reacted badly to the badgering but it's easy to appreciate that they feel ambushed.  They're human beings.  The goal of some to remove them is a big fantasy.  You can spam customer support and try to cause a ruckus, but the admins work with the MT and know them.  It's easy for them to see they do most things reasonably well.  It's highly unlikely they'd remove them and the site would be worse off if it happened.  If they see too much dysfunction though they might just turn the forum off.  It's not like a ton of people use it. 
 

I find myself always liking DR's Posts :)


  • Napoleon 1er and DarthRemark like this
Proud Member of the North American Stratego Federation (NASF)

#165 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 01 March 2018 - 09:36 AM

@Darth, there is a lot of statements in your last post that I like give some nuance or factual statements you make that can be easily proven incorrect.

 

 

 The MT isn't evil or incompetent.

I think you are right with this statement and I think almost everyone, even the most vocal opposition will agree with that.

The actual discussion seems to revolve around the functioning of individual members of the MT.

 

Evil is a vague concept, for me not so relevant when discussing what MT should do. What I think MT should amongst others is:

- Be impartial in cases

- Act professional and in line with the site policy that they should uphold

- Be an example to other players. A judge should not step over the law

- Do not show favoritsm

 

Lets go over these members one by one:

Napoleon 1er: has been outted for favoritism when asking for evidence of this when he was trying to downplay the whole situation. His untrue statement about KARAISKAKIS caused incredible damage to his real live reputation in Greece.

 

The libel case I have been defending on this subject was being played down by members of MT instead of being handled. That is not what I call act professional, be an example to others or be impartial.

 

He was also involved in trying to do a cover up for actions taken by new MT member Major Nelson. I still support the claim for him to step down.

 

GaryLShelton:

He for me is what the MT should be. Impartial, professional, never giving his personal opinion about cases that are in process.

If there was an MT reward he would get my vote. If all members of the MT would act like he does in this very situation, this very thread would only be 2 pages long and would get maybe 200 viewers.

 

Tobermoryx:

The discussion here seems to show he is doing a real good job. He is not part of any of the complaints in this thread. In the background I get great feedback about his ability to judge cases.

 

Major Nelson

Most players I know were very happy that he joined MT because he is one of those shining stars of the Greek community.

He really annoyed me with some of his actions in week 1 (see other posts) but I believe that with the right guidance and with good example he has to potential to be a good impartial member of MT. I already gave him some ideas on how to do this in private.  The site policy case rule he is involved in, will set jurisprudence on my further actions regarding one specific subject.

 

Lonello

He seems to have a passion for what he is doing. And he seems to believe that he is doing a good job.

 

In this very thread he says he is not a professional. This is true, he is not getting paid for this, like all MT members. What is more he is also shown in public as not acting professional.

 

Many of the statements he makes in this very thread are coming out of thin air and are only negative towards players that give him a hard time. It seems he cannot handle negative feedback very well. What is more though that despite various warnings, he continues lying and discrediting Nortrom. Two public libel/slander cases for this are currently in progress by MT.

 

One case I could accept, but continuing to do the same thing after you are warned and after a case is pending does not impress me much. Also he is involved in abuse of power and threatening Permaban against various people. I think he is also involved in misrepresenting what the Admins say or did, but actual evidence for this is yet pending.

 

 

"It's highly unlikely they'd remove them"

 

In the past moderators have been punished when they did not do what the Admins thought was right.  Why would it be different this time?

 

"The goal of some to remove them is a big fantasy."

 

If you read the thread, you will see that Lonello is stating the opposite:

"In the meanwhile we are also constructing ways to have the option for the community to purge us, MT."



#166 Lonello

Lonello

    General

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

Posted 01 March 2018 - 10:19 AM

Me too, Fks :).

There might be a bit of mystery but Morx for one knows exactly what I am talking about in this thread and after Admin's review we consider all this nonsense over now. We've kept all this warmongering open for the community to witness still though so they can judge themselves and I can not word it any better than Darth or this great post here: http://forum.strateg...ck-is-going-on/

 

 

PS
I do fully accept I am -not- a Professional :rolleyes: B)


  • Fks likes this
Lo

#167 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,449 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 01 March 2018 - 07:29 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

 

Dear MT,

 

I would like to make a 4-step suggestion which in my opinion would at worst provide the Community with an official avenue to pursue all lines of enquiry or at best would eliminate the justification for almost all of the criticisms that various members have levelled at MT.

 

The prime objectives of the following 4 steps are to increase transparency and visibility of MT action and opinion and encourage community co-operation.

 

1. Classify all offences of all types by category (eg offensive language/sexually explicit/threats of violence/discriminatory language/draw refusal/stalling etc etc) with standard disciplinary action matched to the offence on each occasion. Clarify which Site Rules will be enforced by MT and which will not

 

2. Create a Report Log for all cases (brought to MT privately or publicly). Track type of case, verdict, voting score (eg 3-2), disciplinary action taken, majority reason for decision). Include all cases in the Report Log without deferral to admin

 

3. Create an Announcement Log with details of any other MT decisions, actions or admin interaction regarding any matters not concerned with cases in the Report Log

 

4. Create a Proposal Log where the Community can advocate proposals of any nature to MT. MT (and the community) to discuss each proposal publicly and vote, disclosing verdict (eg. reject the idea/support the idea/might support a variation of the idea), determining action required (if any), and provide reasons in the Proposal Log.


  • astros likes this

#168 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,812 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 01 March 2018 - 08:07 PM

 

Napoleon 1er: has been outted for favoritism when asking for evidence of this when he was trying to downplay the whole situation. His untrue statement about KARAISKAKIS caused incredible damage to his real live reputation in Greece.

 

 

@Morx

 

please be factual. Some statements have been made accusing me of favouritism but no evidence has been brought. The plaintiff has accused me of favoritism because of the following sentence i wrote in a pm (that has then been published publicly above by the plaintif violating the rules of privacy but let's close the eyes on that):

 

" 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."

 

personnally i don't see favoritism in there. I could have written Hielco is best dutch player online so he shall get support from dutch mates or Losermaker is best australian player so he shall get support from all australian mates ... this is not favouritism, this is personal opinion. Favouritism from a mod would be when votes would differ for cases that are identical. For example if in a case against player A for saying something abusive against player B i would vote 1st degree warning point but if player C would have said exactly the same thing against player B then I would have voted 3rd level 1 month ban against player C. This is clearly favoritism. in the case of Overlord against Karaiskakis I voted no case but i 100% confirm that if any other player would have said exactly the same thing to Karaiskakis I would also have voted no case. So there is strictly no favoritism in that action. Same thing if Overlord would have said exactly the same thing not to Karaiskakis but to somebody else I would also have voted no case. No favouritism even in that case.

 

Your accusation is pure fantasy Morx, please recognize the rationale above.


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

#169 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

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

Posted 01 March 2018 - 08:56 PM

@Morx
 
please be factual. Some statements have been made accusing me of favouritism but no evidence has been brought. The plaintiff has accused me of favoritism because of the following sentence i wrote in a pm (that has then been published publicly above by the plaintif violating the rules of privacy but let's close the eyes on that):
 
" 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."
 
personnally i don't see favoritism in there. I could have written Hielco is best dutch player online so he shall get support from dutch mates or Losermaker is best australian player so he shall get support from all australian mates ... this is not favouritism, this is personal opinion. Favouritism from a mod would be when votes would differ for cases that are identical. For example if in a case against player A for saying something abusive against player B i would vote 1st degree warning point but if player C would have said exactly the same thing against player B then I would have voted 3rd level 1 month ban against player C. This is clearly favoritism. in the case of Overlord against Karaiskakis I voted no case but i 100% confirm that if any other player would have said exactly the same thing to Karaiskakis I would also have voted no case. So there is strictly no favoritism in that action. Same thing if Overlord would have said exactly the same thing not to Karaiskakis but to somebody else I would also have voted no case. No favouritism even in that case.
 
Your accusation is pure fantasy Morx, please recognize the rationale above.


Dan,

You seem to like my arguments so I'll see how I can do here.

First, displaying private messages should not be against the rules that is absolutely ridiculous (the exact rules are currently unclear though). If players are not allowed to post private messages, does that mean I can send other members pornography without repercussion? Alternatively, imagine Moderator X tells Player Y, "I know you are not guilty of draw refusal, but I hate you so I am voting guilty." Is it not Player Y's right to make it public?

As for the private messages that have recently been made public, I'll take your word that you did not give John preferential treatment, by the way publishing vote totals for every case would help confirm this ;). However, the comments that KARAISKAKIS posted from your private message, could reasonably give the impression that you were looking to protect John. Similarly, Major Nelson's reply to me that I posted shows that he might consider me a prejudiced player. The tone is unfriendly and I believe that I am being reasonable in worrying that he will vote against me on that basis.

Given Lonello's particularly hostile attitude towards the OWC team and the fact that they all lost their staff positions, indicates to me that the MT might have a bone to pick with players criticizing them. I am not alleging that any MT member is or has voted unfairly, but surely you can see why I am concerned about the abusive behavior case pending against me.

A number of these concerns could be assuaged if the MT did not seek to prevent players from posting messages that reflect poorly on them and if detailed reasons were provided for the disciplinary actions against the OWC committee.

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

#170 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 3,129 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Miner

Posted 02 March 2018 - 01:24 AM

Looks like our WCO team is gone. Any factual details? Or just nothing but opinion? These are necessary for the community's trust. Why were they demoted?


WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#171 roeczak

roeczak

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,013 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 02 March 2018 - 01:25 AM

Beacuse there is no WCO running.


Roeczak <----- Stratego YT channel 
Highest Rating : 966 (Platinum Marshal) 


#172 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 3,129 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Miner

Posted 02 March 2018 - 01:28 AM

Beacuse there is no WCO running.

That has nothing to do with it, last interim between WCO's they weren't demoted, were they? It's a result of the case(?) regarding Nortrom that, apparently, the admin decided (again, no details, these would be great  :)

 

It would also be nice if the admin showed up and explained this too us like the last time staff members were demoted (or in that case actually banned.)


WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#173 roeczak

roeczak

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,013 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 02 March 2018 - 01:35 AM

MN from MT told me what I said above.

Also, the admins are demoting people, but isn't about time to place the new Greek Tm's so we can have a championship?


Edited by roeczak, 02 March 2018 - 01:35 AM.

Roeczak <----- Stratego YT channel 
Highest Rating : 966 (Platinum Marshal) 


#174 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 3,129 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Miner

Posted 02 March 2018 - 01:42 AM

That doesn't make much sense, sorry. Because there isn't a Junior Tournament running on right now, will I be demoted?


WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#175 Fks

Fks

    Major

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

Posted 02 March 2018 - 02:07 AM

Lonello likes the colors if you really want the reason :)


  • Lonello and Losermaker like this
Proud Member of the North American Stratego Federation (NASF)

#176 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

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

Posted 02 March 2018 - 03:28 AM

MN from MT told me what I said above.

Also, the admins are demoting people, but isn't about time to place the new Greek Tm's so we can have a championship?

 

 

That has nothing to do with it, last interim between WCO's they weren't demoted, were they? It's a result of the case(?) regarding Nortrom that, apparently, the admin decided (again, no details, these would be great  :)

 

It would also be nice if the admin showed up and explained this too us like the last time staff members were demoted (or in that case actually banned.)

 

Major Nelson's response is interesting. We have Dutch Tournament Managers who have seemingly never organized a tournament here, Junior Tournament Managers who are not actively running a tournament and NASF members who have had staff status the entire time I have been here despite not running a tournament in that period, though they are currently organizing one. The fact that these people all retain staff status but the OWC committee lost theirs is telling. Particularly, when we consider that all three members made valid points in this thread that were embarrassing to current MT members. Perhaps an MT member can clarify why this happened because right now it looks like some people have hurt feelings.

 

Also, why is it in the MT's purview to remove tournament organizers? From Lonello's post, it seems that the MT asked that all 3 OWC members be removed, despite the MT not even voting on a case of abusive behavior, at least publicly.


  • KARAISKAKIS and TheOptician like this
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#177 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 02 March 2018 - 03:31 AM

@Darth, there is a lot of statements in your last post that I like give some nuance or factual statements you make that can be easily proven incorrect.

Your overview may be mostly accurate, but in life there are situations when you are technically right but still wrong, and I think this is one of those.  I see Napoleon catching a lot of flak but he has reasonable explanations.  Lonello (who full disclosure is a friend of mine) has more troubling actions.  But from what I can gather this is a long running feud of some sort that boiled over into this forum, so I'm willing to cut him some slack knowing nothing else.  And I would do that for anyone.  It's pretty clear a small group here is trying to cause trouble.  They might have started by seeking the ultimate good, but it's just about winning the argument now.  I think the MT should disclose the details for the decision in Nortrom's case.  My advice to them is to take the current cases and respond to them point by point, honestly explaining their reasonings at each stage even if they made mistakes like not following their own rules.  At that point they will have the high ground if they want to do a blanket dismissal of further objections.  It's the only way to diffuse this.  And my advice to the counter group is to realize that the volunteers here want what's best for the site too. Stop trying to crucify them and try to work with them.  You probably both need to start by apologizing for whatever might have started this.  Lo and Nortrom tried to explain some of it to me but I still don't get it.  I don't think most others do either.  And I don't think most care.  They just want this to be a fun place.  So it's time to get along. 


  • Lonello, Losermaker, Napoleon 1er and 1 other like this

#178 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 02 March 2018 - 03:32 AM

I find myself always liking DR's Posts :)

Thanks!  It feels good to be appreciated. :) 


  • Fks likes this

#179 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

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

Posted 02 March 2018 - 04:13 AM

I created a brief survey for players to evaluate the Moderation Team.

 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QMCXL33


Edited by malcom.jansen, 02 March 2018 - 04:17 AM.

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

#180 Lonello

Lonello

    General

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

Posted 02 March 2018 - 09:28 AM

A little birdie told me one colleague of mine was working on that as well but great... we can have lots :).

 

Given Lonello's particularly hostile attitude towards the OWC team and the fact that they all lost their staff positions, indicates to me that the MT might have a bone to pick with players criticizing them.

 

The facts proove the opposite, Malcom. I for one urged Admin not to penalize them directly when that was put on the table. And they were not. I for one also urged to keep everything on the forum. This time I won that vote so most is still there but a vulgar picture Nortrom had again put on the forum and my colleagues wanted removed. So I was actually the one making sure nobody was couffed or anything. The only attitude I have in my entire life is act outspoken against bullying which is why you see me responding more but in MT and with Admin we have had only unanimous decisions with as only goal to keep this an unbiased and impartial forum which goal we have clear knowledge of the opposing party has not.

Now, as explained by the 19/20th by my colleagues we have had Admin review the cases. Naturally, if you bring petty cases like "He asked me even a second time if he could upload my game!" or "He said I was in crimes but I am no robber!" and this comes from Staff who had pledged by the end of the year to go to war, the review is not so much about Crimegate or Stalkinggate, but about the behavior of Staff entirely.

But both you and Nortrom are perfectly right, Malcom. We have been showing favoratism and not following up on past decisions. Nortrom started the war with saying he was penalized before for so much as mentioning the word clown. When he started with his swears and vulgarity then, he prooved his point as this MT did nothing against it but let him rant.

But they took it too far and some of us got burned out with all the harassment... it lead to 3 MT-members actually resigning recently over all the pettyness on the forum, of which 2 we could finally persuade to stay. It's just bullying, so their ambush this last week is no surprise and especially Staff needs to show another attitude to keep this forum nice. But what on fact have we got here for opposing party?

One PB'd member in hides on the forum and currently an enduring, MT runned, open case for constant personal attacking
One de facto PB'd member by Admin, but could be saved by me personally as swinging vote
One on Gravon PB'd member and over here penalized for personal attacks, also pleading to have a Sadistic MT installed here which player was PB'd over here for swearing and uploading pornographic materials for one
And then a little

All of this was their track record of behavior BEFORE current MT, or it was Admin's action. All of it. We have not penalized them. Zero. Even after all the abuse the last months they have not received so much as a single warning.

We have been doing nothing but trying to reach peace these last days as that is the clear wish of the forum. We can open a lot more of this and engage all the attacks, have no mysteries. But you have always have to keep your eye on the big picture which is why we have not done so. To have open reviews, open cases on them is probably the best way to act. If the harassments stop, then all ends well... the ball is in their corner.

MT has always searched for people with exemplary behavior. Current MT-members have not so much as a scratch on that while the above we would not be selecting indeed, two of them to date actually wearing Warningpoints (as again, not given by us). And for myself, as I said, I wouldn't be able to work with a cloned group of Sadistics in MT as Nortrom's deepest wish is, he said.

So Malcom, you are probably right and we have shown favoratism, but for good reasons. It's not that we have such a huge forum that we can spare a couple of high contributors, although their content is sometimes low. So yes I do admit I have not only been on the barricades for the victims but also for the last category. As I read your quote above there might be some appearance of the contrary, but the facts on record proove otherwise so I wanted to set that straight.

We have not followed through on stricter MT's/JC's before us, we have not penalized at all for the misconducts as displayed but instead tried to accommodate. And we do indeed do that for the benefit of running tournaments and for the activity on the forum. But it's a judgementcall. Other MT's would have people hiding posts all the time, or like an MT like you, banning the lot. I don't think that's right for the longer term and think you can best go for transparancy and the wisdom of the community to coop with bad deeds.


Lo




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users