Jump to content


Photo

The MT survey 2018


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,822 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 04 March 2018 - 11:18 PM

Dear all,

 

In order to understand where the MT can improve its service to the Stratego community we are pleased to invite you to provide your opinion and suggestions. This survey 2018 

 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KC3B5TJ

 

is open until March 31st, 2018 and results will be published latest until april 30, 2018. This survey is open for all people registered in the alias list: http://forum.strateg...tions/?p=430936

 

We thank you in advance for your support and collaboration

 

The MT: Napoleon 1er, GarylShelton, Lonello, Tobermoryx and Major Nelson


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

#2 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,676 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 05 March 2018 - 12:50 AM

Besides the very low quality of the survey with unreadable questions, guiding answers and walls of text, one thing in particular I would like to ask regarding question 9
 
"I agree but I don't care, I prefer current rules as they are, I don't want ISF rules to be implemented on stratego.com"
 
There already is a poll about this (24 to 1). Why is it of such importance to bring up this topic again?
 
A better question would be " Do you think MT can ignore a poll with a massive (not quantified) difference between yes / no? "
 
The Survey provided by malcom jansen was much better.
 
Am I right that since this survey is open until March 31st, 2018 (and will take several days to process. If the process is to take as long as creating this 10 question survey, april 30, 2018 is definitely nearby). There will be no changes until then? 
 
In case you hadn't noticed, people want change, and they want it now (or atleast very soon).
 
A few weeks back in time MT was proudly presented an award for bad service.
" "Worse service than Dutch Railways" award: Entire MT squad. Dutch trains are well known for being unacceptably late on every occasion. For being able to come up with more delays and disappointments than the Dutch trains, MT has fully earned this award. "

Edited by Nortrom, 05 March 2018 - 12:57 AM.

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#3 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

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

Posted 05 March 2018 - 02:14 AM

This survey is open for all people registered in the alias list...

 

We thank you in advance for your support and collaboration

 

As I am not registered in the Alias Registry, I cannot vote. I have read the survey questions and I find the basis of each question a good starting point, but the questions as they are now are complicated and difficult to render an opinion. I believe that they need a bit of linguistic tightening to bring them to their full effectiveness.

 

I would be happy to offer some insights or some suggestions if it is deemed viable. You may feel free to contact my in a PM.

 

Again, at present, I find the survey very difficult to read and to answer.

 

Thank you and I hope to hear from you.

 

KMC



#4 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 05 March 2018 - 02:25 AM

Nortrom, for the record here, just exactly what ISF rules you want to see implemented?  I'm aware of the double/multiple chasing problem.  Is there anything else?



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#5 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,676 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 05 March 2018 - 02:34 AM

Should MT, finally, enforce ISF rules regarding chasing?

  1. bullet_star_rated.png Yes (24 votes [96.00%] - View)

     


  2. No (1 votes [4.00%] - View)

     


A massive majority voted in favor of enforcing the ISF version of (anti)chasing. I have no ground to wish for something else. I also don't see anything else right now that should be added as there are (too) many differences between live and online play.

 

How do you feel about the question "Do you think MT can ignore a poll with a massive (not quantified) difference between yes / no?" would it, in your eyes, have been a good replacement of question 9?


Edited by Nortrom, 05 March 2018 - 02:36 AM.

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#6 MTinsley

MTinsley

    Sergeant

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 05 March 2018 - 04:12 AM

As I am not registered in the Alias Registry, I cannot vote.
KMC

I highly recommend you do so. You don't need to be participating in tournaments. You just need to fill out a short questionnaire and list your alternate accounts. I know you're an advocate for transparency on this site and an improved experience. Being forthcoming would certainly help with that.

Thanks to the MT for opening this initiative. It is great that you are open to suggestions and constructive critiques on how to improve operations. I wish you all success. I shall fill out the survey tomorrow when I have more time. Will the responses be published anonymously or not?


MTinsley

Edited by MTinsley, 05 March 2018 - 04:14 AM.


#7 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Scout

Posted 05 March 2018 - 05:55 AM

Amazingly enough I was able to complete the survey. 

 

I don't know how time consuming it would be - but if each forum participant that has been active in the past 6 months could be notified that there is a survey it might help to get a decent number of replies outside the 20 or so folks that normally reply to poll's on the site.


  • Lonello likes this

​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#8 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,822 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 05 March 2018 - 07:48 AM

Nortrom

The question about ISF rules has been made because it was part of the criticisms.
I fully understand you might be frustrated by the questions as they have not been made with your personal vision in mind. We want more than just opinions we want constructive proposals. So yes it is a bit of work but then the more responses we have the better the database of proposals to change what needs to be changed.
I understand also you want a fast action as you may fear that in 2 months the momentum will get lost. This is exactly what we have to make sure: if the current animosity on the forum is just a temporary peak then we have to let it pass. What we want is to satisfy the community for the long term ... not just for the next 2 weeks

The idea will be for sure to publish anonymously but we have not really decided yet. If there is a consensus to publish them nominatively i guess it should be feasible. I'll discuss with my colleagues.

Thank you Scott for your idea to have it submitted through emails. The number of answers might be much higher , so any average will better represent the community as a whole. Good suggestion.
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#9 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 05 March 2018 - 07:59 AM

 
A massive majority voted in favor of enforcing the ISF version of (anti)chasing.

.

I can assure you the ISF version of double/multiple chasing will never be done by the MT here manually. You're talking enforcing a rule after only 6-8 moves and how are we to do that? We cannot be in games live as moderators, nor block any chasing moves. Even if you're talking about after the fact--which won't be ISF-- we simply don't have the manpower, not to mention the admin capital, to go around slapping people in the wrist for double chasing.

There will have to be a better way.

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#10 Lonello

Lonello

    General

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

Posted 05 March 2018 - 10:24 AM

Amazingly enough I was able to complete the survey. 

 

I don't know how time consuming it would be - but if each forum participant that has been active in the past 6 months could be notified that there is a survey it might help to get a decent number of replies outside the 20 or so folks that normally reply to poll's on the site.

That is a solid point indeed. Especially as there are now 2 surveys around and the 90% will not go through timeconsuming surveys. I have just asked Admin to notify the community so we'll be hearing what is feasible.


Lo

#11 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,676 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 05 March 2018 - 11:07 AM

@ Gary 
 
The main purpose is to stop double chasing so that it may not lead into a stalemate. The "oh, you attacked this piece twice already over A3, B3, C3" is less insignificant and is something the improvement team will have to look at
 
The forum users already expressed their desire for the ISF anti double/multiple-chasing to be enforced.
 
 
 
@ Lonello
 
Malcom jansen's survey is not so time consuming. 
 
Should the player base be contacted about this survey, I would like to suggest a link to this thread: http://forum.strateg...ture-of-the-mt/ is added.

Edited by Nortrom, 05 March 2018 - 11:08 AM.

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#12 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 05 March 2018 - 11:15 AM

.

I can assure you the ISF version of double/multiple chasing will never be done by the MT here manually. You're talking enforcing a rule after only 6-8 moves and how are we to do that? We cannot be in games live as moderators, nor block any chasing moves. Even if you're talking about after the fact--which won't be ISF-- we simply don't have the manpower, not to mention the admin capital, to go around slapping people in the wrist for double chasing.

There will have to be a better way.

 

Why can't it be programmed never to repeat a position 3 times? With a warning after 2 repetitions. IIRC, this is how Vincent de Boer did this in his program Invincible.


I hereby grant explicit permission to all my opponents to record and publish my games as they see fit.


#13 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 05 March 2018 - 05:27 PM

Why can't it be programmed never to repeat a position 3 times? With a warning after 2 repetitions. IIRC, this is how Vincent de Boer did this in his program Invincible.

.

TR, you are obviously a smart guy, and I assume you know programming pretty well. So I also assume you're completely right about the difficulty level of the task involved, besides the fact it just seems simple even to me, and has clearly been done elsewhere as you point out. The one thing that no one knows, however, is the location of the key to the gates of Jumbo.

If that could be located, then we'd have this thing fixed up in the time it takes for morning coffee, I'm sure.

I hope that day happens and that we even get a crack at implementing SMT or Square Moved To* blocking. Until then, the best we will possibly be able to do is some kind of ATFP. Or, after the fact punishment. :)

* For an explanation of SMT see the following post and discussion in that topic. http://forum.strateg...884#entry428884

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#14 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 05 March 2018 - 06:09 PM

.
TR, you are obviously a smart guy, and I assume you know programming pretty well. So I also assume you're completely right about the difficulty level of the task involved, besides the fact it just seems simple even to me, and has clearly been done elsewhere as you point out. The one thing that no one knows, however, is the location of the key to the gates of Jumbo.
If that could be located, then we'd have this thing fixed up in the time it takes for morning coffee, I'm sure.
I hope that day happens and that we even get a crack at implementing SMT or Square Moved To* blocking. Until then, the best we will possibly be able to do is some kind of ATFP. Or, after the fact punishment. :)
* For an explanation of SMT see the following post and discussion in that topic. http://forum.strateg...884#entry428884


If VdB and the original programmer(s) of this site get together for 1 or 2 hours, they can easily fix this. We can start a Kickstarter or other online fundraising launcher and get together the $500 this should cost at the most. Convincing Jumbo to allow this is something the MT should be working towards.
  • TheOptician likes this

I hereby grant explicit permission to all my opponents to record and publish my games as they see fit.


#15 MTinsley

MTinsley

    Sergeant

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 05 March 2018 - 08:33 PM

I have filled in the survey, and I shall detail my responses here:

Q2 How would you rate the satisfaction of MT?
I gave the MT a score of 9/10. I believe they are doing a good job, though I don't necessarily agree they are handling the recent claims by Nortrom/Morx in the most professional manner. Aside from that issue, the MT do care about the forum and the site.

Q3: What should the MT's tasks be?
Q4: Regarding the General Site and Forum Rules
Q9: Regarding enforcing ISF rules
Those 4 tasks are just right for MT now, until the admins implement further changes. Currently, it is going to be very difficult to judge cases of multiple chasing until that happens. There are a few problems associated with this -- it is only known as a rule to forum users and those in tourneys, and especially it is not apparent to new users. I believe there needs to be programming changes to inform the general populous that chasing is forbidden, before the MT can start sanctioning people for it.


Q5: Claims MT are too lenient
Q7: Favoritism claims
There are some cases where I would have certainly voted differently. However, I don't see any huge cases of favoritism and mostly my views are similar to the MT's decisions. I believe it is more pressing to treat everyone equal (no favoritism) and have an established guideline for which behavior constitutes certain punishments. Having this framework should make the MT more consistent with their decisions and hopefully prevent further arguments & criticisms from the userbase. I don't know if MT already has these guidelines.

Q6: No confident petitions
This is a good idea and will alleviate concerns raised by members criticizing the MT of being unadapatable. I like this idea, but there needs to be stricter guidelines on who is eligible to vote in a no-confidence petition, to prevent fraud.
-Been continuously active for 2 weeks prior to the petition
-Be signed onto the alias register
-Be a forum user for at least 2 months
-Have at least 200 games
-Have at least 50 posts

Q10: Draw refusal rules
Currently, I think the draw refusal rules could be improved. I don't believe 10-minute evidence is necessary for all cases, particularly if the case is a clear draw. There should be some time requirement, as either player may choose to lotto (for an open flag), or take risks to attempt to play for the win. That's a valid choice and we should allow sufficient time for a user to attempt to do this.

A 5 minute guideline for 'clear' draws would be a good idea. The tricky part would be deciding what is a 'clear draw'. Intuitively it makes sense but it is difficult to write down.
  • Don_Homer, Napoleon 1er, DarthRemark and 1 other like this

#16 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 06 March 2018 - 12:19 AM

If VdB and the original programmer(s) of this site get together for 1 or 2 hours, they can easily fix this. We can start a Kickstarter or other online fundraising launcher and get together the $500 this should cost at the most. Convincing Jumbo to allow this is something the MT should be working towards.

 

Convincing Jumbo to allow this is something that everyone who cares about this game should be working towards. Particularly the Dutch players, I would add.  Of course, they probably get tired of taking the brunt of that responsibility, too.



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#17 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 06 March 2018 - 12:31 AM

A 5 minute guideline for 'clear' draws would be a good idea. The tricky part would be deciding what is a 'clear draw'. Intuitively it makes sense but it is difficult to write down.

 

The most straightforward definition is that a clear draw is a game in which neither player can win absent a serious mistake by his opponent.  


  • MTinsley likes this

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#18 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,822 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 06 March 2018 - 07:56 AM

If VdB and the original programmer(s) of this site get together for 1 or 2 hours, they can easily fix this. We can start a Kickstarter or other online fundraising launcher and get together the $500 this should cost at the most. Convincing Jumbo to allow this is something the MT should be working towards.


A few years ago we had NTactical already willing to do that himself. He asked jumbo permission to get access to the program with the idea to implement all those little changes we all want as he knows exactly what is to be done. Unfortunately jumbo did not accept. But good thing to know is that within our community we do have people with the competency and motivation to do it.
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#19 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 06 March 2018 - 08:47 AM

A few years ago we had NTactical already willing to do that himself. He asked jumbo permission to get access to the program with the idea to implement all those little changes we all want as he knows exactly what is to be done. Unfortunately jumbo did not accept. But good thing to know is that within our community we do have people with the competency and motivation to do it.

 

Of course Jumbo would never let any outsider access their code base: too much risk of someone accidentally (not to mention intentionally) crashing the site :) What is required is someone familiar with the game code (preferably one of the original programmers of this site) and someone to translate exactly what features should be added.


  • Nortrom likes this

I hereby grant explicit permission to all my opponents to record and publish my games as they see fit.


#20 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 06 March 2018 - 08:42 PM

So far I have refrained from commenting in this thread, because I want the public to make their own judgement about the quality and actual intent of this survey.

However:

1 The questions are too difficult. Many players that do not speak English very well will struggle.
2 Some questions seem to be leading and non-exclusive in the answers. As maker of the Stratego Wizard I know how difficult it is to make good questions, but the MT spend a whole week to prepare this.

Maybe a review by some representatives of the user community (for instance Malcom.jansen)  would have prevented this?
His survey has at least one question that ask for feedback on the performance of individual MT members.

3 You basically admit you use this survey to waste time instead of working on much needed change and improvements:

In the Future of MT I already warned for this. "3 Denial/downplay

-Feedback is used to lower pressure, not to fix issues
"

4 I dont know what this means:" The idea will be for sure to publish anonymously but we have not really decided yet. If there is a consensus to publish them nominatively i guess it should be feasible. I'll discuss with my colleagues."

 Are you suggesting that possible negative feedback from individual people gets exposed to the public? How is that going to make anyone in the survey give honest feedback, without the fear of being punished?
 


  • MTinsley likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users