Jump to content


Photo

The MT survey 2018


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21 MTinsley

MTinsley

    Sergeant

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

Posted 06 March 2018 - 09:53 PM

I agree that user feedback should be anonymous, unless the user chooses to publish his/her thoughts publicly as I have done.
  • GaryLShelton, Lonello, Losermaker and 1 other like this

#22 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,824 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 25 March 2018 - 03:00 PM

30 players have already filled the survey with an average filling time of about 9 minutes. For those who have not yet done it there is still 6 days to go until march 31.


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

#23 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,824 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 02 April 2018 - 07:27 PM

Please find below the raw results of MT survey 2018. 31 players participated to this survey from which only 2 MT members at time the survey was initiated (this includes myself). The average answering time was 9 minutes and 22 seconds. A lot of constructive proposals have been made on the various questions. We are still working on gathering these data in a presentable format and these will be published later once ready

 

Q1

31 players participated

 

Q2

 yvGz77D.jpg

 

overall rating is 7.45 which is usually considered as "above the average"

 

Q3

QCA54t7.jpg

 

almost 71% of the people believe that the 4 following tasks are the right tasks for MT: judge for draw refusal, abusive behaviour and cheating behaviour and maintain peaceful atmosphere on this forum

 

Q4

NQRGmGA.jpg

 

about 89% of the players accept the rules as they are and about 1/4 of them has recommendations for little improvements

 

Q5

fMQ2tes.jpg

 

about 89% of the people believe that MT is doing a good job with no particular need to change something.

 

Q6

pahtHVa.jpg

 

20% of the people believe that there is no need to add a clause for removal of a mod by MT in the rules while 58% of the remaining participants agree with the proposal made by MT and 42% of the remaining participants made another proposal.

 

Q7

9u5Qozr.jpg

 

62% of the participants believes that no particular action is necessary while 21% would like to see better reaction from MT in case a specific action is required.

 

Q8

wifpQSC.jpg

 

about 66% of the participants disagree with the criticism that MT does overall not address community concerns or ignores the community and 20% agrees with it but can accept such rare cases from MT.

 

Q9

7tvQ4oC.jpg

 

55% of the participants don't think MT has to further implement ISF rules while 42% is still expecting some actions from MT in this regard

 

Q10

T9xIeEe.jpg

 

about 64% of the participants agree that something has to be done to improve draw refusal rules

 

 

Overall this statistics shows that:

 

MT is overall doing a fair good job

a majority of people agree that a new clause shall be added to the rules for "removal of a mod by the community"

a majority of the participants would like to see some improvements on the draw refusal rules

all other items are left to MT but a majority of the community does not see a need for specific changes


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

#24 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • NASF Committee
  • 910 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 02 April 2018 - 07:33 PM

Your survey was worded poorly and was confusing to fill out. Therefore, you can't really extrapolate anything from it.

Edited by malcom.jansen, 02 April 2018 - 07:34 PM.

  • Nortrom and KissMyCookie like this
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#25 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,824 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 02 April 2018 - 07:40 PM

Your survey was worded poorly and was confusing to fill out. Therefore, you can't really extrapolate anything from it.

... this is an opinion not a fact, sorry ...


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

#26 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • NASF Committee
  • 910 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 02 April 2018 - 08:11 PM

Please find below the raw results of MT survey 2018. 31 players participated to this survey from which only 2 MT members at time the survey was initiated (this includes myself). The average answering time was 9 minutes and 22 seconds. A lot of constructive proposals have been made on the various questions. We are still working on gathering these data in a presentable format and these will be published later once ready

 

Q1

31 players participated

 

Q2

 yvGz77D.jpg

 

overall rating is 7.45 which is usually considered as "above the average"

 

Q3

QCA54t7.jpg

 

almost 71% of the people believe that the 4 following tasks are the right tasks for MT: judge for draw refusal, abusive behaviour and cheating behaviour and maintain peaceful atmosphere on this forum

 

Q4

NQRGmGA.jpg

 

about 89% of the players accept the rules as they are and about 1/4 of them has recommendations for little improvements

 

Q5

fMQ2tes.jpg

 

about 89% of the people believe that MT is doing a good job with no particular need to change something.

 

Q6

pahtHVa.jpg

 

20% of the people believe that there is no need to add a clause for removal of a mod by MT in the rules while 58% of the remaining participants agree with the proposal made by MT and 42% of the remaining participants made another proposal.

 

Q7

9u5Qozr.jpg

 

62% of the participants believes that no particular action is necessary while 21% would like to see better reaction from MT in case a specific action is required.

 

Q8

wifpQSC.jpg

 

about 66% of the participants disagree with the criticism that MT does overall not address community concerns or ignores the community and 20% agrees with it but can accept such rare cases from MT.

 

Q9

7tvQ4oC.jpg

 

55% of the participants don't think MT has to further implement ISF rules while 42% is still expecting some actions from MT in this regard

 

Q10

T9xIeEe.jpg

 

about 64% of the participants agree that something has to be done to improve draw refusal rules

 

 

Overall this statistics shows that:

 

MT is overall doing a fair good job

a majority of people agree that a new clause shall be added to the rules for "removal of a mod by the community"

a majority of the participants would like to see some improvements on the draw refusal rules

all other items are left to MT but a majority of the community does not see a need for specific changes

 

 

... this is an opinion not a fact, sorry ...

 

I am not trying to be an elitist. I know English is your second or third language. Any survey I created in Spanish would be rough, and my German is ugly. Beyond that, the construction of your survey is terrible. I will break it down question by question:

 

1. No problem here, off to a good start.

 

2. You provide no context for what different ratings mean. 74.5% is a C in the American grading system, and is not consider a good grade. You need to provide context by giving qualitative options "Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Poor, Terrible." This way you can determine who thinks the MT is doing a good job. Overall, this is not a terrible question and the majority of people in my survey were satisfied with the MT's performance, however, this could have been structured better.

 

3. "Keeping a peaceful atmosphere" is way too broad in scope. Does this include approving members of tournament committees because according to my survey, the majority of respondents feel that this does not fall under the MT's purview. This question is too broad for the answers to be meaningful. Also, options two and four are the same thing.

 

4. This question contains two positive responses and one negative option. When questions are structured in this manner, you will get more positive answers. Additionally, it is strange that players must "accept" the rules in order to answer this question that qualifier should not be part of the option..

 

5. The way this question is worded paints the MT as victims of community abuse. It is designed to evoke sympathetic responses. Again, three of the options imply that the MT is doing a satisfactory job, and only one does not.

 

6. I cannot read this image. However, the question is too long. Shorter prompts are better because longer ones tend to confuse respondents.

 

7. Same as above, three of the favorable portray the MT in a positive perspective, only one does not.

 

8. Same as above, but four of the five options are favorable.

 

9. The responses are worded poorly, but this question is not horrible.

 

10.  This question is structured poorly.  Options 2 and 3 are basically the same, and 4 does not add anything to the question.

 

No one with a background in this statistics would ever take this survey seriously. If you do not believe me, ask The Prof or General Rascal. I am also a native English speaker, so yes, I can say it was difficult to understand some of the questions.


Edited by malcom.jansen, 02 April 2018 - 08:12 PM.

  • Morx and KissMyCookie like this
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#27 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,682 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 02 April 2018 - 08:21 PM

Q2 I feel this is in contrast with MJ's survey.
 
Q3 Not interesting to comment on.
 
Q4 Yes, 89% accept the rules. However, 30% is in favor of changes. You neglect to mention that.
 
Q5 Not interesting to comment on.
 
Q6 Unreadable.
 
Q7 Almost 70% of the players think there is favouritism. It is true that (30% +20%) of those, however ,are fine with that. 
 
Q8 Not interesting to comment on. Loaded question too.
 
Q9 Another loaded question (A poll was held about this prior, with 24 vs. 1). The question was about whether one of the criticisms was about the lack of progress of the ISF anti-chasing, the answers don't support your question. Those who answered "I disagree" seem not to agree that it is one of the criticism, not that they don't want to see the ISF rules implemented.
 
Q10 Not interesting to comment on.
 
Thanks for relaying back the results from the survey :). I'm mostly curious to the results of Q6 (unreadable).

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#28 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

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

Posted 02 April 2018 - 08:24 PM

... this is an opinion not a fact, sorry ...

 

Sorry, Daniel, this is a highly informed opinion (that of malcom.jansen) )and reflects a far greater insight than the so-called MT survey allowed. This survey was, IN FACT, confusing, worded poorly, had elements of manipulation within its structure, and did not address fundamental issues in the most direct and simple of ways. It also disallowed participation by the full forum membership at large.

 

Conclusion: The MT survey was a failure at best.

 

Post Script: Sorry, Daniel...this is NOT an opinion, but an informed critique of what was supposed to be an objective survey–it failed.


Edited by KissMyCookie, 02 April 2018 - 08:24 PM.


#29 Unladen Swallow

Unladen Swallow

    Captain

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

Posted 02 April 2018 - 08:29 PM

It may be poorly worded, but that's besides the point. The survey doesn't matter. Results do.

 

I hope there'll be some changes in the future for the startego community. :)


  • Don_Homer and Napoleon 1er like this

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. 


#30 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 881 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 02 April 2018 - 08:40 PM

It may be poorly worded, but that's besides the point. The survey doesn't matter. Results do.

 

I hope there'll be some changes in the future for the startego community. :)

I agree with US. I had no struggle filling it in (also no struggle on Malcoms survey for that matter).

 

I believe the focus should be at Question 6,7,9 and 10 because there are the most problems according to the participants. Maybe there should be a constructive discussion for each question seperately?


Edited by Don_Homer, 02 April 2018 - 08:41 PM.

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#31 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,824 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 02 April 2018 - 09:48 PM

..it looks like 3-4 people had already prepared their answers before the results of the survey were published. These people were of the opinion that the survey was poorly written ... but it is not ... the goal was not only to obtain a statistics but also to obtain proposals for improvements. This part of the survey has not yet been analyzed nor published ... but the strong participation with constructive results shows that stratego fans and forum members care for this forum and all questions were understood perfectly. I wish to thank all participants for their contribution which will for sure be valuable for MT. The result is a good list of actions for possible improvements.


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

#32 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

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

Posted 02 April 2018 - 09:56 PM

These people were of the opinion that the survey was poorly written ... but it is not ... 

 

Portions of this survey are ABSOLUTELY poorly written...not all of it 100%, but important passages have failed because of poor writing. Please do not argue this point.



#33 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 02 April 2018 - 09:57 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.

The wording issue was already addressed before the answers came out.

 

But it does not matter much, I just hope with the other people that some good changes are made.



#34 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,824 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 02 April 2018 - 10:01 PM

Portions of this survey are ABSOLUTELY poorly written...not all of it 100%, but important passages have failed because of poor writing. Please do not argue this point.

sorry Sir but this is your opinion ... the results of the survey are quite clear and helpful to know what needs to be improved in priority. This is demonstration that the survey was well written (... and i apologize if any english typing mistake in there ... the point is not there, it's all about the content and the sense ... that has obviously been understood perfectly by the community)


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

#35 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

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

Posted 02 April 2018 - 10:06 PM

No, this does not mean that the survey was well written, because it was not. Was the survey effective to some degree? Sure, in spite of its poorly written delivery, there is a result that may be looked upon.

 

I do not question the positive results garnered from the survey, as some people were able to participate to contribute something in the end...I do not contest that. You may not say to me mine is merely an opinion about the quality of the writing. The wording in many questions was not good and in fact poor, and yes, I am in a position to offer more than just an opinion, Daniel...please do not even go there. Again, the results of which you speak are not something I will contest...there is material that is useful from this venture.

 

P.S. You may not say that certain material had "...obviously been understood perfectly by the community" as I am a part of this community and found some things utterly chaotic in its delivery and not subject to accessible understanding or easy interpretation. Your statement is what is called a universal syllogism. Knock it off, Daniel, please.

 

In the end of things, your contribution is very valuable, Daniel, and very much appreciated. Thank you.


Edited by KissMyCookie, 02 April 2018 - 10:12 PM.


#36 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,682 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 02 April 2018 - 10:10 PM

I'm not a native speaker either, but I feel language-wise, there was room for improvement. In the end, it was still understandable, and I appreciate your effort to gather feedback from the community. It wouldn't have hurt to have someone (e.g. Gary / Tober, since they're native speakers) proof read it not only about the content, but also language. 
 
Making a good survey isn't that easy (see WCO survey, I'm sure it can be improved, too).

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#37 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,682 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 02 April 2018 - 10:12 PM

@ MT, instead of only responding to MT's survey, I would also like you to respond to MJ's survey: http://forum.strateg...vey-mj-results/


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#38 General Rascal

General Rascal

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 03 April 2018 - 03:31 PM

 

I'm not a native speaker either, but I feel language-wise, there was room for improvement. In the end, it was still understandable, and I appreciate your effort to gather feedback from the community. It wouldn't have hurt to have someone (e.g. Gary / Tober, since they're native speakers) proof read it not only about the content, but also language. 
 
Making a good survey isn't that easy (see WCO survey, I'm sure it can be improved, too).

 

 

Nortrom and malcom.jansen have the best take on the survey (again, good effort). The three main factors in any survey are 1) sample size 2) method in which the sample is selected and 3) wording of the survey. There are indeed other very important factors but these are in the top 5 and this survey comes up short in all three (with possible exception of sample size). IMO, the wording of the survey is the most significant issue. A survey like this can be used as the basis for an improved survey that probes some of the more interesting issues. 



#39 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,460 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 15 April 2018 - 09:46 AM

Why are MT even considering the idea of team elections?
 

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. 
 
We thank you in advance for your support and collaboration
 
The MT: Napoleon 1er, GarylShelton, Lonello, Tobermoryx and Major Nelson

 
41 days ago, MT opened a survey, so that they could 'understand which areas need improvement'.
 
It is absolutely clear from the survey results where MT's priorities should lie, and that is with establishing a rule for the removal of a moderator by the community (with improvements to Draw Refusal Rules behind in second, and progression on ISF Rules further back in 3rd).

 
r5CNZT3.jpg

 

Why are MT asking a set of questions, and then ignoring the response of the community and discussing something completely different? Was the purpose of the survey only to appear to engage with the community? Or having gauged that a feeling is strong in one area, perhaps they do not like the result?

 

MT had deemed this issue important enough to make it the longest question in the survey, and publish a suggestion in full (Q6). 

 

This issue is the clear number one priority (and much of the groundwork was already done 6 weeks ago) so why have we had radio silence on this most pressing matter since, with Lonello stating that MT is discussing team elections?

 

(http://forum.strateg...ctions/?hl=team)

 

If I didn't know better I might be tempted to think that MT are attempting to fob off the community by hurrying through a substitute act to protect their own member.

 

I have attempted to garner a reaction from MT on the removal of a moderator by the community rule a number of times, and no current member has responded - in a whole month.

 

http://forum.strateg...ity/?hl=removal

 

I would appeal to MT to actually approach this matter with some integrity.


  • Nortrom, Napoleon 1er and KissMyCookie like this

#40 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

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

Posted 15 April 2018 - 11:23 AM

41 days ago, MT opened a survey, so that they could 'understand which areas need improvement'.

 

I would appeal to MT to actually approach this matter with some integrity.

 

tobermoryx, on 13 Apr 2018 - 8:14 PM, said:

“The MT has worked since its inception by the existing members choosing a new member that they were all agreed upon. Having an individual member removed by a forum vote, and then, presumably, the replacement being chosen by a forum vote upsets this principle. It is disruptive to the team to have one member removed without our agreeing to it, and then to have some person we night not think suitable chosen in his place.”

 

You think of the MT as a panel of judges; then there are times when the MT decides as a jury (identities of who and how they voted are kept secret); you may even consider the prospect of serving as a kind of military tribunal. You view yourself and the others (in your own words) as a team.

 

1) No panel of judges is ever a team–they serve the cause of justice exclusively and independently.

2) No jury is ever considered a team–they serve the commonwealth as individuals.

3) No military tribunal is ever considered a team–they, too, serve only the cause of justice as individuals within military service.

 

Why?

 

A team serves its own needs and exists to achieve is own goals. A team is not concerned with outsiders–it is the ultimate clique. It, by nature, is exclusive and does not regard outsiders as anything but incidental.

 

tobermoryx, on 13 Apr 2018 - 8:14 PM, said:

“The MT survey was a means to canvass opinion on things. The 'removal of a moderator' suggestion required a certain threshold of member signatures etc which has not been met. And we decide anyway that this is not a good procedure for the reasons given above.”

 

Effectively, you have just told us all to go home and not to continue any complaining because you are not listening to us, because we are not fulfilling your goals, and your goals have nothing to do with us, but they have everything to do with your own self-serving process, and self-protection.

 

I feel tobermoryx’s quote says more than enough and is horrible.


  • Nortrom likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users