Jump to content


Photo

Response to MT's Proposal - Removal of a Moderator by the Community


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#21 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 March 2018 - 06:18 PM

Well, from that MJ survey we effectively know that 15 out of 24 players voted poor or terrible on Lo but how many of them would like to remove him from MT?

... the 5 signatures petition is the only way to possibly reach to that goal (assuming this is a goal). It has been now almost 2 weeks this issue is being discussed but nobody has been able to provide such 5 signatures petition ... so it all looks like there is no such desire from the community and all this discussion is vain and shall stop ... just file it forever as a non case ...

Edited by Napoleon 1er, 20 March 2018 - 06:33 PM.

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

#22 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,498 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 20 March 2018 - 06:54 PM

I concur that this matter should be swiftly concluded.

But currently, MT has only indirectly (within their survey) made a proposal - there has been nothing officially put in place - so I don't get the point of anyone starting a petition. That is not currently a course of action that has any validity.

As shown in this thread, that proposal needs changes before it can be considered being put into practice.

I would recommend that MT respond to the 10 verdicts I published in the original page of this thread and then - whatever happens -we would be nearer the end of this saga.

I would also recommend that MT take an internal vote under the existing rule 1.4.
  • Morx likes this

#23 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,801 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 March 2018 - 07:10 PM

I would also recommend that MT take an internal vote under the existing rule 1.4.

Against how many of the current MT members should this internal vote be held, TheO? surely, like me, you don't want to remove all MT members.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts

 

eOMDNAj.png


#24 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,498 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 20 March 2018 - 08:11 PM

Based on the results of MTs survey, it is clear that there is only one MT member that the survey-takers do not think is doing a positive job

Here are the approval ratings:

A vote of Excellent, Good or satisfactory is considered approval. A vote of Poor or Terrible is not considered approval.

tobermoryx 100%
GaryLShelton 92%
Major Nelson 67%
Lonello 38%

Firstly Note that I said survey-takers - The sample size is only 24 and was posted to the Forum so lacks the scope to justify being labelled the view of the community.

Secondly, it is worth considering that the more passionately a member feels the more likely they are to have taken the survey. Disapproval is a stronger emotion than satisfaction, so we might expect a survey such as this one to be weighted in favour of those criticising - a point that Lonello has already shrewdly raised. (Note that this does not mean it is biased, it just means that it is not necessarily an extensive view).

This is one of the reasons why it is important to poll the wider community - to avoid conclusions being drawn from too small a sample or those who shout the loudest.

It also goes to show however - that even those who do shout the loudest have no issue with any other member of MT besides Lonello.

I would further add that Major Nelson had only just been instated as a MT member at the time of the survey, so he suffers from a relative temporal disadvantage (it will be harder to achieve positive votes if you have only just started, in the same way that you are unlikely to consider a film as amazing if you have only watched 2 minutes).

#25 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 March 2018 - 09:43 PM

Look Sir, you are right this "removal of a mod by community" rule is not really official yet but because the proposal has been made by MT then MT de facto agrees to it. Furthermore you insist with the clause 1.4 but if you read it well you will see that the removal of a mod by MT has to be confirmed by a same vote 3 months apart. ... i guess none of those who want Lo out are interested to wait another 3 months, right? ... so better make it fast and clear right now, no need to procrastinate further. Either there is a 5 signatures petition before end of this week or the case has to stop definitively and MT can work under normal conditions again. I suggest that if no such petition is signed until friday then MT shall systematically flag anybody who will continue discussing about or spamming this forum with this issue of removing Lo from MT. And in the contrary5 if there is such petition then a procedure shall start and a poll shall be opened.

Edited by Napoleon 1er, 20 March 2018 - 09:55 PM.

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

#26 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 20 March 2018 - 11:05 PM

 Furthermore you insist with the clause 1.4 but if you read it well you will see that the removal of a mod by MT has to be confirmed by a same vote 3 months apart. ...

No, not true. Read it carefully.

 

For reasons of poor conduct, dereliction of duty, or internal or external conflict a moderator may be removed from his position by either a decision of the Youdagames official representative, Mick Moolhuijsen, or a vote of two-thirds of the current Moderator Team. A moderator may also be removed if the current Moderator Team has at least 5 members, and two polls among the moderators are taken three months apart, with one vote less than two-thirds of the current MT voting each time to remove the moderator in question.

 

There are 3 conditions in here:

1 get the Youdagames official representative to do it

2 Two third of votes of current MT <<<< This is here and now

3 No two third majority needs 2 polls 3 months apart

 

When discussing 1.4 we are always talking about option 2. This currently means that 3 out of 4 of  the MT members that are allowed to vote, vote out and it is done.

 

Kind regards,

Morx



#27 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 March 2018 - 11:08 PM

Yes but 2/3 of 5 is 3.33 not 3
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#28 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 20 March 2018 - 11:11 PM

No, there are only 4 votes in that process.

 

This is your own text below:

 

"if a mod is involved in a case he doesn't vote. I can confirm this rule is applied. So if there are 5 mods then only 4 have voting rights in such case." source

 

Because the person it involves is not allowed to vote.

 

You cannot make that part of the total number of votes to be cast then.

 

Max votes = 4

3/4=75 percent



#29 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,498 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 20 March 2018 - 11:39 PM

Regarding the current rule (1.4) : As Morx states, Assuming that the moderator in question does not have his vote counted (because he cannot vote on his own decision), then there are 4 remaining eligible members in MT who could vote on the removal. To carry a decision of 2/3rds, 3 of those 4 would therefore need to vote for removal.
 

this "removal of a mod by community" rule is not really official yet but because the proposal has been made by MT then MT de facto agrees to it.

 
Firstly, MT have not actually made a proposal whereby a petition succeeds if it has 5 signatures - they have proposed a petition that requires 25 signatures (in a week). The number '5' has been raised as a suggestion from you.

 

Secondly, even if MT did de facto agree that a 5 signature petition would succeed, what happens then? The process for a poll (how it is it sent, who is it sent to/who is eligible to vote) still needs to be confirmed. Resolving this entire matter quickly depends on the speed at which MT approach the secondary issue of the polling stage.

 

I would like to present three options for the Polling Stage. I won't reiterate the long and boring points explaining the reasons that I have made in the original post of this thread. The options differ only in the orange text. 

 

Option 1 

 

Poll sent by PM from MT to all Eligible Members (Link to be provided both to the petition and to the moderator's defence argument)

Poll Duration of one month

No Minimum number of participants required to validate any result

Vote of 50.01% or higher required to carry the decision

Eligible Members defined as any member who has visited the Forum in the last 6 months  (395 Members polled)

 

Option 2 

 

Poll sent by PM from MT to all Eligible Members (Link to be provided both to the petition and to the moderator's defence argument)

Poll Duration of one month

No Minimum number of participants required to validate any result

Vote of 50.01% or higher required to carry the decision

Eligible Members defined as any member who has visited the Forum in the last 6 months and has a total post count of 5 or more  (191 Members polled)

 

Option 3

 

Poll sent by PM from MT to all Eligible Members (Link to be provided both to the petition and to the moderator's defence argument)

Poll Duration of one month

No Minimum number of participants required to validate any result

Vote of 50.01% or higher required to carry the decision

Eligible Members defined as any member who has visited the Forum in the last 6 months and has a total post count of 25 or more  (120 Members polled)

 

If MT wanted a quick resolution, they could pick one of these options, or suggest an alternative criteria for eligible members (that does not involve the Alias Register).

 

 

 

 
 
 



#30 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 12:17 AM

 

In the example at hand regarding performance of a member of MT I mentioned 10 terrible votes and 5 poor on a total of 24. I would guess there people would be willing to stand up and do the right thing.

 

I can argue the opposite.  Here you have a highly motivated opposition giving slightly over half negative approval in an anonymous poll.  They will have to sign their names to an actual petition.  You also assume those who rated Lo poorly also think he should be removed.  I rated him "poor" in the MJ poll based solely on his responses to you and Nortrom in this current spat. I believe these interactions are rooted in something beyond Stratego.com and not indicative of his overall performance as a Mod and I don't believe this behavior alone is reason to remove him.  Barring working things out with you two he can just be silent and let other MT react to you (which he now does).  So if the MJ poll were a referendum on keeping mods I would vote to keep Lonello.  It's reasonable to expect there are a couple more like me in the sample, so you're likely sitting at around 50% with your base energized.  In a month-long PM referendum to everyone I'd expect you to lose.  Maybe you wouldn't.  Either way we get another month of war.  
 
So 5 votes on a petition to start the process, then a month of forum pollution as sides are argued?  If this were procedure today we'd still be in the voting period for Napoleon and Lonello.  A couple more weeks of war at least.  Or maybe you would have done them sequentially so we'd be guaranteed 2 or 3 months of this.  Afterwards, win or lose, players are alienated.  And if your side loses it just takes 5 names on a petition to start it all over again.  It's a recipe for permanent disaster.
 
You, Nortrom and Lonello need to go to a room and work it out.  If you can't then you need to be quiet and let the rest of us get on.  Nobody needs to be removed or PB'ed.  


#31 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 12:20 AM

the proposal has been made by MT then MT de facto agrees to it. 

This is the first I've heard of that, though admittedly I haven't read all of these threads.  The MT is absolutely crazy if they do this.  You can bet more petitions will follow.  You've even got this "imperium" fellow pounding his gong now about a website that closed before some here were born.  He thinks you should only serve a 2 year term.  What about the guy who thinks you should serve 6 months?  Does he have 5 friends?  Welcome to the future.  



#32 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 March 2018 - 12:31 AM

Yes but 2/3 of 5 is 3.33 not 3 so 4 votes are necessary. Because one of the mod has to be a plaintiff to open such case he cannot vote. With the mod candidate for removal also not allowed to vote this leaves 3 valid voters so option 2 above cannot occur when MT has less than 6 mods.
Furthermore you shall understand that this clause 1.4 is intended as a clause that MT can use in case of obvious dysfunction within MT. It is not intended at first to be used when some forum members express such wish that MT is then supposed to satisfy. In such case it is precisely the new clause " removal of a mod by community" that shall apply.
I don't know what the mood is now inside MT but at my time there was no such desire to remove Lo from MT. There was maximum a case for a warning point but not for an immediate removal. Lo has his own and unique style that maybe appreciated by some people and not by others but whether you like it or not he has always shown commitment to MT job. At my time there has never been sufficient reasons for his removal and i don't think that there is much change now. So clause 1.4 is very unlikely to find a way to be applicable and applied.
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#33 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 12:31 AM

@Darth:

 

You keep implying this is personal. I already said multiple times: I think he is just not suited and he burns other volunteers energy. That has nothing to do with anything being personal. Also he has been proven malicious, uninformed and unable to apologize when he is spreading clear lies, since his first entry in the Future of the MT thread.

 

"Nobody needs to be removed" - That is your opinion, not mine. But I prefer rule 1.4 because that shows that the other MT members have some minimum standards / decency.

 

We agree on something: " Either way we get another month of war. "

 

This is not something I want either, that is another reason why I prefer 1.4. rather than waiting for this whole new and long removal procedure. I much prefer to build, not to use my energy to deal with people like Lonello.



#34 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 12:39 AM

I understand that you think he's unfit.  And I'm glad we agree on 1.4.  The MT has that option and hasn't excercised it so there's no need to continue.



#35 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 March 2018 - 12:40 AM

This is the first I've heard of that, though admittedly I haven't read all of these threads.  The MT is absolutely crazy if they do this.  You can bet more petitions will follow.  You've even got this "imperium" fellow pounding his gong now about a website that closed before some here were born.  He thinks you should only serve a 2 year term.  What about the guy who thinks you should serve 6 months?  Does he have 5 friends?  Welcome to the future.


MT is not crazy. It is now 2 weeks this issue is discussed and a procedure of mod removal ny community can start with a simple 5 signatures petition. As you can observe nobody has been able to provide this simple petition in 2 weeks. Conclusion for now is clear: the community does not want Lo out!
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#36 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 12:49 AM

@Napoleon 1er: did you ever study the basics how rules/law works? You cannot start a procedure if it is not written down or ratified. The current procedure is under survey and they are still gathering input.

 

If 5 current members of MT sign in blood (or post on the forum) that the procedure needs 5 signers, minimum of 20 voters and 50% +1 vote means it is over, then I would get 4 other people to sign.

 

But they did not and will not.



#37 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 12:49 AM

I'm not sure anyone knows this is an actual procedure.  Perhaps you should update the rules.

 

As soon as this rule is formalized I will start a petition against each existing Mod for abdication of responsibility.  ;) 

 

Conclusion for now is clear: the community does not want Lo out!

I hope this is true.  I think Lo's given a lot to the site.  



#38 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 12:51 AM

If 5 current members of MT sign in blood (or post on the forum) that the procedure needs 5 signers, minimum of 20 voters and 50% +1 vote means it is over, then I would get 4 other people to sign.

So 1.4 is not sufficient for you?



#39 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 01:00 AM

@Darth: It seems that the self cleaning ability of the MT is not enough at the moment to deal with "obvious dysfunction within MT"

so I do like the new procedure IF properly implemented.

 

As the game theory examples showed, the user procedure would give extra options to handle this situation.

 

In a normal situation we would not have a discussion for weeks over this. In my previous Moderator team, people who lied or misused their power were stripped off their rights pretty quickly. I don't know why this has to go on so long. It suggests that the other members of MT have very low moral standards.



#40 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 March 2018 - 01:05 AM

@Napoleon 1er: did you ever study the basics how rules/law works? You cannot start a procedure if it is not written down or ratified. The current procedure is under survey and they are still gathering input.
 
If 5 current members of MT sign in blood (or post on the forum) that the procedure needs 5 signers, minimum of 20 voters and 50% +1 vote means it is over, then I would get 4 other people to sign.
 
But they did not and will not.


I don't say it will be over. I say if you don't start the procedure ... in all logic yoy will never end it either, right? ... in other words nothing will happen and we will all have to close and forget this issue with no case because we all want to stop this saga.
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users