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

#41 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 02:04 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.

I don't see dysfunction.  Maybe it exists.  If you believe so, fine.  But there are existing methods to remove a mod that you think is unfit.  You've failed because the authorities you've appealed to disagree with you.  Maybe they have good reasons and maybe not.  But you've been blinded by a goal.  You didn't get your way so you go on.  If the vote fails what do you do next?  

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "properly implemented".  I'm sure you'll agree we've yet to see a proposal that doesn't leave the MT open to eternal instability.
 
I am a surprised to see you impugn the rest of the MT.  If they have low moral standards as you suggest then they should probably be removed too shouldn't they?  And I don't understand how some of them rate so highly on the same poll that's touted as showing Lonello is unfit.  Is that poll accurate or not?  You don't get it both ways.  
 
I sense you do want ultimate good, Morx.  But you're not pursuing it the right way. 

Edited by DarthRemark, 21 March 2018 - 02:04 AM.

  • Napoleon 1er likes this

#42 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 08:47 AM

 

I don't see dysfunction.  Maybe it exists.  If you believe so, fine.  But there are existing methods to remove a mod that you think is unfit.  You've failed because the authorities you've appealed to disagree with you. 

No, there never was a fair case there, Lonello tampered with the fair trial process by spreading his lies . I never even got a case number from Admin. I never was asked for my evidence. I only found this out after 1 and a half week of lies from the then sitting MT what they were really doing.

 

This is actually one of my biggest grievances. If the case was handled fairly, I would be less upset about all the corruption and injustice going on.



#43 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 08:57 AM


 

I'm not sure what you mean by "properly implemented".  I'm sure you'll agree we've yet to see a proposal that doesn't leave the MT open to eternal instability.

As I said, in this thread we discuss the procedure. TheO is giving statistical analysis to support a procedure that makes sense. If it requires 600 votes and 1200 people to sign a petition and takes 23 weeks online before a poll is opened then it is not very good.

 

I gave an example earlier in this thread with 5 people signing the initial petition and 20 votes needed.



#44 oej

oej

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 March 2018 - 01:30 PM

 

I don't see dysfunction.  Maybe it exists.  If you believe so, fine.  But there are existing methods to remove a mod that you think is unfit.  You've failed because the authorities you've appealed to disagree with you.  Maybe they have good reasons and maybe not.  But you've been blinded by a goal.  You didn't get your way so you go on.  If the vote fails what do you do next?  

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "properly implemented".  I'm sure you'll agree we've yet to see a proposal that doesn't leave the MT open to eternal instability.
 
I am a surprised to see you impugn the rest of the MT.  If they have low moral standards as you suggest then they should probably be removed too shouldn't they?  And I don't understand how some of them rate so highly on the same poll that's touted as showing Lonello is unfit.  Is that poll accurate or not?  You don't get it both ways.  
 
I sense you do want ultimate good, Morx.  But you're not pursuing it the right way. 

 

Did you register your "Spy For Hire" alias yet ?



#45 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,458 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 March 2018 - 07:54 PM

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.

Come on, you don't need to prevent an MT member from voting just to 'open a case' - that's quite ridiculous. It isn't complex, just take a vote from the remaining 4.

Secondly, the rule 1.4 doesn't specify whether the moderator in question is counted towards the available total of voters - probably because the creator of the rule considered it is so obvious that the moderator in question should not be counted towards the total that it wasn't necessary to publish. If there are 4 eligible voters then the total number of votes is logically 4, and a 2/3rds majority would therefore require a minimum of 3 for the motion to pass. (And quite frankly if 3 out of 4 felt strongly enough to remove their own team member then I think we can safely say that the moderator in question is not exactly excelling).

Now I don't know how likely this vote would be to pass as this depends entirely on the opinions of the 4 remaining members of MT - of which none have given an indication of how they might vote. But there is an advantage either way. If the vote is to remove, then the Forum Members have just been saved a lot of time and MT does not need to bother rushing through a set of rules that should be considered properly, and avoids having to issue pms to the community. In short, there is a chance that the Forum atmosphere is almost instantly improved. If the vote is not to remove - then at least we can stop discussing Rule 1.4. There is little to lose, much to potentially gain, and this would take all of one day.

Thirdly, however many times you suggest it, a petition of any number is not validated until MT actually says so.

I would also agree with Darth that rushing through a 5 signature petition is likely to be counter-productive in the long term. If 5 signatures is all it takes to send out a message to every Forum Member, then we risk agitating many Forum members completely unnecessarily. It woould also be grossly unfair on Lonello who - at least in MJs survey - had 9 votes of approval (when considering excellent, good and satisfactory as votes of approval). Logically there should therefore be 10 signatures required (not 5) to illustrate a level of resistance that even has a chance of succeeding.

What I would suggest at this stage is MT give some indication of what they plan to do (even if it is nothing, or to state that they are reviewing the situation). This would I'm sure be appreciated by many.

#46 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 08:09 PM

...yeah but as you can see it looks like being almost impossible for somebody from the community to gather these 5 signatures. After more than 2 weeks nobody got it .... so you can imagine if it is that difficult within community members from where the desire is coming from ...how much more difficult it will be to gather the necessary signatures within MT where the desire of such removal is not really present ... no risk with the 5 signatures there will not be any rush of petitions ... just look how difficult it is to get this one even there are 15 votes for poor or terrible in MJ survey ... any "softer" case will never gather the 5 signatures or only with extreme difficulty.


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

#47 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 08:15 PM

@Napoleon:No, nobody tried so far, because MT did not say that there is a working procedure.

 

But nice try, how many times do TheO and me have to explain the same thing? Do you want me to repost my replies to your suggestion again???

 

I am sure I will get 5 people to sign a petition and as you know I would gladly lead this worthy cause if it involves getting rid off one that has broken more site and decency rules than most other people on this forum. But only AFTER there is a working procedure agreed by MT.



#48 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 08:45 PM

As I said many times elsewhere already the main objective shall not be any witch hunt against Lo but any senseful person on this forum shall try to make everything possible to keep it peaceful and put all his energy to stop this saga. WHether Lo is in MT or not is a very small and not important detail while making sure any "normal common mortal stratego fan" visiting this forum will have fun and will enjoy his visit is where we shall all put priority... customer first!

SO this saga has been long to much and needs to stop. If friday there will not be any "concrete" petition we will all have to stop and accept the fact that nothing will happen. ... and one day you will suddenly be very happy to see that Lo will announce his resignation spontaneously ... I guarantee this MT job is not all his life ... by far not. One day he will leave but as long as you maintain your pressure and threat that he perceives is against all MT he will fight like a lion to defend this cause because whether you like it or not he is very committed to the MT tasks and he will not let MT die. This is all at his honor. If you and all the others that he calls the PB-clique would only write it black on white that you are only after him and not after any other MT member then I'm sure this will appease him. Why don't you show the example and write it down that after his resignation you promise any other MT member will be let quiet?


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

#49 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 08:57 PM

@Napoleon 1er: funny that you mention saving the rest of the team again.

 

If Lonello steps down tonight, I personally guarantee that I will not ask any other current MT members to step down, even though they did not open my cases or treat me like a customer.

 

Kind regards,

Morx



#50 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 09:01 PM

Thank you, that's a good start ... maybe will need more than one night but let's have some patience, let's see if the others confirm same as you...


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

#51 Sgt. Blkdog

Sgt. Blkdog

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 21 March 2018 - 09:07 PM

I move that Darth be removed from the MT for reasons I don't care to disclose at this time.


Edited by Sgt. Blkdog, 21 March 2018 - 09:11 PM.

  • DarthRemark likes this

Wuf!


#52 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 09:24 PM

I move that Darth be removed from the MT for reasons I don't care to disclose at this time.

:huh: 


  • Sgt. Blkdog likes this

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#53 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 11:14 PM

No, there never was a fair case there, Lonello tampered with the fair trial process by spreading his lies . I never even got a case number from Admin. I never was asked for my evidence. I only found this out after 1 and a half week of lies from the then sitting MT what they were really doing.

 

This is actually one of my biggest grievances. If the case was handled fairly, I would be less upset about all the corruption and injustice going on.

I think what you got was a "no case" dismisal.  Regardless of whether they interacted with you they determined that it wasn't worth pursuing.  They might have been wrong, but it's their prerogative.  This is a private website maintained by private money and effort.  You don't have much leverage.  But there are constructive ways to approach this.
 


Edited by DarthRemark, 21 March 2018 - 11:14 PM.


#54 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 21 March 2018 - 11:16 PM

:huh:

I'm afraid oej and Blkdog have deduced the terrible truth.  There is no MT.  Lo, Gary, MN, Napoleon and the rest: all Darth aliases. 


  • Don_Homer, Napoleon 1er and roeczak like this

#55 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,458 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 14 April 2018 - 10:25 AM

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.

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.


I started this thread to engage with and respond to a suggestion that the MT proposed (within their survey) regarding the removal of a moderator by the community. The main thrust of my argument was that the mechanics of such a suggestion need to be based on the actual size of the community, and I provided numerical data which helps us to ascertain the size of the community through parameters for activity and participation (such as number of posts and last visit to the Forum).

A month after publication and no current member of MT has responded to this thread (despite it being a response to a suggestion that MT themselves had made). The post above from tobermoryx barely constitutes a response to the arguments made in this thread, but it is at least indirectly referred to.

Readers of my response would have observed that the main clause that I took issue with was the original suggestion by MT that 25 signatures would be required in a petition phase (in a week!) just to initiate a poll of the community. My objection is founded on the logic that the community is far too small to require numbers this high, and I asked MT to answer the question 'What is the logic for requiring 25 signatures?' - because it seems apparent to me that the basis for this number is merely a feeling that MT have, rather than being grounded in anything verifiable. Credit goes to Napoleon 1er on this matter for having the courage to concede this point

no real rationale for 20 ... just 10 is obviously to low and 30 seems high ... it's a personal perception ...



To further support the argument that MT's proposed numbers are highly unfit for purpose, we have now had numerous surveys and polls go round on this subject (and others) which show that - even with a relatively long timeframe of a month - these attempts to gauge public opinion manage to achieve a maximum of 30 members willing to provide their opinion either way. I would re-iterate the point I made in this thread that polls that manage to record the opinions of 30 members are less prevalent than unicorns.

So it is disappointing, and even a little insulting that tobermoryx's post appears to state that MT have decided against developing this procedure, including in his argument the statement 'The 'removal of a moderator' suggestion required a certain threshold of member signatures etc which has not been met'.

Let me say that it was quite clear that the MT's suggestion was indeed a suggestion - designed to canvass opinion (in tobermoryx's own words) - not an active process approved initiated by MT. So to state that the number of signatures 'has not been met' not only completely ignores the points made about community size in this response, but is a contradiction of the assertion that MT's suggestion was just a suggestion.

It is also worth pointing out the absolutely farcical nature of the situation where you have a clear majority of opinion, yet you are using the argument that there is not enough support. Imagine a party of 30 go for lunch, and for administrative ease the restaurant requires everyone to pick the same dish. The choice is Fish or Carrots. A vote of hands is taken, and fish wins 24-6. When the waiter asks what the ravel chose, he is given the reply 'We will have carrots, because there is not enough support for Fish'.

I won't take issue with the second reason you provided - that it is disruptive to have a team member removed. I wouldn't personally agree, but it is a matter of opinion. I will say that MT felt the idea had enough merit to publish a detailed suggestion and invite the community to respond, so it is a little odd to hear this argument after the suggestion has already been circulated.

Finally the third reason you have provided - that the replacement would 'presumably' be elected - is a completely separate matter (for the record I think public election is a poor idea) and one that has nothing to do with the proposal you made. How MT recruits their members has no bearing on the process for removing a poorly performing moderator. You cant reject Proposal A because you don't like Proposal B.

I imagine a sandwich competition, where I have entered a simple Marmite Sandwich. The judge dislikes my sandwich and says I am out of the competition. When I ask him why, he says 'the sandwich after yours was Tuna, and I didn't like the combination of Marmite and Tuna'.

I look forward to MT's full and proper response to this thread, and hope that you can actually engage with the topic that you created and asked the community about.
  • KissMyCookie likes this

#56 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

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

Posted 14 April 2018 - 11:05 AM

Medical professionals say that the five most dangerous words a patient can utter are,

 

"Maybe it will go away."

 

This seems to be MT's way of handling a serious matter.



#57 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

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

Posted 14 April 2018 - 11:10 AM

Just to clarify something that maybe a cause of confusion: When we prepared MT survey this clause "removal of a moderator by the community" has beed discussed quite intensively as you can imagine. At the end there was a consensus (with majority) for a different proposal requiring a request for removal made by 10 people then confirmed by 40% of the voters or min 40 people etc.... At last moment a mod made the other proposal (the one that was published in the survey) which was equivalently acceptable for me. So because time was passing and we needed to publish this survey i published it with the last proposal instead of the one that had majority. For me the issue is not there as neither of the 2 proposals were "official" new rules .. these were precisely proposals subject to adjustments to be made based on the comments made by the community. The main point is that the principle of intriducing a clause "removal of a mod by the community" is accepted by MT, now which math to use and which minimum number of voters is required is still to be finalized.

 ... for me one thing is sure with 23:8 the majority is more than sufficient, no need for 40%, 50% or 50%+1 ... everything is self sufficient in this case whatever the right finalized text of the rule would be. I do frankly not understand why somebody resists so strongly to accept the evidence. Mods are free volunteers, they want to have fun like any other forum member and manage this forum like a hobby. If a mod is brought into that situation that he cannot write anything on the forum without beeing sytematically contradicted where is the fun? This situation is painful for him first, for the rest of MT then and for the community as well. .... I'm sure nobody would deny him any honor .... maybe we shall provide him his medal before he even confirms his resignation? :)


  • Nortrom, Losermaker and Morx like this
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