Again with all the false innuendo... No, Gary. It's exactly like Danis said.
You only flag with very pregnant reason and with obvious alias accounts. That's how it has ALWAYS been used and NEVER the way you used it. So yes, all of us have flagged but nothing like you did. Myself I have only flagged those already PB'd on which only the Nazi comes to mind astros feels I have been much too soft on in my time in MT. For the rest MT has the power to Approve newbees and if we get names like "I hate you" with a rubbish text, then yes we have simultaneously Approved&Flagged. For the rest: nothing.
So to suppose any of us have ever flagged any longterm account is complete nonsens... me nor any other MT-member have ever come close to any form of Powerabuse and always were super-super careful only to pass things through The Team. We have always, always, always been very conscientieus about the powers, never to use them actually as motto, and I succeeded in that very fine I might add. I was with Toby in just about allowing everything for transparancy, so I for one also never ever edited, and I hid hardly... can not recall anything. If anything happened I rather used the art of communication instead of punishing. Ofcourse I can no longer check but MT for sure but also lower Staff I believe can tell themselves by checking the Mod panel.
So this has entirely NO relation to whatever this was compared to. WCO has ALWAYS kept their entire PM-inboxes, and even got a Status erected for them just to make sure they would find zero negative effects whatsoever. And a WP is -nothing-. This maybe a surprise to some readers, but you can get 1 WP, 2, 3 and 4 WP's and nothing happens, you can then can get up to dozens or thousands, it doesn't matter. It's only at level 4 that MT will request a ban for you at Admin who needs to do it. In all my time in MT this only happened to trickz I believe.
So Danis is right: how can this be compared to the jump you did to flag=ban&kill an account? You knew this could cause trouble as we'd just lost the most experienced person in Admin so everything that is now being done is on trial&error. And you knew it would be a big test to flag such a big account... what if we had done this to KARAISKAKIS' account which has the same size and thus complications... there would be hell to pay then!
What you did was unprecedented wrong, and you know it. Some way to make peace with the criticasters, shouldn't they be taken seriously? Ban them all, is that it? This compared with all the olive branches we sent to the PB-clique...
And I see now the casequestions to MT are constantly put here... I don't want to 'do a Morx' who back then constantly moved them back (and again, we as MT obliged), but can MT at least answer them?
And I had already contacted Admin myself as what's the use of a 'non existing account' which it keeps telling me, without the inboxes they might as well close me down completely.
Lonello, you are leading me to believe all the names nortom is calling you as true!!!!!
Seriously???? Really?????? Come on you cannot possibly believe all that.
But lets assume that you are correct and your punishment against karaiskakis and the PB-clique (as you refer to them) were the right thing to do.
Don, can you please be specific what you mean then? Again, I am totally not in the loops what all insults Nortrom has used on me since February so the ones I used were those until I put the PB-clique on ignore.
And there was no punishment against the PB-clique. What do you mean there? And I did break no rule. KARAISKAKIS broke one very clearly, just visit Gary's post above, press the link, I just did as well just now... it's rule no. 1, lowest line:
"Publicly post or otherwise share PMs with other users unless you have the expressed permission of the sender to do so. Private Messages are intended to be just that - private."
Hoe does what he did not constitute breaking this rule?
And again, a WP is nothing. Totally nothing. Only at WP no. 4 there needs to come some action, but from WP no. 1 on there's review from the entire MT, and so did the procedure go perfectly here too... there was NO punishment... we let him off the hook! Now how can that be compared with Gary's latest action then? I'm left with a 'non-existing account', so it says with me.
As for the part you agree with me about the limit on MT duty time, ok nice to know but i must consider the fact that it took you 4 years to ask something like that (if you actually have), and you were certain you were going to be demoted. I might even consider that you were thinking " ok i am done but i will try to take you with me".
Well, you got me there. Normally I would say "everything I say is on record" but since I am no longer able to produce the evidence as my entire inbox is gone, I can only ask you to trust me on this. Lo's do not lie and MT-members do not lie I have said all these years so you can count on our honesty (well, up until what we found out with one by Danis's revelation). I can only call on someone from MT to testify that I have been arguing this well before Gary's Stuntday. Danis has always been in the PM as well so can also produce my texts. I would hate it if you would think I would make stories up 'after the fact'.
So the limit on MT duty time I had already proposed several times as a piece for conversation, I bumped this several times. There was never any hint on any demotion either... none... this is what I mean with Gary's Stunt... it came out of nowhere... only after the fact we started to understand what had been going on (preventing the Team-Elections and this max term). So it's not like you pose here that there was anything else looming than my personal resignation. There just wasn't.
I am interested to know what your limit would be then. Ask DarthRemark with whom I was in the GB a decade ago and he'll agree with me the terms we had then were much too low, that were 2 consecutive 6 months terms. Maybe 4 years is indeed too long, yes, but Napoleon sat over 4 years and he would even like to have more, and if I check Gary's non-responses on my proposal I fear he finds 4 years too short as well.
So your logic is sound but you need to know the whole context and all the details. Also for your argument 'taking you with me' would be fitting, were it not that the conversation piece I brought also contailed a 5 year term for sitting MT-members as not to scare Gary away. He would then only be about halfway his term now! Plenty enough, as it seems to me. But ofcourse, after I'd gone, he could always change the rule again. Putin did it as well, remember?
So I did certainly give him his escapes, as I also did to Napoleon back then when I filed to not accept any MT-members that go under PRIVATE settings. He was the only one to have such a setting so I made the rule accordingly: to have it FROM that moment, so for any NEW addition to MT.
PS. As the talk is about rule enforcement, why don't you (referring to MT) punish all the double ,triple, quadruple accounts? The rules are clearly against this practice
This too I brought as one of my last proposals. Gary unbanned a load of aliases earlier this year and I tested this, pointing exactly at this rule you mention. After a lot of persuading, he finally agreed with me. Then he actually used this in the Abusive Section towards DISLIKE as if it was my own "Lonello rule". But it's not. You're right. It's simply already in the rules.
As is a lot that gets broken often, and yes, I was normally the one in MT to engage this, to address it. But it's a thin line what to do about it... leave it for common sense, or punish it, and my line always was to open communications and voice clearly what is allowed and what not, especially if you have turned a blind eye to it for a long time. One thing was I often bumped my proposal to open an Announcement topic for MT and have these things in a proper communicative way to the community. Sadly I never got majority for such and as to date the communication is at a very low level.