Jump to content


Photo

The Past of the MT


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#41 danis_p_gr

danis_p_gr

    Sergeant

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 11 May 2018 - 12:03 PM

Lonello has now created a 'Circle of hypocrisy'.

He doles out a WP to a certain member for sharing pms, despite having shared them himself. He then continues to share pms once off the team, and when he becomes the recipient of a punishment, in a dramatic reversal he now claims 'Abuse of power'.

Surely there is an award in the making?...

Hypocrisy is also the way the community reacted to this punishment. There was a huge wave of support to Greg for his WP, (the support was right by the way) while nobody reacted for the ban to Lonello.
Same offense, different punishment. For the one a simple warning point, for the second a permanent forum ban! And no reaction from the community! Isn't that HYPOCRISY? Isn't that a great sign of favoritism from the whole community?
Because the point here is who issued the punishment. Lonello who was in the eye of the storm with all this war against him or Gary who was enjoying high level of trust and credibility by the community, but acted extremely harsh.

Edited by danis_p_gr, 11 May 2018 - 12:05 PM.

  • Don_Homer, don mitsos and Aris1970 like this

#42 don mitsos

don mitsos

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 11 May 2018 - 12:05 PM

It is without doubt that Lonello has made many mistakes lately. He used the power that he had for personal grunges (WP to karaiskakis, stripping of the colors of morx, karaiskakis and nortrom) and he was punished for it ultimately by not being a mod anymore. This was a good call after all this abuse of power.

Now that the same abuse of power is happening against him by Gary, will the abuser be treated accordingly? Just wondering!!!!


  • Aris1970 likes this

#43 don mitsos

don mitsos

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 11 May 2018 - 12:12 PM

All these things have made the demand for a limit on time of MT duty more relevant than ever before


  • Lonello likes this

#44 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 11 May 2018 - 12:40 PM

Hypocrisy is also the way the community reacted to this punishment. There was a huge wave of support to Greg for his WP, (the support was right by the way) while nobody reacted for the ban to Lonello.

 

But this is not hypocrisy, danis_p_gr. The community was supportive of KARAISKAKIS because they believed in him and they liked him. The community was silent towards lonello because I think they knew that MT would handle the matter. This is an honest display in both cases and reflects how the community feels about both people: they support one, they do not support the other.

 

If you are referring to feeling that there is hypocrisy in that one MT issued a warning for the publication of a PM, and then a different MT did a similar thing, by flagging for the publication of a PM, I understand your feelings about that as it may appear to be a double standard.

 

As I understand the facts, the KARAISKAKIS PM chain contained upwards of 10 people and could not be held to the same standard as a far more intimate communication would entail. Also, the material released was far less severe and helped to clarify a matter–the problem being that lonello did not come out looking too good for it, and thus, he banned KARAISKAKIS in spite of the fact that lonello had recently published (without permission) material that would make one of his opponents look bad.

http://forum.strateg...-1/#entry450147

 

In the case of GaryLShelton, he hid the post and flagged the account in order to control a situation from going from bad to worse–GLS explains his actions and does make clear that the MT will review the matter as a whole, so it is clear by this that he is advising ALL of the MT to review this matter so that they all can discuss it. His use of the term "reversal" is indicative of his transparency and his motives...to discuss this matter with his colleagues.

http://forum.strateg...-2018/?p=453865

 

Of course, this same protocol would apply to lonello's actions, too, but he was clearly less transparent about it, and this may account for some of the community reaction. So again, the fact that the community did not react with outrage against GLS is not an act of hypocrisy, but an honest reflection of the fact that the community no longer supports lonello as they once did. From the time lonello stopped posting there was a kind of quiet and calm; since the time of lonello's reappearance, he has made vicious attacks, some of which I proved with solid facts and evidence were lies, and he has waged a campaign against GaryLShelton. I suppose it is his right to do so, but it must be done with facts and evidence, and not with lies and falsification.

 

...or Gary who was enjoying high level of trust and credibility by the community...

 

You bring up something here of significant importance, danis_p_gr, and you chose a precise and accurate word that goes to the heart of the matter–credibility. One must try not to accuse this community of acting in any form that is hypocritical because it really would appear that as lonello made more and more of his outlandish posts, he destroyed his own credibility by doing so–the community has voiced as much from many different participants from all places.



#45 Lonello

Lonello

    General

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

Posted 11 May 2018 - 01:30 PM

Hiho Don Mitsos, I 100% agree with you on your second post (I actually suggested that as my very last proposal in MT which led to Gary's Stunt in the first place) but on your first, how would you come to the idea that I would even show any of that by a long shot? Not in a million years. I have high values and just like the other MT-members have always been extremely careful with my powers, always demanded it to go through the Team and not as Gary constantly does use it at your personal convenience.
 
As for the demotion part, I just recollected that, and we went through lengths to solve the problem they experienced. As for how we came to the demotion, Napoleon summarized that earlier: this was a very slow cource of about 10 days, which started with Nortrom's acknowledgment and us picking up on that (mind half of MT was 'actively' involved if you can even call it that, the rest just went along).
 
As for my most 'daring action' in all my years if you want to call it that, just check the case. This was at a time I was resigning anyway and in life you have got to do everything once, right. So when KARAISKAKIS very obviously and plain blank broke forumrules (which I prooved via Gary's profile which via a link highlights these very rules!) with publishing an entire post, I acted. There's a first time for everything, but it was the right call, just check the forumrule, and check what he did... there is simply no going around the fact he broke them. What I really did was I obliged Team WCO in their constant show they could break any forumrule and get away with it via simply endless MT ignorance. They were really just asking for boundaries and we weren't giving any. 
 
It was very soft anyway as I did let the post stay because ironically enough he showed once more Nortrom's dictatorial ways with it, as imperium had also just done somewhat earlier in the same thread. So ofcourse we laughed about that internally, and checking this case by case I was in favor of taking the WP back myself so in a unanimous verdict we removed the WP. Danis publicly killed all the bad innuendo by a couple of good posts, saying what was the protocol. And we simply took that protocol. Nothing bad done here at all, unless you honestly are going to tell me you find he did not break the rules?
 
I did want to make my point so I insisted we would be clearly announcing what was allowed and what was not as that had been my point all along. And that the rule was so obviously broken nobody can deny (his only defense was "well, there were more people in that PM-string".... duh). We let the PB-clique break forumrule after forumrule, so what signal do we give with that then? A very bad one, that there are no limits. MTinsley came with a very fine sum up of this and two other points to announce, yet very sadly there was no majority for it, the motto was once again hushhush, and up to date it is still unclear now what is allowed and what is not, so everything is allowed. No boundaries at all. Fine, if that is how it is then that's how it is. I fought it but lost, I admit to that. I capitulated in the fact MT does not uphold their own rules. Simple fact.
 
So if you can tell me what I did wrong anywhere, please enlighten me, really. And please try it by PM to test out the messaging system, maybe you're the one to revive it, I have no clue what's going on. Account doesn't exist, it says over here, and the whole PM box is empty / vanished... what does it say with you?

 

 

try PM'ing me, and tell what you see?!

 


Edited by Lonello, 11 May 2018 - 01:34 PM.

Lo

#46 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,453 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 11 May 2018 - 02:15 PM

The hypocritical action is to state that Gary is abusing his power by taking action against someone re-posting pms, when you did so yourself.

Clearly there is inconsistency because some publications of pms are allowed by MT and some aren't - this inconsistency was highlighted as problem with MT early on in this saga. It is inevitable that different team members will have different views on whichever post is considered to have crossed a line and is deemed necessary to hide.

I can understand why you didn't want Greg to publish that PM, as I can understand why Gary wouldn't want you delving into private MT conversations and distributing them across the forum, especially given that you seem to (in a state of accustomed delusion ) hold him personally accountable for the unanimous decision to have you removed which you now refer to generously as your resignation. I'm not judging whether it is right or wrong to punish a player for sharing pms - clearly the feelings of the author of any given pm whose communication is being published will differ from person to person - but to state that this is power abuse (whilst refusing to acknowledge your own action) is pure hypocrisy. And at a time when the community can really do with moving on, you seem more pre-occupied with revenge.

You often maintain that you take the high ground/are a hero/protect the downtrodden. Why not live up to that image and let the community get on with the healing that is required?
  • KissMyCookie and Fks like this

#47 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 11 May 2018 - 03:08 PM

@ danis and Don Mitsos

 

Greg posted a pm and got a wp by Lo for doing that violation of the rules. Lo got flagged by gary for having done the same rule violation. Both Lo and gary had powers to decide to do that without first asking MT majority votes. These 2 actions were both immediately reported to MT and in both cases MT's majority votes was to overturn the punishment. So in both cases the final decision by MT was no case.

So please understand there was no power abuse, no wrong doing and no favouritism ... MT decided the same outcome for both same cases.

 

Hope it is clear. Have a good weekend


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

#48 don mitsos

don mitsos

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 11 May 2018 - 03:28 PM

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. Then logically Gary acted correctly and punished you because you broke the rules. So why all the fuss? TheO described it correctly on the above post

 

In my opinion you were both at the wrong side, you both acted irresponsibly and out of spite and that is something that cannot be tolerated. Not from an MT member anyway. 

 

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". 

 

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


  • Nortrom likes this

#49 don mitsos

don mitsos

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 11 May 2018 - 03:31 PM

@ danis and Don Mitsos

 

Greg posted a pm and got a wp by Lo for doing that violation of the rules. Lo got flagged by gary for having done the same rule violation. Both Lo and gary had powers to decide to do that without first asking MT majority votes. These 2 actions were both immediately reported to MT and in both cases MT's majority votes was to overturn the punishment. So in both cases the final decision by MT was no case.

So please understand there was no power abuse, no wrong doing and no favouritism ... MT decided the same outcome for both same cases.

 

Hope it is clear. Have a good weekend

 

OK got it but why all the fuss then? Why do they all nagging about it (both ex and present MT members)?



#50 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

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

Posted 11 May 2018 - 03:48 PM

 

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. Then logically Gary acted correctly and punished you because you broke the rules. So why all the fuss? TheO described it correctly on the above post

 

 

Hi Don and Napoleon (who said something similar,

 

The fuss is probably about the severity of the punishment. A WP is very different to a flagging. Lonello lost his message system including all his messages and its uncertain if and when he will get this back. If you click on his name you can see that you cannot even send him a message right now. The button is not there. He is very sad about this and I think it feels to him like Gary stabbed him in the back (and I think this is very understandable). I dont know this but it might be so that Gary knew the concequences of the flagging. Personally I think the punishment is way too harsch, 'just' a WP would be sufficient. 


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#51 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

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

Posted 11 May 2018 - 03:58 PM

The hypocritical action is to state that Gary is abusing his power by taking action against someone re-posting pms, when you did so yourself.

Clearly there is inconsistency because some publications of pms are allowed by MT and some aren't - this inconsistency was highlighted as problem with MT early on in this saga. It is inevitable that different team members will have different views on whichever post is considered to have crossed a line and is deemed necessary to hide.

I can understand why you didn't want Greg to publish that PM, as I can understand why Gary wouldn't want you delving into private MT conversations and distributing them across the forum, especially given that you seem to (in a state of accustomed delusion ) hold him personally accountable for the unanimous decision to have you removed which you now refer to generously as your resignation. I'm not judging whether it is right or wrong to punish a player for sharing pms - clearly the feelings of the author of any given pm whose communication is being published will differ from person to person - but to state that this is power abuse (whilst refusing to acknowledge your own action) is pure hypocrisy. And at a time when the community can really do with moving on, you seem more pre-occupied with revenge.

You often maintain that you take the high ground/are a hero/protect the downtrodden. Why not live up to that image and let the community get on with the healing that is required?

TheO,

 

I noticed you dont interfere much in the soaps on the forum. That is probably rather a good thing than a bad thing. When you do interfere however, always Lonello and solely him is criticized. Also you were one of the first (maybe the first) to introduce name calling to Lonello. I dont say your main message is always wrong. What I want to say is that your view is pretty biased. Im guessing here there is something personal from the past that have to do with it, otherwise I do not understand.


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#52 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 11 May 2018 - 04:43 PM

@MT: Just for the innocent bystanders: can we move anything relating to Lonello  again to the Past of the MT thread?

 

As for the comparison to the other cases where PMs were put on the forum:

 

Please do not forget that this was at minimum the 3rd time Lonello was posting from PMs, 1 time when he was still MT and 2 times after he feels he was incorrectly fired/dismissed/voted out of the office/terminated/kicked out/removed from power

 

Note that the words abdicated or resigned are not words that describe how Lonellos career in MT ended even though he prefers to use those words.



#53 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,453 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 11 May 2018 - 08:08 PM

TheO,

When you do interfere however, always Lonello and solely him is criticized.

Also you were one of the first (maybe the first) to introduce name calling to Lonello....

your view is pretty biased. Im guessing here there is something personal from the past.

Using the word 'interfere' makes it sound like I'm
sticking my nose into something that isn't my business. You could have said 'get involved'. Perhaps you did not intend this meaning - but in case you did, this is a matter for the whole community which includes myself.

It would be correct that to say that I have mainly criticised Lonello - this is due to his actions which fully warrant criticism. When I have criticised him I have explained the reasons. If you disagreed with those reasons I would be happy to engage in the specifics of the debate. Do you disagree that he is being hypocritical?

I think the implication (when you say 'only Lonello') is that you feel I should be criticising others as well. Is this what you mean?

If so I have to assume you are talking about Nortrom and Morx. While I don't consider their bedside manner as optimal - that would be the extent of any criticism aimed at them. Could they have been more courteous? Of course. But they faced a staff member who would constantly make statements about them that were grossly inaccurate. If you want to achieve real change and progression (which I firmly believe they do - and I would support anyone who had that goal) then sometimes you are going to have to turn up the heat a little - at the risk of being labelled hostile - for the sake of the community. So rather than be critical of their actions I am actually grateful. Had they been more reserved then maybe the community would not have ended up getting the result that they voted for.

You say I am biased. On what grounds? If you are going to make such a statement I think it is fair that you explain yourself.

Now I will concede to being the first to resort to name calling - perhaps I shouldn't have merged Lonello and delusional. I know that Lonello is good humoured enough to be able to take a gentle poke in the ribs - and besides - what I perceive as delusional Lonello would probably perceive as 'poetic'. There's even a chance he would take it as a compliment...
  • KissMyCookie likes this

#54 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 11 May 2018 - 08:57 PM

Using the word 'interfere' makes it sound like I'm
sticking my nose into something that isn't my business. You could have said 'get involved'. Perhaps you did not intend this meaning - but in case you did, this is a matter for the whole community which includes myself.

It would be correct that to say that I have mainly criticised Lonello - this is due to his actions which fully warrant criticism. When I have criticised him I have explained the reasons. If you disagreed with those reasons I would be happy to engage in the specifics of the debate. Do you disagree that he is being hypocritical?

I think the implication (when you say 'only Lonello') is that you feel I should be criticising others as well. Is this what you mean?

If so I have to assume you are talking about Nortrom and Morx. While I don't consider their bedside manner as optimal - that would be the extent of any criticism aimed at them. Could they have been more courteous? Of course. But they faced a staff member who would constantly make statements about them that were grossly inaccurate. If you want to achieve real change and progression (which I firmly believe they do - and I would support anyone who had that goal) then sometimes you are going to have to turn up the heat a little - at the risk of being labelled hostile - for the sake of the community. So rather than be critical of their actions I am actually grateful. Had they been more reserved then maybe the community would not have ended up getting the result that they voted for.

You say I am biased. On what grounds? If you are going to make such a statement I think it is fair that you explain yourself.

Now I will concede to being the first to resort to name calling - perhaps I shouldn't have merged Lonello and delusional. I know that Lonello is good humoured enough to be able to take a gentle poke in the ribs - and besides - what I perceive as delusional Lonello would probably perceive as 'poetic'. There's even a chance he would take it as a compliment...

 

Simply put . . . one of the best posts I have read on this forum.


  • Wogomite likes this

#55 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

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

Posted 11 May 2018 - 10:02 PM

Using the word 'interfere' makes it sound like I'm
sticking my nose into something that isn't my business. You could have said 'get involved'. Perhaps you did not intend this meaning - but in case you did, this is a matter for the whole community which includes myself.

Your English is better than mine. I would think that ''getting involved'' is out of your own control (for example Lonello mentioned you and you want to give a reaction). This was not the case. Anyway I indeed didnt meant the ''nosy'' meaning.

It would be correct that to say that I have mainly criticised Lonello - this is due to his actions which fully warrant criticism. When I have criticised him I have explained the reasons. If you disagreed with those reasons I would be happy to engage in the specifics of the debate. Do you disagree that he is being hypocritical? ​I might have argued about your reasoning before, I dont know. I think hypocritical is a bit too much. You are comparing a WP by Lonello with a flagging by Gary. If you consider the effects if the flagging and compare it with the effects of the WP you can imagine that the comparison is not really valid.

I think the implication (when you say 'only Lonello') is that you feel I should be criticising others as well. Is this what you mean? [...] 
You say I am biased. On what grounds? If you are going to make such a statement I think it is fair that you explain yourself.

No, I just made this observation and think its peculiar. I also made a hypothetical conclusion which you did not give a reaction to (maybe consciously?). though, if you had criticising others I probably would not wrote my post and would not call you 'biased'. The name calling confirms that there is a negative tendency towards Lonello from your side. I think you are biased. Do you denie the bias?

Now I will concede to being the first to resort to name calling - perhaps I shouldn't have merged Lonello and delusional. I know that Lonello is good humoured enough to be able to take a gentle poke in the ribs - and besides - what I perceive as delusional Lonello would probably perceive as 'poetic'. There's even a chance he would take it as a compliment... This reasoning I do not like: ''Lonello is good humoured so I can call him names''... is that what you say? I think you were really serious about the names. Its not a joke. Nobody likes that to be thrown in their face.


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#56 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,249 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 12 May 2018 - 05:39 AM

The action of flagging Lonello that I took was too harsh and I voted for its reversal along with a unanimous MT in the matter.

 

But I want to say this business about me knowing what the ramifications of the flagging of Lonello would be is absolutely not true.  Although since the MT learned about the flagging procedure (courtesy ss) only around 2 years ago (?) and we have used it a number of times, including Lonello who has flagged his share of people, I cannot remember more than once or twice (maybe) that we have reversed a flagging.  In those one or two times I do not recall the procedure bringing the damage of a completely lost pm inbox to the person who had the flag removed.  I would trust Lonello would verify that.  It is a most severe and unexpected result of the action I took and I am truly sorry that this has occurred to Lonello in this case.  His pm inbox is an enormous source of history for the MT and a huge reason why he was given Honorary Members status after he left.  That status was meant to allow him to retain his pm's. 

 

While I am appreciative of the inimitable linguistic artistry of TheOptician in his posts, it is my sincere hope that our new admin Peter will be able to rectify the situation and that the pm's haven't been lost to Lonello forever.  I will personally be asking Peter to look into it.  

 

GaryLShelton



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


#57 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,655 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 12 May 2018 - 08:31 AM

To MT I would like to recollect what all we did for WCO-team to keep their big accounts safe. Mind they were outraged for the 'library-status' of it. We created this whole Honorary section for them, just to meet their demands! With things reversed now, it is just appolling with how much neglect Gary will simply ban an equally big account like mine, unknowing and unconsidering the consequences, just with total disregard. The complete opposite of all the care we did for WCO.

 

 

 

Interesting to see. Yet another lonello lie. If I recall correctly, and I'm sure I do ;), you said to KARAISKAKIS the PM box was "his issue" (and mine for that matter). We could simply go through 800 individual WCO PM threads and remove them, that was no issue for you. Perhaps KARAISKAKIS could share that bit of PM with the forum, everyone will be delighted to see it. 

 

"Unknowing and unconsiderting the consequences, just with total disregard" is exactly what you, lonello, did for the WCO team.

 

 
Considering lonello has, apparently, put me on ignore on the forum, perhaps his sidekick, don_homer, can respond to this, in his name?

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#58 Lonello

Lonello

    General

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

Posted 12 May 2018 - 12:48 PM

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.
 


Lo

#59 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 12 May 2018 - 12:58 PM

@Lonellos post: wow that was another very long post again and as usual I have no clue what he is trying to say.

 

There is one thing I want to mention though: if it was ONLY a process question about an existing case I would not ask for his propaganda to be moved all the time out of the Topics of Abusive behaviour thread.

 

Somewhere in this incoherent story there are questions, but some of them are not even for the MT so I think having his bile here is good.

 

One Lonello-quote to put a smile on the face of all the voters that asked for his demotion:

Spoiler


#60 don mitsos

don mitsos

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 12 May 2018 - 06:49 PM

The action of flagging Lonello that I took was too harsh and I voted for its reversal along with a unanimous MT in the matter.

 

 

Gary, the fact that you acknowledge your action as too harsh does not negate the action itself. You should have waited for MT consensus but my guess is that you wanted to show of your power. This is quite close to power abuse in my way of thinking. Or maybe you wanted to show Lonello how it is to be in WCO team's position when he stripped them of their colors. Either way your action was not appropriate for an MT member. Lonello was punished for doing exactly that, by ultimately being demoted, even though he says he resigned. Will you take the high road and submit your resignation from MT (unknown if it will be accepted) or you will stick to your chair as Lonello falsely did?

 

 

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.
 

 

 

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?

 

 

Lonello, the only way to interpret your behavior is by believing that your comprehension of English is not that good. If this is the case then i would suggest not to write such enormously long posts. You possibly want to say something and a totally different thing is understood. If i am wrong and you speak and write English fluently, then there is nothing more to say. You are writing the exact opposite things in the same post and you claim to have done them both. At first you write that WCO team was punished, and then you write that there was not punishment for the PB-clique which is the 2/3 of the WCO team!!!!!!!!!! I have found more such inconsistencies in your writings but unlike nortom i will not bother to recite them. Just bare in mind that you are not addressing to the mindless mob. Some of us can think!!!!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users