Jump to content


Photo

New MT member (not anonymous)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic

Poll: popularity vote new MT member (41 member(s) have cast votes)

Which new MT-member would you prefer?

  1. Nortrom (21 votes [51.22%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 51.22%

  2. Morx (7 votes [17.07%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 17.07%

  3. Don_Homer (10 votes [24.39%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 24.39%

  4. Oracle (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. Astros (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. Napoleon 1er (1 votes [2.44%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.44%

  7. I dont know or I dont care (2 votes [4.88%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.88%

Vote

#41 Javier Flag

Javier Flag

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 02 May 2018 - 08:38 PM

I have deleted my vote.

My preference after the one vote allowed would be Morx, Astros then Don_Homer.
  • Don_Homer likes this

#42 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

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

Posted 03 May 2018 - 12:02 AM

My order is the same as Javier's, except swapping Morx with Nortrom.

Edited by astros, 03 May 2018 - 12:02 AM.

I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#43 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,331 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 03 May 2018 - 02:02 AM

 

Tober,
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought MT is looking for candidates to strengthen the team. Last time I tried to work on a plan with MT (multiple chasing), I believe you made a whooping three posts totalling 100 words. Basically abstaining from the matter at hand. 
 
I don't want to do finger-pointing, but your contribution was near zero.
 
Did MTinsley offer practical proposals before you guys appointed him? or major nelson? Why do you wish to use a different procedure / reasoning now?
 
After years of doing nothing and maintaining the status quo, it is time that (new) MT improves the current set of rules and procedures. The current MT members so far have not been very succesful in this. You probably don't like being told that, so be it.
 
Perhaps you could address the questions at: http://forum.strateg...new-mt-members/

 

 

 

It is not true that my contribution to it was zero because I made 3 posts in a PM. Nor was it true, as was said before, that Danis made zero contribution because he did not post in it.

 

There is a PM with you, and then there are moderator only PMs and also the Moderator Forum. So it was discussed elsewhere. It is fair to say that neither me or Danis posted a great deal about the double chasing issue but our contributions were entirely sufficient.

 

We voted in favour of rules against double chasing so were not holding anything up.

 

Personally I see a lot of problems with having a rule applied post game as opposed to a programming fix that every player could come to understand even if they were confused at first.  Astros, Mazuzam, Losermaker and yourself all made good points about the difficulty of this. So without programming it will still be a somewhat unsatisfactory situation, so I was not greatly enthused by it. 

 

But the person in MT who has written by far the most about the subject is Gary. So if the criteria is how much time & effort an MT member has devoted to it, then he is way out ahead of the rest of us. However as he was spending so much time on revising and perfecting his ideas about multiple chasing, it was perhaps Gary that was holding it up after all. Looking back I think he maybe was waiting for the rest of MT to challenge his proposals or suggest improvements. But if he looked back himself he might consider that everyone saying 'OK thats fine' might have been a green light to bring it forward sooner.

 

Neither Major Nelson or MTinsley were proposing particular changes to MT procedures when they joined. But they had both shown good judgement and character from their forum posts, and had not engaged in petty political campaigns on here.

 

As to not improving MT procedures .... it is not clear to me what people think is wrong with current procedures ( or if they do think anything is wrong). You do not say yourself what exactly is wrong with them.

 

For abusive chat there was a suggestion that every swearword should have a set penalty, but as I said elsewhere this is just not practical. For draw refusals we try to apply some common sense guidelines and I think the great majority of decisions are 'correct' (though it is often subjective) . I don't see people putting forward any examples of cases where we were wrong ( which should be easy enough if we are so flawed). 

 

One thing perhaps some members are unhappy with is the time taken to open cases and resolve them. At present MT has a policy that these things will be done 'in good time' but there are no targets to try and adhere to. I can well understand people may think this is not good enough, and be disappointed to see reported cases not opened for a day or so after posting. Actually, within MT, it was Lonello that suggested a more organized procedure for this: that MT members should not post on other forum threads until they had first opened any pending cases in the abuse/draw refusal threads. But his proposal was not carried.

 

With apparent slow resolution of cases that are under discussion, sometimes it is unavoidable.When there are 4 MT members a case may be stuck at 2-2 and further discussion required or perhaps a person with a casting vote may be unavoidably away with 'real life' issues for a few days.


  • danis_p_gr likes this

#44 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

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

Posted 03 May 2018 - 08:24 AM

I never said it to be zero. I said it to be near zero. (in the discussion with MT + Me. I don't know if you had given any input in the MT-only PM). One of the things you were concerned about, is that people could fake screenshots. I'm not sure how this would be any different with the current screenshot-based evidence, though.
 
Yes, there are some difficulties. A pity the time spent (since oct 2017) was used on pointless, empty discussions, instead of trying to tackle those (together).
 
I feel for example the draw refusal rules are extremely cumbersome and needlessly complex. Cases also take way too long to be handled. I feel I'm repeating myself, though.
 
The language issue you refer to, is a point brought up by astros. I didn't comment on it as I agreed with you & US (and liked US's post as a confirmation of this. I thought I had given yours a like aswell).
 
You can tackle the 2-2 (4 man) issue ;). Speaking of which, I am surprised by the large trust from the community in me, based on the poll by DH. Thanks for that, guys. 

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#45 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,331 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 03 May 2018 - 08:35 AM

I prefer video evidence myself, though sometimes screenshots can be sufficient.

 

With draw refusal process the only real rule requirement is the complainant should provide a defeat screen. Other than that we just want to see a strong case. Many cases we have settled with less than 10 minutes between refusals ( if the scenario is that the refuser must either lotto or draw ) and we also consider if a single piece loss is really progress or just a way of stalling.



#46 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

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

Posted 03 May 2018 - 10:28 AM

Yes, me too. But video's can be faked too, just takes a bit more effort. 

 

I hope you can agree with me that your input (in the PM with MT + me) was near zero.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#47 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 03 May 2018 - 03:20 PM

♥♥♥♥, we have to make only 1 choice, i would have vote Nortrom and Don-Homer



#48 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 03 May 2018 - 04:07 PM

I would vote Morx, Nortrom. Astros would be my 3rd pick. Napoleon 1er closely after that.

It is a pity Oracle is not giving much of his or her views. Then again most Oracles prefer to stay mysterious, but it would allow me to compare him/her with Don H.

#49 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

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

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:04 PM

@Don_Homer

 

I was having a conversation with an acquaintance and this is what I was told:

 

"If Don_Homer's elected to the MT he's got a plan to bring back Lonello."

 

Is this true? If so, would you please explain your rationale?

 

Thank you.


Edited by KissMyCookie, 03 May 2018 - 05:48 PM.


#50 maxroelofs

maxroelofs

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,147 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 03 May 2018 - 06:55 PM

@Don_Homer

 

I was having a conversation with an acquaintance and this is what I was told:

 

"If Don_Homer's elected to the MT he's got a plan to bring back Lonello."

 

Is this true? If so, would you please explain your rationale?

 

Thank you.

 

I'm sure this isn't the case.


Edited by maxroelofs, 03 May 2018 - 06:56 PM.

  • Don_Homer likes this
To watch stratego videos: https://www.youtube....HOHXWONQMsVcOLA

#51 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

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

Posted 03 May 2018 - 07:06 PM

@Don_Homer

 

I was having a conversation with an acquaintance and this is what I was told:

 

"If Don_Homer's elected to the MT he's got a plan to bring back Lonello."

 

Is this true? If so, would you please explain your rationale?

 

Thank you.

Its sad that the strategy of the ''fu'' has opened the attack on me now I have some support for the MT function. No, Kmc your statement is not true. Im sure you cant tell who your source is if there is one in the first place!

 

Lets keep away from gossip and rumours.


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#52 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

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

Posted 03 May 2018 - 07:30 PM

Excuse me, Don_Homer, but this did not originate with the Forum Union, and your jumping to conclusions yet again!!! Just stop doing that!

 

I can attest to the fact, and I repeat that it is a fact, that Morx and Nortrom had nothing to do with the source of this statement.

 

You wrote that Gary could answer for himself, and he did; and I know that you want things to be fair–so you can answer for yourself, too. This statement came to me via an acquaintance while we were on the phone/Skype. I promised that I would not divulge the source's identity, but I had misgivings. This individual was fairly direct with me, so I posted the question. My source became irritated that I had and I removed it, but after thinking about it, I want any rumors to be cleared up. This is not an accusation, this is not any kind of an attempt to hurl anything negative your way, Don_Homer...but your overreaction is very poor, indeed.

 

I believe you completely that it is a false statement, and I will be sure to yell at my source for this...you may depend upon it.

 

Thank you for answering, but you need to keep a far more objective view, Don_Homer, before hurling accusations...all you had to do was say it was not so, and then ask where this came from.

 

Thank you, again, for your honest reply. Now, I am going to smack that source.


Edited by KissMyCookie, 03 May 2018 - 07:31 PM.


#53 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

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

Posted 04 May 2018 - 09:02 AM

"Its sad that the strategy of the ''fu'' has opened the attack on me now" not sure what this sentence means. A strategy opening an attack?

 

At any rate:

ZpZN2tR.png 

This was the last activity in the PM. There is a reason why you are compared to lonello. May have to do with making uninformed and unfounded statements and suggesting conspiracies. 

 

You had objections to being called 'lonello clone' but you are acting the same.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#54 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

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

Posted 04 May 2018 - 04:04 PM

"Its sad that the strategy of the ''fu'' has opened the attack on me now" not sure what this sentence means. A strategy opening an attack?

 

At any rate:

ZpZN2tR.png

This was the last activity in the PM. There is a reason why you are compared to lonello. May have to do with making uninformed and unfounded statements and suggesting conspiracies. 

 

You had objections to being called 'lonello clone' but you are acting the same.

I didnt even know there was a ''FU pm treat''! Thanks for clearing that up. Also you just proved that its a conspiracie that exists! I was talking about a strategy. Maybe you should lookup the word ''strategy''.


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#55 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

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

Posted 04 May 2018 - 04:21 PM

You're welcome. How else do you think the Forum Union would communicate to bring out advice to the MT? using homing pigeons? Yeah, you are just like lonello. Glad to see you're making it more and more apparent.

 

I think I know the meaning of the word "strategy" quite well. So far I've never seen a "Strategy" as an entity, launch an attack, though.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#56 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

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

Posted 04 May 2018 - 04:30 PM

I didnt even know there was a ''FU pm treat''! Thanks for clearing that up. Also you just proved that its a conspiracie that exists! I was talking about a strategy. Maybe you should lookup the word ''strategy''.

 

@Don_Homer–I trust that you read my "Thank you" to you for your honest answer and clearing up the matter. I also trust that you read my post which details where I heard the comment before its publication. The Forum Union was not a part of this material as I heard it first hand in a live conversation which did not include any Forum Union members.

 

I have something which I would like you to consider regarding the Forum Union PM thread–when MT adjudicates its cases, they use a PM thread, thus, the Forum Union communicates in the same exact way. Why would you call a PM thread a conspiracy? This is absurd and utterly ridiculous.

 

I trust that this offers more than enough explanation. Thank you, again.



#57 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

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

Posted 04 May 2018 - 04:37 PM

Everyone with half a brain can see that several people (at the moment mainly Nortrom and Kmc) are attacking me and this is part of a strategy, organised or not. It became more severe at the moment I applied for the MT function. 

 

Also Kmc in a pm to me you denied that you were part of the ''fu'' but now Nortrom is suggesting you were even in their private mailing. Can you clarify that?


  • tobermoryx likes this

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#58 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

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

Posted 04 May 2018 - 04:50 PM

Everyone with half a brain can see that several people (at the moment mainly Nortrom and Kmc) are attacking me and this is part of a strategy, organised or not. It became more severe at the moment I applied for the MT function. 

 

Also Kmc in a pm to me you denied that you were part of the ''fu'' but now Nortrom is suggesting you were even in their private mailing. Can you clarify that?

 

I thoroughly resent this comment, Don_Homer, as I am not attacking you, nor am I part of a strategized movement to do so. You are wanting to be considered for a role in the MT and it is only right that we have an opportunity to ask you questions, or to comment upon material forum members may have heard, read, or discussed–I explained where my material originated and who was NOT a part of it.

 

As for your second comment, you brought up the Forum Union in our PM–I did not. Also, I NEVER denied being a part of the Forum Union. (In fact, I coined the term and explained its origin in my answer to lonello's vicious attack upon Gary, when I exposed some of his lies with evidence).

 

You were criticizing me for some of my opinions, if you recall, and I answered you back by writing, "You claim my view is one-sided, and perhaps even suggesting that I am guilty by association because I share a sympathetic view with someone you consider (Nortrom) as a troublemaker...this is utterly unfair and irrelevant."

 

I went on to explain to you that I speak for myself and not for a group and when I write something, it is not for a team, a union, or a group: "My voice is my own; I am not a part of a *team; I am not motivated to do anything but to have a candid discussion follow any criticism of the current state of affairs; I am probably far more in line with TheOptician than anyone else."

 

Repeating to you again, I never denied being part of the Forum Union...my name has been there in Black & White for all to see.

 

Can you clarify to me how it is possible that you did not understand our communication?

 

*You, Don_Homer contextualized the term "team" to infer that I was part of a conspiracy, which I flat out denied because I was not part of such a movement.


Edited by KissMyCookie, 04 May 2018 - 04:53 PM.


#59 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

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

Posted 04 May 2018 - 05:48 PM

Donello,

 

In between 21 april and 29 april there was 0 activity in said PM. Only after 'DISLIKE' opened a case against the Forum Union, there was some activity. Which was only about this 'issue'. I don't recall the exact date you announced your interest in MT position.

 

Your unfound conspiracy theories, like lonello's, are based on absolutely nothing but your own paranoid thinking. The Forum Union has found your candidacy is such little significance it hasn't been discussed.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts


#60 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

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

Posted 06 May 2018 - 01:31 PM

After a week and a decrease of new votes I think its time for the conclusion and some interesting notes based on this poll.

 

* The majority of the active users prefer Nortrom as a new MT member over the other 5 candidates

* Don_Homer is (on a significant distance) the second most popular candidate, followed by Morx

* The other candidates did not vote for themselves.

* Non-respons bias was big (as expected) which influences the reliablity of this poll

* Some users changed their vote along the process

* One MT member voted (for Nortrom). 

 

So Nortrom appears to have the best support for an MT function by the active community. However other candidates who did not apply for the function could be more or less popular.

 

Thank you all for voting! This poll will be closed now.


Edited by Don_Homer, 06 May 2018 - 01:52 PM.

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users