Jump to content


Photo

Questions and Discussions Thread for MT Reports (2020)


  • Please log in to reply
515 replies to this topic

#1 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,981 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 01 January 2020 - 06:00 PM

In this thread, questions regarding cases, decisions, aid with cases etc may be asked.

 

During this new year, we want to keep the report threads free of clutter, any posts that aren't a case should go here.


  • Sorrow likes this

sOoQsuN.png


#2 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 03 January 2020 - 12:55 AM

In the older draw refusal thread (now locked) in a case against IAmGroot90 it was said he was found guilty of, among other things, ATW. Yet it wasn't stated that the fellow would get a one-week ban included in his punishment. When I commented on this in that thread it was replied that a one-week ban only applies to QA games, which is incorrect. It applies to all cases of ATW. It is in addition to -50 points for the offense.
  • 17761776 likes this
Posted Image
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

#3 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 03 January 2020 - 12:56 AM

From now on, we will be communicating cases slightly differently. We will edit reports with a status indicator.

Black = Case in original state, nothing done yet
RED = Case opened, under review
Green = Case handled

.
Interesting development. A point of question for me is how will anyone get a notice that their case has been handled? Edits don't cause the badge to count on the notification bar at the top of the screen.

Without those notifications people will not as easily be able to check back to their own reports when those reports fall a page or two or three back.

Edited by GaryLShelton, 03 January 2020 - 01:11 AM.

Posted Image
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

#4 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 03 January 2020 - 01:30 AM

The 2018 topic will soon be moved to the archive, where it will still be viewable, though read-only. Any questions on cases from the old thread will have to be made in this new one.

.
Small item...2019 topic [emphasis added]

Edited by GaryLShelton, 03 January 2020 - 01:42 AM.

  • Nortrom likes this
Posted Image
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

#5 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,434 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 03 January 2020 - 02:17 AM

Gary,

Thank you for bringing the point about the ATW case and week ban to our attention, you are correct in that regard. It should have been a one week ban in addition.

 

Regarding your comments about nonobadork's Draw Refusal case, you are correct that it was not possible to confidently ascertain which direction the opponent's miner was heading. However, in that case, the evidence presented to the MT was, at best, horrendously poor. If we give our plaintiff the benefit of the doubt that it was not intentional, then he has presented us with awful screenshots that sequester very important information regarding the case. If this was the case, then these very poor screenshots made it impossible for MT to rule in his favor, and when asked to provide better screenshots, he did not. However, I and MT both believed that the convenient covering of the miner's position by the screenshots could not have been uninentional. Platinum players would not be so naive. Sending the last draw refusal and receiving the rejection screen as the miner charges down the lane seems like a very convenient time to surrender and claim the points. But either way, it was impossible for MT to rule guilty.


4 months until flash goes bye-bye


#6 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,434 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 03 January 2020 - 03:15 AM

.
Interesting development. A point of question for me is how will anyone get a notice that their case has been handled? Edits don't cause the badge to count on the notification bar at the top of the screen.

Without those notifications people will not as easily be able to check back to their own reports when those reports fall a page or two or three back.

Gary, this is an interesting point, but one that is only valid since you have forgotten something. You and I, as forum veterans and regulars, have likely at one point found our way to our "manage preferences" tab under settings, whereupon we have clicked a check box for the system to notify us when a post of ours is quoted. The default way the system operates is to not send a user a notification when a post of their is quoted; rather, the user must turn this function on themselves. As a result, I would believe that most users would not have this function activated and, as a result, whether we quote their post or not would make no difference if this function was not. Does this make sense?

 

Furthermore, I believe that our new system of opening and closing cases will be a lot easier for both the MT and for the community. For the MT, we no longer have to look through the report thread and look through the mod chat, searching, to see if another mod has already opened up a case on x complaint that fell threw the cracks two weeks ago. Now, by merely looking at the color of the post, this can be determined. Furthermore, eliminating the need to write posts just to say "case opened" or even delivering verdicts in separate posts will creatly reduce clutter and unneeded verbage in report threads, which ran rampant last year. MT is also going to be cracking down on any posts that are not reports in report threads: they will automatically be removed to discussion threads. In this way, the MT believes that it will be much easier for members of the community to find their post and easily get a status update on that report. They, after all, can easily find their post, as it is under their recently posted and surely they know the approximate date in which they reported someone. Under this new system, by merely glancing at their report post, they can get an immediate status update on their report and can see the MT's verdict of their report if it has in fact been closed without having to search through pages later for it. All in all, we believe that this new system will be more effective.


4 months until flash goes bye-bye


#7 nonobadork

nonobadork

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 03 January 2020 - 06:47 AM

Gary,

Thank you for bringing the point about the ATW case and week ban to our attention, you are correct in that regard. It should have been a one week ban in addition.

 

Regarding your comments about nonobadork's Draw Refusal case, you are correct that it was not possible to confidently ascertain which direction the opponent's miner was heading. However, in that case, the evidence presented to the MT was, at best, horrendously poor. If we give our plaintiff the benefit of the doubt that it was not intentional, then he has presented us with awful screenshots that sequester very important information regarding the case. If this was the case, then these very poor screenshots made it impossible for MT to rule in his favor, and when asked to provide better screenshots, he did not. However, I and MT both believed that the convenient covering of the miner's position by the screenshots could not have been uninentional. Platinum players would not be so naive. Sending the last draw refusal and receiving the rejection screen as the miner charges down the lane seems like a very convenient time to surrender and claim the points. But either way, it was impossible for MT to rule guilty.

 

TBH I don't really appreciate being accused of being deceptive. If I remember correctly the game was frustrating and I had been over it for a while. I sent a tie request because my opponent was just shuffling. I told him he had ten minutes in the chat and I set a timer, when the timer went off I sent another tie request took a screenshot and surrendered. It didn't even occur to me that pieces were covered by the request refusal. As far as I was concerned ten minutes had passed no pieces had been taken on either side. I didn't realize I had to show anything else. The screenshots I sent were the only ones I took. 


  • GaryLShelton likes this

#8 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 03 January 2020 - 08:09 AM

Gary, this is an interesting point, but one that is only valid since you have forgotten something. You and I, as forum veterans and regulars, have likely at one point found our way to our "manage preferences" tab under settings, whereupon we have clicked a check box for the system to notify us when a post of ours is quoted. The default way the system operates is to not send a user a notification when a post of their is quoted; rather, the user must turn this function on themselves.

.
My young friend, you are in error. The default settings are below. I opened a brand new account, tester59, to prove this point.

https://photos.app.g...CVvJ9HXGk9bc2c6

As you can see, the badge of the notification marker at the top of the screen will count up for every new forum account automatically, for both Likes and Quotes. That is the default setting. So by removing this obvious notice tool most of the forum community will likely not see the MT responses to their posts as easily. Few will enjoy scrolling back through the posts in the reporting topics...sometimes pages, as you are aware...to locate their post to see if it has been responded to. With a simple notification badge counting up the community can both see that the MT has responded and go directly to it via the link in the MT quote.

That bears repeating. The MT quotes method for answers provides a link to the original post that every forum user can employ. That beats scrolling for posts any day and twice on Sunday as the saying goes.

This is not to mention others in the forum who are just interested bystanders who may have seen a (now former) MT post announcing a decision and been able to look at everything through the links themselves. No one, or very few, will take time to scroll back to posts on the previous page, let alone 2, 3, or more pages back.

For the MT itself this handicap is not so pronounced because you have direct links within your modchat cases and can immediately go back to the exact spot for every one. The public has no such tool.

The whole idea deserves "Idea of the Month" status within MT the circle and is certainly one approach. But whether it aids the MT, or does not, this plan is going to make it more difficult for the public to follow any cases more than those on the current page. I wish it the best but hope this is a short-lived experiment.

Edited by GaryLShelton, 03 January 2020 - 09:54 AM.

  • Napoleon 1er and 17761776 like this
Posted Image
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

#9 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,981 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 03 January 2020 - 01:34 PM

In the older draw refusal thread (now locked) in a case against IAmGroot90 it was said he was found guilty of, among other things, ATW. Yet it wasn't stated that the fellow would get a one-week ban included in his punishment. When I commented on this in that thread it was replied that a one-week ban only applies to QA games, which is incorrect. It applies to all cases of ATW. It is in addition to -50 points for the offense.

 

I thought you refered to that 1st degree DR should lead to one week off which isn't the case. I'll check the case.

 

.
Interesting development. A point of question for me is how will anyone get a notice that their case has been handled? Edits don't cause the badge to count on the notification bar at the top of the screen.

Without those notifications people will not as easily be able to check back to their own reports when those reports fall a page or two or three back.

Our intention is to handle cases in a timely manner, this shouldn't be an issue :)


sOoQsuN.png


#10 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,981 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 03 January 2020 - 02:55 PM

The following AR was made and carried out:

 

Please deduct 163 points and ban for 1 week the account IAmGroot90 and send him our first degree refusal warning letter and our gold warning letter for refusing a valid draw and abusive time wasting against Bobby Dylan, who should have 13 points restored for the draw.

 

 

- 113 for draw refusal

- 50 for time wasting

1 week ban for time wasting


  • 17761776 likes this

sOoQsuN.png


#11 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,434 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 03 January 2020 - 03:50 PM

.
My young friend, you are in error. The default settings are below. I opened a brand new account, tester59, to prove this point.

https://photos.app.g...CVvJ9HXGk9bc2c6

As you can see, the badge of the notification marker at the top of the screen will count up for every new forum account automatically, for both Likes and Quotes. That is the default setting. So by removing this obvious notice tool most of the forum community will likely not see the MT responses to their posts as easily. Few will enjoy scrolling back through the posts in the reporting topics...sometimes pages, as you are aware...to locate their post to see if it has been responded to. With a simple notification badge counting up the community can both see that the MT has responded and go directly to it via the link in the MT quote.

That bears repeating. The MT quotes method for answers provides a link to the original post that every forum user can employ. That beats scrolling for posts any day and twice on Sunday as the saying goes.

This is not to mention others in the forum who are just interested bystanders who may have seen a (now former) MT post announcing a decision and been able to look at everything through the links themselves. No one, or very few, will take time to scroll back to posts on the previous page, let alone 2, 3, or more pages back.

For the MT itself this handicap is not so pronounced because you have direct links within your modchat cases and can immediately go back to the exact spot for every one. The public has no such tool.

The whole idea deserves "Idea of the Month" status within MT the circle and is certainly one approach. But whether it aids the MT, or does not, this plan is going to make it more difficult for the public to follow any cases more than those on the current page. I wish it the best but hope this is a short-lived experiment.

When I joined long ago this was not the case, or for some reason, in my personal settings, this was not a default occurrence. I never understood why this was not set as default, to be notified when a person quotes your post, so I suppose it's good to know that I was the only one this happened too.

 

You keep repeating "pages and pages" but you also forget that, in addition to implementing this new process, the MT is going to crack down on needless posts and unnecessary things in report cases. I would estimate that over half of all posts in all report threads last year was something other than a report or an MT verdict announcement. But you also forget that both the posts just to say "case opened" and posts to say verdict on x case: blablabla will be omitted. You mention that it will be unpleaseant for the user to scroll through pages or report things to find their own case as a downside to this new system. But the new system eliminates itself this downside by eliminating 67% of the previously necessary posts to solve one case ("case opened" and "case verdict" posts are eliminated). This greatly reduces clutter, the amount of scrolling, and will make it easier to find one's case. 

 

And, as I mentioned, this new method will allow any person to receive a status update of their case just by glancing at it - no more separate posts asking "has this been dealt with" and no more scrolling by the user through 4 pages of "case opened" to find if their case was in the mix.


4 months until flash goes bye-bye


#12 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,434 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 03 January 2020 - 03:53 PM

TBH I don't really appreciate being accused of being deceptive. If I remember correctly the game was frustrating and I had been over it for a while. I sent a tie request because my opponent was just shuffling. I told him he had ten minutes in the chat and I set a timer, when the timer went off I sent another tie request took a screenshot and surrendered. It didn't even occur to me that pieces were covered by the request refusal. As far as I was concerned ten minutes had passed no pieces had been taken on either side. I didn't realize I had to show anything else. The screenshots I sent were the only ones I took. 

 

Thank you for your follow-up on this case. While I had believed it to be more likely that the convenient place of the screenshots in your case was intentional, there is also a possibility it could have been unintentional. Really, there's no way to know this for sure, but it seemed that all of us in MT held this same position. Either way, in the future, please provide us with better screenshots that don't cover up important information like the location of the last miner. 


4 months until flash goes bye-bye


#13 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 03 January 2020 - 11:56 PM

And, as I mentioned, this new method will allow any person to receive a status update of their case just by glancing at it - no more separate posts asking "has this been dealt with" and no more scrolling by the user through 4 pages of "case opened" to find if their case was in the mix.

 

I don't think that happened too many times.  I maintain that by the MT quoting their post everyone always knew their case was opened due to the number badge counting up.  A few didn't, yes, that's true, but they were the exception.  I hope you are correct that it is easier for everyone with a focus on topic cleanup.  And indeed good luck with it.  It's a novel idea and the public doesn't know the tediousness with which the MT has to daily contend.  Nevertheless, I fear the public will be far less informed than previously.


Posted Image
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

#14 Edmond Dantes 1844

Edmond Dantes 1844

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,092 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 04 January 2020 - 12:17 AM

...the public doesn't know the tediousness with which the MT has to daily contend...

 

With the most recent changes to MT's policies and the panel, I believe that they are operationally sound and in fine fettle–perhaps even lacking the tediousness of which had been mentioned.

 

With this new structure:

 

Black = Case in original state, nothing done yet
RED = Case opened, under review
Green = Case handled

 

I imagine that we may also make inquiries with the MT should there be any kind of delay of decision based upon a case's complexity?


Edited by KissMyCookie, 04 January 2020 - 12:20 AM.


#15 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 04 January 2020 - 03:49 AM

The colour coding case update seems like a good idea to me.



#16 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 04 January 2020 - 04:58 AM

What I don't like so much though is this ruling against nonobadork. I don't like to be the one to moan about MT but this one seems quite a bad decision, especially as the complainant is not only turned down but is then inferred to be some sort of cheat.

 

Also a case like this reminds me of times when I was outvoted 1-3 in similar circumstances with MT cases. Very exasperating when the evidence is so clear.

 

The opponent has 10 minutes to do something with the miner. They do nothing but shuffle pieces around for the whole of that time. So 10 minutes no progress = guilty.

 

But somehow it is not guilty because 'the miner was behind the defeat screen' and so was 'obviously' going to take the flag. Well if it was so obvious and straightforward why had the miner not taken the flag already ? 

 

And then nonobadork is implied to be dishonest because  the defeat screen is obscuring the miner ! The defeat screen covers 60% of the board ! What is nonobadork meant to do here ? They have already given the opponent 10 minutes and the player did nothing but shuffle around. Should nonobadork wait another 3 or 4 minutes for his opponent to move the miner to an unobscured lane ?

 

As far as I was concerned ten minutes had passed no pieces had been taken on either side. I didn't realize I had to show anything else.

 

 

That quote is 100% correct. The position of the miner at the end is not relevant to the case. The miner had 10 minutes. Time is up.

 

The most annoying case I had in MT was a player that reported a draw refusal when he had a colonel, not much else, a 'tripod', but a deceptive open flag. The opponent had a colonel, no miners, but about 6 pieces to lotto with. From the board position it was clear the accused player had a clear path to start lottoing and only needed 10 moves to do so. After 200 moves they had lottod nothing.  But in the defeat screen the draw refuser had a piece moving towards the flag, so my colleagues insisted this proved the player was 'progressing' towards the win. My argument was that 200 moves is more than enough time to lotto so it was unreasonable for them to be given anymore. That a piece was near the flag was irrelevant as they had already been next to the flag and then moved away. It didn't matter that the flag was open. It wouldn't have mattered if the flag had been on the front row because if you don't lotto you can't hit it .

 

I have encountered many players like the opponent in this game. They get into an unexpected good position against a much higher opponent where they can try for the flag, but they get scared to take the initiative and guess wrong*. When you start offering draws they will make comments such as 'but you are not doing anything!', because they would prefer to have you lotto into their bombs and take the responsibility of trying to win away from them.

 

*that the opponent 'knew' the correct flag placement I don't think is right to assume in any case. I played someone who was on 1000 elo that had the flag in the right side position.


  • nonobadork and Sorrow like this

#17 Powderkeg

Powderkeg

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 04 January 2020 - 05:10 AM

Maybe you ought to learn to play instead of just moving around and blocking. 

 

Tired of playing people like you. 

 

You are so overrated. Just a bully. Moving around and doing nothing. 

 

Big crybaby. Never attacked once for first 15 minutes.


Edited by Powderkeg, 04 January 2020 - 05:11 AM.


#18 Edmond Dantes 1844

Edmond Dantes 1844

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,092 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 04 January 2020 - 09:49 AM

Read the dialogue between GLS, Nortrom, and Fairway discussing the verdict here (four posts):

 

http://forum.strateg...-2019/?p=488558

 

 

What strikes me as curious is that after this verdict, plaintiff nonobadork does not lodge a single complaint against the MT's decision. It is my belief that a person who is completely a victim in such a matter, bringing a legitimate complaint to Mods, but then being ruled against and even cautioned about bringing such cases, would have responded with an immediate argument against the ruling–nonobadork, strangely, said absolutely nothing and accepted the MT's verdict and statement. Had I received words of caution flying in the face of my righteousness, you may be certain that I would have been furious...and I do believe that just about any other player in this forum would also fire back at the MT a hefty salvo.

 

I think nonobadork is probably a straightforward Stratego player, is not a cheater, and not a troublemaker...given that, perhaps the frustration of such a match with such an opponent (I have played this person, commandeur and have found this person to be incredibly annoying and irritating), perhaps requesting a DR seemed like a viable option at the moment and height of frustration.



#19 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 04 January 2020 - 10:38 AM

What strikes me as curious is that after this verdict, plaintiff nonobadork does not lodge a single complaint against the MT's decision. It is my belief that a person who is completely a victim in such a matter, bringing a legitimate complaint to Mods, but then being ruled against and even cautioned about bringing such cases, would have responded with an immediate argument against the ruling–nonobadork, strangely, said absolutely nothing and accepted the MT's verdict and statement. Had I received words of caution flying in the face of my righteousness, you may be certain that I would have been furious...and I do believe that just about any other player in this forum would also fire back at the MT a hefty salvo.

.
He may just be a bit more respectful and/or restrained than that. At any rate, he did respond here:

http://forum.strateg...post&pid=488809
Posted Image
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

#20 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 04 January 2020 - 10:43 AM

I imagine that we may also make inquiries with the MT should there be any kind of delay of decision based upon a case's complexity?

.
Yes, will questions directly related to a case decision be permitted in the reporting thread, or will all such questions be put to this topic only?

Edited by GaryLShelton, 04 January 2020 - 10:44 AM.

Posted Image
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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users