So votekick >abuse< is practically allowed?

[Noshpan]

vote kick ban shouldnt be allowed in any DF instances, only PTs should be allowed to ban and even them with the true reasons. Although I am against it as a tool de per se.

Mei

So by that logic, whenever I'm in DF, I should be forced to deal with a tank that doesn't use their emnity-producing skills such as Provoke, Flash and Overpower? And all that they are doing is just going through their combo because it's all shiny? Or, should the party have to be stuck with a healer who doesn't heal? Or that damage dealer that does nothing but auto-attack? What if I've got a tank-bot or heal-bot? They don't perform effectively, but according to your logic I should have to be stuck with them. Yeah, no thanks. While abuses of the vote kick system can, does, and will happen, I would rather have it for the greater good.

[ExKage]

I got kicked from my expert roulette yesterday because I didn't know that using Shadowflare would be an issue on the first boss of Tam Tara HM, lol. WOOPS. Sure I've been clearing second coil for close to 3 months, but I've only done TT HM once or twice and never on SMN.

I knew to let the boss aoe attack kill the adds. But bad on me for not knowing that my Shadowflare may be strong enough to kill the adds. They could have just explained that, I think? But eh, not losing sleep over it.

Can't say I've ever really found myself abusing the vote kick and haven't seen too many others do it either. I recall it happening more in the original CT, but in Syrcus Tower I haven't encountered as many trolls.

Man some say my friend is a "toxic" player but whenever I run Tam-Tara HM with her and people hit adds with Shadowflare etc we just say "Pls don't hit adds". We've never once kicked anyone for that lol.

[Shinzoku]

Ya I just got called a leech and kicked from an ST pt about 30 minutes ago. It was the first time I have been kicked from an instance. The reason: I was having lag issues and had to reset my router. Guess that is no longer permissible lol. I usually give someone at least 5-10 minutes to come back from a reset, these things happen.

[Enkrateia]

Greetings!

To begin, I have removed several posts commenting negatively about the company or the service itself, as well as a side discussion about the use of spell checking. Those suggestions have been heard, but take away from the concerns in this thread, which is a criticism of policy and confusion resulting from a message sent by a GM.

I have escalated several of the concerns with the messaging to the appropriate group for review and ways to improve their messaging to prevent confusion like this.

However, there is one topic in this thread that seems to be an underlying point of contention: reasons for dismissal that are not strictly "AFK", "Offline", "Harassment", or "Cheating". I would like to address this.

The response from the GM touched on this, although it was missed due to the focus on the first part of that sentence. The reasons for dismissal are not all encompassing, which means that there may be valid reasons for dismissal outside of those four examples. Good examples of this that have been provided in this thread are the refusal to fulfill one's job function. Because of this, it is possible that the reasons provided for dismissal may be found to be accurate if they are used against you. As well, the feelings one may have about the reasons may differ from the feelings of those who voted to dismiss. For example, cultural differences in language may have one person using language they find fairly benign while another person takes great offense to it.

Because of these subjective discrepancies, the final decision on if a violation of the use of the vote dismiss feature is left to a GM after an investigation. In general, abuse of the vote dismiss feature is considered to be a grief tactics violation, which falls under section 3.2 in the Final Fantasy XIV User Agreement. However, it is only after a GM investigation that it can be determined to be a violation of the rules. If you feel that the vote dismiss feature has been abused, please do report it to the GMs through the Help Desk in game, and we will investigate.

LGM Enkrateia

[Alukah]

OP, what's the background of your case? Before agreeing or disagreeing that the current system doesn't work I'd like know how it was misused against you.

[Marou]

Not performing job function should be added as a reason. All of the kicks I've ever participated against someone outside of Offline have been this (person doesn't talk and isn't doing their job), and harassment while somewhat appropriate isn't as descriptive as "not performing job function".

[Amberyl]

Good examples of this that have been provided in this thread are the refusal to fulfill one's job function.

Hope you've got the manpower to cope with the ambiguity that statement entails. Because the amount of misuse reports you're gonna get is going to skyrocket when wind of this hits the servers, lol.

[Enkrateia]

Hope you've got the manpower to cope with the ambiguity that statement entails. Because the amount of misuse reports you're gonna get is going to skyrocket when wind of this hits the servers, lol.

There is not much ambiguity to that sentence. If a person is intentionally acting in a manner that is detrimental to the completion of the duty, then the use of the vote dismiss feature is unlikely to be a violation. If the concern is that this will be used as an excuse to abuse the feature, if our investigation determines that they did perform their duties in an appropriate manner and were kicked due to unrealistic expectations, then it could be found to be an abuse of the vote dismiss feature. A GM investigation will make the final determination about if the feature was used appropriately.

LGM Enkrateia

[Amberyl]

If a person is intentionally acting in a manner that is detrimental to the completion of the duty, then the use of the vote dismiss feature is unlikely to be a violation.

When playing as a DPS, I regularly see DF players attempt to kick-vote inexperienced or under-geared tanks and heals and use words very much akin to the above as their justification. This happens most in non-levelsync'ed content, where players are new to the game, and may not even understand how to lodge a grievance with a GM.

Your acceptance of kick-votes deviating from the specified text in the client encourages a kick-now-and-see-if-it-comes-back-on-us attitude. If you're going to allow such terminology in the justification of kick-votes, then it should be a written option in the client.

[Enkrateia]

When playing as a DPS, I regularly see DF players attempt to kick-vote inexperienced or under-geared tanks and heals and use words very much akin to the above as their justification. This happens most in non-levelsync'ed content, where players are new to the game, and may not even understand how to lodge a grievance with a GM.

Your acceptance of kick-votes deviating from the specified text in the client encourages a kick-now-and-see-if-it-comes-back-on-us attitude. If you're going to allow such terminology in the justification of kick-votes, then it should be a written option in the client.

This does leave us with 2 possible options.

Option 1: We only consider reasons for dismissal that are specifically stated to be an abuse of the vote dismiss feature. On the plus side, this does provide a clear and definitive set of guidelines for the use of the feature. On the downside, it is limited by the creativity of customers to find ways of disrupting a run outside of what is listed. Otherwise, the list of possible violations will be too extensive to be used efficiently or will be too vague to provide a definitive set of guidelines.

Option 2: Commonly reported reasons for dismissal are listed, although the tool can be used to dismiss anyone for causing a disruption to the duty. On the plus side, the feature can be used to remove disruptions and increase the chances that the duty can be completed. On the downside, it means that there is not one definitive list for reference on when the use of the feature is justified.

Neither option actively prevents abuse of the feature. Abuse of the feature is prevented due to account actions taken by GMs after an investigation to encourage customers who do misuse the feature to discontinue that behaviour. Currently, option 2 is what is currently in place, since a GM needs to investigate either way, and allows the GM to consider new types of disruptive behaviour that arise instead of waiting for a change to the tool while keeping the tool interface easy to navigate and use.

I think what I may not be clarifying in my replies is that this allows for a broader scope to the use of the tool than just one stated example (not fulfilling job duties). It's never just "one more reason"; the possible reasons for proper use of the tool are limited only bt the creativity of those looking to disrupt duties. Once we list something there, some new way of disrupting runs is bound to arise, and this allows customers to try to make sure runs go smoothly while still allowing for GMs to consider if the feature itself was used in a proper manner.

LGM Enkrateia