Anonymous kicking in LSes: Please fix this.

[Raxiaz]

*The entire LS does not need this information, only the person who was kicked.
"You were kicked from the linkshell by [name]."

Anonymous kicking in LSes has occurred more than once in my time of play. While not rampant, it's only possible because it is not told to anyone who kicked the player. The LS doesn't even know if someone was kicked unless they speak up. This is particularly aggravating when its repetitive, and won't cease.

So I would like to suggest that the name of the person who kicked someone from the LS be displayed to who was kicked, so that the problem could be rectified.

Thank you for your time.

Suggestion redux:
Allow for member removal by the LS Holder even if a member isn't actively on the LS (online or offline).

[Xellith]

Would help to name and shame.

[Arcon]

See here:
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/9150-User-Community-Development-Request-Visible-Linkshell-Kicks

[Misi]

I'd be more worried about why the player was booted and not the who done it. Unless the LS leader/sack holders are legitimately jerks, There are reasons why people get kicked in the first place.

If no one is fessing up to you, or you don't have a clue as to why it happen, I'd count my blessings that i'm not with that shell anymore and move on.

[Bulrogg]

Don't pass out pearl sacks left and right. The less there are, the less will have the privilege to kick. Don't ask SE to waste time with redundant stuff because people are butt hurt about getting sacked from a sack.

[Arcon]

Don't pass out pearl sacks left and right. The less there are, the less will have the privilege to kick. Don't ask SE to waste time with redundant stuff because people are butt hurt about getting sacked from a sack.

In what way exactly is it redundant? In what way is it a waste of time? Where did he say it was him who was kicked? In what way does that address the issue?

"It's fine, because you can avoid it somehow, probably."

Really getting tired of that argument, especially if it's not true and even more if it doesn't even relate to the topic at hand.

[Bulrogg]

It's redundant because no one else in the LS needs to see the message 'X player was just kicked from the shell by Y player' or else they would have included it.

It's a waste of time because SE could be improving things that actually need to be fixed.

I, like he, never implied it was he that was kicked.

It addresses the issue as such: the less sack holders you (read as a LINKSHELL owner) make the less people will have the privilege to kick. If you make someone a sack holder, informing them kicking anyone from the shell without approval will result in them losing the privilege to be a sack holder.

I agree the argument "It's fine, because you can avoid it" does suck from the other side of it. I've been there, I know... but I also know it's true. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it being that big of a problem to ask SE to use their resources to try and make a fix for it.

[Raxiaz]

I won't deny there are reasons why people are kicked. But it would be ignorant to deny the existence of kicks without cause. Naming the sackholder who kicked the member without reason short of personal hatred: best thing for LSs since launch. You can't sit here and tell me that it's OK for one out of seven sackholders to hold a personal grudge against someone and repeatedly kick them after they've been invited back into the LS, exploiting the anonymity that accompanies such a power.

I'm not a leader, nor am I a sackholder. I've never been the victim of this kind of harassment, and I hope I never will be. But I've seen it happen and it annoys me to no end to see it happen just because of a system faulty. The lack of information regarding who removed an LS member is just asking for this sort of crap to happen, and I'm asking that SE takes a few of their resources to add a safeguard to it.

At least I'm not asking for the removal of the boot feature all together. I'm asking for something so simple and helpful, I don't see how one could be against it! Experience it firsthand yourself or watch your friends experience it, you may change your opinion.

I'm only asking for sackholders and linkshell leaders to actually be held responsible for their powers. It is not right to give them the ability to remove a member without being held accountable for it.

[Misi]

I'm only asking for sackholders and linkshell leaders to actually be held responsible for their powers. It is not right to give them the ability to remove a member without being held accountable for it.

That is going to be the main problem. A respectable shell, LS leader, or Sack holder will confront you first if they have a problem with a member in the LS. All this really depends on the maturity level of the people you play with. (general statement, not pointed at you directly)

Even if they did what you asked, if the maturity levels of the players are not there, it'll just become a joke. You'll see people posting Screen shots of who kicked who for the lulz. followed by a blocking or a long winded /tell conversation about why, with the person who did it not really caring. If they can't give you the time of day to talk out a problem before they take action, You don't need to be there and it probably is not worth salvaging.

[Greatguardian]

Problems relating to social networking that can be solved by people being mature, intelligent human beings aren't really problems at all.

If someone's kicked from a linkshell for a stupid reason by a stupid sackholder who has stupid amounts of power to abuse, they'd be stupid to care about it. Find a better shell with people who aren't complete troglodytes. Or, in the equally likely case that the person who was kicked was a complete troglodyte, stop being one.

Showing everyone who kicked who doesn't really contribute anything to a mature, intelligent group. Only mature, responsible, intelligent people capable of making kick decisions on their own should even be given linksacks in the first place. They are not a seniority prize, or a "bestest buddy" prize, they are a responsibility. All that should matter is "Well, someone who is responsible enough to know when to kick someone kicked someone." That's that. The absolute worst part of removing anyone from a group is dealing with the whiny, annoying friends who spam leaders demanding individual, detailed explanations that they feel they need to argue with incessantly.

Linkshells are social groups. I can kick you from a social group for whatever reason I want. Maybe I hate all people who have FF7-related names. I don't care how cool and good you are at ff11, I can smash your pearl if your name is cloudxstrife. A linkshell is not a job. There are no employee rights. You can put in work and still be terminated at will. No one owes you a personal explanation.

Finally, and this is especially true of event linkshells, it's 100% possible to still be friends with someone and not allow them in your linkshell. Kicking someone is not always personal or abusive at all. A lot of the time, people who really, really need to be kicked, aren't simply because of the personal backlash that they would incur because they have so many friends in the linkshell. Thankfully, some genius somewhere invented the miracle known as skype. Make a group chat and you basically have your own mini-linkshell chat that works in and outside of the game. And guess what? Being in a skype group doesn't entitle someone to rewards from a group that they are not adequately contributing to, or the ability to participate in group events that they tend to make significantly more difficult. Win-Win.

[chubrocka]

REALLY??!! Look LS leader's give sacks to people they want to. In doing so they know they can kick. So be it.. If you are kicked from a shell there is reason. Too many to type. If it is by accident then you know you will get another. Suck it up, stop crying and move on. Or stop being whatever it is you are being to be kicked enough times to make this post.

[Arcon]

Everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes you can't even call it a mistake. Sometimes people change. Sometimes they decide to try and be idiots. Then they think it would be an awesome prank to kick random people occasionally. But no one knows who or why, because they immediately log off after. And that's the problem. Was it a mistake sacking them? Possibly. Is it reason enough to just live with this? No. Is it reason enough to break the linkshell and reform? No. So what else can you do?

I just don't see why people are even against this. Time to implement? No doubt someone will reply with "Spaghetti code", and I still won't buy it. I don't believe this would take any kind of significant time to implement.

[Greatguardian]

What exactly is preventing people from getting a new pearl if they're kicked and the sack logged off? Do they not know how to send a tell to ... anyone?

Time to implement? Unknown. Need? Minor at best.

In the rare cases of legitimate abuse of the linkshell system, where people have abused logging off and changing pearls to kick people and avoid being desacked, GMs have forcefully removed linksacks from players inventories before.

[Raxiaz]

So what you're saying is that GMs can handle this issue if it's a recurring problem?

[Greatguardian]

So what you're saying is that GMs can handle this issue if it's a recurring problem?

Absolutely not. What you're complaining about isn't even a problem. It's immature people being immature. And it's certainly not abuse. If some *** just kicks people for the fun of it, don't be in a linkshell with *** for sackholders. Problem solved.

I said GMs handle a very specific situation, in which a sackholder starts changing an lsmes or kicking people and attempts to avoid attempts by the Shellholder to break/demote their sack by removing it or logging off quickly.

[Arcon]

Absolutely not. What you're complaining about isn't even a problem. It's immature people being immature. And it's certainly not abuse. If some *** just kicks people for the fun of it, don't be in a linkshell with *** for sackholders. Problem solved.

The fact that it's even possible is a problem. Idiots shouldn't be allowed to be idiots by bad design. Your solution is no solution. One idiot (who is unknown, which is exactly the problem) ruins an entire linkshell for everyone. No, it's not a problem to repearl anyone, but it doesn't help either, especially when it's during an event. It also doesn't help people to feel welcome who are completely innocent and just wanna be in a friendly LS. But yeah, no matter how great the LS usually is and how much it helps their members, your solution is "LS sackholders are ***, leave". Great comment.

And no, GMs won't do anything about that, because they don't care about people being bullied as long as it's within the rules (or not strictly against it).

[Greatguardian]

Being removed from a linkshell is bullying now? News to me.

It is not a game's responsibility to make people make each other feel welcome. Linkshells are purely a social mechanism. If you're friends with good, respectful players in a linkshell with crappy leaders, good for you. You are still allowed to do stuff with those good, respectful players while not being in that linkshell. Or hey, you know what, if the entire shell is good, and they kick you ... tough luck. Try a bit of introspection to figure out why that may have happened and move on.

Oh yeah, and 95% of the time leadership knows who kicks who. It's not like it's impossible for a Shellholder to find out if they absolutely had to. It's just absolutely not worth the whining and drama it may cause to publicize exactly who did what.

[Ravenmore]

I kick people that some how got a pearl but never put it on till they need something. The merges helped with this so no longer that big of a problem.

[Chairman]

Being removed from a linkshell is bullying now? News to me.

It is not a game's responsibility to make people make each other feel welcome. Linkshells are purely a social mechanism. If you're friends with good, respectful players in a linkshell with crappy leaders, good for you. You are still allowed to do stuff with those good, respectful players while not being in that linkshell. Or hey, you know what, if the entire shell is good, and they kick you ... tough luck. Try a bit of introspection to figure out why that may have happened and move on.

Oh yeah, and 95% of the time leadership knows who kicks who. It's not like it's impossible for a Shellholder to find out if they absolutely had to. It's just absolutely not worth the whining and drama it may cause to publicize exactly who did what.

What does any of this have to do with adding a feature that reports who removed someone else from a linkshell? I don't care if you don't think it's necessary; would you be materially harmed by it?

Instead of allowing a bad situation with a petty linksack holder to escalate to the point where everybody needs to be demoted or a GM has to be called or every linksack is grilled until someone confesses, why not just be able to see that "Piffo has broken Moonkissbaby's pearl" and either tell Piffo to lay off or to keep up the good work? S-E should provide a toolset that lets linkshells manage their membership as easily, autonomously and painlessly as possible, and I believe that this would be welcomed by many linkshell leaders.

[Kimble]

It hurts me because they could be using that time to make better changes that are worthwhile, or working on new/revamping old content.

[Chairman]

It hurts me because they could be using that time to make better changes that are worthwhile, or working on new/revamping old content.

I believe that more robust linkshell management would enable more people to more fully enjoy that new or revamped content. Besides, the developers don't flip a coin to decide whether they'll be working on content or infrastructure this quarter.

[Kimble]

Knowing who kicked you isnt really going to change anything, nor make linkshells run more smooth.

[Glamdring]

*The entire LS does not need this information, only the person who was kicked.

Anonymous kicking in LSes has occurred more than once in my time of play. While not rampant, it's only possible because it is not told to anyone who kicked the player. The LS doesn't even know if someone was kicked unless they speak up.

So I would like to suggest that the name of the person who kicked someone from the LS be displayed to who was kicked, so that the problem could be rectified.

Thank you for your time.

"You were kicked from the linkshell by [name]." Is that too difficult to create, playerbase?

no, it also needs to be copied (as a message) to the shellholder, too. They may not have authorized the kick and some sacks may need to be pulled.

[Greatguardian]

That is not the game's responsibility. The act of giving someone a pearlsack implicitly authorizes any and all kicks by said person. If someone needs permission to kick, they don't need to have an in-game item that allows them to kick anyone at any time.

[Ravenmore]

Like the shell holder won't know about it or better let may not even play anymore. Really if one sack is being a pain then the rest of the LS will tell the holder. If the player getting kick is kick chance's are the leader said to kick them next time they are on or that they messed up enough to get kicked. If your in a LS were sacks are randomly kicking people to the point of it being a problem then geuss what leave them.

[Yugl]

I agree with the OP to the extent that it does not distract from major adjustments.

Why would you want to be in the LS: Very simple, the problem is one abusive ranking members, not the entire LS.
Wouldn't the leader have authorized the kick: lolNo? Sub-leaders have their own volition.
What is the point: To remove leadership status from the person abusing their power
Just make mature and competent people the leaders: Thanks for your contribution. Have you seen the ideas that roll around? Have you met the player base?
Why publicize it: You don't? Just have the person kicked get the message and they can use that to show the leader responsible

Edit: Get a new pearl helps how? If it's continued abuse, then that doesn't fix the problem.

[Reiterpallasch]

That is not the game's responsibility. The act of giving someone a pearlsack implicitly authorizes any and all kicks by said person. If someone needs permission to kick, they don't need to have an in-game item that allows them to kick anyone at any time.
And clearly they're never ever given a sack so that they can recruit new members, right?

I don't get why so many people are against the OPs idea. "waaah just find a new ls!" or hey here's an idea, know who is doing all the kicking and remove their sack? Why punish someone innocent when you can just cut out the guilty party instead? Don't wanna see "player A kicks player B from the linkshell"? They just need to add a filter for it.

Clearly some people have never been in a larger social ls. Sometimes you just happen to get "that guy" who will randomly pop on, kick a bunch of members, then leave and nobody ever knows who the hell it is. And without knowing who is doing it, you can't solve the issue.

[Khajit]

Why exactly is this incredibly stupid issue considered a problem? You can always get your pearl back easily AND if the ls doesn't want you back they wouldn't give another one to you in the first place. This is a waste of the dev's time and if they actually add this in I'll be irritated at all the buffoons clamoring for this useless idea because they didn't spent time on anything more important things like goblin poo.
And this might surprise some of you guys but the lsleader can remove sacks from people so claiming that temporary needs to give a person a sack have permanent repercussions in terms of power is ridiculous.

[Raxiaz]

sometimes the ls leader is clueless as to who is doing the kicking. So it isnt good enough to say they can be desacked at any time. And being reinvited to the LS is not a good solution either because it'll just happen again that's why I made this suggestion. This way the person at fault can be disciplined swiftly and can't create a problem any longer than necessary.

[Amanie]

dear SE, i want to know who kicked me from my linkshell so i can shout obscenities about them in port jeuno. K thx bye

thats probably the real reason why ppl want to know who kicked them.

sucks when it happens, but chances are you know kicked you, and/or why they kicked you. sometimes the person /tells you after. sometimes you have to ask around or /tell the shell holder.

OR....... you can start your own shell, with your own rules, and no sacks for anyone, not even your mom!

[Greatguardian]

sometimes the ls leader is clueless as to who is doing the kicking. So it isnt good enough to say they can be desacked at any time. And being reinvited to the LS is not a good solution either because it'll just happen again that's why I made this suggestion. This way the person at fault can be disciplined swiftly and can't create a problem any longer than necessary.

Social problem, not gameplay problem. I realize 90% of the FFXI population has an IQ less than potato, but I do not feel that is justification enough to dismiss the exponentially easier solution of playing with people with basic social skills.

I've been in large social shells. I've run large social shells, for years back in the day. I've seen exactly what you're talking about, more times than I care to remember. But it was never a problem with the system. It was a problem with people. And you can't fix people.

[Arlan]

I'd be more worried about why the player was booted and not the who done it. Unless the LS leader/sack holders are legitimately jerks, There are reasons why people get kicked in the first place.

If no one is fessing up to you, or you don't have a clue as to why it happen, I'd count my blessings that i'm not with that shell anymore and move on.

Such a convenient excuse to not promote such a wonderful idea that the OP has presented.

Also

@ Raxiaz: I think it be even better if it says it in LS chat log as well so the whole entire LS would know who kicked who in case of this harassment occurs.

~.^

[Reiterpallasch]

And this might surprise some of you guys but the lsleader can remove sacks from people
So when someone randomly gets kicked and you have no idea who did it, who's sack do you remove?

[Greatguardian]

If you can't figure out who did it, best remove all of them because you have really terrible taste in sackholders.

[Unleashhell]

Well at least we know who constantly gets kicked from linkshells lol. Obviously the people defending this OP are those people. Seriously though, why would you want to be in a linkshell that you are getting harassed in? If you get kicked so what, move on. What do you honestly think it will do if the entire LS knows who kicked who? You're still kicked, end of story. Stop being a cry baby and get over it.

It all goes back to the linkshell leader, if the leader can't find out form their own sack holders who kicked someone there is a very simple solution, and that's desack everyone. It all goes back to the leader no matter how you put it. It is up to the leader to find out who is kicking people. Not to mention it is the leaders fault for giving someone a sack to begin with. If it is some random ex-sack holder kicking people and the leader cant find out who it is because they put on the Linkshell, kick someone, then change linkshells, they can remake a Linkshell very easily. Take it up with the linkshell leader instead of crying about being kicked from a linkshell on forums. If you have to cry about it on public forums like this, most likely your a crybaby in the game also, which leads me to believe you got kicked for that reason.

[Reiterpallasch]

Well at least we know who constantly gets kicked from linkshells lol. Obviously the people defending this OP are those people.

Or the people defending the OP just happen to agree with him and think it's unfair for shit like this to happen.


Seriously though, why would you want to be in a linkshell that you are getting harassed in? If you get kicked so what, move on. What do you honestly think it will do if the entire LS knows who kicked who? You're still kicked, end of story. Stop being a cry baby and get over it.

Uh, I think it will allow the ls to know who the dbag is who is kicking random people so they can get rid of him instead? Wow, that was a tough one.


If you have to cry about it on public forums like this, most likely your a crybaby in the game also, which leads me to believe you got kicked for that reason.
The OP made a valid suggestion that would be an improvement over the current system. The only one crying here is you, with your "WAAAAH don't waste valuable dev time!". I'm pretty sure if they decided they wanted to add something like this, they could get it done without setting back any of the "important" stuff people want by any significant amount of time.

[Kimble]

Are people really have that big of a problem with randomly being kicked form linkshells? lol

[Eeek]

Are people really have that big of a problem with randomly being kicked form linkshells? lol

Lol, apparently so. I honestly didn't expect this thread to exceed 2 pages.

[Misi]

Such a convenient excuse to not promote such a wonderful idea that the OP has presented.



Right. Let us say LS members had a vote about getting rid of a player in the shell? should the person who did the initial kick be the person to be blamed for it? that is why it is anon. Unless you are in a crappy LS, important decisions like this are not made by one person. Chances are the person who was kicked was not liked by a few people in the shell, So one person should not be labeled as the jerk for the kicking. But hey if blaming one person makes you feel better, That is what it'll come down to.

[Raxiaz]

sometimes the ls leader is clueless as to who is doing the kicking. So it isnt good enough to say they can be desacked at any time. And being reinvited to the LS is not a good solution either because it'll just happen again that's why I made this suggestion. This way the person at fault can be disciplined swiftly and can't create a problem any longer than necessary.

[Unleashhell]

Or the people defending the OP just happen to agree with him and think it's unfair for shit like this to happen.



Uh, I think it will allow the ls to know who the dbag is who is kicking random people so they can get rid of him instead? Wow, that was a tough one.


The OP made a valid suggestion that would be an improvement over the current system. The only one crying here is you, with your "WAAAAH don't waste valuable dev time!". I'm pretty sure if they decided they wanted to add something like this, they could get it done without setting back any of the "important" stuff people want by any significant amount of time.


IDK what you read but I said nothing about the developers wasting time on this. I just made general statements saying the the sackholders are put there for a reason. the linkshell LEADER has to give them one. So no matter if you think 1 sack is being a Dbag, guess what too bad. The LEADER put that sack there so blame the leader not the sackholder. You don't seriously think a pearl holder is going to get a sack kicked or removed do you? Seriously those are prolly a .00001% chance of that happening.

Mainly because linkshell leaders give sacks to friends, RL friends, BF, GF's etc. You crying about getting kicked wont get their sack taken away. And if your leader fails that much that they don't do anything about it, seriously do you want to be in that linkshell to begin with? All this talk, page after page about people crying cause they got kicked from a linkshell when there are literally hundreds of other linkshells to go to. Your really going to sweat over it? People in RL are dbags also, nothing you can do about it. Expect them to be one in a video game too.

Believe me I hear all sorts of stories in my 8 years playing about leaders and sackholders in linkshells, being unfair, kicking people for missing events or just a leader or sack holder kicks people for no reason. So I made my own linkshell, and its very successful, fair, and people enjoy being in it. With so many linkshells to choose from I don't see why this discussion needs to keep going. Your playing a game, you have the freedom to go anywhere in the game at will, and go to any linkshell you get invited too or even create on your own. Nothing in the game at this point do you need 50 people for. Make your own linkshell with your own rules. If a sackholder or leader in a linkshell is a Dbag why stay in there? This is what I'm not understanding. Who cares who kicked who. What will it do? just give you someone else to Blist? Is it really worth the energy when you can still go have fun playing the game someplace else?

[Kimble]

How many sack holders do these LS have that makes it so hard to figure out who did the kicking?

[Orson]

Problems relating to social networking that can be solved by people being mature, intelligent human beings aren't really problems at all.

If someone's kicked from a linkshell for a stupid reason by a stupid sackholder who has stupid amounts of power to abuse, they'd be stupid to care about it. Find a better shell with people who aren't complete troglodytes. Or, in the equally likely case that the person who was kicked was a complete troglodyte, stop being one.

Showing everyone who kicked who doesn't really contribute anything to a mature, intelligent group. Only mature, responsible, intelligent people capable of making kick decisions on their own should even be given linksacks in the first place. They are not a seniority prize, or a "bestest buddy" prize, they are a responsibility. All that should matter is "Well, someone who is responsible enough to know when to kick someone kicked someone." That's that. The absolute worst part of removing anyone from a group is dealing with the whiny, annoying friends who spam leaders demanding individual, detailed explanations that they feel they need to argue with incessantly.

Linkshells are social groups. I can kick you from a social group for whatever reason I want. Maybe I hate all people who have FF7-related names. I don't care how cool and good you are at ff11, I can smash your pearl if your name is cloudxstrife. A linkshell is not a job. There are no employee rights. You can put in work and still be terminated at will. No one owes you a personal explanation.

Finally, and this is especially true of event linkshells, it's 100% possible to still be friends with someone and not allow them in your linkshell. Kicking someone is not always personal or abusive at all. A lot of the time, people who really, really need to be kicked, aren't simply because of the personal backlash that they would incur because they have so many friends in the linkshell. Thankfully, some genius somewhere invented the miracle known as skype. Make a group chat and you basically have your own mini-linkshell chat that works in and outside of the game. And guess what? Being in a skype group doesn't entitle someone to rewards from a group that they are not adequately contributing to, or the ability to participate in group events that they tend to make significantly more difficult. Win-Win.

^ This sums up this thread perfectly. You don't be part of LSs that have stupid drama and/or bad leaders.

[Ravenmore]

If your LS has random pearl sacks or more pearl sack then is really needed, its time to reform. Still why join a LS that that could even become a problem. Then that way you can get rid of all the unwanted trash in one go.

[Arcon]

People here act like kicking is a supposed to be anonymous. In my LS for example, a social LS that has been around since EU release, we have tons of members (300+ forum accounts) and got lots of sackholders over the years (well over 30 I believe). Openness and transparency is one of the most important things in there. Last summer some people started getting kicked, especially one person got kicked over and over. We had no idea who it was. We suspect now it was an older sackholder who randomly logged on to kick people for fun. And there's nothing at all we can do to stop him. Can't even unsack/kick him unless he's in the linkshell, but he only logs on to kick people and is gone again. It's simply a stupid system. Why does someone have to be online in the LS to get kicked in the first place? It's just bad member management design.

We only had that problem once, during the summer. Are we a bad LS now and people should leave? No. Is it stupid and annoying? Yes.

This is not about assigning blame. Fine, then don't tell everyone, just send a message to the LS leader. Or better yet, make a LS log that only the shellholder can access. Note everything that's on there, from creating pearls and pearls being traded, to kicking people. What would be bad about it?

[Zaknafein]

I like the OP idea. Not because it is "needed" but because it would just be lulzy to see in ls chat "so and so /breaklinkshells so, and so's linkpearl." I'm no longer in a large ls, but thinking back to those days a message like that coming across ls chat would have been entertaining :)

[Ravenmore]

People here act like kicking is a supposed to be anonymous. In my LS for example, a social LS that has been around since EU release, we have tons of members (300+ forum accounts) and got lots of sackholders over the years (well over 30 I believe). Openness and transparency is one of the most important things in there. Last summer some people started getting kicked, especially one person got kicked over and over. We had no idea who it was. We suspect now it was an older sackholder who randomly logged on to kick people for fun. And there's nothing at all we can do to stop him. Can't even unsack/kick him unless he's in the linkshell, but he only logs on to kick people and is gone again. It's simply a stupid system. Why does someone have to be online in the LS to get kicked in the first place? It's just bad member management design.

We only had that problem once, during the summer. Are we a bad LS now and people should leave? No. Is it stupid and annoying? Yes.

This is not about assigning blame. Fine, then don't tell everyone, just send a message to the LS leader. Or better yet, make a LS log that only the shellholder can access. Note everything that's on there, from creating pearls and pearls being traded, to kicking people. What would be bad about it?

There is a easy way fix for this that SE need not to do anything. Reform the LS solves the problem while also getting rid of stray sacks and pearls. Starting over you can then limit the sacks that you give out. Fact is if your to lazy to do that then yes you are a bad shell.

Its not even about liking the way it is now, but in almost ever thread we either get it "would cost to much, we don't have the man power", and so on. SE should not be wasting dev time on something that the player base can fix on thier own.


Really you do not need half the LS as sack holders.

[Alderin]

Do the opposite - make everyone in your LS a sack holder.

Means no one can kick someone unless they are the linkshell leader. Therefore the only person who is doing the kicking is the leader.

Who cares if someone gives another person a pearl? If that person isn't welcome, kick them and demote the person that invited them down to a normal pearl.

That or just don't give out sacks.

*edit*

In saying that - no the person who got kicked shouldn't know who kicked them. All they will do is go QQ about it to a bunch of people that Johnny kicked them out.

I agree with perhaps a LS broadcasted message saying "XXX has been kicked out by XXX" in LS chat at the time of being kicked would be fine..

However the person that got kicked should not know who kicked them - usually they get kicked for a reason.

[Raxiaz]

There is a easy way fix for this that SE need not to do anything. Reform the LS solves the problem while also getting rid of stray sacks and pearls. Starting over you can then limit the sacks that you give out. Fact is if your to lazy to do that then yes you are a bad shell.

Its not even about liking the way it is now, but in almost ever thread we either get it "would cost to much, we don't have the man power", and so on. SE should not be wasting dev time on something that the player base can fix on thier own.


Really you do not need half the LS as sack holders.

You overestimate peoples' willingness to reform a linkshell. From personal experience, I can't even recall the last LS that had a reformation and survived. I've been in a few where a reform was necessary (and let me tell you that an anonymous kicker was not the reason, ever) and every time the "renewed LS" was never the same. Within weeks or even days it would crumble. And for the Linkshells that have innumerable members, with people in and out all day long, reforming can be a real pain. Not to mention the occasional anon-booter problem.

I agree that a LS only needs so many sack holders. But I disagree that a player should be subject to this kind of harassment, wherein the only solution is to move on or figure out who's doing it and have them desacked. This game is meant to provide entertainment for us, allowing us to create fond memories with fellow players. Why have those memories severed or diminished by the memory of some jackass who thought it would be funny to randomly boot some members for the hell of it knowing full well he'll never be reprimanded?


However the person that got kicked should not know who kicked them - usually they get kicked for a reason.

So the person that got fired should not know who fired them? They got fired for a reason right? Well what was the reason? That would answer why.

We seem to have overlooked the fact that this opens the door for misunderstandings to be solved. Me, myself, I know how I conduct in linkshells. I know that if I were ever kicked, I would like to contact someone with authority to know why. It would be even better to contact the person who actually kicked me, so that I could understand why. And if it's a misunderstanding, I have the possibility of clearing it up. But then again, the sackholder could just be an ass and not respond.

"Social problem" goes two ways. It's a social problem not to have this feature and it's a social problem to have it. Stop blaming the reason why we can't have this on "human idiocy." If we did that for everything, where would we be in this world? :confused:

[Bulrogg]

So the person that got fired should not know who fired them? They got fired for a reason right? Well what was the reason? That would answer why.

Yes, but not in a conference room for everyone to see. Maybe that's why the /breaklinkshell function works the way it does.

/singsong "and Jane I need to see you in my office, I found your resume on the printer."

[Raxiaz]

But that's exactly why I said no one would see who did it except the person who was kicked. At least then the person could attempt to communicate.

[Arlan]

I don't care what you ignorant people say or think, but the reality is:
The ONLY people, this feature that OP has presented, will be hurting are the people who enjoy harassing Linkshells secretly by kicking random players out to end a good Linkshell. (And yes, this happens)

If anything, majority should agree that this feature is a good idea to keep a track on who did what in case these harassments do occur so the Leaders and members would know who the jerk is, that way, Players can handle their own situation much better.

What the OP is asking for is for a simple "Tool" that SE can give us to use so we can fix our own social problems much better. If it makes anyone feel better, SE can give the LS Creator the option to toggle this feature "on/off" if he wants to, that way /annon can still be an option for the "kick" feature, if LS leader who created LS doesn't want others to know in case.

Imagen: Sack holders did NOT have the feature to "kick" members out, and they only had the special feature to give people pearls. Are you people seriously going to go against that by saying:

"Ohh NO! Sacks shouldn't have the ability to kick people, that should be the LS creator's job, sacks should only be able to have the special ability to give people pearls."

Seriously?

Adding Features like this to help players solve their own issues, that GMs do not bothering interfering, should be MORE than welcome to Add!

And also you BETTER READ THIS POST FULLY before you reply to it or else your just another ignorant player who doesn't grasp the concept I am trying to present here.

I cannot say this any more clearer than I already have.
Even a Monkey would grasp what I'm trying to say here.

[Greatguardian]

You're oblivious if you think that a feature like this wouldn't lead directly to harassment of sackholders and leaders by people who were kicked and friends of people who were kicked.

Why the hell do you think people in a mature environment keep things like this under wraps at all? It's not because people are ignorant, or because Shellholders don't know who kicked who. I promise you, no matter how large the shell is, the shellholder knows. They always know. They may tell you they don't know, but they know.

Want to know why they may claim not to know? Because it's a far more subtle way of saying "Shut the hell up about it." No one has the kind of "rights to a fair trial" that they think they have in linkshells. If people decide they want you gone, then you are gone, end of story.

Feigning ignorance serves only to stem the tide of "B'awwwww why was my buddy kicked b'awwwww he was a nice person and I liked him b'awwwwwww you shouldn't have kicked him b'awwwwwww" that everyone and their mom throw at a sack/shell every time someone is kicked. Hell, even the OP here has pretty much proved this point in their own posts, in a much more civil manner. Talking about discussion and trying to get "solid reasons for kicking people" out of leadership.

The thing is, no one has to have a solid reason to kick anyone. They are allowed to do it for fun. They are allowed to do it just because they don't like you. They are allowed to do it because you're friends with someone with a FF7-related name. They are allowed to do it because you can't type properly to save your life.

And unless you have a shell or a sack next to your name, no one really cares what you think about a kick.

[Raxiaz]

That's a bit of a stretch to me, man. And you're not accounting for the times when numerous people at a time are kicked - for no reason whatsoever AT ALL, no there is nothing close to a conspiracy in that, it's just one man, being a jerk, kicking numerous people for the hell of it.

I just can't see how one can be so negative...

[Greatguardian]

Oh, you mean the one and only case where GMs are allowed to intervene on Shellholder's behalves that I mentioned a few pages ago?

If someone has a sack, logs in, kicks people, then logs out or changes shells to avoid being kicked/demoted and the Shellholder calls a GM, they will forcefully remove the sack from a player's inventory.

If someone goes on kicking sprees but the Shellholder chooses, of their own volition, not to do anything about it, then there's no gameplay problem.

[Yugl]

If someone harasses you for kicking them, then why not just blist them?

[Arlan]

Why the hell do you think people in a mature environment keep things like this under wraps at all? It's not because people are ignorant, or because Shellholders don't know who kicked who. I promise you, no matter how large the shell is, the shellholder knows. They always know. They may tell you they don't know, but they know.


You are full of it.
Sorry mate, but LS holders DONT KNOW when someone who is sack decides to harass secretly by kicking random Ls members or not. You are Right on "ONE THING", the fact that there are times where a Shell holder would say "I don't know" to get you off their backs, but that is NOT always the case. Your forgetting this feature is a tool to prevent players from misusing the "kick" feature.

Reason why I say this is because:

I was a victim along with others in my past Linkshells where a /annon would kick random players out for harassment to end a LS that my leaders created, The leader was trying to figure out who was doing the kickings and it was retarded.

Also, Reason why I am saying this is because I was also accused in the past before on other Shells for kicking random people that I never have.

So yes,
I was a victim on some shells.
I was accused in some shells.

Did LS leader know?
Hell NO!

People being ignorant by coming up with convenient excuses like:
"Be in a better LS"
"Blist"
"You probably done something wrong for being kicked"
etc.

The OP has presented in idea of a "TOOL" to be used so people would know who is doing what in case harassments like these do occur. And THEY DO.
This tool can be used for a solution for our Social problems within a Linkshell. It is simple and not difficult to implement.

I used to run my own LS where I had someone trying to kick people out of my LS and is being childish.
I couldn't tell who it was because my shell was Huge and I had sacked a few people who where running shell events.
(This was back in 2007-2008)

I tried desacking everyone because of this issue I ran in, But apperantly the person who is misusing the kick feature, gets on LS only to kick random people then gets off quick so I had a hard time tracking he/she down.

Called Gm and even they said its not their problem...
So... I had to break my LinkShell and Remake it with the same name and color and give all my members pearls
Again.. and because the LS was big, I was not able to give everyone pearls back. So I lost a good amount of players but luckily I had my main friends who where dedicated to stay.

Your being ignorant and Not being open minded when someone comes up with a very good idea for a tool to be used for players to be able to help themselves solve their own social issues.

Next time, come up with a better reply than a Junk reply.

Edit: GMs don't interfer with LS problems when it comes to sacks kicking random players, even if it is harassment, I tried many times and I played since 2006, I should know.

[katz]

"Don't pass out pearl sacks left and right. The less there are, the less will have the privilege to kick. Don't ask SE to waste time with redundant stuff because people are butt hurt about getting sacked from a sack. "
This is interesting, all my ls have sacks so they can all put messages in the heading like what nm they want to kill and a date of when they want to. You either trust the people in your shell or you dont. If you dont trust them, then why are they in your shell in the first place.

[Raxiaz]

I could not have worded a better response than Arlan did.

[Bulrogg]

I'm sure a few monkeys in a room full of typer writers could..... wait, here they are now. *reads over* Uhh... my apologes, it's just an idea for a Shakespearean play.

SE doesn't need to go around babysitting Linkshells. It is up to the Owner to take responsibility. If it is an on going issue all they, being the owner of the LS, has to do is contact a GM as GG has said. Then the GM can and will help. Everything else is moot. Please stop asking SE to waste time when they could be using their resources on fixing real problems.

[Zagen]

I was a victim along with others in my past Linkshells where a /annon would kick random players out for harassment to end a LS that my leaders created, The leader was trying to figure out who was doing the kickings and it was retarded.

Also, Reason why I am saying this is because I was also accused in the past before on other Shells for kicking random people that I never have.

So yes,
I was a victim on some shells.
I was accused in some shells.

Did LS leader know?
Hell NO!

Guess what the solution has been in game since launch, Shell holder can't figure out who is kicking people then he/she removes all sacks. Problem solved...

Don't start a shell and give people sacks if you can't trust them, don't join a shell if you can't trust the members in power is this hard to understand?

[Greatguardian]

"Don't pass out pearl sacks left and right. The less there are, the less will have the privilege to kick. Don't ask SE to waste time with redundant stuff because people are butt hurt about getting sacked from a sack. "
This is interesting, all my ls have sacks so they can all put messages in the heading like what nm they want to kill and a date of when they want to. You either trust the people in your shell or you dont. If you dont trust them, then why are they in your shell in the first place.

There are very specific text commands that allow the Shellholder to determine who can set a lsmes, be it Sacks/Shell, Shellholder only, or Everyone. Having a sack is purely a tool for adding and removing people.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but the number of people who try to make adjustments to the game without knowing what options are currently in the game are staggering. I'm willing to bet very few others here knew about that text option either, and it's been around since the beginning of the game.

[Khiinroye]

The most that needs to be done on this is for the shellholder to be notified when someone is removed, and by whom. Maybe an option in the LS menu to review the history of removals for when they happen with the ls leaders logged off (keep the history for 1 week or 20 events or some such). The ability to promote / demote sacks while they are not logged on is probably too messy to try to fix.

Remember, this was originally a JP game, and thus the system was designed to prevent embarrassment by publicly showcasing that someone was removed from the shell. The anonymity allows people to say things like "oh, I decided to leave the shell for such-and-such reason" rather than admit to others that they were kicked. Making the information public could lead to further harassment in those cases. Too many people in different cultures instead take this opportunity to say "SUM ***** KIKKED ME OUT LS FOR NO RAISON!!! SAY 2 FACE N NOT ONLINE N C WUT HAPEN *****!!! U ALL SUK!!11!!"

If you think you were kicked as harassment, don't ask the sacks why you were kicked; ask the ls leader when they are online. If it was harassment and not intended by the ls, s/he can demote or kick people abusing their sack, repearl unintended kickees, and GM those who log in and out of the ls with a sack to abuse it. If your "asking why you were kicked" looks like the line in the previous paragraph, you probably deserved your kick.

The only time I've had my pearl broken was when I made a pearl with my sack, equipped the pearl, went on ls, and said something like "hey, look, I made myself an extra pearl, please don't break it!" (i.e. asking to be joke kicked). LS leader was the first to kick me, which unexpectedly broke my unequipped sack as well, so I tracked him down, got repearled/sacked, and lulz were had.

[Raxiaz]

Every time I defend against what some people are saying, they just repeat themselves. The same "solutions" have been stated over, and over, and over. Without any modification whatsoever!

Hypothetical situation. Let's say you were in a linkshell with people you liked. You enjoyed going to their events, and you loved talking with those people because they helped make the game more fun for you. One day, some unknown entity begins removing members unexpectedly. Several people were kicked, others were spared. After a half hour of /tells and reorganization to distribute pearls, the matter has been brought up among the linkshell leader and sackholders. All sackholders claim innocence, and the LS leader is genuinely clueless of the matter. The kicking continues in spurts, over the course of a few hours, even -after- the LS leader has unsacked everyone. Due to lag on the system, whoever is getting on the LS just to kick people is also getting off, too fast for the leader to even see who it is! After a wasted afternoon of being irritated beyond belief, the leader orders a new shell and has pearls redistributed. Some leave the LS, others stay with it. The LS is never the same.

How is this okay? How is this acceptable? How is it that the perpetrator can get away with this so easily if he wanted to? I can't accept any argument against this suggestion due to this simple hypothetical situation and my own past experiences. Like I said, this is not a rampant problem. But it is something that SE needs to address - some way, some how, some time. I'd much rather they work on more important things first, but you would be ignorant to state this situation isn't a problem and that no fix needs to be implemented in any form.

[Zagen]

Every time I defend against what some people are saying, they just repeat themselves. The same "solutions" have been stated over, and over, and over. Without any modification whatsoever!

Hypothetical situation. Let's say you were in a linkshell with people you liked. You enjoyed going to their events, and you loved talking with those people because they helped make the game more fun for you. One day, some unknown entity begins removing members unexpectedly. Several people were kicked, others were spared. After a half hour of /tells and reorganization to distribute pearls, the matter has been brought up among the linkshell leader and sackholders. All sackholders claim innocence, and the LS leader is genuinely clueless of the matter. The kicking continues in spurts, over the course of a few hours, even -after- the LS leader has unsacked everyone. Due to lag on the system, whoever is getting on the LS just to kick people is also getting off, too fast for the leader to even see who it is! After a wasted afternoon of being irritated beyond belief, the leader orders a new shell and has pearls redistributed. Some leave the LS, others stay with it. The LS is never the same.

How is this okay? How is this acceptable? How is it that the perpetrator can get away with this so easily if he wanted to? I can't accept any argument against this suggestion due to this simple hypothetical situation and my own past experiences. Like I said, this is not a rampant problem. But it is something that SE needs to address - some way, some how, some time. I'd much rather they work on more important things first, but you would be ignorant to state this situation isn't a problem.

Disregarding your scenario might have happened once or twice to a few people and not a large enough amount of people for this to have been drama worthy for all the years I've enjoyed drama threads on various forums I'll say it again:


Don't start a shell and give people sacks if you can't trust them
Nothing in game needs to be changed to "fix" your scenario.

The same solutions come up because for the majority of people they work and have worked since the game was launched.

[Raxiaz]

So what do you do if you think you can trust them and then they turn out to be assholes? Your "solution" does nothing in that case and let me tell you, a lot of people on FFXI are deceitful little bastards. Maybe not to you, but others, perhaps.

Really, the "human idiocy" does go both ways here.

[Kimble]

Well honestly, if you desacked everyone but the one who keeps logging out fast enough to not get desacked, you kinda know who it is.

[Zagen]

LOL I've never had this issue personally I guess I just choose who I trust very wisely and learn from the trust I've mistakenly placed in other people.

Though I doubt it should be the development team's responsibility to prevent a LS leader from making poor decisions or not learning from poor decisions in the past.

[Raxiaz]

They don't show up in the list if they don't stay on for more than 5 seconds. And it doesn't take but 3-4 seconds to kick one person. And it's not logging out, it's putting it on then changing it. Loading delays not only on the linkshell holder's side but on the server's side and even the perpetrator's side lead to the holder's naivety of the person's name.

[Kimble]

Either way, at that point, you know who it is doing it and if he isnt staying on log enough to desack him, what can you do?

[Raxiaz]

Though I doubt it should be the development team's responsibility to prevent a LS leader from making poor decisions or not learning from poor decisions in the past.

Why do people keep saying crap like this as if SE would actually have to mandate linkshells? All they would be doing is allowing for the person who got kicked to know who exactly kicked them. It's not a public announcement, it's not SE hiring new people to manage LSes, it's not SE doing anything to prevent anyone from doing anything and it's not enabling them from doing anything either.

If you say "it opens up the door for the person who got booted to wine in Port Jeuno that they got kicked by so & so". So? I can go badmouth a LS now if I wanted, if I were kicked! You say it would start fights, but being kicked from any LS period opens the door for confrontation!

[Zagen]

Why do people keep saying crap like this as if SE would actually have to mandate linkshells? All they would be doing is allowing for the person who got kicked to know who exactly kicked them. It's not a public announcement, it's not SE hiring new people to manage LSes, it's not SE doing anything to prevent anyone from doing anything and it's not enabling them from doing anything either.
Learn to read, or learn to comprehend what you read either way you missed the point of my statement. You're asking SE to implement a feature to make up for a linkshell leader's poor judgement in who they decided to bestow the power and responsibility of a sack.

[Arlan]

Learn to read, or learn to comprehend what you read either way you missed the point of my statement. You're asking SE to implement a feature to make up for a linkshell leader's poor judgement in who they decided to bestow the power and responsibility of a sack.

You are missing the point Raxiaz is making.

Wether this feature becomes available or Not, there will always be Linkshell leader's with poor judgements out there and there will always be people who will find a way to harass other shells and bad mouth them even after getting kicked, even if they don't know who it is.

This feature only helps everyone, it doesn't only help leaders with poor judgement.
A leader could have good judgements and still an asshole somewhere can be smart enough to earn the trust to do this.
It happens and this feature Raxiaz has presented is the solution to know who is misusing the "kick" feature in case of issues like these occur.

This Feature, HELPS people deal with their own issues in the LS without the GM's having to be bothered all the time for something they cannot do.

GMs don't help on these issues, that is why This feature Raxiaz is presenting helps. Because it can be used as a tool to help prevent and know who might of misused the kick feature..

Idk how many times I say this but you clearly have to be (Crazy) to not be able to grasp basic information.

[Arlan]

Guess what the solution has been in game since launch, Shell holder can't figure out who is kicking people then he/she removes all sacks. Problem solved...

Don't start a shell and give people sacks if you can't trust them, don't join a shell if you can't trust the members in power is this hard to understand?

Such a Convenient excuse to Not promote such a wonderful Idea that the OP has presented.
Stop giving convenient excuses people!
BE smart about ideas that can be used to help improve game community and gameplay.
There is a reason why SE made the Sack feature. And that reason is not to be misused for harassment.

The issue shouldn't be solved by not giving anyone sacks, and everyone should be pearls to avoid this.
That is just a way around it because the current system doesn't have this feature yet that OP presented.
If the feature that the OP has presented was available, then there wouldn't be a reason to go around that problem.
But still you need to watch out who gets sacked.

Always good to have features that help LS communities so players can sort their own problems out when they need to that GMs cannot interfere in.

[Arlan]

"Don't pass out pearl sacks left and right. The less there are, the less will have the privilege to kick. Don't ask SE to waste time with redundant stuff because people are butt hurt about getting sacked from a sack. "
This is interesting, all my ls have sacks so they can all put messages in the heading like what nm they want to kill and a date of when they want to. You either trust the people in your shell or you dont. If you dont trust them, then why are they in your shell in the first place.

Another convenient Excuse to get around a genius feature presented by the OP.
Not everyone wants to have a Shell with everyone being a sack.
Also,

JUST BECAUSE this issue DOES happen where a random /annon does kicking for harassment, DOESN'T MEAN that the leader is giving everyone sacks from left to right. Open your eyes and smell the coffee. Shit happens, and there is NOTHING you can do about it if you don't know who is causing it. It only takes ONE PERSON to ruin an entire LS.

>.> I actually didn't mention it, but I'm not innocent either.... But still would wish this feature to be implemented to help LS leaders have better control of whats going on in their linkshells.

[Arlan]

SE doesn't need to go around babysitting Linkshells. It is up to the Owner to take responsibility. If it is an on going issue all they, being the owner of the LS, has to do is contact a GM as GG has said. Then the GM can and will help. Everything else is moot. Please stop asking SE to waste time when they could be using their resources on fixing real problems.

WHAT THE OP IS ASKING FOR IS A FEATURE THAT CAN BE USED TO HELP "THE LS OWNER" Take Responsibility of THEIR OWN!

THis Feature is NOT a "BABYSITTING" Element!
This Feature is a TOOL for "LS Owners" to be able to TAKE responsibility MORE efficiently!

Seriously, How many dumbies do I have to explain this to?
This is not a waste of time, this is actually a time worth spending to put down a simple feature that can help many.

SE is Not babysitting us by giving us this tool to use.
CALLING A GM is a form of babysitting if anything.

[Kimble]

You're right, best idea ever, I hope SE patches this asap!

[Unleashhell]

How about adding this into the game then, Why not have the developers add something that says in the linkshells chat "XXXX has entered the Linkshell" The XXXX being the name of the person that entered obviously. Personally I always wanted this for my friend list, so when a friend of mine logged into the game. I would have liked to get a single chat line saying "XXXX has longed into Final Fantasy" I still to this day want that.

I'm sure some might think its a stupid idea but if I'm busy doing something and can't check my friend list or linkshell list having a message scroll through the chat log imo would be nice. This of course should have an on/off toggle in the chat filters in case people didn't want it.

But going back to the original post, this helps solve the issue of "who kicked who", because you will see this:

Example:
"Dbag entered the Linkshell"
*pause*
*random person got kicked*
"Dbag left the Linkshell".


Plus it also adds something to general game play so people can say "Hey man whats up!" when someone enters the linkshell.

Example:
"XXXX has entered the Linkshell"
"Yo man whats up!"

What do you guys think? Is it worth me mentioning to the dev team or no?

[Misi]

Two people complaining they want this feature because they got kicked so it has to be a brilliant idea. The rest of us are loopy for believing other wise. Lemme guess, another convenient excuse.

If the dev team sees it as valuable they will add it. Leave it up to them. Arlan, seriously guy, The nerd rage on this subject needs to stop. You are going in circles and pretty much confirming why shells had a problem with you. Yelling at people who may not agree with you doesn't hold any weight on the subject at hand.

[Arlan]

Every time I defend against what some people are saying, they just repeat themselves. The same "solutions" have been stated over, and over, and over. Without any modification whatsoever!

Hypothetical situation. Let's say you were in a linkshell with people you liked. You enjoyed going to their events, and you loved talking with those people because they helped make the game more fun for you. One day, some unknown entity begins removing members unexpectedly. Several people were kicked, others were spared. After a half hour of /tells and reorganization to distribute pearls, the matter has been brought up among the linkshell leader and sackholders. All sackholders claim innocence, and the LS leader is genuinely clueless of the matter. The kicking continues in spurts, over the course of a few hours, even -after- the LS leader has unsacked everyone. Due to lag on the system, whoever is getting on the LS just to kick people is also getting off, too fast for the leader to even see who it is! After a wasted afternoon of being irritated beyond belief, the leader orders a new shell and has pearls redistributed. Some leave the LS, others stay with it. The LS is never the same.

How is this okay? How is this acceptable? How is it that the perpetrator can get away with this so easily if he wanted to? I can't accept any argument against this suggestion due to this simple hypothetical situation and my own past experiences. Like I said, this is not a rampant problem. But it is something that SE needs to address - some way, some how, some time. I'd much rather they work on more important things first, but you would be ignorant to state this situation isn't a problem and that no fix needs to be implemented in any form.

Oh ya, They probable made a pearl quickly after checking LS List when everyone got desacked, and kept their sack that way to kick random players THEN switch back to the pearl mode as if he/she didn't do it because "Supposedly" he/she didn't have a sack.

(I'm not innocent) ^^
I done that before lol. Call me an jerk, but hey, if its possible, why not?
I had my own private reason why I done what I done but that was years ago.

I'm against the /annon kick because it can ruin in entire LS and even tho I did ruin 1 LS before, doesn't mean I support it. Again I had my reason and the possibility was there so I did what I had to in order to show my appreciation to a certain LS leader that I did not like.

[Arlan]

Two people complaining they want this feature because they got kicked so it has to be a brilliant idea. The rest of us are loopy for believing other wise. Lemme guess, another convenient excuse.

If the dev team sees it as valuable they will add it. Leave it up to them. Arlan, seriously guy, The nerd rage on this subject needs to stop. You are going in circles and pretty much confirming why shells had a problem with you. Yelling at people who may not agree with you doesn't hold any weight on the subject at hand.

Your right, ignorant players will always remain ignorant until it happens to them.
I'll make a post in other forums regarding ways to manipulate and destroy a LS you don't like in a different website of course. I'll get a lot of hate replies but hey, if it is possible then go for it since nobody gets banned doing them.

[Unleashhell]

(I'm not innocent) ^^
I done that before lol. Call me an jerk, but hey, if its possible, why not?
I had my own private reason why I done what I done but that was years ago.

I'm against the /annon kick because it can ruin in entire LS and even tho I did ruin 1 LS before, doesn't mean I support it. Again I had my reason and the possibility was there so I did what I had to in order to show my appreciation to a certain LS leader that I did not like.



Ok soooooo if your so against this, why have you done it in the past? Do I sense a little "What goes around comes around" here?

[Arlan]

How about adding this into the game then, Why not have the developers add something that says in the linkshells chat "XXXX has entered the Linkshell" The XXXX being the name of the person that entered obviously. Personally I always wanted this for my friend list, so when a friend of mine logged into the game. I would have liked to get a single chat line saying "XXXX has longed into Final Fantasy" I still to this day want that.

I'm sure some might think its a stupid idea but if I'm busy doing something and can't check my friend list or linkshell list having a message scroll through the chat log imo would be nice. This of course should have an on/off toggle in the chat filters in case people didn't want it.

But going back to the original post, this helps solve the issue of "who kicked who", because you will see this:

Example:
"Dbag entered the Linkshell"
*pause*
*random person got kicked*
"Dbag left the Linkshell".


Plus it also adds something to general game play so people can say "Hey man whats up!" when someone enters the linkshell.

Example:
"XXXX has entered the Linkshell"
"Yo man whats up!"

What do you guys think? Is it worth me mentioning to the dev team or no?

Actually this idea is Not bad at all... =)
But I'm not so sure about the LS part.

When someone enters a LS, I don't think the game should present who logged into LS and who left LS mainly because it can create problems... At least I think it can.

BUT,

A feature to let you know who logged into FFXI and logged out on "Friends list" sounds like a bad ass idea.

I Play on xbox360 and I got a lot of friends who play online on FFXI, so when Im playing ffxi and a friend logs on the xbox, the xbox tells me my friend logged on FFXI or HaloReach or "insert game name".
If its a friend im waiting for to log on, I jump on chat with him instantly.
I don't have to keep spamming "Friends list" to see if he logged on or not.

This feature on xbox can be triggered ON/OFF.
So its good if people want to use it, but if people don't they can trigger it off.

Not all my friends on FFXI are on xbox, most are on PC or PS2/PS3 so having this as an FFXI friends list feature does seem to improve the "Social community" aspect of the game.

But I'm not so sure on the LS part. Mainly because people who log on the LS at 98% of the time they say "Hello" or something and if this was added to LS feature, there can be a possibility of a LAGG issue so I don't see it being useful for that. Unless you have another solution maybe?

[Arlan]

Ok soooooo if your so against this, why have you done it in the past? Do I sense a little "What goes around comes around" here?

Ya, Sorta. =)
But the point I was really trying to make was:

If it is possible, it will happen.

And

If it happens, then what?

That is why I support this idea that the OP presented. =)

[Misi]

Your right, ignorant players will always remain ignorant until it happens to them.
I'll make a post in other forums regarding ways to manipulate and destroy a LS you don't like in a different website of course. I'll get a lot of hate replies but hey, if it is possible then go for it since nobody gets banned doing them.

I find it weird that any time someone doesn't agree with you they are automatically labeled as ignorant.

Change your standards with linkshell selection and you will not run into this problem again. Or like others suggested, make your own and don't sack anyone or only sack people you know to be reliable. It really is that easy.

[Arlan]

I find it weird that any time someone doesn't agree with you they are automatically labeled as ignorant.

Change your standards with linkshell selection and you will not run into this problem again. Or like others suggested, make your own and don't sack anyone or only sack people you know to be reliable. It really is that easy.

*EDIT*

I see Players find ways around a system that "could use improvements" on a game. Wether it is a social aspect or a gameplay aspect. This game's LS system is NOT PERFECT.

Your solutions are flawed.

The OP's solution is simple and yet, very efficient for Leaders to take control on their Linkshells without someone having the ability to manipulate and destroy it. Your blind if you cannot SEE this fact.

It is a Fact that this can be used to help prevent situations like these so LS leaders don't have to suffer or make others suffer for some random /anon idiot who wants to make the Shell go to a breaking point.

This feature is not made for SE to babysit us, its made for us to take better control of our Linkshells ourselves.

(I hope this version made sense)

[Misi]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Ravenmore]

You overestimate peoples' willingness to reform a linkshell. From personal experience, I can't even recall the last LS that had a reformation and survived. I've been in a few where a reform was necessary (and let me tell you that an anonymous kicker was not the reason, ever) and every time the "renewed LS" was never the same. Within weeks or even days it would crumble. And for the Linkshells that have innumerable members, with people in and out all day long, reforming can be a real pain. Not to mention the occasional anon-booter problem.

I agree that a LS only needs so many sack holders. But I disagree that a player should be subject to this kind of harassment, wherein the only solution is to move on or figure out who's doing it and have them desacked. This game is meant to provide entertainment for us, allowing us to create fond memories with fellow players. Why have those memories severed or diminished by the memory of some jackass who thought it would be funny to randomly boot some members for the hell of it knowing full well he'll never be reprimanded?



So the person that got fired should not know who fired them? They got fired for a reason right? Well what was the reason? That would answer why.

We seem to have overlooked the fact that this opens the door for misunderstandings to be solved. Me, myself, I know how I conduct in linkshells. I know that if I were ever kicked, I would like to contact someone with authority to know why. It would be even better to contact the person who actually kicked me, so that I could understand why. And if it's a misunderstanding, I have the possibility of clearing it up. But then again, the sackholder could just be an ass and not respond.

"Social problem" goes two ways. It's a social problem not to have this feature and it's a social problem to have it. Stop blaming the reason why we can't have this on "human idiocy." If we did that for everything, where would we be in this world? :confused:

If the shell not strong enough to deal with random kicks and reforming then geuss what you got more problems then just random kicking.

For the first 90 days you can get fired for the boss not liking your car doesn't matter. Only reason you get is what they have to tell unemployment. Most will just try to drive you to quit first, think about every a**hole boss you have ever had.

[Zagen]

Ignorant players find ways around a system that could use improvements on a game. Wether it is a social aspect or a gameplay aspect. This game's LS system is NOT PERFECT.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

ig·no·rant   [ig-ner-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.

If we were ignorant to the "problem" we wouldn't have a work around because we wouldn't know there is a problem.

Edit: Dang beaten to the line I guess I'm not the only Princess Bride fan :o

[Arlan]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

hmm.. Are you saying I'm misusing the word? O.O
I thought Ignorant means "To not know"?

I figured people don't understand or not know why the OP's presentation can be very beneficial?
What is the best word to use to describe that then?
My english is my 3rd language btw.

[Misi]

Woosh. ;-;

[Ravenmore]

Ignorant players find ways around a system that could use improvements on a game. Wether it is a social aspect or a gameplay aspect. This game's LS system is NOT PERFECT.

Ignorant players are players who don't shut up and listen to how situations occur and how they can fix it.
Your solutions are flawed.

The OP's solution is simple and yet, very efficient for Leaders to take control on their Linkshells without someone having the ability to manipulate and destroy it. Your blind if you cannot SEE this fact.

It is NOT my opinion.
It is a Fact that this can be used to help prevent situations like these so LS leaders don't have to suffer or make others suffer for some random /anon idiot who wants to make the Shell go to a breaking point.

Yes the system is flawed but there are much bigger problems with the game then something that a GM can take care of if all else fails. That is why we don't want the devs to waste time on this.

[Unleashhell]

Actually this idea is Not bad at all... =)
But I'm not so sure about the LS part.

When someone enters a LS, I don't think the game should present who logged into LS and who left LS mainly because it can create problems... At least I think it can.

BUT,

A feature to let you know who logged into FFXI and logged out on "Friends list" sounds like a bad ass idea.

I Play on xbox360 and I got a lot of friends who play online on FFXI, so when Im playing ffxi and a friend logs on the xbox, the xbox tells me my friend logged on FFXI or HaloReach or "insert game name".
If its a friend im waiting for to log on, I jump on chat with him instantly.
I don't have to keep spamming "Friends list" to see if he logged on or not.

This feature on xbox can be triggered ON/OFF.
So its good if people want to use it, but if people don't they can trigger it off.

Not all my friends on FFXI are on xbox, most are on PC or PS2/PS3 so having this as an FFXI friends list feature does seem to improve the "Social community" aspect of the game.

But I'm not so sure on the LS part. Mainly because people who log on the LS at 98% of the time they say "Hello" or something and if this was added to LS feature, there can be a possibility of a LAGG issue so I don't see it being useful for that. Unless you have another solution maybe?

Well yeah that's why I mentioned there being a chat filter to toggle it on or off. Granted most people say Hello when they enter a linkshell but it was just a thought. I'm just trying to see if there is a medium or sorts everyone this post would like.

[Arlan]

Yes the system is flawed but there are much bigger problems with the game then something that a GM can take care of if all else fails. That is why we don't want the devs to waste time on this.

That is not for us to decide which the devs should work on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd.
All the OP is doing is trying to present an easy solution to the flawed system, that is all.
It is up to SE to decide when to do the changes and when not to.

If you agree it is flawed then I don't see why not promote it.
You are right 100% that there are MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS with the game at the moment.
But this is one problem that GMs actually do not deal with because I can tell you, "I been there, done that"

[Arlan]

Well yeah that's why I mentioned there being a chat filter to toggle it on or off. Granted most people say Hello when they enter a linkshell but it was just a thought.

Ya I think I must of missed that.
Ya I think that idea is pretty legit if it has an ON/OFF feature for it.

I'd like to know who logs on and logs off on my friends list mainly but LS I guess can be fine.
As long as Chat filters are there for it to be able control the lag that is. lol =)

[Arlan]

Woosh. ;-;

I know right? ^^ *liked*

[Zagen]

That is not for us to decide which the devs should work on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd.
All the OP is doing is trying to present an easy solution to the flawed system, that is all.
It is up to SE to decide when to do the changes and when not to.

The solution is flawed as well.

How about this scenario I join a shell with a few friends (neglecting to mention we're all friends already) just to break up a linkshell after a few days/weeks go by I remove/drop the LS pearl and my friends all do the same, and we all tell the leader that X Sackholder kicked us, or we tell the leader a few Sackholders kicked us. Now the leader has to decide who to believe and it becomes a s/he said s/he said game.

So how did this solution prevent the risk of the linkshell breaking up because the leader doesn't know who to trust?

[Unleashhell]

I posted a separate new forum post with the idea mentioned. See if I get any feedback.

[Raxiaz]

The solution is flawed as well.

How about this scenario I join a shell with a few friends (neglecting to mention we're all friends already) just to break up a linkshell after a few days/weeks go by I remove/drop the LS pearl and my friends all do the same, and we all tell the leader that X Sackholder kicked us, or we tell the leader a few Sackholders kicked us. Now the leader has to decide who to believe and it becomes a s/he said s/he said game.

So how did this solution prevent the risk of the linkshell breaking up because the leader doesn't know who to trust?

Take a picture of the log containing the boot text. If you're on PS2/360, play on PC. Or simply allow LS leaders to review a history of sackholder activity. Your scenario can't even happen if only sackholders and the LS leader can see sackholder activity.

You're saying we should prefer the outcomes we have in the current system wherein LS members are inclined not to enjoy the game because the negative outcomes that the solution has consists of "s/he said s/he said" tendencies? Again, now, it's up to the LS leader to make a decision. Your own scenario only empowers the LS leader more, giving them even more responsibility over the LS than before.

[Zagen]

Take a picture of the log containing the boot text. If you're on PS2/360, play on PC. Or simply allow LS leaders to review a history of sackholder activity. Your scenario can't even happen if only sackholders and the LS leader can see sackholder activity.

None of that is in your OP:


So I would like to suggest that the name of the person who kicked someone from the LS be displayed to who was kicked, so that the problem could be rectified.

Thank you for your time.

Suggestion redux:
Allow for member removal by the LS Holder even if a member isn't actively on the LS (online or offline).

So now your solution requires the accuser to screen shot the chat log to prove it and if you're playing on a console they should switch to PC?

And now would require sending chat logs to the sack/shell holder(s)?

Your solution for something that as I said before happens (from this topic to 2 people if I'm not mistaken) very rarely at best isn't going to change anything in the way a linkshell succeeds or fails.

Edit: BTW on the screenshot as proof thing there are 2 flaws, 1) Photoshop. 2) Chat logs can be altered live on a PC.

[Raxiaz]

Your solution requires reorganizing a whole LS, redistributing pearls to innumerable people, spending 8,000 gil (lol), "moving on" to another LS, which most likely won't be as easy you may think. I join new LSs very rarely, and when I do, "getting started" is a hard thing to do feeling empty most of the time.

Anyway, my "solution" to your scenario was born out of contempt for the solutions you so press against me. They're really no different. Except my solution is simple and logistic - while the solutions for the current system and the scenario given are complex, faulted, and require a little more work involved.

Joeblow makes a topic about how he loves turtles and thinks they're the best. Only three other people on the forum agree. The others disagree with him. They say obviously they can't be the best because there's only four of you who like them.

Please, I ask you nicely here, don't use forums, threads, posts, or anything of the nature to "prove a point" in such a way that you just did. Because I guarantee you, these forums, while official, don't display the actual playerbase as a whole. And not everyone is going to read and/or respond to a given topic. So results gained from topic posts are skewed at best and don't represent anything.

The suggestion was not made with the intentions of changing the way a linkshell succeeds or fails. It was made to give liability to sackholders, making it so that if they kick someone, it needs to be a legitimate reason agreed upon by a majority of the LS, through simple conduct. Obviously, most LSs won't keep someone shouting obscenities in chat. But just because a sackholder has a personal grudge against someone doesn't mean they should kick them.

[Greatguardian]

Take a picture of the log containing the boot text. If you're on PS2/360, play on PC. Or simply allow LS leaders to review a history of sackholder activity. Your scenario can't even happen if only sackholders and the LS leader can see sackholder activity.

You're saying we should prefer the outcomes we have in the current system wherein LS members are inclined not to enjoy the game because the negative outcomes that the solution has consists of "s/he said s/he said" tendencies? Again, now, it's up to the LS leader to make a decision. Your own scenario only empowers the LS leader more, giving them even more responsibility over the LS than before.

You accuse posters of not listening to you, yet you keep using the same example in nearly all of your posts (Sackholder logs in, kicks people, then changes shells so that no one can kick or see them)?

That has been fixable by GMs for years. If they won't do it for you, you're probably not articulating the problem properly.

Linkshells are purely a social device and are not implicitly involved in gameplay at all. There are no bonuses, or restrictions, to participating in gameplay based on your linkshell. If you're kicked from a shell, so what? That does not mean you can't talk to the cool people in that shell. If leaders don't like you, leaders don't like you.

This adjustment has only shown the slightest hint of merit in the case of incredibly large, disorganized social shells whose leaders are borderline incompetent. Your loudest (in terms of CAPS LOCK SPAM) advocate, Arlan, admits to being one of the troglodytes who has spam-kicked people out of spite in the past.

What it comes down to is this:

Does the entire linkshell need to know when someone is removed from a shell, and by whom? And the answer is No.

Does the Shellholder need to know when someone is removed from a shell, and by whom? Frankly, if they care, they can find out without the game's help. If they're running a shell with sackholders who will openly lie to them and attempt to hide a kick from them, they need to reevaluate their position and their choice of sub-leadership.

Does a kicked member need to know who kicked them? No. I'm sorry, but you don't have any of the fancy rights you think you have in an online, social setting. You can be removed at any time, for any reason, even if it's just for fun. It's not harassment. It's not online bullying. It's removing you from a social group. If anything, it is the antithesis of online bullying because it prevents you from making further contact with a potential bully. It is a removal from a situation, not an escalation of one.

tl;dr, People need thicker skin. Being kicked from a linkshell is not the end of the world. In fact, it means very little. If you hang out with a bunch of cool people in a shell but a leader decided to kick you anyways, use the /Tell function to talk to those people, do things in parties with those people, or make your own social shell with those people in it. Realize that internet loyalty and rights are 100% artificial in this environment. It is not bullying to remove you from the presence of others. It is a legitimate exercise of the rights bestowed onto the player who kicked you.

And yes. All sacks have that right, whether the Shellholder "approved" it or not. Whether the Shellholder even knows of it or not. Why? Because it is any sackholder's right to arbitrarily add and remove members to a linkshell. If this is too great a responsibility for someone, don't give them a sack. If a Shellholder's judgment is inadequate, they should not be a Shellholder. If a Sackholder goes rogue and legitimately harasses a linkshell, GM them. They can remove a pearlsack directly from a player's inventory.

Edit: Finally, there is no democracy in Linkshells. You have no rights. I will repeat that. You have no rights. No one but the person who kicked you needs to agree that you should have been kicked. Non-sacks are welcome to have opinions. But no one in leadership is required to give a damn what those opinions are. That is fact. End of story.

[Zagen]

Please, I ask you nicely here, don't use forums, threads, posts, or anything of the nature to "prove a point" in such a way that you just did. Because I guarantee you, these forums, while official, don't display the actual playerbase as a whole. And not everyone is going to read and/or respond to a given topic. So results gained from topic posts are skewed at best and don't represent anything.
I'll be honest I really enjoy "flame" threads especially how they always derail in unexpected ways, so much so that over the past 8 or so years I've been an active reader of several forums to find my ever so fun flame threads. To name a few killingifrit.com, ffxiah.com, zam.com, bg, and i'm sure there are many more I'm forgetting besides the 9 years late official forums. In those 8 years I vaguely remember 1 or 2 stories that are of people getting "anonymously kicked". My favorites were all the ones about X girl player cheated Y number of guys in an LS out of items they tried to buy her love with, always got a good kick out of those, or the people who get kicked and cry how they were robbed of DKP.

Just because I referenced this thread does not mean it is my only point of reference, and I feel confident in the fact that over 8 years this issue wasn't a major concern I came across often in forums or even the fun Jueno shout fests to say this isn't a major problem with linkshells.


The suggestion was not made with the intentions of changing the way a linkshell succeeds or fails. It was made to give liability to sackholders, making it so that if they kick someone, it needs to be a legitimate reason agreed upon by a majority of the LS, through simple conduct. Obviously, most LSs won't keep someone shouting obscenities in chat. But just because a sackholder has a personal grudge against someone doesn't mean they should kick them.
If the Shell holder/maker is responsible in who he designates to be a sack holder and there are well established rules/procedures for kicking this won't happen. The difference there is it requires the LS leader to do something and not be lazy when wanting to be a "leader".

[Raxiaz]

Does the entire linkshell need to know when someone is removed from a shell, and by whom?
I do not suggest that everyone sees the message. It's even in the OP now that only the person who was kicked would know who it was. I would like to ask now that this argument here ends. Because I don't suggest it. If I did originally, my opinion has changed. I'm a human, I have that right. Even on the Internet.

Does the Shellholder need to know when someone is removed from a shell, and by whom?
The LS Leader does need to know because it's their shell. And you're right that in the ideal situation there's no need for this suggestion. But this imperfect world exists for the sake of imperfection. Thus, safeguards need to be in place so that truth is readily available. For humans lie, and just saying "they shouldn't be a shellholder/assigned sacks to those people in the first place" doesn't fix the problem. It's a "coulda, woulda, shoulda." You should know what those are.

Does a kicked member need to know who kicked them?
Yes, they do. They need to know that information so that they can get in contact with the person, and know why they were kicked. If they know, then there's no need for that. They'll just know who gave them the boot. Just like you know who makes your blood rise on an internet forum... they need to know because this prevents the jerk from repetitive kicking. It stops a problem before it becomes a bigger one.

You're really saying, "live with the inconvenience." I'm giving this suggestion as a safeguard against unnecessary and inconvenient harassment, the suggestion being completely neutral and takes away nothing nor gives nothing significant save for the name of the person who kicked someone to be displayed in that someone's chat log alongside the message. Because it's happened before where the kicking person will drag it on for days - kicking one person in whole linkshell at random times of the day, the same person - there's nothing else wrong with the LS short of that, and that person is forced to get a new pearl every single day. When that inconvenience and aggravation could have been avoided by simply stating who it was.

[Bulrogg]

This is not a waste of time, this is actually a time worth spending to put down a simple feature that can help many.

Yeah, because soooooooooooooooooooooooooo many people are suffering from /brokenlinkshell-itis


"If you or a loved one has been anonymously kicked from a linkshell, we are here to fight for your rights."



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

/SicilianLisp : Inconceivable!!!

[Mokatu]

I still would like to be able to kick members who aren't a part of the shell anymore, or possible offenders who are offline at the time the ls leader is online. It would save some headaches.

[chubrocka]

bring back MPK!!!!

[scaevola]

Freud once said the route to purpose and happiness was to work and to love. If you want linkshells to stop being backstabbing free-for-alls, you need to direct them to content that encourages them to not be backstabbing free-for-alls. Such content does not currently exist, not really.

[Gotterdammerung]

I think this is a useful suggestion. I have several people that i can't boot out of my linkshell because they are never online when i look to boot them. And i have had several people who were kicked by an anonymous sackholder. Luckily, i found out about it but only because i send a tell to members who havent showed up in a run or 2. These anonymous boots at best make peolpe miss events and at worse make shell leaders lose valuable members over stupid kids games. And frankly im surprised so many are opposed to the idea. What's the downside of removing this problem?

[Raxiaz]

My sentiments exactly, Gotterdammerung.

[Khajit]

I think this is a useful suggestion. I have several people that i can't boot out of my linkshell because they are never online when i look to boot them. And i have had several people who were kicked by an anonymous sackholder. Luckily, i found out about it but only because i send a tell to members who havent showed up in a run or 2. These anonymous boots at best make peolpe miss events and at worse make shell leaders lose valuable members over stupid kids games. And frankly im surprised so many are opposed to the idea. What's the downside of removing this problem?

You should read the previous posts and realize you could have gotten a GM to boot said rogue sackholder months ago. Your problem already has a solution.

[Raxiaz]

Unless a Community Representative states that a GM will take care of this kind of issue, I don't want to hear it. And I won't take it for an answer 'til they say it.

[Kimble]

So, you are sticking your fingers in your ears saying "la la la la la i cant hear you!"?

[Greatguardian]

Then you'll never take it for an answer. That is not how the GM system works, smart guy.

There is no Magna Carta for internet rights. Anyone with a sack has the right to kick anyone, period. Those are the rules of the game, no matter whose approval they have or don't have. If a Shellholder decides someone shouldn't have a sack any more, they remove it, thereby removing their right to kick people. It is not retroactive.

The only legitimate harassment that has been brought up in this entire thread has been "Sackholder A logs in, kicks a few people for fun, then changes ls so that he can't be desacked, rinse and repeat". There have been multiple reports of GMs removing sacks from people's inventory over the years. I can't give personal testimony because I don't hang around with people childish or stupid enough to do things like that. Though, I suppose that's another potential solution right there.

[Ravenmore]

Unless a Community Representative states that a GM will take care of this kind of issue, I don't want to hear it. And I won't take it for an answer 'til they say it.

Or you can CALL A GM and ask for your self. You can even test it. This is one of the few thing that can really do anything about.

[idx1]

Sounds like griefing.

Some players deserve it, some don't.
Reporting it usually solves the issue - GMs have access to logs and all that.

It'd really be better if the Call GM option had more specific categories in regards to a report, such as instances like these - like a griefing or harassment category - instead of "I'm stuck."

[Nynja]

If you dont want to get kicked from a LS: suck less?

[Arlan]

Your solution requires reorganizing a whole LS, redistributing pearls to innumerable people, spending 8,000 gil (lol), "moving on" to another LS, which most likely won't be as easy you may think. I join new LSs very rarely, and when I do, "getting started" is a hard thing to do feeling empty most of the time.

Anyway, my "solution" to your scenario was born out of contempt for the solutions you so press against me. They're really no different. Except my solution is simple and logistic - while the solutions for the current system and the scenario given are complex, faulted, and require a little more work involved.

Joeblow makes a topic about how he loves turtles and thinks they're the best. Only three other people on the forum agree. The others disagree with him. They say obviously they can't be the best because there's only four of you who like them.

Please, I ask you nicely here, don't use forums, threads, posts, or anything of the nature to "prove a point" in such a way that you just did. Because I guarantee you, these forums, while official, don't display the actual playerbase as a whole. And not everyone is going to read and/or respond to a given topic. So results gained from topic posts are skewed at best and don't represent anything.

The suggestion was not made with the intentions of changing the way a linkshell succeeds or fails. It was made to give liability to sackholders, making it so that if they kick someone, it needs to be a legitimate reason agreed upon by a majority of the LS, through simple conduct. Obviously, most LSs won't keep someone shouting obscenities in chat. But just because a sackholder has a personal grudge against someone doesn't mean they should kick them.

Very beautiful way of putting it. =)

[Arlan]

The solution is flawed as well.

How about this scenario I join a shell with a few friends (neglecting to mention we're all friends already) just to break up a linkshell after a few days/weeks go by I remove/drop the LS pearl and my friends all do the same, and we all tell the leader that X Sackholder kicked us, or we tell the leader a few Sackholders kicked us. Now the leader has to decide who to believe and it becomes a s/he said s/he said game.

So how did this solution prevent the risk of the linkshell breaking up because the leader doesn't know who to trust?

Your solution is flawed, My solution counters that already.

Example:
If some sack holder kicks you, and the LS would say "Who kicked who", everyone would already know in the LS what happend. But,

If you just take your pearl off and drop it, and you try to accuse someone for kicking you because they have a sack, of course no one would believe you and your friends where kicked because the LS message didn't announced "Who kicked who".

Problem solved, we know your scheme.

[Arlan]

Does the entire linkshell need to know when someone is removed from a shell, and by whom?
I do not suggest that everyone sees the message. It's even in the OP now that only the person who was kicked would know who it was. I would like to ask now that this argument here ends. Because I don't suggest it. If I did originally, my opinion has changed. I'm a human, I have that right. Even on the Internet.


After stopping and reading this section, I'm going to have to say I partially agree with what your saying but not fully.
I think in my opinion that it is VERY IMPORTANT that if a sackholder kicks someone, it gets announced in the LS "who kicked who", but not to the person who got kicked.

The reason for me stating this is because:
Witnesses is important to have in case the "kick" feature does get misused.
If the only witness is the person who got kicked, then that would be just as flawed system as it is right now.

Also, I feel its good that the person who got kicked would not know who kicked him for a specific reason.
Its fine if someone from LS tells him who did the kicking, but its better to keep it /anon for the person who got kicked.
But the LS message should be auto announced so people in the LS would know in case of this issue does occur.

sure some might say it be flawed still cause other players in LS might tell the person who kicked him but its not as flawed as you might think, since AnYONE can say ANYTHING and everyone knows in LS what happened but the person who got kicked.

The idea I'm trying to present I guess is very similar to OP but not exactly the same after reading his quote.
Anyways, thought I should point this out, since I just noticed it.

[Zagen]

Your solution is flawed, My solution counters that already.

Example:
If some sack holder kicks you, and the LS would say "Who kicked who", everyone would already know in the LS what happend. But,

If you just take your pearl off and drop it, and you try to accuse someone for kicking you because they have a sack, of course no one would believe you and your friends where kicked because the LS message didn't announced "Who kicked who".

Problem solved, we know your scheme.

How does that prevent the group of people planning this scheme from waiting until they're the only ones in the ls aside from the sack holder they want to mess with? Or even if they are the only ones on and the sack holder isn't even on it becomes hard for the sack holder to prove their side and it is still a s/he said s/he said match leaving the leader to decide using their gut feeling just like they would do so now.

[katz]

There are very specific text commands that allow the Shellholder to determine who can set a lsmes, be it Sacks/Shell, Shellholder only, or Everyone. Having a sack is purely a tool for adding and removing people.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but the number of people who try to make adjustments to the game without knowing what options are currently in the game are staggering. I'm willing to bet very few others here knew about that text option either, and it's been around since the beginning of the game.

Where is this said feature set up from. Id have thought as the shell creator it would be in the linkshell menu, but typical of SE, no information about this feature of the shell and not easily put in the menu where peple would see it to use it.

[Greatguardian]

http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki//lsmes

/lsmes level ls, /lsmes level ps, /lsmes level all

[Yugl]

How does that prevent the group of people planning this scheme from waiting until they're the only ones in the ls aside from the sack holder they want to mess with? Or even if they are the only ones on and the sack holder isn't even on it becomes hard for the sack holder to prove their side and it is still a s/he said s/he said match leaving the leader to decide using their gut feeling just like they would do so now.

Or you could take a picture and post on the website/FFXIAH. Most opposition to this proposal is "WAHHH I DONT KNOW HOW TO BLACK LIST" combined with "GO THROUGH 500 FIXES AND PERMANENTLY FORBID FEATURES OF A LS SUCH AS HAVING SUCH LEADERS BECAUSE ADDING A NAME TO A LINE WILL TAKE THE DEVS FOREVER."

[Zagen]

Or you could take a picture and post on the website/FFXIAH. Most opposition to this proposal is "WAHHH I DONT KNOW HOW TO BLACK LIST" combined with "GO THROUGH 500 FIXES AND PERMANENTLY FORBID FEATURES OF A LS SUCH AS HAVING SUCH LEADERS BECAUSE ADDING A NAME TO A LINE WILL TAKE THE DEVS FOREVER."
Went over the POIDH flaw also the reason there is opposition is because it would be a waste of time to implement a fix that doesn't truly fix anything.
The land king "fix" was a good fix in the sense that you can't claim bot them anymore which is one thing SE has mentioned several times being a concern.
Why propose a "fix" for something that isn't really broken and the fix proposed doesn't truly fix the issue used as the "major flaw".

[Yugl]

So according to you, there is no problem and the idea doesn't fix the problem. I wonder if anyone else can spot the flaw in that logic.

[Zagen]

So according to you, there is no problem and the idea doesn't fix the problem. I wonder if anyone else can spot the flaw in that logic.

There is no problem in the game mechanics of a linkshell the problem is in the human factor...

[Arlan]

How does that prevent the group of people planning this scheme from waiting until they're the only ones in the ls aside from the sack holder they want to mess with? Or even if they are the only ones on and the sack holder isn't even on it becomes hard for the sack holder to prove their side and it is still a s/he said s/he said match leaving the leader to decide using their gut feeling just like they would do so now.

Are you Joking?
This scheme is impossible to pull off.
If players just drop LS and say they where kicked, people would know they dropped LS because it was NOT auto announced "who kicked who" system.

If that system was available where it announces who kicked who instead of the /annon, then everybody in the LS would know if it really happened or not.

[Zagen]

Are you Joking?
This scheme is impossible to pull off.
If players just drop LS and say they where kicked, people would know they dropped LS because it was NOT auto announced "who kicked who" system.

If that system was available where it announces who kicked who instead of the /annon, then everybody in the LS would know if it really happened or not.

Because Linkshells have people on them 24/7 >.>

[Yugl]

There is no problem in the game mechanics of a linkshell the problem is in the human factor...

And you can use game mechanics to fix problems emanating from human factors.

Also, it's called storing the information.

[Zagen]

And you can use game mechanics to fix problems emanating from human factors.

Also, it's called storing the information.

You can also have responsible leaders running and getting a linkshell together instead of someone picking random people they don't trust to not randomly kick people. Guess what this solution can be and has been implemented already by several players and it took 0 dev time to solve.

[Yugl]

You can also have responsible leaders running and getting a linkshell together instead of someone picking random people they don't trust to not randomly kick people. Guess what this solution can be and has been implemented already by several players and it took 0 dev time to solve.

Oh right, psychic leaders. I forgot about those bunch. You call me, Cleo. And I guess leaders don't trust the people they give sacks. "Hey, I don't trust you, but I'll seat you in a position of authority!".

Edit: While we're at it, lets say "**** it" to public accountability in general. Clearly, we don't need it if the top dogs pick wisely.

[Arlan]

Smart players know when a system is flawed and tries to find a way to improve the system that NEEDS IT by sharing their ideas to the dev. team, that can work more efficiently based on the player's experience on the current system.

Smart players don't try to find ways around a flawed system that NEEDS improvements and down good ideas that can fix it easily.

My idea is:
When a sackholder kicks a pearl member, the system should announce in the LS "who kicked who". This way, if someone decides to harass a LS by doing /random kicks can get caught fast. Also, this would make the sack holders think twice before actually misusing the "kicking" feature to kick someone. This idea CAN make the sacks think about having some sort of a LS vote or asking LS leader's permission to kick someone so he doesn't get in trouble for his own personal grudge against an individual that maybe players might still like gaming with.. It also gives efficiency to the LS leader and sacks on how to control their LS without having an /anon player the ability to kick players or random players out due to personal grudge or for harassments that may occur.

This gives a good grip on keeping track on who is starting drama and how a LS leader can efficiently take care of the LS on their own when need to be.

I Think the OP says it should only be announced "who kicked who" only to the person who got kicked.
But that solution wouldn't make a difference with today's current system since the person who got kicked could be lying about who did the kicking just like how they can right now.

@OP: Please tell me what you think since our ideals are similar but yet, a little different.
I believe the idea I presented above should be more efficient and effective than your current presentation.
Again, Please tell me what you think in your opinion.

Also off the record:
GMs don't desack players who misuse the kick feature, that is a fact based on real experience I have had.

Hint: (Not innocent)

>:)