Anonymous kicking in LSes: Please fix this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reiterpallasch

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

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?

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenmore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alderin

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raxiaz

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."

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greatguardian

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.

"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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arlan

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zagen

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zagen

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raxiaz

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zagen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zagen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulrogg

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.

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

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.