Anonymous kicking in LSes: Please fix this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arlan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greatguardian

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zagen

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yugl

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".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zagen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arlan

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 >.>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zagen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yugl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zagen

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.

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)

>:)