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/th...inkshell-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.