Anonymous kicking in LSes: Please fix this.

[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.