Anonymous kicking in LSes: Please fix this.

[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.