Anonymous kicking in LSes: Please fix this.

[Khajit]

I think this is a useful suggestion. I have several people that i can't boot out of my linkshell because they are never online when i look to boot them. And i have had several people who were kicked by an anonymous sackholder. Luckily, i found out about it but only because i send a tell to members who havent showed up in a run or 2. These anonymous boots at best make peolpe miss events and at worse make shell leaders lose valuable members over stupid kids games. And frankly im surprised so many are opposed to the idea. What's the downside of removing this problem?

You should read the previous posts and realize you could have gotten a GM to boot said rogue sackholder months ago. Your problem already has a solution.

[Raxiaz]

Unless a Community Representative states that a GM will take care of this kind of issue, I don't want to hear it. And I won't take it for an answer 'til they say it.

[Kimble]

So, you are sticking your fingers in your ears saying "la la la la la i cant hear you!"?

[Greatguardian]

Then you'll never take it for an answer. That is not how the GM system works, smart guy.

There is no Magna Carta for internet rights. Anyone with a sack has the right to kick anyone, period. Those are the rules of the game, no matter whose approval they have or don't have. If a Shellholder decides someone shouldn't have a sack any more, they remove it, thereby removing their right to kick people. It is not retroactive.

The only legitimate harassment that has been brought up in this entire thread has been "Sackholder A logs in, kicks a few people for fun, then changes ls so that he can't be desacked, rinse and repeat". There have been multiple reports of GMs removing sacks from people's inventory over the years. I can't give personal testimony because I don't hang around with people childish or stupid enough to do things like that. Though, I suppose that's another potential solution right there.

[Ravenmore]

Unless a Community Representative states that a GM will take care of this kind of issue, I don't want to hear it. And I won't take it for an answer 'til they say it.

Or you can CALL A GM and ask for your self. You can even test it. This is one of the few thing that can really do anything about.

[idx1]

Sounds like griefing.

Some players deserve it, some don't.
Reporting it usually solves the issue - GMs have access to logs and all that.

It'd really be better if the Call GM option had more specific categories in regards to a report, such as instances like these - like a griefing or harassment category - instead of "I'm stuck."

[Nynja]

If you dont want to get kicked from a LS: suck less?

[Arlan]

Your solution requires reorganizing a whole LS, redistributing pearls to innumerable people, spending 8,000 gil (lol), "moving on" to another LS, which most likely won't be as easy you may think. I join new LSs very rarely, and when I do, "getting started" is a hard thing to do feeling empty most of the time.

Anyway, my "solution" to your scenario was born out of contempt for the solutions you so press against me. They're really no different. Except my solution is simple and logistic - while the solutions for the current system and the scenario given are complex, faulted, and require a little more work involved.

Joeblow makes a topic about how he loves turtles and thinks they're the best. Only three other people on the forum agree. The others disagree with him. They say obviously they can't be the best because there's only four of you who like them.

Please, I ask you nicely here, don't use forums, threads, posts, or anything of the nature to "prove a point" in such a way that you just did. Because I guarantee you, these forums, while official, don't display the actual playerbase as a whole. And not everyone is going to read and/or respond to a given topic. So results gained from topic posts are skewed at best and don't represent anything.

The suggestion was not made with the intentions of changing the way a linkshell succeeds or fails. It was made to give liability to sackholders, making it so that if they kick someone, it needs to be a legitimate reason agreed upon by a majority of the LS, through simple conduct. Obviously, most LSs won't keep someone shouting obscenities in chat. But just because a sackholder has a personal grudge against someone doesn't mean they should kick them.

Very beautiful way of putting it. =)

[Arlan]

The solution is flawed as well.

How about this scenario I join a shell with a few friends (neglecting to mention we're all friends already) just to break up a linkshell after a few days/weeks go by I remove/drop the LS pearl and my friends all do the same, and we all tell the leader that X Sackholder kicked us, or we tell the leader a few Sackholders kicked us. Now the leader has to decide who to believe and it becomes a s/he said s/he said game.

So how did this solution prevent the risk of the linkshell breaking up because the leader doesn't know who to trust?

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.

[Arlan]

Does the entire linkshell need to know when someone is removed from a shell, and by whom?
I do not suggest that everyone sees the message. It's even in the OP now that only the person who was kicked would know who it was. I would like to ask now that this argument here ends. Because I don't suggest it. If I did originally, my opinion has changed. I'm a human, I have that right. Even on the Internet.

After stopping and reading this section, I'm going to have to say I partially agree with what your saying but not fully.
I think in my opinion that it is VERY IMPORTANT that if a sackholder kicks someone, it gets announced in the LS "who kicked who", but not to the person who got kicked.

The reason for me stating this is because:
Witnesses is important to have in case the "kick" feature does get misused.
If the only witness is the person who got kicked, then that would be just as flawed system as it is right now.

Also, I feel its good that the person who got kicked would not know who kicked him for a specific reason.
Its fine if someone from LS tells him who did the kicking, but its better to keep it /anon for the person who got kicked.
But the LS message should be auto announced so people in the LS would know in case of this issue does occur.

sure some might say it be flawed still cause other players in LS might tell the person who kicked him but its not as flawed as you might think, since AnYONE can say ANYTHING and everyone knows in LS what happened but the person who got kicked.

The idea I'm trying to present I guess is very similar to OP but not exactly the same after reading his quote.
Anyways, thought I should point this out, since I just noticed it.