Anonymous kicking in LSes: Please fix this.

[Zagen]

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.

[katz]

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.

[Greatguardian]

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

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

[Yugl]

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."

[Zagen]

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".

[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.

[Zagen]

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...

[Arlan]

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.

[Zagen]

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 >.>

[Yugl]

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.