Anonymous kicking in LSes: Please fix this.

[Zagen]

And you can use game mechanics to fix problems emanating from human factors.

Also, it's called storing the information.

You can also have responsible leaders running and getting a linkshell together instead of someone picking random people they don't trust to not randomly kick people. Guess what this solution can be and has been implemented already by several players and it took 0 dev time to solve.

[Yugl]

You can also have responsible leaders running and getting a linkshell together instead of someone picking random people they don't trust to not randomly kick people. Guess what this solution can be and has been implemented already by several players and it took 0 dev time to solve.

Oh right, psychic leaders. I forgot about those bunch. You call me, Cleo. And I guess leaders don't trust the people they give sacks. "Hey, I don't trust you, but I'll seat you in a position of authority!".

Edit: While we're at it, lets say "**** it" to public accountability in general. Clearly, we don't need it if the top dogs pick wisely.

[Arlan]

Smart players know when a system is flawed and tries to find a way to improve the system that NEEDS IT by sharing their ideas to the dev. team, that can work more efficiently based on the player's experience on the current system.

Smart players don't try to find ways around a flawed system that NEEDS improvements and down good ideas that can fix it easily.

My idea is:
When a sackholder kicks a pearl member, the system should announce in the LS "who kicked who". This way, if someone decides to harass a LS by doing /random kicks can get caught fast. Also, this would make the sack holders think twice before actually misusing the "kicking" feature to kick someone. This idea CAN make the sacks think about having some sort of a LS vote or asking LS leader's permission to kick someone so he doesn't get in trouble for his own personal grudge against an individual that maybe players might still like gaming with.. It also gives efficiency to the LS leader and sacks on how to control their LS without having an /anon player the ability to kick players or random players out due to personal grudge or for harassments that may occur.

This gives a good grip on keeping track on who is starting drama and how a LS leader can efficiently take care of the LS on their own when need to be.

I Think the OP says it should only be announced "who kicked who" only to the person who got kicked.
But that solution wouldn't make a difference with today's current system since the person who got kicked could be lying about who did the kicking just like how they can right now.

@OP: Please tell me what you think since our ideals are similar but yet, a little different.
I believe the idea I presented above should be more efficient and effective than your current presentation.
Again, Please tell me what you think in your opinion.

Also off the record:
GMs don't desack players who misuse the kick feature, that is a fact based on real experience I have had.

Hint: (Not innocent)

>