Anonymous kicking in LSes: Please fix this.

[Raxiaz]

*The entire LS does not need this information, only the person who was kicked.
"You were kicked from the linkshell by [name]."

Anonymous kicking in LSes has occurred more than once in my time of play. While not rampant, it's only possible because it is not told to anyone who kicked the player. The LS doesn't even know if someone was kicked unless they speak up. This is particularly aggravating when its repetitive, and won't cease.

So I would like to suggest that the name of the person who kicked someone from the LS be displayed to who was kicked, so that the problem could be rectified.

Thank you for your time.

Suggestion redux:
Allow for member removal by the LS Holder even if a member isn't actively on the LS (online or offline).

[Xellith]

Would help to name and shame.

[Arcon]

See here:
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/th...inkshell-Kicks

[Misi]

I'd be more worried about why the player was booted and not the who done it. Unless the LS leader/sack holders are legitimately jerks, There are reasons why people get kicked in the first place.

If no one is fessing up to you, or you don't have a clue as to why it happen, I'd count my blessings that i'm not with that shell anymore and move on.

[Arlan]

I'd be more worried about why the player was booted and not the who done it. Unless the LS leader/sack holders are legitimately jerks, There are reasons why people get kicked in the first place.

If no one is fessing up to you, or you don't have a clue as to why it happen, I'd count my blessings that i'm not with that shell anymore and move on.

Such a convenient excuse to not promote such a wonderful idea that the OP has presented.

Also

@ Raxiaz: I think it be even better if it says it in LS chat log as well so the whole entire LS would know who kicked who in case of this harassment occurs.

~.^

[Misi]

Such a convenient excuse to not promote such a wonderful idea that the OP has presented.

Right. Let us say LS members had a vote about getting rid of a player in the shell? should the person who did the initial kick be the person to be blamed for it? that is why it is anon. Unless you are in a crappy LS, important decisions like this are not made by one person. Chances are the person who was kicked was not liked by a few people in the shell, So one person should not be labeled as the jerk for the kicking. But hey if blaming one person makes you feel better, That is what it'll come down to.

[Bulrogg]

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.

[Arcon]

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.

In what way exactly is it redundant? In what way is it a waste of time? Where did he say it was him who was kicked? In what way does that address the issue?

"It's fine, because you can avoid it somehow, probably."

Really getting tired of that argument, especially if it's not true and even more if it doesn't even relate to the topic at hand.

[Bulrogg]

It's redundant because no one else in the LS needs to see the message 'X player was just kicked from the shell by Y player' or else they would have included it.

It's a waste of time because SE could be improving things that actually need to be fixed.

I, like he, never implied it was he that was kicked.

It addresses the issue as such: the less sack holders you (read as a LINKSHELL owner) make the less people will have the privilege to kick. If you make someone a sack holder, informing them kicking anyone from the shell without approval will result in them losing the privilege to be a sack holder.

I agree the argument "It's fine, because you can avoid it" does suck from the other side of it. I've been there, I know... but I also know it's true. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it being that big of a problem to ask SE to use their resources to try and make a fix for it.

[Raxiaz]

I won't deny there are reasons why people are kicked. But it would be ignorant to deny the existence of kicks without cause. Naming the sackholder who kicked the member without reason short of personal hatred: best thing for LSs since launch. You can't sit here and tell me that it's OK for one out of seven sackholders to hold a personal grudge against someone and repeatedly kick them after they've been invited back into the LS, exploiting the anonymity that accompanies such a power.

I'm not a leader, nor am I a sackholder. I've never been the victim of this kind of harassment, and I hope I never will be. But I've seen it happen and it annoys me to no end to see it happen just because of a system faulty. The lack of information regarding who removed an LS member is just asking for this sort of crap to happen, and I'm asking that SE takes a few of their resources to add a safeguard to it.

At least I'm not asking for the removal of the boot feature all together. I'm asking for something so simple and helpful, I don't see how one could be against it! Experience it firsthand yourself or watch your friends experience it, you may change your opinion.

I'm only asking for sackholders and linkshell leaders to actually be held responsible for their powers. It is not right to give them the ability to remove a member without being held accountable for it.