Sick of unjust vote dismisses

In my opinion, a majority vote should always win in dungeons. That's how pretty much everything else works in life. Depriving 2 people of the right to have voting power is also just, quite frankly, wrong. Having a race to see who initiates a kick first if 2 people disagree with 2 more people is also really...annoying.

And really, leaving a dungeon and eating the penalty would still be faster and better than making it halfway or more through, getting kicked, and having that time wasted + the knowledge that they will likely complete it without you or have no penalty + the queue wait on top of the time wasted in the dungeon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaedrianLiang

I've been kicked maybe somewhere under 30 times, so lets say at least 3 players voted against me each time. So that leaves 90 players unsatisified enough/trolly enough to vote kick me for my play style. While atleast 2231 players approve of my play style.

---

If we do a bit of napkin math, we find out that this is roughly a 4% kick rate, and that's only if we assume both that your numbers were accurate and that every single other person you partied with commended you. Neither of these are probably true, but without knowing actual statistics it's fair to say that the kick rate for you is under 4%. My guess would ballpark it at much closer to 1-2%, but even at 4% that's not a bad number. I'd be interested to see how many people have actually been kicked more than 5% of their dungeon runs while they're an angel and don't deserve it, because my guess is I could count all of the people like that in FFXIV on one hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bauxite

...I'd be interested to see how many people have actually been kicked more than 5% of their dungeon runs while they're an angel and don't deserve it, because my guess is I could count all of the people like that in FFXIV on one hand.

---

That bar is set unreasonably high. People should only need to be themselves and not angels. And 1st-timers thru prae do not deserve to be vote kicked, nor do under geared players, or people who do not speed run. Those all should fall under vote kick abuse.

From what the OP posted, it would seem that he wanted to force a speed run and the other players objected to his attitude and his ways and vote kicked him properly.

Counting the accused as an auto no means the dungeon must be unanimous in a 4 man. 3 vote yes, 1 (you) vote no, otherwise it's a 2 v 2. They need a tie breaker and that doesn't happen in even man parties like we have. So by removing the accused it's a 3 or 7 man panel which is fine imo. If 4/7 don't want you there, majority rules and you're out. If 2/3 don't want, majority rules. It 'feels' unfair because it's 'only 2 people', but it's 2/3rd of the affected people. The crappy part is 2 buddies can cue up and manhandled people, but 3 people can still do the same under the new system. When it's 4 randoms, the system is fine. People vote what they think. It's pre made that can abuse, but we can't stop that unless we create yet another piece of red tape. Another rule, and whatever that rule is will still be abusable because every system is.

I don't like the auto no vote unless we had odd number parties because then it's just deadlock which defeats the purpose, and writing a 500 word essay everytime you need to kick someone isn't a practical solution, nor is the extra manpower to review all this more elaborate reporting.

Sure, in a perfect world every kick would be instantaneously reviewed and dealt with, but that's so prohibitively expensive it's not practical. As another poster said, it's the 'least evil' of a great many worse options. We can't fix the system by layering more systems, we cant fix it by adding stronger punishments as that just gives more power to abusers of said system, and we can't fix it with absurd levels of expensive manpower.

IMO, it should be a deadlock before being a case of disenfranchisement. 3 people voting = higher chance the person being voted against needs to go. As it stands now, you can be booted without a majority, and that's wrong. If you have 1st person vote yes, 2nd person vote yes, 3rd person (person being voted against) made an automatic no, then it lets that 4th person decide if the person being voted against needs to go. Increased chances of fairness.

Also, it doesn't have to be a "500 word essay". That's quite an exaggeration. The reasons they have listed now are single words. And how would SE, say, increasing account ban length for abusing vote kick "give the abusers more power"?

And when a paying customer is kicked wrongly after contributing to the duty, they've lost X minutes of their sub time as well as taken abuse. I don't see why this isn't worth spending resources to correct. If they don't want to, they should just stop claiming that kicking people wrongly is such a serious offense.

I say they should back up that claim, or stop claiming it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

That bar is set unreasonably high. People should only need to be themselves and not angels. And 1st-timers thru prae do not deserve to be vote kicked, nor do under geared players, or people who do not speed run. Those all should fall under vote kick abuse.

From what the OP posted, it would seem that he wanted to force a speed run and the other players objected to his attitude and his ways and vote kicked him properly.

---

You're right that people shouldn't have to be angels, I just see a lot of "I was kicked for absolutely no reason what the hell!!!!!" posts where a little digging shows that, no, they really were being a dick to other people. The bar is really "not being a dick" rather than being an angel, and the number of people who get constantly kicked from groups for not being a dick is low enough I could probably count it on one hand. For the purposes of this, we'll say "constantly" is more than 4% of their groups.

But 2 is a majority. You don't get to have a place on the jury at your own trial. There are 3 people that have decide if you are harrassing, afk, whatever because they are the affected party. I don't want some troll in my run wiping us every 30 sec to get a vote to stay. 3/3 is unanimous.

The giving more power was more a reference to when vote kick threads pop up in the past and someone suggests people vote kicked a ton (trolls) should eat a penalty (some have suggested full day bans etc) is just another abusable tool.

As for SE banning vote kick abuse harder, I don't even know what the punishment is right now tbh. Of course it's worth spending resources to correct, which they currently do. But how MUCH. A players 30 min lost isn't very much monetarily. 15 a month, 30 days, let's say 2 hrs a day. 60 hrs/15 bucks 25 cents an hr. Half an hour. How much attention does 12 cents buy you? Not much. If you play a lot it's even less. A couple cents doesn't earn you the best gm lawyers at your beck and call. It's just not realistic. The 509 essay was an exaggeration, but the costs of creating a more complex system to report and hiring people to address those reports is not. And in the end, all this effort would only be helpful to a statistically small problem that is rooted in player interaction which is the hardest, most complex type of mmo problem to fix. You can't fix people.

You guys realize this is a troll topic right? Ths OP made this to mock all other legitimate threads about kick abuse this is someone very commonly done in other forrum websites especially gamefaqs.

and ppl trying to defend him claiming to force pull that is a just kick and a form of abuse you shouldn't threaten your tank and act like an asshole an expect to not get kicked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izsha

But 2 is a majority. You don't get to have a place on the jury at your own trial. There are 3 people that have decide if you are harrassing, afk, whatever because they are the affected party. I don't want some troll in my run wiping us every 30 sec to get a vote to stay. 3/3 is unanimous.

The giving more power was more a reference to when vote kick threads pop up in the past and someone suggests people vote kicked a ton (trolls) should eat a penalty (some have suggested full day bans etc) is just another abusable tool.

As for SE banning vote kick abuse harder, I don't even know what the punishment is right now tbh. Of course it's worth spending resources to correct, which they currently do. But how MUCH. A players 30 min lost isn't very much monetarily. 15 a month, 30 days, let's say 2 hrs a day. 60 hrs/15 bucks 25 cents an hr. Half an hour. How much attention does 12 cents buy you? Not much. If you play a lot it's even less. A couple cents doesn't earn you the best gm lawyers at your beck and call. It's just not realistic. The 509 essay was an exaggeration, but the costs of creating a more complex system to report and hiring people to address those reports is not. And in the end, all this effort would only be helpful to a statistically small problem that is rooted in player interaction which is the hardest, most complex type of mmo problem to fix. You can't fix people.

---

That's the thing though! Since the person being kicked has no vote, one other person's vote will be nullified as well. Whether the person votes Yes or No, the same result will happen if 2 others vote Yes: the person will be kicked. In example, that DD I mentioned. The 2 dps wanted the healer gone. The healer could not vote, and I voted no. Because the healer could not vote, it was my lone vote vs. the 2 dps. So, 2 people got what they wanted, and 2 didn't. The healer and I were both disenfranchised because of this system. That is not a majority. The way vote kick is now, it's a race to see who starts the kick first if this situation happens. It's even more problematic that the entire reason the 2 did it was to be able to get a majority to vote abandon, since neither me or the healer would vote Yes on that. They abused a feature in order to abuse another feature.

The same thing happened in Halatali. 2 people wanted me gone, and me and the other person wanted them gone. They started the kick first, so I was gone. Because I had no right to vote, and the other person could not save me with their No vote. And because they hit the button first. I imagine the other person was removed after me too. I politely tanked the whole dungeon for them and got nothing, they abusively kicked me and got everything. It was a waste of my time, and while not costing me much numbers-wise, it was a very bad experience that was still a waste of my time.

Not to mention, this isn't a trial. Trials are supposed to have an impartial jury and/or judge.

As for the giving more power thing, I think we were thinking about two different things. I was speaking about what SE does to their account, not a lockout timer or anything like that. Apologies if I wasn't very clear with what I meant there.

I don't believe much is done to people, as people clearly don't fear abusing the feature. The GM responses someone mentioned earlier don't click with the warning in the kick window and the claimed severity of punishments possible for people who abuse it. The GM responses were pretty much "We can't do anything to them most of them time". One even said that a kick against a player just because you don't like their playstyle is allowed.

And I'm aware it's not much money, but it's still our money, going to SE. The ability of players to waste your time at all using a feature intended to have the opposite effect shows there's a problem with said feature. I also don't see how reading a kick reason, comparing it to an abuse report, and reading chat logs is a lot more work than what they already do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MageBlack

I saw someone vote kick another player in WoD because they were another BLM. The BLM that initiated clearly said it was because he didnt want someone to take his loot if it dropped. Is that abuse?

---

That is Jerk