Vote kick needs to be adjusted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashelia_Ferron

My post was in response to the person who said they wanted it to take more votes to kick

---

ah derp, lol. Thanks for pointing that out. xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HakaseNyan

Why not report this in-game and not whine about it on the forums? There is no better, or easier, way to control the vote dismiss system. If people abuse it, report them. It's that simple. Sure, it sucks you get kicked and have to wait for a queue again, but the only way to 100% prevent this is to remove the system entirely, and we wouldn't want that. Would we?

---

report does nothing as stated more then not SE does not mix into players squabbles. That is the other problem they gave a tool so that they can wash their hands totally, unless is related to gender, race or religion, misuse of the tool is not something considered, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetstream_Fox

the tank attempted to vote kick our healer because they were checking out stats on a gear drop, that attempt failed, then he vote kicked me

---

So vote kick does not go on cooldown if it fails? I'm really curious about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erendis

So vote kick does not go on cooldown if it fails? I'm really curious about this.

---

Nope, only if it succeeds

The vote kick system works fine as it is the problem is the players who gets vote kicked once in a hundred dungeons then has to come make a thread about it on the forum so people can feel sorry for them.

I have played this game almost daily since 2.0 launch and i have not been kicked a single time.

Yes there are jerks out there but there will always be and no system in the world will ever remove that so all you do is report them if the vote kick is unfair then move on, no need to make a big scene about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeiUshu

asinine? how many do so already ? it happens daily for other erasons. If you had no other solution, it would be used right ?

---

People that choose to abandon the dungeon of their own volition are of no concern to me. There have been times when I've bailed on a dungeon too (it's rare, but it happens), usually after other attempts to salvage it (a vote kick or vote abandon) have failed. I mean, go figure that if I'm near the end of an instance and someone starts raising a stink, I would sooner kick them and then finish my business than have to go back into the queue and start everything over. It's common sense: why should an entire party lose their progress in the encounter simply because one person made the decision to act like a complete idiot?

I've been removed from dungeons wrongfully a couple of times; all it does is make me laugh and requeue. I'm of the belief that the benefits of being able to remove one person from the party far outweigh the potential for abuse.

Quote:

---

still convinced is asinine? how did we go about when the vote kick wasnt there? you remember

---

If anything, I'm even more convinced it's asinine after seeing the flimsy "reasoning" you've tried to throw at me to defend it. When I started this game around 2.1, vote kick was already in place. I have never experienced duty finder without the ability to remove problem people from the party, nor do I have any desire to experience such. I don't run into problem people all the time, but if I happen to then I firmly believe that the ability to remove them from the party should be there. Being forced to abandon the instance on account of one person is a textbook example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

This is not necessarily an incorrect option

---

For me, the current state is, in fact, incorrect, because 2 out of 4 is NOT a "majority".
And if we don't count the "kicked" because it would be an automatic "no", we shouldn't count the "kicker" as it's an automatic "yes".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

For me, the current state is, in fact, incorrect, because 2 out of 4 is NOT a "majority".
And if we don't count the "kicked" because it would be an automatic "no", we shouldn't count the "kicker" as it's an automatic "yes".

---

That's a fantastic opinion. There are people who would disagree with you on that matter, but I respect your right to that thought on the matter.

Right now, the team requires 50% of the people voting to be a 'yay.' A person who is being voted to being kicked is not counted because the system takes a good-faith measure and assumes that there is a potentially legitimate reason to kick them. It also creates a scenario wherein a majority can exist without reaching a deadlock (4/4.) These two factors, to me - show the current system is better than what others propose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetstream_Fox

This is still easily abused by players I was in a toxic duty finder where the tank attempted to vote kick our healer because they were checking out stats on a gear drop, that attempt failed, then he vote kicked me for accidentally grabbing a mob while he typed a message pretaining to the main story.

---

you can votekick once every 4 hours, so either the heal or the other started the 2nd vote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaethusXion

3- Automatically it counts (Party Minus One) because obviously the person getting voted on would vote 'no', and they don't count.

---

If the system thinks they would automatically vote "no" then it should count them as a "no" vote. (Or, given that there are currently a lot of cases when people want to be kicked, it's probably better not to assume either way, but to give them the same vote options as the rest of the party.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

It also creates a scenario wherein a majority can exist without reaching a deadlock (4/4.)

---

But that's the problem. It creates a situation where 4 against 4 (or 2 against 2) allows one side to kick out their —equally supported— opposition. Equal votes in both directions don't indicate which side is in the right, so should not be able to force one side out. It should take a clear majority (3 against 1 or 5 against 3) to kick someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twilite

All jokes aside I think the whm wasn't paying attention and just hit ok.

---

That's one of the worst things about this system. I hate that there are people who would actually kick another player they have no problem with just because they're too lazy to select "no" rather than "yes". :(

It should be set to where nobody would ever choose "yes" to a vote-kick unless they were really desperate to get rid of the offending player. "No" should be the default and much easier answer. Maybe have "yes" require that each person voting that way has to type in an explanation about why they think the player needs to be removed. At the very least make "no" a simple click or confirm button whereas to select "yes" the player needs to scroll down to select it and then go through a couple confirmation boxes (each of which default again to "no"). Legitimate vote-kicks could still happen, since when someone's truly harassing people they'll do that much to be rid of them, but we'd have a lot fewer abusive kicks that only get approved out of pure apathy and laziness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoahArks

You know how many votekick a day happens?

---

It would probably be a lot fewer if those who abuse it got banned from the game, like they're supposed to be. If somebody is disconnected or AFK, the system can recognize that. Only when it's true should anyone be able to be kicked for those two reasons. The other reasons are cheating and harassment, and those are bannable offences. If you want to vote-kick someone for harassment or cheating, then it should have the same standards as what you'd report them to the GMs for. So it's something the GMs should be getting involved in anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HakaseNyan

If people abuse it, report them. It's that simple.

---

It would be that simple, if the GMs were willing to do their jobs. But they don't like to get involved (despite it being their job to get involved) in questions about what is or isn't harassment. Reporting people for even the most blatant abuse does nothing because abuse and harassment are treated as player disputes, and those who are supposed to resolve such disputes don't want to be involved in them.


Before the vote-kick system was implemented, it was discussed at considerable length, as there were many players worried about how such a system could be abused. SE devs (who so rarely join in forum discussions to begin with) came in repeatedly to assure everyone how they were being very careful to make it abuse-proof, putting in strict rules about when people could and could not be kicked, and that nobody could ever be kicked while they were legitimately playing the game. It's the reason why the vote-kick feature requires stating the reason, and why only harassment, AFK or disconnected are allowed as reasons. That's how it was designed to work because the devs knew that allowing any more latitude than that would lead to abuse.

But then the GMs were tasked with actually enforcing the rules which the developers had set, and they didn't want to do so. So then the GMs expanded it to say that they were going to allow any kind of disagreement to be good enough, which is exactly what the developers had put in those reasons to avoid. If the possible reasons were going to include "because I feel like it" (which is what the GMs effectively turned it into), then the feature shouldn't (and likely wouldn't) have been added in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KitingGenbu

Didn't the healer have to agree with the vote kick on you to get you kicked?

---

No actually. Only two players out of the four in the party have to agree. It could have easily been the other DPS.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElHeggunte

It was asinine back then, it would be doubly so if we go back to it now. The pros of the Vote Kick and Vote Abandon systems far far outweigh the cons of a few jackasses "abusing" it.

---

I disagree with vote abandon. Vote abandon is a selfish way of ending the group even if some current people want to continue going. If you want to end early for whatever reason you should be forced to eat the penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeiUshu

how did we go about when the vote kick wasnt there? you remember

---

Oh I remember.

I remember farming Philosophy tomes in Castrum Meridianum and having people AFK at the start because they wanted others to farm their tomes for them. Would you want that to return in places like Void Ark or other 24 man dungeons? People already rage about this with Diadem. Vote kicking has a purpose in the game, whether people like it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niwashi

But that's the problem. It creates a situation where 4 against 4 (or 2 against 2) allows one side to kick out their —equally supported— opposition. Equal votes in both directions don't indicate which side is in the right, so should not be able to force one side out. It should take a clear majority (3 against 1 or 5 against 3) to kick .

---

It works because it prevents a stalemate. It prevents a situation wherin both sides are yelling at eachother but neither side can gain the majority. It creates a situation where a majority CAN exist.


This is why one person - the reciever of the kick - does not get a vote. It makes it possible to say half the votes voted yes or no. It removes an artificial deadlock.

With your suggestion, I could join a 4 man with a friend as DPS and afk. And there is nothing you can do about it. You can't vote kick or abandon. To say the least, your idea would be more open to abuse than the current system is.

By creating an artificial majority you prevent abuse in low man content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnaviAnael

Oh I remember.

I remember farming Philosophy tomes in Castrum Meridianum and having people AFK at the start because they wanted others to farm their tomes for them. Would you want that to return in places like Void Ark or other 24 man dungeons? People already rage about this with Diadem. Vote kicking has a purpose in the game, whether people like it or not.

---

errr I dont need to want, I actually still do the same, I wait for people finishing their story, I wait for people to be ready, and I still dont kick unless AFK of course for a more then 5mn ... so back then or now the attitude I have is still the same...except for the disconnects which is probably one of the only thing together insulting people where I use the kick feature....people rage and kick because they dont get it THEIR way immature, weak and silly attitude....attitudes albeit allowed and cautioned by SE..cant blame them ..the amount of silliness going around is just baffling...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

With your suggestion, I could join a 4 man with a friend as DPS and afk.

---

So, you'll join a Duty only to AFK and waste everybody's time ? Even your friend's ?

And I supppose you'll also return once in a while to move your character to prevent auto-disconnect ?
Clearly showing that you're doing it on purpose, thus giving plenty of room for a justifiable GM report while you're in the Duty.

Would you really want to go that far for a ~30 minutes content ?

How do you all function in the real world? Jfc.

You had one (or a few) incidents like this and now the whole thing needs to be redone? There's always going to be some form of problem when playing with thousands of people. This is life. Until this keeps on happening to majority of the player base, things are fine, get over yourself. You got kicked, so what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AskaRay

have walked two steps too far and aggroed a bunch is embarrassing, so... yes accidents do happen.

---

I am at fault of that too. :x
In my defense, though, it happen mostly when the tank run, seems to be ready to pull too, group is close behind, and then abruptly stop. I lost count of the times I run past the tank because I wasn't expecting him/her to stop like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meimi_chan

I am at fault of that too. :x
In my defense, though, it happen mostly when the tank run, seems to be ready to pull too, group is close behind, and then abruptly stop. I lost count of the times I run past the tank because I wasn't expecting him/her to stop like that.

---

I generally try and avoid running with the tank unless I'm healing - otherwise yeah an accidental pull - and you can usually see whan it happens is a bit different than seeing the healer or one of the DPS run off to attack a mob to drag them back to you during a current pull. I just watch them getting their faces chewed off. It's so nice.

Once had in DR: Leveling a group of 3 players - they kpet agroing things by accident all over the place(you have words you know - if you want a full clear or something specific ASK) - then we reach the third boss and one of them decides to pull it - I just did a /sit infornt of the gate and watched them die. After that it was OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

So, you'll join a Duty only to AFK and waste everybody's time ? Even your friend's ?

And I supppose you'll also return once in a while to move your character to prevent auto-disconnect ?
Clearly showing that you're doing it on purpose, thus giving plenty of room for a justifiable GM report while you're in the Duty.

Would you really want to go that far for a ~30 minutes content ?

---

Good job going after one line in the entire arguement and ignoring the rest. Not gonna address the lack of a genuine majority and the fact that it creates a deadlock, eh?

Alright - Perhaps that's a bad example, though let's be fair. By the time people decide to do anything about it, people will have either left the duty, or just logged out themselves. GM's aren't responsive enough to be relied on. But I'll give you another example, just for you.


You have a tank that joins that talks **** to people the whole time. He tells people that they are bad. That DPS is slow. That heals are bad. Only h is friend is the exception who 'gotgud' because he's doing more DPS. He never admits to a parser or anything, just states that the DPS is ****-poor and treats your team like crap the whole time.

So you attempt to vote dismiss him. UH oh! his friend blocks it, because you removed the ability to have a majority.
So he attempts to vote dismiss you. UH oh! Your party blocks it, because they're not idiots.

Now you know how people react when this happens. Someone throws a temper tantrum. The party chat becomes a toxic mindfield. People start afk'ing. People start doing less. The duty takes longer. The duty becomes harder because people stop caring about doing their role. Things fall apart.

Having a majority created to prevent a deadlock is healthy for the vote kick system.
This is the point that you brilliantly danced around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

Now you know how people react when this happens.

---

For now, people react like "You're an asshole, I'll just kick you and keep on with my rude comments" because they can go away with it. IF you could end in a deadlock, they wouldn't have much options :

• They keep bitching on each other and just waste their time. If no one manage to calm down, you could just leave, because it would always be better to wait before a new duty that may be fun than going on with a toxic duty.
• They realize that this will go nowhere and decide to be smart enough to stop wasting their own time.

So, in fact, allowing a deadlock can push people to stop being idiots instead of giving them the right to do so without any repercussion.

To go back on the GM part, they can't do much for now because the rules of kicking are a blurry mess. If you can call a GM because someone is purposely screwing the duty, during the duty, it will solve the problem far quicker. And if people "leave the duty" or "log out" in fear of the report, then you're not 4 anymore and you can have your majority. Besides, the fact that people can be reported for that with real consequences, is often enough to calm people down.

Oh, and I'd also put an automatic withdraw if the party is out of combat for 10 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

It works because it prevents a stalemate. It prevents a situation wherin both sides are yelling at eachother but neither side can gain the majority. It creates a situation where a majority CAN exist.

This is why one person - the reciever of the kick - does not get a vote. It makes it possible to say half the votes voted yes or no. It removes an artificial deadlock.

---

It doesn't remove an artificial deadlock, it creates an artificial majority when there really isn't one. If it took a majority, there could only be one majority. The way it runs now, there can be two different opposing views that are BOTH treated as being the majority. That's totally counter to the whole concept of what a majority is. There's no such thing as a deadlock in a vote that requires a majority. Either there is a majority or there isn't. Sometimes there isn't one, and that just means the vote didn't pass. Well... anywhere but here that is. Here, instead we just pretend the vote passed even though it didn't have a majority at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

With your suggestion, I could join a 4 man with a friend as DPS and afk.

---

As opposed to now, when it's even worse. You can join with a friend and have total control to kick out whoever gets grouped with you for no reason except to grief them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niwashi

It doesn't remove an artificial deadlock, it creates an artificial majority when there really isn't one. If it took a majority, there could only be one majority. The way it runs now, there can be two different opposing views that are BOTH treated as being the majority. That's totally counter to the whole concept of what a majority is. There's no such thing as a deadlock in a vote that requires a majority. Either there is a majority or there isn't. Sometimes there isn't one, and that just means the vote didn't pass. Well... anywhere but here that is. Here, instead we just pretend the vote passed even though it didn't have a majority at all.

---

It does. It is impossible to get an artificial deadlock in the current system. There will never be a time where you will get 4/4 constantly, outside of people abstaining from a vote. Because it's 3 or 7 people, there is a garunteed majority and there will be no deadlocks

However, under your proposed system, players can wind up deadlocked and unable to remove one another. You have effectively removed the ability to remove people, or to spam it until someone gets sick of seeing it and just votes out one of the people that are being spammed to break the stalemate.

Quote:

---

As opposed to now, when it's even worse. You can join with a friend and have total control to kick out whoever gets grouped with you for no reason except to grief them.

---

Incorrect. You can join and have the ability to kick someone if you choose, yes.

But the other two people can still kick one of you. You have to join with 2 people(EDIT FOR Clarification: You have to have a total of 3 people, 2+yourslef) in the current system to be garunteed to be unkickable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

For now, people react like "You're an asshole, I'll just kick you and keep on with my rude comments" because they can go away with it. IF you could end in a deadlock, they wouldn't have much options :

• They keep bitching on each other and just waste their time. If no one manage to calm down, you could just leave, because it would always be better to wait before a new duty that may be fun than going on with a toxic duty.
• They realize that this will go nowhere and decide to be smart enough to stop wasting their own time.

So, in fact, allowing a deadlock can push people to stop being idiots instead of giving them the right to do so without any repercussion.

To go back on the GM part, they can't do much for now because the rules of kicking are a blurry mess. If you can call a GM because someone is purposely screwing the duty, during the duty, it will solve the problem far quicker. And if people "leave the duty" or "log out" in fear of the report, then you're not 4 anymore and you can have your majority. Besides, the fact that people can be reported for that with real consequences, is often enough to calm people down.

Oh, and I'd also put an automatic withdraw if the party is out of combat for 10 minutes.

---

Yeap. For now, people are capable of removing one another, and fixing an issue wherin people can be caught in the crossheirs of an artificial deadlock and/or a stagnated party. Matter of fact, your system would punish people far worst than a simple boot and reque.

For your first bullet:
Great. Someone has to leave, so they eat a 30 minute timer thanks to you. They dont' get the option to just reque. Great way to get collatoral damage while trying to fix the system.

For your second point: Do you even play the same game? This is a game where we constantly have complaints about tanks that will, if they lose threat to a DPS, throw a fit and take a seat and say "Fine you tank" and then go afk and make a sandwhich in their prissy fit. Taking the power out of the players hands to resolve the party's dispute is bad. Creating the (as the other player put it) artificial majority is better because it prevents such scenarios as the one you seem to want to create.

...

I think the bigger issue here, that you're overlooking, is that in the current system there is no reprimand for abuse. There is no repurcussions if I choose to kick someone for an arbitrary reason. Matter of fact, if I don't say anything and I kick someone, it doesn't matter what the reason was - there's no way to substantiate anything.

The more grey area of the current system creates that issue. If we create solid rules, there would be a better system. If we create solid punishments for being a scumbag, we would have a better system.

But stop trying to change the system for the worst because of the lack of repurcussions.

...

Your idea of a 10 mintue auto-withdraw 'if not in combat' is so easily worked around. All you have to do is pull a mob and even if you die, "I was in combat!" group's still stuck. Unless you're talking about a player that's just afk'ing. But let's face it - your idea to make it so someone is kicked for not being in combat for 10 minutes is still futile, because all the player has to do is walk up and auto attack the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

Incorrect. You can join and have the ability to kick someone if you choose, yes.

But the other two people can still kick one of you. You have to join with 2 people(EDIT FOR Clarification: You have to have a total of 3 people, 2+yourslef) in the current system to be garunteed to be unkickable.

---

The goal is not to be unckickable, it's to prevent other to kick anyone. You look at the problem from the wrong end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

Great. Someone has to leave, so they eat a 30 minute timer thanks to you. They dont' get the option to just reque. Great way to get collatoral damage while trying to fix the system.

---

If people can't find a middle ground, yes, it's better than insulting each other, then create a zillionth thread about how anyone kicks all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

For your second point: Do you even play the same game? This is a game where we constantly have complaints about tanks that will, if they lose threat to a DPS, throw a fit and take a seat and say "Fine you tank" and then go afk and make a sandwhich in their prissy fit. Taking the power out of the players hands to resolve the party's dispute is bad. Creating the (as the other player put it) artificial majority is better because it prevents such scenarios as the one you seem to want to create.

---

So, we're talking about such tanks that 1) Lose threat and cry about it, 2) queue with a friend to be "unkickable", 3) waste their time and their friend's time just so they can play their diva 4) will go AFK, without being automatically kicked, while not caring about how you could be reported for that.
Your example is more situational than every PLD skill combined...and I don't know who your friends are, but if I ask mine to come with me just so I can be a jerk for 40 minutes without any repercussions and without providing any progress, they probably won't stay my friends for long...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

I think the bigger issue here, that you're overlooking, is that in the current system there is no reprimand for abuse. There is no repurcussions if I choose to kick someone for an arbitrary reason. Matter of fact, if I don't say anything and I kick someone, it doesn't matter what the reason was - there's no way to substantiate anything.

---

Yes, and GM have stated times and times that there will never be a repercussion because it's in the hands of the players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

Your idea of a 10 mintue auto-withdraw 'if not in combat' is so easily worked around. All you have to do is pull a mob and even if you die, "I was in combat!" group's still stuck. Unless you're talking about a player that's just afk'ing. But let's face it - your idea to make it so someone is kicked for not being in combat for 10 minutes is still futile, because all the player has to do is walk up and auto attack the enemy.

---

Hmm...no. Because you're in a duty, where other people will play with you. If you're a jerk and you pull a mob just to be in combat and then AFK, what do you think will happen ? The others will either let you die, or...I don't know...kill the mob, maybe ? Here, out of combat.

Regarding the majority issue. Think of it as being judged by a jury of your peers. You don't get a say when you're on trial, only the peers who have seen the evidence and testimony do. The only difference is that in the criminal justice system, you need 100% to convict because it errs on the side of letting the guilty go free as opposed to unintentionally imprisoning the innocent. In DF, it's not that critical, so a simple majority will do. 2/3. My gawd, in 4-man content the average run is 30 minutes. That's hardly a significant amount of time wasted to demand an overhaul to the system. It's not 100% fair and just all the time, but I think it's pretty apparent that it's efficiently balancing amount of effort on the part of SE and potential for abuse the way it is. So for the rare times it falls out against you, take a deep breath and move on. 99.9% chance you'll never see them again. If it's not rare...maybe you should ask yourself what you could be doing differently, hm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

However, under your proposed system, players can wind up deadlocked and unable to remove one another. You have effectively removed the ability to remove people

---

Only in the case where there's no clear majority to indicate which side it is that should be removed. The only fair options in that case are to remove everyone or no one, so I can only think of a couple viable options for handling that situation:

1. the way I (and a few others) proposed, where it actually takes a real majority to kick someone, or
2. a system that starts with that genuine majority vote, but then detects if there's such a stalemate (perhaps once two votes have taken place with exact opposite 2:2 or 4:4 results) and just kicks everyone out as though those two failed kicks had been a successful vote abandon.

But the current version that just allows a kick to go through on a split vote based on nothing more than who initiates a vote first, does not meet that fairness test. It's as likely (or perhaps more likely) to kick out the more legitimate players trying to complete the duty as it is to kick the ones trolling it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

Incorrect. You can join and have the ability to kick someone if you choose, yes.

But the other two people can still kick one of you. You have to join with 2 people(EDIT FOR Clarification: You have to have a total of 3 people, 2+yourslef) in the current system to be garunteed to be unkickable.

---

But I wasn't discussing being unkickable. I was discussing the more important issue of having the power to kick someone else (and in that example doing it specifically as a form of griefing them).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eidolon

I think the bigger issue here, that you're overlooking, is that in the current system there is no reprimand for abuse. There is no repurcussions if I choose to kick someone for an arbitrary reason. Matter of fact, if I don't say anything and I kick someone, it doesn't matter what the reason was - there's no way to substantiate anything.

The more grey area of the current system creates that issue. If we create solid rules, there would be a better system. If we create solid punishments for being a scumbag, we would have a better system.

---

This part I agree with you on. If the GMs had stuck with only the reasons specified by the developers being allowed, this feature wouldn't have become the problem it is. It was their decision to allow things as vague as personal disagreements and playstyle differences that really turned it into the mess it is. (But that doesn't mean there aren't other problems with it, too.)

I think that the misuse of vote kick is muuuuuch smaller than it's correct use. It's really fine as is. There are not really many solutions, but you can always report.

If you're getting vote kicked a lot to the point that this warrants attention, then it's likely the problem lies with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaitlanKela

Regarding the majority issue. Think of it as being judged by a jury of your peers.

---

By a jury of your peers that have absolutely no authority upon you.
And are also those that have a beef with tou.

Thus, shouldn't have the right to judge you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaitlanKela

Think of it as being judged by a jury of your peers. You don't get a say when you're on trial, only the peers who have seen the evidence and testimony do.

---

In a trial, your accuser doesn't get to vote with the jury, either. So here maybe they should exclude both the person initiating the kick and the person who might get kicked and just take the votes of the other 2 or 6 players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetstream_Fox

Ya which is the ridiculous part and why this "vote kick because I feel like it" needs to be fixed, even the Gm I reported this to said that the entire situation was not handled properly. But yet it keeps happening and Duty Finder suffers from it.

---

A million times this. I warned them that making it this way would greatly increase the abuse but they did it anyway. The consequences of their decision haunt us to this day. It is time to reevaluate how easy it is for people to kick for no legitimate reason, and with no true consequences.