Did you know not performing as you think another player should in a group

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

Considering this, your "automatic no" rather than be given an option/"counting vote" is to prevent stalemates

---

If someone is obviously, undoubtedly a jerk or a troll, it won't be that difficult to gather 3/4 or 5/8 "no".
The votekick system is abused precisely because stalemate is that easy to avoid.

My problem with the vote kick system is the player kicked, as far as I know, doesn't get any sort of info as to why. They just get unceremoniously ejected from the dungeon. Honestly, I've been kicked a couple of times. Once I ran an EX roulette when I really should have been in bed. I kept nodding off and I totally understand why I was kicked. The other time... your guess is as good as mine. It would have been awesome to get some sort of reason. That way I could have either known it was a bogus kick, or worked to better myself if it was for performance reasons. /shrug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

If someone is obviously, undoubtedly a jerk or a troll, it won't be that difficult to gather 3/4 or 5/8 "no".
The votekick system is abused precisely because stalemate is that easy to avoid.

---

And if you were to not count the initiator and the individual up to be kicked, then kicks could be avoided altogether by pairing up with a friend. The same way that the kick system can be abused in terms of successfully kicking someone, and the same way that avoiding kicks is circumvented now. The potential for "abuse" goes both ways; not just one. Hence why SE would have to adjust the number of members in a Light and Full Party. Something that seems unlikely given how Light Parties have always been 4 players, and Full Parties 8, and SE seems fully set in their ways with regards to how party formation is in FFXIV. So the Vote Dismiss feature is working as intended with 2/3 and 4/7.

Like another poster said: if an individual is getting kicked several times in such a short period, it's highly unlikely that people are "abusing" the system; more than likely, the person being kicked is the problem. I'm sure that abuse does occur, but I doubt it occurs at the frequency that a lot of people who cry "vote kick abuse!" claim that it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

And if you were to not count the initiator and the individual up to be kicked, then kicks could be avoided altogether by pairing up with a friend.

---

Yes, so ? You'll pair with a friend and troll the other two people ? For what ? Last time I checked, if you tag for an instance and just good around, you'll waste both your and your friend's time.
And if you can't kick everyone on a whim, maybe, just maybe, people will actually try to behave a little better if they don't want to waste their own time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

And if you can't kick everyone on a whim, maybe, just maybe, people will actually try to behave a little better if they don't want to waste their own time.

---

Who is going around kicking people on a whim?

Have you been subject to so many vote kicks that you see it as something rampantly abused?

There are going to be people who will occasionally get kicked unfairly, and that sucks. For the most part, however, the system is passable. Most people don't abuse it, and when it isn't abused, it is fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

If someone is obviously, undoubtedly a jerk or a troll, it won't be that difficult to gather 2/4 or 4/8 "no".

---

fixed that for ya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Yes, so ? You'll pair with a friend and troll the other two people ? For what ? Last time I checked, if you tag for an instance and just good around, you'll waste both your and your friend's time.
And if you can't kick everyone on a whim, maybe, just maybe, people will actually try to behave a little better if they don't want to waste their own time.

---

You're missing my point. If SE were to stop counting the votes of the kicker and the kickee, the only way to have a successful Vote Dismiss would be a unanimous decision between the 2 other members of a 4-man party (4 for an 8-man party, something "easier" [for lack of a better word] to obtain in a Full Party), thereby increasing the chances of stalemates and rendering the Vote Dismiss system in 4-mans basically useless. They can't have it one way for 4-mans and another way for 8-mans, hence 2/3 and 4/7 = majority rules in a Vote Dismiss.

The system is working as intended in its current design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by missybee

Have you been subject to so many vote kicks that you see it as something rampantly abused?

---

Considering the justifiable reasons listed on the kick page, most kicks are abusive. Most of the time, you'll do your thing, no one will say anything, and bam, you're out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

thereby increasing the chances of stalemates and rendering the Vote Dismiss system in 4-mans basically useless.

---

No, vote kicks would be performed for real bad reasons, crippling the whole party, and not just one person that disagrees with another. If you tag with a friend and his connexion crashes for a long time, will you vote against the kick and keep wasting your time ? If your friend starts insulting everyone, will you still root for him even if he's wrong, just for the sake of keeping him in the party ? More importantly, would you not try to calm down the party so that everyone can progress and stop wasting their time ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alistaire

fixed that for ya

---

No, you didn't fix anything...I'd even say you didn't understand what I meant in that post.

Yeah I'm familiar with people who resort to saying "you don't understand" when someone disagrees with them.

But go ahead, keep arguing against everyone else when the facts are plain as day.

The only thing that bugs me about the vote kick is people that queue together like as a pair or 3, have too much power over the randoms joining in and abuse it very easly. On the flipside, it can also be used to shield trolls. I had a run once where this person was very vulgar and aggressive and could not be kicked because of the 5/8 shield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

most kicks are abusive

---

They aren't though.

It has been stated at least 4,218 times, but "differing playstyles" is a valid reason per GMs. It might be unfortunate that "differing playstyles" is so generic that it can account for pretty much anything under the sun, but that isn't the fault of the players.

As a result, very few kicks are actually "abusive."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alistaire

But go ahead, keep arguing against everyone else when the facts are plain as day.

---

Ok, so what did you fix ?
I said that vote kicks should be more difficult to obtain so that they'll focus more or real reasons, and you smugly come with a bland "fixed that for you" to defend more permissive kicks, which is exactly the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by missybee

It might be unfortunate that "differing playstyles" is so generic that it can account for pretty much anything under the sun, but that isn't the fault of the players.

---

You're right, it's the fault of the system...yet you still defend it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Considering the justifiable reasons listed on the kick page, most kicks are abusive. Most of the time, you'll do your thing, no one will say anything, and bam, you're out.

---

Considering the reasons listed for a Vote Dismiss (AFK, Offline, Harassment, Cheating), what other options would you add to make these kicks less "abusive"?

AFK: Self-explanatory
Offline: Self-explanatory
Harassment: anything others consider a hindrance to the party or to the dungeon run (e.g., being a troll, griefing other party members, failing to AOE large pulls, failing to play their role properly, etc..)
Cheating: Self-explanatory

Harassment basically fits most, if not all, of the majority of kicks. Thereby, not "abuse."
They could just add "Differing playstyles" as a fifth option, but typically those "differing playstyles" end up being things such as refusing to do as the majority of the group wants (speedrun/slow run, large pulls/small pulls), or failing to perform a job up to the expectations of the majority of a group (using AOE on a large pull) can also be considered "harassment" since it hinders progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

Harassment: anything others consider a hindrance to the party or to the dungeon run (e.g., being a troll, griefing other party members, failing to AOE large pulls, failing to play their role properly, etc..)

---

No.
Here's what harassment defines :

Quote:

---

Harassment

The use of inappropriate or offensive language, whether or not directed at another player, is considered harassment and is strictly prohibited. Using inappropriate language(including any play on words that could be deemed offensive) in a character name; Free Company name, Linkshell, Chocobo or Retainer name; Party Finder or Search Comment; or any other publicly-displayed message also constitutes harassment. SQUARE ENIX evaluates all claims of harassment on a case-by-case basis. If SQUARE ENIX determines in its sole discretion that one or more players have engaged in harassment, SQUARE ENIX may issue account penalties to all players involved in the harassment.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of language that could constitute harassment:

· Language generally considered unacceptable in a public place.

· Language intended to harm, annoy, threaten, or harass a third party.

· Language promoting discrimination against any race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability.

· Language promoting violence against any person,group of people, or property.

· Language intended to elicit a negative responseor that could trigger negative debates or conflicts.

There may be other types of harassment that do not fit square lyinto the above-described categories, such as when a player attempts to bypass anti-harassment mechanics like the blacklist or language-filter features. SQUARE ENIX may determine that such conduct constitutes harassment, even if such conduct is not expressly prohibited herein.

---

So, as long as you can't kick someone specifically for "Differing Playstyles", of even "Inapropriate Behavior", which is not the same as harassment (See source above), kicks for not doing AoE are abusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

You're right, it's the fault of the system...yet you still defend it.

---

I defend it because I absolutely believe that it works as intended more often than not.

Anecdotes don't tend to have a lot of value, but I've personally never been kicked and I have had some really bad runs...like I should have gotten kicked.

I basically have faith in the fact that more people are going to respect the system than abuse it, but to say that opinion isn't colored by my own experiences would be disingenuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

kicks for not doing AoE are abusive.

---

Per the rules established by GMs, it just isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Considering the justifiable reasons listed on the kick page, most kicks are abusive. Most of the time, you'll do your thing, no one will say anything, and bam, you're out.

---

Got any data to back your claims up? Taken polls, any census data on people being kicked? Or is this anecdotal? Or worse, is this FoF horror stories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

No.
Here's what harassment defines :

So, as long as you can't kick someone specificcally for "Differing Playstyles", of even "Inapropriate Behavior", which is not the same as harassment (See source above), kicks for not doing AoE are abusive.

---

Then SE can add an option for "Differing Playstyles." But, as it stands, kicking an individual for "Differing Playstyles" but choosing "AFK", "Offline", or "Cheating" isn't accurate either. So they have to go with "Harassment", since it is the option that is closest to the reason for the kick. So it's still not "abusive"; not in the sense that individuals use "vote kick abuse" in.

"Inappropriate Behavior" can also be considered "Harassment," by the way. Especially considering the definition you posted. And even though that definition is only considering verbal forms of harassment, harassment can extend far past just verbal harassment.


The system is working as intended.

Speaking from my own experience, I agree with Vote Dismisses when I see that they are warranted, and disagree with them when I see that they are not. Most of the time, the person is kicked if they deserve it, and not kicked if they don't deserve it. I have been kicked from duties once in my almost two years of playing, and it was by two individuals that were paired together. However, I considered the kick a blessing, as both individuals were probably the biggest tools I had ever met in this game, and upon requeuing after my (very much appreciated) dismissal, I got a group that cleared the dungeon flawlessly and in less than 20 minutes. So, in my experience, the system is working as intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

No.
Here's what harassment defines :

So, as long as you can't kick someone specifically for "Differing Playstyles", of even "Inapropriate Behavior", which is not the same as harassment (See source above), kicks for not doing AoE are abusive.

---

Did you see the word "non-exhaustive" in there? Or the whole last paragraph?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

Then SE can add an option for "Differing Playstyles."

---

If they do, we'll have a totally different discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

"Inappropriate Behavior" can also be considered "Harassment," by the way. Especially considering the definition you posted.

---

Considering the support center clearly separates "Harassment" and "Inappropriate behavior" in the source I provided, no, it's not.
And again, "Inappropriate behavior" is not listed in the vote kick system. So, basically, you can be reported for a vote kick if you didn't realize your party has a lootmaster and you don't like how he disributes the loot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alistaire

Did you see the word "non-exhaustive" in there?

---

Yes, non exhaustive language. Didn't you see the word "language" in there ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alistaire

Or the whole last paragraph?

---

Are you really trying to advocate that "not doing AoE" is the same category as trying to bypass the anti-harassment feature. Damn, people go to great length to justify kicking people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

So, basically, you can be reported for a vote kick if you didn't realize your party has a lootmaster and you don't like how he disributes the loot.

---

If someone fails to realize that a duty is Lootmaster, even though the Duty states as much upon the Duty window popping AND upon entering said duty, reporting the party leader for Lootmaster/loot distribution would just be dismissed by the GMs as your own failure to pay attention. And you can't initiate a vote kick in premade parties, which is the only way to use Lootmaster. Your faulty example has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Just going to repeat what Alistaire said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alistaire

Did you see the word "non-exhaustive" in there? Or the whole last paragraph?

---

and also this:

Quote:

---

There may be other types of harassment that do not fit squarely into the above-described categories

---

Not nearly as far as you are going to ensure you're correct, facts be fanned. It's a non exhaustive list that focused on language, and the avoiding anti harassment was an example of something that didn't make their list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Damn, people go to great length to justify kicking people.

---

I really don't think the people who are kicking with reckless abandon care bout justification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

Not nearly as far as you are going to ensure you're correct, facts be fanned. It's a non exhaustive list that focused on language, and the avoiding anti harassment was an example of something that didn't make their list.

---

No, it's a definition based on language with a non-exhaustive examples of them...and there may be other types, far more aggravating that someone pulling too much or too little for your taste.
On a sidenote, I'd like you to provide that "facts" you claim. And something more sturdy than "GM won't do anything because any reason can be shoehorned is "whatever we want it to be"". You can kick someone actively participating for "Connexion lost" and they'll still tell you "We can't intervene for different playstyle, sorry"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by missybee

I really don't think the people who are kicking with reckless abandon care bout justification.

---

That's exactly why kicks should be more restrictive and less subject to a simple case of "bad look" or "not saying Hello".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

That's exactly why kicks should be more restrictive and less subject to a simple case of "bad look" or "not saying Hello".

---

I find it doubtful that people kick for those reasons you listed. Please. Hyperbole doesn't help your arguments.


The fact that we're having to argue that harassment exists in more than just verbal forms is mind-boggling. Even SE is aware that harassment has many forms, not just verbal. Hence the last paragraph of their harassment definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

No, it's a definition based on language with a non-exhaustive examples of them...and there may be other types, far more aggravating that someone pulling too much or too little for your taste.

---

Avoiding anti harassment measures such as the black list is not language based harassment. Therefore, no, it is a list focused on language but leaves open the concept that action based harassment is still possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

Avoiding anti harassment measures such as the black list is not language based harassment. Therefore, no, it is a list focused on language but leaves open the concept that action based harassment is still possible.

---

Too bad the same paragraph states that Square-Enix would be the one to judge if this is harassment. So, again, "not doing AoE" is not harassment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

I find it doubtful that people kick for those reasons you listed. Please. Hyperbole doesn't help your arguments.

---

You haven't seen the worst of this community then, trust me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Too bad the same paragraph states that Square-Enix would be the one to judge if this is harassment. So, again, "not doing AoE" is not harassment.

---

edit: one could then assume Square has had their decision made by mods who support dismissal for differing playstyles.

On phone--correction incoming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

Square Enix isn't; players are.

---

Read again...

My apologies.

Got your data about all this rampant kicking going on by the way? I'd be very interested to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Read again...

---

If a player reports an individual for "harassment", SE is the one to decide if the situation was harassment or not.

If an player is dismissed for "harassment", the person initiating the dismissal AND the party members voting for said dismissal are the ones deciding if the individual is acting in such a way to be dismissed for harassment or not.

If a person wants to contest a vote dismiss, GMs can look into said dismissal, but if there are no chat logs to show a conspiracy to kick a player, then the GMs can't do much about the kick, nor can they consider the kick as a form of harassment in and of itself. Hence, they chalk it up to "Different Playstyles." But, again, when the Vote Dismiss is being made, the players are the ones deciding on if the dismissee is "harrassing" the party in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destatiredux

Snip

---

I literally had a thunder mage leveling my ninja and I found it so irritating. I tried to explain and help but was met with the usual complete silence. I'm just confused on how people honestly play that poorly and not realize how much they hold a party back. I get not performing the rotation perfectly, but doing so little that their death doesn't even slow down the boss fights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

Got your data about all this rampant kicking going on by the way? I'd be very interested to see it.

---

I have the whole discussion from my most infuriating kick if you want. But it's all in French.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

I have the whole discussion from my most infuriating kick if you want. But it's all in French.

---

That's cool but that's not data, that's anecdote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

I have the whole discussion from my most infuriating kick if you want. But it's all in French.

---

And that's anecdotal. We're asking for non-anecdotal data that the Vote Dismiss feature is being rampantly abused.

EDIT: Inb4 we're asked to provide evidence that it is not being abused, the burden of proof lies with those who are contesting the current system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

You haven't seen the worst of this community then, trust me.

---

Please regale us.

I've literally been told to kill myself for not casting Lustrate in Dzemael Darkhold.

I think we've probably all been exposed to bad hombres. These sorts of experiences just tend to be few and far between.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

We're asking for non-anecdotal data that the Vote Dismiss feature is being rampantly abused.

---

This is something I would genuinely like to see. Vote Dismiss abuse doesn't really seem to be something on SE's radar, so that leads me to believe that it is not as big of an issue as some might suggest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by missybee

I've literally been told to kill myself for not casting Lustrate in Dzemael Darkhold.

---

Then you know how childish people can be.
On my end, I've been kicked for "off-tanking Scylla in Sword Oath", and for "being AFK" when struggling to stay alive at the end of Nerverreap after every other people fell of the platform.

But again, this bad reasons could be avoided with a more restrictive vote-kick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by missybee

Vote Dismiss abuse doesn't really seem to be something on SE's radar, so that leads me to believe that it is not as big of an issue as some might suggest.

---

Problem is, we know nothing of how abusive kick is treated. If you fill a report, you're clearly told that you won't ever see if any action has been taken, and when they do an "Action Report", they only say "Participation in RMT/other illicit activites"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

But again, this bad reasons could be avoided with a more restrictive vote-kick.

---

Just want to point out that "more restrictive vote-kicks", unless you're planning to suggest having a GM present before any initiated kick is passed to objectively judge the situation, isn't going to stop those players that wish to be jerks from being jerks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Then you know how childish people can be.
On my end, I've been kicked for "off-tanking Scylla in Sword Oath", and for "being AFK" when struggling to stay alive at the end of Nerverreap after every other people fell of the platform.

But again, this bad reasons could be avoided with a more restrictive vote-kick.

---

I heard the OT scylla thing before so I'm really just asking: how do you know AFK was the reason they kicked you?

And that's two instances. Even discounting they're anecdotes, your case that the votekick is regularly abused is not strong.

I think votekicking for having a different playstyle really shouldn't be allowed, but oh well.