How about if she did that to you right after putting in your time all the way to the final boss?
Printable View
This may come as a surprise to you but some of us have jobs and obligations and don't particularly like having our time wasted in a video game we are supposed to be having fun playing because some guy wanted to be an obvious troll and couldn't even be bothered muting character voices if he hated them so much.
Also fyi Square Enix decides what a justified kick is, not you.
And yet, that's how it works. That's the way it's worked for literally years, and the only way Square can change that is to force people to run things with people they don't get along with.
THAT is the recipe for toxicity, not an outlier "your voice is dumb" kick.
Lord, if they hadn't kicked you I could see fifteen pages of complaining about how "they wouldn't stop giving me crap about my character's voice" in a dungeon you couldn't leave.
I simply don't care about your obligations outside of the game, since in a dungeon that is utterly irrelevant.
And yes, Square determines what is justified. That is what playstyle differences encompass, and what the voting system is for. Your personal interpretation of the new TOS means less when you were voted out by two people that agree you need to go.
You're simply sour grapes you got voted off the island.
So you'd be cool with two guys kicking you right before the final boss because their friend wanted to get a quick clear? Since according to you literally any reason to be kicked is justified.
Of course it doesn't matter what your answer is because in the end there are rules in place that SE made and you are not the arbiter of that matter.
Perfectly fine, because a majority of the party didn't want me there.
I'll kindly remind you also at not an arbiter.
I merely say what the game's systems say, and that is if you vote to kick someone you need someone else in the party to back you up for it to be considered justified.
Your kick was justified.
Because it is allowed musn't mean you should do it or abuse it. You are suppose to be old enough enough to judge that some things are wrong.
edit : If there are choices when you kick someone don't you think it's because it's gotta be one of those reasons?
I don't remember seeing, "I find it annoying''.
If it is a problem, Square hasn't seen it as enough of a problem to fix it.
Therefore there is no problem to fix, and kicking someone goes through with one supporter.
You can argue morality and tit for tat, but the game systems are clearly defined and you resent that definition.
Don't blame me, blame what's ingame.
I don't understand why you are so adamant about "SE says so, so it's ok!"
It's not even the OPs story that I'm concerned with, it's the fact that you think that if I gathered a few friends in discord, and we painted the town red by kicking EVERYONE who was the 4th in our group during a night of dungeons that it would be perfectly normal an acceptable, and those people would just have to "suck it up" and move on.
"Obstruction of play
"Obstruction of play" means all behaviour in general that obstructs another person's game play. Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of obstruction of play:
-Improper expulsion votion
This means excluding another person by manipulation of expulsion voting."
Again this is not how it works. The system was made as a tool for players under the assumption that players will behave themselves and not use it for illegitimate reasons, with SE being the authority on what is or isn't a legitimate use. Any time you use this system you are accepting an agreement with SE that you are not abusing it outside of it's intended purpose, and that if you are you are liable to be punished.
Just because an unthinking system allows a votekick to be made doesn't mean it is justified. It's like saying the chat system allows people to type racial profanity so obviously it's not against the rules.
That's why moderators exist to deal with infractions that can't otherwise be solved with automation.
Unfortunately, most kicks for petty reasons are 'justified' by the "difference of play style" rule. However, I found an interesting tidbit in the list of prohibited activities:
https://oi86.photobucket.com/albums/...psica2qghw.png
If taken at face value and completely literally, this means that they may kick you for a difference of play style, but should they actually call you out in chat before kicking you, they are in violation of the rules.
Its really not that cut and dry especially considering in the dialog box there's a warning that says in red "Warning: Unjustified usage of vote dismiss is a punishable act" so no, just because two people agreed to kick a TheLittlestLala for being a Lala doesn't make it justified.
Rmt is a separate issue, but does it really seem like rmt shouts aren't allowed in limsa? No, it's still going strong because square still permits it through their inaction.
Until the voting system is changed, which you have absolutely no reason to anticipate, you're left with the consequences of the current system: if two people want you gone, you're gone. This is absolute, implemented, and active in the game we play.
A gm night pretend to listen to you in a ticket, but they're not going to get you back into the party. Most likely they'll give you playstyle differences to stop the tears. If, by some absurd stroke of fortune, someone is actioned after your report it is likely going to come from harassment related to the kick in chat and never the kick itself.
Should have, could have, would have don't matter. If the party wants you gone, the party will find a way to get rid of you EVEN IF square disables voting entirely. Take the loss and find someone else if you're unwelcome in a party; you'll have a better time and won't waste some poor csr's time.
Don't feed trolls and they'll eventually starve.
Interesting recap of our conversation, however taking the position not caring if you are kicked from a party is pretty out there and I wanted to make sure I was understanding you correctly. If you feel this way its fine, but telling others that they should feel the same as you isn't. If OP wants to be upset about being kicked from a party improperly, she has every right to be. Just as you or anyone else has every right not to be.
But you are leaving out what started the discussion between the two of us. I stated that people were defending the action (and currently in the thread someone is still defending the kick) and told op to let her voice be heard. Looking back through your previous posts in the thread I saw no direct defense of the kick so I was a bit perplexed. My point being is that something about my post bothered you enough to start a discussion about it, which I think may have come from a misconception that I was initially referring to something you said.
Again you still haven't understood the point I was making, I'll try to put it as plainly as possible. Not doing something about a problem, and being okay with a problem both give the same effect, they allow the problem to continue occurring.
Agreed. I'll look forward to more spirited discussions ;)