So votekick >abuse< is practically allowed?

[Rydia13]

As I have previously stated, this thread is about SE's general policy and the loophole that comes with it for abuse. Nothing else.
So there is really no point in trying to discredit me.

I'm not trying to discredit you, just sharing my opinion. I don't see it as a loophole though. As long as they didn't do it with malicious intent, ya know, just to be pricks, it's justifiable. It's an entire parties vote, If you got kicked for performance issues then make a learning pt and improve your game. People don't like wasting time.

I only ever kick people that refuse to learn or watch video. At the end of the day it's up to a vote. If most people don't want you there then you're out. They can verify if it was malicious behavior on their part or if it was due to your skill.

[Hikoko]

I'm not trying to discredit you, just sharing my opinion. I don't see it as a loophole though. As long as they didn't do it with malicious intent, ya know, just to be pricks, it's justifiable. It's an entire parties vote, If you got kicked for performance issues then make a learning pt and improve your game. People don't like wasting time.

There was no performance issue. That is the point I'm trying to make. You can make up reasons and because SE views it as legit.

[Rydia13]

There was no performance issue. That is the point I'm trying to make. You can make up reasons and because SE views it as legit.

You're aware that SE and GMs can check your chatlog right? So this whole "making up" nonesense won't work unless it's all done via some type of voice chat. That probably won't be the case though, not in a DF.

[Hikoko]

You're aware that SE and GMs can check your chatlog right?

I consider that basic knowledge of online services.

unless it's all done via some type of voice chat.

Because it's unheard of that partly premades groups use voice chat to communicate, right? In the OP I said that this problem exists with those groups in particular.

That probably won't be the case though, not in a DF.

No, not if people don't know another, but if the general practice is known, it might happen nevertheless. Is "might" not good enough?

being removed prior to looting/the agreement was broken, can be reported and something will come of it.

I don't know why people keep circling around this example. There are more and I have named a few.

Would it be ok with you if you got votekicked for a "Not on the same page" reason if there was one?

That's what is already happening. There is a difference between "refusal to play one's role", "incapability to play one's role" and "okay-ish and enough, but not enough for the rest of the group". The first one hinders the group to accomplish the duty, the latter "just" makes them invest more time into it, which they should've considered by entering the DF.

And since the latter is a legit reason by SE's rules, you can use that argument to votekick for whatever you want. This type of votekick abuse, and not the on-going discussion whether underperformers or "not on the same page"-players should be allowed to kick, is the problem I see and I have been wanting to point out.

that the majority feels does not coincide with their goals, or flat out hinders it.

And the majority defines what their goals are, and SE gives them the right to do it. However, the imaginery person being kicked did not agree to those unknown goals when queueing up via DF. How is that fair?
And please don't tell me "life ain't fair, nor is the game".

PS: As said above, this is still offtopic.

and that's how things work in a democracy.

Except in a democracy the majority is bound by rules which can be changed if an issue with those rules makes it necessary.
That's what I wanted to achieve, rules that aren't as vague and don't allow just any player to be kicked just because the group feels like it.
I see an issue with this policy in general, but - for the 100th time - the greater issue I see is this argument being used to bypass actual votekick abuse.

but you're probably gonna lose whatever battle is being fought.

No arguement here.


I consider the discussion finished, anyway. The majority of people rather discussed whether "being kicked for being terrible" is legit or not and the mod replied on that rather on the actual topic.
I didn't expect the thread to stay on-topic for all parts (it's a forum, after all), but I also didn't expect an arguement about British English and how MS Word functions. I know I should've known better.

If people think the policy is fine as it is, then we will see how it goes. I don't think it is, as it can cause the problems I pointed out multiple times, but people don't seem to think those are actual problems "because that doesn't happen".