So votekick >abuse< is practically allowed?

[Mardel]

And that's the very attitude that should get people banned from the game. There are tools in place for dealing with situations where the group cannot complete the content, or even where you simply don't want to complete it with that group. SNIP

It's not the type of attitude that is the hindrance. It's the people who aren't putting forth any effort to improve themselves. I can recall a time in Halitali hard where a bard was only using straight shot. I asked kindly if they'd use dots + buffs because it wasn't fair for the whole party giving their all. They ignored first time, asked again, they got angry and said something along the lines of don't tell me how to play (that was the last thing they got to say before i vote kicked.)

Sometimes people need to be kicked for being super bad, end of story.

[cookiecutter]

I remember I had a pgl in normal halatali that would only spam touch of death. By that time I was pretty used to 3 manning all the lower end content so I just let it slide. I also thought it was funny cuz I bet that guy was wondering why the enemy wasn't dying instantly.

[Alukah]

It's NOT what vote-kick is for.

Do you work for SE? If not, what makes you think you can decide how this tool can be used? What makes you think your word weights more than a GM's, who already explained their criteria of when it's not okay to vote kick? Why should a party restart a whole dungeon just because one person decided that they don't care about your help and you shouldn't tell them how to play?

[LunaHoshino]

There are tools in place for dealing with situations where the group cannot complete the content, or even where you simply don't want to complete it with that group. That's what Leave and Vote Abandon are for.

I'm sorry, but if three people are able and willing to complete the content but cannot because one person is holding them back for whatever reason, why should those three players be forced to leave or vote abandon?

Just the other day I was helping an FC mate through story mode Garuda. It was me, said person (who had done the fight on another server and knew how it went), another person from our FC, and a healer who was running it for the first time. We explained the fight to the healer, offered to answer their questions, and were prepared for a few wipes. But a few wipes turned into nearly a dozen because this person just did not learn the mechanics no matter how many times we explained it to them, marked where they should be standing, etc. We eventually ran out of time without managing to complete the fight all because of that one person.

We were nice and didn't kick them, but we would have been more than justified in doing so. They were the sole reason we were unable to complete the duty-- when we got a friend to run it with us, we one-shotted it.

[Nabiri]

Late to the thread but just stopping in to add my opinion.

If there are going to be alternate reasons than those listed in the game for vote dismissing people, then I would really like to see those reasons added to the game. "Harassment," just doesn't fit for some things.
I would at least like to have options such as "Disruptive behaviour," added. That alone could cover a lot more, and would make more sense in some cases.

[Krr]

I'm sorry, but if three people are able and willing to complete the content but cannot because one person is holding them back for whatever reason, why should those three players be forced to leave or vote abandon?

Yes, because it's your own fault for using Duty Finder instead of a strict Party Finder if you are that obsessed with getting a clear (or multiple clears.)

[Alukah]

Late to the thread but just stopping in to add my opinion.

If there are going to be alternate reasons than those listed in the game for vote dismissing people, then I would really like to see those reasons added to the game. "Harassment," just doesn't fit for some things.
I would at least like to have options such as "Disruptive behaviour," added. That alone could cover a lot more, and would make more sense in some cases.

I agree, it makes no sense they don't add extra options or a text box for a custom reason.

[Amelia_Pond_Behemoth]

What's the difference between harassment and disruptive behavior?

[Sakuraluna]

Late to the thread but just stopping in to add my opinion.

If there are going to be alternate reasons than those listed in the game for vote dismissing people, then I would really like to see those reasons added to the game. "Harassment," just doesn't fit for some things.
I would at least like to have options such as "Disruptive behaviour," added. That alone could cover a lot more, and would make more sense in some cases.

I like the "disruptive behavior" idea, or if they just add in "differences in playstyle", but with a disclaimer that differences in playstyle for df wouldn't cover unrealistic expectations of the other party members' gear or experience. Or something of that sort.

[LunaHoshino]

Yes, because it's your own fault for using Duty Finder instead of a strict Party Finder if you are that obsessed with getting a clear (or multiple clears.)

It was Garuda Normal, not Garuda EX. People shouldn't have to use PF to find players who are competent enough to be able to beat a required story battle in 90 minutes.