Vote kick needs to be adjusted

[Eidolon]

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

[MeiUshu]

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.

[Erendis]

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.

[MaethusXion]

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

Nope, only if it succeeds

[Devils_Lawyer]

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.

[Ashkendor]

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.

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.

[Reynhart]

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".

[Eidolon]

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.

[ServerCollaps]

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

[Niwashi]

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.