Vote kick needs to be adjusted

[Eidolon]

It doesn't remove an artificial deadlock, it creates an artificial majority when there really isn't one. If it took a majority, there could only be one majority. The way it runs now, there can be two different opposing views that are BOTH treated as being the majority. That's totally counter to the whole concept of what a majority is. There's no such thing as a deadlock in a vote that requires a majority. Either there is a majority or there isn't. Sometimes there isn't one, and that just means the vote didn't pass. Well... anywhere but here that is. Here, instead we just pretend the vote passed even though it didn't have a majority at all.

It does. It is impossible to get an artificial deadlock in the current system. There will never be a time where you will get 4/4 constantly, outside of people abstaining from a vote. Because it's 3 or 7 people, there is a garunteed majority and there will be no deadlocks

However, under your proposed system, players can wind up deadlocked and unable to remove one another. You have effectively removed the ability to remove people, or to spam it until someone gets sick of seeing it and just votes out one of the people that are being spammed to break the stalemate.

As opposed to now, when it's even worse. You can join with a friend and have total control to kick out whoever gets grouped with you for no reason except to grief them.

Incorrect. You can join and have the ability to kick someone if you choose, yes.

But the other two people can still kick one of you. You have to join with 2 people(EDIT FOR Clarification: You have to have a total of 3 people, 2+yourslef) in the current system to be garunteed to be unkickable.

For now, people react like "You're an asshole, I'll just kick you and keep on with my rude comments" because they can go away with it. IF you could end in a deadlock, they wouldn't have much options :

• They keep bitching on each other and just waste their time. If no one manage to calm down, you could just leave, because it would always be better to wait before a new duty that may be fun than going on with a toxic duty.
• They realize that this will go nowhere and decide to be smart enough to stop wasting their own time.

So, in fact, allowing a deadlock can push people to stop being idiots instead of giving them the right to do so without any repercussion.

To go back on the GM part, they can't do much for now because the rules of kicking are a blurry mess. If you can call a GM because someone is purposely screwing the duty, during the duty, it will solve the problem far quicker. And if people "leave the duty" or "log out" in fear of the report, then you're not 4 anymore and you can have your majority. Besides, the fact that people can be reported for that with real consequences, is often enough to calm people down.

Oh, and I'd also put an automatic withdraw if the party is out of combat for 10 minutes.

Yeap. For now, people are capable of removing one another, and fixing an issue wherin people can be caught in the crossheirs of an artificial deadlock and/or a stagnated party. Matter of fact, your system would punish people far worst than a simple boot and reque.

For your first bullet:
Great. Someone has to leave, so they eat a 30 minute timer thanks to you. They dont' get the option to just reque. Great way to get collatoral damage while trying to fix the system.

For your second point: Do you even play the same game? This is a game where we constantly have complaints about tanks that will, if they lose threat to a DPS, throw a fit and take a seat and say "Fine you tank" and then go afk and make a sandwhich in their prissy fit. Taking the power out of the players hands to resolve the party's dispute is bad. Creating the (as the other player put it) artificial majority is better because it prevents such scenarios as the one you seem to want to create.

...

I think the bigger issue here, that you're overlooking, is that in the current system there is no reprimand for abuse. There is no repurcussions if I choose to kick someone for an arbitrary reason. Matter of fact, if I don't say anything and I kick someone, it doesn't matter what the reason was - there's no way to substantiate anything.

The more grey area of the current system creates that issue. If we create solid rules, there would be a better system. If we create solid punishments for being a scumbag, we would have a better system.

But stop trying to change the system for the worst because of the lack of repurcussions.

...

Your idea of a 10 mintue auto-withdraw 'if not in combat' is so easily worked around. All you have to do is pull a mob and even if you die, "I was in combat!" group's still stuck. Unless you're talking about a player that's just afk'ing. But let's face it - your idea to make it so someone is kicked for not being in combat for 10 minutes is still futile, because all the player has to do is walk up and auto attack the enemy.