Vote kick needs to be adjusted

[Reynhart]

Now you know how people react when this happens.

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.

[Niwashi]

It works because it prevents a stalemate. It prevents a situation wherin both sides are yelling at eachother but neither side can gain the majority. It creates a situation where a majority CAN exist.

This is why one person - the reciever of the kick - does not get a vote. It makes it possible to say half the votes voted yes or no. It removes an artificial deadlock.

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.

With your suggestion, I could join a 4 man with a friend as DPS and afk.

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.

[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.

[Reynhart]

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.

The goal is not to be unckickable, it's to prevent other to kick anyone. You look at the problem from the wrong end.

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.

If people can't find a middle ground, yes, it's better than insulting each other, then create a zillionth thread about how anyone kicks all the time.

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.

So, we're talking about such tanks that 1) Lose threat and cry about it, 2) queue with a friend to be "unkickable", 3) waste their time and their friend's time just so they can play their diva 4) will go AFK, without being automatically kicked, while not caring about how you could be reported for that.
Your example is more situational than every PLD skill combined...and I don't know who your friends are, but if I ask mine to come with me just so I can be a jerk for 40 minutes without any repercussions and without providing any progress, they probably won't stay my friends for long...

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.

Yes, and GM have stated times and times that there will never be a repercussion because it's in the hands of the players.

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.

Hmm...no. Because you're in a duty, where other people will play with you. If you're a jerk and you pull a mob just to be in combat and then AFK, what do you think will happen ? The others will either let you die, or...I don't know...kill the mob, maybe ? Here, out of combat.

[KaitlanKela]

Regarding the majority issue. Think of it as being judged by a jury of your peers. You don't get a say when you're on trial, only the peers who have seen the evidence and testimony do. The only difference is that in the criminal justice system, you need 100% to convict because it errs on the side of letting the guilty go free as opposed to unintentionally imprisoning the innocent. In DF, it's not that critical, so a simple majority will do. 2/3. My gawd, in 4-man content the average run is 30 minutes. That's hardly a significant amount of time wasted to demand an overhaul to the system. It's not 100% fair and just all the time, but I think it's pretty apparent that it's efficiently balancing amount of effort on the part of SE and potential for abuse the way it is. So for the rare times it falls out against you, take a deep breath and move on. 99.9% chance you'll never see them again. If it's not rare...maybe you should ask yourself what you could be doing differently, hm?

[Niwashi]

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

Only in the case where there's no clear majority to indicate which side it is that should be removed. The only fair options in that case are to remove everyone or no one, so I can only think of a couple viable options for handling that situation:

1. the way I (and a few others) proposed, where it actually takes a real majority to kick someone, or
2. a system that starts with that genuine majority vote, but then detects if there's such a stalemate (perhaps once two votes have taken place with exact opposite 2:2 or 4:4 results) and just kicks everyone out as though those two failed kicks had been a successful vote abandon.

But the current version that just allows a kick to go through on a split vote based on nothing more than who initiates a vote first, does not meet that fairness test. It's as likely (or perhaps more likely) to kick out the more legitimate players trying to complete the duty as it is to kick the ones trolling it.

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.

But I wasn't discussing being unkickable. I was discussing the more important issue of having the power to kick someone else (and in that example doing it specifically as a form of griefing them).

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.

This part I agree with you on. If the GMs had stuck with only the reasons specified by the developers being allowed, this feature wouldn't have become the problem it is. It was their decision to allow things as vague as personal disagreements and playstyle differences that really turned it into the mess it is. (But that doesn't mean there aren't other problems with it, too.)

[Kaurie]

I think that the misuse of vote kick is muuuuuch smaller than it's correct use. It's really fine as is. There are not really many solutions, but you can always report.

If you're getting vote kicked a lot to the point that this warrants attention, then it's likely the problem lies with you.

[Reynhart]

Regarding the majority issue. Think of it as being judged by a jury of your peers.

By a jury of your peers that have absolutely no authority upon you.
And are also those that have a beef with tou.

Thus, shouldn't have the right to judge you.

[Niwashi]

Think of it as being judged by a jury of your peers. You don't get a say when you're on trial, only the peers who have seen the evidence and testimony do.

In a trial, your accuser doesn't get to vote with the jury, either. So here maybe they should exclude both the person initiating the kick and the person who might get kicked and just take the votes of the other 2 or 6 players.

[Duuude007]

Ya which is the ridiculous part and why this "vote kick because I feel like it" needs to be fixed, even the Gm I reported this to said that the entire situation was not handled properly. But yet it keeps happening and Duty Finder suffers from it.

A million times this. I warned them that making it this way would greatly increase the abuse but they did it anyway. The consequences of their decision haunt us to this day. It is time to reevaluate how easy it is for people to kick for no legitimate reason, and with no true consequences.