What is kickable in df for different playstyles?

[Risvertasashi]

I can repose the GMs answers on this yet again but...

The only reason they have said that is invalid for kicking someone is specifically to disrupt their completion of the duty (i.e. griefing).

For virtually any other reason, you can kick them. Point by point:

- no tank/dps stances definitely can kick
- no cleric stance definitely can kick
- using cleric stance definitely can kick
- no songs/turrets definitely can kick
- using songs/turrets (whether necessary or not) definitely can kick
- mixing glamour a stretch, but perceiving language as offensive is a valid reason, so theoretically...
- no melds definitely can kick
- having bad melds definitely can kick
- only aoeing definitely can kick
- only single target definitely can kick
- taking a piece of gear someone asked for can kick IF you don't try to do it before the loot window has closed. Trying to stop someone from rolling on loot after completing a fight can be classed as grief tactics.
- taking a piece of gear no one asked for a stretch, but see above. Theoretical reasoning could be needing on gear under your current slot's ilvl.
- being a job no one liked a stretch, but no job crystal at 30+ is valid. I, personally, would not risk a GM's ire for kicking a sprout, however.
- not doing mechanics definitely can kick
- not doing mechanics optimally definitely can kick
- doing the mechanics properly definitely can kick

Lastly, it's worth noting that a fair bit is up to GM discretion. If they feel you're being abusive (i.e. chain kicking people for some of the more obscure reasons listed), you might still find yourself in hot water. However, the more common ones (i.e. kicking someone for using or not using cleric, for doing an optimized/unoptimized rotation, or anything where casual and minmax playstyles are likely to clash) are likely the safest.

But the official response is playstyle differences are a valid reason to kick. Griefing people (by the GM's perception, not yours) is not a valid reason.

[Kaethra]

Lastly, it's worth noting that a fair bit is up to GM discretion. If they feel you're being abusive (i.e. chain kicking people for some of the more obscure reasons listed), you might still find yourself in hot water.

I've never seen evidence this has been enforced. And how could it be?

You have a group of four. One gets booted. Lets just say it was for something heinous blatant ToS violation and crude. The act was a right click and vote dismiss. Followed by 2 others pressing agree. First up, the victim needs to make a report. Who do they report? You don't get to see who initiated the vote. So do they report the whole party, or who they 'think' initiated the vote?

GM reads it. How do they go about this? Punish all three members? I mean you bring up a good point. Habitual vote kickers might get action. But I have to ask this. Do we seriously have a running tally of who we vote kicked alongside all of those who made a report? That's a stretch.

In reality what probably happens is a GM looks at the chat log from the duty and sees if there is anything said that is a TOS violation. Unless people are cursing at one another. There's likely not going to be anything except two players having a disagreement. In which case the GM will determine the 'victim' of the report was kicked to end the argument, a valid reason for vote kick.

With that said, do NOT rely on GM reports to get justice for being kicked for a reason that is wrong. Its been this way since games introduced a vote kick feature.

[Risvertasashi]

I've never seen evidence this has been enforced. And how could it be?

And you never will, because GMs do not share punishments they hand out.

[alimdia]

With that said, do NOT rely on GM reports to get justice for being kicked for a reason that is wrong. Its been this way since games introduced a vote kick feature.

From the GM side I don't think the point is to get justice, but to make the affected person think they will get justice.

Anyone who sent a report will probably feel better after being told "it will be investigated and if a violation is found proper actions will be taken" even if they never know the outcome of that, and making people feel better is good for player retention.

[Kaethra]

From the GM side I don't think the point is to get justice, but to make the affected person think they will get justice.

Anyone who sent a report will probably feel better after being told "it will be investigated and if a violation is found proper actions will be taken" even if they never know the outcome of that, and making people feel better is good for player retention.

That's kind of the point I was getting across. Its a feel-good white lie. But dishonest. I don't like dishonesty. Its contrary to integrity.

[Alistaire]

woosh

You can't actually start a kick while there's loot in the pool. Facepalmed at the rest of your post, but felt you should know that.

[Risvertasashi]

You can't actually start a kick while there's loot in the pool. Facepalmed at the rest of your post, but felt you should know that.

The scenario where this might happen is after a fight has completed but before a chest was opened. And facepalm all you like, it's how the SE's policy is.