Is the vote kick system improperly implemented for how it's actually being used?

[XiXiQ]

it makes perfect sense that whoever is the subject of the vote should be voting as well. They are part of the group just as much as the others.

[Rokke]

it makes perfect sense that whoever is the subject of the vote should be voting as well. They are part of the group just as much as the others.

Unless a person is asking to be kicked so they don't have the penalty, who on earth is going to willingly vote themselves out?

Allowing all players to vote is beyond stupid. You're essentially forcing a party to stay together.

[XiXiQ]

Unless a person is asking to be kicked so they don't have the penalty, who on earth is going to willingly vote themselves out?

Allowing all players to vote is beyond stupid. You're essentially forcing a party to stay together.

That's the point. There are 4 in the party, not 3. Why disenfranchise one of them? if it's down to a 2-2 split, that's democracy for you.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

That's the point. There are 4 in the party, not 3. Why disenfranchise one of them? if it's down to a 2-2 split, that's democracy for you.

Because they are the target of the vote. No democracy allows you to vote for or against yourself.

[Sylvina]

Because they are the target of the vote. No democracy allows you to vote for or against yourself.

Cough, US elections Cough.

[XiXiQ]

Because they are the target of the vote. No democracy allows you to vote for or against yourself.

You're joking, right? ALL democracies allow you to vote for yourself. You've not seen the PMs and Presidents out casting their votes come election day? No-one is disenfranchised for being involved.

[Jijifli]

You're joking, right? ALL democracies allow you to vote for yourself. You've not seen the PMs and Presidents out casting their votes come election day? No-one is disenfranchised for being involved.

Technically you auto vote yourself into no.

[XiXiQ]

Technically you auto vote yourself into no.

technically how?

[Evumeimei]

Because they are the target of the vote. No democracy allows you to vote for or against yourself.

But in the case where the party is perfectly split in terms of opinions, the issue arises where the first person to resort to using vote dismiss has a clear advantage. In the example of wanting big/small pulls with a 50/50 split, is there really even a good reason to vote kick someone?

They need to adjust it to be a majority of the total party number. 2 people should not decide for a group of 4 that they want to remove someone, especially not so then they can just abandon the last person without any penalty. It should be 3 yes votes and at least 5 in a party of 8.

Exactly. It should require 3 out of 4 members to agree on the vote dismiss for it to go through.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

But in the case where the party is perfectly split in terms of opinions, the issue arises where the first person to resort to using vote dismiss has a clear advantage. In the example of wanting big/small pulls with a 50/50 split, is there really even a good reason to vote kick someone?

Exactly. It should require 3 out of 4 members to agree on the vote dismiss for it to go through.

And? The other person is promptly free to leave themselves if they deem the vote kick unjustified. Allowing the accused party to weigh in virtually guarantees you will always deadlock, thus defeating the system entirely. Say I wanted to troll you and invite a friend. With your proposal, you have no recourse except to leave and eat a 30 minute penalty. You can't kick me since the vote will be split. If I were subtle and did something like spam Blizzard, any report you make to a GM will be waved aside under the "playstyle" argument.

At this point, why even have a vote kick option at all?