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

[Zojha]

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.

Say I wanted to troll you and invite two friends. As it is right now, you have no recourse except to leave and eat a 30 minute penalty. You can't kick me because I have the majority. 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?

Logical consequence: There should not even be a vote to kick, you should simply be allowed to kick without voting at all.

Yeah... no. The issue is plain and simple that parties have an even number of players. There is no just way to democratically resolve a tie other than getting a third party to weigh in or convince the other side. Anything else clashes with democratic principles. And you can either accept that the current system simply is unjust and live with that, or try and change it by adding an impartial tiebreaker system, such as flipping a coin and randomly kicking either everyone who voted for, or everyone who voted against. Or, get a fifth man in there.

[SigmaOZ]

A simple solution for this is to punish everyone in the party with the 30 minutes penalty, regardless of whom starts a vote dismiss, whom is kicked from the duty and whom remains in the duty!...

This way everyone shares the pain and that's surely to discourage abuse, the dismissed player would be the first to wait for 30 minutes for the Duty Finder to open, the remaining players would be hit with the penalty upon finishing their current duty!...

[Bourne_Endeavor]

snip

While not untrue, I can actively prevent such an occurrence by bringing a friend myself. Not to mention, it's far less likely three people will gather just to troll one person in DF. The proposed allows no recourse whatsoever. If I bring a friend, we're deadlocked and someone has to eat a penalty. So now I need three people to lock them out. Basically, it's a choice between very rarely having to deal with a scenario of three people trolling. A majority system makes sense. The occasional abuse doesn't change that.

A simple solution for this is to punish everyone in the party with the 30 minutes penalty, regardless of whom starts a vote dismiss, whom is kicked from the duty and whom remains in the duty!...

This way everyone shares the pain and that's surely to discourage abuse, the dismissed player would be the first to wait for 30 minutes for the Duty Finder to open, the remaining players would be hit with the penalty upon finishing their current duty!...

... this has to be the worst idea I've ever heard. You are punished for vote dismissing a troll, could receive a penalty if someone arbitrarily kicks you for giggles or for literally nothing at all if you lose the majority vote. What happens if I say, unexpectedly dc? Hooray! Everyone gets locked out of DF for 30 minutes for absolutely no reason!

[SigmaOZ]

...

I knew someone would be the first to reject the idea and that most people oppose doesn't mean it's a bad solution, it's just that not everyone is willing to put up with it!...

I am aware of trolls, healers that would just run around like brainless zombies ignoring the whole party and doing whatever they want, like that many other cases and the only solution would be to submit a short comment about the reasons for vote dismissing such troublesome players!...

It's either that or an absolute majority, 3/4 or 5/8 players although the latter wouldn't prevent abuse in case of allied players against a single victim!...

[Miste]

I knew someone would be the first to reject the idea and that most people oppose doesn't mean it's a bad solution

It's a bad solution because it is worse than the system we have now.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

I knew someone would be the first to reject the idea and that most people oppose doesn't mean it's a bad solution, it's just that not everyone is willing to put up with it!...

All your solution accomplishes is making things worse. How about a third option: don't touch what isn't broken. The amount of vote kick abuse is decidedly small. Nothing needs to be fixed.

[Enla]

All your solution accomplishes is making things worse. How about a third option: don't touch what isn't broken. The amount of vote kick abuse is decidedly small. Nothing needs to be fixed.

I'm of the same mind. At most I would be fine with seeing the ability to report people for suspected vote kick abuse, but beyond that every solution I've seen just seems to make things more complicated or worse in the long run. Especially as in over 4k hours I've legit never been subjected to this, and neither have any in my FC to my knowledge. It's not so rampant of a problem that we need to do reconstructive surgery when a bandaid will do the job just fine.

[Draxis_Fallspear]

This....already exists. At least if you are going to claim the system needs changes you should know what is already available to you before you do so.

I'm not sure why your reply is so condescending, but that wasn't necessary.

That being said, working in software dev, it's not the user's fault if your UI doesn't make it clear that options exist. If I don't know how to find it, or worse don't know it exists; that's on the devs, actually.

And if they DO have a system where they can analyze outliers and automatically issue warnings, why is it that the situation seems to have gotten worse? I don't remember seeing this many complaints before they introduced partial party queuing for duties. There are clearly players who have found loopholes in the system and are abusing them. They do not seem to be penalized since the reports of this behaviour are increasing, not decreasing.

I would actually be curious to know what the churn incidence is for someone who was needlessly kicked. I suspect that their amount of play diminishes and there's a percentage that actually does come back anyway and that less engaged players actually just quit.

[SigmaOZ]

I'm glad we can blacklist players from other worlds now!...

If only that was enough!...

[Snow_Princess]

I do not like the vote system because people have a tendency of "deal with it" I had a tank stressing me out by not holding hate and talking too much damage and I was the one to be blamed because "only one monster" (it was 2, I even used a macro for both of them to get them off me and that was ignored for both) so I was struggling to heal myself and the tank and we had 2 wipes over the run, with me using dissipation twice.

So why are people free to play stress the healer and blame the healer for it because they can't see? maybe just make tanking easier? I don't know.

Today I had a leveling blm in vault with subpar gear (lot of NQ, and NQ gear performance is way below the displayed ilevel) the big though was having a NQ weapon. So my MP was stressed so i asked for manashift. I did not get it and they where lagging behind a bit (not connection, but not running to us, like they where doing something else while playing) So after the first boss I asked, do you know NQ weapons are very bad and that drop weapon or HQ is so much better. Said something of the likes of not caring because it was a leveling df. I said well I care because you are stressing my MP. He said something about relax more so I put up the vote to kick him because I was not going to carry someone with that kind of attitude, and it passed. I guess been too much to ask for a proper aoe rotation too like actually using thunder II and flare, but as said h acted like he was doing something else because "iot is only leveling" I shouldn't have to stress heal because someone is not caring.