DPS is the job of DPS.

[Reynhart]

And because the GMs view "differences in play styles" as a valid reason for vote kick, your group has every right to remove you, no matter if your way of playing is "correct" or not.

The difference is not a valid reason for kicking, it's an excuse to not having to investigate every kick. The valid reasons are explicitely stated in the kick window.

My example didn't use 2 people though, my examples were 3 against 1. 2v2

According to the vote kick 2 vs 2 is a majority for vote kick so it's the same.

If you have the expectation to go into DF and do whatever you want and not get kicked despite what the 3 other people might want then, you also have the option to build your own party. That is a hypocritical argument.

What's hypocrite is you phrasing it like having no expectations is an expectation. When I go into DF, I'll do with whatever I'm matched with, or I take responsibility and leave, unless it clearly violates one of the 4 explicit reason for kicking someone.

So, you don't want to adjust your playstyle for your party, but instead have your party adjust for you? Hmm.

I'll adjust my playstyle based on my analysis and understanding. If I know the healer is not comfortable with mass pulling, or the party setup is very weak when its comes to AoE, I won't do a speedrun just because someone doesn't want to spend 5 more minutes in a dungeon.

[Miste]

What's hypocrite is you phrasing it like having no expectations is an expectation. When I go into DF, I'll do with whatever I'm matched with, or I take responsibility and leave, unless it clearly violates one of the 4 explicit reason for kicking someone.

So if you go tank in a dungeon and the 3 others in there ask you to do big pulls and you don't want to, do you leave then so they can get a tank willing to compromise? Or do you take the sacrifice and adjust even if it isn't what you personally want to do?

If you had no expectations then you should not expect not to get kicked if 3 people want the run to go one way and you stubbornly refuse to adjust to majority (which you openly said you do not have to adjust your playstyle to majority). The fact that you have the expectation not to ever get kicked for differing playstyles is an expectation. So you are wrong that you have "no expectations" so no that is not being hypocrite....since you do have an expectation.

[Reynhart]

So if you go tank in a dungeon and the 3 others in there ask you to do big pulls and you don't want to, do you leave then so they can get a tank willing to compromise? Or do you take the sacrifice and adjust even if it isn't what you personally want to do?

I'll explain to them why I won't do a speedrun, and if they don't understand, they'll have to deal with it or make a team with additionnal requirement. But, on the other hand, if I want a speedrun and the party won't handle it because of the tank or the healer (depending of the job I queued with), I'll either leave or deal with a slow run.

The fact that you have the expectation not to ever get kicked for differing playstyles is an expectation.

No, it's a violation of valid kick reason, that SE just don't want to investigate. If they ever add "Different Playstyle" in the kick window, I'll tak the kick without an issue...but it's the same as blatantly saying "kick all you wan't, we won't monitor it"

[Sebazy]

No, it's a violation of valid kick reason, that SE just don't want to investigate. If they ever add "Different Playstyle" in the kick window, I'll take the kick without an issue...but it's the same as blatantly saying "kick all you wan't, we won't monitor it"

It's pretty doubtful they have the GM manpower to sit there and monitor all vote kicks TBH, they'd be sat there looking at Rabanastre runs all night long

Seriously though, if you ask to be kicked, the group does so and then someone reports that, you will get a temp ban for doing so. Whereas if you get kicked over a difference of play styles and that gets reported, the GMs will not take any action over it as long as both parties were civil. SE's willingness to investigate doesn't come into this.

[Cakekizyy]

It's pretty doubtful they have the GM manpower to sit there and monitor all vote kicks TBH, they'd be sat there looking at Rabanastre runs all night long

Seriously though, if you ask to be kicked, the group does so and then someone reports that, you will get a temp ban for doing so. Whereas if you get kicked over a difference of play styles and that gets reported, the GMs will not take any action over it as long as both parties were civil. SE's willingness to investigate doesn't come into this.

I would assume they only monitor if there is a report.

[MoroMurasaki]

I'll explain to them why I won't do a speedrun, and if they don't understand, they'll have to deal with it or make a team with additionnal requirement. But, on the other hand, if I want a speedrun and the party won't handle it because of the tank or the healer (depending of the job I queued with), I'll either leave of deal with a slow run.

No, it's a violation of valid kick reason, that SE just don't want to investigate. If they ever add "Different Playstyle" in the kick window, I'll tak the kick without an issue...but it's the same as blatantly saying "kick all you wan't, we won't monitor it"

It seems to me you don't necessarily understand the overwhelming support for "different playstyle" kicks that has been expressed by GMs. Your argument hinges on this idea that this isn't a valid reason to kick someone yet SE as a company (the people who literally make and enforce the rules) have expressed on numerous occasions that you are wrong.

Different playstyle kicks are as valid as any other kicks, if you're playing in such a way that inconvences the rest of the group (like, say, a single pul tank in expert dungeons) you can't be that angry if this happens because not only are you aware of the majority of the playerbase preferring speed(ier) runs but your group would likely communicate with you about their request before kicking you.

I say all this as someone that's virtually never actually had to use this reason for a kick. As a healer specifically I can usually coax a tank into trying bigger puls if I assure them I will be able to keep us alive. Quite a few have thanked me for it. I swear I'm not some kickhappy troll.

[Reynhart]

It seems to me you don't necessarily understand the overwhelming support for "different playstyle" kicks that has been expressed by GMs. Your argument hinges on this idea that this isn't a valid reason to kick someone yet SE as a company (the people who literally make and enforce the rules) have expressed on numerous occasions that you are wrong.

That's just an oversight on SE, like in a lot of other systems. They set a specific set of objective rules for using the kick system and expect their playerbase to respect them.
And when people used it in subjective situations, they realized that they wouldn't have the manpower to deal with it, and create the general response of "SOrry, can't do anything, different playstyle", that can technically covers any kick situation that didn't end in insult-fest.

The simple fact you don't actually need real majority is another oversight.

[Taika]

And when people used it in subjective situations, they realized that they wouldn't have the manpower to deal with it, and create the general response of "SOrry, can't do anything, different playstyle", that can technically covers any kick situation that didn't end in insult-fest.

In other words, they made the decision to allow players kicking others because they don't want to play with them for whatever reason (aka playstyle differences) as long as the players doing the kicking aren't breaking any rules (harassing the player they're kicking or similar). You're arguing semantics, but the result is the same: removing a player because their playstyle (or glamour or name or whatever) conflicts with the rest of the party is 100% acceptable in the game.

[Paladinleeds]

The simple fact you don't actually need real majority is another oversight.

So, we have 1 person with the possibility of being impeached, so we discount their vote from it (naturally). That means you need 2 out of 3, or 4 out of 7. Looks like a real majority to me. Since both add up to over 50% of the vote being swung for kicking the person, that's a majority. I'm looking at it from the perspective of simple mathematics here.

[Reynhart]

So, we have 1 person with the possibility of being impeached, so we discount their vote from it (naturally).

No, this should be counted as an automatic "No' like the one initiating the vote is counted as an automatic "Yes".