DPS is the job of DPS.

[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".

[Paladinleeds]

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

No. It shouldn't. If I bring up a vote to kick someone from a job, I'm not counting their vote. You're the one being referred to for being fired, your vote will not count. Period dot. Now if your co-workers vouch for you and say "Yes, we'd like to keep this person", then yes, that's OK, we take that into account. But not the person being put through the process of potential impeachment. That'll always be how I do things, and if I recall correctly, how most businesses that do these things via vote do it too.

[MoroMurasaki]

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.

I feel like there is no way for you to know these things and so to state them as facts instead of your own theories is sort of intellectually dishonest. You may be right though, the issue still remains though that you can't doubt the validity of these kinds of kicks because in the eyes of the people responsible for saying "is this okay?" the answer has been a resounding "yes" so the support for this comes not only from players but from SE themselves.

If your job decided tomorrow that it was okay to fire people for wearing a red shirt and you wore a red shirt and were fired for it.... Well, you knew the rule, didn't you? Sure, maybe there isn't any harm in wearing a red shirt but in the end the company made a judgment call.

In terms of the majority thing I see it as a majority - the perpetrator of a crime doesn't get a vote on the jury after all.