DPS is the job of DPS.

[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.

[TaranTatsuuchi]

For some reason, the differing playstyles excuse just kind of rubs me the wrong way...


I have no alternative for the situation...
But, it just seems off having to kick someone stating some tos breaking reason when it's not true, or having someone claim that of you.

[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.

[Miste]

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.

So why is majority okay for non-speedrun, but not okay for speedruns then?

One play style has some kind of advantage? Why?

If you want to go slow, it is okay to force everyone else to adjust to you.....but if a group wants to go fast then no one has to adjust for that and they have to adjust to the slow person even if the majority of the group wants to go fast so 3 versus 1?

Why is there a double standard? People who like fast runs always have to adjust to people who want to go slow, but when the other side of the coin happens people who prefer slow runs don't have to adjust to people who prefer fast even if they have majority in the group??

I just don't know, something smells fishy here, like hypocritical style fish.

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"

Despite what you think about differing play styles kicks, SE doesn't agree with you and they don't see it as a violation otherwise people would be punished for it. Since people are not punished for it then it is not a violation. Your opinion on it doesn't make it truth. Truth is unless SE starts punishing people it is not a violation.

[Reynhart]

No. It shouldn't. If I bring up a vote to kick someone from a job, I'm not counting their vote.

This is not how majority works, and you can't brush it off when you're dealing with such small groups. It's not as if 100 people try to kick 1 and they always end up at exactly 50%.

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.

Problem is, even with a log blatantly showing how the reason is really stupid, SE will never state if this is a valid reason or not nor if they'll do an investigation. And you can always go into different playstyle territry to explain justify a kick.

One play style has some kind of advantage? Why?

As long as you match the Duty Finder expectation (min ilvl, language), you're in your right. If you want any additional requirement, like higher ilvl, speedrunning, a specific job, no first-timers, etc...you use the party finder.