Tank entitlement vs group entitlement

[van_arn]

Umm... the examples you give for the WHM and the DPS are actually valid and acceptable reasons to kick those jobs respectively. The example you give of the tank is not a valid reason. You're attempting to shoehorn a "reason" that doesn't actually exist for purpose of your narrative.

In the WHM case, they are wasting significant amounts of time by going AFK constantly.
In the DPS case, they are wasting significant amounts of time by not completing the content in a timely manner.

But in the case of the tank you bring up, the tank isn't wasting significant time at all. Pulling single groups rather than mass pulling has been proven time and again to not have a significant affect on clear time. At best there is no difference in time, and at worst it's a few minutes slower (kinda like how people who speed 10 miles over the speed limit only gain about 2 minutes on average).

You are completely correct about your healer and dps examples, however.

Throw out the examples, then.

If two people in the party really hate your glamour -- perhaps they find it offensive -- you are kicked.

If two people recognize your name and want you gone, you are kicked.

If someone blindly clicks yes to a vote kick, you are kicked.

If you get hung up on justifications for this or that, you'll miss the more important fact of the matter: you are kicked, and Square is going to see that as the party didn't want you there. That, in itself, carries more weight than any sort of rule Square can put up on their TOS. They cannot force people to want to play together.

[Kaedan]

If you get hung up on justifications for this or that, you'll miss the more important fact of the matter: you are kicked, and Square is going to see that as the party didn't want you there. That, in itself, carries more weight than any sort of rule Square can put up on their TOS. They cannot force people to want to play together.

If SE determines that the reason for kicking the person is an abusive one, they can and have warned and banned people for abusing the kick system. This "SE doesn't have the right to..." BS is just that. SE has every right if they think it breaks their ToS.

Calling your bluff on that. Any incidence where you've heard of people getting actioned had been down to harassment in chat, not the kick itself.

It's not a bluff. My cousin works for SE's CS. She has told me about quite a few cases where people have been warned/banned for abusing the kick feature (kicking without valid reason), among other reasons people get banned. Kicking without a valid reason is and of itself considered harassment by SE's CS.

[van_arn]

If SE determines that the reason for kicking the person is an abusive one, they can and have warned and banned people for abusing the kick system. This "SE doesn't have the right to..." BS is just that. SE has every right if they think it breaks their ToS.



It's not a bluff. My cousin works for SE's CS. She has told me about quite a few cases where people have been warned/banned for abusing the kick feature (kicking without valid reason), among other reasons people get banned. Kicking without a valid reason is and of itself considered harassment by SE's CS.

If this is true, and I have no reason to believe it is anything more than "my dad works at Nintendo" then it's so rare as to be insignificant compared to the vast majority of cases.