Tank entitlement vs group entitlement

[Mavrias]

Go ahead and please provide a source where it is stated the kick feature is used for this purpose.

there's three messages from gm's.

[Lilseph]

there's three messages from gm's.

Is this one recent? after the ToS change? I've been trying to get a reply from the GMs but I get nothing but automated messages that say nothing.

[Mavrias]

Is this one recent? after the ToS change? I've been trying to get a reply from the GMs but I get nothing but automated messages that say nothing.

nope that ones from ye olde heavensward times.

[Lilseph]

nope that ones from ye olde heavensward times.

I'll keep trying to get an updated response, because this debate is completely endless. This, in order to prevent issues with people removing others from DF that don't align with their playstyle (And that applies for both sides).

[Physic]

I'll keep trying to get an updated response, because this debate is completely endless. This, in order to prevent issues with people removing others from DF that don't align with their playstyle (And that applies for both sides).

i agree this should be made way more clear, one way or the other, however i dont think they will answer it, because they want their actions, or non actions to be always justifiable.

They dont want to commit to more oversight that costs money, and they dont want people to be too comfortable kicking, because that is destructive to DF.

[Feidam]

I'll keep trying to get an updated response, because this debate is completely endless. This, in order to prevent issues with people removing others from DF that don't align with their playstyle (And that applies for both sides).

I agree this is needed.

[Gemina]

there's three messages from gm's.

These messages do not provide anything I asked for. These are merely responses from GM in relation to reports. I asked you to provide sources that specifically states that the vote dismiss feature is used to remove a member from the group that does not perform to the standards of the group. I also asked you to provide a source that specifically states that jobs are required to do more in party play other than what I have provided in my source, i.e. large pulls, healers DPSing. You haven't done any of those.

The first response just states that they are going to look into the matter, and lets this person know that the four reasons listed for dismissal are not every possible reason to justify use of the vote dismiss feature. It actually goes both ways, and is stated to protect SE should they decide punish a player for reasons that are not specifically stated in the vote dismiss feature.

The second response states why a GM is unable to take action based on player dispute. To add further, you also need to understand that GM's don't really have much power other than being an in-game moderator. They cannot take action based on player dispute because they are instructed not to by their superiors. This does not mean that action cannot be taken against you. It just can't happen from a GM.

The third response simply shows that SE acknowledges that this is happening, and due to policies revolved around privacy, they cannot share the outcome of their investigation. Since this one differs from the first response in that matter; more than likely action was taken against the reported offender. This report definitely does not help your case. Like at all.

Another thing is SE is skating on pretty thin ice here, but not with group members choosing to kick players; it's actually with those being kicked. Someone with the right lawyer and enough money could take SE to court for a failure to enforce rules and policies resulting in a non-compliance with their ToS. If we ever see the information I provided in my source changed to something like, "All matters to the vote kick feature will be thoroughly investigated. Abuse of this system will NOT be tolerated." It would likely mean that someone did, or it was settled because SE's reputation was put on the line. If we ever see this, it will empower the GM's to take action.

Think of all the people in this thread who would love to take action against those who feel players are abusing this feature. Do you want to believe that no GMs out there feel like they do?

[Mavrias]

These messages do not provide anything I asked for.

look, man, if you'd rather cherrypick than use basic reading comprehension, thats on you not on me. you asked for where i saw differing playstles and where it said the party is allowed to remove other players they dont wish to play with and i gave it to you. heck, the third one literally says verbatim "this feature is in place for a party to collectively decide whom they wish to play with."

personally, i dont really care what those players think. they can report at their leisure if they get kicked, if something happens as a result then it happens. but in my personal experience it doesn't.

my entire stance in this near 50 page thread is "if the party doesnt want to play with you, they dont have to. if they ask you to try something and youre unwilling to attempt it, you shouldnt be surprised that they may decide to kick you." youre applying weird motivations to me that i havent said. never said anything about requiring healer dps and honesty havent said anything about big pulls other than in the OP's context (which again boils down to working with your party if theyre asking you to do so).

[Physic]

look, man, if you'd rather cherrypick than use basic reading comprehension, thats on you not on me. you asked for where i saw differing playstles and where it said the party is allowed to remove other players they dont wish to play with and i gave it to you. heck, the third one literally says verbatim "this feature is in place for a party to collectively decide whom they wish to play with."

personally, i dont really care what those players think. they can report at their leisure if they get kicked, if something happens as a result then it happens. but in my personal experience it doesn't.

my entire stance in this near 50 page thread is "if the party doesnt want to play with you, they dont have to. if they ask you to try something and youre unwilling to attempt it, you shouldnt be surprised that they may decide to kick you." youre applying weird motivations to me that i havent said. never said anything about requiring healer dps and honesty havent said anything about big pulls other than in the OP's context (which again boils down to working with your party if theyre asking you to do so).

thing is, you said that was an old response, the new TOS says that even talking about forcing a playstyle maybe actionable, so kicking for playstyle may not be a thing anymore. i'll look for the quotes, sec.

■Nuisance behaviour
"Nuisance behaviour" means speech or behaviour that hurts others or obstructs game play, but which is not classified as harassment. Even if it was not the intention, a penalty may be imposed if the end result was that another person was hurt or obstructed.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of nuisance behaviour:

◆Offensive expression
"Offensive expression" means an expression in general that inflicts emotional distress by being offensive to another person. Offensive expression may include:

・Aggressive expressions such as violent language/slander/insult/threat.
・Expressions that provoke or belittle another person, such as excessive criticism, negation/ridicule
・Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another person
・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion
・Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive
・Expressions that compel a playing style
・Expressions that attempt to unilaterally exclude someone from the game or content/community, etc.
(Except when in accordance with rules set by an administrator such as a Free Company Master)
・Expressions that contravene public order and morals
・Other expressions that are offensive to another person

so, expressions that compel a playingstyle are nuisance behavior, which if it is found to be extremely hurtful, or obstructive can lead to action.

here they explain some obstructive behavior, which on its own is actionable.

◆Obstruction of play
"Obstruction of play" means all behaviour in general that obstructs another person's game play. Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of obstruction of play:

・Spamming
This means using chat (including Quick Chat and Emote) to obstruct another person's conversation, or obstruct the use of mog letters, etc., for example, by sending an excessive number of unnecessary items in mog letters, etc. Even if obstruction was not the objective of the behaviour, it may be deemed a violation if another player is actually obstructed by the behaviour.

・Obstructing transit/progress
This means obstructive behaviour such as group blocking of passages or facilities along which many players pass or obstructing another person's game play progress, for example by overlapping an important NPC deliberately for a long time.

・Improper expulsion voting
This means excluding another person by manipulation of expulsion voting.

・Intentional leaving or disconnection
This means obstructing another person's game play by intentionally leaving the game or disconnecting from the server.

・Other obstruction of play
This means all other behaviour that deliberately obstructs another person's game play by some means.

i think kicking someone from an instance is on par, especially if leaving the party can be seen as obstructive.

seems the gms probably needed more in the TOS to cover them taking action.


also id like to point out, premades in discord kicking some guy to get their discord guy in, is pretty much manipulation of expulsion voting. Which is one reading of the story in the OP.

[Mavrias]

thing is, you said that was an old response, the new TOS says that even talking about forcing a playstyle maybe actionable, so kicking for playstyle may not be a thing anymore. i'll look for the quotes, sec.






so, expressions that compel a playingstyle are nuisance behavior, which if it is found to be extremely hurtful, or obstructive can lead to action.

here they explain some obstructive behavior, which on its own is actionable.




i think kicking someone from an instance is on par, especially if leaving the party can be seen as obstructive.

seems the gms probably needed more in the TOS to cover them taking action.


also id like to point out, premades in discord kicking some guy to get their discord guy in, is pretty much manipulation of expulsion voting. Which is one reading of the story in the OP.

thing is, i dont see "we dont see eye to eye so lets go our seperate ways" as the same thing as compelling a playstyle. and since square is choosing not to elaborate further with how their new ToS interacts with the differing playstyle retoric, we can only assume that it has not changed.

i dont think that they queued with the intention to kick the pug tank, just that thats where it led and they had another tank in discord that they could call on.