Tank entitlement vs group entitlement

[van_arn]

You totally missed first part of the description and it’s spirit. I believe the new rules are designed for this type of issue. But you also aren’t going to change your mind unless you get reported and sanctioned. So it will be up the players you treat this way to decide to report you or not if you in fact do this in game.

What you believe really doesn't matter when a vote is available. Nor does what someone individually believes matter when a group decides they don't want to keep someone around.

You're endlessly defending the players that could very well be bots on the basis of what, compassion? Pity? A desire to feel like you're protecting someone?

No, the only thing that matters is if someone fills their chosen role in PF. They signed up, saying "I can do this." Saying a human player needs to do more than my chocobo is not unreasonable, nor is it a "savage" threshold to meet.

The thing so many seem to happily ignore is *I* don't do anything; I might put forward a vote, but the party is the one doing the kicking. Others have to see that player as someone they'd rather replace too, and a single underperformer has absolutely no right to obstruct the party.

A sub-chocobo underperformer at this range (ilvl locked post-70) is a harasser.

[Feidam]

What you believe really doesn't matter when a vote is available. Nor does what someone individually believes matter when a group decides they don't want to keep someone around.

You're endlessly defending the players that could very well be bots on the basis of what, compassion? Pity? A desire to feel like you're protecting someone?

No, the only thing that matters is if someone fills their chosen role in PF. They signed up, saying "I can do this." Saying a human player needs to do more than my chocobo is not unreasonable, nor is it a "savage" threshold to meet.

The thing so many seem to happily ignore is *I* don't do anything; I might put forward a vote, but the party is the one doing the kicking. Others have to see that player as someone they'd rather replace too, and that single underperformer has absolutely no right to obstruct the party.

A sub-chocobo underperformer at this range is a harasser.

Really? Small pulls obstructs the party? Small pulls prevents you from doing base level content? Someone not doing a perfect rotation but stuff is still dieing in base level content is obstructing? If we were talking extreme or savage i’d Agree but base dungeoning no. Base content is the lowest lvl designed for the weaker players and the means to gear for extremes+ for everyone else.

Just because it’s there is not a reason to use the vote kick because you don’t get what you want. Why not just leave the party if they aren’t up to your standards.

[van_arn]

Really? Small pulls obstructs the party? Small pulls prevents you from doing base level content? Someone not doing a perfect rotation but stuff is still dieing in base level content is obstructing? If we were talking extreme or savage i’d Agree but base dungeoning no. Base content is the lowest lvl designed for the weaker players and the means to gear for extremes+ for everyone else.

Just because it’s there is not a reason to use the vote kick because you don’t get what you want. Why not just leave the party if they aren’t up to your standards.

I'll happily leave the party if the kick doesn't go through. Voting no is the party's prerogative as well.

As for the rest, a perfect rotation is not necessary to outcontribute a chocobo companion. Small pulls can be seen as obstruction if the party decides they want larger pulls, but the tank puts their foot down and petulantly refuses to even give it a shot.

Ultimately, it's the party that decides what is an obstruction. And then they have the authority to remove the cause of that obstruction. An individual does not have authority to counteract the will of the party.

[Feidam]

I'll happily leave the party if the kick doesn't go through. That's the party's prerogative as well.

As for the rest, a perfect rotation is not necessary to outcontribute a chocobo companion. Small pulls can be seen as obstruction if the party decides they want larger pulls, but the tank puts their foot down and petulantly refuses to even give it a shot.

Ultimately, it's the party that decides what is an obstruction. And then they have the authority to remove it. An individual does not.

Obstruction is the person preventing you from completing the objective. I’m sorry but saying small pulls, assuming the pulls are steady, are an obstruction is doing some pretty good mental gymnastics there to make it fit. One could argue that smalls pulls are harassment but it would need some extra qualifiers other than small pulls.

[van_arn]

Obstruction is the person preventing you from completing the objective. I’m sorry but saying small pulls, assuming the pulls are steady, are an obstruction is doing some pretty good mental gymnastics there to make it fit.

What I'm saying is neither you nor I determine what is obstruction, the party does. As an individual, we have no right to block the will of the party.

The votekick is the democratic mechanism that ensures the party gets its way, and as long as that can be executed without a GM's explicit permission then this is the result.

Requiring a GM's explicit permission defeats the purpose of it being a democratic option in the first place, so that's not going to ever happen.

[Feidam]

What I'm saying is neither you nor I determine what is obstruction, the party does. As an individual, we have no right to block the will of the party.

The votekick is the democratic mechanism that ensures the party gets its way, and as long as that can be executed without a GM's explicit permission then that is the result.

Requiring a GM's explicit permission defeats the purpose of it being a democratic option in the first place, so that's not going to ever happen.

No we don’t. SE determines it. Their language is pretty clear there. Now harassment leaves a lot of wiggle room.

[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.

[van_arn]

No we don’t. SE determines it. Their language is pretty clear there. Now harassment leaves a lot of wiggle room.

Then the person performing at a sub-chocobo level is harassing the party, because obviously no person at that level is that incompetent.

I still don't comprehend why you're so dead-set against the flesh and blood spending their time with that sandbag being the authority here.

[IMG]

*cackle*

I appreciate how it's worded as pablum to soothe the feelings of people that got kicked, but goes right on to say it's not their problem if the party decides to handle things differently with a kick.

[Feidam]

Then the person performing at a sub-chocobo level is harassing the party, because obviously no person at that level is that incompetent.

I still don't comprehend why you're so dead-set against the group being the authority here.

Because as we have seen players behind a monitor will be vicious and petty if they think they can get away it. Also, one can look at real life and see that Majority Rule is often used to negative effect. We have guidelines as to what is appropiate use. I’m not against a group using vote if they are doing it within the spirit of the system and when people realize what content the are doing. All of your reasons are perfectly fine in extreme or savage groups especially if they are party finder groups. Also, party premades for dungeons use whatever rules you want. In those groups you set the rules. In Duty finder you sign up for random players and random content.

Edit. Keep in mind i’m Not talking about players than can’t meet dps checks in base dungeons, or tanks that pull slowly in harnessing manners.

[van_arn]

Because as we have seen players behind a monitor will be vicious and petty if they think they can get away it. Also, one can look at real life and see that Majority Rule is often used to negative effect. We have guidelines as to what is appropiate use. I’m not against a group using vote if they are doing it within the spirit of the system and we people realize what content the are doing. All of your reasons are perfectly fine in extreme or savage groups especially if they are party finder groups. In those groups you set the rules. In Duty finder you sign up for random players and random content.

Yes, and that's why voting exists. Because just because someone feels they're ready to run The Burn after clearing POTD that doesn't mean the people they're matched with will agree with their assessment.

Otherwise you're simply replacing terror of the majority with terror of the minority, and that just isn't going to fly when "game styles differ" can make a GM just click the close button and go back to reading twitter.

I'm not fond of terror of the majority, mind, I simply find it preferable in the edge cases where it does occur to terror of the minority. Especially in a cooperative game.