Tank entitlement vs group entitlement

[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.

[Feidam]

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.

What you just described though has nothing to do with small pulls. It has to do with performing the base role functions which is an entirely different thing. In my experience letting most of the small pull tanks get comfortable tends to lead to the “norm”of larger pulls. This could ultimately leads to less terror of the minority as you put it. Of course there are always the obstinate, but a nice blacklist solves that problem unless they are truly obstructing. Then you can always vote kick and report them. As I’ve said before toxic is toxic. However, people in this thread want to kick summarily before that comfort can be reached and you can also see that their attitudes probably lead to some rather insulting comments.

[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?

[Gemina]

Emphasis democratically. The vote is the judge, jury, and executioner.

Unjustified only means a justification is needed, and it's almost impossible to not have a justification for a vote to pass.

That could be as simple as "My chocobo companion could do better."

Democratically doesn't mean anything other than was pointed out already. It just shows how the system works. And in the case of a dungeon, you don't even need a 'majority' rule. Two votes i.e. half and that player is gone. The actual emphasis is on harassment and AFK, which are the INTENDED reasons for using the dismiss feature. SE has acknowledged that the feature is not being used as intended, as I pointed out in my last post. You keep boasting like you have the power, and seem to be on some kind of high that you can readily and steadily use this feature to get rid of players you don't like. You have even admitted that a lot of players will see the vote dismiss and just click yes without even paying attention. If SE ever does crack down on this feature, you will be one of the most miserable players in Eorzea. But for now, by all means keep using this feature as YOU intend.

[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.

[Vnolan]

I hope that all of you calling for tanks to be "good" get served a nice taste of your own medicine.

What you think has been said in this thread: Tanks need to be using the best food, they need to be popping the best potions on cooldown, they need to switch stances once they get aggro on mass pulls, they need to pull and stay in DPS stance on bosses and they need to know the optimum methods for dealing with every encounter in every dungeon

What was actually said: Tanks should use AoE hate on more than one pack of mobs if the situation permits it

You also shouldn't DPS if your dps is bad, cus you know... max level.

This but without the sarcasm. If a max level DPS is going to only use one combo or no DoTs, they might as well switch to a role that speeds up queues.

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.

It can be used for that. You think you have to stick with a lvl 70 BLM that only uses ice spells?

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.

It's only required when the rest of the party desires it or if you have common decency.

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.

lol

the devs could very much ban every single one of those players that voted to kick that tank if they investigated the matter.

They could only ban them because they're SE and FFXIV is their product. They could not ban them by citing any rules. They issued an open warning to players buying fraudulent codes instead of issuing bans. They aren't going to come out of nowhere and ban players that were operating within the rules.

It's a player I will very likely not ever see again, ever.

Can't imagine why you would be paired with them in the first place. Could it be others had the same mindset?

My time, and energy has more important places to be allocated.

Apparently not if you don't care how long a duty takes.

[Gemina]

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).

What are you even talking about? Don't use arguments such as, "if you can't use basic reading comprehension" if you, yourself are incapable of such. You stated that the kick feature is a tool to remove a party member via majority rule, and asked you to provide something that validates this as anything more than just your opinion. You were unable to do so. I'm not cherrypicking. I'm providing sources and facts. A GM's inability to act does not prove that this system is being used as intended.

You basically came here and said the cure for having anxiety as a tank is to not tank at all. At least not for randoms. This couldn't be more dismissive of the issue at hand. You then come back and say that you are not saying that anyone has more or less right to use the duty finder. If I'm confused, then it might have something to do with your contradictive statements and not my inability to comprehend them.

If your whole stance is if the party doesn't want to play with you, they don't have to; then that's fine. I have no quarrel with that or with you. I completely understand that this is your opinion. And for the record, I didn't bring up big pulls and healer DPS because you stated them yourself, but because they are the crux of the expectations in these discussions. I should not have put them in the same response to you. That was not necessary and for that I do apologize.

[MariaArvana]

Democratically doesn't mean anything other than was pointed out already. It just shows how the system works. And in the case of a dungeon, you don't even need a 'majority' rule. Two votes i.e.

Not to nitpick, but it actually is a majority. If someone moves to vote dismiss someone, it falls on the remaining 2 people to vote. The person putting forth the dismissal is obviously a yes, which means that if at least one other person says yes, you now have a majority of 2/3.

Same goes in 8 mans. 4/7 is a majority, just as 50.<infinite zeros>1% is a majority. The system is designed so that a tie never occurs.