Final Fantasy XIV and a Culture of Enabling

[LianaThorne]

If the vote passes isn't that the will of the group? I get what you are saying if the vote does not pass then the person has a choice to make leave or deal with it. Though if it passes how is that in the wrong?

Difference of play style is has been a valid reason for removal. Silent kicks are often just that.

Does it pass because they actually want the person gone or because they just want the box out of their face and peer pressure?

And if they were common, like I said, you'd think I see one in the almost year I've been around. I havent once. First time I'm even hearing someone trying to defend a method of griefing as a valid means of removing a random person you're getting bothered by and will never see again after the dungeon ends.

[Wolwosh]

So when I go into Hero's Gauntlet and my Nin does his single target rotation(badly) on big pulls, and the Sum uses Ifrit and also doesn't aoe thats expecting to much?
Even after asking nicely they don't listen at all.
Some of you guys expectations are to low, thats a problem as well.

[Awha]

Does it pass because they actually want the person gone or because they just want the box out of their face and peer pressure?

And if they were common, like I said, you'd think I see one in the almost year I've been around. I havent once.

I have never said they are common for everyone. They are common for me because I often kick people. Also your question as to why they pass is also irrelevant I cannot be certain what rational was used when a person clicked yes. All we can go based off was did the vote pass or not.

Standards are personal so clearly the threshold for removal differs from person to person that is why it is impossible to really know the thought process behind a silent kick. So it becomes in part a moot point.

[LianaThorne]

I have never said they are common for everyone. They are common for me because I often kick people. Also your question as to why they pass is also irrelevant I cannot be certain what rational was used when a person clicked yes. All we can go based off was did the vote pass or not.

What's actually irrelevant is this entire thread because SE isn't gonna do anything about this lmao. They purposely made the game to be inclusive to everyone. We're all just complaining and arguing to each other, meanwhile people are still gonna do the behavior some can or can't stand whether we like it or not. We all must be super bored.

[Awha]

What's actually irrelevant is this entire thread because SE isn't gonna do anything about this lmao. They purposely made the game to be inclusive to everyone. We're all just bitching to each other, meanwhile people are still gonna do the behavior ya'll can't stand whether you like it or not. We all must be super bored.

SE does not have to do anything about this since we have tools in place to take care of it ourselves. Though let us be real most threads on this forum are illrelavent. Part of the charm of our official forum.

[Vinupra-Rosa]

Does it pass because they actually want the person gone or because they just want the box out of their face and peer pressure?

In the quote below, the said person has said something that more or less is in line with your reasoning (peer pressure), outright encouraged taking advantage of it and this directly weakens his 'isn't it the will of the group?' assertion by like... a fair bit.

Sure I could be more patient and understanding but weird thing about the vote kick environment here, normally if the tank or healer start the kick one other person will always click yes. So why not use that to that your advantage.

My one suggestion is that if you guys are going to be ready to kick people for 'annoying you' with their 'poor performance' instead of actually attempting to at least stop and help then just go find your friends (if you have them) and do roulettes with them as a premade. As Liana above said, many of the things us 'vets' take for granted aren't immediately obvious to new players. They might misunderstand things, fail to comprehend something without help, or have come to wrong conclusions. It happens.

So when I go into Hero's Gauntlet and my Nin does his single target rotation(badly) on big pulls, and the Sum uses Ifrit and also doesn't aoe thats expecting to much?
Even after asking nicely they don't listen at all.
Some of you guys expectations are to low, thats a problem as well.

Now that's some hyperbole right there. Strawman? I'm pretty sure this is a logical/argumentative fallacy of some sort.

But several things -- expectations should rise and fall by content level and at 80, one is expected to at least know the basics, and that involves AoEs. Second, switching from ifrit to garuda and back to ifrit is honestly best taken as a bonus in casual content from DF; not everyone immediately knows what these pets are for, and it's certainly possible for one to reach level 80 without figuring out what is what in full without someone else to point it out for them[1]. Third, incidents like this are FAR from the norm - - having ran 80 content on the reg, I can't recall a single incident of both dpses being as horrible as you indicated. Fourth, this is a 2v2 (or 1v2) situation and that slightly reduces the chances of your votation going through which means you're probably best off bailing.

And there's a difference between 'never vote kick!' and 'please don't be careless with votekick'. You mentioned "Even after asking nicely they don't listen at all." and that already is in the territory of 'you tried'. Given that, if their refusal to heed advice continues to cause problems in the run then you may initiate a valid votation. This particular scenario you brought up isn't even the problem.

The problem is when people vote kick people out of the run without even bothering to offer consideration or help.

[1] There's no big red tootip going "GARUDA FOR AOE, IFRIT FOR SINGLE TARGET!" and yes, sometimes that measure is needed - - - and that's not a fault of the person itself. People's minds work differently. Some people are slower in things others are faster at, and vice versa.

[Awha]

In the quote below, the said person has said something that more or less is in line with your reasoning (peer pressure), outright encouraged taking advantage of it and this directly weakens his 'isn't it the will of the group?' assertion by like... a fair bit.



My one suggestion is that if you guys are going to be ready to kick people for 'annoying you' with their 'poor performance' instead of actually attempting to at least stop and help then just go find your friends (if you have them) and do roulettes with them as a premade. As Liana above said, many of the things us 'vets' take for granted aren't immediately obvious to new players. They might misunderstand things, fail to comprehend something without help, or have come to wrong conclusions. It happens.



Now that's some hyperbole right there. Strawman? I'm pretty sure this is a logical/argumentative fallacy of some sort.

But several things -- expectations should rise and fall by content level and at 80, one is expected to at least know the basics, and that involves AoEs. Second, switching from ifrit to garuda and back to ifrit is honestly best taken as a bonus in casual content from DF; not everyone immediately knows what these pets are for, and it's certainly possible for one to reach level 80 without figuring out what is what in full without someone else to point it out for them[1]. Third, incidents like this are FAR from the norm - - having ran 80 content on the reg, I can't recall a single incident of both dpses being as horrible as you indicated. Fourth, this is a 2v2 (or 1v2) situation and that slightly reduces the chances of your votation going through which means you're probably best off bailing.

And there's a difference between 'never vote kick!' and 'please don't be careless with votekick'. You mentioned "Even after asking nicely they don't listen at all." and that already is in the territory of 'you tried'. Given that, if their refusal to heed advice continues to cause problems in the run then you may initiate a valid votation. This particular scenario you brought up isn't even the problem.

The problem is when people vote kick people out of the run without even bothering to offer consideration or help.

[1] There's no big red tootip going "GARUDA FOR AOE, IFRIT FOR SINGLE TARGET!" and yes, sometimes that measure is needed - - - and that's not a fault of the person itself. People's minds work differently. Some people are slower in things others are faster at, and vice versa.

Weaknenes in what sense? I can speculate why it passes but I will never know the reason why it passes. Though vote removal is a binary function yes or no. That is the only truth that exists during a silent kick. Everything else is spectaculation across the board from all parties. I am no argument master of logic or anything but I do not think speculation can be used to weaken an assertion.

Which is what makes them probably annoying for GM's to deal with especially given their stance with tangible and actionable evidence.

Players are not obligated to do content with premade groups or help others improve.

In short SE cannot force the kids in the sandbox to play with one another. They can try but only way to force this standard is to remove the vote kick function. I do get where you coming from and I commend players that go out of there way to help, for me that ship sailed long ago so I no longer bother. Sure you may feel it is wrong or an abuse of the ToS but I until I hear otherwise from SE why reason do i have to stop? Outside of some community driven moral standard that clearly is not the same standard follower by everyone in the community.

This is why I say people should not take being removed personally it is far less stressful on the person being kicked. No point going down the rabbit hole to try and figure out why an asshole was being an asshole.

[Vinupra-Rosa]

Weaknenes in what sense? I can speculate why it passes but I will never know the reason why it passes. Though vote removal is a binary function yes or no. That is the only truth that exists during a silent kick. Everything else is spectaculation across the board from all parties. Which is what makes them probably annoying for GM's to deal with especially given their stance with tangible and actionable evidence.

Simple.

"Sure I could be more patient and understanding but weird thing about the vote kick environment here, normally if the tank or healer start the kick one other person will always click yes. So why not use that to that your advantage."

Paraphrased: "If you're a tank or healer initiating a vote kick, you exert peer pressure that makes it more likely for the rest of the party to agree with the vote kick. Take advantage of that."

"If the vote passes isn't that the will of the group?"

The "will of the group" argument is debased by the possibility of peer pressure coming into play -- in that case it's not the "will of the group" but "one person's desires, enabled (ha!) by those who are swayed by their authority, imagined or real"

And you yourself encouraged taking advantage of the 'pressure' exerted by initiating votations as tank or healer to help remove people that are annoying you from the run. I'm not talking about 'this is actionable evidence', I'm talking about the validity of your "will of the group" argument. Which in itself is especially weak in 4-man content, since THERE you only need one other person to agree with you to succesfully kick someone.

This is why I often use with at the very least one friend so often we have the vote majority.

In the end if the vote passes then clearly the group thought they were deserving, especially when you stack the vote in your favor by bringing a friend along. :P

And yet another statement from you that further debases your 'it's the will of the group' argument; having a friend along outright nullifies the 'it's the will of the group' argument as then you are guaranteed full sway on kicking (at least in light parties) even if the other half of the party disagrees with you.

Basically, your own statements debase and/or outright invalidate your "it's the will of the group" argument and paint your happy kicks as abusive.

And yes, that does make it annoying for GMs. But the matter of fact is that simply because you can get away with it doesn't mean it's not against the rules - - - you simply know how to break the rules without getting incriminating evidence on you. And that, that is even worse than breaking rules and leaving evidence.

[Hikelos]

It's not really a culture of enabling, it's moreso a culture of oppressing.
Taking a few steps back to evaluate the problem from the root, it starts with the ToS and the way it is enforced giving full power to abusers to maliciously report players, knowing that most likely their target is going to get a strike no matter how innocent they are.
In time, this fostered the current atmosphere of avoiding interaction altogether if there's any chance that it might stray off the "Sunshine and Rainbows" allowed spectrum of behaviour, and in turn this results in players being scared to call out anything from AFK, to poor play to outright intentional sabotage.

It's not a matter of how often it happens, rather it is a matter of how reasonable it is to expect it to happen.
The catalyst seems to not be the actions that you take, merely that someone decided to report you stating that "They feel offended", which is entirely subjective, arbitrary, and out of anyone's control- but for whatever reason it seems to be good enough for the GMs, or at least some of them.
Case in point, very recently a raid leader got a 3-day suspension for writing an obviously fake 'spoiler', comprised of 3 unrelated franchises as a PF description. Not writing it back here.
Any chat message whatsoever seems to be fair ground for a strike on your account.
My account is clean so far, specifically because I've made an effort to keep it that way, but not a month goes by without hearing of a friend or a discord/twitter mutual who got banned for something just as ridiculous as that fake spoiler.

I've had instances of meeting a BLM Sprout in a leveling roulette who was still spamming Blizzard 1 at level 44, trying to teach him how to use Fire 1 and Fire 3 procs, and immediately getting chastised and called "Toxic" by the Healing-only White Mage in the party, despite trying to talk in the most polite, sterile, company PR talk that I could conjure - and the best part was logging in for the next 2-3 days in a cold sweat, wondering if I got suspended or not.

This is really the only reason this carebear atmosphere has taken over the community, because it is enforced top-down.
Toxic players still exist, and actually they're much worse than in any other multiplayer game I've played.
Aside from ritualistic, performative niceties, I keep finding petty, vindictive, and most of all passive-aggressive people.
I didn't forget what this great community did to Scottzone.

If you define "Toxic" as "Behaviour that makes people want to stop playing", I don't think there's any community that is more Toxic than this one.

[SturmChurro]

This is really the only reason this carebear atmosphere has taken over the community, because it is enforced top-down.
Toxic players still exist, and actually they're much worse than in any other multiplayer game I've played.
Aside from ritualistic, performative niceties, I keep finding petty, vindictive, and most of all passive-aggressive people.
I didn't forget what this great community did to Scottzone.

If you define "Toxic" as "Behaviour that makes people want to stop playing", I don't think there's any community that is more Toxic than this one.

Yep, that's a bit of my take on it. These sort of players are emboldened by how the GMs choose to enforce the ToS. A player is better off not talking in the game.. I haven't had a GM interaction in-game either, but I completely understand "logging in for the next 2-3 days in a cold sweat, wondering if I got suspended or not."... I'd say it has bred a largely 'passive-aggressive' community, where people silently kick others, grief eachother, etc.

In your example, I cannot agree though. I don't see the purpose of somebody putting spoilers - fake or not - in a PF. Should that be a full on Strike? Not in my opinion, a warning would suffice, but in FFXIV a permanent mark on your account is simply how they enforce the ToS.