Should vote-to-dimiss remain anonymous?

[Niamh_Rillemaugh]

You also can't send /tell cross-server, which is the problem the person I was quoting was bringing up.

I wasn't talking about tells. I was talking about any type of communication that is possible during an instance. It doesn't matter if the harassment is isolated to the instance. It's still harassment.

[AdamFyi]

you cant blacklist cross server.

And you can't send tells cross server either. Besides, the chances of meeting the same people through DF are pretty slim.

Edit; Ah, ninja'd. xD

[ckb]

No, it should remain anonymous, both the identity of the initiator and the votes of the party. I don't want to be the target of verbal abuse from people I have started the vote to kick over the verbal abuse they've heaped on other players. The result of the vote to kick or abandon reflects the party sentiment, not just the person who initiated it. Anyway, even if you had the identity of the person who initiated, you cannot prove it was harassment without something in the chat logs.

LOL, no. If you aren't willing to put a name on it then you shouldn't be using the feature. Your real name isn't Niamh Rillemaugh so you already have that wall to hide behind and blacklist. You don't need an extra layer. Anonymity is 99% of the problem with the internet these days. You put a persons identity on something and they at least try to act like something that resembles a human being.


Sincerely,
Chris Brooks

[MilesSaintboroguh]

LOL, no. If you aren't willing to put a name on it then you shouldn't be using the feature. Your real name isn't Niamh Rillemaugh so you already have that wall to hide behind and blacklist. You don't need an extra layer. Anonymity is 99% of the problem with the internet these days. You put a persons identity on something and they at least try to act like something that resembles a human being.


Sincerely,
Chris Brooks

Google must love you.


News flash, people are jerks whether they use their real identity or a fake name. If I am going to kick out a troll from my party, I don't need him or his friends trying to either find me in world or on the lodestone and stir up something and require a GM intervention to clean up the mess.

Also, showing who vote kicked you doesn't reduce the amount of kicks being used. Left 4 Dead 2 used to hide the identities of people that started a vote kick until Valve patched the system to show who started a kick. Kicking since then has not changed one bit.

[AdamFyi]

Snip

Is that a fact that showing who initiated a vote kick does not reduce the abuse? I can understand your stance on the matter, but your example was wishy-washy at best. Sounds more to an opinion of perspective rather than a fact. And if it as you say that it doesn't change anything, then I really see no reason to not make it transparent.

Having your name flaunted around like a flag when you initiate a vote dismiss/abandon would make people more reluctant to initiate them because if that vote kick does not pass for whatever reason, your members are going to stare dagges at you. And if they end up choosing to dismiss you instead, the GMs sadly can't intervene as it is a dispute within the party. This can also be used when an abuse of the vote dismiss/abandon occurs to report said individual. I don't see much of a downside to showing who initiated the vote kick, personally.

Maybe they should rectify the fact that each member of an almost full pre-made party of 3/7 are all counted as individual votes?

[ckb]

Stuff

When I made the comment it was intended in a much larger scope than just an MMO where you canBLACKLIST anyone. That is the easiest fix for harassment in any MMO. SE and valve are 2 very different companies and SE has always been heavy handed with violations like the one you stated. People are even bigger jerks with anonymity and no accountability. Like I said, put a name on it and let SE do the rest. If it doesn't work you can come back and say I was wrong. I'm ok with being wrong but it's like saying league of legends has a horrible community so every other online community is horrible. Based on my experiences with SE over the last decade plus they take that type of behavior seriously and don't mind banning people.

[16bitBounty]

I kick people who are stupid, I don't care if they know I think they're stupid.

[Yoninxi]

So the initiator can be verbally abused? No thanks. There's already the flood of "Go kill your self instead of staying" when someone initiates

[Souljacker]

I don't see any reason why it should remain anonymous. Fewer vote kicks would happen if it were transparent, because you would need to really have a reason to vote kick someone. The argument that "I don't want to be harassed" for initiating a vote kick when you are already being harassed to the point you felt a kick was necessary is a poor one.

This would help people learn to use the tool at times when it actually needs to be used instead of just willy-nilly. It should be transparent ESPECIALLY if SE is instructing their GMs that they cannot do anything unless they know who initiated the vote kick. I mean, talk about putting in a system and then giving yourself a way out of enforcing anything by keeping information out of the reporter's hands.

[MilesSaintboroguh]

It's already explained why they don't show names when vote kick is brought up; whether or not the kicking is legit or abused, internet drama ensues the minute you start pointing fingers for anything and that is something Square wants to avoid for their sanity and the sanity of the community.


Showing names would not make people more reluctant to start a kick, false or not, because since every instance is cross sever, people know that they can just do whatever they want since they can't be followed. Failed votes when showing who started the vote would just cause more drama unless you decided to keep the kickee from knowing they're being dismissed as it is right now. Names are hidden to reduce the drama and if anyone is going to report someone for abuse of the votes, they'll just write up the whole party regardless because everyone had to have agreed in the first place.