So votekick >abuse< is practically allowed?

[SomeRandomHuman]

The primary issue is the system, and there are two major solutions to this:
1. Revision of section 3.2 of the user agreement as in it's current state, is a violation of section 3.2 to just not agree with someone, and in this state, the entire thing is useless since there is no secondary work to label what "is disruptive" and what is "not disruptive".

There are also virtually 0 excuses as to why this can't be done. Section 11.8 of the user agreement clearly states that Square Enix may amend the user agreement without any notice.

2. Removal of the vote dismiss feature all together temporarily and re-implement it at a later date in time in accordance to a revised section 3.2

[ispano]

That's narrow-minded beyond rationality. Perhaps it's the only way they know how to play, so far?

But it IS deliberate. Most of these people i've seen in game, won't listen to anything either. That's where it truly becomes a problem. Also, being observant and learning is a very important skill.

[ispano]

sorry I dont agree with you Ispano, at all, it isnt disruptive at all, the game ALLOWS different ways of playing or am I mistaken ? so who are you to decide HOW a person has to play ?

Mei

When it prevents the group from progressing. And that's the thing, if they refuse to adapt to help the group, ie the other 3 or 7 people, why should they keep them around?

[MeiUshu]

Adapt to what ?...there is no *adapt* in this game it is an open game. You ahve a given set of skills that is up to you to use, sometimes for the best, sometimes for the worst, until you learn to use them properly. Why should I use a Cure III (e.g), if I dont see the need of it? just because you want to ? and according to you it would be a reason (and is a reason) to kick someone..I am sorry...your wishes dont matter more then mines, which is what makes a group in theory, expelling someone because doesnt play the way you want him to play is the wrong motif and labelling said person of disrupting the game when is not the case or tagging him of harrassement are really things that shouldnt exist. Besides, if you dont agree with the play mode, nothign forbids you to leave, which is what an intelligent person would do...in my opinion and yes I, personally, do so.I, on your contrary, understand that others dont play like me and I dont play like them..and nothign forces me to play with or them with me, which the leave options exist for that reason...you expell who is not like you when in fact you can expell yourself yourself. The kick option is there for and extreme reason and not for everythign and anything depending on the mood of someone.Ah I forgot, that requries maturity..I agree not everybody is up to that level.

Mei

[ispano]

Adapt to what ?...there is no *adapt* in this game it is an open game. You ahve a given set of skills that is up to you to use, sometimes for the best, sometimes for the worst, until you learn to use them properly. Why should I use a Cure III (e.g), if I dont see the need of it? just because you want to ?..I am sorry...your wishes dont matter more then mines, which is what makes a group in theory, expelling someone because doesnt play the way you want him to play is the wrong motif and labelling said person of disrupting the game when is not the case or tagging him of harrassement are really things that shouldnt exist. Besides, if you dont agree with the play mode, nothign forbids you to leave, which is what an intelligent person would do...in my opinion and yes I, personally, do so.I, on your contrary, understand that others dont play like me and I dont play like them..and nothign forces me to play with or them with me, which the leave options exist for that reason...you expell who is not like you when in fact you can expell yourself yourself....Ah I forgot, that requries maturity..I agree not everybody is up to that level.

Mei

I've told you this before in other threads, but you refuse to listen to it. If a single player in an instance is holding the WHOLE group back and preventing them from progressing and they do not adapt after being asked or told some relevant information, THEY are the problem, period. People playing how they want, stops when you enter a group. That mindset, stops when you join that DF or PF.

And no, it's expelling them if they are holding the group back, regardless of how they play. Not because they play differently. Also, you're telling me, that THREE people should leave, because ONE person won't change? Sorry, that's not how it works.

Here's an example. Lost City, Boss 1. Healer gets eaten and the DPS cannot break them out quickly enough. That's a wipe You see that one DPS, say a Summoner in this case(taken from personal experience) is ONLY spamming Ruin. You ask him to step it up, use his other spells, or whatnot because he is holding the group back. The other DPS is minimally geared but seems to be trying based on the actions he is performing. You'd say LEAVE, when ONE person is holding back 3? No.

Because, guess what happens when EVERYONE in the group performs like that. Nothing ever gets done. These people need to teach themselves or learn or something, and if they refuse, they have no place in a group setting.

[Rydia13]

There was no performance issue. That is the point I'm trying to make. You can make up reasons and because SE views it as legit.

You're aware that SE and GMs can check your chatlog right? So this whole "making up" nonesense won't work unless it's all done via some type of voice chat. That probably won't be the case though, not in a DF.

[Anatha]

Majority rules. What should they do? Ban the majority? Don't be silly. All you can do is come to terms with the fact like in real life, the crooked nail gets hammered down/votekicked.

In party finder, where loot rules are agreed to before you even enter the instance, being removed prior to looting/the agreement was broken, can be reported and something will come of it.

Dissenters, would you change your mind if there was a "Lackluster performance" option? Would it be ok with you if you got votekicked for a "Not on the same page" reason if there was one?

People get votekicked because they are doing something that the majority feels does not coincide with their goals, or flat out hinders it. They ARE doing something wrong, and that wrong is relative, but if the vote passes, clearly that's the prevailing opinion, and that's how things work in a democracy. You're allowed to disagree with the majority, but you're probably gonna lose whatever battle is being fought.

[Hikoko]

You're aware that SE and GMs can check your chatlog right?

I consider that basic knowledge of online services.

unless it's all done via some type of voice chat.

Because it's unheard of that partly premades groups use voice chat to communicate, right? In the OP I said that this problem exists with those groups in particular.

That probably won't be the case though, not in a DF.

No, not if people don't know another, but if the general practice is known, it might happen nevertheless. Is "might" not good enough?

being removed prior to looting/the agreement was broken, can be reported and something will come of it.

I don't know why people keep circling around this example. There are more and I have named a few.

Would it be ok with you if you got votekicked for a "Not on the same page" reason if there was one?

That's what is already happening. There is a difference between "refusal to play one's role", "incapability to play one's role" and "okay-ish and enough, but not enough for the rest of the group". The first one hinders the group to accomplish the duty, the latter "just" makes them invest more time into it, which they should've considered by entering the DF.

And since the latter is a legit reason by SE's rules, you can use that argument to votekick for whatever you want. This type of votekick abuse, and not the on-going discussion whether underperformers or "not on the same page"-players should be allowed to kick, is the problem I see and I have been wanting to point out.

that the majority feels does not coincide with their goals, or flat out hinders it.

And the majority defines what their goals are, and SE gives them the right to do it. However, the imaginery person being kicked did not agree to those unknown goals when queueing up via DF. How is that fair?
And please don't tell me "life ain't fair, nor is the game".

PS: As said above, this is still offtopic.

and that's how things work in a democracy.

Except in a democracy the majority is bound by rules which can be changed if an issue with those rules makes it necessary.
That's what I wanted to achieve, rules that aren't as vague and don't allow just any player to be kicked just because the group feels like it.
I see an issue with this policy in general, but - for the 100th time - the greater issue I see is this argument being used to bypass actual votekick abuse.

but you're probably gonna lose whatever battle is being fought.

No arguement here.


I consider the discussion finished, anyway. The majority of people rather discussed whether "being kicked for being terrible" is legit or not and the mod replied on that rather on the actual topic.
I didn't expect the thread to stay on-topic for all parts (it's a forum, after all), but I also didn't expect an arguement about British English and how MS Word functions. I know I should've known better.

If people think the policy is fine as it is, then we will see how it goes. I don't think it is, as it can cause the problems I pointed out multiple times, but people don't seem to think those are actual problems "because that doesn't happen".

[MeiUshu]

you live in a rystal tower me think. You are saying in essence that ALTHOUGH we have rules in place that say anyone can greed (provided there are no limitations of what you can get per week), only class that loot is for can need, and all can pass, people that press need even though they dont need it because they have it already, or people that greed although they dont need for any classes but do so because they just want to, can be kicked ? because what you words said is just that. You dont think you are being just a tad bit silly, no ?

I do leave if I dont agree with whatever, but it would never cross my mind to initiate a kick becasue I dont like that person, the only reason that I would do so, is if effectively there is a limit that is overtaken, insults and the like and in here, it has NEVER happen because simply I do understand that I deal with different people, of different horizons, and more improtant of different life experience, and I find it easier, if I dont agree to remove myself, maybe I should kick everyone that is not think ing like me right ? becasue that is what you say.

This game is not a democracy...and to be more direct, this is not real life. But to play along, where does it say that democracy can supraceed laws in place ? and who says that people can do whatever they want to whoever for whatever reasons based on no grounds ?..this is no more democracy is called anarchy, oh you mean to say that you didnt know what democracy is and what anarchy is ? if so, I am sorry, as I understand that not everybody knows things.

Mei

[Brine_Gildchaff]

That's narrow-minded beyond rationality. Perhaps it's the only way they know how to play, so far?

It's one thing if a person hasn't learned yet how to play their class. It's another thing entirely if the rest of the group is explaining where they're going wrong and the person refuses to listen or alter their play style. I had a tank once in Satasha who a) refused to use Flash and b) spammed the Fast->Riot combo and never used Savage Blade, despite my asking him several times, even resorting to auto-translate and <se.#> to try and get his attention in case he wasn't looking at party chat. He refused to change in any way. Are you saying the other three of us weren't justified when we kicked him from the party?