So votekick >abuse< is practically allowed?

[Marou]

Not performing job function should be added as a reason. All of the kicks I've ever participated against someone outside of Offline have been this (person doesn't talk and isn't doing their job), and harassment while somewhat appropriate isn't as descriptive as "not performing job function".

[Brine_Gildchaff]

What Enkatreia says makes sense. I'd like to say two things though.

First, couldn't both of the problems with the options you suggested be solved by adding a specific "Disruptive Behavior" category to the vote kick list, and then barring anything outside of it? That would allow for a fluid category to always be applicable to that "one more reason", while keeping players from being able to try and claim that it's okay to throw someone out because their gear is good enough to be in the dungeon but not good enough to effectively speedrun.

Second, I think another problem being brought up in this thread is a perceived lack of action on the part of GMs; there seems to be a clear feeling that -GMs- are using this ambiguity to not investigate situations properly (as potentially illustrated by the opening post, though of course we would need more details to see for sure). Whether this is right or not it's an attitude that seems to be prevalent among the playerbase, and while I admit I'm not really sure how it could be, it seems like it's something that should be addressed.

[Enkrateia]

What Enkatreia says makes sense. I'd like to say two things though.

First, couldn't both of the problems with the options you suggested be solved by adding a specific "Disruptive Behavior" category to the vote kick list, and then barring anything outside of it? That would allow for a fluid category to always be applicable to that "one more reason", while keeping players from being able to try and claim that it's okay to throw someone out because their gear is good enough to be in the dungeon but not good enough to effectively speedrun.

I think you capture the concern with "disruptive behaviour" well in your support for an additional reason. The listed reasons should be more objective than subjective, so that abuse of the feature is minimized. If it's too subjective, then someone using the feature could feel they are justified for the wrong reasons that you list. This thread has certainly shown support for possibly adding additional reasons; however, we want to be specific with them to prevent encouraging the abuse of the tool under the guise of justification.

Second, I think another problem being brought up in this thread is a perceived lack of action on the part of GMs; there seems to be a clear feeling that -GMs- are using this ambiguity to not investigate situations properly (as potentially illustrated by the opening post, though of course we would need more details to see for sure). Whether this is right or not it's an attitude that seems to be prevalent among the playerbase, and while I admit I'm not really sure how it could be, it seems like it's something that should be addressed.

I absolutely understand where this perception comes from. For the concerns listed in the OP here, I have sent the investigation to be reviewed again to ensure it was handled properly and the proper conclusion to the investigation reached. However, since our privacy policy means that we do not reveal the results of our investigations, it can make it seem like nothing is done. Especially if the person is on another world and account action could not be verified in any way. Because revealing the results of an investigation would mean that we also reveal details about another customer's account status, we are working on trying to find ways to build up customer confidence while maintaining this privacy. While it would be off topic in this thread, suggestions on how we could accomplish this would be welcome in a thread dedicated to improving this aspect of our customer service.

[Miitan]

Now I consider "not fulfilling job duties deliberately" to be harassment (as it clearly is) and report it as such and we wouldn't need an option for every way they could be disrupting the party.

I think an easy way to fix the issue is to add "newbie" and "bad gear" as kick options and then suspend players who use them.

[Kydi]

Why not add a "Disruptive Behaviour" category with a free text field? Whoever initiates the kick has to write 50-100 characters justifying the kick which are provided to the kicked player and other players when voting. The kicked player can then review and decide whether they feel it's justified (possibly not) and a GM can quickly review the reason if someone takes issue.

Obviously this wouldn't necessarily help the matter of harassment /cheating etc being used inappropriately, but it may go some way to alleviating the ambiguity in the current options.

[MeiUshu]

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

[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?

[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

[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.