So votekick >abuse< is practically allowed?

[KaedrianLiang]

[IMG]/snip

So if nothing is picked up about the vote initiator's intention, in any of the chat logs. IE. Theyre a group thats on voip or face to face irl. They go unpunished. This promotes "Ingroup Fallacies" letting the most illogical of players get away with murder and the GM department enforces their illogical behavior by not doing anything about it.

[Kyri]

To LGM Enkrateia
First off I would like to say a very big thank you for following this thread and responding to concerns rather then locking it and leaving people feeling ignored. I do wish more GM and developers would do this. Though all answers might not be answered it shows that you are trying and listening so thank you, very much.

Secondly to keep from derailing much, I do hope that these things are looked at rather then dismissed because I was very sad to see my husband make a male alt to marry me and get kicked out of low lv 50 dungeons while working on his relic because they wanted him to have better gear to speed run, when he is indeed a great player, was pulling his weight and kicked only because they expected him to have better gear that had yet to be available to him at the time.

[Sensu]

I was kicked once for pointing out in a ST run that the other healer just stood there afking, and only moving with us to the new packs/boss. They (rest of the group) said I should stop whining and I could easily solo heal it. Yes, I know I can and I've been doing that so far, but when I said I wanted to kick him if he didn't start healing soon, I got kicked in response.

This was not against the rules, said the GM. Okayyyyyy....

Morale of the story is: vote kick them before they vote kick you, because it looks like no one cares or even reads what the kick is about anyway.

[Alistaire]

Or they were a 7/8 premade.

[Lord_Ganondorf]

This is being posted on behalf of someone unable to post due to an account-related issue.

First, thank you to Lord_Ganondorf for letting me say this under his forum name. Now then...

In order to dissuade players from using the Vote Kick feature as a mode of harassment, please adjust it so that

a) the player who initiated the vote is removed from the instance if the motion fails to pass, and effect the same lockout penalty upon the player as abandoning a filled party early. (The latter is a preventative measure against Vote Kick being used in place of leaving a party short of being a full group through normal methods in order to avoid the lockout penalty...because after a player is removed, it's no longer full.)
b) the player who initiated the vote remains in the instance as usual if the motion fails to pass (and can no longer use Vote Kick while in the run if this isn't a thing already), but is penalized with the same lockout time instituted upon a player as abandoning a filled party early upon exiting the instance. (This differs from the other option in that it won't inconvenience the current party should they wish to continue running with their current group.)

Either of these being put into effect will cut back on the number of Vote Kick abuse reports GMs need to deal with.

The downsides are thus:

• If the entire party wants to quit before Vote Abandon can be used, they can't circumvent it by kicking someone. However, this is negligible as the option to initiate Vote Abandon could simply be enabled earlier, with a wait time on its frequency of use.
• If the person trying to initiate the kick is in the right but is denied by the majority, they will receive a penalty. With proper communication beforehand, this will not happen unless a player happens to be paired with a group of people bent on harassment, in which case the player would either leave normally and take the penalty, or fail to pass Vote Kick and take the penalty, effectively resulting in no change in this case. Therefore, proper communcation is encouraged.

Remember, the key objectives of this proposal are to dissuade players from wrongful use of the Vote Kick feature, particularly of the uncommunicated (and harder to investigate) kind, and ease GM workload. It will not solve all abuse, but it will certainly lessen it. I suggest discussing, and improving upon this if able. Personally, I'm leaning toward option B.

(Take note that I cannot be expected to make responses, so please don't direct anything toward me. Write openly instead.)

~Soulfire

[Alistaire]

This is being posted on behalf of someone unable to post due to an account-related issue.

Wow, no to pretty much all of that. What if you vote kick an afk/offline person and the other 2 go "no, he's with us, just had to reboot router, we're waiting for him"?

I'm not gonna ask every time before proposing a kick on a leech "are you guys in a group?" That's just idiotic.

[Feyniphia]

Wow, no to pretty much all of that. What if you vote kick an afk/offline person and the other 2 go "no, he's with us, just had to reboot router, we're waiting for him"?

I'm not gonna ask every time before proposing a kick on a leech "are you guys in a group?" That's just idiotic.

If SE cant even ENFORCE their OWN RULES, what ELSE do you suggest?

[Alistaire]

If SE cant even ENFORCE their OWN RULES, what ELSE do you suggest?

Um...where has that been stated? They are following their own rules, you just seem to disagree that those rules should be their rules.

[Feyniphia]

Um...where has that been stated? They are following their own rules, you just seem to disagree that those rules should be their rules.

If they can't action those that were abused by being kicked, why not remove hte warning and let us add a text box on adding our own reason for kicking them?

[Vondoomervil]

Why were you kicked?