So votekick >abuse< is practically allowed?

[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.

[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.

[Hikoko]

OP, what's the background of your case? Before agreeing or disagreeing that the current system doesn't work I'd like know how it was misused against you.

I have kept details of my specific incedent out of this discussion for a good reason. I don't want you to judge whether it was misused against me, I want you to judge whether it is a good policy (such as, one that does not allow abuse easily) that a simple disagreement in playstyle is a legit reason to votekick, as the GM told me.
I'll repeat that "(no) cutscene-skipping" and "gear not deemed high enough" are both named examples that fall under this section.

Good examples of this that have been provided in this thread are the refusal to fulfill one's job function.

This is called harassment and that should fall under the "Harassment"-section, shouldn't it?
The problem of "refusing to play one's job function" is not the issue of this thread.

The issue is that "Player disputes" and "Differences in playstyles" seem to be a legit reason to kick a player. If two (or more) players have an argument, and neither of them is right or wrong (they simply disagree), why is one group allowed to kick the player? If said player did not violate the terms of the User Agreement, why is it not a violation to kick him?

In case this is regarded as a violation, then why does the GM tell me otherwise and why are there numerous comments about GMs not ruling as one would assume is appropriate alone in this thread?
I would say because the offical policy states it's not a violation and the GMs take it for what it is.

If the concern is that this will be used as an excuse to abuse the feature, if our investigation determines that they did perform their duties in an appropriate manner and were kicked due to unrealistic expectations

This was not the concern of my opening post. The concern is that players who want to kick someone for whatever reason (loot, player dislike, racism or whatever you can find) "simply" have to make up an excuse that falls under said category of "playstyles" or provoke an argument ("player dispute") and then kick the player without facing punishment - with no harm done on the kicked-player's side.

I should have named the thread "So votekick >abuse< is practically non-existent?", maybe it has lead to some confusion.

Your acceptance of kick-votes deviating from the specified text in the client encourages a kick-now-and-see-if-it-comes-back-on-us attitude. If you're going to allow such terminology in the justification of kick-votes, then it should be a written option in the client.

That would be a first step to clarify things, but it would not fix the issue I (and as far as I can tell some others) see in the general policy.


edit: no system is perfect, everybody knows that. I just think the current system/policy has a major flaw that shouldn't have happened in the first place, that being what I have been talking about all along.

[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.

[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.

[Amberyl]

Currently, option 2 is what is currently in place, since a GM needs to investigate either way, and allows the GM to consider new types of disruptive behaviour that arise instead of waiting for a change to the tool while keeping the tool interface easy to navigate and use.

While I can appreciate the benefits to the organization of using this to explore community misbehaviour, you're reliant on the concept that the majority of people victimized by misuse of the kick-vote feature go on to report their grievance.

Realistically, this won't be the case. If a new player doesn't understand the game well enough to know how their job role works and is illegitimately vote-kicked for that, are they likely to understand how to report a grievance? No, more than likely not. They'll just presume the community is as toxic as it appears, and go play something else. The low-benchmark for GM response in the industry won't help that either, regardless of how efficient your own team may be.

If you're going to insist on continuing with this 'it doesn't have to match what the prompt says' system, I would request you also examine a random cross-section of logs from sessions where a kick-vote occurs and no grievance is filed, to gauge to what degree you're missing misuse. Specifically, crunch level-sync instances such as Darkhold, Vale, and Qarn, would be a good place to start, as they're prone to poor behaviour relative to their increased difficulty. I'm not trying to teach you how to suck eggs - you may already be doing this. My request is there purely because you may not have considered it, or the extra workload may have previously been considered poor use of funds. I would urge to you that it isn't.

On the downside, it is limited by the creativity of customers to find ways of disrupting a run outside of what is listed.

That's no different to what you're doing now, except the current lack of specificity gives you a perceived get-out-clause for not acting. Whether the bad-behaviour list is public-facing or not, you've still got to refer back to it as a GM to rule. The lack of transparency and accountability merely shields you from recourse when you make a bad decision. When a victim is already feeling let down by the system, a lack of transparency only adds to their grievance. Surely that's a bad thing?

If the list needs to be big and is growing, let the community see that. Policing behaviour can only be easier if the community is aware. Less turning a blind eye, more self-policing.

[MeiUshu]

there are other 23 people doing that CT, one down doesnt really make any difference, in my opinion. I prefer by far doing any of the instances even with two people down, then seeing what I see on a daily basisa, DAILY basis, aka abuse of the kick vote...which out of 100 I may vote 1 or 2 YES, the rest is plain abuse...PLAIN abuse.... also, and this to be clear, I dont play FOR the otehrs, I play WITH the others, each are responsible of their own actions, if I dont like it I will leave..and take the penalty I personallyd ont see a problem with that.

If peopel were more responsible when using that tool, it would just be THE tool, but as it is, people arent mature enough to handle an adult tool, since, to be fair, we have many playing here that are NOT adults, although adults are often teh worst person, as my daughter once told me

@Miitan

How do you know it is deliberate ? perception is often misleading. I may simply be that the person is trying out others ways OR just not playing the way you play....see my point ? when you let a tool to the *perception* rather then facts it leads often to abuse...not to mention the...*sheep mentality* worst by far of all

Mei

[ispano]

How do you know it is deliberate ? perception is often misleading. I may simply be that the person is trying out others ways OR just not playing the way you play....see my point ? when you let a tool to the *perception* rather then facts it leads often to abuse...not to mention the...*sheep mentality* worst by far of all

Mei

If they are playing differently because they want to, and it's holding the group backl, it's deliberate. ESPECIALLY if you talk to them about it. You've been on this kick for quite a while now. But a person does not have to be directly intending to mess up the group, to be causing a problem worthy of a kick. They are choosing not to change to help the group, they are choosing to stay the same and keep causing problems. Even if causing problems isn't their intent, they are still doing it.

[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

[Amberyl]

If they are playing differently because they want to, and it's holding the group backl, it's deliberate.

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