Did you know not performing as you think another player should in a group

[missybee]

most kicks are abusive

They aren't though.

It has been stated at least 4,218 times, but "differing playstyles" is a valid reason per GMs. It might be unfortunate that "differing playstyles" is so generic that it can account for pretty much anything under the sun, but that isn't the fault of the players.

As a result, very few kicks are actually "abusive."

[Reynhart]

But go ahead, keep arguing against everyone else when the facts are plain as day.

Ok, so what did you fix ?
I said that vote kicks should be more difficult to obtain so that they'll focus more or real reasons, and you smugly come with a bland "fixed that for you" to defend more permissive kicks, which is exactly the problem.

It might be unfortunate that "differing playstyles" is so generic that it can account for pretty much anything under the sun, but that isn't the fault of the players.

You're right, it's the fault of the system...yet you still defend it.

[HyoMinPark]

Considering the justifiable reasons listed on the kick page, most kicks are abusive. Most of the time, you'll do your thing, no one will say anything, and bam, you're out.

Considering the reasons listed for a Vote Dismiss (AFK, Offline, Harassment, Cheating), what other options would you add to make these kicks less "abusive"?

AFK: Self-explanatory
Offline: Self-explanatory
Harassment: anything others consider a hindrance to the party or to the dungeon run (e.g., being a troll, griefing other party members, failing to AOE large pulls, failing to play their role properly, etc..)
Cheating: Self-explanatory

Harassment basically fits most, if not all, of the majority of kicks. Thereby, not "abuse."
They could just add "Differing playstyles" as a fifth option, but typically those "differing playstyles" end up being things such as refusing to do as the majority of the group wants (speedrun/slow run, large pulls/small pulls), or failing to perform a job up to the expectations of the majority of a group (using AOE on a large pull) can also be considered "harassment" since it hinders progress.

[Reynhart]

Harassment: anything others consider a hindrance to the party or to the dungeon run (e.g., being a troll, griefing other party members, failing to AOE large pulls, failing to play their role properly, etc..)

No.
Here's what harassment defines :

Harassment

The use of inappropriate or offensive language, whether or not directed at another player, is considered harassment and is strictly prohibited. Using inappropriate language(including any play on words that could be deemed offensive) in a character name; Free Company name, Linkshell, Chocobo or Retainer name; Party Finder or Search Comment; or any other publicly-displayed message also constitutes harassment. SQUARE ENIX evaluates all claims of harassment on a case-by-case basis. If SQUARE ENIX determines in its sole discretion that one or more players have engaged in harassment, SQUARE ENIX may issue account penalties to all players involved in the harassment.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of language that could constitute harassment:

· Language generally considered unacceptable in a public place.

· Language intended to harm, annoy, threaten, or harass a third party.

· Language promoting discrimination against any race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability.

· Language promoting violence against any person,group of people, or property.

· Language intended to elicit a negative responseor that could trigger negative debates or conflicts.

There may be other types of harassment that do not fit square lyinto the above-described categories, such as when a player attempts to bypass anti-harassment mechanics like the blacklist or language-filter features. SQUARE ENIX may determine that such conduct constitutes harassment, even if such conduct is not expressly prohibited herein.

So, as long as you can't kick someone specifically for "Differing Playstyles", of even "Inapropriate Behavior", which is not the same as harassment (See source above), kicks for not doing AoE are abusive.

[missybee]

You're right, it's the fault of the system...yet you still defend it.

I defend it because I absolutely believe that it works as intended more often than not.

Anecdotes don't tend to have a lot of value, but I've personally never been kicked and I have had some really bad runs...like I should have gotten kicked.

I basically have faith in the fact that more people are going to respect the system than abuse it, but to say that opinion isn't colored by my own experiences would be disingenuous.

kicks for not doing AoE are abusive.

Per the rules established by GMs, it just isn't.

[Dualgunner]

Considering the justifiable reasons listed on the kick page, most kicks are abusive. Most of the time, you'll do your thing, no one will say anything, and bam, you're out.

Got any data to back your claims up? Taken polls, any census data on people being kicked? Or is this anecdotal? Or worse, is this FoF horror stories?

[HyoMinPark]

No.
Here's what harassment defines :

So, as long as you can't kick someone specificcally for "Differing Playstyles", of even "Inapropriate Behavior", which is not the same as harassment (See source above), kicks for not doing AoE are abusive.

Then SE can add an option for "Differing Playstyles." But, as it stands, kicking an individual for "Differing Playstyles" but choosing "AFK", "Offline", or "Cheating" isn't accurate either. So they have to go with "Harassment", since it is the option that is closest to the reason for the kick. So it's still not "abusive"; not in the sense that individuals use "vote kick abuse" in.

"Inappropriate Behavior" can also be considered "Harassment," by the way. Especially considering the definition you posted. And even though that definition is only considering verbal forms of harassment, harassment can extend far past just verbal harassment.


The system is working as intended.

Speaking from my own experience, I agree with Vote Dismisses when I see that they are warranted, and disagree with them when I see that they are not. Most of the time, the person is kicked if they deserve it, and not kicked if they don't deserve it. I have been kicked from duties once in my almost two years of playing, and it was by two individuals that were paired together. However, I considered the kick a blessing, as both individuals were probably the biggest tools I had ever met in this game, and upon requeuing after my (very much appreciated) dismissal, I got a group that cleared the dungeon flawlessly and in less than 20 minutes. So, in my experience, the system is working as intended.

[Alistaire]

No.
Here's what harassment defines :

So, as long as you can't kick someone specifically for "Differing Playstyles", of even "Inapropriate Behavior", which is not the same as harassment (See source above), kicks for not doing AoE are abusive.

Did you see the word "non-exhaustive" in there? Or the whole last paragraph?

[Reynhart]

Then SE can add an option for "Differing Playstyles."

If they do, we'll have a totally different discussion.

"Inappropriate Behavior" can also be considered "Harassment," by the way. Especially considering the definition you posted.

Considering the support center clearly separates "Harassment" and "Inappropriate behavior" in the source I provided, no, it's not.
And again, "Inappropriate behavior" is not listed in the vote kick system. So, basically, you can be reported for a vote kick if you didn't realize your party has a lootmaster and you don't like how he disributes the loot.

Did you see the word "non-exhaustive" in there?

Yes, non exhaustive language. Didn't you see the word "language" in there ?

Or the whole last paragraph?

Are you really trying to advocate that "not doing AoE" is the same category as trying to bypass the anti-harassment feature. Damn, people go to great length to justify kicking people.

[HyoMinPark]

So, basically, you can be reported for a vote kick if you didn't realize your party has a lootmaster and you don't like how he disributes the loot.

If someone fails to realize that a duty is Lootmaster, even though the Duty states as much upon the Duty window popping AND upon entering said duty, reporting the party leader for Lootmaster/loot distribution would just be dismissed by the GMs as your own failure to pay attention. And you can't initiate a vote kick in premade parties, which is the only way to use Lootmaster. Your faulty example has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Just going to repeat what Alistaire said:

Did you see the word "non-exhaustive" in there? Or the whole last paragraph?

and also this:

There may be other types of harassment that do not fit squarely into the above-described categories