Is the vote kick system improperly implemented for how it's actually being used?

[XiXiQ]

Unless a person is asking to be kicked so they don't have the penalty, who on earth is going to willingly vote themselves out?

Allowing all players to vote is beyond stupid. You're essentially forcing a party to stay together.

That's the point. There are 4 in the party, not 3. Why disenfranchise one of them? if it's down to a 2-2 split, that's democracy for you.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

That's the point. There are 4 in the party, not 3. Why disenfranchise one of them? if it's down to a 2-2 split, that's democracy for you.

Because they are the target of the vote. No democracy allows you to vote for or against yourself.

[Sylvina]

Because they are the target of the vote. No democracy allows you to vote for or against yourself.

Cough, US elections Cough.

[XiXiQ]

Because they are the target of the vote. No democracy allows you to vote for or against yourself.

You're joking, right? ALL democracies allow you to vote for yourself. You've not seen the PMs and Presidents out casting their votes come election day? No-one is disenfranchised for being involved.

[Jijifli]

You're joking, right? ALL democracies allow you to vote for yourself. You've not seen the PMs and Presidents out casting their votes come election day? No-one is disenfranchised for being involved.

Technically you auto vote yourself into no.

[XiXiQ]

Technically you auto vote yourself into no.

technically how?

[Evumeimei]

Because they are the target of the vote. No democracy allows you to vote for or against yourself.

But in the case where the party is perfectly split in terms of opinions, the issue arises where the first person to resort to using vote dismiss has a clear advantage. In the example of wanting big/small pulls with a 50/50 split, is there really even a good reason to vote kick someone?

They need to adjust it to be a majority of the total party number. 2 people should not decide for a group of 4 that they want to remove someone, especially not so then they can just abandon the last person without any penalty. It should be 3 yes votes and at least 5 in a party of 8.

Exactly. It should require 3 out of 4 members to agree on the vote dismiss for it to go through.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

But in the case where the party is perfectly split in terms of opinions, the issue arises where the first person to resort to using vote dismiss has a clear advantage. In the example of wanting big/small pulls with a 50/50 split, is there really even a good reason to vote kick someone?

Exactly. It should require 3 out of 4 members to agree on the vote dismiss for it to go through.

And? The other person is promptly free to leave themselves if they deem the vote kick unjustified. Allowing the accused party to weigh in virtually guarantees you will always deadlock, thus defeating the system entirely. Say I wanted to troll you and invite a friend. With your proposal, you have no recourse except to leave and eat a 30 minute penalty. You can't kick me since the vote will be split. If I were subtle and did something like spam Blizzard, any report you make to a GM will be waved aside under the "playstyle" argument.

At this point, why even have a vote kick option at all?

[Zojha]

Say I wanted to troll you and invite a friend. With your proposal, you have no recourse except to leave and eat a 30 minute penalty. You can't kick me since the vote will be split. If I were subtle and did something like spam Blizzard, any report you make to a GM will be waved aside under the "playstyle" argument.

Say I wanted to troll you and invite two friends. As it is right now, you have no recourse except to leave and eat a 30 minute penalty. You can't kick me because I have the majority. If I were subtle and did something like spam Blizzard, any report you make to a GM will be waved aside under the "playstyle" argument.

At this point, why even have a vote kick option at all?

Logical consequence: There should not even be a vote to kick, you should simply be allowed to kick without voting at all.

Yeah... no. The issue is plain and simple that parties have an even number of players. There is no just way to democratically resolve a tie other than getting a third party to weigh in or convince the other side. Anything else clashes with democratic principles. And you can either accept that the current system simply is unjust and live with that, or try and change it by adding an impartial tiebreaker system, such as flipping a coin and randomly kicking either everyone who voted for, or everyone who voted against. Or, get a fifth man in there.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

snip

While not untrue, I can actively prevent such an occurrence by bringing a friend myself. Not to mention, it's far less likely three people will gather just to troll one person in DF. The proposed allows no recourse whatsoever. If I bring a friend, we're deadlocked and someone has to eat a penalty. So now I need three people to lock them out. Basically, it's a choice between very rarely having to deal with a scenario of three people trolling. A majority system makes sense. The occasional abuse doesn't change that.

A simple solution for this is to punish everyone in the party with the 30 minutes penalty, regardless of whom starts a vote dismiss, whom is kicked from the duty and whom remains in the duty!...

This way everyone shares the pain and that's surely to discourage abuse, the dismissed player would be the first to wait for 30 minutes for the Duty Finder to open, the remaining players would be hit with the penalty upon finishing their current duty!...

... this has to be the worst idea I've ever heard. You are punished for vote dismissing a troll, could receive a penalty if someone arbitrarily kicks you for giggles or for literally nothing at all if you lose the majority vote. What happens if I say, unexpectedly dc? Hooray! Everyone gets locked out of DF for 30 minutes for absolutely no reason!