DPS is the job of DPS.

[Reynhart]

It seems to me you don't necessarily understand the overwhelming support for "different playstyle" kicks that has been expressed by GMs. Your argument hinges on this idea that this isn't a valid reason to kick someone yet SE as a company (the people who literally make and enforce the rules) have expressed on numerous occasions that you are wrong.

That's just an oversight on SE, like in a lot of other systems. They set a specific set of objective rules for using the kick system and expect their playerbase to respect them.
And when people used it in subjective situations, they realized that they wouldn't have the manpower to deal with it, and create the general response of "SOrry, can't do anything, different playstyle", that can technically covers any kick situation that didn't end in insult-fest.

The simple fact you don't actually need real majority is another oversight.

[Taika]

And when people used it in subjective situations, they realized that they wouldn't have the manpower to deal with it, and create the general response of "SOrry, can't do anything, different playstyle", that can technically covers any kick situation that didn't end in insult-fest.

In other words, they made the decision to allow players kicking others because they don't want to play with them for whatever reason (aka playstyle differences) as long as the players doing the kicking aren't breaking any rules (harassing the player they're kicking or similar). You're arguing semantics, but the result is the same: removing a player because their playstyle (or glamour or name or whatever) conflicts with the rest of the party is 100% acceptable in the game.

[Paladinleeds]

The simple fact you don't actually need real majority is another oversight.

So, we have 1 person with the possibility of being impeached, so we discount their vote from it (naturally). That means you need 2 out of 3, or 4 out of 7. Looks like a real majority to me. Since both add up to over 50% of the vote being swung for kicking the person, that's a majority. I'm looking at it from the perspective of simple mathematics here.

[Reynhart]

So, we have 1 person with the possibility of being impeached, so we discount their vote from it (naturally).

No, this should be counted as an automatic "No' like the one initiating the vote is counted as an automatic "Yes".

[Paladinleeds]

No, this should be counted as an automatic "No' like the one initiating the vote is counted as an automatic "Yes".

No. It shouldn't. If I bring up a vote to kick someone from a job, I'm not counting their vote. You're the one being referred to for being fired, your vote will not count. Period dot. Now if your co-workers vouch for you and say "Yes, we'd like to keep this person", then yes, that's OK, we take that into account. But not the person being put through the process of potential impeachment. That'll always be how I do things, and if I recall correctly, how most businesses that do these things via vote do it too.

[MoroMurasaki]

That's just an oversight on SE, like in a lot of other systems. They set a specific set of objective rules for using the kick system and expect their playerbase to respect them.
And when people used it in subjective situations, they realized that they wouldn't have the manpower to deal with it, and create the general response of "SOrry, can't do anything, different playstyle", that can technically covers any kick situation that didn't end in insult-fest.


The simple fact you don't actually need real majority is another oversight.

I feel like there is no way for you to know these things and so to state them as facts instead of your own theories is sort of intellectually dishonest. You may be right though, the issue still remains though that you can't doubt the validity of these kinds of kicks because in the eyes of the people responsible for saying "is this okay?" the answer has been a resounding "yes" so the support for this comes not only from players but from SE themselves.

If your job decided tomorrow that it was okay to fire people for wearing a red shirt and you wore a red shirt and were fired for it.... Well, you knew the rule, didn't you? Sure, maybe there isn't any harm in wearing a red shirt but in the end the company made a judgment call.

In terms of the majority thing I see it as a majority - the perpetrator of a crime doesn't get a vote on the jury after all.

[Reynhart]

No. It shouldn't. If I bring up a vote to kick someone from a job, I'm not counting their vote.

This is not how majority works, and you can't brush it off when you're dealing with such small groups. It's not as if 100 people try to kick 1 and they always end up at exactly 50%.

I feel like there is no way for you to know these things and so to state them as facts instead of your own theories is sort of intellectually dishonest.

Problem is, even with a log blatantly showing how the reason is really stupid, SE will never state if this is a valid reason or not nor if they'll do an investigation. And you can always go into different playstyle territry to explain justify a kick.

One play style has some kind of advantage? Why?

As long as you match the Duty Finder expectation (min ilvl, language), you're in your right. If you want any additional requirement, like higher ilvl, speedrunning, a specific job, no first-timers, etc...you use the party finder.

[Miste]

If you want any additional requirement, like higher ilvl, speedrunning, a specific job, no first-timers, etc...you use the party finder.

No.

Remember I told you before....that is a hypocritical argument because you have expectations again.

You are basically saying everyone is allowed to go into DF and have the expectation to not speedrun, because speedrunners have to use PF according to you.

That's an expectation.

DF is for having ZERO expectations on both sides.

Either everyone can have expectations or no one can. No double standards.

[Reynhart]

Remember I told you before....that is a hypocritical argument because you have expectations again.

You're still twisting things by considering that "no expectation" is an expectation.

I don't "have the expectation to not speedrun", I "don't have the expectation of having to speedrun".

And if you want to have a no expectations except meeting the ilvl for the duty, and whatever else is fair game, you use the party finder.

No, if you only use the Duty Finder, the Duty Finder decide who has the right to join, not you. You don't use a tool that was specifically created to add additionnal requirements for people who stick by the basic requirements of the Futy Finder.

[Miste]

You're still twisting things by considering that "no expectation" is an expectation.

I don't "have the expectation to not speedrun", I "don't have the expectation of having to speedrun".

I don't think you understand what I am saying. Do you even understand what you have been saying?

You said that everyone has to adjust to people who want to do slow runs whether that be the majority wants to go slow or only 1/4 of the party wants to go slow doesn't matter, but no one has to adjust to a majority that wants speedruns even if 3/4 of the party wants a speedrun and only one player doesn't.

Why do the players who prefer speedruns have to always adjust to the players who prefer slow runs, but players who prefer slow runs never have to adjust to the players who prefer speedruns?

Do you not see what I am pointing out here?

This double standard in itself is an expectation. You expect to always have everyone adjust to your play style if you prefer slow runs, and you also expect all speedrunners to adjust to your slow run even if it is 3 v 1 like my example about you being on tank, remember you answered me:

I'll explain to them why I won't do a speedrun, and if they don't understand, they'll have to deal with it or make a team with additionnal requirement.

You have an expectation that they just "have to deal with it" and you are basically saying "you have to adjust to my play style so too bad you can't do anything about it because kicking me is wrong", but they in turn cannot say anything like that to you. Why are you allowed to force your play style on them, but if they refuse or try to force their play style on you they are somehow in the wrong while you remain innocent?