Level 80s who single target groups of mobs

[Vahlnir]

So, is this considered kick abuse if I was to kick someone who was vastly underperforming? Is there any sort of precedent where SQ has allowed this? I mean, it's something I can certainly do or try, but I would want to stay in the green.

If they were holding back the group's progress, aka keeping the group stuck in one spot for x amount of time, then there is nothing wrong with it according to the ToS. I've initiated a kick a couple times for that reason in the 8 or so years I've been playing. Otherwise it comes down to a "difference of playstyles" which is a bit of a gray area. I suppose one could make the argument that another person's underperformance was causing someone "emotional distress" (causing emotional distress is a ToS violation) but that's a stretch and a half. I'm sure someone somewhere has tried it though. I can happily say that the amount of times I've initiated a vote to kick for anything could be counted on one hand.

[SturmChurro]

If they were holding back the group's progress, aka keeping the group stuck in one spot for x amount of time, then there is nothing wrong with it according to the ToS. I've initiated a kick a couple times for that reason in the 8 or so years I've been playing. Otherwise it comes down to a "difference of playstyles" which is a bit of a gray area. I suppose one could make the argument that another person's underperformance was causing someone "emotional distress" (causing emotional distress is a ToS violation) but that's a stretch and a half. I'm sure someone somewhere has tried it though. I can happily say that the amount of times I've initiated a vote to kick for anything could be counted on one hand.

For all my big talk on these forums in the past, the only time I've ever actually initiated a kick on someone was when they were DCed. Otherwise I just let it be.

[Driavna]

If they were holding back the group's progress, aka keeping the group stuck in one spot for x amount of time, then there is nothing wrong with it according to the ToS. I've initiated a kick a couple times for that reason in the 8 or so years I've been playing. Otherwise it comes down to a "difference of playstyles" which is a bit of a gray area. I suppose one could make the argument that another person's underperformance was causing someone "emotional distress" (causing emotional distress is a ToS violation) but that's a stretch and a half. I'm sure someone somewhere has tried it though. I can happily say that the amount of times I've initiated a vote to kick for anything could be counted on one hand.

Just by current ToS if three out of four members want to play in a certain way and the other don't adapt could be considered "imposing your playstyle" and is a violation of said ToS. At the same time, if before initiating a vote kick I asked/requested "Use your AoE rotation please." the kicked player can report me for the same violation.

It's the problem with such a vague ToS, at the end is about who bother to report or report first.

Anyway, on topic: after SB changes there is zero reason to not use your AoE rotation, in most cases is even simplier than the single target one.

[Awha]

I am all for kicking players that do not gel with the group. Think it is better for everyone if players that do not get along very well for whatever reason do not have to play with one another.

[van_arn]

So, is this considered kick abuse if I was to kick someone who was vastly underperforming? Is there any sort of precedent where SQ has allowed this? I mean, it's something I can certainly do or try, but I would want to stay in the green.

All long as someone else agrees with you, as long as you didn’t insult the other player, kick away.

If they refuse to listen to advice and the party successfully voted for them to leave, they were the one attempting to impose their playstyle on 3 other people.

If someone gets kicked and their buddy has a cry, the person that agreed with you can silently kick them to resolve the issue before it becomes drama or you can leave without penalty as there is no longer a full group.

[Hycinthus]

Just by current ToS if three out of four members want to play in a certain way and the other don't adapt could be considered "imposing your playstyle" and is a violation of said ToS. At the same time, if before initiating a vote kick I asked/requested "Use your AoE rotation please." the kicked player can report me for the same violation.

It's the problem with such a vague ToS, at the end is about who bother to report or report first.

Anyway, on topic: after SB changes there is zero reason to not use your AoE rotation, in most cases is even simplier than the single target one.

Hmm agree it is vague but let’s take a look at the definition of “impose”

Impose:
1. To force (an unwelcome decision or ruling) on someone.
a. put (a restriction) in place.
b. require (a duty, charge, or penalty) to be undertaken or paid. "a fine may be imposed"
c. exert firm control over.

2. take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment.

I think the keywords here are "an unwelcome decision", "exert firm control", and "take advantage of someone".
Ok so for the scenario if a tank that doesn't pull wall-to-wall. Does he fulfill the keywords above? Is he exerting firm control and taking advantage of someone? Or maybe he's just playing the game?

For the scenario, if we say “use your AoE”, and the person did it, then it’s not imposing. But if he resisted, and documented via chat, “No i dont play that way”, then it’s an unwelcome decision already.

But if he doesn't reply, then can we really conclude anything? Could be the person does not even read chat, or does not know that the blue chat there is directed towards him, could be that he thought you guys were NPC instead of real players (yes, this is a common misunderstanding for new MMO players, young ones especially, they cannot tell who's NPC who's not). Did any part of the game teach him that the blue chat is party chat and it's directed towards him? Things like this comes into play.

I guess every case will be on a case-by-case basis.

[Vahlnir]

It is vague but let’s take a look at the definition of “impose”

Impose:
1. To force (an unwelcome decision or ruling) on someone.

So perhaps, if we say “use your AoE”, and the person did it, then it’s not imposing. But if he resisted, and documented via chat, “No i dont play that way”, then it’s an unwelcome decision already.

And the same could be said in reverse about imposing a playstyle, since the person not wanting to AoE is imposing their playstyle on 3 other people. There's a lot of room open for interpretation, really. Context is everything though.

[Absurdity]

It is vague but let’s take a look at the definition of “impose”

Impose:
1. To force (an unwelcome decision or ruling) on someone.

So perhaps, if we say “use your AoE”, and the person did it, then it’s not imposing. But if he resisted, and documented via chat, “No i dont play that way”, then it’s an unwelcome decision already.

That would be the assumption but then you can also kick someone for "difference of playstyle" which throws a wrench into the whole thing because I would consider "refusing to use aoes" as a "difference in playstyle". This is the issue with such a vague ToS, which of the two takes priority here? Do both apply? And what would be the GM judgement if you were reported for it?

[Hycinthus]

That would be the assumption but then you can also kick someone for "difference of playstyle" which throws a wrench into the whole thing because I would consider "refusing to use aoes" as a "difference in playstyle". This is the issue with such a vague ToS, which of the two takes priority here? Do both apply? And what would be the GM judgement if you were reported for it?

Sorry I edited my comment before your reply, I added more definition of imposing:

c. exert firm control over.

2. take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment.

Does it also exerting firm control over and taking advantage of someone?

Anyway yes, not here to argue about ToS. Totally agree about the gray area, but I think the gray area might be there so SE can just take a look on a case-by-case basis and have leverage on what should be covered.

I think the "spirit" of the policy is to prevent harassment.