ENT Gaming

So apparently its only bannable if the vote goes through, my complaint is, what does that matter? People that vote to kick have the exact same intention regardless of if the vote passes or not.

Who Cares? If the kick didn't pass then the only thing that they did was spam chat with the auto-text. You still got to play the game when you didn't do anything wrong. Why should they be banned for something that they didn't do?

Only other time it could be votekick abuse is if perhaps he is lets say "hogging" the command from the bot so it makes it unable to kick that user if you know what I mean by that when I say it. Otherwise yes if the kick does not pass then there is no reason to ban initally other than the reason I had stated.

Why care? because a persons intentions are no different from one to the other.Its like saying attempted murder shouldn't be punished since they didn't do any harm. If you can prevent someone from abusing vote kick, why wouldn't you?

You just answered your own question, xenata. You can't compare murder and getting kicked from a video game. If the person hasn't broken a rule and the votekick passes against him, it is really unfair for the victim. If there is an attempt to votekick the person and it doesn't pass, there is no reason to ban them.

Imo it's pretty obvious that !votekicking should be punishable no matter if went through or not, as the the people who started/passed had the intention to kick him and they wouldn't be able to stop it if everyone else also passes. It's not like they knew that someone won't pass or anything, they did want to kick without reason with the full knowledge that it is against the rules. If this isn't banable they will obviously keep trying to votekick without reason and at one point someone will be kicked unfairly which could be prevented if every rule breaking usage of !votekick would be punishable. Only thing that speaks against enforcing the rule that way is the heavily increased workload for the Mods.

Love wrote:Who Cares? If the kick didn't pass then the only thing that they did was spam chat with the auto-text. You still got to play the game when you didn't do anything wrong. Why should they be banned for something that they didn't do?

because you're not punishing him because other people didn't vote for it. what he did is the same. empathize with the complaint.

Diablo_ wrote:Imo it's pretty obvious that !votekicking should be punishable no matter if went through or not

So we should ban everyone who starts an unfair votekick? The number of ban requests we get would go up 5x in size at least. So many people start unfair votekicks because they THINK that something is wrong, but the kicks never pass, if the kick never passes it doesn't have an impact on the game. Or at least it shouldn't. If someone takes the votekicking personally then it's their fault for not being able to properly handle the situation. The only other way it could impact the game is if someone is "Hogging" the votekick system so to speak. And I believe that you have to wait 3 minutes after your previous votekick to start another one.

@eldryan why should I empathize with him when I don't agree. It's not our fault that he takes someone ATTEMPTING to votekick him seriously. He takes it to seriously, why should we care... It's a personal issue now. The simplest way to fix this is for him to just ignore the person, problem solved. If the votekick DOES pass then he can submit a ban request and vouilla the abusers get banned because they have now does something wrong.

Making votekicks that don't pass bannable would do two things
1) Greatly increase the number of bans - in turn greatly decreasing the number of players on ENT
2) Greatly increase the number of ban requests being sent it. ENT Game moderators VOLUNTEER their time, they are not getting paid and are not forced to be here, as such they shouldn't have to deal with petty requests.

Think of it this way, an elementary school playground. You hit another kid, you get sent to the principle. Easy. But they don't send every kid who says "I'm gonna hit that kid" then doesnt do it, to the principle. If they did they would be sending kids to the principles office all day. Thus creating an unnecessary amount of work to deal with a very insignificant issue.

Love wrote:

Diablo_ wrote:Imo it's pretty obvious that !votekicking should be punishable no matter if went through or not

So we should ban everyone who starts an unfair votekick? The number of ban requests we get would go up 5x in size at least. So many people start unfair votekicks because they THINK that something is wrong, but the kicks never pass, if the kick never passes it doesn't have an impact on the game. Or at least it shouldn't. If someone takes the votekicking personally then it's their fault for not being able to properly handle the situation. The only other way it could impact the game is if someone is "Hogging" the votekick system so to speak. And I believe that you have to wait 3 minutes after your previous votekick to start another one.

@eldryan why should I empathize with him when I don't agree. It's not our fault that he takes someone ATTEMPTING to votekick him seriously. He takes it to seriously, why should we care... It's a personal issue now. The simplest way to fix this is for him to just ignore the person, problem solved. If the votekick DOES pass then he can submit a ban request and vouilla the abusers get banned because they have now does something wrong.

Making votekicks that don't pass bannable would do two things
1) Greatly increase the number of bans - in turn greatly decreasing the number of players on ENT
2) Greatly increase the number of ban requests being sent it. ENT Game moderators VOLUNTEER their time, they are not getting paid and are not forced to be here, as such they shouldn't have to deal with petty requests.

Think of it this way, an elementary school playground. You hit another kid, you get sent to the principle. Easy. But they don't send every kid who says "I'm gonna hit that kid" then doesnt do it, to the principle. If they did they would be sending kids to the principles office all day. Thus creating an unnecessary amount of work to deal with a very insignificant issue.

your comparison is flawed because technically they did hit the kid in this metaphor. Voting !yes is the exact same regardless if the vote passes or not. You're right, it would increase the volume of requests, for a short period of time, after people realize that what they're doing is wrong, it will not only improve the game quality but also reduce in bans overall because people will start to take it more seriously. The reason I even bring this up is because I had a mod voting to kick me in a game because i'm new to it. Also, it would only decrease the amount of players in the short term, players are more likely to stick around long term if their games are more enjoyable, the flaming and harassment that goes along with votekick abuse is not beneficial to anyone.

BouncingHitman wrote:You just answered your own question, xenata. You can't compare murder and getting kicked from a video game. If the person hasn't broken a rule and the votekick passes against him, it is really unfair for the victim. If there is an attempt to votekick the person and it doesn't pass, there is no reason to ban them.

Except that I CAN compare the two, it works as a perfect metaphor. If you seriously think that because I use it as a metaphor that I take them both equally serious then you clearly aren't in a proper state of mind.

Okay fine I'll change my comparison. A GROUP of kids threatens to hit a kid, they don't all get sent to the office unless they actually hit the kid. Not to mention people would be more hesitant to votekick people who are committing more serious crimes because now they could possibly be banned for votekicking. And no it will not reduce the number of ban requests at all. All it will do is give us 5 pages of unprocessed requests that nobody is going to get to because nobody wants to spend an entire day doing requests for votekick that didn't pass. That's just stupid
And if a mod voted to kick you in game your complaint should be against that mod. Not against the system.

The chances of you getting votekicks that don't pass approved is probably less than 1%. Because most of the staff know that it will cause them an extreme amount of work that is totally unnecessary.

My suggestion to you is that you just ignore the people who are trying to !votekick you. If you don't take it personally and just play the game you'll feel a lot better. Try changing yourself before you try and change the system.

Off topic:

Love wrote:So we should ban everyone who starts an unfair votekick? The number of ban requests we get would go up 5x in size at least.

Perhaps you should have read diablo's full post.

Love wrote:why should we care... It's a personal issue now.

Staff members are supposed to care for the community - at least those who are on staff. How can it personal if it isn't directed at you?

Love wrote:But they don't send every kid who says "I'm gonna hit that kid" then doesn't do it, to the principle. If they did they would be sending kids to the principles office all day.

"kid who says" something != users who are actually using commands. A command has been used, therefore the kid did 'hit' his class mate. Whether the votekick passes or not only defines the severity.

At ENT, we consider starting or voting versus a player as not that severe since no damage is dealt. Unless the votekick actually happens.

I can't stress it enough: Every user is responsible for any commands he uses or votes he gives. Giving a vote means having responsibility because something in your name will happen - and for god's sake: You should be aware of what's going on. If it is impossible to figure it out, mention it in all chat. If the users lie to you, not your fault.

Perhaps the general rules need a clear update regarding the obvious.

Edit:

xenata wrote:The reason I even bring this up is because I had a mod voting to kick me in a game because i'm new to it.

Such kind of vote kicks fall under the general rules. Vote kicking new players (which actually passes) is forbidden and ban-able - even if he is a mod, it doesn't matter. If it didn't pass, a warning regarding misleading presentation of ENT and the staff can be given.

ENT is supposed to have a newbie- and pro-friendly playing environment. What you described should not have happened and I apologize.