[Rules] Handling of Votekick Abuse

[grek40]

I've been thinking about the votekick related rules and reading through some forum posts in this regard (mainly ban-requests and appeals).

For me it appears to be a problem how the rules are currently enforced (at least for DotA, dunno about other map problems).

Abusing votekick:
Using !votekick to spam or when the victim has not done anything wrong.
Also refusing to votekick when a player has clearly violated a rule (make sure to ensure it via all chat if you are on the opposite team).

Note:
It is possible for a player to ruin the game by both being new and refusing to learn. In this case votekick may be used but it is up to the players in the game to decide.
You must votekick a player who has broken any of the rules (keep in mind that you should not use a votekick for verbal offences (use !ignore <user> instead)).
Kicks and bans are enforced depending on how severe the rule has been violated. That means what the players think may be against the rules, could turn out to be not votekick-able by a mod's judgement. Be careful and pay attention to what happens/for what you vote.
Votekicks are ban-able even if they are not passed. Do not randomly start votekicks or vote without proper reasons. ENT keeps the right to enforce punishments as warning. Voting for something means you agree with it. You have a responsibility and you are accountable for what happens with your vote.

I suggest that the votekick initiator is required to state his reasons in all-chat. This should prevent a lot of confusion about validity of votekick attempts, since a votekick without reason statement can always be seen as abuse and a stated reason is a good base to judge over other players who should/shouldn't vote for this reason.

Secondly, i suggest to have a 3-stage punishment for votekick abuse:

1) The initiator should be punished at least twice as much as the voters, since there is no real excuse for false initiation
2) The teammembers of the votekick-target usually have better means to validate the votekick reason and therefore should be responsible for misjudgement (=punish)
3) The enemies of the votekick-target have restricted vision of that player and are often only informed per chat anyway, so they should not (or rarely) be punished. Their votes alone won't be enough to pass --> (2) can prevent it

Background is, that it's really a bad feeling when your enemy team wants to kick one of their members and you don't know what to do, because you want to give them a good game but are unsure about the severity of problems (rule break or not). This are the kind of ban cases, where good players without any ill intent are caught in one or the other way sometimes --> bad for ent community.

Feel free to move this to any other discussion forum, if it is not appropriate in the suggestion area

// €dit: added [Rules] to the title

[Hutzu]

I see no reason to implement a 3-stage punishment. The initiator is as much at fault as any other, who votes for it.
If wrong information has been provided, which CANNOT be seen by the opposing team, then the opposing team is of course not guilty.

For example a noob at dota going 0-8, that's not feeding. Intentional tower-diving and the sort is feeding. If the accused player was not seen by you, ask your teammates. One of them must have seen him tower-dive. If nothing of the sort was spotted -> say !no and you are fine.

If someone is resetting afk-timer at fountain, you of course cannot see it and believe it. If that info was wrong, then the votekick-initiator and his allies get punished, but you wont.

[grek40]

Ok, I get the point, that 3-stage may be overly complicated and noone should get away with unjustified vote.

Still I think, the initiator should have a higher responsibility - what do you think about the suggestion, that he is required to provide a reason in all chat?
Since he (obviously should have) made the votekick decision based on his knowledge and others may have to ask for reason anyway, it would simplify the process. It would also make abuse-report handling easier, since there even might be *some* valid reason at some point of game and still someone decides to votekick for his egoistic trolling reasons.
As it is, a mod would have to decide whether a votekick reason exists. With change, the mod only has to decide, whether the provided reason is true and valid -> less confusion, less work to do.

[aRt)Y]

the initiator should have a higher responsibility

You will have a hard time trying to have this implemented in your suggestion.

Anyone who votes takes the responsibility of kicking someone out of the game. Whether you started the votekick or were the 8th person to approve it. Each vote is equal - so is the responsibility any of them takes.

1) The initiator should be punished at least twice as much as the voters, since there is no real excuse for false Initiation
That's usually already the case.

2) The teammembers of the votekick-target usually have better means to validate the votekick reason and therefore should be responsible for misjudgement (=punish)
Liars are getting longer ban durations, too. At least the votekick starter.

3) The enemies of the votekick-target have restricted vision of that player and are often only informed per chat anyway, so they should not (or rarely) be punished. Their votes alone won't be enough to pass --> (2) can prevent it
They can ask on all chat if they arent sure. If they ignore it and vote anyway, then they get the punishment. If they ask and get a lie, then it isnt their fault and they should not receive a punishment.

[ForsakeMe]

i agree with my colleague at that point.

[Stealer]

I'm note quite sure trying to have 'rigid' rules for votekicking is a good idea, imo its best for it to stay a 'vague' rule.

I suggest that the votekick initiator is required to state his reasons in all-chat.

While I think this is a good idea, if I don't feel that you communicated well enough or it wasn't obvious why to votekick I'm not going to give a ban to people for not voting.

This should prevent a lot of confusion about validity of votekick attempts

If you're unsure why to votekick, ask. If they don't respond or something then you're unlikely to get banned.

[grek40]

This should prevent a lot of confusion about validity of votekick attempts

If you're unsure why to votekick, ask. If they don't respond or something then you're unlikely to get banned.

Exactly... you are unlikely to get banned, but it's hard to have a safe way out as long as you can also be punished for not voting on rule breaks.

---

In order to get some facts straight: is it currently possible to be punished for not voting on a rulebreak, if no reason is provided in chat and I don't ask for it? In other words, am I responsible for asking the reason when someone started a votekick?

[aRt)Y]

am I responsible for asking the reason when someone started a votekick?

That's correct - depends on the case tho. If a votekick is started, all parties are to decide whether they want to vote or not - it is your duty. However, to avoid abuse, you must ensure that the votekick is valid. Therefore - for your own defense - you ask in all chat what the votekick is all about if you dont already see/know it.

Ignoring a votekick if there's a rule violator is ban-able, so is blindly approving it.

I have said it in the past and will do it again: Votekick is a powerful command and power given to public players. Whether votekicks are valid or not, is decided by the staff. Therefore, be careful with your vote.

If you refuse to vote because you arent sure, make sure to voice your point of view in all chat (as proof for a possible unban because you did not "just" refuse it).

[grek40]

Then my suggestion definitely stands... if everyone is responsible to react on a votekick, then it is a huge improvement to require the initiator to state his reason, since it is necessary anyway in the process.

Otherwise you basically force an unnecessary reaction upon each player, when some troll is starting a (potentially valid, you never really know) votekick.

When I use common sense instead of rules, I would not agree to punishment in case of valid but not communicated votekick reason, even if no one asked for the reason. Votekick is a powerful command and it is necessary to punish abuse of this power. But please don't push the 'power' upon reluctant players more than needed.

[aRt)Y]

Otherwise you basically force an unnecessary reaction upon each player, when some troll is starting a (potentially valid, you never really know) votekick.

I dont think it is too bad to force players paying some attention to the actual game. If someone votekicks for fun (which can be ban-able), it even requires the users more to question the kick.

We could talk about it all we want but I doubt your suggestion will get an approval considering it doesnt change anything except for shifting the responsibility.

[uakf.b]

I don't see the downside to adding short note about this. I don't think we are banning for such situations anyway. In many maps it's not easy for the opposing team to know what's going on with the player, for example some players might be invisible for a long time in Battleships and cannot be distinguished from AFK. There's enough troll votekicks across games, which we don't strictly police because otherwise it'd just deter people from playing, that players usually ignore votekick when it's just started without reason provided, and I don't see anything wrong with that. If you want your votekick to be passed, then you should give an explanation for it.

I'd actually go further to say, if you plan on coming later and posting a ban request regarding it, then you should say in the game that the players who don't votekick will be banned in addition to providing the reason. Otherwise there's the incentive for votekickers to NOT say anything so that they can get other players banned.

Edit: re-reading the rule, it sounds like what OP is asking is already the case depending on how you read it, it's just not clearly explained to players/moderators:

Also refusing to votekick when a player has clearly violated a rule (make sure to ensure it via all chat if you are on the opposite team).

That rule doesn't say that you must get clarification when someone else does a votekick. If it's not clear to the player that there was a rule violation, then it seems like player should not be banned.

So unless there are instances of mishandling of votekick cases then I agree it doesn't need to be changed, but I think we should stay in mindset that people shouldn't be banned unless the reason for votekick has been explained or it was very clear from the game.

[aRt)Y]

If it's not clear to the player that there was a rule violation

Well, that's the point of asking in all chat.

I fear that pubs will just approve votekicks if they no longer have to ask in chat/question the votekick. They will just shift the responsibility to the votekick starter who might easily lie to them.

My point is, all votes are equal, therefore the responsibility should be equal, too.

[ShoC]

"My point is, all votes are equal, therefore the responsibility should be equal, too." Remember this when you're reviewing votekick abuse and someone types !yes.

[aRt)Y]

You are trying to say.. what?

[ShoC]

If it's not clear to the player that there was a rule violation

Well, that's the point of asking in all chat.

I fear that pubs will just approve votekicks if they no longer have to ask in chat/question the votekick. They will just shift the responsibility to the votekick starter who might easily lie to them.

My point is, all votes are equal, therefore the responsibility should be equal, too.

Sharing the responsibility. If all votes are equal then you're going to reprimand everyone who votes !yes on an invalid votekick right? (lol I'm laughing only because if you were to do this with a ban, I'm serious about the majority of the community being banned constantly coming here. Maybe that's good because that'd give you forum traffic, albeit alot more work as well)

One alternative would be to not have a votekick, and if someone is breaking a rule, they come here to the forum and report it and the result is a ban. So that way if you really do something wrong, you get banned instead of kicked, and, everyone else who doesn't care doesn't have to get banned for not caring.

Oh let me add that I understand, some people take the pub more seriously. I like ENT in general because the apem bot refreshes really quick and it's got a good leaver policy. I think alot of people are here because of something very similar. Sure I don't care about pub stats so I don't mind playing out a disadvantaged game by say having a leaver or a feeder or a losing game or griefer. They're still winnable and playable though people do alot of that bad stuff because of the community in general being purely rude. Pubstats too but that's a whole different ball game. (make new account go bottom and pick LC, huskar, slark, void, etc). It's even more confusing when you look at banning leavers yet advocating votekicking people.