[LTD] Why does the opposite team have a saying in votekicking?

[Rasskalk]

Let me give you an example: If any given player is teamkilling or whatever, why does the opposite team have the ability to influence whether or not they should be kicked? Why not let the team itself decide?

[pr0totype]

Simply boils down to abuse. If a team doesn't like a player simply because they have a bad game and isn't intentionally teamkilling, or they refuse to draw or ff, they can vote him/her out. That, and mechanics likely can't be set for the votes by team. It's set on numbers. 6/8 makes abusive votekicks less likely to happen.

As far as refusing to votekick a legitimate ruiner, if the player is indeed ruining and sufficient, accurate information is given, or the ruining is obvious, that player must be kicked or a ban will be issued when reported.

This does not encompass flaming, votekick abuse, or wrong mode.

[Rasskalk]

Partly agree with you, but the main problem is mega games. The concept of decency is unheard of in that community. The opposite team would of course not agree to kick a troll when letting them stay increases their chances of winning

[FalenGa]

In that case they will be banned with the troll when you fill a request against them. If it's proven he was indeed trolling, of course.

[Quetra]

Your own team is often the worst judge of when it's acceptable to votekick someone. Frustrations run high with new players who are not breaking any rules but their team wants to votekick them. Also players voting for any little infraction like a bit of flame to teammates.

This would not be a good change.

[HazarDous]

Denied.