New Votekicking Rule

[Jiminy_Cricket]

Anyone can start a votekick. Anyone can vote yes. If a votekick passes the people who voted yes can be banned if the votekick was not for legitimate reasons because you ruined the game. Ban length same as game ruin and gets more severe the more the rule gets broke by that player.

[nabo.]

I dont get this suggestion. Sounds like something ill archive soon though.

[Jiminy_Cricket]

What dont you understand nabo.?

[supersexyy]

How is that different to the current rules?

[Jiminy_Cricket]

@supersexyy the current rules allow banning of anyone attempting to illegitimately vk someone. But the person may have thought it was legit. This rule states that only an illegitimate vk that goes through is banable to the ppl voting yes.

[Hatedmaru]

I don't agree at all with this suggestion; !Votekick should only be used for the legit reasons it was created for: to votekick players violating rules - If you want to get your ally attention, ping them, spam them, write in caps (Anything that caughts up to him); Votekick shoulnd't be used as an alternative way of managing stress/emotions ingame, or for "fun".

[nabo.]

@supersexyy the current rules allow banning of anyone attempting to illegitimately vk someone. But the person may have thought it was legit.

If they "think" its legit when it is not, tats their fault for not reading the rules or use common sense?

W/e the case may be, mods can decide whether a ban or a warning should be given.

This rule states that only an illegitimate vk that goes through is banable to the ppl voting yes.

I dont get what you are trying to say with this either. So, if someone votes !yes to a legitimate vk, it is not ok?

State your problem for suggesting something clearly.

[Jiminy_Cricket]

lol nabo.

obv. ppl can vote !yes to legit vks. This rule just says the kick needs to go through to be vk abuse. Same logic as flaming. The flaming needs to be excessive to be banable. The vk needs to really be abuse (go through illegitimately) to be banable.

[Jiminy_Cricket]

Gaara by your logic if someone flames at all they should be banned. By your logic if someone afks at all they should be banned. By my logic the offense needs to ruin the game to be banable. It needs to be serious and not trivial.

[Hatedmaru]

Gaara by your logic if someone flames at all they should be banned. By your logic if someone afks at all they should be banned. By my logic the offense needs to ruin the game to be banable. It needs to be serious and not trivial.

!Votekick should only be used for the legit reasons it was created for: to votekick players violating rules - If you want to get your ally attention, ping them, spam them, write in caps (Anything that caughts up to him); Votekick shoulnd't be used as an alternative way of managing stress/emotions ingame, or for "fun".

Where do you see that logic? What i'm telling you is that votekick shoulnd't be used for other reasons, besides what it was implemented for.

[Jiminy_Cricket]

I feel honored when someone tries to vk me after I kill them. And If I really did get votekicked I'd be pissed and report them but one vk attempt on someone doesnt do anything negative to the game play. Allowing ENT mods to ban over an attempt simply opens the doors for people to tattle on each other over non-game ruin happenings.

[nabo.]

Vk abuse = abuse vk with invalid reasons to kick players (vote passes)

Vk misuse = uses vk for no reason, for the heck of it, to spam, to avoid being vk, etc (vk does not pass, but still a bad example+representation of vk usage to others)

Misusing a function and bending its purpose creates problems disrupting games = bannable. There are also times when people vk with the intention to kick an innocent player while others vk dont pass = still bannable.

One vk which does not pass ususally does not get you a ban. At most, youd get a few hr warning. In YOUR CASE, you misused and abused vk too much.