Votekick in Lobby

[MrCool]

I think that it should not be a bannable offence to votekick someone in a game lobby.
My reasons:
1) Bannable offences are all in place to punish people who intentionally do something that ruins the game, such as leaving early or doing a glitch that crashes the game. Votekick in the lobby does not effect the game in any way shape or form. The game has not started yet so it does not subtract from anyone's play experience.
2) The only negative aspect of being votekicked is having to rejoin the game. This is not a big deal. It takes all of 10 seconds, or more if you have to wait for a new game.
3) Votekick requires n-1 players to vote yes, where n is total number of players. If there is such a large majority that do not want to play with one person, why is that a bad thing?

From the game rules page:

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 (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)

The bolded part is very vague. What is considered wrong? Something on that is against the rules? There are no rules about the lobby, except for maybe excessive flaming. Would that be the only acceptable time to use votekick in a game lobby?

[Metall-Drago]

If this ever gets accepted dinosaurs are alive.

Team-abuse of friends, kicking people e.g who are in other team and are good so you ahve easier game.
Kicking when game is full, so a person cannot rejoin because someone else instant joined.
Kicking for a mate.
Kicking because the majority doesnt want to play with a person? You are free to leave and join the next game, or report the person if he broke any rules. Even votekick IF he purposely broke rules and you have proper evidence. Kicking because someone you do not like is something you can do in self-hosted games, but not autohost ones.

Doesnt matter if it requires a bunch of people to votekick someone, even in lobby.

The lobby is part of the games of ENT, therefore rules apply to the lobby aswell.
There are no rules for lobby? like spamming? rejoining to stall a game not to start?

You just seem to be mad that you cannot abuse it to make spots for your friends or w.e

Edit: This is like admins using !kick command for everyone they do not like, do you think that is legit too?

[supersexyy]

I support this suggestion. Just thought I'd dissect Drago's post as most of it is irrelevant to the suggestion.

Team-abuse of friends, kicking people e.g who are in other team and are good so you ahve easier game.

No, it requires the majority thus one team cannot kick another.

Kicking when game is full, so a person cannot rejoin because someone else instant joined.

That's not a reason to ban it.

Kicking for a mate.

Not a reason to ban it either.

Kicking because the majority doesnt want to play with a person?

Yes, that is the suggestion...

You are free to leave and join the next game, or report the person if he broke any rules.

Same can be said about the kicked player, whether the player is a rule breaker is irrelevant to the suggestion.

The lobby is part of the games of ENT, therefore rules apply to the lobby aswell.
There are no rules for lobby? like spamming? rejoining to stall a game not to start?

The other rules are irrelevant, this is a suggestion to change a particular rule.

You just seem to be mad that you cannot abuse it to make spots for your friends or w.e

And lets take a person jab at the OP for making a suggestion while we're at it.

Edit: This is like admins using !kick command for everyone they do not like, do you think that is legit too?

Um, no, its completely different. Votekick requires a majority, !kick doesn't.

[child]

It could very well be possible for a team of friends to kick good players on the other team AS they joined the game. So say u have a team of 5, if 1 good person joins they could quickly VK him and rinse and repeat. BUT this would be very very easy to spot, and friends who play together wouldn't be able to get away with this abuse of the allowed vote kick. I could also see it being somewhat hard for low skill players to join a game at all. I know that I do not like playing with or against such people, and if it were allowed to kick them in an otherwise balanced game I would vote yes most of the time, regardless which team they were on, as I find such feed games dull.

As related to possible difficulties of low skilled players being able to find a game they arent kicked from, this proposal would lead to heavy abused against european players, at leas in dota. Ultimately I can't support this suggestion because of prejudice against europeans on dora us/ca bots which even includes new european accounts with no stat. I doubt this exists in other games, at least not on the same level. I swear that almost half the time a european account with new stats or low stats joins a us/ca game with mostly americans at least one person on the team they join will either leave or start trashing european players and saying stuff centering around how this player is going to feed, kick him, trash euro leave etc. etc. While I admit that there is fairly substantial basis to this prejudice of euro's proportionately much more often being either trolls, throwers or just bad on em us/ca bots, it is still wrong as obviously there are several very high skilled european players. Allowing lobby kicks would lead to euro's having a very hard time playing on new accounts or accounts with not great stats in us/ca bots.

[Metall-Drago]

Case1: Game: ID

A bunch of people decides to kick the titan because they dont want to play against a decent guy? (happened to me quite often pre-admin) - So this should be legitime according to you sexy?

Autohostbots are free for everyone, therefore as a group of people you should not be able to "controle" the game in your favours, like kicking innocents just because you a) need slots b) dont like them

So you say that when you play a game lets say dota, 4 friends join a team, and a random guy they dislike joins aswell they should be allowed to votekick him since they are 4/5? So why we have rules and admins, just let the majority decide whats right and wrong and just ban the people that are disliked by the most, makes things even easier.

If a bunch of people doesnt like the people that are playing on the autohostbots that are FREE FOR ALL, they can host their own games, deal with it, or leave the game and join another. I do not see the sense in one guy being forced to join the next game just because a bunch of friends are hating on him.

Giving power to everyone in the internet can only end bad.

This suggestions can be compared to discrimination. - You do not like someone? just go ahead with ur friends and kick them, you shouldnt be forced to play with such things!

[child]

^^ ya pretty much same thing and in dota, usually the new euro player is automatically disliked on us/ca bots

[EdgeOfChaos]

Some games take a long time to fill and kicking someone will ruin their experience, as it takes 30 mins for a new game to fill.

Furthermore, it's wrong because you can't really be violating a rule in the lobby. The purpose of votekick is to get people out of the game who ruin it and break the rules. It's using the command in a way that it is not intended to be used on ENT. Also, as I always say on topics where people want to allow votekicks for bad reasons, the majority is not always right. It's not fair to the player you're kicking, regardless of the effort it takes to find a new game.

Everyone has a right to play in ent regardless of whether you like them or not (excluding rule violators obviously..)
Whether the majority likes someone is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to play.

[nabo.]

Remove votekick command during lobby.

[Aghnaar]

Europeans were better in dota than asians-americans. The two best players in dota history, Vigoss and loda are from europe. SO don't give me that shit about euro-trashes, when europeans are the guys that made dota what it is now. They even made a golden statue of Vigoss in China, admitting that he was the best. And loda is the one that came up with the ultimate shadow fiend with bottle-dagger-bkb, not that trash Yaphets that just copied him.
I wish american-asian kids could witness the greatness of these guys back in the glorious days of dota, not now that all pro euros play LoL and now are moving to dota2.
As for me, I faced 7-8 years ago Vigoss's QoP on a semifinal. This guy was buying necrobook and would rambo-gank no stop with apm over 200. He never ended a game with less than 20 kills. Fckin beast.
Btw, vigoss joined about four months ago and played two games on dotacash to meet some old friends. I was called to play on opponent team. He went easy 30 kills just trolling. It would be fckin hilarious if there was some pro american-asian on the lobby and try to vk him bc he was euro with no stats lmfao.
Make everyone that vk someone in lobby to read all this shit I wrote and then watch some old mym and sk. replays as punishment

[MrCool]

Autohostbots are free for everyone, therefore as a group of people you should not be able to "controle" the game in your favours, like kicking innocents just because you a) need slots b) dont like them

They can just rejoin. This isn't disallowing them from playing games. It only adjusts the teams.

So you say that when you play a game lets say dota, 4 friends join a team, and a random guy they dislike joins aswell they should be allowed to votekick him since they are 4/5? So why we have rules and admins, just let the majority decide whats right and wrong and just ban the people that are disliked by the most, makes things even easier.

We aren't talking about the other rules, only votekick. The point is that "legitimate" reasons for using votekick can be hazy. If people don't want to play a game because of one person who has bad stats, shouldn't everyone be able to decide that they don't want to play with that one person? Wouldn't that be legitimate? The outcome in that scenario is the same as someone leaving and rejoining so the game doesn't start, which I'm pretty sure is bannable.

If a bunch of people doesnt like the people that are playing on the autohostbots that are FREE FOR ALL, they can host their own games, deal with it, or leave the game and join another.

Obviously if people don't like a policy they can choose not to play on the bots... This has nothing to do with the discussion of whether this policy should exist in the first place.

I do not see the sense in one guy being forced to join the next game just because a bunch of friends are hating on him.

Maybe the discomfort of one person does not outweigh the wants of everyone else considering how low that discomfort really is. It is the same discomfort of being kicked by lag. It's really not that bad.
[/quote]

Giving power to everyone in the internet can only end bad.

Ok....?

This suggestions can be compared to discrimination. - You do not like someone? just go ahead with ur friends and kick them, you shouldnt be forced to play with such things!

I agree that this could be a problem. However, I think this is more of an issue with the community rather than the rule. If people are discriminating I think that it would show up in other ways than just votekick from lobby, such as breaking the rules in game. But it is still a real concern.

Some games take a long time to fill and kicking someone will ruin their experience, as it takes 30 mins for a new game to fill.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Are you saying that in a game that takes 30 minutes to fill, only after 30 minutes when it is about to start, everyone in the game votekicks one person and then that slot fills before they rejoin. I do not think that this will ever happen.

Furthermore, it's wrong because you can't really be violating a rule in the lobby. The purpose of votekick is to get people out of the game who ruin it and break the rules. It's using the command in a way that it is not intended to be used on ENT.

I think that if there is no violation that could be violated, then there must be some instances of votekick that are valid since there is the option to use votekick.

Also, as I always say on topics where people want to allow votekicks for bad reasons, the majority is not always right. It's not fair to the player you're kicking, regardless of the effort it takes to find a new game.

Well that goes to the question of whether it is fair or not. There are a lot of things that can be considered unfair, such as backdooring in dota. However the majority does not mind backdooring so it is allowed. But then again, the majority is not always right, such as when they votekick abuse in game. This question of whether the majority is in the right or wrong depends on the consequences of the offence. Then the effort of rejoining the game should be considered when judging how much in the wrong the majority of the players are.

Everyone has a right to play in ent regardless of whether you like them or not (excluding rule violators obviously..)
Whether the majority likes someone is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to play.

Again, they can just rejoin so they are allowed to play.

[EdgeOfChaos]

have no idea what you are talking about here. Are you saying that in a game that takes 30 minutes to fill, only after 30 minutes when it is about to start, everyone in the game votekicks one person and then that slot fills before they rejoin. I do not think that this will ever happen.]

Actually it has. Ask metall-drago, he gets accused of MHing in many games and kicked and sometimes must wait a long time for games.

Well that goes to the question of whether it is fair or not. There are a lot of things that can be considered unfair, such as backdooring in dota. However the majority does not mind backdooring so it is allowed. But then again, the majority is not always right, such as when they votekick abuse in game. This question of whether the majority is in the right or wrong depends on the consequences of the offence. Then the effort of rejoining the game should be considered when judging how much in the wrong the majority of the players are.

In fact, I would argue that the majority does NOT want backdooring allowed, seeing as every game I do it in, I get votekicked, raged at, flamed by my own team, people leave, etc..
Yes, the punishment should fit what they do. Normally rejoining isn't any effort, but I can think of at least 5 scenarios when you really wouldn't want to be kicked. If you want me to come up with as many as I can, I'd be happy to.

It's not that rejoining the game or being kicked from lobby is very horrible or something, but just that there is no reason to. Nearly ever. I'd say 99.9% of votekicks against someone in the lobby have no reason. Maybe 0.1% the users get it right and kick a ban dodger or something (It's fun outing ban dodgers in the lobby and getting them kicked )

Again, they can just rejoin so they are allowed to play.

They should not have to. No reason for them to get kicked. I think you would think differently if a moderator suddenly joined your game and decided to kick you because he didn't like your username or something. Votekick has the same result, you just need others to join you in your unfairness. (also, if you're wondering, yes, moderators have been demoted for kicking in lobby)

[MrCool]

Actually it has. Ask metall-drago, he gets accused of MHing in many games and kicked and sometimes must wait a long time for games.

I think that if everyone in a game suspects that a player maphacks, then it should be fine for the players to votekick before the game starts. This falls almost directly into the category of votekicks that are used to the discretion of the players when someone might be committing a bannable offence.

In fact, I would argue that the majority does NOT want backdooring allowed, seeing as every game I do it in, I get votekicked, raged at, flamed by my own team, people leave, etc..
Yes, the punishment should fit what they do. Normally rejoining isn't any effort, but I can think of at least 5 scenarios when you really wouldn't want to be kicked. If you want me to come up with as many as I can, I'd be happy to.

I only mentioned backdooring as an example, and maybe it is not the best one. The point is that if most all players think that some action is acceptable, then it probably will not be on the banlist, especially if the action is not that big of a deal. And no, I do not really want you to list scenarios where votekick in lobby is really a big deal. From personal experience and from how hosting communities behave in general, the benefits of using votekick in lobby outweigh the downsides.

It's not that rejoining the game or being kicked from lobby is very horrible or something, but just that there is no reason to. Nearly ever. I'd say 99.9% of votekicks against someone in the lobby have no reason. Maybe 0.1% the users get it right and kick a ban dodger or something (It's fun outing ban dodgers in the lobby and getting them kicked )

You are using the definition of "reason to kick" as how the rules currently function for votekick. I think that the reasons for votekicking in lobby should different than those in game. Say the game is not starting because of unbalanced team. Or someone wants to make room for their friend. Or many other reasons. I think that if everyone wants for one person to not be in that game with them they should have the power and right to kick them.

They should not have to. No reason for them to get kicked. I think you would think differently if a moderator suddenly joined your game and decided to kick you because he didn't like your username or something. Votekick has the same result, you just need others to join you in your unfairness. (also, if you're wondering, yes, moderators have been demoted for kicking in lobby)

This argument about a moderator using !kick is completely different than !votekick. Votekick requires a vote, and !kick does not. They are two different things. It does have the same result, but it also has the unanimous decision of the players, which is the important part.

Another thing I would like to bring up is that I have not experienced any other hosting service that had this rule. This should tell you that the world will not end if this rule goes away. It is really a non issue for 99.9% of all players.

I would also like to compare ENTs use of language to that of dotacash:
From dotacash:
Votekick abuse: Votekicking for no reason or spamming votekicks.
From ENT:
Abusing votekick: using !votekick to spam or when the victim has not done anything wrong;

The language is almost identical however they mean completely different things.

[EdgeOfChaos]

DotACash is the most abusive server on BNet, so I recommend you don't bring them up as an example :\

I think that if everyone in a game suspects that a player maphacks, then it should be fine for the players to votekick before the game starts. This falls almost directly into the category of votekicks that are used to the discretion of the players when someone might be committing a bannable offence.

It's not fair that a user must wait for the next game (which can take a long time with ID) because people see his 20/0 stat and thinks he must MH. I don't get how you can think that is fair.

I only mentioned backdooring as an example, and maybe it is not the best one. The point is that if most all players think that some action is acceptable, then it probably will not be on the banlist, especially if the action is not that big of a deal. And no, I do not really want you to list scenarios where votekick in lobby is really a big deal. From personal experience and from how hosting communities behave in general, the benefits of using votekick in lobby outweigh the downsides.

This is wrong. If the majority of players benefit from a rule and a minority suffer from it, it will gain community support usually. This doesn't always mean it's right to do so. The majority is not always right, and if you extend your view into the real world it leads to some ridiculous beliefs: for example that slavery was good in America because the majority wanted it. Being kicked IS a big deal, even if it's not for you.

This argument about a moderator using !kick is completely different than !votekick. Votekick requires a vote, and !kick does not. They are two different things. It does have the same result, but it also has the unanimous decision of the players, which is the important part.

Another thing I would like to bring up is that I have not experienced any other hosting service that had this rule. This should tell you that the world will not end if this rule goes away. It is really a non issue for 99.9% of all players.

Once again, no. The purpose of votekick and kick is the same: to get rule violators out of the game. This is the current stance of ENT (read the rules section). The point of votekick requiring a vote is that you can't give the power to kick someone to any random player, you need some kind of agreement that the player in question is indeed guilty. And the argument that all the other servers are doing it doesn't apply; I play on ENT and not other servers for a reason, and that reason is that most other servers have blatant admin abuse, nothing is done about it, the root admin makes his own rules when it suits him, etc.. Strict rules on votekick and transparency is what makes ENT unique.

Overall: Votekick is not a tool to get rid of people you don't like. Are you arguing to change this, and make votekick a tool to get rid of players you don't like? To make it this just in the lobby? Or are you arguing that the consequences of a lobby kick don't warrant a ban even if it is wrong to do so because they are not very bad consequences?

[child]

@aghnaar umad pickerrr>?

im not saying all euros are bad at all, historically they're the best. and ur very good <3, but many many euros on arem and sdem are either trolls or 100% nub. and there is definitely a prejudice against euro's with low/middle or new stats on these bots

[MrCool]

DotACash is the most abusive server on BNet, so I recommend you don't bring them up as an example :\

I only mentioned dotacash in comparing how they use the English language compared to on ent. The sentences defining votekick abuse are the same, but they are in fact different rules. I think the rules should be more clear on this site in their definition.

It's not fair that a user must wait for the next game (which can take a long time with ID) because people see his 20/0 stat and thinks he must MH. I don't get how you can think that is fair.

I think it is fair if the players in the game want to balance the team. If someone is 20-0 then they might be targeted for having too good of a record compared to the other people in the game, or on the other team. If everyone is forced to play with someone that they would rather not, I think that would go very far in ruining everyone's enjoyment of the game.

This is wrong. If the majority of players benefit from a rule and a minority suffer from it, it will gain community support usually. This doesn't always mean it's right to do so. The majority is not always right, and if you extend your view into the real world it leads to some ridiculous beliefs: for example that slavery was good in America because the majority wanted it. Being kicked IS a big deal, even if it's not for you.

I did not mean that all policies that have a majority support should become enacted. In my previous post I also said that it depends on the severity of the consequences of that policy. I do not think that rejoining the game is very severe. I think that forcing everyone in the game to play with one person they would rather not leads to far more discomfort.

Once again, no. The purpose of votekick and kick is the same: to get rule violators out of the game.

I think that in the lobby, since there pretty much cannot be any rules violators at that point, that votekick should be able to be used in a way that would benefit all players of the game.

Overall: Votekick is not a tool to get rid of people you don't like. Are you arguing to change this, and make votekick a tool to get rid of players you don't like? To make it this just in the lobby? Or are you arguing that the consequences of a lobby kick don't warrant a ban even if it is wrong to do so because they are not very bad consequences?

Yes to both of those, however I would not say it like that. I would say get rid of players that no one wants to play with. Since the inconvenience is low for the person kicked, and the benefits high for the players in the game, I see no reason why this should not be allowed. Except maybe for cases of discrimination, but that's about it.

I also think that it is pretty harsh to ban up to 11 people for not wanting to play with 1 person.