Votekick in Lobby

[supersexyy]

I've got to say the civ wars bot would be much more active if you were able to votekick noobs. In a game of good players a newish player will completely ruin the game. If the game happens to start with 5 players + 1 noob, the noob would often be abused and his team will have little chance of winning from the start. Thus, often the team with the noob will leave in the lobby, causing longer lobby times and more stacked teams. The noob will also have a better gaming experience if he joined the next game, rather than be the one to ruin what could have been a good game.

This is also one of the reasons why I don't play civ wars as much. There is nothing more frustrating than having 5 good players in the lobby waiting then 1 noob joining to ruin the game (usually his team will just leave).

[nabo.]

I really want to say...votekick should be removed in lobby + in game... but there are extreme cases of game ruiners in game so votekick can be useful.

In lobby you have a choice of leaving or staying to play the game after looking at stats, so votekick is not needed. But ingame, you dont have a choice to leave the game (since you will get banned), therefore votekick should be available.

Remove votekick in lobby. Why do you need votekick while u chat? You have NO valid logical reason to votekick someone in lobby, so ofc you should get banned. Comments about "he fed last game" "this kid shit talks so much" "xxxxxx is noob" are all personal comments which are not valid reasons to votekick someone from lobby.

[child]

I really want to say...votekick should be removed in lobby + in game... but there are extreme cases of game ruiners in game so votekick can be useful.

In lobby you have a choice of leaving or staying to play the game after looking at stats, so votekick is not needed. But ingame, you dont have a choice to leave the game (since you will get banned), therefore votekick should be available.

Remove votekick in lobby. Why do you need votekick while u chat? You have NO valid logical reason to votekick someone in lobby, so ofc you should get banned. Comments about "he fed last game" "this kid shit talks so much" "xxxxxx is noob" are all personal comments which are not valid reasons to votekick someone from lobby.

what if someone who has just ruined a game for you or by team killing, sharing abuse, int. feeding and who has not had their ban request processed yet follows you around? Or if they are just abusive in other ways and follow people? That could get highly frustrating. There are definitely reasons for it, but I agree there are probably more reasons to get rid of it

[nabo.]

what if someone who has just ruined a game for you or by team killing, sharing abuse, int. feeding and who has not had their ban request processed yet follows you around? Or if they are just abusive in other ways and follow people? That could get highly frustrating. There are definitely reasons for it, but I agree there are probably more reasons to get rid of it

1)Just because someone is on a ban request, you have no right to votekick him. If this person did ruin a game, after review, a mod will ban him. Until investigation and ban request is proceeded, he is officially not banned. Therefore, it cannot be a reason for you to votekick this person.

2) Even if he fed and did bad last game... There can be numerous reasons why the game went how it went: He may be a noob, a game ruiner, bad temper, simply no team play, etcetc. Just because he did bad last game, dont mean he will do as bad the next game. Whether you want to play with him is your choice. So instead of votekicking him, the right solution would be for you to join another game.

3) Dont tell me you are having difficulty because someone is following you around on bnet xD......This matter is something you can fix on your own. No relevance to votekicking.

[child]

what if someone who has just ruined a game for you or by team killing, sharing abuse, int. feeding and who has not had their ban request processed yet follows you around? Or if they are just abusive in other ways and follow people? That could get highly frustrating. There are definitely reasons for it, but I agree there are probably more reasons to get rid of it

1)Just because someone is on a ban request, you have no right to votekick him. If this person did ruin a game, after review, a mod will ban him. Until investigation and ban request is proceeded, he is officially not banned. Therefore, it cannot be a reason for you to votekick this person.

2) Even if he fed and did bad last game... There can be numerous reasons why the game went how it went: He may be a noob, a game ruiner, bad temper, simply no team play, etcetc. Just because he did bad last game, dont mean he will do as bad the next game. Whether you want to play with him is your choice. So instead of votekicking him, the right solution would be for you to join another game.

3) Dont tell me you are having difficulty because someone is following you around on bnet xD......This matter is something you can fix on your own. No relevance to votekicking.

^^
Ya I can because I can just kick them myself because im a mod, for anyone else no its not necessarily a matter they can fix even if they were inconvenienced enough to change acc names... Many years ago on dotacash I had a person who one day followed me and my friend around like all day ruining each and every one of our games just because we had raged at him for feeding. If we left and joined another game he would follow. Eventually we just had to go and use different account names (which a lot of people dont like to do and simply won't do), even though we were all pumped before encountering this asshole and having a great time cuz we were like 8-1 or something. I've had similar less serious and persistent stuff happen several other times where a person will follow me to the next game still trying to provoke me or accusing me of mh etc and then ruin the next game as well or spam arguments the whole. The fact is that yes there is a lot of abuse associated with VK in lobby, but ban requests can take far too long to process if there is serious instances such as following going on.

Bottom line is votekick NEEDS to exist in lobby as a more immediate safety net than bans, to prevent extreme abuse by people who are following or by people whom the vast majority of the lobby know to have just ruined a game intentionally. YES there is alot of abuse which is why I am against OPs suggestion of removing bans. But IMO people (such as teams of 5) who would technically be in the position to abuse VK the most in lobby will very soon get reported, and myself or another moderator will ban them. Just b/c some, even the majority, may abuse the command doesnt mean it shouldn't exist b/c its necessary as I said, in extreme cases. Abusers of it will be banned.

enough said

[EdgeOfChaos]

There are some legitimate uses of votekick in lobby. For example, abusing bot vulnerability (ex: using a command over and over to make the bot spam) or kicking some guy who just goes from game to game intentionally ruining and you can prove it. So, I think removal of votekick altogether would be too drastic a move to take.

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.

Who is initiating the force in this example? One user is simply joining a game (which he has the right to do), while one is initiating a votekick to get a player they don't like off the enemy team. We're not 'forcing' anyone to play with someone they don't like - there's always the leave button.

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.

There can be many reasons that people don't want to play with someone, and many are illegitimate. Just because the majority doesn't want to play with someone doesn't mean that that person should not be able to play. Yes, I know what you'll say - they can just go next game. This is an evasion of the point though. The point is that if someone joins a game, they should be able to play that game unless they do something wrong. There is no reason to force them to play a different game. YOU may think that the consequences are low, but not everyone agrees with this. Consequences of being votekicked in a lobby are relative - for games that take forever to fill, you could have to wait 30 mins for a game (yes, this has happened. ask metall-drago.) If you're playing with friends and get kicked while afk in the lobby, you may get separated from your friends and play alone.

The perceived 'benefit' to the majority of players is irrelevant, as you should look at this from a rights standpoint: the player who joins a game has a right to play in the game he joined and not be forced to go next. Doesn't matter what the 'benefit' to 11 players is, it is still wrong to do so.

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

We're not banning them for not wanting to play with him. We're banning them for unfair use of a bot feature that's intended to get rid of rule violators.

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.

But this is what you're saying.
You are saying that policies that benefit a majority of people at the expense of a majority are good.

[MrCool]

Who is initiating the force in this example? One user is simply joining a game (which he has the right to do), while one is initiating a votekick to get a player they don't like off the enemy team. We're not 'forcing' anyone to play with someone they don't like - there's always the leave button.

It doesn't matter who is initiating the votekick. If all players don't want to play with someone, they shouldn't be forced to. There is indeed a leave button. Who are you suggesting should press it? Everyone but the person who would be kicked? For a votekick to pass, literally everyone has to vote yes, which I take to mean that no one wants to play with that one person. So again, who should press the leave button?

There can be many reasons that people don't want to play with someone, and many are illegitimate. Just because the majority doesn't want to play with someone doesn't mean that that person should not be able to play. Yes, I know what you'll say - they can just go next game. This is an evasion of the point though. The point is that if someone joins a game, they should be able to play that game unless they do something wrong. There is no reason to force them to play a different game. YOU may think that the consequences are low, but not everyone agrees with this. Consequences of being votekicked in a lobby are relative - for games that take forever to fill, you could have to wait 30 mins for a game (yes, this has happened. ask metall-drago.) If you're playing with friends and get kicked while afk in the lobby, you may get separated from your friends and play alone.

The perceived 'benefit' to the majority of players is irrelevant, as you should look at this from a rights standpoint: the player who joins a game has a right to play in the game he joined and not be forced to go next. Doesn't matter what the 'benefit' to 11 players is, it is still wrong to do so.

The whole point of this thread is that I think that the current definition of what an illegitimate reason to votekick in lobby is far too general. I do not think that players have a right to play a game if they join it. If no one wants to play with them, them being in the game will lead to a negative atmosphere for all players in the game.

I think a good comparison is to people playing social games in real life, such as board game night, or poker night. If no one wants to play with someone, I think it is very appropriate to exclude them from the game. And of course the reasons behind the exclusion matter. For example, if everyone suspects someone of cheating, I think that is a very good reason to exclude them. Forcing a group of players to be inclusive is far more unpleasant than allowing people the power to decide who they want to play with.

We're not banning them for not wanting to play with him. We're banning them for unfair use of a bot feature that's intended to get rid of rule violators.

All I was saying is that I think the crime does not warrant the punishment. I think warnings would be more appropriate.

But this is what you're saying.
You are saying that policies that benefit a majority of people at the expense of a majority are good.

Well I'm sorry if you are misinterpreting me. The most important aspect of deciding if a policy is fair or not is balancing the pros and cons.

[EdgeOfChaos]

All I was saying is that I think the crime does not warrant the punishment. I think warnings would be more appropriate.

To be honest, 1-day bans are like warnings anyways. They're essentially removed for anyone if they appeal and say they're sorry. What else should we do? PM them on wc3 with a warning? No one would care.

[MrCool]

Oh I didn't know it was only a 1 day ban.

[EdgeOfChaos]

Depends on the moderator. I give one day bans for lobby kicks at max if it passes.

We don't have any centralized time for banning - much of it is up to moderator discretion.

[uakf.b]

Is this resolved?

[Methodzz]

Abuse of Vote kicks should definately be bannable. Otherwise if not then people could just go and kick who ever they wanted to.
Ive been kicked by abusers like 4 times now just because they took a look at my dota record and didn't like it so they decided to kick me, you think that is fair in anyway? And If anything the ban period should be extended to those that abuse the vote kick system.

Vote kicking or attempting to vote kick players that did nothing wrong should always be bannable.

[bit]

some time ago we already made our rules less harsh. we usually don't ban for vk abuse if the vote didn't pass. so i think the rules towards vk abusers are already soft enough.

moving to archive.