Votekicking

[High Roller]

I think it would be a good decision to have votekicking on the server. However:

1. Votekicking would only become enabled once there are no staff members online.

2. Only Trusteds could start the votekicking.

It would be a great way to do give warning kicks to people that think they are being sneaky by breaking the rules. Also a record of these kicks would show on a players history to aid staff members in decisions for things like banning.

Tell me what you guys think,
High Roller

[LordoftheBlock]

I think this could be a positive outcome. I've been on many times before, where staff are not on, and people start to seriously spam the chat, or in other cases, people yelling grief in chat and no one can help. The only disadvantage I could think of would be, some Trusteds might abuse the power, and somehow use it to troll or something. If I recall, I believe we used to have something like a request ban and kick, where you could request a ban or kick of someone by typing a command or something. Now, I'm certainly not on board with the whole "Trusteds should get more abilities" bid, but I think this could be useful, if implemented and used correctly.

[joshskiizz]

I agree, John. I feel like this is giving power to Trusteds if it is passed. It's uncommon for the server to have at least not one staff member on. Plus, as I have experienced by watching a group of friends kick someone out of a game on other games for not fitting the requirement or some other irrelevant reason, Trusteds may abuse this. I'm not saying every Trusted would become corrupt and power hungry but, it can have a bad outcome.

[High Roller]

True

[raul7legend]

I've seen this on different games on server, it's horrendous.

Not to say that I think that trusted will abuse it but the power to kick should be in the hands of the staff members only.
People that are trusted means that they have trust from the staff members, nothing else.

[Hasan (Tabooti)]

I am Completely against this idea, for the following reasons:

1. this idea Implements the idea that 'trusted' members are somehow superior, and more privileged because of their rank. (Trusted are not privileged in any way or form, they are simply trusted to not water-grief).

2. If a vote-kick is implemented, it is absolutely impossible for the entire participants of the vote to fully understand, and observe the situation that would lead to the kick. Thus you will have a majority of voters who will depend on what some people claim to witness. That is a bad system, and could cause a lot of confusion and unnecessary tension.

3. It is NOT the duty of the trusted/regular members of the server to administrate/moderate  the server in any way, shape or form. There are many reasons for why applications for moderators exist. One main reason is that: The individual must be willing to accept responsibility to administrate the server, and that the individual must be willing to put the time, and effort to fairly pass decisions that would lead to a kick/ban/warning.

With that being said, Some people do not want to take part in moderating the server, and if they do take part (VIA voting) they will in turn not care about the consequences of their vote. IE: someone being kicked for no reason.

4. Participants in this vote, cannot be held personally responsible for wrongfully convicting an innocent individual. (Which moderators can in turn be held responsible for).


using democracy to police a server is a very very silly idea, for the reasons listed above.

Now, for my favorite part... I will form a rebuttal any hypothetical rebukes to my points.

Rebuttal to a rebuke for point 1. I can't think of any.

Rebuttal to a rebuke for point 2. "What if it was a kick for something obvious, like someone spamming, or insulting people?"
a. I believe there's a '/ignore <Player>' or /mute <player>' command, to completely mute them for the session, if they are insulting ignore them. If they are spamming the server, I believe there's an auto-kick system implemented to prevent people from doing that.

b.However if the server's automated systems do not work and/or muting them isn't sufficient. Just take screenshots (As evidence) of this person's negligence of the rules, upload it, and then send it to a staff member, and ask them to deal with it.

Rebuttal to a rebuke for point 3. "But Hasan, we want to help moderate the server when the mods aren't there. what do we do when staff isn't there to deal with it?"

If you want moderate the server, Post an application to join the staff (Good luck!).
If you get rejected, or if the applications are closed; You can refer to my earlier point:

Just take screenshots (As evidence) of this person's negligence of the rules, upload it, and then send it to a staff member, and ask them to deal with it.

[SalsaInABowl]

1. Another Trusted suggestion...

2. One little "friend" could start vote kicking people over an argument that is completely pointless

3. It's just a kick. They could come right back afterwards, so why go through the trouble?

4. Excessive trolling

[zwaan111]

if there are just 3 trusteds on from who 2 are frieds then they could kick anyone without a reason

so i dont agree with this

[Firuzzy_Llama]

I don't trust myself or some of my other friends to be perfectly honest, not with this power, although a couple of times, when there are no Mods people have come on Spammed and Advertised.

[SalsaInABowl]

I've seen this on different games on server, it's horrendous.

Not to say that I think that trusted will abuse it but the power to kick should be in the hands of the staff members only.
People that are trusted means that they have trust from the staff members, nothing else.

I frickin hate how in L4D people kick you for no apparent reason.