The Problem with Votekick

[MKU]

Votekicking isn't the problem. People are.

I also agree that many people abuse votekick, but I also think votekick could be improved and should also be monitored.

In what ways?

[rakiru]

Hence the "do it right" bit. Besides, RoT isn't your average pubby.

What do you mean by "do it right"? The required ratio, or...?

The problem is that "AIRSTRIKE UNLOCKED. TYPE /Y TO LAUNCH." is more successful than "griefing everything" when it comes to reasons. That's the community being misinformed, and that's what we ought to fix.

There should be a regular message in the chat saying that /Y means to vote yes in a votekick and ONLY THAT. People should also be banned for doing the "/Y FOR AIRSTRIKE" trick to gain votes for votekick.

Rather than have this type of anti-retard message (which most people would miss anyway), I'd recommend kicking anyone that says anything along the lines of "/Y FOR AIRSTRIKE" and cancelling their message, and perhaps displaying the anti-retard message then.

Votekicking isn't the problem. People are.

Just like how guns, drugs and cars aren't the problem. That doesn't mean you shouldn't change/regulate them though.

[Bigcheecho]

The problem is that "AIRSTRIKE UNLOCKED. TYPE /Y TO LAUNCH." is more successful than "griefing everything" when it comes to reasons. That's the community being misinformed, and that's what we ought to fix.

There should be a regular message in the chat saying that /Y means to vote yes in a votekick and ONLY THAT. People should also be banned for doing the "/Y FOR AIRSTRIKE" trick to gain votes for votekick.

Ratehr than have this type of anti-retard message (which most people would miss anyway), I'd recommend kicking anyone that says anything along the lines of "/Y FOR AIRSTRIKE" and cancelling their message, and perhaps displaying the anti-retard message then.

That's even better an idea!

[White Hot]

The problem is that "AIRSTRIKE UNLOCKED. TYPE /Y TO LAUNCH." is more successful than "griefing everything" when it comes to reasons. That's the community being misinformed, and that's what we ought to fix.

There should be a regular message in the chat saying that /Y means to vote yes in a votekick and ONLY THAT. People should also be banned for doing the "/Y FOR AIRSTRIKE" trick to gain votes for votekick.

That's not a terrible idea, but you're forgetting one thing: these people are retards. Also, are you willing to have that message play in four different languages?

[shywolf91]

Votekicking isn't the problem. People are.

I also agree that many people abuse votekick, but I also think votekick could be improved and should also be monitored.

In what ways?

There have been few good ideas in this thread.

[Tex]

Am I the only one who thinks Danhezee's Idea is actually pretty effective? I mean, the guards have to be the most trusted of course.

[jordan]

For the most part, I have seen people start the /votekick but not enough people bother to vote. This may be because of the chat gets flooded?

[rakiru]

Am I the only one who thinks Danhezee's Idea is actually pretty effective? I mean, the guards have to be the most trusted of course.

Well, it's pretty obvious that having moderators on at all times would be the best way, but that's not exactly an easy task.

[Bigcheecho]

The problem is that "AIRSTRIKE UNLOCKED. TYPE /Y TO LAUNCH." is more successful than "griefing everything" when it comes to reasons. That's the community being misinformed, and that's what we ought to fix.

There should be a regular message in the chat saying that /Y means to vote yes in a votekick and ONLY THAT. People should also be banned for doing the "/Y FOR AIRSTRIKE" trick to gain votes for votekick.

That's not a terrible idea, but you're forgetting one thing: these people are retards.
Display under votekick message on top of HUD.
Also, are you willing to have that message play in four different languages?
No problem!

My comments in bold

[GreaseMonkey]

Also, are you willing to have that message play in four different languages?
No problem!

My comments in bold

*kein Problem

[Paratrooper]

I remember someone saying that brazillians shouldn't be counted in the votekicks.

I'd rather have a yes and no vote-like system so that it would discount those who don't vote.
yes > no == pass
yes < no == fail
Or probably some sort of ratio between the two.
The only problem I see here is when someone is griefing your team. The opposing team won't be a good witness.

[Reki]

Here are some ideas I proposed in a post ages ago (though revamped with examples this time!)

1) The threshold for successfully passing a kick shouldn't just be a fixed percentage of the total server population. Instead, add a constant term to create a curve.

Example: Someone (not me) proposed 1/4[Servertotal]+3.
4 people on: 1+3 = 4 votes needed (for such small populations, having everyone vote isn't hard)
8 people on: 2+3 = 5 votes needed (still small, quite easy to achieve majority)
20 people on: 5+3 = 8 votes needed (server's moderately filled, a bit too hard to go for 1/2)
32 people on: 8+3 = 11 votes needed (about 1/3 of the server)


2) As stated before, bring back /n. Except, I propose my own twist on it. Assign /y +1 towards getting kicks, /n -1. Each votekick starts at 0. If the threshold is passed in positive numbers, the kick is successful. If the threshold is not achieved, the kick fails. If the threshold is passed in negative numbers, the person who started the votekick gets kicked instead.

Example: Person A initiates a votekick on Person B on a server with 16 people (4+3 = 7 votes needed to pass).
7 Net votes in favor: Votekick succeeds, Person B gets kicked
3 Net votes in favor: Votekick fails
2 Net votes against: Votekick fails
7 Net votes against: Votekick fails, Person A gets kicked

[GreaseMonkey]

7 Net votes against: Votekick fails, Person A gets kicked

I like.

[rakiru]

Example: Someone (not me) proposed 1/4[Servertotal]+3.
4 people on: 1+3 = 4 votes needed (for such small populations, having everyone vote isn't hard)

That means even the person being voted out must vote yes...?

Also, what about 3 people on?

I like the voter being kicked thing though.

[Reki]

That's true, we can fix it so that when it gets to all-but-1, any less than that stays as such.

We're interested in finding when x - (1/4x + 3) =< 1. This is easily seen as x being less than 6 players.
(While we're on this discussion, let's deal with fractions in our 1/4 formula by rounding them.)
A 6-player server will require 4 other people to vote yes.
A 5-or-fewer server will require everyone but the person being voted to vote yes.

Actually this is all a bit too complicated, maybe we should stick with raw percentages.