Autokick kick-voters if the kick is rejected

[TheGrid]

Many people regulary generate kick voters out of stupid reasons, which is quite borring always to vote for them.

How about if a kick-vote is rejected by the players, autokick the voter for making "false" policy requests. This would let them make think about starting votes for stupid reasons, and only wil make them for legit reasons, where its quite certain a majority will vote for this.

(In our democrarcy its the same if the parlament mistrusts the president, a public vote is created if the president is to be replaced, if it fails the parlament is replaced! (or the obvious conflict will still exist)

[Lucifer]

We tried it, actually. It's a nice idea, but in practice what you wind up with is people voting to kick because they don't want a person putting up a vote to get kicked.

This matters in a lot of situations where you have someone who puts up a kick vote that doesn't do it gratuitously, but you don't actually know if you should accept or reject the vote. To kick someone, you need to know that the person being kicked is actually doing nasty things. Otherwise, you could be kicking someone for no good reason.

People abused it.

Worse than that, it created a chilling effect on putting up a kick poll. The end result was that malicious players and/or teamkillers didn't get kicked as much, and more people got kicked for stupid things.

[Z-Man]

Yes, it didn't work out as well as we hoped. I think the main reason was that with it enabled, every kick vote demanded your full attention; you really had to decide whether the kick is justified or not. Whereas without it, if you were unsure, you could just reject the vote.

It's still in there, though. The two VOTING_SPAM_ settings handle it.

[TheGrid]

Hmmm, I understand.

And how about giving an additional option to the voter like.

accept -- don't care -- reject -- reject / stupid reason

If more than 50% of total players give "stupid reason" kick the voter.

[wrtlprnft]

I'd love that, but it would require a clientside change

[Lucifer]

Why don't you just create a poll against the person who threw up the poll if he's causing that much trouble?

[TheGrid]

Why don't you just create a poll against the person who threw up the poll if he's causing that much trouble?

I knew that this would come up

Well because voting people because voting for stupid reasons is a stupid reason . the change should reducce the amounts of votes, not extend them

[wrtlprnft]

Hmm, then my idea wouldn't be good, I guess. I thought about automatically instanciating a kickvote agains the one who polled, so you end up with two votes.

[Lucifer]

The more fundamental reason it doesn't work, imo, is that when you put risk into a poll, people are less likely to start polls. So you wind up with less polls, which is what you want. The tradeoff is more smegheads not getting polled when they should be.

I'd suggest if the amount of polls irritates you, maybe what we really need is a clientside feature that says "ignore this and all polls". Maybe have it automatically reject/accept polls? Not very democratic.

Forcing reduced frequency creates a problem similar to one we have now. The problem we have now is that if nobody realizes a person is a smeghead and rejects a poll, they have to live with him for awhile. They'll usually discover he's a smeghead sooner or later, but you can't start a new poll for someone some amount of time after a poll for him that was rejected. So any method that reduces the frequency of polls also increases the time smegheads get to annoy you.

Consider this. A known good player puts up a poll against a new guy who's doing nasty things, but nobody sees the nasty things. So they reject it. Now the known good player is kicked and banned for some amount of time, and the new guy doing nasty things picks a new target. You've lost a good player and kept the bad player.

Now an alternate scenario. 3 DWH guys join your server. You vote to kick one of them. Now you have to wait 5 minutes before you can kick the second one. It'll take 15 minutes total to kick all three, which means that for 15 minutes you're having to put up with "j00 r teh suck" and other such nonsense.

There isn't a right solution for all times. Rather, every solution has its tradeoffs. I think the vote kick system is as good as it's going to get without some dramatically new way of looking at the problem.

[Luke-Jr]

I'd suggest 2 changes:
1) require a reason for a kick-poll, shown at the poll; this way everyone isn't asking "why?"
2) four poll options: "Bounce" (vote to kick poller), "Abstain" (no vote), "No" (don't kick anyone), and "Yes" (kick target)

[meriton]

Luke's first suggestion has been filed as feature request at sourceforge 1 1/2 years ago.

I don't see a benefit in adding a "bounce" option to the vote menu; if the submitted goes on your nerves, you can issue a poll manually. This approach also permits you to give a reason for your poll before submitting it.

[TheGrid]

The idea about having to give a reason is a very good one!

Honestly on some server (I wont give a name) it happened to me, just after several games I hit one time the wrong key, and cut of the way of a teammate. Result instant poll, everbody agreed without having an idea why and how...Yes its a stupid bunch of kids, but yes it still feels stupid.

[Z-Man]

I disagree, that's why it's in the feature request bucket Adding a reason accomplishes nothing. In your given case, even if everything was working according to plan, the reason given would have simply been "tk", you'd still have been kicked. And that is the best case where the submitter actually enters a real reason. But we can't check whether the reason is good or not, we can't even check whether it is a meaningful sentence fragment in any language. So those people who are now to lazy to say "please kick bob, he's a teamkiller" will be too lazy to give a real reason and just fill in "sdffgh" if we force a minimum length in the reason field.
Now, you will say "but if the reason is given with the kick, I'll see the reason displayed together with the kick, so it's easier to see, so in those cases where a good reason is given, it's better given with the kick than in normal chat". But only so as long as you trust the vote submitter. You shouldn't. If you didn't see what was happening, you have to scroll up the text output and check the log messages.
So attaching the reason to the poll directly is only useful if the submitter takes his time and you either trust him or saw the reason for the kick yourself. In the latter case, you don't need to be told the reason. In the former case, if you trust the submitter anyway, you can accept the poll anyway. So all in all, the usefulness is very limited.

[Canada]

Many people regulary generate kick voters out of stupid reasons, which is quite borring always to vote for them.

How about if a kick-vote is rejected by the players, autokick the voter for making "false" policy requests. This would let them make think about starting votes for stupid reasons, and only wil make them for legit reasons, where its quite certain a majority will vote for this.

(In our democrarcy its the same if the parlament mistrusts the president, a public vote is created if the president is to be replaced, if it fails the parlament is replaced! (or the obvious conflict will still exist)

or how about if if they make another kick vote in the next x seconds (can be chosen by server admin) they are insta kicked for the default amount of time

[Z-Man]

They can't, not against the same player anyway. And really, if kick votes are active, kick vote abuse can be handled like every other abuse: with kick votes.