Vote kick intermission

[Articsledder]

How about whenever a vote kick is started, the actual voting does not begin for x amount of seconds. this would allow both parties to explain the situation, anther it's saying they aren't hacking or providing evidence that said person did do something wrong.

[Paratrooper]

This would better fit pyspades section, but sure.

I'm just saying that the longer it takes the hacker/griefer, the more damage he or she could do.

[Gorman]

/votekick #playernumber <reason>

Or has this changed?

[Articsledder]

/votekick #playernumber <reason>

Or has this changed?

This has nothing to do with the suggestion.


Right now players can begin to vote immediately, and sometimes people vote before even taking into consideration whether or not the person is actually breaking rules. This suggestion would give the person being votekicked a chance to explain what happened if they weren't doing anything wrong.

[CraftDinur]

if you could make it toggle'able that would be fine. some servers have people going crazy voting /y after a vote kick has been initiated and some servers have no one voting at all after the vote kick has been initiated.

[Gorman]

/votekick #playernumber <reason>

Or has this changed?

This has everything to do with the suggestion!

The 'accusing party' should use the reason to say why they want the player kicked, and the player can respond, and other players can think for themselves and decide if they think the kick is warranted.

Besides that, it is a bit dodgey to go for the kick straight away; "oh that guy looks like a hacker, I won't say anything but I will start a votekick"....

[Paratrooper]

Maybe people should do the talking before initiating the votekick.

[Articsledder]

/votekick #playernumber <reason>

Or has this changed?

This has everything to do with the suggestion!

The 'accusing party' should use the reason to say why they want the player kicked, and the player can respond, and other players can think for themselves and decide if they think the kick is warranted.

Besides that, it is a bit dodgey to go for the kick straight away; "oh that guy looks like a hacker, I won't say anything but I will start a votekick"....

Not everyone is honest, at least half of votekicks are not for the right reason. Most people don't even know how to use the reason thing.

[Gorman]

Then I doubt they would tell the truth / know how to use the intermission effectively.

[Articsledder]

Then I doubt they would tell the truth / know how to use the intermission effectively.

You don't get it >.>

This is to stop BS votekicks from happening, allowing the person being vote-kicked to at least have a chance to explain what's going on so they don't get kicked out in a second before they even know they are being vote kicked.

[Gorman]

I know that, but my response is 3 fold.
Firstly if people can't think for themselves then 30 seconds or however long of explaining wont make a difference
Secondly if people don't think or talk before votekicking they aren't going to do it after
Thirdly the problem is essentially 'people are dumb and votekick without thinking', adding more time won't fix this, so you should look for an alternate solution, though I doubt any exist

[Articsledder]

I know that, but my response is 3 fold.
Firstly if people can't think for themselves then 30 seconds or however long of explaining wont make a difference

I fail to see how this won't make a difference. Just the fact that it is there makes a difference. It isn't black and white, if the person being vote kicked themselves actually speaks up it can convince quite a few people not to vote. I highly doubt you have ever been in the situation where this is needed from what you are saying. You sound like your just pulling reasons for why this shouldn't be added out just for the sake of having it not added. Just because it won't always be used doesn't mean it isn't a good addition to the game.

Secondly if people don't think or talk before votekicking they aren't going to do it after

The point is if the person explains why they shouldn't be kicked, it's what is prompting them not to vote. Of course an empty intermission isn't going to change everything. If the person being voted has the chance to explain, then people might realize the person is actually playing and not just an empty aimbot who doesn't speak.

Thirdly the problem is essentially 'people are dumb and votekick without thinking', adding more time won't fix this, so you should look for an alternate solution, though I doubt any exist

Adding time for people to explain they are innocent does fix this. Where the hell are you getting your logic from? Not everyone will use this, but it is there for those who don't want to be kicked.

[DoomSplitter]

Not a bad idea, but good luck trying to convince people that you're innocent. Knowing the AoS playerbase, they'll kick you regardless.

[Articsledder]

Not a bad idea, but good luck trying to convince people that you're innocent. Knowing the AoS playerbase, they'll kick you regardless.

I have done a few times, you usually have to spam I'm innocent in chat for a while though.

[MrHaaaaaaxFF]

Yes. Will helps alot.