Obviously a good reason to kick is when the response is symmetric to the offense done. Kickvotes are a democratic way to deal with offense, not an exploit to fuck up people that you don't like.AlexMax wrote:So let's say we have a rule - no kicking without a good reason. What's a good reason? What's covered? What's not?
First off, by offense here you should take only the offense that you can verify, i.e. something directly related to the server (bad chat, bad behavior, game disruption, etc).
Then, if there is a way the players can resolve the situation without using the kickvote, this automatically decreases the legitimacy of the kickvote. Good examples:
"I don't want this player to duel with us" means they should move to nospec server.
"I don't want to see this player in the player list" means they should stop pressing \ and/or close eyes, that surely helps.
"This player is spamming the chat" is borderline between completely legit and lazy kickvote, since, yea, ignore.
Also if something happened outside of the server (say, IRC), it's generally not a reason for a kickvote at all.
In this particular case, kicking from the game is not exactly symmetric to A3 silently sitting in spectators, saying nothing, doing nothing.
If R stated a valid reason of why A3 was kicked without any warning or chat comments, this wouldn't be a troll kick, it'd be a justified kick. But they didn't.
If you follow this logical chain you end up with precise enough abuse detection algorithm that prevents kickvotes by one entity against another entity for the sole reason of "BoMF ON TOP!!!" (anyone still remembers that?)
I don't really understand why this should be worded into a large post since it should be obvious to any game server admin with experience.