Poor Form @beepboopbeep @uafk.b

[EdgeOfChaos]

I'm never in real time? How strange. I've played over 500 games on ENT and had a fair amount of votekicks started against me.

I will every game from now on try to vk every player on the opposite team

If you do this you'll be spamming votekicks to disrupt game and will get a ban.

Typically I'd only ban for votekick abuse if most of the necessary players vote for it OR the user in question starts over 3-4 of the votekicks. Anyone have a different opinion on this?

[Shameless]

our entire complaint is based on the premise that anyone who violates the rules should be banned

I read this far and wont read further... Such a joke.

[EdgeOfChaos]

So everyone who violates the rules should be banned? What if someone destroys all their items 5 seconds before game ends? That would be a clear case of item destruction yet banning that user would be dumb.

Explain why a user who starts 1 votekick an doesn't get close to passing should be banned

[Palsgraf]

Please understand that while we have rules, there is some level of discretion we mods employ with regard to enforcing those rules. In the case of VK abuse, we usually do not ban for a single attempt because the player may not have been aware of the rule in the first place and the harm is minimal if the vote fails. To ban in this situation would be draconian and would encourage players to go play on an alternative hosing service.

However, when a VK is initiated, a message is posted to all players saying VK should only be used when a player is violating the rules. At that point, we can assume all players are aware of the VK rules and thus enforce the rule for a second or third initiation.

I hope that clarifies our position and satisfies you.

[uakf.b]

I read this far and wont read further... Such a joke.

If you think that every violation of our rules should result in a ban, then you misunderstand the intent of our rules. They serve as guidelines. We don't ban because someone violated the rules, we ban because they did something _wrong_ that caused _harm_ to the other players or otherwise (and where that harm is significant enough to warrant a ban). In this case there is none of that.

Edit:

To ban in this situation would be draconian and would encourage players to go play on an alternative hosing service.

That's the perfect word, draconian.

Edit2: to elaborate, the rules intend to express our definition of what is wrong, but the exact definition is mutable, thus the case by case evaluation.

[Shameless]

What hosting service? You just ate BGN? and once again how do you not understand that not one of you is in the game with me to do anything?? You just wait to see a request in the forums and decide. You only draw a line at if I get kicked, then it is a ban? If this forum is going nowhere then I highly recommend that uafk.b or cyber, rewrites the general rules on all ent bots. They should say, "if someone tries to !vk you, even if you have done nothing wrong, they cannot be banned unless that vote seems passable by someone who might not even play the custom game, at least 45 minutes after it happens, and even then, if they only did it once, well hey, they cant be a bad guy. Probably just a brand new player, who knows the !vk function, and does it exactly at a point to a player who they feel will be the reason the might possibly take a loss on the record."

And draconian means cruel and unusual, lol. Rules are rules, laws are laws. You state them and let them be known. Then they are nothing more than the guidelines you allude to, but don't really exist.

[EdgeOfChaos]

They certainly exist, but we're not going to punish a user for an action which caused no harm and was really, an extremely minor rule violation. I really think you're overreacting here. Some guy started a votekick on you and it got no votes. It's not that bad.

We never said it had to pass. If it was 1-2 vote away from passing I'd have banned. But it can't be so minor that it would be petty to ban for.

[Raizen]

I agree with shameless.
Is votekick abuse to start a votekick against a player who didn't made anything wrong or if didn't broke any rule. Don't matter if the others voted or not. That player should be banned (for a short time) or warned.

About the comparison with flaming rule, the flaming rule obviously stated "only if excessive".

[EdgeOfChaos]

Just because someone is violating the rules doesn't necessarily mean that the user should be banned. I guess if you want to follow the letter of the rules this user should be banned for 1 day for votekick abuse, but the spirit of that rule is to make sure that people don't get kicked for being new. No harm was done with the votekick abuse, and since it was only started once, it showed he probably wasn't serious about getting him kicked, and was just raging and ragestarted a votekick. Banning this user would be, as Palsgraf says, draconian.

[uakf.b]

I agree with shameless.
Is votekick abuse to start a votekick against a player who didn't made anything wrong or if didn't broke any rule. Don't matter if the others voted or not. That player should be banned (for a short time) or warned.

About the comparison with flaming rule, the flaming rule obviously stated "only if excessive".

Yeah, and it clearly says "Violation of these rules could result in a warning, a temporary ban, or a permanent ban.". Note the use of the word could.

[Shameless]

They certainly exist, but we're not going to punish a user for an action which caused no harm and was really, an extremely minor rule violation. I really think you're overreacting here. Some guy started a votekick on you and it got no votes. It's not that bad.

We never said it had to pass. If it was 1-2 vote away from passing I'd have banned. But it can't be so minor that it would be petty to ban for.

but can you not understand that letting that behavior go unpunished leads to what you all consider a "possible ban"

The idea that anyone can throw a votekick around with no reprecussion isn't something that is a joke, its a serious game ruiner.

[EdgeOfChaos]

They certainly exist, but we're not going to punish a user for an action which caused no harm and was really, an extremely minor rule violation. I really think you're overreacting here. Some guy started a votekick on you and it got no votes. It's not that bad.

We never said it had to pass. If it was 1-2 vote away from passing I'd have banned. But it can't be so minor that it would be petty to ban for.

but can you not understand that letting that behavior go unpunished leads to what you all consider a "possible ban"

The idea that anyone can throw a votekick around with no reprecussion isn't something that is a joke, its a serious game ruiner.

Having someone rage at you and starting a votekick which doesn't pass is hardly game ruining.

If he did real harm with the votekick or showed many times that he knew you were violating no rule and that he still tried to the best of his abilities to kick you, it would be different. But he started a votekick once which got no votes.

Plus you can't just votekick with impunity. This guy violated the rules but its too minor to ban for. But we ban people for votekick abuse all the time. TONS of em. To say that you can votekick anytime you want for anything based on this single case is disingenuous.

[Palsgraf]

And draconian means cruel and unusual, lol. Rules are rules, laws are laws. You state them and let them be known. Then they are nothing more than the guidelines you allude to, but don't really exist.

dra·co·ni·an
(of laws or their application) Excessively harsh and severe

Nothing about cruel and unusual in there...

Did you know you can be arrested for a minor traffic violation? It's at the discretion of the police. Go read the SCOTUS case law and you'll learn all about it. Most police do not do that because it would be considered draconian by everyday folks. Same goes for banning for such a minor infraction, here.

[Shameless]

Sigh, once again you are acting in hindsight. Do you not understand the difference? Because please tell me, I will gladly breakdown the situation for you. He broke a RULE. A RULE. And if mods/admins decide that they don't want to punish him after this, so say we all. But one of two things need to happen, the rules on both the "General Rules" of ENT bots which doesn't always apply to DOTA players... Which is funny. And "Legion Game" rules need to be changed. So eat it. Either I get a ban on kid I saw once and will never see again and I could care less. Or you rewrite and clearly define the bs rule of having to be vked from a game before you can submit a ban for someone. And that goes for all ENT bots, or at least I would Imagine, Cause I know it goes for a few right now.

[Shameless]

And draconian means cruel and unusual, lol. Rules are rules, laws are laws. You state them and let them be known. Then they are nothing more than the guidelines you allude to, but don't really exist.

dra·co·ni·an
(of laws or their application) Excessively harsh and severe

Nothing about cruel and unusual in there...

I used to love you for your spoilers and pics of Jeff Goldblum. However, you are clearly thick. Putting it nicely.