Reinfield's server is too overpopulated with idiots to have votekick enabled.

[SeventhSandwich]

democracy doesn't and has never guaranteed that laws/rules wont be broken

don't know where you've picked up that idea, but it's wrong. democracy is still working even in this case.

The point of the vote is to enforce the rules when admins aren't around.

You're obsessing too much about the semantics of the word Democracy in this context, so I'm going to stop using it all together.

The votekick addon's purpose on the server is to enforce the rules that are necessary for the game to function when admins and moderators are not online, yet in half an hour it's failed twice at votekicking people who blatantly broke the rules and succeeded at temporarily banning someone who did not break any rules. The addon has failed it's purpose and should be removed so it isn't abused anymore.

[Ad Bot]

[Grassy]

Sorry to burst you're little bubble but I took a little something from Adz' skype conversation and I'll put it here.

I didn't even use the votekick command, this guy is making up bullstuff.

And the pictures pretty much tell it was well.
Adz isn't abusing vote kick.

[Böltster]

Sorry to burst you're little bubble but I took a little something from Adz' skype conversation and I'll put it here.And the pictures pretty much tell it was well.
Adz isn't abusing vote kick.

i obviously dont agree with sev but seriously just admit to being adz

literally all you're doing is making an idiot of yourself, nobody is getting fooled. infact i dont think anyone would care that you're adz, it's just that you're pretending to be someone else.

[SeventhSandwich]

Paradox started the votekick but Adz voted yes on it and voted no on my votekick against Tomati or whatever his name was because I tried to votekick Paradox earlier.

I never even claimed Adz started the votekick, so my, "You are little bubble" is perfectly intact.

i obviously dont agree with sev but seriously just admit to being adz

literally all you're doing is making an idiot of yourself, nobody is getting fooled. infact i dont think anyone would care that you're adz, it's just that you're pretending to be someone else.

You shouldn't disagree with me. Everything I posted is supported by my images, and it's proof that the addon does more harm than good. How can you possibly still disagree?

[Böltster]

You shouldn't disagree with me. Everything I posted is supported by my images, and it's proof that the addon does more harm than good. How can you possibly still disagree?

because i think the mod should be kept because the majority was kept happy. and as much as you might like to think otherwise, i don't see you being kicked as tipping the balance of justice into the "more harm than good" category.

[SeventhSandwich]

because i think the mod should be kept because the majority was kept happy. and as much as you might like to think otherwise, i don't see you being kicked as tipping the balance of justice into the "more harm than good" category.

I guarantee that if you asked everyone but Adz and Paradox whether they'd vote yes or no after actually explaining what the votekick was for, they would say no. People naturally vote yes so they can see someone get punished. It's schadenfreude or human nature.

Furthermore, if an admin was on he would punish the people breaking the rules, and probably tell me to stop insulting Paradox and Adz. Then everyone wins, not just a majority. Admins are always better than votekick.

[SeventhSandwich]

because i think the mod should be kept because the majority was kept happy. and as much as you might like to think otherwise, i don't see you being kicked as tipping the balance of justice into the "more harm than good" category.

The game is broken if there is no structured gameplay. Whether or not people are happy I'm gone, they are destroying the entire game.

Imagine your favorite game, now imagine 60% of people decided to rewrite the rules of the game to suit their skills better and put the other 40% at a huge advantage. Both sides could enjoy the game equally and everyone would be happy, but instead the whole, "Majority rules" vote killed the game.

[Böltster]

I guarantee that if you asked everyone but Adz and Paradox whether they'd vote yes or no after actually explaining what the votekick was for, they would say no.

your guarantee isn't

proof

either way the majority was kept happy. even if the rest only said yes for kicks, you obviously weren't contributing that much to the server if they were willing to drop you on such a whim. nobody was upset by you being removed - therefore the majority was kept happy (really it'll keep coming back to this, no matter how you want to angle it)

The game is broken if there is no structured gameplay. Whether or not people are happy I'm gone, they are destroying the entire game.

Imagine your favorite game, now imagine 60% of people decided to rewrite the rules of the game to suit their skills better and put the other 40% at a huge advantage. Both sides could enjoy the game equally and everyone would be happy, but instead the whole, "Majority rules" vote killed the game.

game: An activity providing entertainment or amusement;
i dont see you being removed as inhibiting the entertainment and amusement of others, so how is it broken?

[SeventhSandwich]

Then what's the point of putting rules if people can vote over them?

[SeventhSandwich]

Here's a thought too, if the game relies on players on the guards team not killing prisoners for whatever reason they want, not votekicking rulebreakers will make the game less enjoyable for everyone. Additionally, the game's rules were set up by the host who designed it so the game would play a certain way. Just because people are stuffting on the rules to get back at people they've formed vendettas with (ironically enough WITH the votekick system) doesn't mean it's okay.

[Böltster]

Then what's the point of putting rules if people can vote over them?

well if you have your way and get the mod removed, people can still disobey the rules without consequence (unless you're also suggesting there be an admin on at all times, which is p. silly). at least this way the rules are getting disobeyed but the majority are happy.

your argument basically comes down to you saying "it's principle!!" which is a pretty shaky stance to take on the best of matters

you took a gamble by trying to vote kick someone, and you lost. my advice would be that you should try to be more persuasive (not doing a very good job in this topic so far, least you haven't called me a handicap yet)

[SeventhSandwich]

well if you have your way and get the mod removed, people can still disobey the rules without consequence (unless you're also suggesting there be an admin on at all times, which is p. silly). at least this way the rules are getting disobeyed but the majority are happy.

your argument basically comes down to you saying "it's principle!!" which is a pretty shaky stance to take on the best of matters

you took a gamble by trying to vote kick someone, and you lost. my advice would be that you should try to be more persuasive (not doing a very good job in this topic so far, least you haven't called me a handicap yet)

You join a game to play the game under the established principles (aka the rules) set up by the host/developer. It's not silly to suggest there is an admin on at all times. Get 24 admins, tell them to get on for an hour a day and play. It's no big deal and it works a lot better than giving 10 year olds the power to start votes and ban people.

Here's the big issue with the whole argument that the majority is happy but the rules are broken. The game itself is a competition between two teams where one team will often have less players and if that team wins, the majority is not happy. The whole entire concept of a competitive game revolves around people trying to win and the majority is often not the group that wins. Your, "Make the majority happy" argument is not how a game works.

[Flubbman]

I'm not surprised, Paradox has always been a forgettard.

[SeventhSandwich]

you took a gamble by trying to vote kick someone, and you lost. my advice would be that you should try to be more persuasive (not doing a very good job in this topic so far, least you haven't called me a handicap yet)

You aren't handicapped which is why I'm not calling you handicapped.

The idea of the majority always being right doesn't work in videogames because the cool thing about videogames is that if you don't like one, there will always be one you enjoy. If videogames just appealed to the whole majority, there would always be a group that won't enjoy any games. The principles of the game someone creates should always Annoying Orange a vote someone puts on the server by typing /votekick <name>.

[Böltster]

Here's the big issue with the whole argument that the majority is happy but the rules are broken. The game itself is a competition between two teams where one team will often have less players and if that team wins, the majority is not happy. The whole entire concept of a competitive game revolves around people trying to win and the majority is often not the group that wins. Your, "Make the majority happy" argument is not how a game works.

your counter argument is based on the presumption that the team losing isn't having fun - which you don't actually know and shouldn't be factoring in to an argument

what we do know is that the majority of people voted for you to be kicked. the will of the majority was met. p. good system if you ask me.

You aren't handicapped which is why I'm not calling you handicapped.

The idea of the majority always being right doesn't work in videogames because the cool thing about videogames is that if you don't like one, there will always be one you enjoy. If videogames just appealed to the whole majority, there would always be a group that won't enjoy any games. The principles of the game someone creates should always Annoying Orange a vote someone puts on the server by typing /votekick <name>.

no, you're moving into market dynamics which is a whole other ballgame. my logic wasn't meant to be applied to markets so i don't know why you're trying.

my logic is based on the fact that no admin was there to enforce the rules, so the best possible alternative outcome other than the rules being followed is that the majority of people were happy.