Banned from the lobby

Your ban will be over in less than an hour. I'd have preferred it to be a kick but apparently admins can't kick room hosts.

For reference, the chain of events is that isaach was repeatedly kicking Firepluk from the Zerowars custom room. I entered the room and told him to stop. isaach refused. I informed him that if he wanted to exclude people from his room he should make a passworded room. The ongoing game then ended, at which point isaach kicked Firepluk again despite being warned.

Sounds differently until you know the details. I played ZW today with them, everything was good until FirePluk came and with his friend Omoiyari and change the entire gameplay in a way, well you know what is "trolling". So they started exchange with "!kick" commands and so on, the lobby was ruined and I just left the room. A few hours later we could see what it led to. In my opinion Isaach was provoked and the consequences could be just softer, but the exact reason was excluded. I believe everybody already know the conduct, FirePluk manners are disgusting, today ZW lobby just another example. Many times in teams game, he likes to leave the game after suiciding his commander from early making team -1 player until the end. And I unfortunately know russian (pirate) language, and there it is better not to know how he calls all you there, cocksucker still sounds soft. I believe he escapes the punishment as old player, high rank player, etc. However it all here make absolutely no sense, just disgusting reltionship to the mates and I don't believe it would change, "insults without apology".

It makes a great deal of difference to be kicked by uniform majority vote of those present in a room in response to something you did vs being forcekicked by a host because he thinks it's right(all hail Dictator)
There's just a handful of those representing zk officially(and consequently those enforcing rules on all of us) who can do this...
It's gonna be total anarchy if everyone starts to kick players because they deem them unworthy

In most normal games "suiciding and leaving team with -1 player" is never strictly bad for you own team., in fact it can be often beheficial to said team(and balancer knows).
ZW needs some fixes however it seems to make it work properly with !resign and manual resign, currently it's a bit of game breaking

You should be allowed to kick ppl from your lobby. It's your lobby. not an autohost.

quote: We have plenty of public rooms which give everyone the opportunity to play without worrying about clique-ism.

As Shaman said, 90% of the time this simply isn't true due to the one room culture, which has resisted all attempts to break it up. Being kicked from the active room basically means being kicked from multiplayer ZK outside of the 1v1 matchmaker.

As such, the admins cannot allow room hosts to just kick people willy-nilly.

quote: But reducing the freedom from hosts, specially in such an obfuscate manner,

"Obfuscate"? isaach was clearly warned that what he was doing was unacceptable before any moderator action was taken.

quote: and specially in something as important as the ability to remove troublesome players

If a player isn't "troublesome" enough to be either (a) kicked by consensus of the room in direct response to a particular antisocial action or (b) actioned by the admins for a pattern of unacceptable behaviour, they probably shouldn't be kicked.

[Spoiler]

quote: discourages hosting, which means less games available for everyone.

There are two teams autohosts available and it is incredibly rare to see both of them being used. There is no reason to believe that discouraging room hosting means that less rooms will be played in, or that fewer people will play.

quote: You should be allowed to kick ppl from your lobby. It's your lobby. not an autohost.

This is a nice theory right up until the point where people get ostracised from the community because they pissed off the handful of people who are the most frequent hosts. I am not guessing here. This is what happened in the past when what you have described was the policy. The admins have no interest in returning to that state of affairs, and so far I have not seen an argument made in this thread which shifts that position one iota.

You did warn him, but people not being able to kick people from their own host at will is both unintuitive, and not in the code of conduct. Maybe we will disagree on this but the consensus I have seen in every game where users are allowed to host their own rooms, is that the host has full control.

quote: There are two teams autohosts available and it is incredibly rare to see both of them being used. There is no reason to believe that discouraging room hosting means that less rooms will be played in, or that fewer people will play.

That is only for the usual game modes/maps. I'd also think that is an argument against the possibility of clique-ism becoming a problem.

I will admit the next point is not necessarily a logical argument and maybe not even what is strictly best for the community from a "amiable coexistence" standpoint, but I think there is a certain sacredness to the host's right to control the conditions of the game that he/she is hosting. Admins interfering with player-hosted games feels like a boundary that shouldn't be crossed, even, again, if it could potentially reduce toxicity. (Off course the situation of someone breaking the law inside a player host is exempt).

This is the only game that I know of that has moderators actively police players hosting games, to prevent them from kicking unwanted people.

I'd understand if it was a way to cheat the system and gain an advantage during a game by kicking allies/opponents. Of course player doesn't own the infrastructure required for such a game to come to be, so moderators can ultimately do whatever the owner allows them. That doesn't eliminate the consequences of such a rule, which is hatred towards people enforcing it.

Host of a room should be allowed to kick whoever for whatever reason under any circumstances before the game starts.

Aquanim Not sharing your point of view does not make these people, or me, a self-entitled brat.

As I have mentioned before, this is the only game to my knowledge where such rule is in place and so strongly enforced. There are smaller (and bigger) communities with no such rule that exist just fine. Since this game is the exception, it is logical to conclude that players coming from any other game will not understand it, will not know about it and have no way to learn about it until a moderator directly tells them.

You can of course then kick them for not respecting your warning to not kick people, I agree with that. They knew it would have administrative consequences to go against your warning and did it anyway, while you were still present no less.

If you are going to so strongly enforce this rule, perhaps make sure it is readily available for players to know that it exists. http://zero-k.info/mediawiki/index.php?title=Zero-K:Code_of_Conduct has no mention of the word "kick".

I will respect the rule and your right to enforce it, but I will hate the rule and you for doing so.

TinySpider how about you engage with the actual point?

quote: You should be allowed to kick ppl from your lobby. It's your lobby. not an autohost.

quote: This is a nice theory right up until the point where people get ostracised from the community because they pissed off the handful of people who are the most frequent hosts. I am not guessing here. This is what happened in the past when what you have described was the policy.

The course of action you are moralising about has been demonstrated in practise to lead to terrible outcomes.