I wounder if now would be a good time to request to disable the afk kicker for thows times there are 5 or less people (or just me) on trying to fill the server.
Bryan
[snapback]51176[/snapback]
Negative, the kicker stays.
awesome
as for the AFK kicker, I like it. If your going to go AFK for quite some time, dont stay in the server. Becuase even if its 5 or less people more will join and within 2 minutes it could be fileld up to 16/17 slots and people who want to join cant because your in the RR afk doing your own thing
[snapback]51237[/snapback]
the idea would be to have the afk kicker start kicking when the 6th player joined. and this does not matter because it is not being considered and the server is.......undecided on its future.
Bryan
I like the new mod, for the most part. One thing, however strikes me as EXTREMELY bad:
- Notification of who's starting the eject vote
That is NOT a good change. There are reasons why voting is anonymous. It is meant so that people are not too scared about reprisals to vote for a comm eject.
If a comm eject succeeds, good, it doesn't matter who started it. It doesn't matter because for the eject to succeed most of the marine team obviously wants a new comm, so who voted is irrelevant.
If a comm eject fails, it STILL doesn't matter who started it, because it had no effect; nothing happened.
The reason we NEED comm votes to stay anonmyous is primarily in case the vote DOES fail. Imagine this scenario:
Player A is not pleased with the commander, who is generally wasting lots of res on useless things and ignoring the requests of his team. He starts a comm eject vote. Unfortunately, only 4 of 8 players vote to eject, failing to meet the "50% plus one" criteria. But the commander now knows that Player A tried to get him ejected. The commander now decides to try to be mean to Player A, denying him of all weapons, medpacks, items, etc. He also tries to undermine him by giving him useless orders.
This is the situation we want to avoid. People should not be afraid to start a comm eject vote!!
[snapback]51816[/snapback]
I'd be inclined to agree, except I've been booted by some random idiot starting a vote and others following someone's lead one too many times. If this happens, that's what an admin presence is for. I think that would fall under llama behaviour, since that seems to catch nearly everything possible that isn't already listed in the rules.
In addition, the definition of a "llama" eject should not be if the admin thinks it is deserved, but if the player can explain. If the player says "I feel that the commander was wasting resources on such and such", even if the admin does not agree no action should be taken against the player.
[snapback]51867[/snapback]
While that may seem fine and dandy, any person that has something that resembles a brain would say that so they don't get in trouble.