Forum:Policy on 'voting to kick'
Since it's come up a few times recently, I'd like to propose that we establish a ban on 'voting to kick' in the cc. Voting to kick is concerning to me, because it allows for users to be kicked without necessarily breaking any of the cc rules. The result is that the cc essentially becomes a popularity contest and is subjected to mob rule. Remember, the wiki is not a democracy. Thanks, Gangsterls talk 13:47, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support (against voting) - Per RS:NOT#Democracy. And it simply isn't fair on the members are voting against. 15:05, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Per nom. 15:35, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - I was interpreting voting to kick more litterally than the author intended. Per all. 20:00, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
Support - I've never seen it happen (except as a joke with TLUL). As long as this isn't a new policy it's fine.01:24, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
No voting to kick - The people are given ranks because the community believes they have the ability to know when to kick and when not to, making them have to get a vote defeats the purpose of having ranks for a quick kick when it is needed. 02:43, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Ignore works well We don't need another policy, just ignore people when they ask for a vote. All ranks are to always make up their own minds. --Degenret01 05:01, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Strong support - Per Degen. Voting to kick is rediculous. Kicks should be reserved for players that have been violating CC rules. 22.214.171.124 05:06, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Some clarifications Cuz there seems to be a bit of confusion.
- Currently "voting to kick" is just people voicing opinions. It means absolutely nothing at all whatsoever. No ranks EVER "count" these votes and use them to decide anything at all. If any rank ever has, they need to be unranked.
- At this time, we have NO policy disallowing these mock votes to happen. Because, after all, it is just people voicing opinion which carries no weight what so ever.
- Banning these mock votes is limiting freedom of speech, which may be questionable, but it may stop someone from getting their feelings hurt when they see a vast proportion of the CC wants them booted. Of course, if you aren't pissing everyone off they won't vote to get you kicked anyhow. So have fun arguing the back and forth of this point if you want.
--Degenret01 04:39, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I think the issue is that some ranks have been receptive to suggestions to hold a vote to kick and I even recall a few occasions where it was a rank that initiated the vote. So maybe what I'm asking is for those ranks to actually use their own judgment, which is the reason they were entrusted with a rank in the first place, instead of listening to the crowd. If an unranked user sees someone breaking a policy, they are welcome to pm a rank and point out that "User A is breaking policy X," and then the rank can use their own judgment on whether to do nothing, give user A a warning, or kick them. But if we are going to be kicking people by majority vote then there isn't much point in having ranks in the first place. Gangsterls talk 15:34, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Don't get me wrong here; I'm against "voting to kick." However, I agree with Degen on this one. Voting to kick has no place in the CC, but it is not our place to institute a policy that unnecessarily curtails freedom of speech. As long as no violations of UTP occur, I don't see a problem with this.
Now, that being said, all ranks must be put on notice that any kick arising solely from a vote to kick is inappropriate and will cause a deranking (however, this does not mean that all kicks after a vote are against policy; the kicks after a vote are allowed if rule-breaking had occurred). I just think that the ranks are smart enough not to blindly follow mob rule. --LiquidTalk 17:29, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
Strong support - First of all, we have a hell lot of trolls in the cc who I don't trust. Then, I believe we trust our ranks enough to decide if they should kick someone or not, within RS:UCS. Therefore, I see no reason to have voting for kicks. bad_fetustalk 18:04, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with rationalizations such as the one by Chess above, but I believe that per Liquid and Degen, this could quickly turn the other way and outlaw any suggestions for kicks? What would be next, no threads in this forum section proposing bans because if everyone supports it, the subject may get upset? I don't think we have to implement something risky as this, the ranks are smart enough to know when a kick is warranted, whether or not the people in the clan chat at the time are begging for it. melon 20:38, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
Support - The users have been given ranks based on their ability to decide for themselves when a specific user is disrupting the clan chat. It is unfair both to the rank and the kicked user when a vote from the other users in the chat becomes involved. --Aburnett (Talk) 20:41, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't think we need a policy about this. Ranks for the most part know when to kick, obviously there will always be a few slip ups. Just remind people that we aren't a democracy if they ask for a vote. Problem solved. The policy essentially already exists, so adding another policy to enforce it seems foolish to me. Cheers, HaloTalk 04:30, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Is it that hard to use common sense as a rank? Honestly, bullshit wouldn't happen if those in power did their job. Case in point, a recent consensus to ban Bawble. He was kicked because people were getting ticked off at him. Just do your fucking job, more or less you are right in your justifications. --Lashazior 00:29, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose policy to enforce "no voting" - I agree with a lot of Degen's points and agree that in general, we shouldn't "vote to kick". All clan chats suffer from forms of "trolling." The only difference is that most clans don't have a place to go to complain if kicked. Ranks are given for a reason so they will exercise a kick if needed. However, we do not need a policy to enforce this.14:39, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused - I thought support meant you oppose voting, yet both opposers and supporters are saying that the rank can decide if the person should be kicked or not, rather than listening to other people in the cc. Why are some supporting and some opposing? bad_fetustalk 14:49, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
- I think people are saying it should be banned but there shouldn't be a policy about it.
01:32, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
- This proposal is to make a policy on "voting to kick." I think that the current policies as well as requirements to be ranked are effective enough that another bit of red tape is unnecessary. That is why I'm opposing. Everyone agrees that voting to kick is unjustified, but we disagree over whether or not to have a policy. --LiquidTalk 01:34, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
Request for closure - I think it's clear that a policy that defines specifically that voting to kick is not allowed would be overkill. But there is agreement to ban voting to kick itself. In future, users should just point towards this thread if a motion to vote to kick is raised. 222 talk 04:56, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - No policy will be enacted that restricts users from voicing their opinions in the clan chat over whether a particular user should be kicked. However, no ranked user will use such opinions to kick or ban an otherwise unpopular user who has not broken any rules. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:08, January 29, 2011 (UTC)