Normal Voting Progress

[DeafieGamer]

Current Voting System:

• Someone Votes ( map and mode )
  
• 50% of other people must agrees this must be change
  
• Map Passed and current match is finished
  

For kicking or banning process

• Someone votes [cn and reason]
  
• 50% of other people must agress this must be acheived
  
• Vote pass, and the action against the user is taked
  

Vote fails if

• Exactly 50% or LESS is acheieved
  
• that person left the server when vote seems to be against him
  

DO you think our voting progress should be change?

My opinion is Yes, it should be changed.

Only change is what?

The Vote will passes ONLY IF the person left the server before the vote is finished and about 50% or more argeed

OH BY THE WAY!
Situation #1
all of the vote attempts to ban the teamkiller on =ASCF= server failed because HE lefted the server, and over 50% of people argeed with the vote yet the vote failed.

[Ronald_Reagan]

You forgot to mention that novotes count as F2s. (iirc)

[Orynge]

"DOES you"? :>
Nope, I think it's fine. If you don't vote, it's an abstain.

EDIT:

[SELECT ALL] Code:

[17:47] <+Bugboy1028> all of the vote attempts to ban that teamkiller failed because HE lefted the server, and over 50% of people argeed with the vote yet the vote failed.
[17:48] <@B}Orynge> ohhh
[17:48] <+Bugboy1028> there is 15 more attempts to kick him out but all of the votes fails just becuase he is not in the server

Bugboy explained it to me in more detail. Ban votes should not fail if the subject leaves the server.

EDIT 2: It should fail if it's a kick. After all, making him disconnect is what you're trying to do, right?

[DeafieGamer]

Please re-read the first post :X

---

Screenshot #1 shows teamkiller names "Cum_in_ur_ear"
Screenshot #2 shows that first vote he does have failed just because he disconnected, yet he reconnect and revotes same thing
Screenshot #3 shows his IP
Screenshot #4 shows ... vote to kick him
Screenshot #5 shows cum_in_ur_ear disconnects and reconnects quickly ( THIS is on purpose )

[Dam.white]

Allow 2 votes at the same times.

[DeafieGamer]

Dam.white...

Someone told me to tell you that if you can make 2 votes happening at same time, you will get admin SOMEWHERE on the internet.

[Dam.white]

:D :D

[tempest]

EDIT: gotta rethink that.

[DeafieGamer]

Devs, what does you thinks about this situtation?

[tempest]

As for ban votes, you're probably right, since they should really get and keep someone off the server.
For kick votes, it wouldn't make much sense if you think about it - as Orynge said, kick is there to temporarily disconnect someone from the server (and then hope they get the message and don't come back).

Note: That's my personal opinion, not an official statement or anything.

[MykeGregory]

the 45% pass rate seems like a good idea.
But i think the best thing to do at the moment is USE YOUR EYES! The amount of times i have called a kick vote for team killing when a player is like -3 to 12 and the vote will get like 2 f1s and 0 f2s. JUST USE YOUR EYES AND THE KICK VOTE SYSTEM WILL WORK A BIT BETTER.

get rid of the voting limit or drop it to like 3 votes.
i'm tired of trying to kick people twise for the above reason and servers not even letting me. lame.

[V-Man]

If you get upset about someone reconnecting immediately after getting kicked, you should've used a ban instead.

I'm also tired of clueless newbies' lack of awareness being counted as F2s -- I think F1 should mean yes, and F2 should mean no, and not voting shouldn't have any effect on the process.

[tempest]

If you get upset about someone reconnecting immediately after getting kicked, you should've used a ban instead.

Lol, I think Bugboy is having problems getting his point across. You just joined the group of people who apparently can't read - I'm in too, but I noticed it in time :P

If you disconnect while there's a vote up to ban you, the vote fails and you can go back immediately.

[#M|A#Wolf]

It's really unfair sometimes for the person that makes the vote if the other players are too ignorant to know how to vote.

My suggestion is to not count the non-made votes as an F2. So if the vote would be something like F1:2, F2:1 then it would pass. However, if the vote is F1:1, F2:0 then it should be denied, since that F1 is from the vote maker himself. Also for ties, deny it as well.

I also agree with the idea of the server holding the player's IP address during a ban vote, so even if the person leaves the server can ban his IP.

[Mael]

Or don't let the player being kicked see the kick vote. Or anonymize kick votes to all players. Then the kickee isn't able to anticipate the disconnect. Bonus: they can't call a vote to kick the player that tried to kick them.

[#M|A#Wolf]

If you anonymize kick votes for everyone then who is going to vote?

[X-Ray_Dog]

I like the way voting works as of now with majority must pass it and not voting means no. The point of F2 is simply to fail the vote faster. Sometimes I don't vote because I don't want to press F2 and either way, it passes or it fails. As for bans, the server should definitely keep the ip so the disconnecting user could still get banned if the vote passes. I don't think the vote should be hidden at all however. I go into servers as "Anonymous" and people have tried to kick me for both my name and my score when I actually learn to aim. Even fake votes, so no don't hide them.

[V-Man]

If you disconnect while there's a vote up to ban you, the vote fails and you can go back immediately.

I thought that was fixed? :(

[DeafieGamer]

It's didnt, obliviously...

---

"DOES you"? :>
Nope, I think it's fine. If you don't vote, it's an abstain.

EDIT:

[SELECT ALL] Code:

[17:47] <+Bugboy1028> all of the vote attempts to ban that teamkiller failed because HE lefted the server, and over 50% of people argeed with the vote yet the vote failed.
[17:48] <@B}Orynge> ohhh
[17:48] <+Bugboy1028> there is 15 more attempts to kick him out but all of the votes fails just becuase he is not in the server

Bugboy explained it to me in more detail. Ban votes should not fail if the subject leaves the server.

EDIT 2: It should fail if it's a kick. After all, making him disconnect is what you're trying to do, right?

I meant to said ban, not kick

[tempest]

If you disconnect while there's a vote up to ban you, the vote fails and you can go back immediately.

I thought that was fixed? :(

No. And checking that, I just noticed how complicated it would actually be to completely fix it. Obviously, same IP doesn't always mean same player, so we have client numbers to tell them apart. But if we take away client numbers, what do we do then? It might still work for bans (since the vote result itself also works on an IP, not an individual client), but cn's are very widely used within the voting system.

[#M|A#Wolf]

Maybe limiting the ways the cn can change throughout the players would be a nice solution? What I mean is that the moment a game starts, the players in the server have their own cn's, let's say there are 10 players so the cn goes from 1-10.

However, say cn 6 leaves and then another player enters. Instead of the other player taking his cn he would get cn 11, then if cn 3 leaves and another one enters he would be cn 12, and so on and so forth. Each time a new game starts the cn's would then be restarted and re-arrange from x to y.

So basically, with this the server can also ban the cn in case the IP changes or something.

[V-Man]

What I thought was changed was:
When a ban vote passes (regardless of whether the player leaves), the server uses that player's IP address as a temporary (typically 20-minute) blacklist entry.

[Mael]

If you anonymize kick votes for everyone then who is going to vote?

By anonymize I mean don't let anyone see who called the kick vote. The name of the player being kicked will still show up. It shouldn't matter who called the kick vote.

[flowtron]

V-Man is right; BC|Wolf how should we be able to identify the reconnect as being the same person if the IP has changed? This would require the full implementation of ingame authentication and the server to only accept players who actually have authenticated.

[DeafieGamer]

Can any Dev/Admin closed the poll?

[Mael]

BC|Wolf how should we be able to identify the reconnect as being the same person if the IP has changed?

That problem is no different than the problem of players changing their ips once they're banned. There's nothing we can do about it without major changes but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't put the feature in to prevent near instantaneous vote manipulation. I'm sure by now someone has written a script to disconnect and reconnect quickly. With this feature we make it slightly harder and longer(Giggity) to do.

[[SODA]___ME___]

flowtron, tempest, I think your trying to go one step to far with the thinking here, yes, they can change ip to get around it, but just let the voting continue and use whatever system that is currently in place for the temp ban proccess. This would at least slow them down to (how long does it take modem to reboot?) instead of 2 seconds, any repeat offenders will be blacklisted anyhow. It may not be the absolute foolproof method, but its much better than the current logic.

Bugboy1028, try to use servers when an admin is present, if admin votes to ban then its game over for the one getting banned.

[MykeGregory]

No matter what system is in place there will allways be a way round it or some kind of exploitable.

[Lantry]

No matter what system is in place there will allways be a way round it or some kind of exploitable.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the system as good as possible.

[V-Man]

... checking that, I just noticed how complicated it would actually be to completely fix it.

What complicates it? Just the part about not having a vote end if the player disconnects?

* V-Man is tempted to guess it shouldn't be difficult, but hesitates on the possibility of being challenged to demonstrate...

* V-Man takes some C++ classes...