I bought a tag, kicked a newbie, and now I'm a demon lord

[zeyeti.8347]

4 hours ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

Squad members have duties, too.  If it is the commanders duty to instruct and lead, it is the squaddie's duty to listen and cooperate.  

First duty of a the "futur" squad member is to read and fullfill what the com asked in the lfg , if that first rule is not fullfilled , well com can feel free to do whatever he wants .

Only not listed rule for me as com is to be polite to a certain extend and one absolute rule is : the com must at least met what he asked in lfg (i've seen commanders with 0kp and 0 knowledge of the fight , but asking for 20 -30 kp , that also another form of leeching) but thats my personal thoughts.

Nowhere in the game it is said that coms are free npcs explaining every mechanic , he can do that but has no obligation on it .

Met the lfg requirement or just ask nicely to com without matching the  requirement and say you know the mechs and he can give you a shot , when i tag and ppl not met the requ. from lfg , but act very polite , ask for a try , and say they know the mechs , i will most often give it a shot

But sneaking in , saying nothing (like you don't know how to write in the correct channel) and just lurking and waiting for the squad to carry you , then go mad and mp the com saying he is a bigot , a ss **** , and deserve kitten , because he kikced you and "wow you can write in a channel , wtf , why you didn't do that earlier ? " -> BL and report with a nice "leecher" surname in block list , i speak of personal experience , they are ppl who literally thinks of other ppl playing the game as just npcs and they must fullfill all their desire ... entitlement at his climax.

[Shadowmoon.7986]

You did the right thing. Have to keep the rabble in line. I applaud you sir.

[Pinkeh.4207]

Thought this was some new isekai novel. 😏

[pfuetzi.5421]

On 4/29/2023 at 11:25 AM, zeyeti.8347 said:

Nowhere in the game it is said that coms are free npcs explaining every mechanic , he can do that but has no obligation on it .

Nowhere in the game it is said coms need to have the requirements they asked for.

Nowhere in the game it is said coms cannot kick you without reason just before a boss is killed.

 

So, we have established that what the commander role entails is a social contract of sorts that is not specified within the game 😉

So whether it is "ok/sound/appropriate/dumb/irresponsible/necessary/etc." to kick or rather when to kick is up to debate.

[Cyninja.2954]

34 minutes ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

Nowhere in the game it is said coms need to have the requirements they asked for.

Nope. That's just players telling other players what THEY are looking for and whom they want to play with.

34 minutes ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

Nowhere in the game it is said coms cannot kick you without reason just before a boss is killed.

Literally not possible in raids and strikes.

34 minutes ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

 

So, we have established that what the commander role entails is a social contract of sorts that is not specified within the game 😉

So whether it is "ok/sound/appropriate/dumb/irresponsible/necessary/etc." to kick or rather when to kick is up to debate.

 

Actually it's not. Arguing over the decision made might be, but the ability to kick lies with 1 person alone: the squad leader.

 

Every player gets to make a choice on how much they want to roll the dice on somee else, or better yet: have that control for themselves.

[pfuetzi.5421]

30 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Actually it's not. Arguing over the decision made might be, but the ability to kick lies with 1 person alone: the squad leader.

 

You are missing the point. Noone talks about the ability to kick. The whole discussion is about whether it is "ok/sound/appropriate/dumb/irresponsible/necessary/etc." as I stated and as was asked for by the TO.

And as this thread shows players do have different opinion about that, thus debate. And I think it is actually a good idea to come to a common understanding what is best pratice for commanders. There are pros and cons to different approaches.

[Sobx.1758]

3 hours ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

You are missing the point. Noone talks about the ability to kick. The whole discussion is about whether it is "ok/sound/appropriate/dumb/irresponsible/necessary/etc." as I stated and as was asked for by the TO.

And as this thread shows players do have different opinion about that, thus debate. And I think it is actually a good idea to come to a common understanding what is best pratice for commanders. There are pros and cons to different approaches.

Best practice: commander's squad is commander's squad. If you want your rules, make your squad. Commander doesn't owe you anything just because you clicked "join".
What else needs to be established here and why?

Edited May 2, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[pfuetzi.5421]

51 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Best practice: commander's squad is commander's squad. If you want your rules, make your squad. Commander doesn't owe you anything just because you clicked "join".
What else needs to be established here and why?

 

Why? Because you would prevent interaction as described by the TO! Why? Because it sets expectations for everyone involved! Why? Because it makes interaction so much smoother!

 

For example: I think it is good practice to stat your role if you leave a group. Of course, you don't owe that to anyone but it is a good idea to enforce such behavior anyways. Do you think it is good practice that a commander kicks you at last boss to invide a friend?

Do you think it is good practice that a commander ask for kp he doesn't have himself? Do you think it is good practice when a commander asked for kp but his friend gets a free leech and not telling anyone? Do you think it is good practice that a commander doesn't kick the guy who has no clues and wipes the group over and over? According to you, that would be all fine, he owe's you nothing and his rules (which you possibly don't even know).

If such things happen you would probalby leave the group and blacklist the commander. Luckily that doesn't happen (or rarely) because there is already a social contract! Luckily! Otherwise, pugging would be hell. The questions is rather where the bounderies are.

If there is truely no social contract at all, players are as free to join any groups they want (because the game allows it) as are commanders to kick whoever they want whenever they want (as the game allows that). I hope everyone agrees that that is an undesirable perspective...

[Sobx.1758]

1 hour ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

Why? Because you would prevent interaction as described by the TO! Why? Because it sets expectations for everyone involved! Why? Because it makes interaction so much smoother!

How does this respond to this: "commander's squad is commander's squad. If you want your rules, make your squad."? OP clearly described he's looking for experienced players. The player joining the squad didn't fill that rather obvious and clearly stated requirement and yet your solution is to... make more "gamewide" rules that wouldn't be mentioned in the squad's description? How would you spread those rules to every player in the game and how do you expect them to be followed by the players who fail to follow a clearly spelled out requirement, like OP did it in his lfg squad description? 🤨 

It really looks like you shouldn't say anything about "making interaction so much smoother!" when apparently you draw the line below understanding the requirements listed in the squad's description in lfg. How do you want to make anything smooth if something this simple is already too much?

1 hour ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

For example: I think it is good practice to stat your role if you leave a group.

Yeah, I do that. But that's still not a rule, it's simply a courtesy and understanding how building a group works.

1 hour ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

Do you think it is good practice that a commander kicks you at last boss to invide a friend?

Do you think it is good practice that a commander ask for kp he doesn't have himself? Do you think it is good practice when a commander asked for kp but his friend gets a free leech and not telling anyone? Do you think it is good practice that a commander doesn't kick the guy who has no clues and wipes the group over and over? According to you, that would be all fine, he owe's you nothing and his rules (which you possibly don't even know).

If such things happen you would probalby leave the group and blacklist the commander. Luckily that doesn't happen (or rarely) because there is already a social contract! Luckily! Otherwise, pugging would be hell. The questions is rather where the bounderies are.

The question was and still is: What else needs to be established here and why?
Not kicking someone before last boss isn't a rule, it's scamming players out of rewards. As far as I see it, it's also a strawman irrelevant to what is being discussed here. If anything, for it to be "somewhat ok" in relation to what was being said in the previous posts, it would need to be clearly stated in lfg description that "You'll be kicked before the end of the encounter so you won't get the rewards". That would be clearly conveying the goals of the squad and of course that would also make that squad next to unfillable.

1 hour ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

If there is truely no social contract at all, players are as free to join any groups they want (because the game allows it) as are commanders to kick whoever they want whenever they want (as the game allows that). I hope everyone agrees that that is an undesirable perspective...

And who said those players aren't allowed to join? They very much can take their chance and ask if they can stay despite lacking in whatever requirement. But then receiving a negative response shouldn't be surprising anyone and it should simply be accepted by the person asking a question. I don't get what point you're trying to make here?

 

And back to you discussing what's "ok/sound/appropriate/neessary/etc": it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the commander's requirements. When I see a "maid outfits only!" raid squad (which I saw more than once, actually 😄 ) and I don't want to fulfill that requirement, it doesn't matter if I like it or not, it doesn't matter if it impacts the encounter in any way. Someone made a group they wanted for whatever reason and that's all it is.
So yes still, without change: commander's squad is commander's squad. If you want your rules, make your squad.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[pfuetzi.5421]

37 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Not kicking someone before last boss isn't a rule, it's scamming players out of rewards.

According to you: commander's squad, is commander's squad. If you want your rules, make your own group.  Again your argument, not mine...

 

By the way, I never talked about "rules" but about best practices and social contracts. If you don't know what those are there is probably a wiki about it...

The "rules" argument is actually your straw man. I never talked about rules...

[Sobx.1758]

19 minutes ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

According to you: commander's squad, is commander's squad. If you want your rules, make your own group.  Again your argument, not mine...

And, again, what's your point here?

19 minutes ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

By the way, I never talked about "rules" but about best practices and social contracts. If you don't know what those are there is probably a wiki about it...

The "rules" argument is actually your straw man. I never talked about rules...

As far as I understand the point of this discussion, there's next to no difference between the two and it's just the case of different wording for the same thing.
I don't see how your whole post is relevant to anything written before it, maybe I'm missing something.

And if you really want to be specific, then be specific. For now you're just making up a bunch of hypotheticals irrelevant to the thread or the posts you've quoted (where you're apparently standing on the side of the claim that commander should be responsible for explaining mechanics of the encounter? Or the one where you're trying to come up with some vague set of "social contracts" in the thread where someone can't follow a written description of the squad?).

Edited May 2, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[Zohane.7208]

1 hour ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

According to you: commander's squad, is commander's squad. If you want your rules, make your own group.  Again your argument, not mine...

 

By the way, I never talked about "rules" but about best practices and social contracts. If you don't know what those are there is probably a wiki about it...

The "rules" argument is actually your straw man. I never talked about rules...

So, in your book, who would define these best practices? I'm pretty sure there's hundreds of intricacies that could happen that a best practice would need to address. And how would these be enforced?

As for the social contract, that's a thing that has to be agreed upon by everyone involved so that all know what to expect and what's expected of them. Since each squad is a different entity, made up of different sets of players, I'd expect that each squad would need to establish a social contract within itself before starting.

Or, we could just go with the aforementioned "commander's squad, commander's rules", and put it in the lfg description...

[pfuetzi.5421]

My point is simple. My examples show that your simple assessment of "commander's squad, is commander's squad. If you want your rules, make your own group" is insufficient, because certain behavior are expected and some will not be accepted (you called one of my examples scaming (rightly so)). Thus, the question is what more is needed and you even asked it yourself (though presumebly ironically). I gave you the answer: a social contract which involves for example "The commander will not scam me". That contract is usually implicit which makes it worth discussing as perceptions of it will differ.

 

The TO essentially asked whether he broke the (implicit) social contract with his behavior (as commander's squad, is commander's squad. apparently didn't work). So what are the bounderies of that social contract can be discussed. I also don't know what makes you think that I think, the commander should explain everything. I never said so and don't think they should. Do I think, the TO could have handled the situation better? - Yes. That's why I said it might also be worth discussing best practices... So everything is highly relevant to the topic at hand and is directly linked to the TOs question 😉

 

And to make the point even more specific: Do I think the TO broke the social contract? No, he clearly stated experienced, a new player joined and he kicked him. Was that a good idea? Probalby not. The content is so easy that more energy went into communicating the kicking and much more time was wasted. Best practices would be imho to be rather lenient with easy content in which a new player cannot wipe a group. I would not explain the whole encounter but just write: "If you get aoe under you, move out of the group, otherwise follow tag". 

That way, even if that player leeches a couple a runs, he will be more experienced after. Worst case by being kicked, the new player learned "ok, if I want to do content, I don't tell the commander that I am clueless next time..."

 

And if you want to kick the new player, don't beat around the bushes: "Sorry, this is an experienced group and we want a fast kill." Then kick them.

 

Both of it, is what worked for my groups.

Edited May 2, 2023 by pfuetzi.5421

[pfuetzi.5421]

11 minutes ago, Zohane.7208 said:

So, in your book, who would define these best practices? I'm pretty sure there's hundreds of intricacies that could happen that a best practice would need to address. And how would these be enforced?

As for the social contract, that's a thing that has to be agreed upon by everyone involved so that all know what to expect and what's expected of them. Since each squad is a different entity, made up of different sets of players, I'd expect that each squad would need to establish a social contract within itself before starting.

 

How do you know best practices: Experience and asking other player. Sharing what worked for you and trying the suggestions of others. When things work, keep doing it and the best practices will spread 😉 

There is no enforcement needed, because you want to use them.

 

Social contract is tricky indeed. That's why I said it is interesting what everyone expects and discuss it. It is a good method to reflect one's own behavior (that is what the TO did with his thread btw). It can also be used to explore where we as a community want to be and why. For example, do we want to change the role of commander in way in order to achieve certain goal. For example you could argue that commanders "should" be more inclusive and explain more, so more player are inclined to do harder content. Or on the contrary, you might argue, it should be expected less from the commanders, e.g. other players can explain the encounter and organize the group, in order to encourage more player to tag up. Pros and cons.

Edited May 2, 2023 by pfuetzi.5421

[Sobx.1758]

22 minutes ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

My point is simple. My examples show that your simple assessment of "commander's squad, is commander's squad. If you want your rules, make your own group" is insufficient,

It's not insufficient, it's basic logic and -probably most importantly- something that's visible to anyone wanting to join a squad. What's that? The squad description. If someone somehow can't follow that baseline, then no amount of your vaguely general "set of rules" will be followed by those very same players.

22 minutes ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

because certain behavior are expected and some will not be accepted (you called one of my examples scaming (rightly so)). Thus, the question is what more is needed and you even asked it yourself (though presumebly ironically). I gave you the answer: a social contract which involves for example "The commander will not scam me". That contract is usually implicit which makes it worth discussing as perceptions of it will differ.

That question was in no way asked ironically. I expected you to get to the point, but subsequently failed to find that point.
I also responded directly to your given example with more than just "it's a scam": If anything, for it to be "somewhat ok" in relation to what was being said in the previous posts, it would need to be clearly stated in lfg description that "You'll be kicked before the end of the encounter so you won't get the rewards". That would be clearly conveying the goals of the squad and of course that would also make that squad next to unfillable.

Is there anything in this response that somehow went against what I previously said? Because when you responded with "Again your argument, not mine... ", it really seemed like you were somehow trying to imply I went against my words and I'm convinced I did not. If that wasn't the point of you responding with that "Again your argument, not mine... " then I require explanation what point you were trying to make by writing that, because I don't see it.

22 minutes ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

The TO essentially asked whether he broke the (implicit) social contract with his behavior (as commander's squad, is commander's squad. apparently didn't work). So what are the bounderies of that social contract can be discussed. I also don't know what makes you think that I think, the commander should explain everything. I never said so and don't think they should. Do I think, the TO could have handled the situation better? - Yes. That's why I said it might also be worth discussing best practices... So everything is highly relevant to the topic at hand and is directly linked to the TOs question 😉

This post: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/130221-i-bought-a-tag-kicked-a-newbie-and-now-im-a-demon-lord/page/3/#comment-1890613 in relation to what you directly quoted before responding with what you responded. Again, if that's not what you were suggesting then I'm not sure what point you were making there.

Someone joined the squad with description of ~"experienced players only", asked if they can stay despite not being experienced, got response that they can't and now... it's somehow a discussion whether or not OP was correct? How is this even a discussion? Why won't you talk directly about the situation in question (seems, you finally did address that at the end of this post though and the result is... It wasn't really problematic and the decision was based on clear expectations?) but instead try to come up with vague hypotheticals? Is it because the response to OP's situation just too obvious but you don't want it to be? 😄

22 minutes ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

And to make the point even more specific: Do I think the TO broke the social contract? No, he clearly stated experienced, a new player joined and he kicked him.

So what's the problem?

22 minutes ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

Was that a good idea? Probalby not.  The content is so easy that more energy went into communicating the kicking and much more time was wasted.

If the content is so easy nothing matters then the solution for that player is to make their own completely open squad and not join another one to force their own rules on someone else's squad. You talk about social contracts, but you somehow you don't see anything weird in that behavor?

22 minutes ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

Best practices would be imho to be rather lenient with easy content in which a new player cannot wipe a group. I would not explain the whole encounter but just write: "If you get aoe under you, move out of the group, otherwise follow tag". 

That way, even if that player leeches a couple a runs, he will be more experienced after. Worst case, the new player learned "ok, if I want to do content and don't tell the commander that I am clueless next time..."

You are free to make that squad and do whatever you want. The moment you join someone else's squad and try to force your rules onto their squad, you're simply and clearly in the wrong. Not someone who made their squad how they wanted to while clearly conveying their expectations. Is there anything about that you somehow disagree with? How is this not clear for literally anyone involved? Why are you bent on replacing "ability to read" (the squad's description) with your own game-wide set of rules? I don't see how that makes any sense.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[pfuetzi.5421]

Sorry, you clearly have no idea what a social contract is and you are missing the point completely on what I am saying. However, I am tired of explaining because I am afraid you will never get it. I am out.

Edited May 2, 2023 by pfuetzi.5421

[Sobx.1758]

It's hard to treat a "potential social contract" discussion seriously when your starting point is based on nothing else than trying to dismiss what the squad owner clearly asked for in the squad description. If someone can't read and follow a short requirement description, it's no longer about any "social contract", but instead it's about someone wanting other players to make squads specifically catering to his/her own needs and wants. If you care about "social contracts", pehaps start from caring about this one, since I'm not sure if it can get any clearer and more basic than that.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[voltaicbore.8012]

On 4/26/2023 at 9:20 AM, Ashantara.8731 said:

I don't think this incident is even worth a discussion

This.

OP got a tag, made a group asking for experienced players. Some internet stranger joined group not experienced, didn't get the hint to leave, so OP kicked them. Then other internet strangers apparently tried to make OP feel bad for it. So now OP is here, asking yet another group of internet strangers for validation.

This entire thread, imo, has been a colossal waste, and I gladly add to it because I'm bored and in between other recreational tasks at the moment.

[Vilin.8056]

18 minutes ago, voltaicbore.8012 said:

OP got a tag, made a group asking for experienced players. Some internet stranger joined group not experienced, didn't get the hint to leave, so OP kicked them. Then other internet strangers apparently tried to make OP feel bad for it. So now OP is here, asking yet another group of internet strangers for validation.

This entire thread, imo, has been a colossal waste, and I gladly add to it because I'm bored and in between other recreational tasks at the moment.

Actually it does point out several fundamental  problems within this game.

1. This game lacks a proper training model for entry players thus forcing them into joining a player group to learn the essentials.

2. Instanced contents are too reliant upon manual filtering by the players, thus constantly creating conflict and people issues.

[Cuks.8241]

6 hours ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

If there is truely no social contract at all, players are as free to join any groups they want (because the game allows it) as are commanders to kick whoever they want whenever they want (as the game allows that). I hope everyone agrees that that is an undesirable perspective...

This is how the system is designed, I would say that is  current desirable perspective. I am ok with it. I can join any group, comm can kick as he sees fit.

3 hours ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

Social contract is tricky indeed. That's why I said it is interesting what everyone expects and discuss it. It is a good method to reflect one's own behavior (that is what the TO did with his thread btw). It can also be used to explore where we as a community want to be and why. For example, do we want to change the role of commander in way in order to achieve certain goal. For example you could argue that commanders "should" be more inclusive and explain more, so more player are inclined to do harder content. Or on the contrary, you might argue, it should be expected less from the commanders, e.g. other players can explain the encounter and organize the group, in order to encourage more player to tag up. Pros and cons.

We as in everyone have no right to change the role of the commander. At least what the role represents now. Commanders are independent and their obligations are to work within the games rules. Do the Anet gods alow scaming? No as far as I know. No social contract needed. The foot soldiers have no right to dictate rules or expectations for comms. They can buy themselves a promotion and command in their own way. And if they do that, their opinion might have some merit. But not as long as they are only pressing join button and not advertising their own squad.

Setting up specific expectations for comms would not encourage more players to tag up, it would do the opposite.

[Linken.6345]

5 hours ago, Vilin.8056 said:

Actually it does point out several fundamental  problems within this game.

1. This game lacks a proper training model for entry players thus forcing them into joining a player group to learn the essentials.

2. Instanced contents are too reliant upon manual filtering by the players, thus constantly creating conflict and people issues.

1 No it dont lack training model, anyone can start  a 10 man squad and learn the conent. ( they even have guides both written and video form something the people who started it first did not have)

2 It is not, if you dont want to filter players start all welcome squad and get kitten done.

[zeyeti.8347]

23 hours ago, pfuetzi.5421 said:

Nowhere in the game it is said coms need to have the requirements they asked for.

Nowhere in the game it is said coms cannot kick you without reason just before a boss is killed.

 

So, we have established that what the commander role entails is a social contract of sorts that is not specified within the game 😉

So whether it is "ok/sound/appropriate/dumb/irresponsible/necessary/etc." to kick or rather when to kick is up to debate.

To me it's common sense , i get your point , nothing of that is listed to the game , basically a tag is just a tag , first purpose was just to be a "beacon" for players , acting like a moving POI on Open world stuff.

But when you make a party (like in real life) you are the boss of that party and if you feel like your need to ask for 783 kp (even if it is ridiculous) well it's on you .

People joining are free to not agree and can leave on their own , thats democraty. If you go to a party where you need to be well dressed and come just naked with your underpants ... well guess what happen.

11 hours ago, Vilin.8056 said:

Actually it does point out several fundamental  problems within this game.

1. This game lacks a proper training model for entry players thus forcing them into joining a player group to learn the essentials.

2. Instanced contents are too reliant upon manual filtering by the players, thus constantly creating conflict and people issues.

Thats true , emboldened helps , but that roughtly just a stat increase for players . But it's an MMO if you struggle with something you can ask for help , best way is to join a guild , there are full off in the game , guilds with casuals , vets , hardcore , etc ... like in all other games , you have to improves yourself and sometimes you have to accept that you need help , but that require a little effort , just trying to leech isn't a solution , and it is certainly not the only option some players have , thats just acting selfish and lazy ...  If you don't want to do that little effort well you can stay doing open world stuff and not even think about endgame content , nothing wrong about that .

it's not Anet who made guides , builds and record instanced content , it's a bunch of players . Anet gave the tools to build something and it's the player who build it , that what every MMO does.

Edited May 3, 2023 by zeyeti.8347

[Strider.7849]

On 4/26/2023 at 6:26 AM, vares.8457 said:

Yeah I have seen that, but it’s not necessarily new players that die there. I have seen plenty veteran players die at the beginning of XJJ. 

I am laughing about it because we are talking about normal mode here, not about CM. There is no difficulty and you can easily do the strike mission with half the squad dead. 
 

Maybe imagine how this must have felt for the new player. Why not give people a chance? Again, we are talking about normal mode here. 

Not to be that guy, but CM XJJ isn't that much harder than NM. Of the EoD strikes, I think that CM is probably the easiest. 

[stormemperor.3745]

Grats I guess

[Juan.6124]

On 4/25/2023 at 3:31 PM, vares.8457 said:

lol you kicked a new player from a normal mode strike mission group? 

He kicked someome who hasn't done the fight from a squad that was advertised for experienced players.