Idiotic Votes. Possible Server code change?

[jm82792]

I had it recently were a rather new player, or perhaps a poor playing one has some weird thing for wanting to kick and mute me.
I tked him when I was chasing a almost dead rant, I managed to unload most of a clip into him.
I said sorry, when he seemed agitated I said it won't happen again(well you get what mean).
He wanted a kick, it wasn't voted in. 3 games later, perhaps a dozen votes for kicks and muting he finally got me off.
I don't care much, it's annoying that's all.
My point is perhaps there should be a new server feature.
It would prevent the same player for calling the same kick/mute vote more then twice per game against the same player,
or 3 times within 2 hours against the same player.

[Celestial_Rage]

I wouldn't mind a vote limit.

[jm82792]

I wouldn't mind a vote limit.

Cool.

[Dr. A. Goon]

This would also help for repeated map change and nextmap votes.

[CorSair]

If no one object this, or have something to brake the progress, this should be implemented. I don't see no harm in this.

[Plague Bringer]

In fact, I'm rather surprised this isn't implemented already. It'd save mods/admins !muting people who call multiple votes, and it'd save people from having to sit through idiocy if there are no mod/admins available.

[A Spork]

Wasn't this implemented in most 1.1 servers?

[Plague Bringer]

Wasn't this implemented in most 1.1 servers?

I could've sworn it sounded familiar.

[F50]

Wasn't this implemented in most 1.1 servers?

Yes it was, and its implemented in GPP as well.

Just start up devmap and look for the cvar that says g_votelimit

[Spl@]

My opinion:

• Admit-defeat votes should require at least two thirds in favour. This should significantly reduce the impact of stealth admit-defeat votes – you know the sort: too busy, but the newbie majority in your team all notice and all vote yes…
• Draw votes need a bit more than that, but should also require at least two thirds of each team in favour.
  
  • Spectators either should not be able to vote or should be limited in some way, perhaps counting as (say) 10% of each team vote.
  • If only one team (discounting spectators, if they count) passes the vote, then either:
    
    • it should be treated as an immediate admission of defeat;
    • an admit-defeat vote should be called automatically for that team. (This is probably the better option…?)
    Either way, the vote should not be regarded as passed by either team, if at all, until it is passed by both or the vote reaches time-out.
    
  • Each team should not be able to see the other team's votes; spectators should see only the total votes cast; and admin should see the full vote regardless.

In both cases, perhaps indicating which map is next will be useful: I've seen both called used to end the game just to get to the next map…

So far as the HUD is concerned: votes need to be made more noticeable, without actually getting in the way: probably something like shadowed text (white text on a pale background does happen) and some sort of audible and/or animated indication.

Hopefully, changes along these lines, if made, will help to reduce vote abuse and vote spamming (which still happens sometimes despite the 2-calls-per-map limit in place on R Unlimited).

[1337-Kynes]

• Spectators either should not be able to vote or should be limited in some way, perhaps counting as (say) 10% of each team vote.

Other than this, I think you have some good ideas. Limiting voting for spectators seems like it would be annoying and rather odd to implement. Nothing would stop specs from joining a team just to vote.

[Spl@]

• Spectators either should not be able to vote or should be limited in some way, perhaps counting as (say) 10% of each team vote.

Other than this, I think you have some good ideas. Limiting voting for spectators seems like it would be annoying and rather odd to implement. Nothing would stop specs from joining a team just to vote.

True… it wouldn't take much to stop, though: record which team the player was in (counting spectators as a team, for this purpose) when the vote was called. If the player attempts to vote, allow or deny according to whether he's still in the same team, if team membership is relevant to the vote.

It occurs to me that if a player votes in a team vote (or in a general vote which has team-vote characteristics, as described in my previous posting) then leaves the team but doesn't disconnect, it is reasonable to expect that that vote is not counted unless the player rejoins the team.

[Plague Bringer]

Spec votes should count only if they wouldn't tip the balance...

EXAMPLE:

votes to pass:
8

team votes
yes: 5 no: 4

spec votes
yes: 1 no: 4

In this case, the spectator votes would not count because they'd tip the balance. The vote wouldn't pass. BUT...

team votes
yes: 2 no: 4

spec votes
yes: 1 no: 4

Since the spec votes wouldn't tip the balance, they'd be counted, and the vote would pass.

[1337-Kynes]

Since the spec votes wouldn't tip the balance, they'd be counted, and the vote would pass.

How is this different from ignoring spec votes entirely?