[1] Sith calls Korri vote, it fails 2-0-2 (yes/no/abstainNo); 4 ingame and eligible to vote;
[2] Sith calls Korri vote, it fails 3-2-2 (yes/no/abstainNo); 7 ingame and eligible to vote
[3] Sith calls Korri vote, it fails 3-3-2 (yes/no/abstainNo); 8 ingame and eligible to vote
[4] Elev calls p_d vote, it fails 3-3-2 (yes/no/abstainNo); 8 ingame and eligible to vote
[5] Sith calls Desert vote, it passes 5-2-1 (yes/no/abstainNo); 8 ingame and eligible to vote
[6] Pete calls Korri vote, it passes 3-1-1 (yes/no/abstainNo); 5 ingame and eligible to vote
[7] Grab calls Hoth vote, it passes 2-0-1 (yes/no/abstainNo); 3 ingame and eligible to vote
[8] Sith changes map to Korri with rcon
[9] Caesar calls Hoth vote, it passes 3-1-1 (yes/no/abstainNo); 5 ingame and eligible to vote
[10] Sith changes map to Korri with rcon
[11] Trolling starts
Here's my opinion:
Sith shouldn't have changed the map with rcon. Yes, the Hoth vote at [7] did pass by a smaller number of players than the Korri vote at [6]. But you still could have just called another Korri vote instead of immediately resorting to rcon. Even though this would have been the *fifth* Korri vote at that point, it still would have been proper protocol and less controversial. [11] and beyond would have almost certainly played out differently had you used callvote instead of rcon to change to a map that had already failed three times.
However, the trolling that played out at [11] and beyond (including troll votes, /rcon mygeeto, and instructing a brand-new player to join a live pug via pm) was worse than the korri rcon forcing. As Onasi pointed out, ruining someone's first experience with Siege was the worst offense. I can understand you guys were frustrated, but escalating the situation and trolling a brand-new player certainly didn't do anything to help. We can just hope he comes back again. In the future, just do what I do and ragequit. Depopulating the server is the siege equivalent of "voting with your wallet."
Caesar wrote:@Duo, can we implement some voting system that requires x% of the server to be ingame before a vote-map is passed?
This is difficult to implement because of reasons people stated here. We tried this a while ago and there were issues with people being unable to call votes because of non-players sitting in spec. I'm open to ideas for good solutions to this problem.
Caesar wrote:maybe we could adjust the percent according to how many people are available to play.
What method would you use to determine whether someone is classified as available to play?