Declined A Cancel Vote Feature for Donors...

[Alex.bsp]

Let me start off by saying how this will work. Lets say I call a vote on the wrong guy, all I have to do is !cancelvote or !cancel and the vote is cancel! But it only works for Your votes. If another donor calls a vote on someone, you can't cancel it!

Sometimes I get on deathrun and people are stalling, so I call a voteslay on who ever is stalling, but once they start moving and getting passed the traps, I can't cancel the vote.

I think this will be a very useful feature for donors.

 

[Drax]

I 100% agree with this. As a donor, I would often call slay votes against people that I presumed to be AFK, but when I called the vote, maybe 5 seconds later, they came back and I feel terrible. They'd be running around hopelessly while the votes going on and there is nothing you can do about it. Also, where someone's mic is broken and sounds terrible so you mute them, then the mute makes them realize their mic is broken so they fix it, but now they're muted, which could have been prevented if we could cancel our votes.

 

[Oxi-moron]

Even though I'm not a donor I serious believe this should be a thing just to prevent future mishaps such as above listed examples from happening again

 

[Buster]

X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.

What will you do about the spam?

 

[Ben289]

X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.
X started a vote to slay Y.
X cancelled the vote.

What will you do about the spam?

Don't donators have to wait 30 seconds to call another vote?

We could also make it so that only the donator who called the vote, can actually cancel that vote?

 

[Buster]

I still feel like a lot of "baiting" will happen which will just be annoying. Why can't you just voteslay/kick the appropriate player? Why is that hard? You know what votekick needs? An "Are you sure?" question.

"Are you sure/certain you want to votekick Y?"

• Yes
• No

If you target the wrong player after that, it's just your fault. It would probably be a lot harder to create a command that can only cancel your vote, just make sure with that question, that also prevents any spam or baiting.

 

[AwZooom]

I agree on the are you sure button .

 

[Alex.bsp]

Why can't you just voteslay/kick the appropriate player?

If you're talking about this: "Lets say I call a vote on the wrong guy" it was just an example.(a bad one, I guess)

by the way, there are certain situations where you just need to cancel the vote.

Sometimes I get on deathrun and people are stalling, so I call a voteslay on who ever is stalling, but once they start moving and getting passed the traps, I can't cancel the vote.

As a donor, I would often call slay votes against people that I presumed to be AFK, but when I called the vote, maybe 5 seconds later, they came back and I feel terrible. They'd be running around hopelessly while the votes going on and there is nothing you can do about it.

You know what votekick needs? An "Are you sure?" question.

I won't say just for votekick, but for all votecalls. And this is not a bad idea.

 

[Buster]

If the person was afk for a while and they start moving just because you called a vote, that often just means that they were stalling on purpose in which case they deserve the voteslay. The other option is that you called a vote way too soon and it's just a slight abuse.

Other than that, giving you this command will still certainly cause baiting, even if you somehow restrict it so people can't do it in a row multiple times, there will be baiting, just 1 at a time. So I would still argue that this causes more trouble and instead of giving donators more specific, rarely used commands, donators should be more careful when they want to vote**** someone.

 

[Alex.bsp]

If the person was afk for a while and they start moving just because you called a vote, that often just means that they were stalling on purpose in which case they deserve the voteslay.

Me and other users just want them to GO, not to die and lose the round. if they do it 1 time, they shouldn't deserve a slay, it's almost like a warning. If it's more then 1 time, yeah, ok, fine, they deserve it.

The other option is that you called a vote way too soon and it's just a slight abuse.

Can you explain to me why it will be slight abuse? I don't get what you mean.

more trouble

baiting is one thing, but it's not that big of an issues, is it? I don't think there is going to be more trouble. It's just small orange text on the left of your screen, it's not going to causes that much trouble by simply canceling it.

btw, @Buster if you still think it shouldn't be added, that's fine by me. Everybody should have their own opinion about this. :^)

 

[Buster]

In my opinion, and yes, we're stretching this conversation for barely any reason, a warning is something u can do in chat/voicechat, a voteslay is not a warning even if you for some unknown reason think that it is. That's just wrong.

If you voteslay people without making sure that they're afk/pretend to be afk beforehand, that's abuse. Why? Because there is no 3rd option. Either someone is afk, in which case you're allowed to voteslay them so they don't delay the round, or they pretend to be afk, in which case again, you can voteslay. There is no 3rd option! So if someone gets slayed without one of the two above being true, that's abuse.

To make this clear, let me give you some examples:
1.: You slay a player who is still at the start of the map and hasn't moved for most of the round. Voteslay is successful, he says nothing. JUSTIFIED SLAY
2.: Same situation, you slay him, then he starts complaining. Did you warn him in chat beforehand? Yes. Did he react? No. JUSTIFIED SLAY
3.: Same situation, he starts complaining. Did you warn him beforehand? Yes. Did he react? Yes, but he still hasn't moved and is delaying the round. JUSTIFIED SLAY
4.: Same situation, you slay him, he starts complaining. Did you warn him beforehand? No. UNJUSTIFIED SLAY

If you don't make sure, that the person is afk or is pretending to be afk beforehand, you're just assuming something and trying to slay people. You can't know if the 4th guy is sitting at his screen or not until you make sure.

It is a pretty big issue. I don't want donators to be able to call votes and then instantly cancel them when they could be just a little more careful to avoid this whole thing. Let me tell you what will happen. Some donators will try to scare a lot of people on the servers for 2€ by constantly starting and canceling votes.

That is my view on this, I don't agree with the attitude of pushing aside the worst case scenarios by saying "It won't happen that often". Like if the Team Fortress community wasn't full with trolls.

 

[Noodl]

I foresee a lot of donor threatening going on if this made it through.

"Do x or I'm kicking you"
Does x
"K cancelled"

 

[Benedevil]

I'll have to decline this suggestion, since yes indeed this will cause baiting and will lead to more donator abuse as donators would be capable of telling people to do things and threatening with not cancelling a vote. In an idealistic world, this could work if everyone who gets donator would be a trustworth person, yet quite frankly there will always be people who will try to use all perks to their advantage.