Selecting need for loot

[Lostpenguins]

And that's precisely where you completely misplace this thread. We're not talking end-game flashpoints. Not even the hardmodes. Just *leveling* flashpoints. Which is an entirely different matter than end-game flashpoints, where the stats from loot actually matter. In leveling flashpoints, they simply don't.

Um, I don't rely on drops from FP's during leveling either. And you'll still get vote-kicked and/or put on ignore by me. It's rather simple.

 

However, since I rarely do FP's while leveling since they are slower for exp then questing, I probably won't see you.

 

Still doesn't change what I'm going to do. And probably doesn't change the fact that most of the repliers in this thread would still vote-kick you.

 

Are you trying to convince anyone here that they shouldn't kick you from the group or just trying to smugly say, "Ha ha! I don't care."

 

???

[SWGEvictee]

As much as I believe we should be able to roll on gear for our companions while leveling as their gear has a direct affect on our leveling, if you know most people hold to a different convention and you don't clarify your intent to ignore that convention before the time to decide on a roll comes to pass you will have earned the kick and ignore.

 

Gameplay may change change with online content. Or words to that effect are part of every online game's TOS. If you are unwilling to work with your group you really should avoid group play.

[Feluraunt]

I like cake, but my metabolism isn't what it used to be so I roll greed on anything that is not for my character class use. I would love to gear my companions through these flashpoints too, but at the expense of other players... no, I am not that shallow. I usually pass on gear that isn't for my specific class, with very few exceptions. If I want something for a companion, I ask first... if I get a "go for it" from a class that could benefit from the item then I will roll need, but then and ONLY then.

 

This is a social game, and respecting this simple "unwritten" rule goes a long way in making an impression on other players. Let's face it, this SWTOR community is not busting at the seams, so pissing off the wrong people might leave you alienated further down the road, hardly worth it for a Hammer Station run.

 

Then again, to each their own; callus asses will always be a part of MMO gaming.

[cidbahamut]

And that's precisely where you completely misplace this thread. We're not talking end-game flashpoints. Not even the hardmodes. Just *leveling* flashpoints. Which is an entirely different matter than end-game flashpoints, where the stats from loot actually matter. In leveling flashpoints, they simply don't.

 

Yup. Endgame is a completely different beast.

 

It makes people look really petty, getting so bent out of shape over marginal stat upgrades they're going to outgrow in the span of 15 minutes of additional questing.

[Lostpenguins]

Yup. Endgame is a completely different beast.

 

It makes people look really petty, getting so bent out of shape over marginal stat upgrades they're going to outgrow in the span of 15 minutes of additional questing.

Funny when you're trying to justify taking an item for a lifeless pet that follows you around in only some places you travel or when the other person justifies it because the pixels look so cool. Lol... hi pot, meet kettle. It can easily be said that you look selfish for wanting to take from another player simply because the armor looks soooo sweet or because Jaesa Robo-Mannequin #3425 would get a marginal stat upgrade.

[Ratajack]

And this is where I think you're wrong. It seems obvious that most people know the social conventions. You do too. Yet you choose to feign ignorance or play the "it's not against the rules" card to shield you. But you're not fooling anyone here.

 

As I keep saying, you're going to get ostracized by society when you break taboos. And you can defend your position all you want about how the majority is wrong. That's fine. I'm not going to argue with you over that. You even know the social standards and follow them because you know there are repercussions. So I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. You're not going to make me change my mind and I'm not going to make you change your mind.

 

In the end, we both know there's rules of etiquette. I follow them because I believe in their necessity for group benefit. You seem to follow them because you don't want to get ostracized. That's all I care about. I have almost never seen a person willingly roll need on all gear or take over someone else's toon for their own companion. I've played a lot of FP's in this game and if it has happened, I know the person got kicked from the group real fast.

 

And that's all I care about. That you either go along with the unspoken rules or you get kicked (which BW definitely allows since that's why the tool is in place - to kick someone that the other people do not like).

 

So, I think we're done here. =)

 

Let's get one thing straight. Do not make the mistake of thinking that I follow "social convention" because I fear the consequences. I do not give a rat's tookus about your threats of consequences or the fact that you think being a member of the majority makes you right. It does not make you right, but it apparently gives you the sense that you can force your views upon others who do not share your "right" opinion. I choose to follow the "social convention" because I think it is the courteous thing to do, not because you or even the majority think it is.

 

I find it just as courteous to accept that others may not share my views and not to ostracize or otherwise attempt to punish them simply because they do not share my views.

 

The second point is where we can agree to disagree. I understand that some will attempt to punish each and every person who does not share their views. I do not agree with that stance, but the fact that I do not agree with it does not make it "wrong".

 

I find it ironic at best t that apparently most people are perfectly fine expecting courtesy in one respect (need for character only), even if not all members of the group share that view, yet refuse to extend courtesy to someone who does share their views(kick the person who needs for companion and then possibly name and shame him in fleet chat in the hopes that he is ostracized). I have just as much trouble wrapping my head around that concept as people apparently have wrapping their heads around the fact that I choose to follow "social convention" yet will defend someone who does not.

[Nydus]

To the OP, it is generally not considered polite to need something you don't need for your own character.

 

I will say that I've accidentally hit need for a companion and received some degree of verbal abuse (people need to calm down, yes, this is a game and mistakes happen).

 

- Arcada

[cidbahamut]

Funny when you're trying to justify taking an item for a lifeless pet that follows you around in only some places you travel or when the other person justifies it because the pixels look so cool. Lol... hi pot, meet kettle. It can easily be said that you look selfish for wanting to take from another player simply because the armor looks soooo sweet or because Jaesa Robo-Mannequin #3425 would get a marginal stat upgrade.

 

Can you honestly tell me you've never selected a shell based on how it looks?

[Lostpenguins]

Let's get one thing straight. Do not make the mistake of thinking that I follow "social convention" because I fear the consequences. I do not give a rat's tookus about your threats of consequences or the fact that you think being a member of the majority makes you right. It does not make you right, but it apparently gives you the sense that you can force your views upon others who do not share your "right" opinion. I choose to follow the "social convention" because I think it is the courteous thing to do, not because you or even the majority think it is.

 

I find it just as courteous to accept that others may not share my views and not to ostracize or otherwise attempt to punish them simply because they do not share my views.

 

The second point is where we can agree to disagree. I understand that some will attempt to punish each and every person who does not share their views. I do not agree with that stance, but the fact that I do not agree with it does not make it "wrong".

 

I find it ironic at best t that apparently most people are perfectly fine expecting courtesy in one respect (need for character only), even if not all members of the group share that view, yet refuse to extend courtesy to someone who does share their views(kick the person who needs for companion and then possibly name and shame him in fleet chat in the hopes that he is ostracized). I have just as much trouble wrapping my head around that concept as people apparently have wrapping their heads around the fact that I choose to follow "social convention" yet will defend someone who does not.

Take the blinders off. I don't expect you to leave this game because you don't follow certain rules of courtesy I find to be standards in an MMO. But don't expect me to continue playing with you.

 

As a character in a cartoon once said, "I respect your decision to eat tofu-vegetarian burgers. Please respect my decision not to." If you like to smoke cigs, cool! That's your choice, but if I decide not to hang out with you at places that are allowed to smoke because I don't like the smell of smoke, that should be fine too. You seem to think that I should be forced to stay grouped with you just because you like to do things differently. No, now you're impeding on my right to not group with you. If I initiate a vote-kick but the other people don't care and don't kick you, obviously I'm in the minority and I can either go along with the way they do things or leave the group.

 

I'm not going to force someone to follow social convention, but I'm not going to be forced to stay grouped with someone who chooses not to.

 

Are you really going to take the other 3 members rights away from finding a suitable replacement because the 4th member does things that the other 3 don't like? You? The white knight of rights and freedoms. Are you going to take our right away? Cuz it sure sounds like it...

[Ratajack]

Funny when you're trying to justify taking an item for a lifeless pet that follows you around in only some places you travel or when the other person justifies it because the pixels look so cool. Lol... hi pot, meet kettle. It can easily be said that you look selfish for wanting to take from another player simply because the armor looks soooo sweet or because Jaesa Robo-Mannequin #3425 would get a marginal stat upgrade.

 

You are aware that some players choose to actually control their companions and not let the AI handle that? That would make the companion no less a "lifeless pet" than your character that you control.

 

You can try to justify taking loot from another player by refusing to allow him a chance to roll need by claiming you want it for your "character-you know the person" and the other player wants it for his "companion-the lifeless pet" all you want. What you are knowingly ignoring is that neither character nor companion is the person. The person is the PLAYER you are taking the loot from. The player who wants it for his companion is not trying to take the loot away from you by telling you that you cannot roll need because he wants it for his companion, he is simply asking for a fair chance at it by being the chance to roll need along with you.

 

 

You can disagree with me all you want, but try to justify it all you want, but that does not change the facts.

[Lostpenguins]

Can you honestly tell me you've never selected a shell based on how it looks?

Over someone else who can actually use it as an upgrade? Why no, I never have. Every piece of gear I am wearing is shells that I either:

Bought from the GTN

or

Kept because it was an orange shell at a lower level and I never found another orange shell that was free that I wanted to replace with it

or

Used tokes from operations (such as Dread Guard Gear).

 

Out of all my 50's, only one, my Alt Sin Tank is earing a CP from Black Talon. It looks nice, but that wasn't why I rolled need on it. I rolled need on it because it was a light armor, Will-power, orange gear piece that was an upgrade. If it wasn't an upgrade, regardless if anyone else could roll actually use it as an upgrade, I would have rolled greed.

[AsheraII]

Funny when you're trying to justify taking an item for a lifeless pet that follows you around in only some places you travel or when the other person justifies it because the pixels look so cool. Lol... hi pot, meet kettle. It can easily be said that you look selfish for wanting to take from another player simply because the armor looks soooo sweet or because Jaesa Robo-Mannequin #3425 would get a marginal stat upgrade.

It's the exact same thing as being too lazy to get properly modded gear before one enters a flashpoint. At the point that someone has such lousy gear that he or she indeed needs all those drops for the stat improvements, I reserve the right to votekick them before we even get started. How does that sound? Pretty much like every operation: if you didn't put in the effort to get geared properly, you get kicked. In leveling content, you can easily gear yourself on par or even beyond the drops from the content in advance.

There is no need possible for the stats from lootdrops in leveling flashpoints. The only thing unique to the drops from flashpoints are their cosmetics, which is why those are the only logical reason to need on those items.

 

Mind you, I never votekick, except when players disconnect for more than five minutes or use a lot of expletives.

Edited March 21, 2013 by AsheraII

[Lostpenguins]

You are aware that some players choose to actually control their companions and not let the AI handle that? That would make the companion no less a "lifeless pet" than your character that you control.

 

You can try to justify taking loot from another player by refusing to allow him a chance to roll need by claiming you want it for your "character-you know the person" and the other player wants it for his "companion-the lifeless pet" all you want. What you are knowingly ignoring is that neither character nor companion is the person. The person is the PLAYER you are taking the loot from. The player who wants it for his companion is not trying to take the loot away from you by telling you that you cannot roll need because he wants it for his companion, he is simply asking for a fair chance at it by being the chance to roll need along with you.

 

You can disagree with me all you want, but try to justify it all you want, but that does not change the facts.

What facts? That the guy wants to use the gear for solo play that he'll end up using less and less as he hits max level. Vette has seen less "play time" on my Marauder than any of my alts that are level 50.

 

I already explained how being able to use the gear all time time trumps someone using it for game play some of the time (basically solo or 2-players time and very rarely in 3-player groups - but never in wz's, operations, 4-man groups, or ffa pvp zones). So All Time Time > Some of the Time. That, right there, justifies your toon over a companion.

 

Let me ask you, if you had your toon and your companion who use the exact same gear, who would get the priority on better gear. You, or your companion? I'm seriously guessing you'd put the gear on your toon first and your companion would get the hand-me-downs. If that's true, then obviously you also recognize that your toon > your companion.

 

So if that above premise holds true, what you're trying to justify is Your Toon > Your Companion = Another Player's Toon = Another Player's Companion.

 

Sounds pretty selfish to me.

 

And back to your "fair chance"... doesn't change the fact that he's breaking a social standard that I go along with. Let him roll need... in another person's group. I'm not going to stay grouped with someone who does that. He has the right to find groups that will let him do that. I have the right to find groups that don't allow this behavior. Luckily there is a much larger pool of people I can choose from. That's the freedom to choose, right? So why aren't you on board with my side now?

Edited March 21, 2013 by Lostpenguins

[Lostpenguins]

It's the exact same thing as being too lazy to get properly modded gear before one enters a flashpoint. At the point that someone has such lousy gear that he or she indeed needs all those drops for the stat improvements, I reserve the right to votekick them before we even get started. How does that sound? Pretty much like every operation: if you didn't put in the effort to get geared properly, you get kicked. In leveling content, you can easily gear yourself on par or even beyond the drops from the content in advance.

There is no need possible for the stats from lootdrops in leveling flashpoints. The only thing unique to the drops from flashpoints are their cosmetics, which is why those are the only logical reason to need on those items.

Feel free to votekick me if I I'm undergeared. I don't want into any pug thing undergeared. And I also don't usually kick someone who seems a bit undergeared as long as we can compensate for their gear. In leveling groups I've never seen someone "undergeared" for leveling content so that's a moot point. But in endgame I see people kicked all the time because they're undegeared.

 

That's fine.

 

So, feel free to try and spin this all you want. It's not working.

[Ratajack]

Take the blinders off. I don't expect you to leave this game because you don't follow certain rules of courtesy I find to be standards in an MMO. But don't expect me to continue playing with you.

 

As a character in a cartoon once said, "I respect your decision to eat tofu-vegetarian burgers. Please respect my decision not to." If you like to smoke cigs, cool! That's your choice, but if I decide not to hang out with you at places that are allowed to smoke because I don't like the smell of smoke, that should be fine too. You seem to think that I should be forced to stay grouped with you just because you like to do things differently. No, now you're impeding on my right to not group with you. If I initiate a vote-kick but the other people don't care and don't kick you, obviously I'm in the minority and I can either go along with the way they do things or leave the group.

 

I'm not going to force someone to follow social convention, but I'm not going to be forced to stay grouped with someone who chooses not to.

 

Are you really going to take the other 3 members rights away from finding a suitable replacement because the 4th member does things that the other 3 don't like? You? The white knight of rights and freedoms. Are you going to take our right away? Cuz it sure sounds like it...

 

Now you are twisting my words. Nowhere did I say you should be forced to play with people you don't like or who do not share your views. If you choose not to play with people you do not like or who do not share your views, then you have the option to leave the group and put that player on ignore. This would enable you not to have to play with that person again, while not attempting to punish that player for disagreeing with you. Attempting a vote kick of each and every person who does not agree with your "right" view that need is for character only is attempting to punish that player. You can call it exercising your right not to play with them and you would be correct when you say that is all you were doing, if no other option existed for you to exercise that right. However, since another option exists that would allow you to exercise your right not to play with that person again, and you choose not to use that option in favor of the one that punishes the offender, it would seem that what you are actually doing is attempting to punish the offender.

 

What I did say was that I do not choose to attempt to punish someone who does not agree with me. If I choose not to play with another player, then I will add that player to my ignore list. I will usually finish the FP if I'm in the middle of one, but I have dropped group.

[river_of_Gem]

Can you honestly tell me you've never selected a shell based on how it looks?

 

I have, but only after asking the group

[river_of_Gem]

Now you are twisting my words. Nowhere did I say you should be forced to play with people you don't like or who do not share your views. If you choose not to play with people you do not like or who do not share your views, then you have the option to leave the group and put that player on ignore. This would enable you not to have to play with that person again, while not attempting to punish that player for disagreeing with you. Attempting a vote kick of each and every person who does not agree with your "right" view that need is for character only is attempting to punish that player. You can call it exercising your right not to play with them and you would be correct when you say that is all you were doing, if no other option existed for you to exercise that right. However, since another option exists that would allow you to exercise your right not to play with that person again, and you choose not to use that option in favor of the one that punishes the offender, it would seem that what you are actually doing is attempting to punish the offender.

 

What I did say was that I do not choose to attempt to punish someone who does not agree with me. If I choose not to play with another player, then I will add that player to my ignore list. I will usually finish the FP if I'm in the middle of one, but I have dropped group.

 

I don't have time to read all of your "logic" pages after pages, but in this scenario :

 

In a group of 4, 1 player ninja, 3 others don't want to play with this player anymore, so based on your "logic" all 3 player should leave the group, ignore this ninja, then somehow try to form group again via LFG ( randomness ) or /whisper ( take time ) while getting the LFG lock out ? For 1 NINJA ? Sure we will do it ( btw vote kick take 5 sec max since everyone hate ninja )

 

And btw while we attemping vote-kick on a ninja, we did punish this player because he's wrong. Why is he wrong you ask ? I don't want to repeat the majority of player already said on this topic ( and a lot other topic ), so just enjoy the kick

 

Btw you said that you don't roll NEED for companion etc in game but you are so brave in forum, that somehow make me confusing

[Ratajack]

Let me ask you, if you had your toon and your companion who use the exact same gear, who would get the priority on better gear. You, or your companion? I'm seriously guessing you'd put the gear on your toon first and your companion would get the hand-me-downs. If that's true, then obviously you also recognize that your toon > your companion.

 

So if that above premise holds true, what you're trying to justify is Your Toon > Your Companion = Another Player's Toon = Another Player's Companion.

 

 

The "social convention" tries to justify Player A>Player B by trying to hide it behind terms like "character" and "lifeless pet". My stance is that Player A=Player B, no matter what "social convention" says or even what I choose to do. The fact that I choose to defer to Player A if I'm Player B does not mean that if I'm Player C I will expect Player B to defer to Player A. I make that decision for myself, I do not make that decision for others.

[Lostpenguins]

Now you are twisting my words. Nowhere did I say you should be forced to play with people you don't like or who do not share your views. If you choose not to play with people you do not like or who do not share your views, then you have the option to leave the group and put that player on ignore. This would enable you not to have to play with that person again, while not attempting to punish that player for disagreeing with you. Attempting a vote kick of each and every person who does not agree with your "right" view that need is for character only is attempting to punish that player. You can call it exercising your right not to play with them and you would be correct when you say that is all you were doing, if no other option existed for you to exercise that right. However, since another option exists that would allow you to exercise your right not to play with that person again, and you choose not to use that option in favor of the one that punishes the offender, it would seem that what you are actually doing is attempting to punish the offender.

 

What I did say was that I do not choose to attempt to punish someone who does not agree with me. If I choose not to play with another player, then I will add that player to my ignore list. I will usually finish the FP if I'm in the middle of one, but I have dropped group.

Wait, so it's punishment for 3 people to decide they don't want to be grouped with this person anymore, but not punishing to force those 3 people to stay grouped with that person. Wow, you have no sense of fairness and balance, do you?

 

There's 4 people in a group. 1 person initiates a vote kick, the other 2 people vote yes. That to me is the faster way instead of having 3 people leave a group, reform, and reque. Why should they have to make the effort for all of that when BW gave us awesome tools to just remove the one person so that we're not hindered as much?

 

You have been the staunch supporter of a person using in-game tools for their own reasons ("It's their right to roll as BW gave them that right.") But you're trying to look down on another in-game tool used for other people's reasons. If one person has a right to roll for their own desires, then 3 other people have a right to kick them from their group for their own desires. And you want to argue against this principle?

[Lostpenguins]

The "social convention" tries to justify Player A>Player B by trying to hide it behind terms like "character" and "lifeless pet". My stance is that Player A=Player B, no matter what "social convention" says or even what I choose to do. The fact that I choose to defer to Player A if I'm Player B does not mean that if I'm Player C I will expect Player B to defer to Player A. I make that decision for myself, I do not make that decision for others.

You try to justify that a companion is just as much part of character as the character itself, yet you can't seem to pony up that obviously you're character is more important than your companion because you gear your character first, not your companion and you also use your character a lot more than your companion.

 

So you prioritize gear for your character and the game has more uses for your character, yet you choose not to see your character as having more importance... good job living in that world of denial.

[Ratajack]

I don't have time to read all of your "logic" pages after pages, but in this scenario :

 

In a group of 4, 1 player ninja, 3 others don't want to play with this player anymore, so based on your "logic" all 3 player should leave the group, ignore this ninja, then somehow try to form group again via LFG ( randomness ) or /whisper ( take time ) while getting the LFG lock out ? For 1 NINJA ? Sure we will do it ( btw vote kick take 5 sec max since everyone hate ninja )

 

And btw while we attemping vote-kick on a ninja, we did punish this player because he's wrong. Why is he wrong you ask ? I don't want to repeat the majority of player already said on this topic ( and a lot other topic ), so just enjoy the kick

 

Btw you said that you don't roll NEED for companion etc in game but you are so brave in forum, that somehow make me confusing

 

Maybe you missed this post, but it is probably as clear as I can try to make it.

 

Let's get one thing straight. Do not make the mistake of thinking that I follow "social convention" because I fear the consequences. I do not give a rat's tookus about your threats of consequences or the fact that you think being a member of the majority makes you right. It does not make you right, but it apparently gives you the sense that you can force your views upon others who do not share your "right" opinion. I choose to follow the "social convention" because I think it is the courteous thing to do, not because you or even the majority think it is.

 

I find it just as courteous to accept that others may not share my views and not to ostracize or otherwise attempt to punish them simply because they do not share my views.

 

The second point is where we can agree to disagree. I understand that some will attempt to punish each and every person who does not share their views. I do not agree with that stance, but the fact that I do not agree with it does not make it "wrong".

I find it ironic at best t that apparently most people are perfectly fine expecting courtesy in one respect (need for character only), even if not all members of the group share that view, yet refuse to extend courtesy to someone who does share their views(kick the person who needs for companion and then possibly name and shame him in fleet chat in the hopes that he is ostracized). I have just as much trouble wrapping my head around that concept as people apparently have wrapping their heads around the fact that I choose to follow "social convention" yet will defend someone who does not.

 

I bolded the important parts.

 

As to the other three leaving group, since there is no cross server LFG, every one is on the same server. That makes it a quick /invite player A, /invite Player B and queue.

 

Do I expect that anyone will actually take this route? No, I don't. I expect that most will take the "punish the offender" route. I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you that you do so to punish the offender and not trying to hide behind "exercising your right not play with the offender".

[Ratajack]

You try to justify that a companion is just as much part of character as the character itself, yet you can't seem to pony up that obviously you're character is more important than your companion because you gear your character first, not your companion and you also use your character a lot more than your companion.

 

So you prioritize gear for your character and the game has more uses for your character, yet you choose not to see your character as having more importance... good job living in that world of denial.

 

I prioritize MY character ahead of MY companion, but I do not prioritize MY character ahead of YOUR companion. You prioritize YOUR character ahead of MY companion. That is one of the differences in our philosophies. My philosophy is no more or less valid than yours. It is only different.

[Lostpenguins]

Do I expect that anyone will actually take this route? No, I don't. I expect that most will take the "punish the offender" route. I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you that you do so to punish the offender and not trying to hide behind "exercising your right not play with the offender".

Talk about spin! I use the vote-kick to remove that player from my group. You can call it punishment, but I'm more concerned with not having to play with that person anymore without the other 2 people and I being inconvenienced because one person doesn't mesh well with the group. If I'm grouped with 3 other people who I don't to play with, I'll leave the group. Hey, if that one person who we were going to vote kick willingly left on their own, saves us time, right?

 

It's about convenience to expedite the group faster. Feel free to try and cast vote-kick in a negative light while you try and shine sunlight and rainbows on people's right to roll need on everything.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Lostpenguins

[Lostpenguins]

I prioritize MY character ahead of MY companion, but I do not prioritize MY character ahead of YOUR companion. You prioritize YOUR character ahead of MY companion. That is one of the differences in our philosophies. My philosophy is no more or less valid than yours. It is only different.

What? So I also put my character ahead of my companion. Because I recognize that you and I both value our characters higher than our companions, I won't take things for my companion over your character.

[Ratajack]

Wait, so it's punishment for 3 people to decide they don't want to be grouped with this person anymore, but not punishing to force those 3 people to stay grouped with that person. Wow, you have no sense of fairness and balance, do you?

 

There's 4 people in a group. 1 person initiates a vote kick, the other 2 people vote yes. That to me is the faster way instead of having 3 people leave a group, reform, and reque. Why should they have to make the effort for all of that when BW gave us awesome tools to just remove the one person so that we're not hindered as much?

 

You have been the staunch supporter of a person using in-game tools for their own reasons ("It's their right to roll as BW gave them that right.") But you're trying to look down on another in-game tool used for other people's reasons. If one person has a right to roll for their own desires, then 3 other people have a right to kick them from their group for their own desires. And you want to argue against this principle?

 

You have the right to use in game tools, including the vote kick, for your own reasons. The point of my post was to point out that by attempting to vote kick each and every person who does not share your "right" view that your character trumps my companion, you are not "simply exercising your right not to play with that player". You have an option that will allow you to exercise that right, without attempting to punish the offender. What you are doing is attempting to punish that player. Let's call it for what it is, and not try to disguise it, that's all.