Vote ban%

[thecat]

A few days ago I was playing on the zm server and for some reason I took a look at the number of people it took to vote ban someone on the server.
Well it turns out that the number of people it takes to vote band someone on the the server is the number of people on the server including the person getting vote banned. I think that the number of people needed to vote ban someone should be 55% not including the person getting vote banned instead of 100% including the person getting vote banned.

[brett friggin favre]

the number may be offset by bots present in the game/in spec. if the server wasn't entirely human players that could be why. i know it's set up correctly in gg, wcs, and pub so i don't know why else it wouldn't be right in zm.

[thecat]

Their were no bots in the server and their never are.
This problem should be relay be looked into and made so it takes 50% off the server to vote ban someone not 100?

[Omegxkid]

More then not there are about 2-4 people in spectate this can offset a vote to ban someone how ever if you think the person is doing something to break server rules or is just out and out griefing people then just take a demo and post on the user ban forum or you can go get the steamtv data we keep from (http://www.ibisgaming.com/forums/sho...Links-to-Demos) and post the video and if the upper level admins think the person is doing something to break rules or is cheating then they can take care of it for you. If you need anything im almost always on as well just let me know the persons name and ill keep an eye out.

[brett friggin favre]

Their were no bots in the server and their never are.
This problem should be relay be looked into and made so it takes 50% off the server to vote ban someone not 100?

the server info shows bots in there when the population is low so its always showing some population, so it could be counting those as possible voters

[Bane of Soldiers]

Their were no bots in the server and their never are.
This problem should be relay be looked into and made so it takes 50% off the server to vote ban someone not 100?

When the server isn't empty, bots fill up slots until more players join. Those "players" in spectate (ph34r, Moridin, benthas, soopaMAN, PopularAttraction, Youngbull, bailoutnow, LOLLOL, barney, g-man, Im_a_big_fake, b!g, BulletsLikeMe, www Luke dot com, winnt.dll, obtuse, hmmmm, 1337sp34k, roastAbowl, omar, freeman, ahmed, ScoutItOut) are actually bots... I think that's all of them....


I don't really care for the automated system. In the time that you can actually convince more than 25% of the server to votekick/voteban someone (since 90% of them have brain damage), you can easily message and have an admin come in to deal with it.

[thecat]

If the vote ban could be done with 25% then there would be no problem with the system at all but unfortunately that is not the case at all.
This thread is not out here so I can ban someone it is so we can have a functional vote ban system.
But O.K Omega I will add you.
I thinks that it is about time that we start getting high ranking admins on these issues instead of just ignoring them.

[brett friggin favre]

If the vote ban could be done with 25% then there would be no problem with the system at all but unfortunately that is not the case at all.
This thread is not out here so I can ban someone it is so we can have a functional vote ban system.
But O.K Omega I will add you.
I thinks that it is about time that we start getting high ranking admins on these issues instead of just ignoring them.

uhh...hi

again, it's most likely because of the filler bots. if you imply one more time that the voteban system is broken in spite of this information, i will be forced to hunt you down and kill you before you have the change to reproduce.

just tested it with 30 people in the server, it requires 22 to ban. not 55% but clearly not 100 either.

[thecat]

NVM I was wrong must have been some stupid glitch

[Carmichal]

NVM I was wrong must have been some stupid glitch

oh jeeze

double-facepalm.jpg