During game 404621, we encountered disruptive player behavior combined with what appears to be a bug in the substitution vote system. The player in question, gaykeks, first drew attention by posting inappropriate messages in the chat. Later, after losing, he refused to press the "End Game" button, which forced the server to auto‑terminate and score the game correctly.
The more serious problem arose when we attempted to replace this player with a bot. Although the rules of the system should prevent the targeted player from voting in or interfering with the substitution process, he repeatedly managed to abort the vote. As long as he remained online, any activity on his part - possibly something as trivial as sending whitespace in the chat - would cancel the vote immediately. This allowed him to block the substitution process entirely, even though he was the one being replaced.
The expected behavior is that the player targeted for substitution should not be able to influence or abort the vote in any way. Only eligible players should be able to cast votes, and the process should continue until it reaches a valid outcome. What actually happened was that the targeted player could repeatedly disrupt the vote, creating a loophole that makes it impossible to replace a disruptive participant.
This bug has a significant impact on gameplay because it enables toxic players to avoid being substituted, leaving the rest of the participants unable to proceed with a fair solution. Based on observation, the cause may be that the vote‑abort logic is incorrectly tied to any activity from the targeted player rather than to legitimate voting actions.
During game 404621, we encountered disruptive player behavior combined with what appears to be a bug in the substitution vote system. The player in question, gaykeks, first drew attention by posting inappropriate messages in the chat. Later, after losing, he refused to press the "End Game" button, which forced the server to auto‑terminate and score the game correctly.
The more serious problem arose when we attempted to replace this player with a bot. Although the rules of the system should prevent the targeted player from voting in or interfering with the substitution process, he repeatedly managed to abort the vote. As long as he remained online, any activity on his part - possibly something as trivial as sending whitespace in the chat - would cancel the vote immediately. This allowed him to block the substitution process entirely, even though he was the one being replaced.
The expected behavior is that the player targeted for substitution should not be able to influence or abort the vote in any way. Only eligible players should be able to cast votes, and the process should continue until it reaches a valid outcome. What actually happened was that the targeted player could repeatedly disrupt the vote, creating a loophole that makes it impossible to replace a disruptive participant.
This bug has a significant impact on gameplay because it enables toxic players to avoid being substituted, leaving the rest of the participants unable to proceed with a fair solution. Based on observation, the cause may be that the vote‑abort logic is incorrectly tied to any activity from the targeted player rather than to legitimate voting actions.