What constitutes 'consent'?

[smip]

Just wondering where everyone draws the line on consensual/non-consensual pvp regarding fel.

Discuss...

or don't.

Any time you step into Felucca it's consensual. HOWEVER harrasment is not consensual anywhere.....

 

[D'Amavir]

Any time you step into Felucca it's consensual. HOWEVER harrasment is not consensual anywhere.....

Agreed! Nothing worse than harassment.

 

[Radun]

okay..... so what if the miner saw the pk coming and started running away screaming "HELP! NO! I DO NOT CONSENT!"... hehe

Even if he declared that he doesn't consent, it's still consensual because he's in fel?

 

[D'Amavir]

okay..... so what if the miner saw the pk coming and started running away screaming "HELP! NO! I DO NOT CONSENT!"... hehe

Even if he declared that he doesn't consent, it's still consensual because he's in fel?

Yes. By going to Fel you agree to follow the ruleset for Fel. That ruleset includes pk'ing. As such, you are consenting to pk'ing when you go there. Now, you might not be pk'd. But that doesn't mean you didn't consent to it. heh

If the miner really didn't consent, he wouldn't have to scream. He would just have to not click the Fel option on moongates, not walk through red gates or not recall off of green runestones. Pretty simple really.

 

[MadTexan]

Exactly. Going to Fel and leaving the guardzone, to me, implies consent because you are making a conscious choice to do those things when you don't have to. I don't have to, haven't really since I moved my houses from Fel to Trammel several years ago. I have never looked back.

That implies that The player has accepted the risk, not consent. I bet if you asked that miner that left the guard zone to mine if he/she wanted to be PKed the answer world be NO.

Accepting risk does not give consent.

 

[MadTexan]

Any time you step into Felucca it's consensual. HOWEVER harrasment is not consensual anywhere.....

What is consentual? I gave my consent to enter another facet, that is all I consented to. I understand and accept the risk of entering that facet, but I have NOT given my consent to be attacked.

 

[Pax]

You might win the battle, you might lose, you might be able to run away.But you are 100% consenting to that possibility.

That is a misuse of the term.
It is similar to using the qualifier "Very" unique. While it may sound appropriate, it does not apply. You can only Consent to a certainty, either real or percieved, not a posability.

"Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another"

The fact that includes 'what is planned' takes away your reliance on it being a certainty. Since not all plans are acted upon.

I'm not familiar with that as part of the definition, but it still applies and is still regarding certainty. It does not invalidate the term.

Eg: You Consent to marry. It is a Plan for a future action, mutually agreed to by both parties. With both parties in agreement it is percieved as a certainty, and is Consent.
If one or the other changes their mind it is no longer Consent. The term only applied in the future tense so long as there was a perception of certainty.


Consent is further specific in that it only applies when it is a Desired course of action or inaction. (misuse is prevalent due to this)
When mutual agreement is achieved through coercion of one or more parties, the correct term is Aquiescence.

In literature, the term is misused more often than it is used correctly. Many words are. The editors ask for corrections on some, but in many cases they knowingly allow the misuse because it makes for better reading.
"he nodded his resigned consent"
sounds more interesting than
"he aquiesced"
And of course most would understand the first statement, while many would have to look up the word Aquiescence to understand the second, even tho the second is correct and the first is not.

So I can't fault anyone not understanding the conditions for it to apply. Many of us have been out of school for years, if not decades. With film, songs, and literature bombarding us with misused terms it is no wonder we abuse the language as we do.
--
If only I could blame them for my poor spelling.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
con·sent

Audio Help/kənˈsɛnt/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh

n-sent]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–verb (used without object) 1.to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented. 2.Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony. –noun 3.permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage. 4.agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate. 5.Archaic. accord; concord; harmony.


Notice the example after #1, "He consented to the proposal"? Is there any positive certainty involved in a "proposal"?

(It's an unabridged source, by the way, that means it's the long version definition.)

Be well - Pax
.

 

[D'Amavir]

That implies that The player has accepted the risk, not consent. I bet if you asked that miner that left the guard zone to mine if he/she wanted to be PKed the answer world be NO.

Its not about what you want. Its about what you give consent for. Which is pvp. Sure, that miner may not want to be pk'd, but by going to Fel and choosing to mine outside the guardzone, they are giving consent for others to attack them if they so choose.

When you go to Fel, you accept the ruleset of Fel. Which means pk'ing. You accept the risk, you make the choice, you consent to pk'ing.

I don't accept that risk, so I don't go to Fel. But if I did, I wouldn't fool myself by thinking that I wasn't consenting to the playstyle there. If a blue noto goes to Trammel, they are consenting to the playstyle of Trammel. As previously discussed on this thread, it really comes down to the definition of consent. Here is another example of that definition

"permission, approval, or agreement; compliance"

You give permission to another person to pk you if you travel to Fel. You approve of the ruleset of Fel when you travel there. You agree to follow the ruleset of Fel when you travel there. And you comply with the ruleset of Fel when you travel there. That is consent. Just like playing in Trammel means that 4 count blues must comply with the ruleset there.

Do you not think that going to the open pvp facet means that you are expected to comply with the rules there? You may not like the rules. You may not want to be pk'd. But, if that fact really bothered you, you wouldn't be in Fel to begin with.

Accepting risk does not give consent.

Thats exactly what consent is. Yet another definition that still supports the common theme here

"Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission."

Acceptance IS consent. You accept the risk, therefore you consent to the ruleset.

Now, if you want to argue that pk'ing should be removed or that more penalties should be added to reds, go right ahead. But I think its pretty clear that going to Fel is exactly the same as consenting to the ruleset there.

 

[D'Amavir]

What is consentual? I gave my consent to enter another facet, that is all I consented to. I understand and accept the risk of entering that facet, but I have NOT given my consent to be attacked.

So you feel that you shouldn't have to follow the ruleset of Fel itself? That's an opinion, sure. It doesn't make much sense though.

 

[Radun]

^

No, he just sees a difference between accepting a risk of something happening to him non-consensually, and consenting to having that thing happen to him.

Consent has to be given. It can't just be assumed.

 

[D'Amavir]

^

No, he just sees a difference between accepting a risk of something happening to him non-consensually, and consenting to having that thing happen to him.

Consent has to be given. It can't just be assumed.

Actually, it can be. That's called implied consent. And the defintion of that is

"a manifestation of consent to something through conduct"

Consent through conduct. That would be consent based on what you do. Do in this case meaning going to Fel. The implied consent is that by choosing to go to Fel and follow the Fel ruleset you are giving consent/approval of that ruleset.

So, going to Fel and accepting the ruleset there IS giving consent to that ruleset. Which includes being pk'd. If you don't want to consent to that ruleset, you have many options that would allow that as well.

 

[Radun]

or:
The assumed agreement that a person would approve a course of action if asked.

or:
Consent given by virtue of another arrangement.


There's so many definitions, you can really still say it's true either way you look at it.

The way a lot of people think of the word 'consent', they haven't consented unless they've told you so. It's because of this there's so many people saying 'I agree to the risks of being attacked non-consensually.'

The real truth is that you consent to the rules which allow you to be attacked without further consent... You're accepting the ruleset that you're able to be attacked whether it's consensual or not. but it's still possible that someone asks if you want to duel, and you say no. If they do attack you after you said 'no', it's non-consensual in one sense, and consensual in another.

When you join a guild, the game's ruleset makes it possible to freely attack your guildies...
but your guildmates probably more often than not will expect you to ask for further consent... there might even be a rule in your guild charter
at the same time you still accept that it's possible for you to be attacked without being asked first.
If someone joined your guild and kills someone without asking by my sense of use it would be non-consensual because they didn't ask, and by your sense of use it would be consensual because they accept the risks... they're both valid opinions.

At the same time, nowhere in the game will you see the words consent, consensual, or non-consensual.

 

[Ash]

The point is that as long as their exists a monopoly in the Fel facet, their will be people do not wish to PvP (do not consent or wish to participate) that will at times be compelled to acknowledge the possibility and take the risk. The difference for myself, is that if it wasn't for the monopoly of scrolls some players would never enter Fel. Sure plenty of non-PvPers go the route of farming gold or items to sell/trade to buy scrolls, but the fact is there is are plenty of times it is months (if not years) before the scroll they need is for sale on their shard and then at some jacked up price. Duress or coercion in any form takes away from a person's ability to freely consent to anything.

By the very design, PvP is forced upon certain players that would never participate. This is a 2 edged sword, in that some find they like PvP and end up trying a different avenue of the game and the other side is certain players are left out of certain aspects of the game because they don't like or not able to successfully PvP.

 

[MadTexan]

Actually, it can be. That's called implied consent. And the defintion of that is

"a manifestation of consent to something through conduct"

Consent through conduct. That would be consent based on what you do. Do in this case meaning going to Fel. The implied consent is that by choosing to go to Fel and follow the Fel ruleset you are giving consent/approval of that ruleset.

So, going to Fel and accepting the ruleset there IS giving consent to that ruleset. Which includes being pk'd. If you don't want to consent to that ruleset, you have many options that would allow that as well.

You need to understand that acceptance of the ruleset does not mean I consented to being attacked

Another analogy: People who work in 24 hour convienence stores at night accept the risk involved with taking that position but that does not mean they gave their consent to be robbed!

 

[D'Amavir]

You need to understand that acceptance of the ruleset does not mean I consented to being attacked

Another analogy: People who work in 24 hour convienence stores at night accept the risk involved with taking that position but that does not mean they gave their consent to be robbed!

Once again, a flawed real world analogy. A more fitting analogy is that you work in a 24 hour convenience store that has a rule that says you can not read the magazines while you are working. You give your consent to that rule by accepting the job and working there. Then you turn around and read a magazine while working and get fired. Did you specifically consent to getting fired? Or did you consent to the rules which defined what could happen if a certain action was taken?

You give consent to being pk'd by agreeing to the Fel ruleset. Not sure how much clearer that can be said. The ruleset itself says you can be attacked by other players at any time. You accept that by going there. That is consent. Plain and simple. Consent isn't really in question when it comes to being confronted by the ruleset of your facet.


If you don't want to consent to that ruleset, don't go to Fel where that ruleset is located. Just like don't join a warring guild if you don't want to be open to attack from members of your enemy guilds. Don't join factions if you don't want to be open to attack from members of your enemy factions. Don't run through a Tram dungeon if you don't want to be open to attack from the monsters there.

 

[D'Amavir]

The point is that as long as their exists a monopoly in the Fel facet, their will be people do not wish to PvP (do not consent or wish to participate) that will at times be compelled to acknowledge the possibility and take the risk. The difference for myself, is that if it wasn't for the monopoly of scrolls some players would never enter Fel. Sure plenty of non-PvPers go the route of farming gold or items to sell/trade to buy scrolls, but the fact is there is are plenty of times it is months (if not years) before the scroll they need is for sale on their shard and then at some jacked up price. Duress or coercion in any form takes away from a person's ability to freely consent to anything.

By the very design, PvP is forced upon certain players that would never participate. This is a 2 edged sword, in that some find they like PvP and end up trying a different avenue of the game and the other side is certain players are left out of certain aspects of the game because they don't like or not able to successfully PvP.

Sounds like you are talking about people being forced to go the Fel to acquire certain items (scrolls). That was a dev team decision as a way to bring more characters to Fel. Right or wrong,that's how they decided to do it.

That said, being forced to Fel may be a reality these days for some. However, once you go there you must consent to the ruleset there. Which means you are open to pvp and pk'ing. It also means that you accept the no push through setting. That just happens to be part of the Fel ruleset that you accept by going there.

 

[Ash]

Sounds like you are talking about people being forced to go the Fel to acquire certain items (scrolls). That was a dev team decision as a way to bring more characters to Fel. Right or wrong,that's how they decided to do it.

Yep, and not arguing with the way the mechanics are.

That said, being forced to Fel may be a reality these days for some. However, once you go there you must consent to the ruleset there. Which means you are open to pvp and pk'ing. It also means that you accept the no push through setting. That just happens to be part of the Fel ruleset that you accept by going there.

You agree some players maybe (or at least feel) forced to enter Fel, but then say even if forced they still consent? Forced into a situation is the very opposite of consenting.

 

[D'Amavir]

Yep, and not arguing with the way the mechanics are.



You agree some players maybe (or at least feel) forced to enter Fel, but then say even if forced they still consent? Forced into a situation is the very opposite of consenting.

I said they might be coerced to go there. No one is forced to go the Fel. At least, I haven't seen any power in the game that can cause that. You choose to go there. Whether it be because you want scrolls, double resources or because you have a player town there. You chose to be there and as such, you consent to the ruleset.

 

[Ash]

You can have coercion and consent at the same time. The devs coerce you into going to Fel to acquire items. You consent to the ruleset of Fel when you go there. You can claim that your consent was coerced, which is your right. But that won't change the fact that you do consent to Fel's ruleset when you go there, regardless of why you go there.

I respectfully disagree that one can give consent through coercion. I fully agree there is acknowledgment and coercion. So anyone that gets PKed has no grounds to call foul, as they acknowledged the possibility clear and dry. But in this regard, with coercion in place I contend there will be unwilling participants in PvP, the very notion that it is unwilling is where i draw the distinction.

Without the coercion, then local would be clear and willing consent, without any argument. But with coercion, again for me, it is acknowledgment and necessarily consent.

 

[Radun]

"to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented. "

What was proposed? When was permission asked?

You're never asked for your consent. Nothing is proposed to you. You're never asked for your permission to be attacked.

You can go into fel without ever being asked for your acceptance of any terms.

You are not required to give your consent to any proposal to enter fel.

If you are blue and you are in a fel guard zone and you are attacked non-consensually you can call guards. If you are attacked consensually, (factions, guild war, guildmates) you can't call guards

 

[MadTexan]

Yes it most certainly does!!!

I have worked with Informed Consent Forms extensively in my profession... and I can tell you that along with the majority of the people who've voted in this thread:

Consent, is agreeing to the possibility of something happening to you, when you have an alternative to choose from! Here, let me reiterate my example, since this is not clear to you.



You cannot remove yourself from the possibility of getting robbed, ever. Only reduce the risk, so that's a bad example. You can however, remove yourself from the possibility of dying from the medication described by not taking it.

Having an alternative, aka Trammel... which removes you from the possibility of being PKed means that if you put yourself in a situation that allowed it to happen... you chose to allow (consented) to what's happened to you.

**Points to the results of this poll**

And you mock him for thinking what he thinks when more than TWICE as many people agree with him, than they do you?

The world is wrong, I swear!!!

I guess the consent forms you are describing have to do with taking of a medication. Signing those forms means that the signee has agreed to take the medication and has accepted the risk of a possible fatal side affect of taking those meds. That in no way means that the signee has given the doctor, or whomever perscribed the medications consent to kill them.

If TWICE as many people voted that consent to being PKed was given by just going to Felucca just means that twice as many people were wrong. No matter how this pole comes out, the innocent player that gets PKed is provided a gump so they can VOTE on whether the killer gets a murder count or not.

 

[D'Amavir]

I respectfully disagree that one can give consent through coercion. I fully agree there is acknowledgment and coercion. So anyone that gets PKed has no grounds to call foul, as they acknowledged the possibility clear and dry. But in this regard, with coercion in place I contend there will be unwilling participants in PvP, the very notion that it is unwilling is where i draw the distinction.

Without the coercion, then local would be clear and willing consent, without any argument. But with coercion, again for me, it is acknowledgment and necessarily consent.

I can see the coercion versus consent argument. While I don't agree with it since I don't think anyone is forced to Fel regardless of what they offer, I can accept that some people may feel forced even when they really aren't. That could cause a grey area in the consent concept.

 

[D'Amavir]

What was proposed? When was permission asked?

You're never asked for your consent. Nothing is proposed to you. You're never asked for your permission to be attacked.

You can go into fel without ever being asked for your acceptance of any terms.

You are not required to give your consent to any proposal to enter fel.

If you are blue and you are in a fel guard zone and you are attacked non-consensually you can call guards. If you are attacked consensually, (factions, guild war, guildmates) you can't call guards

You aren't aware that Fel has a different ruleset than Trammel? By going to Fel you are accepting that ruleset. Part of that ruleset is pk'ing. It goes back to implied consent. It is implied that you give consent to the Fel ruleset anytime you go to Fel just like you give consent to the Trammel ruleset whenevet you are in Trammel.

You accept that factions, guild wars and such are consensual pvp but not pk'ing in Fel? ARe you saying that everytime someone goes to attack a faction enemy they are required to get that enemies consent beforehand? Or is that consent a given once they sign up for factions? Hmmm, sounds like you can replace factions with Fel and it comes back to the fact that you are giving consent to being pk'd whenever you enter Fel.

 

[Ash]

I can see the coercion versus consent argument. While I don't agree with it since I don't think anyone is forced to Fel regardless of what they offer, I can accept that some people may feel forced even when they really aren't. That could cause a grey area in the consent concept.

Agreed.

 

[Draxous]

I guess the consent forms you are describing have to do with taking of a medication. Signing those forms means that the signee has agreed to take the medication and has accepted the risk of a possible fatal side affect of taking those meds. That in no way means that the signee has given the doctor, or whomever perscribed the medications consent to kill them.

What in the... hell?

Signing the form means that the medication you're going to be taking could possibly kill you. If you die from it... you died, even if you didn't want to. If you don't want to take the risk of dying from the medication then don't sign the consent form!! Don't give your consent to possibly die!!!

Going to Felucca does not mean you are going to be killed. So if you don't want to consent to being killed, then don't go to Felucca!!!

and further more,

Death in real life is permanent. There is no alternative. You going off the deep end with my example only proved my point.

If TWICE as many people voted that consent to being PKed was given by just going to Felucca just means that twice as many people were wrong. No matter how this pole comes out, the innocent player that gets PKed is provided a gump so they can VOTE on whether the killer gets a murder count or not.

A murder gump that was designed before players were ever given the option to not be PKed?

There is so much wrong with this, I don't even need to pick it apart. It's too obvious.

The world is wrong, I swear!!!

No, so sorry, but you are the one who is wrong. Along with the minority of players who agree with your very wrong, point of view.

 

[D'Amavir]

I guess the consent forms you are describing have to do with taking of a medication. Signing those forms means that the signee has agreed to take the medication and has accepted the risk of a possible fatal side affect of taking those meds. That in no way means that the signee has given the doctor, or whomever perscribed the medications consent to kill them.

Just like going to Fel means the character has agreed to the Fel ruleset which includes pk'ing. Seems pretty clear to me. Again, these real world examples don't fit into the game world. This is a game. In this game you accept a certain set of rules depending on what facet you are on. One of those rules allows characters to pk other characters. By traveling on that facet, you give consent that this may happen to you.

Consent is nothing except giving permission for something. When you go to Fel, you are giving people permission to pk you. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't be able to pk you. Just like they are consenting to taking a murder count if they do. You believe that a red shouldn't get a murder count unless he specifically agrees to it? Or do you believe that the character's action (pking you) is consenting to getting a murder count? Again, pretty clear.

 

[Radun]

You can have coercion and consent at the same time. The devs coerce you into going to Fel to acquire items. You consent to the ruleset of Fel when you go there. You can claim that your consent was coerced, which is your right. But that won't change the fact that you do consent to Fel's ruleset when you go there, regardless of why you go there.

No... You definitely cannot have consent by coercion. .. but the game will never coerce you to get power scrolls.
You are never required to consent to any terms upon entering fel.
You are never asked for your consent to be attacked by anyone, ever.

You aren't required to consent to being attacked or killed or looted in order for you to get into fel... yes when you're there it's possible.

Consenting to something is way more than just knowingly allowing it to happen.

 

[D'Amavir]

No... You definitely cannot have consent by coercion. .. but the game will never coerce you to get power scrolls.
You are never required to consent to any terms upon entering fel.
You are never asked for your consent to be attacked by anyone, ever.

Right. You are never asked because you automatically give that consent by going to that facet. And you are required to give consent to certain terms when you enter Fel. You agree to follow the ruleset of Fel. That is consent.

If you don't want to give that consent, like I don't, then don't go to Fel and it will never be an issue. If, however, you find the perks to be enough of a reward to accept the ruleset there, then enjoy the hunt and the risk of being pk'd that you agreed to by entering there.

 

[Radun]

Right. You are never asked because you automatically give that consent by going to that facet. And you are required to give consent to certain terms when you enter Fel. You agree to follow the ruleset of Fel. That is consent.

No it is not. Consent is left completely out of the equation. You don't have to agree to the ruleset to be bound by it. NO terms are ever proposed for you to consent to upon entering fel. The only times you are required to give your consent to any terms in the game are, the trade window, guild wars (by warlords or guildmasters) and factions (i think).

If you don't want to give that consent, like I don't, then don't go to Fel and it will never be an issue. If, however, you find the perks to be enough of a reward to accept the ruleset there, then enjoy the hunt and the risk of being pk'd that you agreed to by entering there.

You can go anywhere in fel without having to accept the ruleset or agree to being stolen from, looted, pked, etc
Consent is more than going somewhere something is possible or allowed.

 

[D'Amavir]

No it is not. Consent is left completely out of the equation. You don't have to agree to the ruleset to be bound by it. NO terms are ever proposed for you to consent to upon entering fel. The only times you are required to give your consent to any terms in the game are, the trade window, guild wars (by warlords or guildmasters) and factions (i think).

If you mean consent via a gump, then yes. You don't give consent via a gump when you enter Fel. That's just a given. You do,however, give consent to the Fel ruleset.

You can go anywhere in fel without having to accept the ruleset or agree to being stolen from, looted, pked, etc

No, you can go anywhere in Fel and wish that you didn't have to accept the ruleset. But even that wish won't stop you from being pk'd, looted or stolen from. Otherwise, everyone that got pk'd, looted or stolen from in Fel would be filling out bug reports because they got pk'd, looted or stolen from even though they didn't get a gump asking them if they consented to getting pk'd, looted or stolent from. You do accept the ruleset when you play in Fel. If you have found away to disregard the ruleset of Fel, I would love to hear how. Otherwise, you do have to follow said ruleset. Granted, won't be given a gump that says you are consenting to it, but you are consenting to it nonetheless.

 

[Redxpanda]

I never felt that going to fel was ever consent to pvp. People are lured to fel with dreams of powerscrolls and double resources only to find a B&W screen. Consent means that you give approval and a miner usually doesn't (and prolly wont) agree to PvP. I know everytime i pick up the fel mining book that i may come back with nothing except a death robe but it's still a chance i take and most of the time i get away with it. I don't think it's fair to say someone gave consent when they were lured there. Now if there were no double resources and powerscrolls there and/or someone goes and hang out in known pvp spots (Yew Gate, Despise), it would be arguable that they gave consent.

 

[D'Amavir]

I never felt that going to fel was ever consent to pvp. People are lured to fel with dreams of powerscrolls and double resources only to find a B&W screen. Consent means that you give approval and a miner usually doesn't (and prolly wont) agree to PvP. I know everytime i pick up the fel mining book that i may come back with nothing except a death robe but it's still a chance i take and most of the time i get away with it. I don't think it's fair to say someone gave consent when they were lured there. Now if there were no double resources and powerscrolls there and/or someone goes and hang out in known pvp spots (Yew Gate, Despise), it would be arguable that they gave consent.

Unless they were physically forced there, the purpose for being in Fel doesn't have any bearing on if you consent to its ruleset or not. No one makes anyone play in Fel. Everyone knows that going there means you must accept the rules there which include pk'ing.

While you may not agree with pk'ing as a playstyle, the devs disagree. They even go so far as to add additional 'lures' to Fel to encourage people to go there and take part in the open pvp ruleset. They even say so in their playguide...

"Player killing has a long and storied history in Ultima Online, and we encourage players to visit Felucca to experience this for themselves."

You consent to follow certain rules just by playing UO. One of those rules, is the fact that pk'ing in Fel is both allowed and encouraged. Going to Fel means you are consenting to the ruleset of Fel. You may not like it when you suffer from those rules. You may scream when your miner gets pk'd. You may dream that you can go to Fel anytime you want and not get attacked.But the bottom line is that pk'ing in Fel is a reality. Consenting to pk'ing risks is a reality for those that go to Fel.

 

[Radun]

If you mean consent via a gump, then yes. You don't give consent via a gump when you enter Fel. That's just a given. You do,however, give consent to the Fel ruleset.

You don't have to give consent to the ruleset any more or less than you have to consent to the laws of physics.

No, you can go anywhere in Fel and wish that you didn't have to accept the ruleset. But even that wish won't stop you from being pk'd, looted or stolen from.

You don't even have to know the ruleset, nor accept it.

Otherwise, everyone that got pk'd, looted or stolen from in Fel would be filling out bug reports because they got pk'd, looted or stolen from even though they didn't get a gump asking them if they consented to getting pk'd, looted or stolent from.

Why would they be filling out bug reports? It's not supposed to ask you for your consent.

You do accept the ruleset when you play in Fel. If you have found away to disregard the ruleset of Fel, I would love to hear how.

Playing under the ruleset has nothing to do with consenting to anything.
Whether you consent to anything happening to you has nothing to do with that thing being possible when you're playing under that ruleset.

Otherwise, you do have to follow said ruleset. Granted, won't be given a gump that says you are consenting to it, but you are consenting to it nonetheless.

wrong.

 

[Redxpanda]

I don't think force should be the line.

(Excuse me for going off topic for this example)

You have people irl who risk their lives everyday for various reasons but does that mean they consent to death because they know what they do is dangerous? Does someone consent to be mugged because they knowingly enter a bad neighborhood?

Honestly, i have gotten away with so much fel mining that i am afraid to talk about it because when (and if) i start mining again, i don't want people looking for me lol. I have a book full of fel spots that i frequented and i never got pk'd while mining. Once i thought it was happening and it turns out the ninja just stole a gem from me. I ran a few steps only to realize he was running from me as well.

Today's average miner is a mule that can easily meet his demise in the brit graveyard. The average PK can clear that whole graveyard in under 60 seconds taking no damage. Consent is defined as approval and i know of no miner who would approve to a 1-sided fight like that. Like i said, if it wasn't for the lure it would be arguable for sure but we all know the only reason why a miner would even be near fel is for resources.

Now a PK chooses to kill innocents. PKs consent to that type of play and thats why they do it. Any PK roaming fel gives consent to become the victim of a PK himself and cannot be consider an innocent. A miner is just a miner.

 

[D'Amavir]

I don't think force should be the line.

(Excuse me for going off topic for this example)

You have people irl who risk their lives everyday for various reasons but does that mean they consent to death because they know what they do is dangerous? Does someone consent to be mugged because they knowingly enter a bad neighborhood?

Yet another bad real world example. You can't compare the game to the real world and expect it to match up.Its a game!

Now a PK chooses to kill innocents. PKs consent to that type of play and thats why they do it. Any PK roaming fel gives consent to become the victim of a PK himself and cannot be consider an innocent. A miner is just a miner.

A miner consents to getting pk'd if they roam in Fel. Just like the pk consents to getting murdercounts if they murder said miner. I don't ever get pk'd. Why? Because I choose not to consent to it by not going to Fel. Pretty basic there. If you don't accept the fact that you might get pk'd in Fel, you are living a dream. A sad sad dream really. One that has little basis in reality as far as this game goes.

By going to Fel, all players are consenting to that ruleset. A ruleset that not only allows pk'ing, but a dev team that wants people to play that ruleset that allows pk'ing.

 

[Radun]

If you don't accept the fact that you might get pk'd in Fel, you are living a dream.

arg.. accepting the fact that you might get murdered, is vastly different than consenting to be killed.

 

[D'Amavir]

arg.. accepting the fact that you might get murdered, is vastly different than consenting to be killed.

No, its not different at all. You accept that you might be murdered. Which is the same as consenting to a ruleset that allows you to possibly be murdered.

"to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented. "

It all goes back to the definition of consent. You comply to the ruleset. You approve of the choice of Fel on the moongate. You agree to the ruleset. I guess its just semantics that you guys are having so much trouble with. Fine. You don't have to call it consent if you don't want to. You can call consent bobblemcdugal instead. You bobblemcdugal to the Fel ruleset when you enter Fel. You bobblemcdugal to the possibility of being pk'd while on the Fel facet. You bobblemcdugal to being stolen from while on the Fel facet.

Better now? Wipe the word consent from your mind. These are not the consents you are looking for. From this point forward, choosing to go the Fel means you bobblemcdugal to the rules there and that bobblemcdugal means you accept the risks that accompany those rules.

 

[Radun]

"to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented. "

definitions are only as good as how you interpret them... what propsal? you're never asked for permission!
you have a flawed interpretation of the definition.
The ability of the players to attack or steal or w/e has nothing to do with whether they would consent if asked for permission.

 

[D'Amavir]

definitions are only as good as how you interpret them... what propsal? you're never asked for permission!

No one has to ask for permission. That's the point. You give blanket bobblemcdugal just by going to Fel. After that, no additional permissions are needed.

The proposal is pretty clear. It is as follows...
"if you choose to enter this facet you are bobblemcdugaling to the rules of this facet which include pk'ing, looting and stealing. If you do not wish to give bobblemcdugal to this ruleset, do not enter Fel."

Granted, that proposal is all done behind the scenes, but its a reality nonetheless.

You honestly believe that in addition to your blanket bobblemcdugal by entering Fel that you should also be given some pop up window anytime someone wants to attack you in Fel? Doesn't work that way. Once you are there it is assumed, accurately, that you bobblemcdugal to the rules there and as such don't get any additional pop ups when someone chooses to act upon their given ability to pk you.

 

[Radun]

You honestly believe that in addition to your blanket [consent] by entering Fel that you should also be given some pop up window anytime someone wants to attack you in Fel?

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it should ask for your consent... I'm just saying it doesn't ask for your consent. I'm saying that whether you consent or not operates independently and has no effect on what's possible under the ruleset.

 

[D'Amavir]

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it should ask for your consent... I'm just saying it doesn't ask for your consent. I'm saying that whether you consent or not operates independently and has no effect on what's possible under either ruleset.

Going to Fel equals bobblemcdugaling to the Fel ruleset. That ruleset includes pk'ing. It doesn't ask for your bobblemcdugal because that bobblemcdugal is a given anytime you enter Fel.

Again, its all about semantics. Call bobblemcdugal anything you want to call it. It doesn't matter to me. It still boils down to the fact that you do in fact give bobblemcdugal to the Fel ruleset whenever you enter Fel. You accept it or you wouldn't be there. That is the basic premise of bobblemcdugal.

And whether it asks for your bobblemcdugal or not is irrelevant. You still bobblemcdugal to Fel rules anytime you enter Fel just the same as reds bobblemcdugal to getting murder counts anytime they commit murder and guild members bobblemcdugal to getting attacked and killed by rival warring guilds and faction members bobblemcdugal to getting attacked and killed by rival faction members.

 

[Orvago]

To me, this statement by EA means that the "act of entering Felucca" is indeed giving "consent" to PvP.

http://support.ea.com/cgi-bin/ea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=10207

QUESTION
What are the basic differences I should know when playing in Felucca?

Answer
When playing in Felucca you need to keep in mind that the rules are different here. Felucca is intended for players interested in the thrill of player justice. All aspects of player vs player combat is enabled here and the only 'opt in' system is being in Felucca. The premise is that those who play in Felucca prefer to enforce their own form of justice. For example, if someone lures on you in Felucca then you lure on them or kill them or get over it. In Felucca...

• Anyone can attack you at anytime. This PvP uses the blue, grey, red flagging system.
• Anyone can lure on you, release a pet on you, fill your house with field spells or call you a newb.
• On the bright side, resources gathered in Felucca (ore, wood, hides, etc.) are double the amount as other facets.
• A Game Master will not interfere in personal stand-offs that Felucca players can solve themselves. For example if someone kills you on your ship then steals the ship that is allowed. Or vice versa a Game Master will not remove the ghost of the sailor you just killed off the ship for you.
• It is not possible to recall, mark, or gate in many areas of Felucca. Generally this is any dungeon and any area in the Lost Lands.

Of course at no point in time on any facet is it okay to verbally harass someone or exploit game mechanics to achieve an unintended result.

 

[Radun]

To me, it would be equally true if it said:

• Anyone can attack you at anytime, [without your consent]. This PvP uses the blue, grey, red flagging system.

just saying that the 2nd option in the poll is still a valid opinion held by about ~1/3 of people so far.

 

[Redxpanda]

By your definition, permission is a requisite of consent.

"He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented"

I can understand the arguments that entering fel constitutes consent but i don't believe it is that simple. Two people engaged in normal PvP is considered a mutual agreement to fight. A miner being casted on or stabbed in the back while he runs and trys to hide is far from consentual. If you don't believe life is comparable to it then what is? This being a videogame does not change the definition.

Situation: A friend invites you into their private 2 story villa (on either facet) and while you are standing there, they proceed to unlock and unsecure chests while talking to you. Did they just consent to you picking up or searching through their chests or did they take a risk knowing there was a chance you would? Does it make it ok to go through their chests if you are in fel?

You asked what constitutes consent and the answer is:

Permission.

If pvp was truly consentual then there would be no reason to lure people to fel.

 

[Orvago]

Along with the other FAQ I posted above, this FAQ may also be relevant to the debates here..

http://support.ea.com/cgi-bin/ea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1409

QUESTION
A player took me to Felucca under false pretenses and killed me?

Answer
We do not consider this action illegal. There have been safeguards put in place so that you are fully aware of the destination of any gates or runes. Gates from Trammel to Felucca are highlighted red in color as a warning to you that you enter at your own risk. Runes are a specific Felucca hue and also labeled as having a Felucca destination. Killing other players in Felucca is a normal game mechanic, and you knowingly accept this when you enter a clearly marked Felucca gate or use a Felucca labeled and colored rune. It is recommended that you be careful before entering any player made gate or recall off someone else's rune, even the blue gates can lead you to heavy monster spawn and you could be killed.

 

[Pax]

Also, this FAQ may be relevant to the debates here..

http://support.ea.com/cgi-bin/ea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1409

QUESTION
A player took me to Felucca under false pretenses and killed me?

Answer
We do not consider this action illegal. There have been safeguards put in place so that you are fully aware of the destination of any gates or runes. Gates from Trammel to Felucca are highlighted red in color as a warning to you that you enter at your own risk. Runes are a specific Felucca hue and also labeled as having a Felucca destination. Killing other players in Felucca is a normal game mechanic, and you knowingly accept this when you enter a clearly marked Felucca gate or use a Felucca labeled and colored rune. It is recommended that you be careful before entering any player made gate or recall off someone else's rune, even the blue gates can lead you to heavy monster spawn and you could be killed.

OH, yes!



Be well - Pax
.

 

[Radun]

If the pvp system you find once you arrive in fel were truly consensual, that question wouldn't be frequently asked

because you can accept killing as a normal game mechanic, without actually consenting to being killed.

 

[Pax]

If the pvp system you find once you arrive in fel were truly consensual, that question wouldn't be frequently asked

It's a Noob Problem. Soon new Noobs become Ol Noobs, but they're still Noobs to any of us with moss in our hair who KNOW what having *no choice* REALLY means! For us early players, who were born Trammies without a Tram, it warn't purty.

Just be thankful they can't get out!

Be well - Pax
.

 

[Radun]

Orvago the Terraseer has solved that dilemma by... TAAADAAA!!... using the every-popular Quoting From Authority gambit, not just once but... count 'em!... *twice*!

I don't think it really solved anything... it still comes down to whether you hold the opinion that there's a difference between 'accepting that killing is a normal game mechanic', and 'Murder is consensual'.

the quote from authority also doesn't address what you call it when a player is asked for a duel and says 'yes'.

 

[Yalp]

I said they might be coerced to go there. No one is forced to go the Fel. At least, I haven't seen any power in the game that can cause that. You choose to go there. Whether it be because you want scrolls, double resources or because you have a player town there. You chose to be there and as such, you consent to the ruleset.

D.. you are forgetting if you want to complete the Virtue quest to acquire your robe for the complete armor set... no possible way to do that unless you go to fel. There are others....