What constitutes 'consent'?

[Eslake]

If I said "bear", but didn't use it in a sentence, would you know what I meant? Often the situational usage must define the word. Now, if I yelled, "BEAR!!" in the wilderness, it's doubtful you'd pick something up and start carrying it, or strip naked (just in case you thought I yelled, "BARE!!"). But, if we were sitting on the porch just chatting and I said conversationally, "Bear," and nothing more, you'd immediately start trying to relate it to something we knew in common... and probably keep a close eye on me to make sure I didn't start inappropriately divesting myself. After all, we barely know each other!

Well if we were in the forest and you yelled "BEAR" I would probably hit you. After all, you just alerted a bear to our presence, and we have to run. Since I am crippled and can't run... You just fed a crippled guy to a bear!!!

You evil evil person!

 

[Yalp]

Hmm.. interesting..... much of the same logic used in another hotly debated thread is being used here by the same advocates in that thread.. only in reverse....

Part of the player base has no access to certain content within a game unless they adopt a playstyle they do not wish to engage in, for a game they pay for, so the ruleset should be changed.

Part of the player base has no access to certain fel exclusive items unless they adopt a playstyle they do not wish to engage in, for a game they pay for, but the ruleset should not be changed.

just a thought.

I appreciate the mod posts on EA policy regarding fel ruleset. But their own policy ignores the inconsistencies of guard zones in fel. If being protected from pvp is possible in a guard zone in Fel.. how does that jive? I know I've been bringing up this point earlier in the thread.. the comments where that there was a safe zone in pvp consentual land.... but if you are in pvp consentual land.. a guard zone is a major inconsistency.

If the prerequisite for pvp is walking through the fel moongate, you are either in the pvp consent zone (all of fel including guard zones) or you are not.. the 2 can not co-exist.. they are mutually exclusive.

 

[Pax]

Well if we were in the forest and you yelled "BEAR" I would probably hit you. After all, you just alerted a bear to our presence, and we have to run. Since I am crippled and can't run... You just fed a crippled guy to a bear!!!

You evil evil person!

uh... okay... guess I'd do the bearing then. But, wait... you *did* consent to being eaten by a bear by entering the wilderness.

Be well - Pax
.

 

[Yalp]

Two hikers are in the woods in Alaska enjoying a hike. Suddenly a grizzly appears across the opening and starts running for them.. Hiker A takes off in the opposite direction running for his life. Hiker B kicks off his hiking boots, pulls his sneakers out and laces them on..


Hiker A: What are you doing you fool? Run!
Hiker B: I only need to outrun you!

 

[Pax]

Orvago the Terraseer has solved that dilemma by... TAAADAAA!!... using the ever-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'.

Catchy! Is that sorta like Suicide Is Painless from M*A*S*H?

Why don't you just take it as consenting to the Fel ruleset by entering Fel. No? <sigh> I didn't think so.

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

It's called "dueling".

Be well - Pax
.

 

[Pax]

Two hikers are in the woods in Alaska enjoying a hike. Suddenly a grizzly appears across the opening and starts running for them.. Hiker A takes off in the opposite direction running for his life. Hiker B kicks off his hiking boots, pulls his sneakers out and laces them on..


Hiker A: What are you doing you fool? Run!
Hiker B: I only need to outrun you!

LOL Great joke!

Be well - Pax
.

 

[Eslake]

But, wait... you *did* consent to being eaten by a bear by entering the wilderness.

Be well - Pax
.

Ouch! Argh! ARROOGGHG!
Did I mention laughing hurts? That was a good one.

 

[Pax]

Hmm.. interesting..... much of the same logic used in another hotly debated thread is being used here by the same advocates in that thread.. only in reverse....

Part of the player base has no access to certain content within a game unless they adopt a playstyle they do not wish to engage in, for a game they pay for, so the ruleset should be changed.

Part of the player base has no access to certain fel exclusive items unless they adopt a playstyle they do not wish to engage in, for a game they pay for, but the ruleset should not be changed.

just a thought.

I appreciate the mod posts on EA policy regarding fel ruleset. But their own policy ignores the inconsistencies of guard zones in fel. If being protected from pvp is possible in a guard zone in Fel.. how does that jive? I know I've been bringing up this point earlier in the thread.. the comments where that there was a safe zone in pvp consentual land.... but if you are in pvp consentual land.. a guard zone is a major inconsistency.

If the prerequisite for pvp is walking through the fel moongate, you are either in the pvp consent zone (all of fel including guard zones) or you are not.. the 2 can not co-exist.. they are mutually exclusive.

You seem to think a player is completely safe within a Guard Zone, that's just not so. You have more safety, due to NPCs calling for the Guards when a Red enters the zone, and your own ability to call the Guards... (that tends to encourage Reds to stay out of town, but not Notos and Thieves)... but you can still be attacked and killed within a Guard Zone. (By the way, Buc's Den isn't patrolled by Guards, so it's the main place most Reds bank.) Further, you're *always* in danger of being stolen from, no matter where you are in Fel. You're not even 100% safe from attack inside your private house.

Be well - Pax
.

 

[Yalp]

You seem to think a player is completely safe within a Guard Zone, that's just not so. You have more safety, due to NPCs calling for the Guards when a Red enters the zone, and your own ability to call the Guards... (that tends to encourage Reds to stay out of town, but not Notos and Thieves)... but you can still be attacked and killed within a Guard Zone. (By the way, Buc's Den isn't patrolled by Guards, so it's the main place most Reds bank.) Further, you're *always* in danger of being stolen from, no matter where you are in Fel. You're not even 100% safe from attack inside your private house.

Be well - Pax
.

we might have to leave the thieving issue out of the discussion, since it's not pvp.. but no argument that thieves exist in fel....

... so if you can prevent pvp from happening.. you are still consenting to it happening?

*fair warning.. you are gonna have a hard time answering this and NOT completely flipping all logic out the window**

 

[Pax]

But, wait... you *did* consent to being eaten by a bear by entering the wilderness.

Ouch! Argh! ARROOGGHG!
Did I mention laughing hurts? That was a good one.

See? I *do* understand your side, I just prefer arguing.

I hate to, this is such fun, but I've got to call it a night (now that it's day). I've really enjoyed it. I'll check in again this afternoon. Take care... and have fun!

​

Be well - Pax
.

 

[Pax]

we might have to leave the thieving issue out of the discussion, since it's not pvp.. but no argument that thieves exist in fel....

... so if you can prevent pvp from happening.. you are still consenting to it happening?

*fair warning.. you are gonna have a hard time answering this and NOT completely flipping all logic out the window**

Right now I'm too tired to think of my middle name. All I can say is that, when you enter Fel, you are acknowledging the Fel ruleset applies to you, just as it applies to everyone else in Fel. If you choose to accept only one narrow definition of the word "consent", when the word actually has the much broader and more commonly used form: "to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield", then there's nothing I could say to dissuade you... at least not now while I'm so sleepy.

I'll check this thread this afternoon and, if I can think of something, I'll try another reply. Take care and have fun!

​

Be well - Pax
.

 

[D'Amavir]

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....

Yes. If you want to complete that quest, you need to go to Fel. Or you can buy one. Just like powerscrolls and resources.

No one is questioning that the devs have provided incentives to further encourage the playstyle of Felucca. Right or wrong, that's definitely a subject that can be discussed.

 

[D'Amavir]

Hmm.. interesting..... much of the same logic used in another hotly debated thread is being used here by the same advocates in that thread.. only in reverse....

Part of the player base has no access to certain content within a game unless they adopt a playstyle they do not wish to engage in, for a game they pay for, so the ruleset should be changed.

Part of the player base has no access to certain fel exclusive items unless they adopt a playstyle they do not wish to engage in, for a game they pay for, but the ruleset should not be changed.

just a thought.

I appreciate the mod posts on EA policy regarding fel ruleset. But their own policy ignores the inconsistencies of guard zones in fel. If being protected from pvp is possible in a guard zone in Fel.. how does that jive? I know I've been bringing up this point earlier in the thread.. the comments where that there was a safe zone in pvp consentual land.... but if you are in pvp consentual land.. a guard zone is a major inconsistency.

If the prerequisite for pvp is walking through the fel moongate, you are either in the pvp consent zone (all of fel including guard zones) or you are not.. the 2 can not co-exist.. they are mutually exclusive.

I still don't see guard zones as a major inconsistency. Its a zone in the bad lands of Felucca that is patrolled by guards. That's been the case since long long before there was a Trammel.

As for the comparison of reds being allowed in Trammel and consent in Felucca, you are missing a very clear fact. I have read from several people here how they have gone to Fel on many occassions and didn't get forced into PVP. Whether it was through luck (just missed the red that was attacking), planning (went to the dungeon with a large group of guildmates) or location (red was there, they were here). However, I have never seen a red that could use any of those options to get to Trammel. So, one side is still 100% prevented from something while the other is exposed to the risk of something they may not specifically, through a pop up gump, consent to. But they still give implied consent through their actions of entering Fel.

 

[D'Amavir]

we might have to leave the thieving issue out of the discussion, since it's not pvp.. but no argument that thieves exist in fel....

... so if you can prevent pvp from happening.. you are still consenting to it happening?

*fair warning.. you are gonna have a hard time answering this and NOT completely flipping all logic out the window**

Again, it comes down to semantics. You are consenting to open pvp by entering Fel. This means that at anytime someone can attack you without your express permission. Whether you choose to call that consent, bobblemcdugal or bear, it still boils down to the same principle. This consent doesn't mean that you are 100% going to be attacked by a pk. It quite simply means that you are consenting to the ruleset of Fel which includes open pvp.

If you think that answer is flipping logic out of the window, I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Surgeries]

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.

Key Word = Illegal.

It is not illegal to kill other players in Fel. It is a normal game mechanic. That's why a player can get Murder Counts for an unprovoked attack against a Blue.

It is "Allowed"...a player knows they can be attacked...but when they do get attacked and don't want to fight (being attacked at any time I fully understand is a Risk, of entering Fel...but not my open and willing Consent to be attacked and die...it is a Risk, as stated above), that would be "Non-Consensual" PvP, by most standards, in an objective evaluation of the cause and effect. It is Non-Consensual PvP, in a land where open PvP is "Allowed".

PvP, as a rule, is "Allowed" in Fel, and there are most assuredly ways for both players, who decide, Consensually, together, that they want to duel each other to the death for whatever reason (like when I took lessons from a player before Trammel came along, in PvP) to go Grey first to each other, so neither can give the other a count, if they get ticked if they die...or agreeing that if one flags on the other, that no count will be given.

That, by the purest definition of the word, is "Consensual" PvP. It's "Consensual PvP" in a land where open PvP is "Allowed". The offer to fight is extended, and both accept, knowing that there will be a fight. Neither can be penalized for killing the other...both have a chance to die.

This simply cannot happen in Trammel, without certain criterion being met first. Like being guilded, or being guilded and being at war. And...in these circumstances, in a land like Trammel, where ONLY Consensual PvP can occur...and this is an important point: Neither side in any fight, when guilded, or at war, can give the other side a Murder Count...ever. In my opinion, the reason for that is simple: When you join a guild, or a Faction, or fgo to war against another Guild...game mechanics look at that as "Consensual" all the way...there are no repurcussions for killing another Guildy, or opponent, even in Town. It is like an open Arena Deathmatch, everywhere a person goes, if they sign up for it. And a person signed up for it can simply leave a guild at war, and no more attacks, then.

Guards will kill anyone trying to kill another player in town, in Fel, in an unprovoked attack against a Blue, if the Guards are called. That, in and of itself, should be proof enough that although I can attack another player in Fel ("Allowed" game mechanics), anywhere I want...if I do so in town, and am not in a Guild War, or in a Guild...or in a Faction...my "Non-Consensual" attack could end in my death. Guard Whacking does not occur for Guild Wars, even in Trammel.

In Fel, it is "Allowed" that a Red Toons can attack a Blue Toon unprovoked ("Allowed" and "To Be Expected"...but NOT "Consensual", in this case), at will, and sometimes suffer consequences for doing so if the attack is an unprovoked attack against a Blue Toon, that results in the death of the Blue Toon. That act, in my mind, would be the opposite of a duel, or a guild fight, or a guild war, or a faction war...or truly "Consensual" PvP.

That act would be "Non-Consensual", and could result in a Murder Count for the attacker.

Open PvP is "Allowed" in Fel...even Non-Consensual PvP is allowed in Fel, and it isn't illegal, and the most a person can do is give some that attacks them, and kills them, if they are Blue to the attacker, a Murder Count.

But when a Toon of any color gets killed in Fel by another player, in an unprovoked or sneak attack it is not illegal. But to me, most assuredly, that is not Consensual. I understand it CAN happen (the risk is always there that I can be subjected to Non-Consensual PvP at any time), everytime I go to Fel...but when and if it does happen, and it doesn't every time...then it would have to fall in the "Non-Consensual" column, unless both parties agreed to the fight. Stepping into the Red Moongate means you are aware that an unprovoked attack by another player can, and likely will happen. It doesn't mean that a player is consenting to getting attacked...just consenting to the risk that it can occur, as far as I can see.

That's my take on it. I understand that a person accepts the game mechanics that they can be attacked and killed by another player...but that isn't my "Consent" to be attacked and killed. It is my acknowledgment, and acceptance and consent, that an attack can happen, whether I want it to, or not...Consensual...vs...Non-Consensual.

 

[Simon Francis]

Well let's do some statistics, shall we? Currently 83 Say it is consent by entering fel, 36 say it's not. The total number of people in the poll is 119. Let's figure out the real number of people who say just entering fel is consenting to it.

Sq Rt of ((83/119)x(1-(83/119))) / 119

x 1.96 (95% CI)

= .0825 MoE or 8.25% Margin of Error

So +/- 8.25% to each side

[.6974+.0825, .6974-.0825]

[.7799, .6149]

So between 77.99% and 61.49% of all UO inhabitants believe that just by entering fel, you are consenting to being attacked at anytime.

 

[GFY]

Why can't UO use red status (or maybe even orange like factions) as a consent for PVP. You have a button on your paper doll that changes your character's color when it's activated. If your color is changed you consent to pvp and can be attacked freely. If not you can not BE attacked. (I hate having my ZERO combat skill miner being attacked)

Now if you should journey to lost lands in Fell or join factions your character should automatically change to allow you to be attacked.

 

[D'Amavir]

That's my take on it. I understand that a person accepts the game mechanics that they can be attacked and killed by another player...but that isn't my "Consent" to be attacked and killed. It is my acknowledgement, and acceptance and consent, that an attack can happen, whether I want it to, or not...Consensual...vs...Non-Consensual.

By your own words, you consent that an attack can happen. You can't consent that an attack might happen then claim it was non consensual when it does.

No one is saying that you consent to an attack 100% happening when you enter fel. Several people have mentioned times when they went to fel and didn't get attacked. However, you do consent to the rules there when you enter. And you, admittedly, consent that an attack on you can happen whether you want it to or not.

 

[Surgeries]

Well let's do some statistics, shall we? Currently 83 Say it is consent by entering fel, 36 say it's not. The total number of people in the poll is 119. Let's figure out the real number of people who say just entering fel is consenting to it.

Sq Rt of ((83/119)x(1-(83/117))) / 119

x 1.96 (95% CI)

= .0825 MoE or 8.25% Margin of Error

So +/- 8.25% to each side

[.6974+.0825, .6974-.0825]

[.7799, .6149]

So between 77.99% and 61.49% of all UO inhabitants believe that just by entering fel, you are consenting to being attacked at anytime.

Your percentage, as a statistic of all UO inhabitants is flawed, because you are dividing the 83 by the wrong number, to get a percentage of ALL UO Inhabitants. You would have to divide the 83 by the total number of players, not Poll Participants.

But nice try.

Consenting to game mechanics that allow PvP to happen anywhere as a legal game mechanic, and Consenting to actually fight with another player are not the same thing.

Please go re-read the post, carefully. I acknowledge that fact there.

 

[D'Amavir]

Why can't UO use red status (or maybe even orange like factions) as a consent for PVP. You have a button on your paper doll that changes your character's color when it's activated. If your color is changed you consent to pvp and can be attacked freely. If not you can not BE attacked. (I hate having my ZERO combat skill miner being attacked)

Now if you should journey to lost lands in Fell or join factions your character should automatically change to allow you to be attacked.

They already use a system like this. If you click on the button that says 'Felucca' on the moongate, you are consenting to open pvp there. The devs have said for a long time that their 'pvp switch' is going to Fel.

As for your zero combat skill miner, I have one myself. And he has never been attacked. Granted, I don't select the Felucca option on moongates so that may have something to do with it. Maybe you shouldn't flip the pvp switch on a character unless they are prepared for what that means.

 

[Simon Francis]

Your percentage, as a statistic of all UO inhabitants is flawed, because you are dividing the 83 by the wrong number, to get a percentage of ALL UO Inhabitants. You would have to divide the 83 by the total number of players, not Poll Participants.

But nice try.

Consenting that I *may* be attacked, and actually Consenting to fight another player, are not the same thing.

Please go re-read the post, carefully. I acknowledge that fact there.

You have no idea what you are talking about lol. This is statistics... The total number of UO inhabitants is accounted far, unfortunately since there are only 119 pollsters, the margin of error is quite high... 8.25%. My calculations are exact.

 

[Locker]

This question seems to be asking about the current game and it's mechanics, not "how it should be" or "how it might be" or "how I wish it was cause I hate it".

As another poster stated, context matters. Consent when it comes to PVP in a game is entirely determined by the game mechanics, not what you personally decide it means.

The game mechanics of UO are such that when you enter Fel you are pvpable and you can't shut it off, period. Also, in UO there are certain benefits for entering this hostile environment (i.e. double resources) and unless you are a clueless new player you are fully aware of the situation and how the game mechanics work.

If you, as a player, knowingly enter this environment then you have given consent to be involved in PVP and possibly being killed and you are probably there to reap the rewards vs that risk.

How is this even confusing?

Peace,

Locker

 

[D'Amavir]

Consenting that I *may* be attacked, and actually Consenting to fight another player, are not the same thing.

Please go re-read the post, carefully. I acknowledge that fact there.

No one is saying you ever have to fight another player. You can just stand there while they attack you, which you consented to admittedly, and let them pk you.

You are just holding onto a specific consent as opposed to the overall consent. You don't give individual consent to each and every pk in Fel that wants to attack you. No. No one is even suggesting that you do. But, like you said, you do consent to the fact that you can be attacked whenever you go there. UO doesn't require individual consent, in Trammel via guildwars, in Fel via factions nor in Fel via pk'ing. I think everyone agrees on that. But by joining a warring guild, joining factions or entering Fel you are consenting to being attacked by anyone that is able to attack you.

 

[o2bavr6]

That's a horrible rl comparison. In a war zone, you usually don't have the choice to leave and probably don't have an incentive to be there if you don't want to be involved in the fighting.

the fel design is a perfect example of a consentual pvp system. To say otherwise is fighting against classic definition and will require you to draw parallels using apples to oranges comparisons. yes, both are fruit, but they are not the same thing.

What if he used the term War Correspondent (reporter) instead

 

[Eslake]

I think the pride thing has a lot to do with it. Its
hard for a person that rails all the time about their hatred for reds and pk'ing
to admit that they actually consented to being pk'd by entering Fel.

For some, however, it comes down to just spite. They will say that blue is
brown just to have something to argue about. No matter how many times you
show them that its blue, they will still scream brown.

But Blue actually Is Brown.
It is just brown that has misplaced its red and yellow somewhere.

I dispute it not out of pride, or a hatred of anyone (since my own PvP mage is red at the moment) but because the word is being misused - and to have something to do.
(the banter is fun until someone starts taking it personally and flaming)

The mention of Context is appropriate, since in the Context being used Consent makes sense. But it is not the correct Use of the word.

-----
You can say "You consent to PvP when you enter Felucca."
I understand what you Mean by the statement, and I agree with what you mean by saying it.
But the word Consent doesn't actually fit the statement.
-----

You have Acknowledged that PvP is part of the Fel rule set.
(or you are too new to be going there)
You have Accepted the risk of PvP happening to(or by) you when you go there.
But you have not Consented to anything yet.

As I said to Pax, what else is there for us to do right now but throw words back and for while we wait for the publish?

I already spent an hour hunting scripters, 2 doing the daily champ set, tended my plants, killed a few swoops, and gained a bit of skill on my new lumberjack.
This is more fun than any of it.. except maybe a few minutes there at the spiders when I had to deal with 2 archers and a necro by myself hehe.

I'm off to try again to get some sleep.

 

[D'Amavir]

The mention of Context is appropriate, since in the Context being used Consent makes sense. But it is not the correct Use of the word.

-----
You can say "You consent to PvP when you enter Felucca."
I understand what you Mean by the statement, and I agree with what you mean by saying it.
But the word Consent doesn't actually fit the statement.

Enough people have posted the definition here to show you that it is indeed the correct use of the word. You can continue to pick and choose among the various definitions in hopes of maybe actually finding a way to support what you say,but you haven't yet. Until you can show that consent does not equal

"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."

then you have no leg to stand on. You approve of the ruleset (which means you consent to it according to the very first definition of the word. You comply to the ruleset. Because when you enter you can be attacked by pk's. That shows that consent is exactly what you have done.

You have Acknowledged that PvP is part of the Fel rule set.
(or you are too new to be going there)
You have Accepted the risk of PvP happening to(or by) you when you go there.
But you have not Consented to anything yet.

So, following your logic, when do you actually consent to being pk'd? Is it when the pk attacks you and you either fight back or run? If so, how do you not consent at that point? At what point, specifically do you finally give consent? Or do you never give consent? Is consent just an impossible thing in UO to you?

 

[o2bavr6]

Honestly the way I see it is "Consent and Non-Consent" has nothing to do with it.

In Tram people can not attack you (unless in guildwar or faction). You can go about your business and enjoy the game in the manner that you like

In Fel there is the possiblity that someone may attack you and try to kill your character, regardless if you want them to or not. If you do not want to possibly have to engage in this type of activity just dont enter Fel.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

 

[Gildar]

If going into Fel was enough to make it consensual PvP, there wouldn't be such a thing as non-consensual PvP, so there would be no point in saying "consensual" with respect to PvP.

You consent to the risk of being attacked by a player when you go into Fel, but you do not consent to the player actually attacking you.


You consent to PvPing with somebody when...
1. You join a guild knowing that they PvP with eachother (or with a guild they are at war with) without warning (or stay in the guild after learning of such a change).
2. You attack the other person first.
3. You speak in such a way that makes it clear you want to PvP.

 

[D'Amavir]

If going into Fel was enough to make it consensual PvP, there wouldn't be such a thing as non-consensual PvP, so there would be no point in saying "consensual" with respect to PvP.

You consent to the risk of being attacked by a player when you go into Fel, but you do not consent to the player


You consent to PvPing with somebody when...
1. You join a guild knowing that they PvP with eachother (or with a guild they are at war with) without warning (or stay in the guild after learning of such a change).
2. You attack the other person first.
3. You speak in such a way that makes it clear you want to PvP.

You consent to pvp by joining a guild at war. But not when you go to fel? Explain the difference please. Seems to me that both are consents based on your actions.

As for non consensual pvp, I don't think it really exists. Since your actions show your consent. I don't consent to being pk'd. As such I havent been pk'd in many years. No pk can force their pvp on me.

 

[Spector_Napa]

First of all, I NEVER give a red a murder count.
I ALWAYS give a blue a count.

Secondly, in Felucca and Siege, you consented by playing the ruleset.
Murder counts are just part of the free-for-all PvP system in Felucca and Siege rulesets.

The way you pose the question you could argue that you should be able to give murder counts if you are killed in a Guild war or by a Guild mate in a Trammel ruleset, under the consent only ruleset of Trammel.

If your trying to argue that the Felucca / Siege free-for-all PvP is not truely FFA if you can give counts...some people like getting / giving counts. Reds are part of the play style of Felucca.
Take murder counts away, and you diminish Felucca / Siege by removing Red's.

I can tell you dont play a red.

"First of all, I NEVER give a red a murder count.I ALWAYS give a blue a count.".

Cause if you did you would understand that getting counts is one of the main reason's people go red in the first place. To see how many counts they can collect. and if you did play a red youd be upset after killing multiple blues without receiveing any murder counts.

 

[Pax]

Well let's do some statistics, shall we? Currently 83 Say it is consent by entering fel, 36 say it's not. The total number of people in the poll is 119. Let's figure out the real number of people who say just entering fel is consenting to it.

Sq Rt of ((83/119)x(1-(83/119))) / 119

x 1.96 (95% CI)

= .0825 MoE or 8.25% Margin of Error

So +/- 8.25% to each side

[.6974+.0825, .6974-.0825]

[.7799, .6149]

So between 77.99% and 61.49% of all UO inhabitants believe that just by entering fel, you are consenting to being attacked at anytime.

Why didn't you just divide the little number by the big number? [83/119=69.7%, or 36/119=30.3%] That would give the percentage of people who play/used to play/might play/won't play until [fill-in-the-blank]/can't play/wish they could play/are glad they aren't playing/are really bored and are just playing around who agree/disagree concerning a game they love/hate, have read UHall, read the poll post and participated in this poll.

Statistics are used to get money out of people who don't have any and give it to people who already have too much. Wait! That completely doesn't apply, even though it's probably on-topic. I tend to wander... though not in bear territory.

Be well - Pax
.

 

[MadTexan]

If going into Fel was enough to make it consensual PvP, there wouldn't be such a thing as non-consensual PvP, so there would be no point in saying "consensual" with respect to PvP.

You consent to the risk of being attacked by a player when you go into Fel, but you do not consent to the player actually attacking you.


You consent to PvPing with somebody when...
1. You join a guild knowing that they PvP with eachother (or with a guild they are at war with) without warning (or stay in the guild after learning of such a change).
2. You attack the other person first.
3. You speak in such a way that makes it clear you want to PvP.

This makes way!!! too much sense for the "77%" who have voted that just entering Felucca means you have consented to being attacked. They will never understand this. Those of us with too much pride and lack of education have absolutely no problem understanding this concept.

BTW to you 77%, I have a character that has never traveled to a different facet and resides in what is now Felucca since 98. Since I never left one facet crossing into Felucca with this character then obviously I did not consent to anything by your definition of consent. Where does this character fit into your definition of consent?

 

[Pax]

This makes way!!! too much sense for the "77%" who have voted that just entering Felucca means you have consented to being attacked. They will never understand this. Those of us with too much pride and lack of education have absolutely no problem understanding this concept.

BTW to you 77%, I have a character that has never traveled to a different facet and resides in what is now Felucca since 98. Since I never left one facet crossing into Felucca with this character then obviously I did not consent to anything by your definition of consent. Where does this character fit into your definition of consent?

By not fleeing for his little toony life to Trammel now that he can, of course. rolleyes:

Be well - Pax
.

 

[D'Amavir]

This makes way!!! too much sense for the "77%" who have voted that just entering Felucca means you have consented to being attacked. They will never understand this. Those of us with too much pride and lack of education have absolutely no problem understanding this concept.

Since it makes so much sense, maybe you can answer my question regarding number 1. What is the difference between consenting to pvp by joining a warring guild and consenting to pvp by traveling in Fel? You seem to agree that the first example is truly consent, so explain why the second isn't since its the same premise, your actions in game (joining a warring guild in the first example, traveling in the open pvp facet of Fel in the second) constitute consent.

BTW to you 77%, I have a character that has never traveled to a different facet and resides in what is now Felucca since 98. Since I never left one facet crossing into Felucca with this character then obviously I did not consent to anything by your definition of consent. Where does this character fit into your definition of consent?

Like anyone that roams in fel, you consent to the open pvp ruleset of Fel. When I started the game, there was no fel or trammel, just one facet. By stepping out of guard zones I was consenting to pvp due to the rules of the game. That's where you fit into the dictionary's definition of consent.

 

[D'Amavir]

You consent to PvPing with somebody when...
1. You join a guild knowing that they PvP with eachother (or with a guild they are at war with) without warning (or stay in the guild after learning of such a change).
2. You attack the other person first.
3. You speak in such a way that makes it clear you want to PvP.

Just as an FYI, the ea support page states that both pvp in Fel and guild war pvp in Trammel can be non consensual. And, as shown previously, the only opt in requirement for pvp in Fel is being in Fel. While some may say that 'opt'ing in and 'consenting to' are two different things, I believe that they are one in the same.

I think the major disconnect that both sides are having, minus those that really have no views and just come here to complain about playstyles they hate, is defining consent on a wide scale level versus a more defined scale.

You can consent to the Fel ruleset, consent to open pvp and consent to possible pk'ing, but not consent to an individual pk that attacks you. I don't believe that is correct. In my mind once you consent to open pvp in Fel, you are giving blanket consent to any pk with the guts to attack you. You don't have to give individual consent to every pk no more than you have to give individual consent to every rival guild member of every rival guild your guild is currently warring with. The blanket consent covers each and every one when you either roam Fel or war with another guild.

 

[Simon Francis]

Why didn't you just divide the little number by the big number? [83/119=69.7%, or 36/119=30.3%] That would give the percentage of people who play/used to play/might play/won't play until [fill-in-the-blank]/can't play/wish they could play/are glad they aren't playing/are really bored and are just playing around who agree/disagree concerning a game they love/hate, have read UHall, read the poll post and participated in this poll.

Statistics are used to get money out of people who don't have any and give it to people who already have too much. Wait! That completely doesn't apply, even though it's probably on-topic. I tend to wander... though not in bear territory.

Be well - Pax
.

Simply dividing the number of Consent by the number of pollsters isn't an accurate number, you have to account for UO as a whole, thus incorporating the margin of error. Not that it matters though, because anyone who says that you aren't consenting to the possibility of attack when in fel is wrong.

You go to fel, you consent to being attacked. No further argument possible.

BTW, probability statistics are extremely important and often can make/break businesses if not taken into account.

 

[Pax]

Why didn't you just divide the little number by the big number? [83/119=69.7%, or 36/119=30.3%] That would give the percentage of people who play/used to play/might play/won't play until [fill-in-the-blank]/can't play/wish they could play/are glad they aren't playing/are really bored and are just playing around who agree/disagree concerning a game they love/hate, have read UHall, read the poll post and participated in this poll.

Statistics are used to get money out of people who don't have any and give it to people who already have too much. Wait! That completely doesn't apply, even though it's probably on-topic. I tend to wander... though not in bear territory.

Simply dividing the number of Consent by the number of pollsters isn't an accurate number, you have to account for UO as a whole, thus incorporating the margin of error. Not that it matters though, because anyone who says that you aren't consenting to the possibility of attack when in fel is wrong.

You go to fel, you consent to being attacked. No further argument possible.

BTW, probability statistics are extremely important and often can make/break businesses if not taken into account.

As realtors are fond of saying, "It's all about location, location, location." Please reread my post. (See it up there? I included it because I'm thoughty that way. No thanks necessary. )

Polls are only valid when they reflect responses from a truly representative cross-section. UHall may be fun (well, the jury's out on that), but it *ain't* a representative cross-section. If you start with skewed numbers you get junk that's only useful to people with an agenda.

Be well - Pax
.

 

[Simon Francis]

As realtors are fond of saying, "It's all about location, location, location." Please reread my post. (See it up there? I included it because I'm thoughty that way. No thanks necessary. )

Polls are only valid when they reflect responses from a truly representative cross-section. UHall may be fun (well, the jury's out on that), but it *ain't* a representative cross-section. If you start with skewed numbers you get junk that's only useful to people with an agenda.

Be well - Pax
.

Every poll is slightly skewed no matter how random they make it. The numbers are as accurate as they are gonna get mate.

 

[MadTexan]

Since it makes so much sense, maybe you can answer my question regarding number 1. What is the difference between consenting to pvp by joining a warring guild and consenting to pvp by traveling in Fel?

The reason for joining a warring guild is for PvP, that is the reason you join one.

There are a lot of reasons people travel to Felucca, and not all of them entail PvP. I could be traveling to one of my houses. Going to visit a friend. Just because I am on the facet does not in anyway mean I gave my consent to be attacked. This is where you people are way off track. You seem to think that the only reason Felucca exists is for PvP. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Granted, one of the reasons Felucca exists is to try to promote PvP. For the most part that has failed. The main product of Felucca seems to be trash talking 12 year olds.

I am afraid though that some of the responses to that comment will actually prove my point. I hope not though.

The "Elite"PvPers think that facet only belongs to them. This is how you come up with your definition of consent when it comes to Felucca. It doesn't only belong to the PvPers, it belongs to the players, and many have not consented to being attacked.

 

[D'Amavir]

The reason for joining a warring guild is for PvP, that is the reason you join one.

There are a lot of reasons people travel to Felucca, and not all of them entail PvP. I could be traveling to one of my houses. Going to visit a friend. Just because I am on the facet does not in anyway mean I gave my consent to be attacked. This is where you people are way off track. You seem to think that the only reason Felucca exists is for PvP. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Show me one place where I said that the only reason to enter Felucca was for pvp. Ya can't. The reason you go to Fel does not change the fact that by going you agree to the ruleset there, which includes open pvp.

Granted, one of the reasons Felucca exists is to try to promote PvP. For the most part that has failed. The main product of Felucca seems to be trash talking 12 year olds.

And the main product of Trammel is whiney 12 year olds that can't handle the rules of the game they choose to play. Neither of those statements are accurate. But thats how both sides of the 'so and so facet only has so and so types on it" argument seems to play. Not me. I know that there are just as many trash talking 12 year olds in Trammel.

The "Elite"PvPers think that facet only belongs to them. This is how you come up with your definition of consent when it comes to Felucca. It doesn't only belong to the PvPers, it belongs to the players, and many have not consented to being attacked.

I don't pvp. And I don't consent to being attacked by pk's. I do this by not going to Fel. I come up with my definition of consent from the dictionary. Not sure where you come up with yours, maybe you can tell me?

 

[o2bavr6]

The "Elite"PvPers think that facet only belongs to them. This is how you come up with your definition of consent when it comes to Felucca. It doesn't only belong to the PvPers, it belongs to the players, and many have not consented to being attacked.

OMG you people and the word "consent".

Get over it, regardless of the true defenition or what you think it's defention is.

The fact remains that if you go to Fel, there is the chance you will get attacked regardless if you want to be attacked or not. If you dont want to be attacked, don't go to Fel.

SIMPLE ISN'T IT?

We have to live with not being able to go to Tram, you have to live with the possiblity that if you go to Fel you may be attacked.

It's not that hard to understand, and if you don't like it too bad.

And yes, we own Fel and we will continue to attack anyone we can, whenever we can... So I say it to you again.. if you don't like it, go home to Tram, you arent wanted here in Fel anyway.

 

[Pax]

Every poll is slightly skewed no matter how random they make it.

Some are more skewed than others... the location thing.

The numbers are as accurate as they are gonna get mate.

For UHall. But we're all just having fun here, so knock yourself out. I think as far as this particular subject goes, this poll would probably wind up being pretty accurate where the in-game population is concerned... just personal opinion, though.

Be well - Pax
.

 

[Orvago]

Moderation Notice (do not reply to this here, PM or email me..)

As it is probably noticed, this thread is now much shorter and many of you got notifications.

Please remember, while users are allowed to provide their own opinions on a topic and debate the opinions from other users, users may not attack an opinion with trolls and personal attacks aimed at the user.

Keep it clean please.

Thank you,
~Orvago

 

[Orvago]

Here are some more quotes from the "Official Source" for the debates:

http://support.ea.com/cgi-bin/ea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=221

QUESTION
Is resurrection killing, or "de-robing," considered harassment?

Answer
No, this is not considered harassment.


This situation can arise when you are involved in a guild war, or a faction war. A condition of war is that your enemies are free to attack and kill you at any time, and in any place. This includes the ability to kill you immediately after you resurrect. This also holds true on the Felucca facet, where other players can kill you without your consent.
"Res killing" can also happen to thieves and other criminals who have chosen to resurrect before the criminal flag has expired. In addition, this can be a problem at the Chaos Shrine, where murderers may attempt to resurrect.


It is up to you to decide when and where to resurrect. This is not something that can be forced upon you. Choose a safe location, away from your enemies, where you can resurrect and heal. Don't forget that characters who are alive can't see you when you're a ghost unless you talk or toggle into war mode. There are wandering Healers all over the land, as well as many players with the ability and willingness to resurrect through Magic or the Healing skill.


The enemy may be waiting for you to return to your corpse, so plan accordingly. Look for a Healer away from the action, or use the moongates to get out of town, and resurrect in a safer location. If you have a runebook, keep it charged so that you can hide until your mana is sufficient to use the runebook to Recall to a safe location to heal and re-equip. You can also use the Party system or ingame Chat to keep in touch with your guild or faction members and ask them to loot your corpse for you. Better still, have a plan before entering battle. Perhaps your guild or faction members can Gate you out, and res you at the destination, or res you and protect you in the town you're warring in. Both Party chat and the ingame Chat system are ideal for keeping in touch during battle.
Another piece of advice is that you should only carry with you that which you can afford to lose. Keep at least enough equipment and supplies in your bank to re-equip for another outing. This way, getting your items and equipment back isn't so important.


If you're taking part in the faction wars, remember that the skill loss timer starts when you die, not when you resurrect. Your skills won't come back any faster if you resurrect immediately. You may even want to use your "dead time" to spy on the enemy. If you're in a Party, or using the ingame Chat, let your fellow faction or guild members know where the enemy is and what they're doing.


In guild wars, please keep in mind that you can also resign from your guild at any time if you are weary of the battle. To resign from your guild immediately, say, "I resign from my guild".
Resurrection killing is not an event in which a Game Master should interfere, and we do request that you not page Game Masters regarding this issue.

http://support.ea.com/cgi-bin/ea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=288

QUESTION
Why can't I steal from NPC's or players outside Felucca?

Answer
All facets other than Felucca are the "consent only" facets of UO. On Trammel ruleset facets, you can only steal from containers, such as those found in dungeons or NPC shops. If you are in a guild, you can steal from members of enemy guilds as long as you are a member of the thieves guild. On Trammel ruleset facets, you cannot steal from NPC's, creatures, or any player that is not in a guild war with your guild. Also, you can snoop NPC's backpacks, but you cannot snoop the backpacks of other players.

 

[Radun]

snap:
quotes from the authority which actually *use* the word 'consent'!

 

[Surgeries]

snap:
quotes from the authority which actually *use* the word 'consent'!

Double "Oh Snap".

"Without Consent"...means...there is no Consent Given...No "Consent" makes any action without Consent...well...um...

That would make Fel...then...um...wow...could 66.67% of ALL UHallers...um...Wrong, then??

"Non-Consent-ual"...yes? The opposite of "Consent" is "Non-Consent", as far as I can tell.

That's how I read it...fo' shizzle.

Fel ISN'T a "Consent Only" Facet, either, according to the documentation, for the game. It is the ONLY Facet that DOESN'T require "Consent". ALL Other Facets DO "Require" Consent. That makes all Facets but Fel...well..."Consent-ual" Only...yes? Coincidentally...it is the ONLY facet of the game where one can get a Murder Count.

So...then...that makes Fel the ONLY Facet, then, where "Non-Consent-ual" PvP, or Thievery, can happen.

Oh Snap!!

 

[Gildar]

You consent to pvp by joining a guild at war. But not when you go to fel? Explain the difference please.

You consent to PvP from guildmates (or members of a warring guild) if you join the guild knowing full well that random PvP occurs. Consenting to the PvP becomes a condition to joining the guild in this case.
You do not consent to PvP from guildmates (or members of an warring guilds) if you are not aware of random PvPing occuring between members.

You consent to PvP in Felucca if you dance around an area after seeing lots of people randomly fighting in that area without making it clear you just want to watch and don't want to fight.
You do not consent to PvP in Felucca if you quietly go to a secluded area and hunt/mine/whatever by yourself (or with a small group of friends, or other people not engaging in PvP).



I don't understand why people fight so adamantly saying going into Felucca makes the PvP consensual. It's not like people are saying participating in non-consensual PvP makes you a bad person...
It makes you slightly-to-moderately annoying to the victim... but in every (non-bug-created) situation in UO, the victim knowingly accepted the risk of being attacked without giving consent.

 

[Sarphus]

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?

Of course...
Your example is roughly similar to signing a contract and then saying "oh I was just kidding"

 

[Surgeries]

Of course...
Your example is roughly similar to signing a contract and then saying "oh I was just kidding"

Actually...no. It is like...well...Non-Consensual PvP.

It is just like that.

Please see above.

 

[Sarphus]

we might have to leave the thieving issue out of the discussion, since it's not pvp.. but no argument that thieves exist in fel....

... so if you can prevent pvp from happening.. you are still consenting to it happening?

*fair warning.. you are gonna have a hard time answering this and NOT completely flipping all logic out the window**

Unless the definition of pvp has changed from "player vs player", it most definitley is pvp. Or at least if it's me stealing, it's pvp