What constitutes 'consent'?

[Radun]

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

No it isn't. That would only be the case if he actually stated consent in the first place.

 

[Sarphus]

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

It is just like that.

Please see above.

I guess reading their policy is subjective...

Yes, you don't have to consent for someone to attack you when you've already consented to be in a pvp zone. I see fel as having consented to pvp by having entered the area and therefore you no longer need to give someone consent to attack you.

 

[Sarphus]

No it isn't. That would only be the case if he actually stated consent in the first place.

you mean like selecting the pvp zone on the moongate menu and hitting ok?

Kinda like clicking OK on a EULA.

 

[Radun]

you mean like selecting the pvp zone on the moongate menu and hitting ok?

Kinda like clicking OK on a EULA.

No... nothing like that can be accepted as a statement of consenting to being murdered.

The purpose of clicking OK on a EULA or TOS is to indicate that you agree to the terms of an agreement... Clicking OK on a moongate isn't anything like agreeing to the terms of a contract. There are no terms that you are agreeing to.

 

[Sarphus]

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.

The other flaw in his logic is the assumption that the majority is right.

this just happens to be a case where the majority is correct from a pure semantics perspective.

 

[Sarphus]

No... nothing like that can be accepted as a statement of consenting to being murdered.

A contract to knowingly end your life isn't legally enforceable either. A contract to knowingly accept a risk IS.

The whole point is irrelevant anyway... When you enter fel you accept the risk (consent) of being killed by anyone without giving them your consent. That's straight from the UO rulebook, which was posted earlier. I just added the word consent to remove confusion.

 

[Radun]

"Accept that killing is a normal game mechanic"

and

"Consent to being killed"

Two totally different things.

 

[D'Amavir]

No... nothing like that can be accepted as a statement of consenting to being murdered.

The purpose of clicking OK on a EULA or TOS is to indicate that you agree to the terms of an agreement... Clicking OK on a moongate isn't anything like agreeing to the terms of a contract. There are no terms that you are agreeing to.

You are agreeing to the rules of the facet. Those reals are that there is open pvp there. Open pvp means you don't have to give individual consent to every character that wants to attack you because you have given blanket consent to all characters that want to attack you by being in Fel.

 

[Eslake]

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

If that were true why does EA distenguish the difference between Murder and PvP as the lack of Consent by the resulting dead character?

The very fact that they deliniate between Murder and PvP in general is because Consent and Agreement/Acceptance are not the same thing.

Further evidenced by their own QA that You Yourself quoted.

This also holds true on the Felucca facet, where other players can kill you without your consent.

How could someone kill you Without Your Consent if by just going there you have given it?

 

[D'Amavir]

If that were true why does EA distenguish the difference between Murder and PvP as the lack of Consent by the resulting dead character?

The very fact that they deliniate between Murder and PvP in general is because Consent and Agreement/Acceptance are not the same thing.

It comes down to individual consent and blanket consent. You don't give an individual consent to pk you but you do give blanket consent to open pvp which includes the ability to pk those that don't give you individual consent.

 

[Eslake]

It comes down to individual consent and blanket consent. You don't give an individual consent to pk you but you do give blanket consent to open pvp which includes the ability to pk those that don't give you individual consent.

Scroll back up, I hit submit before I was done because I was trying to get back to copy for a quote.

 

[Radun]

This also holds true on the Felucca facet, where other players can kill you without your consent.

How could someone kill you Without Your Consent if by just going there you have given it?

Because!

"If you add a glass of wine to a barrel of sewage, you'll get a barrel of sewage.
If you add a glass of sewage to a barrel of wine, you'll get a barrel of sewage."

 

[Orvago]

How could someone kill you Without Your Consent if by just going there you have given it?

One could get chased by a Red, and then plead "Don't Kill me" but they do anyway without having that instance of consent. This doesn't matter however, for upon entering Felucca, a blanket "consent" has been given that one acknowledges that entering Felucca is consenting to open PvP.

It is up to the individual PvPers whether or not they would apply further consenting rules, such as not attacking someone when they say "Please don't kill me."

 

[D'Amavir]

Scroll back up, I hit submit before I was done because I was trying to get back to copy for a quote.

I read the quote and your response to it. I still say that the difference is individual consent and blanket consent.

 

[D'Amavir]

One could get chased by a Red, and then plead "Don't Kill me" but they do anyway without having that instance of consent. This doesn't matter however, for upon entering Felucca, a blanket "consent" has been given that one acknowledges that entering Felucca is contenting to open PvP.

It is up to the individual PvPers whether or not they would apply further consenting rules, such as not attacking someone when they say "Please don't kill me."

Exactly. That's the point I have been trying to make for a while now. Individual consent versus blanket consent.

 

[Kiminality]

The purpose of clicking OK on a EULA or TOS is to indicate that you agree to the terms of an agreement... Clicking OK on a moongate isn't anything like agreeing to the terms of a contract. There are no terms that you are agreeing to.

But, you are agreeing that the selected destination is the one you wish to be deposited at.
If that destination is Felucca, the you are agreeing to be deposited in felucca.
As such, you are agreeing to be deposited within (or "subject to") the ruleset of Felucca.

I don't like the idea of stepping through the moongate being consent.
However, mechanically, you are making the decision to make yourself subject to negative actions of other players.

 

[Orvago]

Exactly. That's the point I have been trying to make for a while now. Individual consent versus blanket consent.

You didn't fix my typo though!

*Orvago shakes finger at you*

 

[D'Amavir]

You didn't fix my typo though!

*Orvago shakes finger at you*

Well you lowered my post count by a couple so I had to make you pay somehow. heh

 

[Radun]

except consent, or non-consent, doesn't require that you state it.
stating it is merely making it known to the other party.

 

[Radun]

But, you are agreeing that the selected destination is the one you wish to be deposited at.
If that destination is Felucca, the you are agreeing to be deposited in felucca.
As such, you are agreeing to be deposited within (or "subject to") the ruleset of Felucca.

I don't like the idea of stepping through the moongate being consent.
However, mechanically, you are making the decision to make yourself subject to negative actions of other players.

Which is different than consenting.

Example: A thief steals from you, and you chase after him to get your belongings back. This is a form of non-consent .

Another example: Someone attacks you and you defend yourself and run away. Another form of non-consent.

Neither of these forms of non-consent are possible under the ruleset that disallows attacking and stealing.

 

[D'Amavir]

Which is different than consenting.

Example: A thief steals from you, and you chase after him to get your belongings back. This is a form of non-consent .

Another example: Someone attacks you and you defend yourself and run away. Another form of non-consent.

Neither of these forms of non-consent are possible under the ruleset that disallows attacking and stealing.

Again, its individual consent versus blanket consent. You didn't give the thief individual consent to steal from you. But you did give blanket consent to get stolen from. You didn't give the attacker individual consent to attack you. But you did give blanket consent to be attacked.

Following the reasoning of individual versus blanket consent, it seems like both sides of this argument can win. Those that say they didn't give individual consent to a pk to pk them are right. And those that say people traveling in Fel have given blanket consent to be pk'd are right. Win win!

 

[Eslake]

One could get chased by a Red, and then plead "Don't Kill me" but they do anyway without having that instance of consent. This doesn't matter however, for upon entering Felucca, a blanket "consent" has been given that one acknowledges that entering Felucca is consenting to open PvP."

If you read back, you will realize that this is the entire point of the disagreement going on.

What you are calling Consent (or Blanket Consent if you prefer) is not actually Consent. It is merely Agreeing to a condition, not Consenting to it.

The dictionary definitions people keep bringing up are misleading, as they do not include the qualifiers needed for correct usage of the word.

As an example. Look up "Shine"
You shine a light on the ground. (correct)
If you did that last night.. most would agree with
You shined a light on the ground.

According to the dictionary definition, it would still seem correct. It specifically shows Shined as a past tense for Shine.
But it is not the correct use of the word Shined.

You Shone a light on the ground. (correct)

The misuse of "shined" in this example is no more or less incorrect than using Consent in the way people here are.

The correct terms would be
You Accept the rules of Felucca.
You Agree to the risk of being PKd.
You Aquiesce to being murdered.

Consent does not apply in any of those cases do to the English language rules for its use.
You cannot consent to something you do not have some level of certainty will happen, nor can you consent for someone else (PKing). And you cannot do it under duress or in recompense. It has to be a desired course of action. (which is probably the single greatest cause of misuse)

That does not mean it isn't misused left and right. Even some of the dictionary definitions posted have shown misuses of the word.
The legal profession assigns it a meaning completely different than the language use of it, and now-aparently- gamers are trying to create a new use for it as well.

 

[Radun]

If you put a glass of sewage in a barrel of wine, you'll get a barrel of sewage.

The fact that it's possible to be attacked or stolen from non-consensually overrides any implications of consenting upon entry.

House-hiding is a form of non-consent, when someone is trying to kill you. If you consent to being killed, you would simply stand there and let them kill you.

The only thing you've agreed to by entering, is that it's possible to be attacked/killed within the game mechanics in that area. Doing anything that keeps you from being attacked/killed is exercising non-consent. The fact that you can be there and still exercise non-consent negates any implied consent by being there...

 

[D'Amavir]

You cannot consent to something you do not have some level of certainty will happen, nor can you consent for someone else (PKing). And you cannot do it under duress or in recompense. It has to be a desired course of action. (which is probably the single greatest cause of misuse)

You aren't giving consent to something that doesn't have some level of certainty. You are consenting to the ruleset of the facet, which is open pvp. That has a 100% level of certainty. That's the blanket consent part. Now, if someone chooses to act upon the ruleset options that you consented to, that's their choice. But either way, you consented to the ruleset.

You can keep claiming that the 'word' consent isn't being used properly. And you can keep bringing up other words that aren't even part of the discussion to support your view of the word that is. Which is why I offered bobblemcdugal as a word to replace consent to make you happy. Either way, you still give consent to the ruleset of Fel when you enter Fel. And, either way, a pk can use that ruleset to attack you if they choose regardless of what you call the consent you gave. Agreeing to the rules and consenting to the rules is the same thing. Every definition of the word supports that. Change 'consent to' in this discussion to 'agree to' if you want. I don't mind. But even if you or don't, you still consent to open pvp when you enter Fel.

 

[D'Amavir]

If you put a glass of sewage in a barrel of wine, you'll get a barrel of sewage.

The fact that it's possible to be attacked or stolen from non-consensually overrides any implications of consenting upon entry.

Incorrect. Individual consent may not be given. But blanket consent has been. You don't give the individual consent to attack you, but due to the fact that you have already consented to the rules of Fel, they can anyway.

See, I don't give individual consent to pk's to attack me either. The only difference is, in my case they don't. The way that works out better for me than it does for you is that I also don't give blanket consent to be attacked by pk's in general.

 

[Radun]

No, the fact that it's even possible to go to fel and defend yourself, run into a house, run away, and exercise other forms of non-consent negates the assumption that you're consenting by being there... because you can still be there and not consent, at the same time.













omg

 

[D'Amavir]

No, the fact that it's even possible to go to fel and defend yourself, run into a house, run away, and exercise other forms of non-consent negates the assumption that you're consenting by being there... because you can still be there and not consent, at the same time

Not consent to the individual but consent to the ruleset, yes. Not consent to the ruleset? No, you can't be in Fel without consenting to Fel's ruleset.

That all seems pretty clear to me still. Can you not even admit that you are consenting to the Fel ruleset of open pvp when you go to Fel? Leave all other aspects of this discussion out of it. Do you or do you not agree that going to Fel means that you are consenting to the ruleset of open pvp in Fel?

 

[Eslake]

Blanket Consent.
Makes the same sense as saying "Blanket Alone."
Actually less, because you could be referring to a lone blanket.

Consent is a more specific form of Agreement.
The problem is everyone seems to be devoted to ignoring the "more specific" aspect so that they can continue to use the word Consent where it does not apply.

Consent Is a form of Agreement.
But Agreement is not a form of Consent. It is the wider aspect, not the narrower.

To imply that Consent is correct in this usage because Agree/Accept are, is the same as saying
Orcs are a type of Repond.
So Reponds are a type of Orc.

You know good and well Reponds are not a type of Orc. Orcs are a more specific application of the concept of a Repond.
And the same rule applies-
Agreement is not consent. Consent is a more specific application of the concept of Agreement.

The specifics that make it another word are what are being ignored here.



So I will ask those who would continue to attempt to refute the English language rules for the correct usage of the word Consent.


What is the difference than, between Consent and Acceptance or Agreement?

 

[Radun]

The ruleset in felucca allows players to attack and steal from eachother.
By entering felucca, you are accepting the ruleset.
Accepting the ruleset is accepting the possibility of being killed or stolen from by another player.

If when attacked by another player, you keep yourself healed, run away, and eventually escape their hostility, you are exercising non-consent to being killed. Actually, merely resisting, even if you fail and die, is a form of not consenting.

The fact that you can be engaged by another player to fight, and not consent to the fight, negates all assumptions that you consent because it's possible.

 

[D'Amavir]

So I will ask those who would continue to attempt to refute the English language rules for the correct usage of the word Consent.


What is the difference than, between Consent and Acceptance or Agreement?

Well, a quick check of the dictionary shows that accept means;

"to agree or consent to; accede to"

See there, it says 'consent to' right in the definition of accept. But, of course you will say that thats not using the word accept properly.

Another quick check showed the definition of agree as;

"to give consent; assent"

Again, it says in that definition 'to give consent'. Starting to see a pattern yet?


I doubt that the definition of repond says "an orc" though. So I don't believe your comparison is accurate. But, I guess that depends on what the correct use of accurate is huh?

 

[Radun]

The words may have each other in their thesaurus entries, but consent is much more than just 'agreeing to' or 'accepting something'.

 

[D'Amavir]

The ruleset in felucca allows players to attack and steal from eachother.
By entering felucca, you are accepting the ruleset.
Accepting the ruleset is accepting the possibility of being killed or stolen from by another player.

Yes, yes, yes! Now, admit that accepting the ruleset is the same as consenting to the ruleset and you are done. Easy peasy wasn't it?

If when attacked by another player, you keep yourself healed, run away, and eventually escape their hostility, you are exercising non-consent to being killed. Actually, merely resisting, even if you fail and die, is a form of not consenting.

I don't recall anyone saying that consenting to the ruleset of Fel meant you would 100% die from a pk attack. So, sure. You can escape death if a pk attacks you after you consent to the open pvp ruleset of Fel. But live or die, you still consented to the ruleset that put you into that position to begin with. Yay! Progress.

The fact that you can be engaged by another player to fight, and not consent to the fight, negates all assumptions that you consent because it's possible.

And we are back to individual consent versus blanket consent. You don't give individual consent to the fight. But you give blanket consent that the fight can happen by giving consent to the ruleset of the facet.

 

[D'Amavir]

The words may have each other in their thesaurus entries, but consent is much more than just 'agreeing to' or 'accepting something'.

More than that, they have each other in their definitions. So, they are synonyms of each other and they are used to define each other. But they can't be the same? Odd.

What is consent then? What is your definition of the word? I will research that when you answer and see what the difference is between the two.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

Originally Posted by hawkeye_pike
Consensual means, both parties agree upon the action. Being PKed is everything but consensual.
Consensual would be something like a duelling functionality, where someone can challenge you and you have to accept the challenge before you can be attacked by that person.
----------------

By entering fel, you are consenting to combat with everyone. You know exactly what entering fel means, so therefore you agree to its terms.

I disagree. Players enter Felucca for several reasons, and not all of them like the PvP going on there. So this is not consensual!

I personally like taking risks. And I would probably play in Felucca only, if not only the guy with the most artifacts and the best speed hack would win.

 

[Eslake]

Well, a quick check of the dictionary shows that accept means;

"to agree or consent to; accede to"

See there, it says 'consent to' right in the definition of accept. But, of course you will say that thats not using the word accept properly.

Another quick check showed the definition of agree as;

"to give consent; assent"

Again, it says in that definition 'to give consent'. Starting to see a pattern yet?


I doubt that the definition of repond says "an orc" though. So I don't believe your comparison is accurate. But, I guess that depends on what the correct use of accurate is huh?

"to agree OR consent to; Accede."
You just validated what I posted.

While consent is a form of agreement, agreement is not always consent.

You do understand that a concept can have a narrow and wide prespect nomer right?
I used the Orc/Repond example to clarify it in case anyone didn't.

It is rather like what they used to explain it in grade school (the concept, not the word concent itself)

Apples are frut, all apples are fruit.
But Fruit are not always apples.
Apples are a narrow, where fruits are the wider view.

In this case, Apples are the word Consent and Fruit is the word Agree.
You cannot consent to something without agreeing to it, but you can agree to something without consenting to it.

Does that make it easier to follow?

More than that, they have each other in their definitions. So, they are synonyms of each other and they are used to define each other. But they can't be the same? Odd.

What is consent then? What is your definition of the word? I will research that when you answer and see what the difference is between the two.

Since it fits.. see my Apples/Fruit sample above.
Apples have Fruit in their definition.
Fruit has Apples in its definition.

but not all fruit are apples.. go figure.

The definition of Consent has already been given.(several have)
But as it has already been pointed out (numerous times), a definition does not include the specifications of correct usage of a word. Only the general meaning.

Look up Run and Flee. You'll see the same correlation.
Both have roughly the same definitions, both contain each other in their definitions, and neither explains why you cannot say that every time you run you are Fleeing.

Fleeing is a form of running (usually).
But not all running is fleeing.
Consent is a form of agreement (allways).
But not all agreement is consent.

They don't Consent to being PKd. They agree to it. The specifications of correct usage of Consent include that it is a desired course of action or inaction. It wouldn't be considered murder if it was desired by both parties now would it?

 

[Radun]

This definition pertains to this discussion:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_versus_player

Player killing, or PKing, is non-consensual PvP resulting in a character's death. Some games offer "open PvP" (also sometimes called "world PvP"), where one player can attack another without warning anywhere in the game world. An aggressor attacks an opponent without agreement to any set of rules of engagement or combat.

 

[o2bavr6]

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).

What you re doing is concenting to the fact that when you enter Fel there is a chance that you will be attacked whether you want it or not.

 

[Kaleb]

Almost everyone knows that if you step into that red gate or click the fel tab you are consenting to pvp. You may not want to PvP but being in that ruleset you are consenting to being attacked at anytime 2/3's of the game is set up for the people who do not consent to pvp. Now when someone is sent into a gank via bug/exploit that is not consent.

Murder counts have nothing to do with consent. For instance If I get Pk'ed And its a honest 1v1 (minus duals) I will give a count. If I were pk'ed by more than one person,Cheap shot,Someone who uses bugs,hacks,exploits,scripts I will not give a count If they didnt earn it honest they do not deserve the honor the count.

 

[Yalp]

Hmmm...

I consent to pvp when I enter a red moongate.. unless I am in the guard zone or a private house... where I am placing myself in a zone where pvp is possible, but not consentual... as I am able to have you guard whacked (or banned from the house), if you attempt to attack me.

There are exceptions in Fel to consentual pvp. That is fact. Is it possible there are reasonable people who also do not agree that the mere act of walking through a moongate is the ONLY act needed to give consent?

Because you can do something is not defacto consent to do the thing.

 

[Locker]

No... nothing like that can be accepted as a statement of consenting to being murdered.

The purpose of clicking OK on a EULA or TOS is to indicate that you agree to the terms of an agreement... Clicking OK on a moongate isn't anything like agreeing to the terms of a contract. There are no terms that you are agreeing to.

Yes, there are terms you are agreeing to when you click the moongate. They are written in game code and published as a game ruleset. And when you click, you agree and accept... JUST Like a TOS or EULA.

Peace,

Locker

 

[o2bavr6]

Hmmm...

I consent to pvp when I enter a red moongate.. unless I am in the guard zone or a private house... where I am placing myself in a zone where pvp is possible, but not consentual... as I am able to have you guard whacked (or banned from the house), if you attempt to attack me.

There are exceptions in Fel to consentual pvp. That is fact. Is it possible there are reasonable people who also do not agree that the mere act of walking through a moongate is the ONLY act needed to give consent?

Because you can do something is not defacto consent to do the thing.

Again.... What you re doing is concenting to the fact that when you enter Fel there is a chance that you will be attacked whether you want it or not.

 

[Radun]

Yes, there are terms you are agreeing to when you click the moongate. They are written in game code and published as a game ruleset. And when you click, you agree and accept... JUST Like a TOS or EULA.

Peace,

Locker

no, you are mistaken. the purpose of clicking okay on a eula is to indicate that you've read and agree to the terms.
No terms are presented at the moongate.

 

[Yalp]

Again.... What you re doing is concenting to the fact that when you enter Fel there is a chance that you will be attacked whether you want it or not.

that is not consent.. it's acknowledgment.

you acknowledge that in the fel facet, pvp is possible... and if you are in fel and do not wish to engage in pvp, you need to be in a guard zone (private house).

But we are just wearing a rut in the path going round in circles on the symantics of consent/acknowledgement.

My main point.. is that reasonable people are not in agreement as to this concept. This is beyond our (player base's) ability to change.. and is just one more to do item on the dev's list to address. Their own guide contradicts itself. I have no hope though, that they will address this issue any time soon.

 

[D'Amavir]

"to agree OR consent to; Accede."
You just validated what I posted.

While consent is a form of agreement, agreement is not always consent.

You do understand that a concept can have a narrow and wide prespect nomer right?
I used the Orc/Repond example to clarify it in case anyone didn't.

It is rather like what they used to explain it in grade school (the concept, not the word concent itself)

Apples are frut, all apples are fruit.
But Fruit are not always apples.
Apples are a narrow, where fruits are the wider view.

In this case, Apples are the word Consent and Fruit is the word Agree.
You cannot consent to something without agreeing to it, but you can agree to something without consenting to it.

Does that make it easier to follow?


Since it fits.. see my Apples/Fruit sample above.
Apples have Fruit in their definition.
Fruit has Apples in its definition.

but not all fruit are apples.. go figure.

Agree and consent don't just have those words in their definition, it IS their definition.

The definition of consent is

"The act or state of agreeing or conforming"

The act of agreeing.

The definition of apple is "the usually round, red or yellow, edible fruit of a small tree Malus sylvestris, of the rose family"

and fruit is

"the edible part of a plant developed from a flower, with any accessory tissues, as the peach, apple, or banana"

where apple is used as an example of a fruit. Not as a synonym of fruit. You seem to be ignoring the synonym part. Agree to and consent to are accepted as synonyms of each other. Fruit and apple are not accepted as synonyms of each other.

The definition of Consent has already been given.(several have)
But as it has already been pointed out (numerous times), a definition does not include the specifications of correct usage of a word. Only the general meaning.

Back to synonym. You deny that agree to and consent to are both synonyms of each other. It sounds like you are the one ignoring the facts of the english language, not anyone else.

They don't Consent to being PKd. They agree to it. The specifications of correct usage of Consent include that it is a desired course of action or inaction. It wouldn't be considered murder if it was desired by both parties now would it?

Murder is just a term that the devs decided to use as the term for the action of pk'ing someone in Fel. I wouldn't rely on the logic of them to back your argument. Since, to me, a murderer is someone that commits murder. To the devs, a murderer is someone that commits 5 murders within a certain period of time.

It still boils down to the fact that by entering Fel you are agreeing to (consenting to) the pvp ruleset. Under the dictionary's definition of agree

"Main Entry: assent
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: To respond affirmatively; receive with agreement or compliance. "

in this case, responding okay to the red gate to enter Fel for example, you are responding affirmatively to acccept the ruleset of that facet

consent is included as a synonym. So, even though you may feel that there are some definitions where consent is NOT a synonym for agree (and you may be right), in this specific situation and this specific definition, it is.

 

[D'Amavir]

This definition pertains to this discussion:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_versus_player

As I have stated several times, individual consent is not given when you are pk'd. But blanket consent to the ruleset of Fel which includes pk'ing has been. I can accept that individual consent is not given, but you can't seem to accept that blanket consent is.

 

[D'Amavir]

Hmmm...

I consent to pvp when I enter a red moongate.. unless I am in the guard zone or a private house... where I am placing myself in a zone where pvp is possible, but not consentual... as I am able to have you guard whacked (or banned from the house), if you attempt to attack me.

Because you can do something is not defacto consent to do the thing.

Actually, as many have stated, you can still be pk'd in guard zones and in private houses. Therefore, you do still give consent that you can be pk'd anytime you enter fel. You may not be, but you are consenting to the fact that fel has open pvp and you MAY be pk'd because of it. Sure, you can see a pk guardwhacked after he kills you. But you were still pk'd even though you didn't give that specific pk individual consent. Because you gave blanket consent when you enter that facet.

 

[D'Amavir]

no, you are mistaken. the purpose of clicking okay on a eula is to indicate that you've read and agree to the terms.
No terms are presented at the moongate.

The terms are that you are about to enter Fel. By doing so, it is understood that Fel has a ruleset of open pvp. UO has many pages defining the ruleset of Fel so they apparently didn't feel the need to have a window pop up everytime you go there that stated the ruleset over and over. If you don't know that fel is an open pvp facet, you need to learn more about the game before you play it. And if you don't know that by going to Fel you will be forced to follow the ruleset of Fel, then you need to learn more about the game before you play it.

 

[D'Amavir]

that is not consent.. it's acknowledgment.

you acknowledge that in the fel facet, pvp is possible... and if you are in fel and do not wish to engage in pvp, you need to be in a guard zone (private house).

But we are just wearing a rut in the path going round in circles on the symantics of consent/acknowledgement.

My main point.. is that reasonable people are not in agreement as to this concept. This is beyond our (player base's) ability to change.. and is just one more to do item on the dev's list to address. Their own guide contradicts itself. I have no hope though, that they will address this issue any time soon.

What issue? The fact that people don't understand that if they choose to enter Fel they agree to follow the ruleset there? I don't see that as an issue that they need to address, it is more of an issue that people that don't understand that simple fact need to address.

I don't think the devs even have a care that people claim that they aren't consenting to the ruleset just by going to Fel. Because, regardless of what they say on boards like this, they are in fact consenting to that ruleset while they are in fel. Unless they find a bug that circumvents the ruleset of Fel. In which case, the devs should ban the user/s of the bug and then fix it.

I think what the people claiming they don't consent to the ruleset of Fel really mean is that they don't give individual consent to a specific pk to attack them. But they won't admit that because they don't want to be seen as losing an argument on the boards. Myself, on the other hand, can fully accept that people don't give individual consent to a specific pk to attack them even though they do give blanket consent to the ruleset of Fel.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

To put my finger in a wound:

The question also should be: What are people consenting about, when they enter Felucca?

They consent about there is a risk of being attacked.
So far, so good.

Is there a consent about being attacked by people who cheat and use illegal tools? Probably not. And therein lies the problem. The problem isn't that there's a risk of being attacked by someone who uses the same game mechanics like yourself. The problem is that people get ganked by cheaters and speedhackers.

And about that, there is NO consent.

 

[D'Amavir]

To put my finger in a wound:

The question also should be: What are people consenting about, when they enter Felucca?

They consent about there is a risk of being attacked.
So far, so good.

Is there a consent about being attacked by people who cheat and use illegal tools? Probably not. And therein lies the problem. The problem isn't that there's a risk of being attacked by someone who uses the same game mechanics like yourself. The problem is that people get ganked by cheaters and speedhackers.

And about that, there is NO consent.

I agree, people that use bugs or illegal tools to boost their speed/power against other players should be banned. Since you are only consenting to the the ruleset of Fel, that means you aren't individually consenting to cheaters. But of course, not all reds are bug users. Just like some blues are.