R
Radun
Guest
Discuss ... or don't... up to you.
This is a follow-up of a similar poll.
This is a follow-up of a similar poll.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
What is "consent"? (Poll #2)
- Thread starter Radun
- Start date
- Watchers 1
Bank sitting in Luna is certain death on Siege...lol...la
R
Radun
Guest
I believe it 
I remember "the good ol' days" when we'd all jump out of the gate with flamestrike scrolls, and a bluebie in party to loot for us
...back when siege was still fun. (pre publish 16)
I remember "the good ol' days" when we'd all jump out of the gate with flamestrike scrolls, and a bluebie in party to loot for us
...back when siege was still fun. (pre publish 16)
S
Shioni
Guest
Killing your guild mates and looting them if called griefing. I had a deal where a guild mate was preparing to load up his vendor with a large amount of artifacts and was bragging about it at the bank.
Wasn't an hour latter someone joined the guild/alliance and killed him when he was afk for a RL emergency. He estimated that about 20 million in artifacts was stolen and demanded to be paid back.
Epic Fail
Wasn't an hour latter someone joined the guild/alliance and killed him when he was afk for a RL emergency. He estimated that about 20 million in artifacts was stolen and demanded to be paid back.
Epic Fail
L
Lord Drakelord
Guest
shard?
you know I just found out that you can see who voted and where they voted by click the View poll results, what if you wanted to vote but did not wish to be know in the results?
C
Capricious
Guest
Ideally, be nice if they checked to see if you are afk first, but if you were stupid to go afk on a warred character...well, then...
Course, I'm used to rp 'wars' where this is really no consequence except your pride so not a big deal.
Course, I'm used to rp 'wars' where this is really no consequence except your pride so not a big deal.
...
Other. It's a consequence of not being attentive to your character.
Edit: I also do not answer "public" polls even if I make my choice known and why in the thread. Call it a personal quirk.
Other. It's a consequence of not being attentive to your character.
Edit: I also do not answer "public" polls even if I make my choice known and why in the thread. Call it a personal quirk.
L
Lord GOD(GOD)
Guest
Neither.
I would be very surprised if someone in my guild PKed me while I was afk.
R
Radun
Guest
So it's neither consensual nor non consensual, because the player was not attending the character?
This issue I'm trying to raise is not "what is this a consequence of?"
Does the afk player wish to be killed? Would the afk player have given permission to be killed at the bank while afk, if they had the ability to?
That's fine, I'm more interested in what people have to say than the faulty statistics.
Non-consensual.
Does that mean you have any right to complain about the person killing you? Not necessarily.
If you had an agreement with every guild you're at war with to not participate in non-con PvP, then yes, you have a right to complain. Otherwise... nope.
Now... why are we once again asking to define what makes something consensual PvP? Does it really matter if it is consensual or not? Wouldn't it make much more sense to discuss and debate about what PvP actions are bad and which are good (and which are somewhere in between)?
Non-consensual PvP != bad/rude/evil/childish/whatever PvP (just because they don't want to fight doesn't mean you aren't doing the right thing by attacking them)
Consensual PvP != good/fair PvP (you can still use cheap tactics in a consensual fight, or use guile to trick somebody into agreeing to a fight)
Does that mean you have any right to complain about the person killing you? Not necessarily.
If you had an agreement with every guild you're at war with to not participate in non-con PvP, then yes, you have a right to complain. Otherwise... nope.
Now... why are we once again asking to define what makes something consensual PvP? Does it really matter if it is consensual or not? Wouldn't it make much more sense to discuss and debate about what PvP actions are bad and which are good (and which are somewhere in between)?
Non-consensual PvP != bad/rude/evil/childish/whatever PvP (just because they don't want to fight doesn't mean you aren't doing the right thing by attacking them)
Consensual PvP != good/fair PvP (you can still use cheap tactics in a consensual fight, or use guile to trick somebody into agreeing to a fight)
R
Radun
Guest
In one poll we are asking whether one thing is considered consensual, and in the other poll we are asking if another thing is considered consensual...
They are similar acts, both options carefully worded to provide option for both opposing viewpoints: one for those who believe that leaving one's self open to an offense constitutes consent to that offense taking place upon one's self, and one for those who believe that without expressed willingness and permission having been granted there is not consent.
For me, consent is whether all participants have expressed their own willingness.. Whilst another poll demonstrated that a majority believed consent to mean that the victim allows something by leaving themselves open to a possibility, the results of this poll may be quite different as it is a completely different scenario.
Whether it be PvP, drugs, conversation, etc, the definition of consent should remain constant, thus we are not asking for a mere definition.. the polling is worded only to determine at which point people believe (in their own personal opinions) consent has been established. In both threads, PvP is merely the vessel to foster discussion on the topic of consent..
Feel free to talk about what pvp actions we believe are bad or good... to myself, any pvp action may be bad or good.. determined by whether those involved were willing, or unwilling. I believe it is important where that line of consent is drawn, and it is important that everyone be able to recognize where that line has been crossed.. and where it has been redrawn.
G
Green Meanie
Guest
you may or not care for my viewpoint but IMO fel= consentual pvp period tram is ment to be the training ground for fel. that being said i only feel that pvp between guild members in tram is in place to allow ppl to learn how to fight in fel. UO has evolved to have a strickly pvm aspect as well and for that i think there should be a option changable no more than 1 time a week that will allow pvp between guildies in tram or not.
9/10 afk in tram i would like to think i can trust my guildies anofe not to kill me and would be preturb if such a thing happend. In fel afk or not if i die to a player fair game. Ive never done guild wars in tram but if i had i would say its the same basis as being in fel and afk.
my 2 cents
9/10 afk in tram i would like to think i can trust my guildies anofe not to kill me and would be preturb if such a thing happend. In fel afk or not if i die to a player fair game. Ive never done guild wars in tram but if i had i would say its the same basis as being in fel and afk.
my 2 cents
It is neither consensual or non-consensual PvP. For PvP, you need at least two people.
As for how it should be handled, that's up to your guild leaders, and that's the way things should be.
@Shioni: Being guilded with someone does not allow them to loot your corpse. Either someone used the Stealing skill on him or the items de-spawned with his body.
As for how it should be handled, that's up to your guild leaders, and that's the way things should be.
@Shioni: Being guilded with someone does not allow them to loot your corpse. Either someone used the Stealing skill on him or the items de-spawned with his body.
...
So it's neither consensual nor non consensual, because the player was not attending the character?
This is correct. Odd sounding, but correct.
Being guilded has nothing to do with the consent issue (and personally I'd be out of any guild that did that to me in the first place).
Being present allows you to make the decision known whether you consent (fight back) or not (flee). Being unattended does neither of these things.
However, the possibility of death, being reported, stolen from (in Fel) or any other number of events exists and if you are not there to attend to the safety of your character, then what happens is the punishment for not attending to the character or logging out.
Also if you are not attending your character, you are not aware of anything to consent (or object) to, thus the question becomes a moot point.
So it's neither consensual nor non consensual, because the player was not attending the character?
This is correct. Odd sounding, but correct.
Being guilded has nothing to do with the consent issue (and personally I'd be out of any guild that did that to me in the first place).
Being present allows you to make the decision known whether you consent (fight back) or not (flee). Being unattended does neither of these things.
However, the possibility of death, being reported, stolen from (in Fel) or any other number of events exists and if you are not there to attend to the safety of your character, then what happens is the punishment for not attending to the character or logging out.
Also if you are not attending your character, you are not aware of anything to consent (or object) to, thus the question becomes a moot point.
aside (that is relevent to the question): I think there should be a "no-PvP" option when creating guilds.
R
Radun
Guest
It is the player's character. It is a 'player character', not a 'non player character'. Does the player consent to having his character killed? In my opinion no, he was incapable of expressing consent, thus 'non consensual' (anything that has not been approved, something which there has been no consent given for).
Being unable to express non consent to an act is just not good enough for me.. If they have not agreed to having something done to them, that fits the definition of non consensual. *(anything that is not consensual, anything which has not been consented to)
What you are saying is that you believe that being incapable of consenting to something = not consent(?) and not non consent (non consensual means that consent has not been granted)
This reminds me of some "drunk parties" I have been to in my past.
Qui tacet consentit? Perhaps, but I feel that if the request is not heard, it can not be assumed to be approved.
I will however acknowledge that it is not really "PvP" as we are accustomed to thinking of it, as a sort of technicality... so let us focus on the issue raised and not nit-pick. Consent has either been expressed, or it has not...
In this situation, has consent been granted? even if only by being afk?
Being unable to express non consent to an act is just not good enough for me.. If they have not agreed to having something done to them, that fits the definition of non consensual. *(anything that is not consensual, anything which has not been consented to)
What you are saying is that you believe that being incapable of consenting to something = not consent(?) and not non consent (non consensual means that consent has not been granted)
This reminds me of some "drunk parties" I have been to in my past.
Qui tacet consentit? Perhaps, but I feel that if the request is not heard, it can not be assumed to be approved.
I will however acknowledge that it is not really "PvP" as we are accustomed to thinking of it, as a sort of technicality... so let us focus on the issue raised and not nit-pick. Consent has either been expressed, or it has not...
In this situation, has consent been granted? even if only by being afk?
First of all you are not supposed to be afk for long periods of time. You are supposed to let the game log you out. Your quesiton has no decent choices. This is not a question of concent for PVP. It's asking if its ok to banksit AFK. I did not answer your poll.
R
Radun
Guest
Who says we are not supposed to go afk?
Not actually even close to asking if it is alright to go afk.
The question is closer to:
Does the fact that you are capable of killing someone mean that they have consented to being killed by you?
Not actually even close to asking if it is alright to go afk.
The question is closer to:
Does the fact that you are capable of killing someone mean that they have consented to being killed by you?
Consentual.
In the previous poll, you agreed that "You are aware of what might happen if you follow this course of action. Do you wish to carry on?" was a reasonable definition of consent.
When you were thinking of joining a guild, you were aware that your guildmates could attack and rob you in Trammel.
If you chose to join the guild, you implicitly agreed to the potential game mechanics that come with guild membership; thus consenting to being attacked by guildmates.
I can't attack you in Trammel if you are blue, but if you consent to joining my guild, you are consenting to me killing you as a green.
In the previous poll, you agreed that "You are aware of what might happen if you follow this course of action. Do you wish to carry on?" was a reasonable definition of consent.
When you were thinking of joining a guild, you were aware that your guildmates could attack and rob you in Trammel.
If you chose to join the guild, you implicitly agreed to the potential game mechanics that come with guild membership; thus consenting to being attacked by guildmates.
I can't attack you in Trammel if you are blue, but if you consent to joining my guild, you are consenting to me killing you as a green.
S
Sweeney
Guest
bump