What constitutes 'consent'?

[Gildar]

We call it Fellucia

its simple if you enter fel you consent to pvp if you dont enter then you dont have to worry about pvp. How many worlds to the non pvpers really need?

Entering Felucca does not mean you want to PvP.
Not wanting to PvP 100% of the time does not make you a non-PvPer.

 

[Connor_Graham]

 

[D'Amavir]

Anybody who says simply entering Fel means you consent to PvP, please answer this one question:
What terminology would you prefer to use to distinguish between PvP where (at least) one side doesn't want to fight and PvP where everybody wants to fight?

Does it need a specific terminology? Its just pvp. Player vs player combat seems to explain it pretty clearly. You can't really call it non consensual because one side clearly does consent because they attacked. You can't call it unwanted pvp because one side clearly does want it. So, since you can't use those two examples of terminology, what new terminology do you want to use for it?

One sided desired pvp? One sided non individual consent pvp? One sided consensual pvp since one player definitely gives their individual consent to the pvp? PvPTDGICBCTTFRTAOPVPC? That's player versus player that didn't give individual consent but consented to the fel ruleset that allows open player versus player combat.

And do you want to come up with specific terminology for every tiny variable in the game? I guess you could if you want but to me, pvp pretty much covers it.

 

[D'Amavir]

Entering Felucca does not mean you want to PvP.

Correct. Entering Felucca means you are consenting to the ruleset of Felucca and that means open pvp. Which means a player can engage you in pvp even if you don't specifically want him to. You might not want it, but you do consent to it by entering.

 

[Radun]

Well, you've gotta admit it's funny to see how many people can come up with different ways to say they agree to being attacked but don't agree to get killed. That's one of those things that doesn't get old soon ya know.

That's not really even close to what anyone said.
There's a big difference between what you said, and saying 'I accept that killing is a normal game mechanic, but that doesn't mean I've consented to fighting anyone.'

*non PvPr says*

Hey I'm in Fel!

*PvPr says*

Hey, I'm gonna kill and loot you!

*non PvP'r says*

You can attack me, but you can't kill me because I didn't agree to tha......oOoOoOoOoOoO

The only people saying that 'not consenting' keeps you from being killed, are the people saying that going to fel automatically means you consent.


(not replying directly to anyone)
Being in fel is consenting to fight no more than being in school is consenting to learn.

Going to the mall isn't automatically consenting to spend money.

 

[Connor_Graham]

Wow. Way to go on taking a completely sarcastic post seriously.

 

[D'Amavir]

That's not really even close to what anyone said.
There's a big difference between what you said, and saying 'I accept that killing is a normal game mechanic, but that doesn't mean I've consented to fighting anyone.'


The only people saying that 'not consenting' keeps you from being killed, are the people saying that going to fel automatically means you consent.


(not replying directly to anyone)
Being in fel is consenting to fight no more than being in school is consenting to learn.

Going to the mall isn't automatically consenting to spend money.

Two more poor real world examples. Going to school is consenting to follow the rules of that school. You don't have to learn anything. But you do have to follow the rules or else you get kicked out.

Same with the mall. You can go and not buy anything. But you still have to follow the rules of that mall or else you get kicked out.

In the game of UO, which is what this thread is actually about, you consent to follow the rules of Fel (which means open pvp) when you go to Fel. Just like you consent to follow the rules of Trammel when you go to Trammel.

And not consenting to pk'ing does keep you from being pk'd. I don't consent to pk'ing by not going to Fel and, as such, I don't get pk'd. If you chose to go to Fel, you are consenting to the fact that you can get pk'd no matter how bad you might not want to be.

 

[Radun]

If you're having a row with someone at luna and they challenge you to a duel, saying 'Meet me at bucs', and you go there to meet him, THEN in that case you're consenting to a fight.
If someone's telling you they'll help you finish your suit, 'Come to my house to try on some pieces', and you go through their red moongate, THEN you're not consenting to a fight.

 

[Gildar]

Does it need a specific terminology?

Numerous conversations in the history of MMOs have involved a distinction between PvP where everybody agrees to PvP with eachother and PvP where not everybody agrees to PvP with eachother.
Those conversations have traditionally used "consensual" and "non-consensual" to remove the excess verbage.

People talk about it. These conversations are not uncommon. They are also not specific to UO. These conversations have included discussions on how to setup dueling systems, what actions players should be able to do to eachother in an MMO, the discussions that resulted in the creation of the Trammel and Felucca rulesets, the discussions that resulted in Siege and Mugen, discussions in roleplaying circles about rules those in the circle should agree to...


Let me ask another question... why do you have a problem with using the term "non-consensual PvP" in situations where people understand that consent isn't required for something to happen to describe PvP where not everybody agrees to PvP with eachother?

 

[D'Amavir]

If you're having a row with someone at luna and they challenge you to a duel, saying 'Meet me at bucs', and you go there to meet him, THEN in that case you're consenting to a fight.
If someone's telling you they'll help you finish your suit, 'Come to my house to try on some pieces', and you go through their red moongate, THEN you're not consenting to a fight.

You aren't consenting to that specific fight (individual consent) but you are consenting that a fight can take place (blanket consent). Anytime you click the okay button on that red gate, you are consenting to open pvp. You don't have to further consent to any specific pk's desire to attack you because you have already consented that by being there you are open to attack.

 

[Radun]

It's impossible to be 'consensually pked' as the definition of PKing is non-consensual pvp resulting in character death.

 

[D'Amavir]

Numerous conversations in the history of MMOs have involved a distinction between PvP where everybody agrees to PvP with eachother and PvP where not everybody agrees to PvP with eachother.
Those conversations have traditionally used "consensual" and "non-consensual" to remove the excess verbage.

People talk about it. These conversations are not uncommon. They are also not specific to UO. These conversations have included discussions on how to setup dueling systems, what actions players should be able to do to eachother in an MMO, the discussions that resulted in the creation of the Trammel and Felucca rulesets, the discussions that resulted in Siege and Mugen, discussions in roleplaying circles about rules those in the circle should agree to...


Let me ask another question... why do you have a problem with using the term "non-consensual PvP" in situations where people understand that consent isn't required for something to happen to describe PvP where not everybody agrees to PvP with eachother?

I don't have a problem with it at all. As a matter of fact, I have even called it non consensual pvp several times. You must not be actually reading my posts if you didn't know that. You don't have to give consent to every individual pk that wants to attack you because you have already given consent to the ruleset that allows you to be attacked by any pk.

Now, why do you have such a problem saying that you consent to being attacked anytime you enter Fel? Since by clicking okay on the moongate gump you are consenting to open pvp since that is the ruleset of Fel.

 

[D'Amavir]

It's impossible to be 'consensually pked' as the definition of PKing is non-consensual pvp resulting in character death.

Actually, pk means player killing. So, technically, anytime a player kills another player, its player killing. You consent to being attacked by another character whenever you enter fel because fel's ruleset allows player killing outside of guilds and factions. While Trammel only allows player killing inside guilds and and guild wars.

 

[Eslake]

Well I think then that you are disagreeing with EA/Mythic not us, they made the rules.

Actually you have that bakward.

Any Felucca facet rule set area, excluding guard zones, allows player vs. player combat. This means that combat can be non-consensual and can occur at any time.

I could fill pages of thread with samples taken directly from EA documentation calling what happens in Felucca Non-Consensual PvP.

It is not Non-Consent if you give consent by just being there.


Yes, there are 2 examples in all of the documentation I've seen that contradict this.

But there are more than a hundred instances where EA says being attacked in Felucca without wanting to is considered Non Consent.

Two more poor real world examples. Going to school is consenting to follow the rules of that school. You don't have to learn anything. But you do have to follow the rules or else you get kicked out.

Same with the mall. You can go and not buy anything. But you still have to follow the rules of that mall or else you get kicked out.

In the game of UO, which is what this thread is actually about, you consent to follow the rules of Fel (which means open pvp) when you go to Fel. Just like you consent to follow the rules of Trammel when you go to Trammel.

And going to Felucca is only agreeing to follow the rules of Felucca.
Funny, I don't recall ever seing any official statement that I am Required to PvP when I'm in Fel.
Your counter is more flawed than the comparisons you are refuting.

Going to Felucca does not require PvP. Going to school does not require learning. Going to the mall does not require spending money.

School has rules, and you can be there - and follow them - without learning.
Malls have rules, and you can be there - and follow them - without spending.
Felucca has rules, and you can be there - and follow them - without PvPing.

They were accurate analogies.

In responce to your earlier reply to my post diferentiating between Agreement and Consent..
Rock and Boulder are synonyms too.
If I hold a rock in my hand in front of you, is it a boulder?

 

[Radun]

anytime a player kills another player, its player killing.

wrong. scroll back some to see the actual definition.

 

[Radun]

Wow. Way to go on taking a completely sarcastic post seriously.

It's impossible to express sarcasm in the medium of text, unless you indicate it by typing 'sarcasm' somewhere.

 

[Connor_Graham]

It's impossible to express sarcasm in the medium of text, unless you indicate it by typing 'sarcasm' somewhere.

Not for a professional. Give it time, you'll learn.

 

[o2bavr6]

Anybody who says simply entering Fel means you consent to PvP, please answer this one question:
What terminology would you prefer to use to distinguish between PvP where (at least) one side doesn't want to fight and PvP where everybody wants to fight?

I call it PvP. There is no distinction between the two.

If you don't want to engage in any type PvP you can play all you want in the non-PvP facets.

If you come to our facet, Fel, then you may have to engage in PvP even if you dont want to.

Kinda simple isnt it?

 

[Radun]

I call it PvP. There is no distinction between the two.

If you don't want to engage in any type PvP you can play all you want in the non-PvP facets.

If you come to our facet, Fel, then you may have to engage in PvP even if you dont want to.

Kinda simple isnt it?

There are no 'non-pvp' facets. the term you're looking for (the official term) is 'Consent-Only PvP' facets.
If you go to fel, then you may have to engage in PvP even if you don't consent.

 

[D'Amavir]

And going to Felucca is only agreeing to follow the rules of Felucca.
Funny, I don't recall ever seing any official statement that I am Required to PvP when I'm in Fel.
Your counter is more flawed than the comparisons you are refuting.

If you are in Fel and a player attacks you, you have to engage in pvp, yes. If you have found a way to not engage in pvp when you are attacked in Fel, you are using a bug. So share it so you can be banned and they can fix that bug.

Going to Felucca does not require PvP.

See above.

Going to school does not require learning. Going to the mall does not require spending money.

School has rules, and you can be there - and follow them - without learning.
Malls have rules, and you can be there - and follow them - without spending.
Felucca has rules, and you can be there - and follow them - without PvPing.

Explain how you can prevent pvp if a character attacks you in Fel? As soon as the first hit or spell lands, that's player vs player. You can run but you still took part in player vs player because that player was able to attack you. So explain please how you avoid pvp if someone attacks you in Fel. I am sure many would be interested in that trick.

In responce to your earlier reply to my post diferentiating between Agreement and Consent..
Rock and Boulder are synonyms too.
If I hold a rock in my hand in front of you, is it a boulder?

Depends on how large the rock is. Agree and consent are synonyms to each other under the definition that fits with the use of them on this thread. You can keep looking for other words to try to prove your flawed argument but maybe you should try to focus on the words actually part of this discussion. Those words are consent and agree. Agree's definition is still

"to give consent; assent (often fol. by to): He agreed to accompany the ambassador. Do you agree to the conditions? "

You agree to the ruleset of Fel so you give consent to the ruleset of Fel. That will not change no matter how many words you look up in the dictionary.

Consent's definition is still

"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. "

You consent to the ruleset of Fel so you agree to the ruleset of Fel.

 

[D'Amavir]

wrong. scroll back some to see the actual definition.

No need to scroll through all the junk posts on here, pk means player killing. That's when one player kills another player. If you are referring to what uo defines pk'ing as in their guide then I have to remind you on the contradictions and errors found there. However, I will accept that your definition of pk'ing is non consensual pk'ing. Which follows my many comments stating that you don't need to give a pk individual consent to pk you because you give blanket consent to the open pvp ruleset of fel.

Pk's don't kill me because I don't consent to open pvp. That's how consent works in this game. Pk's kill you because you consent to open pvp. Not sure how many times you have to read that (or skip since that seems what you really do) before it breaks through.

 

[D'Amavir]

There are no 'non-pvp' facets. the term you're looking for (the official term) is 'Consent-Only PvP' facets.
If you go to fel, then you may have to engage in PvP even if you don't consent to individual pvp even though you consent to open pvp which means you can be attacked by another player at anytime.

I corrected that for you since you apparently hit submit before you were finished. You are welcome.

 

[D'Amavir]

There are no 'non-pvp' facets. the term you're looking for (the official term) is 'Consent-Only PvP' facets.
If you go to fel, then you may have to engage in PvP even if you don't consent.

Official? Like how the official ea support site says that guild war pvp can be non consensual even though its on the 'Consent Only facet' of Trammel?

To be exact, it says

"Guild System
Player vs. player combat, as well as sparring is allowed within guilds on any facet, and under all rule sets. This means that combat can be non-consensual, and can occur at any time. Issues involving guild members who attack other guild members without being provoked should be brought to your guild master's attention. If you would like to start a guild or learn more, please "

So Officially Trammel is a consent only pvp facet but you can be involved in non consensual pvp there too? Glad you provided such accurate information for us to use in this discussion.

 

[o2bavr6]

So Officially Trammel is a consent only pvp facet but you can be involved in non consensual pvp there too? Glad you provided such accurate information for us to use in this discussion.

Thanks for savingme the trouble of responding.

Good posts as usual

 

[Radun]

You consent to the ruleset of Fel so you agree to the ruleset of Fel.

Which will never be exactly the same as consenting to fight.

 

[Eslake]

If you are in Fel and a player attacks you, you have to engage in pvp, yes. If you have found a way to not engage in pvp when you are attacked in Fel, you are using a bug. So share it so you can be banned and they can fix that bug.

Until you can find a way to get my miner banned for recalling to Felucca, mining for an hour without being attacked, and recalling back to his house in Trammel, your argument doesn't work.

Consent and Agreement are not the same thing.
As I said EA has contradicted their own consideration of what constitues consent in 2 places in the documentation (one you point to in a post further down from the one I am replaying to).

And you point that out to try to make a point, while ignoring that there are more than 100 instances of the word in their various documentation that correctly use the term.

You can be killed Without Consenting when you are in Felucca. So being there cannot possibly constitute consent.

It constitutes agreeing to the rules of the facet, and accepting the risks inherant to those rules.

Nowhere does it state that you must PvP when you go to Felucca. It only says that PvP may be forced on you "Without your Consent."
There is no rule saying you have to PvP there, only that you do not always get to chose whether you will.


Agree and Consent are synonyms, but Consent is a specific use of Agree.
You Agree to the rules and risks, but you can only Consent to a specific instance of PvP.

EA's own definitions make that clear.
"A Writers Reference" makes that clear.
"The Gregg Reference Manual" makes that clear.
"On Writing Well" makes that clear.

I could go on but I don't have any other reference books at my disposal.

 

[D'Amavir]

Which will never be exactly the same as consenting to fight.

You never have to fight back, no. You just give consent to the ruleset which allows others to fight you. That's all.

 

[Radun]

And once the GM hears about it, they'll be kicked from the guild, eliminating the non-consensual pvp. Notice how the guide doesn't say anything like 'you are consenting to combat by being in a guild'. If you're looking for non-consensual pvp (aka PKing) trammel is not the place to do it.

 

[Radun]

You never have to fight back, no. You just give consent to the ruleset which allows others to fight you. That's all.

You don't 'give' consent to the ruleset. You consent to play under the conditions of the ruleset... which will never automatically make a fight consensual.

 

[D'Amavir]

Until you can find a way to get my miner banned for recalling to Felucca, mining for an hour without being attacked, and recalling back to his house in Trammel, your argument doesn't work.

Of course it works. For that hour you are following the ruleset of Fel that you consented to. I have said several times that just because you happen to not be attacked doesn't mean that you didn't consent to allowing an attack to happen should another player choose to make one. That goes back to the example someone tried to use about real world and a wedding. You consent to a wedding, even if your bride stands you up, you still gave consent to being married. You just never made it that far. I signed a consent form for a surgery that I ended up not having. Is that consent form that I signed not consent? Of course it is.

Consent and Agreement are not the same thing.
As I said EA has contradicted their own consideration of what constitues consent in 2 places in the documentation (one you point to in a post further down from the one I am replaying to).

In the context that it is being used in this discussion and based on the definition of the two words in that context, they are the same thing. Are they always the same thing in other contexts and other definitions? Maybe not. But in the context that they are being used here, yes they are.

And you point that out to try to make a point, while ignoring that there are more than 100 instances of the word in their various documentation that correctly use the term.

I don't ignore anything. I make clear that you can't rely on the various 'official' comments because of all the contradictions.

You can be killed Without Consenting when you are in Felucca. So being there cannot possibly constitute consent.

You are consenting to follow the ruleset which means you consent to the possibility to being attacked. No matter how many times you say that you don't consent to following the ruleset of Fel whenever you go to Fel, I will be here to tell you that you do.

It constitutes agreeing to the rules of the facet, and accepting the risks inherant to those rules.

EXACTLY! You consent to the rules of the facet and the risks inherent to those rules without having to give individual consent to anyone in order for them to attack you. I have only been saying that for the last two days.

Nowhere does it state that you must PvP when you go to Felucca. It only says that PvP may be forced on you "Without your Consent."
There is no rule saying you have to PvP there, only that you do not always get to chose whether you will.

Right. And you consent to that when you choose to go to Fel. You might not want to be attacked, but since you consented to the rules of the facet, you may be anyway even if you don't give an individual consent to do so.

Agree and Consent are synonyms, but Consent is a specific use of Agree.
You Agree to the rules and risks, but you can only Consent to a specific instance of PvP.

I don't remember seeing that in the definition. You consented to the rules the same as you agreed to the rules when you went there.

EA's own definitions make that clear.
"A Writers Reference" makes that clear.
"The Gregg Reference Manual" makes that clear.
"On Writing Well" makes that clear.

Just like EA makes its clear that Trammel is the consent only pvp facet and then makes it clear that you can be attacked in Trammel without giving consent. Which, to me, means that you can be attacked in Trammel non consensual. But they made it clear that Trammel was the consent only pvp facet. But then they said you can be attacked in Trammel non consensual. Whew, I am glad EA made that clear to us all.

I could go on but I don't have any other reference books at my disposal.

Try the dictionary. Especially the part that says that agree to and consent to are synonyms in the context that they are being used in this discussion. That's all the reference material I needed to show that giving consent to the ruleset of Fel is what you do when you go there. It wasn't hard at all. Then again, making certain people understand that simple concept has been near impossible. You can lead a horse to water but you can't teach a dead dog that what's good for the goose is good for the cat when the mouse is in the hand instead of in the bush.

 

[D'Amavir]

You don't 'give' consent to the ruleset. You consent to play under the conditions of the ruleset... which will never automatically make a fight consensual.

You consent to the ruleset which makes the fight possible. That's why pk's can't touch me, I don't give consent to the ruleset that allows them to attack me. You haven't explained how you can avoid pvp after a pk attacks you in Fel. Unlike me, who has explained several times why giving consent to the ruleset of Fel means you consent to the possibility of pvp even when you don't give individual consent to a pk to attack you.

 

[Radun]

You haven't explained how you can avoid pvp after a pk attacks you in Fel.

Because that has nothing to do with whether the attack was consensual, and being avoidable doesn't make it consensual.

 

[Draxous]

Agree and Consent are synonyms, but Consent is a specific use of Agree.
You Agree to the rules and risks, but you can only Consent to a specific instance of PvP.

EA's own definitions make that clear.
"A Writers Reference" makes that clear.
"The Gregg Reference Manual" makes that clear.
"On Writing Well" makes that clear.

I could go on but I don't have any other reference books at my disposal.

This poll makes it clear.

Entering Felucca, means you are consenting to PvP happening to you, whether it does or doesn't actually happen.

If you want to talk subjectiveness then the subjectivity of the definition is defined by those who are defined by it... aka the Players of Ultima Online. Therefore in the game of Ultima Online, if you enter Felucca you have consented to possibly being attacked and killed because the majority of the players have defined it this way and that's that.

**points to the results of the poll**


But, this is funny watching the same handful of people tell everyone else that they're wrong because they say so. Well we say so too and the jury's back, you lost by a 2 to 1 margin.

 

[Draxous]

You haven't explained how you can avoid pvp after a pk attacks you in Fel.

Because that has nothing to do with whether the attack was consensual, and being avoidable doesn't make it consensual.

Sure it does.

But, only if you have the choice to avoid it or not to avoid it. How did you convince yourself that you didn't agree to it when you chose to allow it to happen?

That's like you choosing to jump off of a bridge and not agreeing with the ground breaking your face.

But, God!!! I only consented to jumping off the bridge... not breaking my face!!!

 

[Gowron]

Yes it DOES. YOU ENTER FEL YOU EXPECT TO FIGHT IF YOU ENTER FEL WITH NO EXPECTATIONS OF FIGHTING YOUR A F****** MORON

This logic is absolutely ********.

I will yield that by entering felucca, you are accepting a risk, but that doesn't mean you are consenting to a fight.

This is the logic applied to real world.

By getting into a car with your friends, you are accepting the risk that there may be an accident. So, if the car gets hit, and all your friends are killed but you, well, I guess you'll just have to be OK with that, well, because you consented to the car hitting you.

Hmmm, just a bit flawed.....

 

[Gowron]

I find it funny that reds spend alot of time griefing and then spend an almost equal amount of time whining that due to their "redness", they can't explore all the other game content.

Gee, folks, that's the consequences of your choices. I can live with mine. Quit whining about yours!

 

[Draxous]

Yes it DOES. YOU ENTER FEL YOU EXPECT TO FIGHT IF YOU ENTER FEL WITH NO EXPECTATIONS OF FIGHTING YOUR A F****** MORON

This logic is absolutely ********.

I will yield that by entering felucca, you are accepting a risk, but that doesn't mean you are consenting to a fight.

This is the logic applied to real world.

By getting into a car with your friends, you are accepting the risk that there may be an accident. So, if the car gets hit, and all your friends are killed but you, well, I guess you'll just have to be OK with that, well, because you consented to the car hitting you.

Hmmm, just a bit flawed.....

You're logic is flawed because there is never an occasion where you can get into your car and not have the possibility of getting into an accident.

That's why I haven't agreed with that RL example, since it was used days and days ago.

You guys keep picking scenarios that there are no other alternatives... and you can only reduce the risk like robbery, car accidents, so on and so forth... how does that make sense? Of course you never consented to it... you were never given an alternative!!!! If there was no Trammel, then yes you would be 100% correct!!

Since there is Trammel, your completely wrong.

My example of participating in a Clinical Drug Trial is the closest you're going to get to a RL example that fits. If you don't want to take the meds, there are other treatment options for you... if you do choose to take the meds, they might kill you even if you don't want them to.... and guess what, you consented.

k, thanks.

 

[o2bavr6]

Consent and Agreement are not the same thing.
As I said EA has contradicted their own consideration of what constitues consent in 2 places in the documentation (one you point to in a post further down from the one I am replaying to).

Ya its not Grey its Seal Grey Metalic
Its not Black its Black magic Pearl.
Its not Red its Ferrari Red.

you are all talking in circles about the same thing.

Regardless if you don't want to engage in PvP while in Fel it is a distinct possibility that you may have to. And if it happens there is nothing you can do about it other than run, die, kill the aggressor, or not go to Fel at all.

Regardless of the mistakes posted on EA's website.

How is concept difficult to understand.

 

[kelmo]

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

Discuss...

or don't.

*chuckles* I think it will be discussed...

 

[D'Amavir]

I find it funny that reds spend alot of time griefing and then spend an almost equal amount of time whining that due to their "redness", they can't explore all the other game content.

Gee, folks, that's the consequences of your choices. I can live with mine. Quit whining about yours!

I agree. Reds should live with the consequence of their choice to pk and people that get pk'd should live with the consequence of their choice to consent to the open pvp ruleset of Fel. I can live with mine as well. I never get pk'd as a result of mine though.

 

[MadTexan]

EXACTLY! You consent to the rules of the facet and the risks inherent to those rules without having to give individual consent to anyone in order for them to attack you. I have only been saying that for the last two days.

"Not having to give individual consent to anyone in order for them to attack you" is the defenition of "non-consentual" If individual consent had to be given it would be a "consent only" facet. Felucca facet is a "non-consentual" facet by your own post. By entering Felucca you are accepting the risk of "non-consentual" PvP.

 

[D'Amavir]

"Not having to give individual consent to anyone in order for them to attack you" is the defenition of "non-consentual" If individual consent had to be given it would be a "consent only" facet. Felucca facet is a "non-consentual" facet by your own post. By entering Felucca you are accepting the risk of "non-consentual" PvP.

By entering Fel you are consenting to the ruleset of Fel which includes pvp that you don't have to give individual consent to in order for it to happen, yes. I have been saying that for two days as well.

As for Fel being the 'non-consensual' facet, those that use the words from ea on this subject can't seem to accept the fact that even ea says that non consensual pvp can happen in Trammel even though they call Trammel the consent only pvp facet. Fel is the no individual consent required facet to be accurate. You give blanket consent to the ruleset of Fel by entering Fel. You don't have to then give individual consent in order to be pk'd.

 

[MadTexan]

You don't have to then give individual consent in order to be pk'd.

See, I knew you would come around to our way of thinking. You have just stated as clealy as can be that being PKed is "non-consentual and you have done this for a second time. The game mechanics of the facet allow it to happen (and that is just fine) but never the less it is "non-consentual"

 

[Surgeries]

Another example:

http://www.uo.com/cgi-bin/newstools.pl?Article=5870

In a news article about Felucca

1. Establish an area where non-consensual pvp can thrive for a significant number of UO’s players.

So were up to 4 direct quotes stating non-consensual and 2 others where implied.

As long as there remain other reasons to go to Fel, merely entering Fel is acknowledgment of risk and not consent to PvP. If PvP was the only reason to go to Fel, then yes all parties entering would be doing so for the sole purpose of entering into PvP. However as it stands now, there are 2 groups with 1 being there for PvP and the other where it is a by-product of their main purpose/goal.

This, and your previous post, with the examples, are quite well done, I must say. This was put into the guides, AFTER TRammel came out...and the moongates and runes were still Red, then, too. *Smiles*

I will always agree that anyone entering Fel must acknowledge, without caveat or ability to page, that they can be attacked anytime, anywhere, and that is is perfectly legal for another player to attack another, without fear of anything other than a Murder count, should they kill their traget. It is not Illegal for them to kill another player in Fel.

The last quote, about the Champ Spawns pretty much says it all, though...otherwise...it wouldn't have been put in, at all.

Thanks for your persistence, Ash.

 

[Eslake]

But, this is funny watching the same handful of people tell everyone else that they're wrong because they say so. Well we say so too and the jury's back, you lost by a 2 to 1 margin.

Actually...
EA owns UO.
And EA calls being attacked in Felucca without desiring to, Non-Consensual.

<Retaliatory > hehe

But, God!!! I only consented to jumping off the bridge... not breaking my face!!!

Now now.. You like to pick apart analogies, I expect better from you.
"I consented to Standing on the bridge on a windy day, not to falling off of it." is more accurate.

Regardless if you don't want to engage in PvP while in Fel it is a distinct possibility that you may have to. And if it happens there is nothing you can do about it other than run, die, kill the aggressor, or not go to Fel at all.

Regardless of the mistakes posted on EA's website.

How is concept difficult to understand.

Has anyone said anything about not wanting to engage in PvP?
I thought this whole thread was supposed to be about determining what constituted "Consent" as it pertains to being attacked/attacking other characters.
*checks to be sure he is in the right thread*

As to "mistakes." EA uses "Consent" in the way the voters on this thread accept it 2 times that I know of, compared to more than 100 in the opposite sense. I would consider the 2 to be the mistakes.

As for Fel being the 'non-consensual' facet, those that use the words from ea on this subject can't seem to accept the fact that even ea says that non consensual pvp can happen in Trammel even though they call Trammel the consent only pvp facet. Fel is the no individual consent required facet to be accurate.

(Note the labeling of Felucca as Non-Consensual. )

Trammel is Consent-Only because you don't run the risk of being attacked in general. You must place yourself in specific circumstances (factions or guild) to be attacked by another player at all.
It follows the same "Generality" that describes Felucca as a Non-Con facet.
While I can kill anyone I want (and am able to) in most places, if they go stand in the middle of Britain, I cannot. I could try of course, but the guards wouldn't allow me to succeed.


The original topic was..

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

EA has already drawn the line for us.
-with a permenant marker-
They call Felucca the Non-Consensual PvP facet.

So the only reason for us to be here dueling with analogies and definitions is that it is more fun than hunting more paragon balrons or filling another 300 BODs.


As to the poll.
"Do you think my one of a kind event item is very unique?"
and 99% would probably say yes.

That doesn't mean very unique is a correct use of the word, but people will still vote Yes because of the implied meaning.

It is the same here.
"Do you give consent by entering Felucca?"
Most will say yes, because of the implied meaning.
But what you are actually asking is
"Are you accepting that others can attack you by entering Felucca."

But if that was the original question, it would have been a very boring thread. And nobody would have got the nifty warnings as a bonus.

 

[Radun]

You're logic is flawed because there is never an occasion where you can get into your car and not have the possibility of getting into an accident.

Those are the risks you take, nonetheless. You can 'not have the possibility of getting into an accident':bowdown: by not getting into any cars, and completely abstain from taking any risks... just the same as some people do by staying in Trammel.

 

[Draxous]

You're logic is flawed because there is never an occasion where you can get into your car and not have the possibility of getting into an accident.

Those are the risks you take, nonetheless. You can 'not have the possibility of getting into an accident':bowdown: by not getting into any cars, and completely abstain from taking any risks... just the same as some people do by staying in Trammel.

No. That doesn't quite correlate.

The Car in the metaphor is Ultima Online... not getting into it, is not an option. mmm, k?

That's like saying to those who didn't want non-consensual PvP when there was no Trammel, "you don't have to play Ultima Online."

 

[Radun]

The Car in the metaphor is Ultima Online... not getting into it, is not an option. mmm, k?

No, in the example the car is fel... not going into it, is an option.

"I will yield that by entering felucca, you are accepting..."
"By getting into a car with your friends, you are accepting..."

That's like saying to those who didn't want non-consensual PvP when there was no Trammel, "you don't have to play Ultima Online."

kinda like they did, right?

the point is there's a difference between somebody's logic being flawed, and you disagreeing with their point.

 

[Draxous]

No, the car is fel... not getting into it, is an option.
"You don't have to play uo" is what they said until tram.

How is the Car fel?

Is there another car(trammel?) magically out there that I can get into that guarantee's I'm not going to get into an accident (Pked?)

No... you just don't know what you're talking about as your being silly and you obvious can't comprehend the metaphor.

 

[Radun]

Sure it does.

But, only if you have the choice to avoid it or not to avoid it.

omg no, something can be unavoidable and equally non-consensual.