What constitutes 'consent'?

[Draxous]

Hi Pax,

That system was designed before Trammel existed. I'm pretty sure (actually 100% sure) their intentions at the time had nothing to do with taking the current game's situation into account... since it's a completely different type of game now.

 

[Pax]

Hi Pax,

That system was designed before Trammel existed. I'm pretty sure (actually 100% sure) their intentions at the time had nothing to do with taking the current game's situation into account... since it's a completely different type of game now.

Hi.

The murder-count started before, but the validation that murder was still considered a "sin" in UO continued on after Tram. "Evil deeds" didn't stop being evil just because the game has changed. Some things never change, nor should they. It's all about personal choice. Any choice you make usually means you give up the alternative you didn't choose, that should be obvious. It's called "taking responsiblity for your actions."

Reds choose their playstyle *knowing* what comes with that choice, both the good and the bad results. Blues have that same choice, and must live with the consequences, both good and bad, that come with their preferred playstyle as well.

UO mirrors RL in that instance, and it's a good design, because it teaches that for every decision we make there are consequences. Therefore, we must consider the consequences before we make a commitment, and choose carefully.

Be well - Pax
.

 

[Speetz13]

*Pretend a quote to Pax's post is here*

Yes, the plainness of the intention of the designers was kind of my point. In a way. In fact im pretty sure what you were saying was something i said in a different way.

Anyway, I believe that the aspect of Virtue can come into disscussion here, because the upholding of at least most of the system seems to imply that there is still supposed to be some sort of system of good/evil and punishment/privelages. If not im sure they would have gotten rid of the red/blue system when they made Tram.

And when your talking about "todays game", in todays game why would you even be a red? The only reason i could see is to get resources from miners. Anyone that you would just suddenly gank or something that was blue and not in guild wars, factions, or was grey is kind of pointless is it not? Besides the fun to randomly woop people. And honestly i dont think there is anything wrong with that, but in game there should be consequence for messing with someone elses time to play.

I don't play Fel, I haven't played before Tram, BUT I really enjoy theoretical disscussions. And i'm not here to bash on anyone, just to really get to the bottom of this, whoever may be "right."

 

[eve]

Seems very clear to me.

I stay in safe places on Tram and I am safe from pk's.

Anyplace in Fel is non-safe.
Therefore, I am chancing a pk when i go there.

Since i choose to enter a battle zone, in effect, I don't give counts. No one forces me to go there.

 

[Draxous]

Seems very clear to me.

I stay in safe places on Tram and I am safe from pk's.

Anyplace in Fel is non-safe.
Therefore, I am chancing a pk when i go there.

Since i choose to enter a battle zone, in effect, I don't give counts. No one forces me to go there.

 

[Draxous]

Hi.

The murder-count started before, but the validation that murder was still considered a "sin" in UO continued on after Tram. "Evil deeds" didn't stop being evil just because the game has changed. Some things never change, nor should they. It's all about personal choice. Any choice you make usually means you give up the alternative you didn't choose, that should be obvious. It's called "taking responsiblity for your actions."

Reds choose their playstyle *knowing* what comes with that choice, both the good and the bad results. Blues have that same choice, and must live with the consequences, both good and bad, that come with their preferred playstyle as well.

UO mirrors RL in that instance, and it's a good design, because it teaches that for every decision we make there are consequences. Therefore, we must consider the consequences before we make a commitment, and choose carefully.

Be well - Pax
.

Hi Pax,

Talking about this in an adult manner is refreshing!

The only issue that I have with your point of view is that, when they gave the players the option to abstain from PvP entirely by creating Trammel, the design which was based around a Feluccan ruleset should have received altering because its no longer the same system, wouldn't it not?

There are many instances in this games history where the Developers have changed a system and forgotten to update other systems in the process (most recently, on Siege ROT was never updated to reflect powerscrolls and the increase in skill caps... this how many years after they were introduced?)

So to say that everything is functioning as it should be intended... is not entirely credible.

The red/blue and murder system... as well as Ultima Online with no trammel ruleset was designed to flow around the virtues... where they were expressed in a players behavior (total freedom.) This allowed people to pick and choose who they would be through the virtues they expressed in their in-game actions (compassion, honesty, sacrifice, valor, honor, humility, spirituality and justice) were represented in this system, in this way.

Trammel doesn't exactly allow for that, anymore.

It is my contention that the original system, is no longer valid with Trammel. And lets face it... this is a videogame. People who enjoy and play a PvP playstyle, deserve to experience all of the expansions, dungeons, events and content in this videogame that they paid for. - There also seems to be many many more who agree with this assertion.

Excluding people from the content in this videogame for PvPing, in a ruleset people can now choose not to ever go to... is wrong and it's wrong all because the system being put upon them is no longer valid.

Remember, the same thing you are saying could have been said to all of those who were asking to have a place like Trammel created (they didn't have to leave the guardzones) but, thats just not right. People of all playstyles should be allowed to enjoy the content in this videogame.

*tips hat*

 

[Omnicron]

If your in fel, that is the consent. If you dont want to get PKed then stay in trammel, ilsh, malas, or tokono.

 

[Simon Francis]

If your in fel, that is the consent. If you dont want to get PKed then stay in trammel, ilsh, malas, or tokono.

QFT

 

[MadTexan]

Just going somewhere in the game does not mean you consent to anything. You accept the risk that may come with entering that domain, but you do not consent to it. regardless of what many will say, entering a moongate does not imply consent, just acceptance of the possibility of being PKed.

If a miner gets Pked when in Felucca they should accept that without complaint, as they knew the risk, but no one on these boards should be arguing that that person consented to being killed.

A RL analogy would be a service member entering a war zone. He/she volunteered to join the Military (there was still a draft when I entered) and accepted the risk of being harmed in one way or another, but they in no way consented to being harmed i.e. shot.

 

[Harb]

=A RL analogy would be a service member entering a war zone. He/she volunteered to join the Military (there was still a draft when I entered) and accepted the risk of being harmed in one way or another, but they in no way consented to being harmed i.e. shot.

I tired to say that earlier, but didn't do so well. Thanks for your service ole trooper

 

[Stanton Of Pac]

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

Discuss...

or don't.

"Wanna fight?"

"Sure!"

is consent.

"LameNamedPK is Attacking You!"

is not consent.

HTH.

Now, as far as "Going to Felucca means you CONSENT", Last time someone tried to PK my miner in Felucca, I was in the guardzone around Britain. Moron ran up to me a few times trying to get me to attack him, finally gave up and attacked me. I hit my "Guards! Guards!" macro and he took a dirt nap. Then 5 minutes later he tried the same $%^& again with the same result.

At any point in either encounter was there even the slightest confusion about me "consenting" to being attacked? I was MINING IN A GUARD ZONE. If PKs don't care about that then they don't care about "consent" anywhere else.

Or...let's turn this around. A way is found to attack players in Trammel. Does anyone think the PKs would care in the slightest that Trammel players have not "consented" to being PKed, so therefore they will not exploit this loophole until EA/Mythic figures it out and fixes it?

Let's drop the "consent" argument once and for all. PKing has never been about "consent", it's been about the ability to attack someone without risk or with minimal risk. Between 1998 and about 2002 there were two classes of players in UO: those who gimped around with horrible lag and flakey connections and those who didn't. Not surprisingly, very few of us "gimpers" PK'd or were PK advocates: "Red2U is Attacking You!" was followed all too often by "CONNECTION LOST/OK?" and a return to the game in Glorious, Vivid, Black and White. The Lag Monster, not inability, cravenese or fear, made a lot of us confirmed Pacifists if truth be told.

Then a Dev named Pandemonium (may his name be Blessed!) was, as he put it, "messing around in the networking software" one day and found an incorrect buffer setting. He reset it, not thinking much about it, and went on his way. The next time my gimper logged in the lag was gone: the game played smoothly and my connection became rock-solid. It was so much better I dmned near offered him my sister. Ironically the fix was just the opposite for many "PvP Gods": they swarmed to the forums to complain they'd started lagging out and crashing. The whining for a couple of weeks was just incredibly pathetic. Pandi spent the next 2-3 months coding a fix for both sides of the coin; the Lag Monster has never since been what he was before that fall.

During that tweaking period PKing was very light. If you thought it wasn'f fun as a miner to lag out during a FS/EXP/Hally combo it was much worse as a PK with 200+ counts and stat loss staring you in the face when you rezzed. Afterwards it seemed to me that there was more cheating and gangbanging because more of the sheeple were surviving long enough to get away or even fight back. Then Trammel was added and the problem was fixed. Sort of.

It's never been about "consent". If you went around beating up people in RL no one would accept a defense of, "Well, he CONSENTED to me attacking him because he walked down my street!" In-game you CONSENT to PvP when you join a war guild, or perhaps enter the Jhelom Fighting Pit. There may be situations and places where the only conceivable reason to be there is to fight somebody else. Arguing "implied consent!" anywhere else is feeble, lame, and self-serving. What you're really saying is, "Because I CAN GET AWAY WITH IT! means he consented to fighting me!"

 

[Radun]

"Wanna fight?"

"Sure!"

is consent.

"LameNamedPK is Attacking You!"

is not consent.

HTH.

totally.

 

[Rainbow Stu]

"Wanna fight?"

"Sure!"

is consent.

"LameNamedPK is Attacking You!"

is not consent.

HTH.

Don't want to see "pimpnamedpk is attacking you" don't go to fel simple.
Two different rules sets you go in to one anything goes you go the other you just have to listen to them run their mouth.

 

[Thashinel]

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

No = Yes

It's Fel!

 

[Ash]

I know that is in responce to someone else's post, but...
No.
If Entering Felucca is Consent, than Non-PvPers do not have access to Felucca, because by going there they stop being non-PvPers.

By saying Non-PvPers have access to Felucca, you are saying Reds have access to Trammel. Because they can time off their counts and go there.

It is the same.
Non-PvPers can chose to enter fel and stop being Non-PvPers.
Reds can stop being red and enter tram.

The only difference is that reds have to wait longer.

QFT

 

[Omnius]

Believe it or not, every action you make in UO is a form of pvp. By bringing gold into the game you're devalueing everyone elses money. By farming those artifacts you're increasing the supply of an item with a not so growing demand thus harming those who have those artifacts advantages in game.

You never were a non-pvper. You were just a trammelite denying your impact on a virtual world.

 

[Omnius]

on my newest red, I would have to play non stop in game on this character for something like 200 days. On my oldest red, it would require I play non stop in game for a few years....

Wait longer? How about never.

 

[xStrikerx]

I know that is in responce to someone else's post, but...
No.
If Entering Felucca is Consent, than Non-PvPers do not have access to Felucca, because by going there they stop being non-PvPers.

By saying Non-PvPers have access to Felucca, you are saying Reds have access to Trammel. Because they can time off their counts and go there.

It is the same.
Non-PvPers can chose to enter fel and stop being Non-PvPers.
Reds can stop being red and enter tram.

The only difference is that reds have to wait longer.

Entering Felucca and consenting to PvP does not make someone a PvPer at all. Non-PvPers can and do go to Felucca already for many reasons (I'm one of them). I dont spend as much time there since spawn times have been "fixed". It still doesnt change the fact that by going to Felucca you are consenting to any PvP that may happen and involve you, whether you like it or not.

To others making RL examples just stop. RL examples cannot apply. There is no where in RL where you are immune to these actions (ie Trammel).

 

[Eslake]

To others making RL examples just stop. RL examples cannot apply. There is no where in RL where you are immune to these actions (ie Trammel).

Actually RL examples apply perfectly if you are actually on the original topic of the thread.
It was essentially -What is the Definition of "Consent?-

Comparing what can happen in the game to RL is flawed, yes.
But in determining what "Consent" means, RL / Game doesn't matter. Since it is not being used as slang, the definition is a constant.

 

[Omnius]

it is consent as it pertains to uo and pvp.... don't try and re-frame the discussion when all can clearly see what the topic is about already.

 

[xStrikerx]

Actually RL examples apply perfectly if you are actually on the original topic of the thread.
It was essentially -What is the Definition of "Consent?-

Comparing what can happen in the game to RL is flawed, yes.
But in determining what "Consent" means, RL / Game doesn't matter. Since it is not being used as slang, the definition is a constant.

From the original post:

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

The topic of this thread is more specific than a simple definition. And the definition has been posted but doesnt solve anything and no one is debating that. The argument lies with if/where/when the consent occurs.

 

[D'Amavir]

I know that is in responce to someone else's post, but...
No.
If Entering Felucca is Consent, than Non-PvPers do not have access to Felucca, because by going there they stop being non-PvPers.

By saying Non-PvPers have access to Felucca, you are saying Reds have access to Trammel. Because they can time off their counts and go there.

It is the same.
Non-PvPers can chose to enter fel and stop being Non-PvPers.
Reds can stop being red and enter tram.

The only difference is that reds have to wait longer.

Actually, non pvp'ers can go to Fel and still remain non pvp'ers. Just stay in guard zones. Reds can't go to Trammel at all. So your argument is a wee bit flawed.

I agree with others in saying that entering nonguard zones in Fel is, in effect, consenting to the possibility of pvp. I also agree with others that cutting off a large portion of the game from players that choose a not only accepted but encouraged aspect of this game (pvp) is wrong. Nothing would be damaged if Reds were allowed to travel to other facets, as long as no counts were burned off while there.

To clarify, I started playing this game in early 98. Long long before Trammel and during a time where pk'ing was running rampant. I had a few reds myself. These days, however, I don't pvp much (the game is too item based and not skill based enough for me to enjoy that aspect) and would be what could only be described as a Trammie. I never go to Fel these days and obviously have no reds.

 

[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.

 

[Pax]

*Pretend a quote to Pax's post is here*

Yes, the plainness of the intention of the designers was kind of my point. In a way. In fact im pretty sure what you were saying was something i said in a different way.

Anyway, I believe that the aspect of Virtue can come into disscussion here, because the upholding of at least most of the system seems to imply that there is still supposed to be some sort of system of good/evil and punishment/privelages. If not im sure they would have gotten rid of the red/blue system when they made Tram.

Personally, I believe the Virtues system is set up wrong, it should be an automatic function like skill gain... (but then, I've never really used it, so maybe I'm wrong). I do know that other games that employ such concepts (like Oblivion and, especially, Fable) assume moral choices are represented and controlled by a player's in-game actions (whether the player wants them to count or not), and anything to do with the Virtues is just that: a moral choice.

And when your talking about "todays game", in todays game why would you even be a red? The only reason i could see is to get resources from miners. Anyone that you would just suddenly gank or something that was blue and not in guild wars, factions, or was grey is kind of pointless is it not? Besides the fun to randomly woop people. And honestly i dont think there is anything wrong with that, but in game there should be consequence for messing with someone elses time to play.

I don't play Fel, I haven't played before Tram, BUT I really enjoy theoretical disscussions. And i'm not here to bash on anyone, just to really get to the bottom of this, whoever may be "right."

Reds are "red" as much to function as an Early Warning System as anything else. When a player sees a red name pop on the screen, they know the player wearing that red name has attacked and killed Blue ("innocent") players in the past, and could very well attack and try to kill them. The function of a red-colored name to notify players of incoming danger is used in every facet.

A Blue is still a Blue when he's in Fel, unless he chooses to abandon his former non-aggressive status and attack another Blue. The attacker is the one who receives the count, not the defender. Reds *earn* their color by attacking and killing *Blues*, not by killing other Reds. It may not be of any concern to you to know if the guy off-screen whose name just popped attacks and kills Blues or not, but it certainly matters to me.

Be well - Pax
.

 

[Simon Francis]

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.

 

[Mordocuo]

No it's not. Felucca is the old game or what's left of it on the non-Siege ruleset shards. Felucca is not the "I am a PvPer" switch. Felucca is about a game where players can choose to play in a virtual world. A world where crime is possible along with heroics.

That does not mean that Felucca = sanctioned crime. There are still consequences for your negative actions. I am sick and tired of PvPers ruining that virtual world for the sake of PvP. There are plenty of PvP options in the game that don't include ruining Felucca. Join a guild, and go to war with another guild. That way you can go to every facet and PvP anywhere you want any time you want and you'll always find someone to fight against who is also a PvPer.

If you want to play as a murderer or thief in Felucca, you have to be ready to face the consequences of that decision.

Thats not what PvP'rs want. They want victims, they want to be able to bully, they want to be able to outnumber and kill.

If it was truly about the pvp they would do exactly as you say, WAR vs EVERYONE. Yet they don't do that. Because they could be attacked at any time like thier victims are. They want the control of when and where they will fight. I laugh everytime a PvP enthusiast posts yet they are never warred with anyone. Look at guild listings and see how few are warred with anyone. It shows them for the cowards they really are.

 

[Omnius]

People place all their characters in their guilds. their weakest mules may never see the light of day to their enemies but they ultimately would or they would have to abandon their guild if they warred. Warring guild system is just a prefabricated system which has endless loopholes. The only pvp system with no loopholes is the one that was instituted by the players in response to the failure of developers to provide a unified pvp system.

 

[Yalp]

The argument that walking through a fel moongate is the ONLY action a player has to take to consent to pvp ignores a couple of glaring issues..

1) Guard zones in FEL
2) Ability to make houses private in FEL.

clearly.. these 2 issues immediately eliminate any possible argument that it's a simple act of walking through a fel moongate as the sources of consent. therefore.. it is cannot be just the mere act of walking through a red moongate. It must be something more.

 

[Pax]

Hi Pax,

Talking about this in an adult manner is refreshing!

Hi. I agree. There's a lot of talk today about how video games improve motor and cognitive abilities. Lately game designers are exploring the *moral* side as well (Fable, and, to a startling and disturbing degree, BioShock). It's my belief UO has been doing that for a long time.

The only issue that I have with your point of view is that, when they gave the players the option to abstain from PvP entirely by creating Trammel, the design which was based around a Feluccan ruleset should have received altering because its no longer the same system, wouldn't it not?

You seem to misunderstand, the Feluccan ruleset (the old pre-Tram ruleset) wasn't changed, it was isolated. It had changes made to certain aspects of it as the game progressed, to reflect changes made to the game as a whole as new expasions added content, but essentially it has remained the same.

Yes, the playstyle has changed over the years, but that's not due to a change in the core rules governing playstyle in Fel, it has to do with game philosophy changing from primarily skill-based to more item-dependent... and that's true game-wide.

There's another important difference: Pre-Tram many players became Reds as much in self-defense as for any other reason, there was safety in numbers. When there was nowhere to get away from nonconsensual PvP, your gameplay options were severely limited. For instance, because I couldn't PvP, I never saw the inside of a dungeon pre-Tram, they were all overrun with PKs. PKs were *everywhere*, and they made life miserable, which actually caused *more* players to become PKs... (the old "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy).

However, when Tram was created, offering somewhere to escape from the PK-dominated Hell the game had become, the type of players who stayed in Fel were mainly die-hard PvPers, whose goals were different from those of the run-on-the-mill old-style Griefer PKs. Those who choose Fel now are, for the most part, *true* PvPers. Where the majority of the old-style PKs could best be compared with muggers and ghetto gang-bangers, the new-style PKs more closely mirror Chess or Football players.

There are many instances in this games history where the Developers have changed a system and forgotten to update other systems in the process (most recently, on Siege ROT was never updated to reflect powerscrolls and the increase in skill caps... this how many years after they were introduced?)

So to say that everything is functioning as it should be intended... is not entirely credible.

Who has *ever* said that?! LOL

The red/blue and murder system... as well as Ultima Online with no trammel ruleset was designed to flow around the virtues... where they were expressed in a players behavior (total freedom.) This allowed people to pick and choose who they would be through the virtues they expressed in their in-game actions (compassion, honesty, sacrifice, valor, honor, humility, spirituality and justice) were represented in this system, in this way.

Trammel doesn't exactly allow for that, anymore.

No, the Virtues didn't play a part pre-Tram, the actual Virtue System wasn't introduced until AoS... I think, not sure there. I quit a few weeks before Tram came in... (all the way up to the launch of Tram, the Origin reps were insisting on these boards Tram was just going to be areas for more housing, but under the same nonconsensual PvP ruleset I'd grown to hate). I didn't start playing again until the launch of AoS, so I missed about two years in between.

It is my contention that the original system, is no longer valid with Trammel. And lets face it... this is a videogame. People who enjoy and play a PvP playstyle, deserve to experience all of the expansions, dungeons, events and content in this videogame that they paid for. - There also seems to be many many more who agree with this assertion.

Excluding people from the content in this videogame for PvPing, in a ruleset people can now choose not to ever go to... is wrong and it's wrong all because the system being put upon them is no longer valid.

Being a PvPer isn't what prevents access to the Tram ruleset areas of the game, choosing to become a Red is what prevents that. Reds *become* red by attacking and *killing* Blues. There are PvPers who aren't Red.

Remember, the same thing you are saying could have been said to all of those who were asking to have a place like Trammel created (they didn't have to leave the guardzones) but, thats just not right. People of all playstyles should be allowed to enjoy the content in this videogame.

*tips hat*

I don't remember anyone asking for a place like Trammel to be created. Some were asking for separate servers with a PvP Switch option. Trammel was the twisted brainchild of the Garriots and/or the dev-team they had at the time.

If Fel PvPers want to enjoy all the aspects of the game, they should refrain from attacking and killing Blues. But I know from some of my Red friends how hard that can be. Many have counts from killing Notos, Blues who manipulate the rules in such a way as to grief other players, causing the other player to attack them first. Still, we always have a choice, and self-control carries rewards.

Be well - Pax
.

 

[Shelleybean]

I think the problem here is that there's a difference between consenting to something and liking something. If you're in Felucca, you're consenting to pvp. By issuing a murder count, you're indicating that you did not like being murdered. For that it's worth, I think miner killers are the ultimate lamers.

 

[D'Amavir]

The argument that walking through a fel moongate is the ONLY action a player has to take to consent to pvp ignores a couple of glaring issues..

1) Guard zones in FEL
2) Ability to make houses private in FEL.

clearly.. these 2 issues immediately eliminate any possible argument that it's a simple act of walking through a fel moongate as the sources of consent. therefore.. it is cannot be just the mere act of walking through a red moongate. It must be something more.

it is something more. Its going to the non guard zones located in the open pvp facet that implies consent to pvp. You can't get pk'd in the guard zones these days, can you? Going to Fel and leaving the guard zones means you are accepting the possibility that you will be pk'd. I haven't been pk'd since Trammel came out. Its pretty easy to avoid really.Not sure why all the hate is still there.

 

[Draxous]

The argument that walking through a fel moongate is the ONLY action a player has to take to consent to pvp ignores a couple of glaring issues..

1) Guard zones in FEL
2) Ability to make houses private in FEL.

clearly.. these 2 issues immediately eliminate any possible argument that it's a simple act of walking through a fel moongate as the sources of consent. therefore.. it is cannot be just the mere act of walking through a red moongate. It must be something more.

it is something more. Its going to the non guard zones located in the open pvp facet that implies concent to pvp. You can't get pk'd in the guard zones these days, can you? Going to Fel and leaving the guard zones means you are accepting the possibility that you will be pk'd. I haven't been pk'd since Trammel came out. Its pretty easy to avoid really.Not sure why all the hate is still there.

Sure you can PK someone in both.

1. Guardzones - We call them "bombers" where PKs kill someone in guardzone... of course the PKs die too... but it is not a 100% safe place.

2. Private Houses - Natures Fury is a wonderful spell.

=)

Felucca... is not a safe place at all, going there is accepting the possibility that you will be pk'd

 

[Yalp]

it is something more. Its going to the non guard zones located in the open pvp facet that implies concent to pvp. You can't get pk'd in the guard zones these days, can you? Going to Fel and leaving the guard zones means you are accepting the possibility that you will be pk'd. I haven't been pk'd since Trammel came out. Its pretty easy to avoid really.Not sure why all the hate is still there.

see it .. there's the rub.. there are 2 things required to consent to pvp....

going to fel AND not being in a guard zone (we can interchange private house easily).

its not hate.. although some peeps seem quick to jump the "you hate reds" when ever someone posts an alternate view.

 

[Radun]

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.

Or if he simply asked first, and only attacked if you agreed to fight.

 

[Yalp]

Or if he simply asked first, and only attacked if you agreed to fight.

not only don't we on these boards (which is by no means 100% of the player base), not agree on the definition of consent as it relates to fel... I bet we'd have alot to say about pvp vs. pk'ing

 

[D'Amavir]

see it .. there's the rub.. there are 2 things required to consent to pvp....

going to fel AND not being in a guard zone (we can interchange private house easily).

its not hate.. although some peeps seem quick to jump the "you hate reds" when ever someone posts an alternate view.

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

 

[Yalp]

Exactly. Going to Fel and leaving the guardzone, to me, implies consent because you are making a conscious choice to do those things when you don't have to.

agree with ya there.

 

[Wenchkin]

I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on this concept of consent. We have safe lands and lands where "anything goes". It's not about consenting to this or that. When you see a dark alley in RL, you don't think "entering this gives consent to a mugger" but you do think "this is a really risky place to be if I can't look after myself". It's no different in Fel. How you behave and where you go dictates how safe you are from PKs, thieves and other criminals. I don't see why it needs to be made any more complicated than that. Stop being hung up on consent, pick the areas that suit what you want to do, and your capabilities and have fun playing.

Wenchy

 

[Yalp]

what about when you have to go to fel to complete a quest?

 

[D'Amavir]

what about when you have to go to fel to complete a quest?

Thats yet another way that shows that the devs want people in Fel and that they want pk's to exist. Otherwise, there would be no reason at all for a trammie to be forced to go to Fel. And by Trammie, I mean people like me. Its not an insult if you embrace it. heh

 

[Yalp]

Guard zones are tools to allow players some measure of safety in an otherwise dangerous land. Try banking in Fel if there weren't guard zones and you would understand.

As for houses and such, those are more tools that allow players a little bit of safety in the open pvp facet. Wouldn't make much sense to take those away just because Fel is the designated open pvp facet.

I never get pk'd, ever. I accomplish this mighty feat not through my superior pvp skill. I do it by not clicking on the 'felucca' option on moongates or walking through red gates or recalling on green runestones. Its a pretty easy way to be sure that I don't have to deal with pk's. One that has worked for me since the early days of Trammel.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that guardzones should be removed just because they happen to be located on the open pvp facet or that houses should no longer be able to be made private. Anyone making that suggestion doesn't have my support for sure.

That said, I still think its pretty clear that you are consenting to pvp when you choose to go the open pvp facet. Unless you remove the fel ruleset altogether, I don't see that changing. But, its quite possible.

I'm not seriously offering that guard zone, private houses, and non-pvp related goals be removed from fel. I'm just saying there are more reasons to go to fel than just pvp.

If you consent to pvp when you walk through a moongate, is it withdrawing your consent to pvp when you are in a guard zone/private house?

it is a classic "if.. then" philosophical debate that bears to the heart of what is consent.

 

[Eslake]

Since you're all for consent, and RL examples. When you have a disease and your doctor proposes an experimental clinical trial... you have to sign a consent form. What you are consenting to is what could "possibly" happen to you. If you take the meds and die... guess what, you consented!!! Even if you didn't want to die... all you need to be made aware of, is that you could possibly die from taking them.

Your example, not mine.
You do not Consent to die. That would mean that you Know death Will occur.
You only Consent to the treatment, you Acknowledge that death could be a result.

This whole debate is ludicrous... the same small number of people have this strange notion of consent that involves having complete and total control over anything that happens to you... not true.

Not "anything that happens to you" but Knowing something Will happen.

That is why these arguments are so rediculous.
Your local high school english teacher could explain better than I can why you require a certainty for Consent to apply.

won't even touch your RL example as you have no class, to bring something like that up in a discussion about a videogame.

I used it as an example to make it clear how rediculous it sounds to say that acceping something is a posability through a course of action is Consenting to it.

The fact that the responces to it were so angry only proves my point. You know it is a rediculous statment, but you apply the exact same logic to the game use of the same term.


I don't care about PvP vs Not of Fel vs Tram.

I am disputing the misuse of the word Consent.

It is not an acknowledgment of a posability, it is the acceptance of a certainty by choice.

Consent of any form where 2 parties involved is a Mutual condition. It is equivalent to the boollean AND. If both parties are not in agreement on action or inaction it is not Consent but a Request.


I apologize if I sound angry, I'm not.
I'm actually laughing right now because people are taking what I'm saying as some kind of flame against PvPers.
I just don't like the way so many words in the English language are twisted to fit situations where they simply do not apply.

I know English is far from perfect, and at times there simply is not a word to fit an idea. But with over 180,000 words to chose from, why use the wrong word for a concept to try to get a point across?

Consent is the acceptance of a certainty as a matter of choice.
Because going to felucca does not include the Certainty of PvP, going there in and of itself is not Consenting to PvP. It is only an acknowledgement of the posability.

 

[D'Amavir]

I'm not seriously offering that guard zone, private houses, and non-pvp related goals be removed from fel. I'm just saying there are more reasons to go to fel than just pvp.

If you consent to pvp when you walk through a moongate, is it withdrawing your consent to pvp when you are in a guard zone/private house?

it is a classic "if.. then" philosophical debate that bears to the heart of what is consent.

Yes, you consent to pvp anytime you are in Fel. Don't want pvp, don't go to fel and don't engage in guild wars in Trammel. You may take steps to better protect yourself from pvp (traveling in a group, sticking to guardzones, being in a private house, etc...). But you have to accept that anytime you are in Fel you run the risk of getting attacked.

 

[D'Amavir]

I am disputing the misuse of the word Consent.

It is not an acknowledgment of a posability, it is the acceptance of a certainty by choice.

You are consenting to the possibility that you may be attacked by someone anytime you enter Fel. Thats pretty clear.Do you dispute that?

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

Consent of any form where 2 parties involved is a Mutual condition. It is equivalent to the boollean AND. If both parties are not in agreement on action or inaction it is not Consent but a Request.

You are in agreement that pvp can and most likely will happen anytime you enter fel. That's consenting to the possibility of pvp.

I apologize if I sound angry, I'm not.
I'm actually laughing right now because people are taking what I'm saying as some kind of flame against PvPers.
I just don't like the way so many words in the English language are twisted to fit situations where they simply do not apply.

I know English is far from perfect, and at times there simply is not a word to fit an idea. But with over 180,000 words to chose from, why use the wrong word for a concept to try to get a point across?

Consent is the acceptance of a certainty as a matter of choice.
Because going to felucca does not include the Certainty of PvP, going there in and of itself is not Consenting to PvP. It is only an acknowledgement of the posability.

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

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

Thats consent. You accept and approve that someone may attack you when you enter Fel. Thats consent. If you didn't approve, you shouldn't go to Fel. If you didn't accept, you shouldn't go the Fel.

You may try to use the 'you consent to the possibility of pvp' line to justify what you are saying, but it all boils down to the same thing. You consent to the possibility of pvp. It might happen, it might not. But you are accepting that RISK when you go there.

 

[Yalp]

Yes, you consent to pvp anytime you are in Fel. Don't want pvp, don't go to fel and don't engage in guild wars in Trammel. You may take steps to better protect yourself from pvp (traveling in a group, sticking to guardzones, being in a private house, etc...). But you have to accept that anytime you are in Fel you run the risk of getting attacked.

If I am protecting myself from something, am I not removing my consent to experience the thing? Ie.. I get a flu shot to prevent getting the flu.. and I work in a hospital where patients with the flu are everywhere. Am I acknowledging that I may indeed come down with the flu? Am I consenting to getting the flu because I work in a hospital?

I can not consent to being attacked when I am in a guard zone.. the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[D'Amavir]

If I am protecting myself from something, am I not removing my consent to experience the thing? Ie.. I get a flu shot to prevent getting the flu.. and I work in a hospital where patients with the flu are everywhere. Am I acknowledging that I may indeed come down with the flu? Am I consenting to getting the flu because I work in a hospital?

Again, I won't resort to using real world examples to justify things in a game. Protecting yourself is just that, protecting yourself. How you do that can be different for each person. Traveling in a group in Fel cuts down the risk of being pk'd. That's protection. But its still possible that you will be pk'd. That's consent.

I can not consent to being attacked when I am in a guard zone.. the two are mutually exclusive.

Actually, if you know that you can be attacked in Fel quard zones and you still choose to go to Fel guard zones, you are consenting to that possibility. Whether it be through a bug or working as intended, you still consent to that possibility.

Besides, in this age of insurance, whats the big deal with being pk'd? You don't lose anything, you don't suffer stat loss. Its really a non factor these days. But there are some that still can't get over their hatred of getting killed in a game and they hold onto that hatred to the detriment of any useful discussions that could take place.

 

[Yalp]

Again, I won't resort to using real world examples to justify things in a game. Protecting yourself is just that, protecting yourself. How you do that can be different for each person. Traveling in a group in Fel cuts down the risk of being pk'd. That's protection. But its still possible that you will be pk'd. That's consent.



Actually, if you know that you can be attacked in Fel quard zones and you still choose to go to Fel guard zones, you are consenting to that possibility. Whether it be through a bug or working as intended, you still consent to that possibility.

Besides, in this age of insurance, whats the big deal with being pk'd? You don't lose anything, you don't suffer stat loss. Its really a non factor these days. But there are some that still can't get over their hatred of getting killed in a game and they hold onto that hatred to the detriment of any useful discussions that could take place.

I know you hate the "game mechanics" thing.. But the devs did put in a pvp free zone in fel with the guard zone/private housing... maybe its THEIR definition of consent that we need to be getting?

 

[D'Amavir]

I know you hate the "game mechanics" thing.. But the devs did put in a pvp free zone in fel with the guard zone/private housing... maybe its THEIR definition of consent that we need to be getting?

Oh, I agree completely. I think that guard zones should be 100% safe in Fel and Trammel. With the exception of guild wars and such of course. I don't dispute that. My point was that if it is currently allowed, then you are consenting to that possibility when you go to a guardzone in Fel.

I am not against the game mechanics thing really. Just when it is used as a crutch to the detriment of a possible discussion that revolves around actually changing a game mechanic. To disagree and offer up reasons why is one thing. To just say over and over that thats the way it is serves no purpose and is just annoying and immature. And no, I didn't say you did those things. But you surely have seen others using that crutch in these most recent threads.

 

[Eslake]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[D'Amavir]

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

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

A plan is not the same thing as a certainty. You consent to the possibility of pvp. You can pick and choose whatever definition of the word you want to support your claims. But consent is still consent. You consent to a possibility. Just because it may or may not end up having, doesn't mean that you didn't consent to that possibility.

If I consent to get married to my fiancee, and she stands me up at the altar, does that mean that I really didn't consent to it to begin with just because the plan didn't come to fruition? Nope. You can post as often as you want that people don't know what a word means, but when the definition is placed in front of you and you still don't get it, nothing more can be done for you.

Again, here is a definition of consent

"permission to do something; "he indicated his consent" "

Now, if that person ended up not doing something, does that mean that the person that initially consenting to it (i.e. gave permission to do something) didn't actually consent to it? I don't believe so. And I haven't seen any defintion of the word that would contradict the fact that consent means what it means.

In UO terms, as stated several times here, you consent to the possibility of pvp. Call it giving permission to people to attack you if you like. If they choose not to attack you, that doesn't take that consent away. It just means that they didn't follow through on what they could have done.

The same goes for other means of consent in this game. If you choose to fight a monster you give consent that you might die from it. Does that mean its a sure thing that you will? Nope. But consent isn't about something being a sure thing. Its about giving permission or approval of something that may or may not happen.

Sounds pretty clear to me. I am sure you have been out of school a long time like you said. But that really doesn't explain why you keep harping on your mistaken understanding of the word consent.

Here is yet another definition

"To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree"

Nothing in there says that the proposal must be followed through on for it to be considered consent.