R
Radun
Guest
Trammel would be abstaining from using any cars, guaranteeing you're not going to get into an accident. You don't get the reward without taking the appropriate risks involved.
-
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 constitutes 'consent'?
- Thread starter Radun
- Start date
- Watchers 4
- Status
S
Simon Francis
Guest
God I hate UOhallers. When you enter fel, you agree to its ruleset. You agree to be able to attack anyone freely, and vice versa.
No matter how many ways anyone tries to argue around it, the fact is that you have consented to the rules of fel.
Screw you guys, I'm going home.
No matter how many ways anyone tries to argue around it, the fact is that you have consented to the rules of fel.
Screw you guys, I'm going home.
A
Ashyn
Guest
Eeeshhh....
The minute you step foot in Fel, your consenting to getting your butt womped (or doing some womping).
If you knew the neighborhood across the tracks had a 90% theft rate, you wouldn't go park your uber car w/uber stereo in it, would you?
The minute you step foot in Fel, your consenting to getting your butt womped (or doing some womping).
If you knew the neighborhood across the tracks had a 90% theft rate, you wouldn't go park your uber car w/uber stereo in it, would you?
This is funny, you've been arguing against this the whole time and now you you say what we have been saying all along..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.
(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.
And 5 red could all flamestrike you at the bank in brit to kill you before they got guard killed.
What about the pedestrian who gets hit by a car while crossing the streetThose 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.
E
Eslake
Guest
? I think you need to re-read it.This is funny, you've been arguing against this the whole time and now you you say what we have been saying all along..
And 5 red could all flamestrike you at the bank in brit to kill you before they got guard killed.
Felucca is the NON-Consensual facet.
That means you are subject to being attacked there NON-Consensually.
Ergo you cannot be Consenting just by going there.
That has been my position since the beginning. You AGREE that others can attack you by entering Felucca, but it is not the same thing as Consenting for it to happen.
The Idea is accurate, but the usage is not. And the OP specifically asked what we thought about "Consent."
"5 red could all flamestrike you..."
And you can join a guild in Trammel and be attacked by someone you didn't expect to.
As I said, it was the General nature of the facet they describe, not an all-inclusive absolute.
You can PvP in Tram, you can avoid PvP in Fel. But that doesn't mean Tram is the PvP facet and fell is not.
They are Generally the reverse.
C
Connor_Graham
Guest
Hehe, yep, it'll be discussed.
And debated.
And then pondered.
Then chewed on for a bit.
Then kicked around.
Then allowed to sink in.
Then beat around.
Then batted around.
Then gnawed on.
Then tossed around.
Then, finallly....Finally.......
The vicious cycle will start all over again.
You specifically responded to a question that was directed at people who say that "simply entering Fel means you consent to PvP"... sorry for not going back and checking to make sure you weren't contradicting yourself by reading your earlier posts.
Oh look... now you're implying that you don't believe there's such a thing as non-consensual PvP again.
If you consent to being attacked, then everything is consensual PvP.
You do not consent to being attacked. You consent to the risk of being attacked.
Consenting to the risk of PvP is not consenting to PvP.
Consenting to the risk of being attacked is not consenting to being attacked.
Consenting to the risk of being stolen from is not consenting to be stolen from.
If you take a known risk and get burned, it's your fault... but you aren't consenting to get burned just because you take a risk.
D
D'Amavir
Guest
I have said that for the last two days, you should have read my posts. I said that you give blanket consent to be attacked when you are in Fel by consenting to the Fel ruleset of open pvp. Therefore, you don' have to give consent to every individual that chooses to attack you. Like when you consent to surgery, you don't then give individual consent to every cut or stitch they make on you, because you have already given blanket consent.
That seems pretty clear to me.
D
D'Amavir
Guest
EA also says that you can be attacked non consensually in Trammel via the guildwar system. They also say that Trammel is the Consent Only pvp facet. So, of course, everything EA says is accurate and not contradictory huh? As for the owned stuff, I will leave that childishness to you. It has no place in a mature discussion.Actually...
EA owns UO.
And EA calls being attacked in Felucca without desiring to, Non-Consensual.
<Retaliatory> hehe
Actually, consent to open pvp and then saying you haven't consent to being attack without specifically telling each person that they can attack.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.
Not wanting to is one thing, I don't want to be attacked by pk's. UO offers me that option by giving me several facets where pk's can't attack me. However, if I consent to the ruleset of the facet that does allow pk's to attack me, I can't really complain about it when they do, can I?
And you place yourself in specific circumstances by going to Fel. How is it different?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.
(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.
Actually, with a little effort, you can be pk'd in Britain. Does that invalidate your view since its not correct in its accuracy?
And they call Trammel the consent only pvp facet. And they say you can be killed without your consent during trammel guild wars. As for a permanent marker, they used one of those when they first created the game too. They said that pk'ing would be allowed everywhere because they envisioned that player justice would deal with it. That permanent marker changed when they created Trammel didn't it? And they used permanent marker when they said that Reds would suffer statloss. Do Reds still suffer statloss or has that permanent marker changed as well?
The results of the poll are of no factor because the context of the use of the word consent DOES in fact fit with what you are doing when you consent to the ruleset of Fel. Your comparison of apple and fruit or very and unique or rock and boulder don't fit because of the context. By definition, the use of the word consent to and the word agree to are both synonyms of each other. Used in a different context they may not be. But, unlike you, I try to stick with the topic at hand instead of talking about things that aren't part of that.
Again, by definition, you are incorrect. You are accepting to the ruleset. And you are consenting to the ruleset. I won't bother posting the definitions again since you don't seem to understand them anyway. But, they are available for you to read elsewhere. Sure, there may be cases where consent and agree aren't synoyms and can't be used as each other. But in this specific context and this specific definition, they are.
I didn't get a warning. Maybe because I don't insult people by saying I owned them when I post something that goes against their opinions. Everyone is allowed their opinions. My opinion is that I don't care for reds. I don't want to give them consent to attack me and I don't. I withhold this consent and it works for me 100% of the time because I don't consent to the ruleset of the facet that allows them to do so. If you do consent to those rules, you can't be 100% sure that someone won't attack you even if you want them to or not.But if that was the original question, it would have been a very boring thread.
D
D'Amavir
Guest
If a player uses a bug to attack you in Trammel even though you are not in a guild or a guild war, then that is non consensual because you didn't do the things that would have shown your consent to allow that. No implication there, just a straight up statement.
Consenting to the open pvp ruleset is consenting to being attacked when you don't specifically give a person the ok to attack you. I don't consent to the open pvp ruleset, therefore I can't be attacked by anyone unless I give them the ok.
Giving blanket consent to open pvp is consenting to the fact that you might be attacked. Its been said several times that you don't need to give individual consent in Trammel OR Fel because you have already given blanket consent (by being in a guildwar in Trammel or by being in Fel)
Using the flawed logic of a lot of people on this thread, if that was the caes then how come you can't report the person that stole from you as a thief? People here claim that because you are allowed to give someone a murder count it means that they attacked you without consent. So, following that logic, why can't you give someone a thief count when someone steals from you 'non consensually'?
I agree with the first part. But the second is not accurate as usual. You do consent to the ruleset which means that you are consenting the rule that someone can attack you at anytime in Fel. If I consent to get surgery and then get surgery, I didn't consent to that. I only consented to the risk of getting surgery? Silly to me but if you guys think that makes sense, nothing will change your mind. But that won't stop me from pointing out that you are wrong whenever you say it. Its your right to have an opinion, even if it goes against the definitions of the english language. And its my right to have an opinion as well, even if I do follow the definitions of the english language.
If EA created their own words to define the blanket consent you give to the ruleset of Fel by entering (bobblemcdugal) and the individual consent you give or don't give to an individual in Fel to attack you (bobbledepop maybe?), this thread wouldn't have lasted. But, because they chose to use the same word for both and then went further by contradicting themselves in regards to these words and the rulesets they created, this thread will live until it dies with people from both sides trying to prove their point.
A
Ash
Guest
consensual non-consensual PvP, just boggles the mind.
The idea is the very definition of a paradox (a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth).
You insist on tossing out every piece of EA support and guides because they don't go along with what you think they should say. You are the one inserting and inferring blanket consent when it is not stated anywhere. All EA offers is the warning along with the phrase non-consensual repeatedly.
Is PvP going to happen every single time you enter Fel, no. So by entering Fel you are not consenting to PvP. You are accepting the possibility of PvP and acknowledging if the situation comes up you have no choice if attacked.
Perhaps for some having no choice is the same as saying yes, but not for me. One can only consent to something when giving a choice.
So you can say someone agreed to the rules all day long, but the topic of the poll is if being PKed is consensual or not. According to all the documentation that you toss out because you don't agree with it, it is non-consensual however it is perfectly legal in Fel. And your blanket consent theory is an agreement that you have no choice, again no choice does not and will never mean consent. So even with your theory of blanket consent, people consent to the risk but are not given the choice to consent to the act.
So I agree with you that entering Fel is accepting that there will be no choice if attacked, but that is by no stretch of definition the same as consenting to PvP (or PKing back to the topic of the poll). So I say acknowledge the risk, you want to say consent to the rules, either way the outcome is the same which is just agreeing to have no choice if forced into PvP situation.
No.
Trammel is not abstaining from using your car. PvPing is not the car, it is the act... you know, driving it. The car is the vessel in which you act with-in.
That example is freaking HORRIBLE because you cannot eliminate the risk of getting into an accident once you log into the car... er... game.
No. You can't twist it, no matter how hard you try.
No.
I'll say it again...
No. You can't twist it.
L2Read
How is that possible?
If something is unavoidable you have no choice to consent or not consent... you just have to submit to it because it is unavoidable.
Duh. So we agree on that.
If something is avoidable are you saying that you didn't agree to it happening to you even though you could of chose to avoid it?
Well then, go jump off a tall building and tell me how you can consensually avoid hitting the ground... after you've jumped.
I'll say it again.
No.
What?
Re-read that.
1. You already made the choice when you choose allow yourself to be attacked.
2. You could have chose not to allow yourself to be attacked, therefore not be attacked.
I understand your argument about coersion, but I don't agree with it. You chose to go and alternatives are made available to you. If they weren't then I would agree with your argument.
That's like saying reds are coerced into attacking blues because of insurance money. No, it's a choice because they have other options available such as hunting monsters, selling items from non-PvP, so on and so on.
This is so contradictory it's not even funny.
You have been given a choice. You acknowledged that choice when you said you "acknowledged the choice to go to Fel" so how were you not consenting?
Your wasting your time with these people.. They just talk in circles.This is so contradictory it's not even funny.
You have been given a choice. You acknowledged that choice when you said you "acknowledged the choice to go to Fel" so how were you not consenting?
The argument here seems to be about the words concentual / non-concentual PvP and EA's use of these words in their literature.
We all know that if you enter Fel there is the possiblity that you may be attacked, even if you don't want to be.
In Tram you can not be attacked unless in i a guildwar.
These are the rules and all everyone needs to do is place the words that make sense to them in the defenition that still comes out with the "We all know that if you enter Fel there is the possiblity that you may be attacked, even if you don't want to be.
In Tram you can not be attacked unless in i a guildwar."
The rest of you who cant grasp this concept can continue to chase your tails.
D
D'Amavir
Guest
That won't change the fact non consensual pvp (according to EA) is allowed in Trammel, the consent only pvp facet (according to EA)
Actually, like has been said by EA, you can have non consensual pvp in Trammel as well. Even though its the consent only pvp facet. Weird huh? But since EA said it it must be right. So there ya have it. You consent to pvp when you are in a warring guild in Trammel just like you consent to pvp when you are in Fel. As before, you don't have to give individual consent because you have already given blanket consent.
Another real life comparison (though I hate them it seems to be what certain people in this thread fall back on even though their comparisons don't make as much sense as others), I consent to surgery. I sign the consent form. While under, the doctor can cut me as often as he feels is needed. Without me giving him individual consent to each cut. He can also put as many stitches in me that he feels necessary. Without me giving him individual consent to each stitch. He can also have another doctor in the room with him take over and cut me. Even though I didn't give that specific doctor individual consent to cut me. He can also have another doctor in the room put a stitch in me. Even though I didn't give that specific doctor individual consent to stitch me. So, did I not give consent to surgery? Or did I give blanket consent to it which covered all of the cuts and stitches and doctors that made those cuts and stitches without me having to give each and every cut, stitch and doctor individual consent?
Now, to bring that example back to UO, which most on this thread haven't been able to do with their real life comparisons. By consenting to the ruleset of Fel (surgery), I am aware that I won't have to further give each pk (doctor) or thief (doctor) individual consent to attack (cut) or steal from (stitch) me. Now, can I then turn around and tell the doctor that I only consented to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 9th stitch he made on me but not the 5th, 8th or 10th? No.
However, should I die or become disabled due to the doctor's actions, I can still attempt to sue him for malpractice (or my family can) even though I consented to the surgery. Because I didn't give him specific consent to kill me during that surgery. This relates to murder counts. Even though I consented to the ruleset of Fel by going there, I can still give a murder count to any pk that kills me while I am there. Because I didn't give them individual consent to pk me.
Blanket consent versus individual consent in a nutshell.
S
Stanton Of Pac
Guest
Bad example. By your logic if I go to the mall then the shopkeepers can make me to buy their goods. Because it's "possible" to buy goods at a mall therefore I 'consent" to their selling me goods that I may not want.
Again, "consent" has nothing to do with PKing. Players aren't excused for murdering other players simply because it's possible under the rules. On Felucca you have the moral choice whether to be a jerk and ruin someone else's fun or not. The only "consent" I give you is by being there I "consent" to allowing you to make that choice or not. If you do it, it's still the wrong choice, though. If there's an underlying morality or message to Ultima Online it's the value of Community: We do much better when when we work together than when we work alone or try to harm others. The game designers weren't very good in how they expressed themselves but that's what they meant all along. When you start murdering fellow players for fun there are consequences: No one wants to hang with you, you have a hard time finding willing victims, and you're reduced to whining on web forums that no one likes or understands you.
D
D'Amavir
Guest
That's not true. I am merely pointing out that by using EA's words as accurate, you have to admit that there can be 'non consensual pvp' in the 'Consensual PVP only' facet of Trammel.
Right. They use the phrase non consensual pvp when they say that that there can be non consensual pvp in the Consensual Only pvp facet of Trammel. If that doesn't boggle your mind...well, it should. As for 'inserting' blanket consent, that's merely to show that people DO consent to pvp by consenting to the ruleset of Fel, just like they DO consent to pvp by being in a warring guild in Trammel.
You are still consenting to the ruleset of Fel which is open pvp. This means that pvp can happen at any time in Fel even though you might not want it to. Just because it doesn't happen everytime, doesn't mean that you didn't consent to it happening. No one is saying that pvp'ing happens 100% of the time in Fel. What they are saying, which you refuse to listen to of course, is that it CAN happen at any time and that YOU consent to THAT fact by consenting to the ruleset of Fel.
Right, and in that specific use of accepting you are consenting to the possibility of pvp. As I said before, there are other uses of the word that may not match as a synonym for consent. But in this specific case and this specific definition it does.
Everyone has a choice to avoid pk'ing. Except Reds of course. That choice is staying in Trammel, Malas, Tok, etc... and not going to Fel where you have to consent to the ruleset there which allows pk'ing. That's how I avoid being pk'd 100% of the time. So, you have a choice. There is no mechanic in place now that forces a blue player to go to Fel. No more than there is any mechanic in place that forces a pk to pk another player. Its a choice.
Again, I haven't tossed out anything. I merely pointed out to those people that claimed that EA's word was gospel and that there was no room for doubt when reading that word that there is major contradiction in those words, to the point where relying on that word as 100% accurate would be impossible. Now, you, onthe other hand, pick only those parts of what EA says that backs up your view. Which is simply their use of the phrase non consensual. While overlooking the fact that they also say that non consensual pvp can happen inthe consensual pvp only facet of Trammel.
I am given the choice to consent to the act. I choose not to consent to the act by not going to Fel. If you are claiming that you should be able to answer a gump 'no I don't wantthis attack to happen' every time someone casts a spell on you or makes a swing of a weapon on you, that's silly. You already consented to that by being there. If you didn't consent to it, you wouldn't be in Fel.
Its not a stretch of the definition at all. Its a clear and concise part of the definition. You consent to the ruleset of pvp, which includes being attacked at any time. When you get a license you consent to the rules of the road. You can break those rules and not get caught. Or you can break those rules and get caught. But when you are caught, you can't claim that you didn't consent to whichever specific rule you just broke just because you consented to follow all of the rules. So, by consenting to the rules of Fel (the road) you are consenting to the possibility of attack. You then don't have to give any consent to be attacked since your blanket consent of that possibility under that rule has already been given.
Like I have said many times, EA messed up by using the same phrase to cover different degrees of consent. If they would have used the more correct phrases of blanket consent and individual consent, we wouldn't still be having this discussion. Well, we would because some people that are relying 100% on everything that EA says that includes the phrase non consensual in Fel to support their position but ignoring what they say about non consensual in the consensual only facet of Trammel would flip flop and post over and over the many contradictions that are made by EA and their mention of non consensual pvp in order to support their position.
I, on the other hand, can find places in the guide that support what I say, support what you say, support a third variable and completely contradicts many other statements also found in the guide. As such, I base my position on the dictionary itself and the actual words used in the creation of this thread. Which were 'What constitutes consent'. And, based on the dictionary's definition of 'consent', I have stated my viewpoint on the subject without resorting to personal insults or vieled digs.
D
D'Amavir
Guest
Show me a mall that has a rule stating that if you enter that mall you have to buy something and I will agree with you. A better example, which you won't get of course, is going to a bar with a two drink minimum. By entering the bar, you are agreeing to the two drink minimum. You can choose to drink more of course, but you can't walk in and then turn around and say that you didn't agree to buy a drink just because you walked into the bar.
Ahh, the anti red view. Not all reds are jerks. And if being pk'd ruins your fun so bad, maybe you can petition the devs to create a facet that doesn't allow pk'ing. Maybe they can call that facet, Trammel. And maybe on Trammel you can also petition that they don't allow stealing. Sounds like a winning strategy for me, wonder why it hasn't happened yet.
Its a game, pk's can't harm you. They don't harm me. Even back when I was playing before there was a trammel, I didn't see pk's as harming me. They just chose a different playstyle than me. A playstyle that was and still is supported by the creators of the game.
You sound like the one whining. I haven't seen many reds on this board whining about anything at all. I don't play a red myself, nor to I play in Fel. But I also accept that its a valid playstyle supported by the dev team and that just because someone decides to have their pixel pod attack my pixel pod doesn't mean that they are a bad person in real life. Now, if those same players went around and beat people up in real life? No question, bad people. But, like those people that play Call of Duty and shoot other people in the game, choosing that playstyle does not equal bad.
A
Ash
Guest
As I have said before, and hopefully for the last time, your argument only holds water IF and ONLY IF PvP was the ONLY reason to go to Fel. But you insist on inserting "consent to" where others put "accepts risk" in regards to ONE reason to go to Fel.
When PvP is the ONE and ONLY reason to go to Fel will there ever be any implied/stated/blanket consent, as then both parties will be there purely for the engagement of PvP. Until that time, which I hope never comes, there are still going to be parties that risk PvP but do not WISH to engage in it. It is that that lack of WISH that will continue to make it by your own definition non-consensual. And no implied/unspoken/blanket 'consent' is then going to make that person 'consent' to being PKed.
No one is arguing that PvP is a part of Fel, but apparently some fail to see it is not the entirety of it.
And I don't care in which regard you speak, RL, philosophical or hypothetical scenario you come up with a specific/implicit non-consent will ALWAYS over-ride a implied/blanket consent.
Can you honestly not see the difference between accepting a risk and consenting to PvP?
D
D'Amavir
Guest
Glad you are saying it for the last time. It made no sense the first time, third time, tenth time or this time. Why you go to Fel has no bearing on the rules of Fel. You consent to the rules. Do you consent to therules of driving only when you drive to work? If driving elsewhere, you don't have to consent to the rules? Whew, that thats the last time I have to read that statement. It was making my brain hurt with the good old 'silly comment' pain that people get sometimes when they read something silly. Its like the funny bone, while its called the 'funny' bone, nothing at all is funny about hitting it.
No one said anywhere that by consenting to the rules you are wishing to engage in pvp. Only that you are consenting to the fact that you may be engaged in pvp regardless of what you wish. And I wish you would get that because otherwise I am going to wish that you make that the last time you make that silly comment too.
You consent to the chance of being pk'd anytime you enter fel. You may not wish for it, you may not want it, you may not like it. But you consent to it.
I could care less about pvp in Fel. I don't go there for that, or for any other reason. Nor do I think that pvp is the only reason to go to Fel. Just like guild wars are not the only reason for joining a guild. But, both are possibilites that you consent to when you do either.
Actually, it doesn't. But you can keep saying it does if you want. Maybe you will get to the point where you will be saying that one for the last time too. We can all only hope. I have proven my point with every example I have used. But, like those that believe in god versus those that don't. Nothing I say is going to change that belief. But that doesn't mean that I have to stop saying it, nor does it mean that I will stop saying it. Going to Fel equals consenting to the open pvp ruleset of Fel. If you go there to fight, you consent to the rules by going. If you go there to shop, you consent to the rules by going. If you go there to pvm, you consent to the rules by going. If you go there to stand around in Britain thinking that you can't be pk'd there, you consent to the rules by going.
I see the difference between accepting a risk and consenting to pvp. Can you honestly not see the difference between consenting to open pvp and wanting to pvp? You act like you can't acdcept the risk of something and consent to something at the same time. I accept the risks of driving and I also consent to the rules of driving made by my state. I accept the risk of dying anytime I go to a dungeon. I may not give a monster individual consent to killing me but I do give consent that he might by going there in the first place. Why I go there isn't a factor, because by going there I consent to the risk and I consent to the rules there.
D
D'Amavir
Guest
Back before Trammel I had times as a pk and as a pk hunter. It was fun for sure. I stopped pvp'ing for the most part once things became too item based for me but I still remember some fun battles on both sides. I used to run with a really cool group of reds that actually rp'd being outlaws. The rp aspect is what drew me there. Though I know that there aren't quite as many rp'ing reds on the normal shards as there used to be.
E
Eslake
Guest
D'Amavir said:
You are so busy trying to nitpick each paragraph you aren't actually reading them. Go back and read what I said again. I will even summarize it here for you.
Felucca is the Non-Consensual PvP facet.
But you can still Consent to PvP in Felucca.
Trammel is the Consent-Only Facet.
But you can still be attacked without consent in a Trammel.
The label they put on each facet is not indicative of All actions that can happen on the facet, only the general state of things there.
No they didn't. They were Surprised that we were murdering each other. They even talked about removing the option of PvP (player justice) to prevent player killing, but it was not in the original design.
When they implimented statloss they used the statement that it was "For Now" meaning it was never intended to be a permenant solution to anything.
But every year since 98 they have referred in documentation repeatedly that Felucca is the "Non-Consensual PvP" facet.
In this paragraph you indicate where you are making your mistake.
You are talking about whether or not someone should be attackable in Felucca, or whether or not they should complain about it if they are.
That is not the topic we are discussing.
We are debating at what point actual Consent has been given.
You can be attacked without your Consent, that is the whole point of there Being a Felucca. That doesn't mean the PK did something they shouldn't have, or that you have some right to complain about it.
You might want to look at what I was responding to.
One who shares your pespective (or some of it anyway).That is the gist of my argument. You are calling Acceptance Consent.
You have every right to stay in Trammel to avoid PKs.
And by going to Felucca, yes you risk being PKd.
But taking a risk does not constitue Consent to what you are risking. It only means you are accepting that risk.
(or if you are in factions, unless they nerfed that too)o2bavr6 said:
I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread try to disagree with what you said here.
What people are disagreeing with is the use of the word "Consent" to fit what you are saying.
Someone entering Felucca is risking being PKd.
They know that, they accept it, it is part of the game.
They have no place to complain if it happens to them.
But that does not make it fit "Consent." Since being attacked there without wanting to is still called Non-Consensual.
If I attack someone, and they run, they are not consenting to PvP. They are still going to die
and they can't complain about it, because they are in Felucca. They accepted that risk when they came here.But it doesn't mean they consented.
M
mr.blackmage
Guest
Consent? I think there are two forms of it here. By entering Fel, you are consenting to the ruleset, which has the possibility that you can be non-consensually attacked. I think people are getting hungup on the non-consent part. Everyone admits that you can get attacked in Fel, but some seem to take the "non consenting" pvp to heart. You can't consent to Fel's rules while not consenting to a certain risk. You take the whole package or not at all. Part of the package is players attacking eachother. You may not like the idea that you can be attacked, but that doesn't mean that you didn't agree to the risk of it by simply entering the ruleset. So yeah.
You consent to non-consensual pvp. Take it as you will. The bottom line is that you know the risk, and you're agreeing to take it. (the "you" has been generalized).
You consent to non-consensual pvp. Take it as you will. The bottom line is that you know the risk, and you're agreeing to take it. (the "you" has been generalized).
D
D'Amavir
Guest
Thats what I have been saying for three days now. You do consent to the ruleset, as such you do consent to being attacked, even if that attack isn't individually consented to by you.
The biggest problem people have been having is that they don't want to admit that entering Fel means you are consenting to being attacked. They think because they didn't specifically give a pk their consent to attack them that they didn't consent to open pvp. Which,since Fel is the open pvp facet, everyone that goes there consents to pvp. Even if it doesn't happen everytime and even if they run from it when it starts, they still consented to being attacked by people that don't have to ask permission to attack.
That makes sense, Consent Only isn't really Consent Only. Its just Consent-Maybe. I can see now how EA's words have made so much sense to you. Yep. Non consensual pvp in the Consent Only pvp facet makes total sense. Yep. Consenting to open pvp doesn't mean you consent to open pvp. Yep. Brilliant!
As someone that actually reads ALL of a person's posts in an attempt to understand them, the above comments still baffle me. And yes, I have read them, re read them and re re read them. Trammel is the Consent Only Facet but you can still be attacked without consent in Trammel. Indeed, you make perfect sense, I can't understand why I didn't understand it before this. Its all so clear now.
Using that logic, what exactly is your definition of 'only'? Is that like peanut free contains peanuts? Better warn those people with peanut allergies.
I split it up for the 2 key parts.
Before they added Trammel, this was soooo freaking TRUE! People policed themselves, communities and the dynamic worlds that we created by populating them had morality and the themes of it embedded everywhere. There were choices to either pick the side of good or evil... and live with your choices.
When they made Trammel, and began policing player behaviors... all that went out of the window. This game is no longer a dynamic social atmosphere where the players and communities actions determine the course of history for each shard they inhabit... now, this game is just that; a videogame. There is no morality, there is no good vs evil, there is just a videogame where people collect items, follow a storyline and either bash on monsters or each other consensually and none of it has any ethical or moral bearing what-so-ever.
It's not murder when people have to consent to being murdered in order for it to happen. That's called suicide.
The End.
Perfectly Stated...a person is consenting that they could be engaged in non-consensual PvP at anytime, anywhere, in Fel, when they enter Fel.
Exactly perfect summary. Spot On.
I need to learn to summarize so well.
Thanks for that synopsis.
M
mr.blackmage
Guest
I might add that in any game that I have ever played, I have never once been engaged in non-consensual PvP. That is what I play games for, and even if I randomly get attacked and killed as a new res, (or as a level 10 in wow getting jumped by a level 70 repeatedly), that is what I am playing the game for. It is a matter of perspective.
D
D'Amavir
Guest
I agree. The only time I ever have a problem really when someone attacks me is if they are using a bug to do so. Speedhackers, terrain bugs, etc... Those get to me. When I first started UO, there was no such thing as Trammel. You knew when you bought the game that people would be able to attack you whenever they wanted.
Not saying it was a better game then before Trammel or after Trammel. Some good some bad I guess. To me, the game went down hill whenever it became all about item stats and multi resists and that stuff. I do know, however, that Trammel killed a lot of the community that was a big part of UO before then. Not saying it wouldn't have died anyway but having a large % of the playerbase go to Trammel left the Fel player run towns out in the cold. I think OSI should have taken that into consideration and done something to help ensure that those communities could transition to Trammel. As it stands, the community has gotten smaller and smaller to the point where you would be hard pressed to find many player towns on either face that are very active. At least outside of their planned events.
But that is a topic for another discussion.
E
Eslake
Guest
Really? You read it all?
Than why did you stop quoting where you did, instead of including the next line of what you responded to?
I thought it came across pretty clear.
In Trammel, you usually cannot be attacked without consenting to it.
In Felucca, you can usually be attacked whether you want to or not.
Neither says that it is Always the case. You cold be attacked in a guild in Tram, or you could Consent to fight someone in Felucca.
You are correct that they are misusing ONLY in that respect, the same way you are misusing Consent.
They probably used "only" to avoid calling Trammel the "Consensual PvP" shard, since you and so many others would obviously take that to mean you could run around Trammel attacking everyone. According to the use to which you are putting "Consent" that is what it would mean.
A
Ash
Guest
You almost make the connection when you say 'possibility'. People accept the 'possibility' yes, not arguing that (don't think anyone is), but not the certainty. Thus the risk not the act. It is that simple. Regardless of how many times you want to imply blanket consent.
And if you don't agree that implicit consent overrides blanket consent, then that is your problem. Here is a good old fashioned example for you. Freedom of speech gives you blanket consent to say anything you want, however the ROC of this site gives you implicit non-consent to say offensive things. There is a pure example of implicit overriding blanket.
So, a person is attacked it is non-consensual, and no 'blanket consent' will make them magically consent to it. They entered Fel yes, thus acknowledging a risk it could happen. They take measures to avoid it while there (stay in town, stealth, go in off hours), they attempt to flee (run away, recall, invis, call guards) then they are displaying they do not consent to fight. Can they still be attacked, yes. Do they understand they can still be attacked, I hope so. Does this understanding make them consent to fight, not at all. Agsin, implicit non-consent takes the priority and it is the very definition of non-consensual, hence the topic of the poll and why 'blanket consent' does not apply. All 'blanket consent' means at this point is they can't complain about it and they can't page a GM.
So call it 'blanket consent' but recognize implicit wins over blanket each and every time.
D
D'Amavir
Guest
Really? You read it all?
Than why did you stop quoting where you did, instead of including the next line of what you responded to?
I thought it came across pretty clear.
In Trammel, you usually cannot be attacked without consenting to it.
In Felucca, you can usually be attacked whether you want to or not.
Just beause I don't quote it doesn't mean I don't read it. To me, and the dictionary, 'only' is a pretty clear term. When they say that the pvp on trammel is consensual only, it means (again, based on the dictionary) that pvp on trammel can only be done with consent. Now, if they changed it the Trammel is the Consensual Mostly pvp facet, or even the Trammel Consensual Usually pvp facet, I would be ok with that. But to say that pvp in Trammel can only happen with consent then turn around and say that there can be non consensual pvp there is silly. I have said before, OSI made the mistake of using words like 'consensual only' and 'non consensual' when they should have used something more appopriate. Anyone that plays Call of Duty consents to being shot by that guy with the machine gun even if they didn't walk up to the guy with the machine gun and specifically tell him that he could shoot them. Does that make him shooting them a non consensual act? It doesn't come up in CoD because people there understand what they are signing up for when they start playing. Unlike here apparently.
If there were a pvp switch in the game, and someone flipped that switch to +pvp then went along and hunted some monsters in a dungeon until a pk showed up and attacked them. Would that be considered non consensual too? Even though most people that are antired on these boards have been begging for a pvp switch since before Trammel even came about, flipping a flag on your character that says '+pvp' and flipping one that says 'entering the +pvp facet' is the same thing. You are consenting to pvp and anyone and everyone that wants to can attack you as a result.
Bottom line, as has been discussed and agreed upon by all (I say all because I mean everyone agrees to it but that doesn't mean that every one agrees to it. See what I did there?), entering Fel means you consent to the rules of Fel. Those rules include open pvp where you don't have to give every individual direct (or specific, or whatever word you want to use for that) consent to attack you. You accept the risk, meaning you consent to the risk of being attacked. As many have already said, you can call that non consensual all you want. I don't mind. But you consented to the rulese that allows it by going to Fel.
Consenting to non consensual pvp sounds silly since you are consenting to it first. You give consent to the ruleset by entering Fel. Once there, it is irrelevant if you tell a person there that they can attack you or not. But, if you feel comfortable with that verbiage, feel free to use it. My only point has been that by going to Fel, you are consenting to the ruleset. A ruleset that includes open pvp. As such, you are consenting to open pvp. Which means able to be attacked anywhere.
D
D'Amavir
Guest
As usual, a real life example that doesn't equate to the game. EA sets the rules of the facet. Those rules are set in stone until such a time that EA decides to change them. There are no entities within Fel that can change those rules. So, while a forum can indeed place rules that would limit your freedom of speech rules, that example can't be applied to the game as there is no mechanic in place in which to enforce any rule other than those created by EA for the facet. Unless of course you can show me one then you might have a point. But, since both of us know you won't be able to, I think the point is made.
The UO example clearly shows that blanket consent overrides individual consent. By giving consent to the rules of the facet by going there, you are forgoing your ability to withhold individual consent from anyone. Clearly a case of blanket consent overriding individual consent, and done with an ingame example. Funny how that worked out huh.
Since you seem to like real world examples, I will give you another one. You check into a hotel. When doing so, you consent to the rules of that hotel. Those rules are various and can include the fact that any damages to the room will be charged to your credit card, that the check out time is 11am and that you consent to pay for any long distance calls.
Now, 11:15am rolls around and security shows up to kick you out becuase its past the agreed to check in time. Can you avoid being kicked out by saying that you didn't give that security guard consent to kick you out? Or does he have that right because of the fact that, by consenting to the rules of the hotel, you do in fact consent to the check out time as well?
A
Ash
Guest
Then where is the game mechanic that forces me to engage in PvP while in Fel? There isn't one that forces me 100% as one can escape, evade or if in town call guards. If I am able to escape there isn't anything they or the game mechanics to do to force me to stay and fight. Most times I escape without a scratch, sometimes I barely escape and sometimes I walk to the healer's hut. So if I escape and prevent an another player from being able to attack, can the attacker tap his foot and page a GM cause I didn't fight him or stand there an let him kill me? From your explanation he has been denied the right to kill me that I consented to by crossing the threshold, I beat the rules so then he can call the GMs (or security guards from your crazy RL example) and have me kicked out cause I wouldn't fight or die at the time of his choosing.
Again implicit non-consent will override blanket consent any day, any place, any time.
But you imply your blanket consent and stay in Tram, I will acknowledge the risk and enter with caution and pick and choose my fights.
You do get to choose your fights, but you dont get to choose whether the Red or Blue attacks you or not.
And by choosing I mean: Running, fighting back, recalling, calling guards, or ultimately dying.
But you are still talking around the fact that any player can attack any other player at will in Fel. Regardless of what the non-aggressor does or says about it.
It seems that we all agree that UO's guidelines on Concent vs Non-Concent are contradictory, but we also all agree what the actual rules are between Fel and Tram in regards to how PvP works.
A
Ash
Guest
I am not talking around anything. The topic was if the act of PKing was non-consensual or not, the ACT is by definition of non-consensual. No one has ever tried to say it wasn't legal, and the attacker right to do so if he chooses. Others trying to justify it as consensual because 'blanket consent' are talking around the fact that the non-aggressor didn't choose to fight at that time, thus non-consensual.
What I was getting at is that its all semitics.
Does it really matter if the word used is Concentual or Non-Concentual? Or does it matter whos defenition you use to determine it?
At the end of the day in Fel any player can attack any other player, anywhere, anytime, regardless if the other player does not want to participate in it.
In Tram this can not be done unless you are in a guild war. And if you are in a guildwar then a player can attack any other player involved in the guildwar anywhere anytime, regardless if the other player does not want to participate in it.
I just don't see how this is so hard for most of the people posting here to grasp.
Edit:
I never used the word legal or illegal.
D
D'Amavir
Guest
Right. You can escape pvp even in Fel. So, by your logic, not escaping means you consent to it. Since its so easy to avoid, how can anyone possible be forced to engage in it?
If you escape without a scratch and didn't get hit by anything, you successfully avoided pvp. Not sure how that means that you didn't give consent for pvp to happen.
In my example, you still consented to the check out time. You can avoid the security guard by leaving at the right time. No one is saying anywhere that you have to fight back or that you have to die. We are all just saying that by going there you consent to the ruleset which means that another player can attack you without you getting an additional gump asking if its ok. If that player doesn't succeed in attacking you or you kill that player, that doesn't mean that you still didn't consent to the rules that he could attack you by going there.
Correct. Except in UO, real life and the dictionary. My example of signing a consent form for surgery and then not giving each doctor consent or consenting to each cut and stitch. If you want to say that that means I had non consensual surgery, more power to ya. You are wrong but, as the saying goes (sorta) I will defend your right to be wrong to the death.
So there is never a time in your life where a pk popped up out of hiding and attacked you? When he did, you got a gump giving him the ok to do so? Or did you give consent to the ruleset that allowed him to do so by entering Fel? You can't ALWAYS choose your fights on Fel. If you can, you are using a bug and shouldbe banned because of it. You can take steps to reduce the chances of being attacked while there. But even taking those steps you have consented to their attack being possible.
A
Ash
Guest
Actually that was your logic. Also never said it was easy to avoid, your exaggeration and taking things out of context to try and fit your point.
I didn't want to point out the ridiculousness of your example, but if you insist on using it. A hotel is about making money, not tossing someone out for 15 minutes late to checkout. So will give opportunity for someone that is late checking out more time via extended checkout time or charging for another day, which would then give the guest another opportunity to enter into another agreement different from the first. So if I wanted to turn your example like you do to my point of view, that comes out to being an example of there should be a clickable gump if someone wants to attack you you either click yes to fight or no and get transported out of Fel.
Good luck getting through life with that thought process.
So anyone with an opinion that doesn't match yours is just wrong. Easy to be right when tossing out all game documentation and anything else that doesn't support your point. With such adamant claims as that, it is clear the door of reasonable conversation has been closed.
Ladies and Gents, by a vast vast margin... we have, as players, decided upon the answer to the question asked in this thread.
3 out of 4 players will agree: Mining or even going to Felucca, means you consented to allow another player to attack and possibly kill you.
The End.
3 out of 4 players will agree: Mining or even going to Felucca, means you consented to allow another player to attack and possibly kill you.
The End.
R
Radun
Guest
Did anyone notice that the only times ea used the word 'consent' it was when they were saying that fighting can be non-consensual sometimes...
Or did you notice that nowhere does it say that by doing anything in the game that you are automatically 'consenting' (using the word "consent") to anything?
It's actually '70% of players are consenting to being killed, when they go to felucca'. The other 30% aren't consenting to anything at all by going there.
Or did you notice that nowhere does it say that by doing anything in the game that you are automatically 'consenting' (using the word "consent") to anything?
And a poll like this isn't 'majority rules', it just tells you how many people would say that they themselves are consenting, by going there.
It's actually '70% of players are consenting to being killed, when they go to felucca'. The other 30% aren't consenting to anything at all by going there.
D
D'Amavir
Guest
So you are saying my opinion is right? Why thank you. I appreciate that acknowledgement.
I haven't tossed out any game documentation. I merely pointed out that it was wrong to fall back on what 'EA' says regarding consensual versus non consensual because of all of their contradictions. Saying that Trammel is the Consensual ONLY pvp facet then saying that non consensual pvp can happen on Trammel is a major contradiction no matter what you say.
As for your insistance that because you can sometimes avoid pvp means that you haven't consented to open pvp when going to the open pvp facet of Felucca, that's as silly as saying that you haven't consented to pvp when you join factions or when you war another guild. Are you really saying that those two examples aren't consenting to pvp? Really? Honestly you don't really believe that joining factions = consenting to pvp? If you can sit there and claim that then I don't know what else to say. Except this, when you go to Fel you are consenting to the open pvp ruleset there. The open pvp ruleset means that anyone can attack you at anytime regardless of it you want them to or not or if you run from them or not.
There is no such thing as non consensual pvp in UO (with the exception of bugs of course) no matter what the Devs say. I am sure that if the Devs came to this board right now and said that by entering Fel you are consenting to pvp and, as such, it wasn't considered non consensual, you would still hold onto your belief that it is still non consensual when someone attacks you. Am I wrong? Be honest here. I can be. If the dev team came on this board today and said that entering Fel wasn't consenting to pvp, I would still believe that it was. See, honesty. Now, your turn. How would you react to the comment I mentioned above? Would you really change your position to one of acceptance of the fact that you consent to pvp by entering Fel?
D
D'Amavir
Guest
Did you notice that that still doesn't change the fact that you do consent to the open pvp ruleset whenever you enter Fel? Did you also notice that EA says some things that really don't make a lot of sense sometimes in regard to this game?
This I agree with. I don't have much faith in polls found on boards like this. Not enough people read any one board to make it comparable to what the overall player base believes. However, we both know that if the results were the opposite, people on your side of this discussion would be here touting the results as a 'win' because it proved that a majority of the people backed their views. We both know it, so don't feel like you need to admit it or anything. Because, like the fact that you are consenting to open pvp when entering the open pvp facet of Fel, we both already know the truth even though one of us doesn't want to admit or accept it.
R
Radun
Guest
An Corp
that's not really consent... for something to be consensual both sides have to consent.. if one side consents and the other does not, that is by definition 'nonconsensual'.
at least we found one thing to agree on!
If you go to any facet you are agreeing to the rule set of that facet. That means paragons for Illeshanar, no pvp in tram/malas/tokuno and pvp in felucca facets, or seige/mugen shards..
Within the fel ruleset, giving a murder count is part of the ruleset. Getting a count is the risk you take if you attack someone.
If you get enough counts, you go red which means you can't leave the fel ruleset until you go blue again. Enough said.
I consider it bad sportsmanship to give murder counts if you agreed to a duel. For that, I do think there should be a duel mode where one person can challenge another to a duel, and while in that mode neither are able to give a murder count to the other. Being in the same guild, or in a guild war is effectively the same thing though, so having a duel mode like that would be redundant.
If you were minding your own business, and someone attacks you unprovoked, then I have no problem with giving or getting a murder count.
I do mine in fel, my miner has been killed hundreds of times. I still go there, because in the end, the profits from mining in fel far exceed the risk of the occasional pk. It's not like you can lose anything significant if you don't want to.
Know how you know PvP is consensual?
The other person actively fights back.
If you're chasing down someone in plainclothes fleeing with a pack animal.... that's not "consensual pvp." Saying that it was consensual (i.e. both parties agreed to participate) simply because the ruleset lets you attack anyone, is a very weak argument. At best it's a technicality. If courts used the same logic most UO players do, then you "consent" to have your car stolen because you were in a bad neighborhood where you were aware there was a lot of crime and sluggish police response. Consent implies willingness, not technical ability-to-do.
I've heard all the "sthu, u were in Fel, there4 u consented 2 pvp" arguments many times, and when it comes to a combat-optimized PK character going after an unarmed crafter or pack animal, you can argue the ruleset perfectly supports you doing that, and you're correct. However you can scream till you're blue in the face that it was "consensual", and if the person is obviously fleeing and making no attempt to pvp, it clearly isn't.
Consent = willingness. Consent =/= "allowed to."
The other person actively fights back.
If you're chasing down someone in plainclothes fleeing with a pack animal.... that's not "consensual pvp." Saying that it was consensual (i.e. both parties agreed to participate) simply because the ruleset lets you attack anyone, is a very weak argument. At best it's a technicality. If courts used the same logic most UO players do, then you "consent" to have your car stolen because you were in a bad neighborhood where you were aware there was a lot of crime and sluggish police response. Consent implies willingness, not technical ability-to-do.
I've heard all the "sthu, u were in Fel, there4 u consented 2 pvp" arguments many times, and when it comes to a combat-optimized PK character going after an unarmed crafter or pack animal, you can argue the ruleset perfectly supports you doing that, and you're correct. However you can scream till you're blue in the face that it was "consensual", and if the person is obviously fleeing and making no attempt to pvp, it clearly isn't.
Consent = willingness. Consent =/= "allowed to."
So a person who lives in a war zone, perhaps a child, because the war is where they live has given consent to be shot? Hmmmm.....that has all the ear marks of a member of the Bush administration.
A person who can only find work in a part of town that is considered to be dangerous has NOT given consent to have danger befall them. They ARE however working to survive.
Risk vs reward eh? What risk is there to a red to kill a miner? You do this and you are a bully. That's fine. Be a bully, but at least have the gonads to admit it.
Let's keep politics and real life comparisons out please. People don't have the same level of free choice in real life as they do in a game.
- Status