Those would be accurate forms of consent. Consent can't really be loosely defined to anything because every person thinks differently.
Yet you just gave a list of examples in your post of what would constitute consent. I think the fact that Trammel and Felucca now exist side by side is, essentially, irrelevant to whether we qualify a particular behavior as consensual or non-consensual PvP. This whole thread has basically been filled with people trying to claim that exactly the same behavior which was variously called PK'ing, griefing, or out of control non-consensual PvP saying that now, because Trammel exists, the same behavior cannot be called non-consensual simply because players can choose to never go to Fel.
Which overlooks, of course, the fact that there are MANY reasons to go to Fel, which have nothing to do with PvP. And that it is obvious to everyone that characters obviously not intended for PvP fighting, and not seeking it out, are indeed present in Felucca. The fact that we even throw around the scenario of the "crafter killed with his pack horse" attests to the fact that everyone knows, as common knowledge, that not everyone in Felucca is there because they wish to engage in PvP. That's a pretty self-evident fact.
What we're getting at, though, is whether or not someone has agreed to take part in PvP by their simple presence. Your argument is that yes, they do. My argument is that no, they don't, and clearly someone does not wish to PvP when they flee, attempt to hide, or recall out. In fact it should never even be necessary to see any of that to know if someone consents to PvP with you... if you're there on your stealth-archer and you see the guy mining, I think you'd have to be a pretty dense cookie in the first place to be under any delusions that the willing reason that character is present, is to PvP with you.
The final nail in the coffin, really, is the fact that a flagging system exists on all shards and facets where PvP'ers claim "PvP is intended in the ruleset", such as Felucca and Siege Perilous, and that murder counts and murder reporting exists. The game flat out recognizes that there are unprovoked, unjustified negative player actions on other players which the game mechanics both keep track of and penalize. To say that the open rulesets themselves imply that by stepping through you are consenting in advance to every negative action which shall ever be perpetrated on you by another player in Felucca requires us to ignore completely that there are murder counts, red and blue status, criminal flagging and various other penalties to being a red character. Why have any of those things if by even being present on the facet, you've already consented to being murdered, robbed and looted?
But according to the rule settings of Fel (which is why tram was made), players who decide to travel in Fel consent to the rules that apply to the facet.
They consent to the RULES OF THE FACET. Again right back to the same argument you and several others have repeatedly ignored, KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SHARK MIGHT BITE YOU IS NOT CONSENT GIVEN TO THE SHARK TO DO SO. This repeated, REPEATED flaw in the logic of that whole side of this argument which you have done little but repeat does not make it more true by sheer repetition.
And to the people who have made remarks about how making real-life comparisons is ridiculous ... please. The same arguments you have all made about stepping in Fel HAS BEEN and IS made about real-life situations. See: Hurricane Katrina. If I had a penny for everytime I had to listen to some half-wit saying "well they got what they deserved, if they were stupid enough to live in an area that was below sea level, screw 'em, they were stupid, it's Darwinism." Despite the fact that plenty of nations and societies have major population centers below sea level, like the Netherlands. And the victim-blaming mentality clouding rational thought is very much equivalent between the people making that claim and making the claim that you've agreed to have all sorts of grief behavior handed to you by stepping in Fel for any reason. When you step through, you acknowledge a risk that other players can perform negative acts on you. That's not the same thing as giving consent to PvP with any player who happens upon you. Players may PvP you WITHOUT your consent... and you may give them a murder count in consequence. In any consensual PvP scenario an option to give a murder count wouldn't have come up.
If you reread the thread I submitted prior, I said there is no form of "legal" consent. Meaning game-mechanics wise. Only player consenual agreements.
Really this is just getting into semantics. Let's cut right to what's "really" being said between the lines. What's really being said is that since there is Tram and Fel now, there is no PK behavior. No griefing. No shameful or cowardly behavior of any sort. No negative behavior of any sort. Because no matter how intentionally malicious or nasty or antisocial someone's playstyle is, no matter how much the same behavior would have been called griefing or PK'ing 9 years ago in UO, it's all perfectly acceptable behavior everyone agrees to in advance now. When I go in Fel I acknowledge the change in ruleset. I do not give you permission to kill me, my horse, and then camp stealthed near the corpse for an hour so that I give up and go do something else. That's entirely up to you--- the ruleset LETS YOU DO IT, but you do not have my consent to do it. You have only the capability to do it. Very separate things.
By the same logic we are discussing.... a cop not being around means that I have consented to let you rob me. You can, after all, and there's no cop to stop you..... and I can clearly see there's no cop, so I must have implicitly given you permission to do it. If I didn't want you to do it, I would have stuck closer to a cop.
Not perfect, at all.... but certainly the basic circular self-rationalizing logic is there.
