1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

What is "consent"? (Poll #2)

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Radun, Feb 19, 2009.

?

You are afk banksitting. When you return, your character hath been smote.

  1. You were on a guilded character, therefore it is consensual pvp.

    46.9%
  2. You were afk and unable to express consent (or not), therefore it is non consensual pvp.

    53.1%
  1. Radun

    Radun Guest

    Discuss ... or don't... up to you.

    This is a follow-up of a similar poll.
     
  2. TheScoundrelRico

    TheScoundrelRico Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend Secret Society

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    35,539
    Likes Received:
    908
    Bank sitting in Luna is certain death on Siege...lol...la
     
  3. Radun

    Radun Guest

    I believe it :D
    I remember "the good ol' days" when we'd all jump out of the gate with flamestrike scrolls, and a bluebie in party to loot for us :spider:
    ...back when siege was still fun. (pre publish 16)
     
  4. Shioni

    Shioni Guest

    Killing your guild mates and looting them if called griefing. I had a deal where a guild mate was preparing to load up his vendor with a large amount of artifacts and was bragging about it at the bank.

    Wasn't an hour latter someone joined the guild/alliance and killed him when he was afk for a RL emergency. He estimated that about 20 million in artifacts was stolen and demanded to be paid back.

    Epic Fail
     
  5. shard?

    you know I just found out that you can see who voted and where they voted by click the View poll results, what if you wanted to vote but did not wish to be know in the results?
     
  6. Capricious

    Capricious Guest

    Ideally, be nice if they checked to see if you are afk first, but if you were stupid to go afk on a warred character...well, then...

    Course, I'm used to rp 'wars' where this is really no consequence except your pride so not a big deal.
     
  7. Dermott of LS

    Dermott of LS UOEC Modder
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,320
    Likes Received:
    528
    ...

    Other. It's a consequence of not being attentive to your character.

    Edit: I also do not answer "public" polls even if I make my choice known and why in the thread. Call it a personal quirk.
     
  8. Maplestone

    Maplestone Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    9
    I would be very surprised if someone in my guild PKed me while I was afk.
     
  9. Radun

    Radun Guest

    So it's neither consensual nor non consensual, because the player was not attending the character?
    This issue I'm trying to raise is not "what is this a consequence of?"
    Does the afk player wish to be killed? Would the afk player have given permission to be killed at the bank while afk, if they had the ability to?
    That's fine, I'm more interested in what people have to say than the faulty statistics.
     
  10. Gildar

    Gildar Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4
    Non-consensual.

    Does that mean you have any right to complain about the person killing you? Not necessarily.
    If you had an agreement with every guild you're at war with to not participate in non-con PvP, then yes, you have a right to complain. Otherwise... nope.


    Now... why are we once again asking to define what makes something consensual PvP? Does it really matter if it is consensual or not? Wouldn't it make much more sense to discuss and debate about what PvP actions are bad and which are good (and which are somewhere in between)?
    Non-consensual PvP != bad/rude/evil/childish/whatever PvP (just because they don't want to fight doesn't mean you aren't doing the right thing by attacking them)
    Consensual PvP != good/fair PvP (you can still use cheap tactics in a consensual fight, or use guile to trick somebody into agreeing to a fight)
     
  11. Radun

    Radun Guest

    In one poll we are asking whether one thing is considered consensual, and in the other poll we are asking if another thing is considered consensual...
    They are similar acts, both options carefully worded to provide option for both opposing viewpoints: one for those who believe that leaving one's self open to an offense constitutes consent to that offense taking place upon one's self, and one for those who believe that without expressed willingness and permission having been granted there is not consent.
    For me, consent is whether all participants have expressed their own willingness.. Whilst another poll demonstrated that a majority believed consent to mean that the victim allows something by leaving themselves open to a possibility, the results of this poll may be quite different as it is a completely different scenario.
    Whether it be PvP, drugs, conversation, etc, the definition of consent should remain constant, thus we are not asking for a mere definition.. the polling is worded only to determine at which point people believe (in their own personal opinions) consent has been established. In both threads, PvP is merely the vessel to foster discussion on the topic of consent..
    Feel free to talk about what pvp actions we believe are bad or good... to myself, any pvp action may be bad or good.. determined by whether those involved were willing, or unwilling. I believe it is important where that line of consent is drawn, and it is important that everyone be able to recognize where that line has been crossed.. and where it has been redrawn.
     
  12. Green Meanie

    Green Meanie Guest

    you may or not care for my viewpoint but IMO fel= consentual pvp period tram is ment to be the training ground for fel. that being said i only feel that pvp between guild members in tram is in place to allow ppl to learn how to fight in fel. UO has evolved to have a strickly pvm aspect as well and for that i think there should be a option changable no more than 1 time a week that will allow pvp between guildies in tram or not.

    9/10 afk in tram i would like to think i can trust my guildies anofe not to kill me and would be preturb if such a thing happend. In fel afk or not if i die to a player fair game. Ive never done guild wars in tram but if i had i would say its the same basis as being in fel and afk.

    my 2 cents
     
  13. Bomb Bloke

    Bomb Bloke Lore Keeper
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is neither consensual or non-consensual PvP. For PvP, you need at least two people.

    As for how it should be handled, that's up to your guild leaders, and that's the way things should be.

    @Shioni: Being guilded with someone does not allow them to loot your corpse. Either someone used the Stealing skill on him or the items de-spawned with his body.
     
  14. Dermott of LS

    Dermott of LS UOEC Modder
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,320
    Likes Received:
    528
    ...

    So it's neither consensual nor non consensual, because the player was not attending the character?

    This is correct. Odd sounding, but correct.

    Being guilded has nothing to do with the consent issue (and personally I'd be out of any guild that did that to me in the first place).

    Being present allows you to make the decision known whether you consent (fight back) or not (flee). Being unattended does neither of these things.

    However, the possibility of death, being reported, stolen from (in Fel) or any other number of events exists and if you are not there to attend to the safety of your character, then what happens is the punishment for not attending to the character or logging out.

    Also if you are not attending your character, you are not aware of anything to consent (or object) to, thus the question becomes a moot point.
     
  15. Maplestone

    Maplestone Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    9
    aside (that is relevent to the question): I think there should be a "no-PvP" option when creating guilds.
     
  16. Radun

    Radun Guest

    It is the player's character. It is a 'player character', not a 'non player character'. Does the player consent to having his character killed? In my opinion no, he was incapable of expressing consent, thus 'non consensual' (anything that has not been approved, something which there has been no consent given for).
    Being unable to express non consent to an act is just not good enough for me.. If they have not agreed to having something done to them, that fits the definition of non consensual. *(anything that is not consensual, anything which has not been consented to)

    What you are saying is that you believe that being incapable of consenting to something = not consent(?) and not non consent (non consensual means that consent has not been granted)
    This reminds me of some "drunk parties" I have been to in my past.
    Qui tacet consentit? Perhaps, but I feel that if the request is not heard, it can not be assumed to be approved.

    I will however acknowledge that it is not really "PvP" as we are accustomed to thinking of it, as a sort of technicality... so let us focus on the issue raised and not nit-pick. Consent has either been expressed, or it has not...

    In this situation, has consent been granted? even if only by being afk?
     
  17. smip

    smip Slightly Crazed
    Premium Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    9
    First of all you are not supposed to be afk for long periods of time. You are supposed to let the game log you out. Your quesiton has no decent choices. This is not a question of concent for PVP. It's asking if its ok to banksit AFK. I did not answer your poll.
     
  18. Radun

    Radun Guest

    Who says we are not supposed to go afk?
    Not actually even close to asking if it is alright to go afk.
    The question is closer to:
    Does the fact that you are capable of killing someone mean that they have consented to being killed by you?
     
  19. Fluffi

    Fluffi Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    15
    Consentual.


    In the previous poll, you agreed that "You are aware of what might happen if you follow this course of action. Do you wish to carry on?" was a reasonable definition of consent.

    When you were thinking of joining a guild, you were aware that your guildmates could attack and rob you in Trammel.

    If you chose to join the guild, you implicitly agreed to the potential game mechanics that come with guild membership; thus consenting to being attacked by guildmates.


    I can't attack you in Trammel if you are blue, but if you consent to joining my guild, you are consenting to me killing you as a green.