These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Consent versus Acknowledgment

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#41 - 2014-02-13 21:06:11 UTC
Shizuken wrote:
djentropy Ovaert wrote:
I think we are kinda splitting hairs here.

I don't think anyone really cares about the different between "consent versus acknowledgment" and can all agree on "By undocking, you are placing your ship in a position where it may be fired on."

Simple. Nothing to see here. Move on :)


I don't think it is splitting hairs. The distinction is critical. "Consent" is a word used by antisocials to deflect responsibility for their actions from themselves, and allows them to squarely place it on the victim. "Acknowledgement" does not allow them the same privilege. So they will fight OP's assertion because if they cannot cleanse away responsibility for their misdeeds with "consent" they will be forced to admit they truely are assholes. And, they know once that happens, the legitimacy of everything they do disappears. They will no longer be cogs in a pvp machine. Instead they will be like any garden variety thug, beating up on others for the pleasure of hurting someone, "because they can."


you forgot to mention that we're child abuse victims




you monster

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Marsha Mallow
#42 - 2014-02-13 21:20:42 UTC
Vyl Vit wrote:
Pok Nibin wrote:
I ACKNOWLEDGE the presence of PVPers in a PVP game.
When I go out there, I don't CONSENT to playing with them.
The truth of this subtle point (well done, Pok) doesn't seem to appeal to the various agendae spamming the thread.

It's really not that subtle, so I reworded it to demonstrate the feeble opposing 'agenda'. Those of us who enjoy the game philosophy probably consented at the point we rolled our first accounts, or came around to the idea and learned to take personal responsibility for our losses. Those who can't and won't persistently demand the game be changed, which is slightly irritating, and deserves to be slapped down whenever possible. It's got nothing to do with being a meanie, in real life or ingame, it's an attempt to fix something which is not broken to the detriment of the game ethos.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2014-02-13 22:16:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Shizuken wrote:
I don't think it is splitting hairs. The distinction is critical. "Consent" is a word used by antisocials to deflect responsibility for their actions from themselves, and allows them to squarely place it on the victim.
Wrong way around. “Consent” is used by people who actually play the game as it is, rather than as they wish it were, to signify the fact that the self-proclaimed victim is responsible for their own safety. They are in full control over whether they can be attacked or not, and have willingly put themselves in a position where it is possible and occasionally even probable.

It's used to demonstrate the ignorance of all kinds of “I wasn't doing anything, so why did they attack?” attempts at denying one's own involvement and role in what transpires. The whole “I wasn't doing anything” relies on the incorrect (for EVE) notion that attacks only happens (or at least only should happen) by consent, and the obvious counter to this is that they did consent to being attacked: after all, they undocked.

Splitting hairs again, but that's what the thread is about so...

The idea of consent doesn't seem to mesh with the idea of taking responsibility for ensuring loss doesn't happen. IE: If I'm actively trying to prevent my boat from being violenced, I'm not really consenting to it being violenced, I just may not be able to prevent it. Also, the very existence of non-consensual PvP kind of relies on the idea that one can be in a situation where PvP is possible, like say in space, without giving consent to PvP.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#44 - 2014-02-13 22:28:44 UTC
I just think it's hilarious that grown men will try to wish a meaning on a word like "consent", as if wishing hard enough and saying it enough times makes it true.

8 year olds know better.

It's this and other things more attuned to 8 year olds, like knocking mining ships about for no explosions or money. (I have yet to ever witness a Minerbumping Child ever ask a player for money).

Things like this are why I can never convince anyone I know to even touch this game. To them it all just reeks of children run amok.

Their words not mine.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#45 - 2014-02-13 22:31:05 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
I just think it's hilarious that grown men will try to wish a meaning on a word like "consent", as if wishing hard enough and saying it enough times makes it true.

8 year olds know better.

It's this and other things more attuned to 8 year olds, like knocking mining ships about for no explosions or money. (I have yet to ever witness a Minerbumping Child ever ask a player for money).

Things like this are why I can never convince anyone I know to even touch this game. To them it all just reeks of children run amok.

Their words not mine.


So... are you telling me that you did not click "yes" on the terms of service when you loaded up the client for the first time?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#46 - 2014-02-13 22:34:12 UTC
You have acknowledged that you consented to pvp when you pressed the undock button. Now everybody is happy.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Slapchop Gonnalovemynuts
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#47 - 2014-02-13 23:18:30 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
You have acknowledged that you consented to pvp when you pressed the undock button. Now everybody is happy.


I approve of this message.

My understanding was that acknowledging the possibility of non-consentual player interaction impliesd consent to said activities.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2014-02-13 23:21:16 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
You have acknowledged that you consented to pvp when you pressed the undock button. Now everybody is happy.
But I haven't consented, in fact I'm doing my best to make sure it doesn't happen, even after pressing undock.
Ai Shun
#49 - 2014-02-13 23:25:22 UTC
Shrewd Tsero wrote:
After reading lots of posts on the forums and from discussions in game, I'm continually bothered by variantions on the phrase "By playing/undocking/mining/etc. in this game you consent to PvP." The phrase just irks me. No, I'm not complaining about PvP in Eve. Getting butthurt about someone blowing you to bits in Eve is like getting pissed at being wet after walking out into the rain that you were looking at through your windows. It's one of the fundamental aspects of the game. But can you really say that by undocking in Eve you "consent" to PvP? Or do you simply acknowledge that it could happen? Quick dictionary search gives me:

acknowledge
verb (used with object), ac·knowl·edged, ac·knowl·edg·ing.
1. to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact of: to acknowledge one's mistakes.

consent
verb (used without object)
1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.

Seems more like acknowledgement than consent to me. Not a big deal, but I know a lot of people get stuck on that word consent (including me) whenever it comes up.


I actually think consent works better in that scenario, because you are not merely acknowledging it but placing yourself in a position where ship to ship combat becomes possible. You are permitting it, even while trying to avoid it.

Taking that further though, should undocking even be in that phrase? There is more to PvP than just ship to ship combat. Miners, Traders, Industrialist - they all engage in competition against other players.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#50 - 2014-02-13 23:25:57 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
You have acknowledged that you consented to pvp when you pressed the undock button. Now everybody is happy.
But I haven't consented, in fact I'm doing my best to make sure it doesn't happen, even after pressing undock.


When you rob a bank irl, legally you have consented to go to jail for it. Doesn't mean you're aren't going to try not to get caught.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#51 - 2014-02-13 23:28:33 UTC
If you do not wish to partake in PvP yet you still wish to undock and do other, non-pvp related aspects of EVE, and someone forces it upon you, you are allowed to think less of the perpetrator of the unwanted pvp.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2014-02-13 23:30:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
You have acknowledged that you consented to pvp when you pressed the undock button. Now everybody is happy.
But I haven't consented, in fact I'm doing my best to make sure it doesn't happen, even after pressing undock.


When you rob a bank irl, legally you have consented to go to jail for it. Doesn't mean you're aren't going to try not to get caught.

No, I haven't consented to going to jail, even legally since the law doesn't require your consent to pass judgement or enforce a sentance, as stated before though I may not be able to prevent it from happening and I'm aware of the possibility.
Ai Shun
#53 - 2014-02-13 23:34:05 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No, I haven't consented to going to jail, even legally since the law doesn't require your consent to pass judgement or enforce a sentance, as stated before though I may not be able to prevent it from happening and I'm aware of the possibility.


This would only be possible in a world where you are not aware of the consequences of your actions and didn't factor what could happen into your decision making. Once you've thought of the consequences and still undertake an action you've agreed that action has a possibility of happening. You may be doing everything in your power to avoid it, but by taking action you've accepted that it is a possible outcome and thus you have consented to it occurring (Even if that outcome is undesirable)
Adunh Slavy
#54 - 2014-02-13 23:39:32 UTC
Does one acknowledge that, walking in a dark Detroit alley at 3:00 AM, may lead to an attack by some deranged crack hungry nut job?
Yes

Does one consent to being attacked by said crack crazed nutter?
No.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2014-02-13 23:40:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Ai Shun wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No, I haven't consented to going to jail, even legally since the law doesn't require your consent to pass judgement or enforce a sentance, as stated before though I may not be able to prevent it from happening and I'm aware of the possibility.


This would only be possible in a world where you are not aware of the consequences of your actions and didn't factor what could happen into your decision making. Once you've thought of the consequences and still undertake an action you've agreed that action has a possibility of happening. You may be doing everything in your power to avoid it, but by taking action you've accepted that it is a possible outcome and thus you have consented to it occurring (Even if that outcome is undesirable)

Note, I didn't say they were aware or hadn't acknowledged the possibility of being caught and punished under the law, but rather that that awareness and acknowledgement is not equivalent to consent. The issue seems to be that some people are equating acknowledgement to consent, which isn't correct. The 2 can happen inclusively, but aren't necessarily forced to be inclusive.

Thus in the case of commiting a crime when facing the reality of punishment, rather than consent and "agree to" it, one might further attempts to avoid it. Essentially it just doesn't fit the definition unless knowledge = consent.
Zalena Skytrayn
Xoras Spacelines
#56 - 2014-02-14 00:12:59 UTC
WOW

I don't post here very often, althoug I do read the forums a lot... but wow....

All I can say is that based on this post, the average intellect of eve players has just gone right down in my eyes ..

The OP's post is, lets say, 100% grammatically correct, it's fact, it's posted with clarity and even dictionary definitions to support statement, but.. the responses are just amazing ...

I have lived 90% of my eve life in null... I have always accepted the eve community feeling of 'I consent to pvp' but I now have had my eyes opened to the true definition of eve.. yes, I acknowledge that I may be attacked, blown up, or forced into a fight, but that does NOT mean I consented to it ...

Thank you OP, for highlighting this glaring oversight, and to the rest, stop trolling, I imagine 99% of you actually agree with the post, but still feel the need to argue about it ...

xxx
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#57 - 2014-02-14 00:24:47 UTC
I acknowledge your consent to explode in a fire by way of of my space pixel turrets. Twisted
Shrewd Tsero
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#58 - 2014-02-14 00:41:30 UTC
Zalena Skytrayn wrote:
WOW

I don't post here very often, althoug I do read the forums a lot... but wow....

All I can say is that based on this post, the average intellect of eve players has just gone right down in my eyes ..

The OP's post is, lets say, 100% grammatically correct, it's fact, it's posted with clarity and even dictionary definitions to support statement, but.. the responses are just amazing ...

I have lived 90% of my eve life in null... I have always accepted the eve community feeling of 'I consent to pvp' but I now have had my eyes opened to the true definition of eve.. yes, I acknowledge that I may be attacked, blown up, or forced into a fight, but that does NOT mean I consented to it ...

Thank you OP, for highlighting this glaring oversight, and to the rest, stop trolling, I imagine 99% of you actually agree with the post, but still feel the need to argue about it ...

xxx


I honestly can't tell whether this is straight faced, or I'm being subtly mocked...

It is good to have substance to one's existence.  But in the absence of substance, one can do much yet with style.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#59 - 2014-02-14 01:17:18 UTC
Shrewd Tsero wrote:

I honestly can't tell whether this is straight faced, or I'm being subtly mocked...

Neither. Its not subtle at all.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Arancar Australis
Dead Sun Rising Enterprises
#60 - 2014-02-14 02:24:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Arancar Australis
Where the confusion comes into the use of the word consent, is that it requires an action of acceptance. But whether or not i state "Yes i accept PVP", the other person is still going to enagage in PVP even if i say no...the beauty of this game.

This would be more classed as Tacit Consent, as the action taken of undcking implies that i want to PVP. But my intent to undock was not to engage in PVP and my action is not a consent of me wanting to PVP.

Where the ganker has a problem is that they do not know of a better word to use other than "Consent" to explain why the gankee's ship is being reduced to pixelated wreckage.

The actual line should be "I accept the fact that as soon as i undock, there is athe possibility that i will be engaged in PVP, with or without my agreement, and that i accept the consequences of that action"


This whole arguement is more about the consequences and acceptance of those actions, rather than 2 parties having a mutual agreement to PVP (the duel mechanism).

Cheers,

AA