These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ai Shun
#61 - 2014-02-14 02:43:54 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.


You're drawing the line too far, I think.

If you are deciding whether to commit a crime or not you have to, at some stage, weigh up the consequences of those actions. One of those will be the reality of punishment. Your contract with society is known - if you rob a bank and you are caught and proven guilty you will be punished in some form. That is the stage of acknowledgement, you understand the consequences of your actions.

You're then faced with a choice.

You can proceed or you can refrain. If you refrain, you're done. You've acknowledged the various outcomes and decided that you're not willing to risk the possibility of something happening.

Choose otherwise however, and the outcome is different. It's in that choice I see consent as occurring. A human being has free choice and has determined their own future. They have, because the social contract and likely outcome is known, consented to the punishment under said social contract and proceeded with their action.

I don't think you can divorce acceptance of the possible outcomes from the actual choice, which seems to be what you're saying is possible.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#62 - 2014-02-14 02:46:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimmi Chan
I just got removed from my Golem in a 0.4 system.

I acknowledge that I should have used a scout.

I acknowledge that I made sure the ship was insured before jumping.

I consented to having the ship blown up because of my actions or lack of action.

Whether a ship is blown to bits in low-sec or high-sec does not matter.

If you want to spend a bunch of time debating about whether you acknowledge or consent to PVP, it really is kind of a cataclysmic waste of time.

If you don't want someone blowing up your ship - stay in the station or don't bother logging in.

Consent vs. acknowledgement is just a stupid matter of semantics.

And to the fellows that blew up my Golem, I say once again, "GF". Big smile

ED: I did consider coming here and making a "Nerf Low-sec thread" just to be funny but I was too afraid that all you nutjobs would take it seriously and then go on for weeks and 150 pages about HTFU and who knows what else. Blink

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Ai Shun
#63 - 2014-02-14 02:51:59 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
And to the fellows that blew up my Golem, I say once again, "GF". Big smile


Are you using this definition of GF or the more commonly accepted one of Good Fight?

Lol
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#64 - 2014-02-14 02:53:04 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
And to the fellows that blew up my Golem, I say once again, "GF". Big smile


Are you using this definition of GF or the more commonly accepted one of Good Fight?

Lol


The latter. LOL

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2014-02-14 03:10:41 UTC
Arancar Australis wrote:
Where the confusion comes into the use of the word consent, is that it requires an action of acceptance.


Such as pressing undock.

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.
Clementina
University of Caille
#66 - 2014-02-14 03:14:10 UTC
Arancar Australis wrote:
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 enagged 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


What you are missing here though is what Eve is, which is BDSM. Sure you might have me webbified and warp scrambled and I'm shouting in local "Stop!", "Don't", and "No"; but really what I mean is "No, Don't Stop!" Shucks, Eve even has a few safeword mechanics, you can redock, or even log.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2014-02-14 03:18:45 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.


You're drawing the line too far, I think.

If you are deciding whether to commit a crime or not you have to, at some stage, weigh up the consequences of those actions. One of those will be the reality of punishment. Your contract with society is known - if you rob a bank and you are caught and proven guilty you will be punished in some form. That is the stage of acknowledgement, you understand the consequences of your actions.

You're then faced with a choice.

You can proceed or you can refrain. If you refrain, you're done. You've acknowledged the various outcomes and decided that you're not willing to risk the possibility of something happening.

Choose otherwise however, and the outcome is different. It's in that choice I see consent as occurring. A human being has free choice and has determined their own future. They have, because the social contract and likely outcome is known, consented to the punishment under said social contract and proceeded with their action.

I don't think you can divorce acceptance of the possible outcomes from the actual choice, which seems to be what you're saying is possible.

If consequences were certain and the only factor then yes, acknowledgement with subsequent action is consent. But in both the game and a bank robbery we aren't dealing with certainty. We are dealing with the intersection of chance, skill and preparation. 2 of those specifically, if taken by the person undocking or robbing the bank are the opposite of consent. They are a direct resistance to acknowledged possibilities in place of "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something." The behavioral evidence doesn't support the idea that permission or approval is granted, which is the definition of not consenting.

You state that somehow a social contract is formed by chosing to undertake that risk, when in fact it isn't. Again the resistance to possible consequences evidences no such contract has been agreed to on the part of the person undertaking the action. Rather it's the authority and ability of those who would respond to the act that are wholly responsible for attempting to enforce whatever consequence they see fit. The person who, in the case of the game, undocked has no obligation to see to it that they are engaged.

I'm not divorcing acceptance, or perhaps better stated, awareness of possible outcomes from choices, but rather from mandatory approval of any subset of those potential consequences.

@Kimmi Chan:
I'm pretty sure all those participating are aware of the fact that the debate doesn't stand to accomplish anything concrete, but I'm also pretty sure we're engaging in it because want to. Not sure your disapproval will affect that fact.

Also while the lowsec story is nice, and the advice sound, it misses the point of the thread.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2014-02-14 03:20:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Arancar Australis wrote:
Where the confusion comes into the use of the word consent, is that it requires an action of acceptance.


Such as pressing undock.

Actually, no. That's kind of the point here.
Arancar Australis
Dead Sun Rising Enterprises
#69 - 2014-02-14 03:20:35 UTC
Clementina wrote:
Arancar Australis wrote:
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 enagged 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


What you are missing here though is what Eve is, which is BDSM. Sure you might have me webbified and warp scrambled and I'm shouting in local "Stop!", "Don't", and "No"; but really what I mean is "No, Don't Stop!" Shucks, Eve even has a few safeword mechanics, you can redock, or even log.



It takes all viewpoints i guess, not sure about the BDSM reference, but if that floats your boat...

And what happens if you log while being ganked?
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#70 - 2014-02-14 03:24:55 UTC
Arancar Australis wrote:
And what happens if you log while being ganked?


The same thing that happens if you log while not being ganked, your client closes.

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.
Ai Shun
#71 - 2014-02-14 03:26:33 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
If consequences were certain and the only factor then yes, acknowledgement with subsequent action is consent.


I'm going to ask for clarity on one aspect before fully assimilating the rest.

Why do you believe consequences must be certain for one to accept them?

I ask that because you cannot absolutely guarantee any outcome, we're dealing with probabilities of outcomes happening. Granted, the probability of the apple hitting the floor is very, very faxing high. But it is not a guarantee.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2014-02-14 03:38:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Ai Shun wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
If consequences were certain and the only factor then yes, acknowledgement with subsequent action is consent.


I'm going to ask for clarity on one aspect before fully assimilating the rest.

Why do you believe consequences must be certain for one to accept them?

I ask that because you cannot absolutely guarantee any outcome, we're dealing with probabilities of outcomes happening. Granted, the probability of the apple hitting the floor is very, very faxing high. But it is not a guarantee.

Your question indicates that I may not have communicated this properly.

Consent isn't acceptance of possible consequence, it's approval of that consequence, or specifically to view it as either favorable or barring that, if were lose with the meaning, inevitable. Inevitability is the only thing that can bring an undesired consequence to be close to being consented to. Even then it still isn't quite there.

Being aware of a possibility is not consent. Since we've already broken the barrier of real world equivalency regarding examples, I suppose I don't need to feel inappropriate to give another:

I do not consent to being killed. That said, I live in a place where in relative proximity, both by way of accident and intent, people have died by the actions of other people. This has happened in places that I regularly inhabit but one may not think of, IE driving to work every day on a busy highway. But I still do so. That said, again, I know this can happen, but I explicitly do not consent to being killed.

While the severity is completely incomparable to in game, the words should still mean the same thing. Why is it then, that the definition should change in eve?
Keno Skir
#73 - 2014-02-14 03:39:38 UTC
Shrewd Tsero wrote:
It's all probably just trivial semantics anyway


Read and re-read that part OP. You both acknowledge AND consent. You acknowledge without even undocking, when you undock you are consenting to play by the "outside the station" rules and thus PvP.

What a waste of a post...

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2014-02-14 03:43:18 UTC
Keno Skir wrote:
Shrewd Tsero wrote:
It's all probably just trivial semantics anyway


Read and re-read that part OP. You both acknowledge AND consent. You acknowledge without even undocking, when you undock you are consenting to play by the "outside the station" rules and thus PvP.

What a waste of a post...

Being outside the station doesn't mandate PvP though.
Arancar Australis
Dead Sun Rising Enterprises
#75 - 2014-02-14 03:51:26 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Arancar Australis wrote:
Where the confusion comes into the use of the word consent, is that it requires an action of acceptance.


Such as pressing undock.



I knew i should have been succinct Roll

You are basing your arguement based upon the thought that Eve is solely a PVP game. If it was, i would agree with you that the tacit consent is given when i undock. But as CCP has given us a game where any playstyle is accepted, then no, undocking or just the act of logging in is not consent to be a part of PVP.

This is all around a viewpoint, which no amount of arguing will resolve because we are all very opinionated people in this game. Big smile

Your viewpoint is that when i undock, i instantly agree to partake in PVP as being my sole reason for being in eve. My viewpoint is that when i undock, i am not agreeing to just PVP...i in fact could be mining or missioning.

Both viewpoints conflict and we will never have a level we both agree upon.

What we can agree upon is that when we all undock our intention for undocking has consequences not just for me but for those players around me. I have no choice in consenting to those sonsequences visited upon me by other players, but i accept the possible outcomes that may arise. Whether that be being ganked, mining, POS bashing, PI drudgery (or reading more fun pieces of trolling from goonies).

I just accept the consequences of my actions, doesn't mean i consent happily to them.
Arancar Australis
Dead Sun Rising Enterprises
#76 - 2014-02-14 03:53:48 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Arancar Australis wrote:
And what happens if you log while being ganked?


The same thing that happens if you log while not being ganked, your client closes.



I don't do a lot of PVP, but wasn't logging off in the middle of being ganked or agressed still allows the chance of you being destroyed?

Correct me if i am wrong on the above.
Arancar Australis
Dead Sun Rising Enterprises
#77 - 2014-02-14 03:54:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Arancar Australis
.
Keno Skir
#78 - 2014-02-14 04:00:08 UTC
Even if you are mining, you are by way of playing the game agreeing to a possibility of PvP being thrust upon you. We all are, it's in the rules in black and white.

Pointless thread.

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2014-02-14 04:02:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Keno Skir wrote:
Even if you are mining, you are by way of playing the game agreeing to a possibility of PvP being thrust upon you. We all are, it's in the rules in black and white.

Pointless thread.

What if I'm station orbiting or seeing how long it takes to MWD from undock to the nearest moon?

Edit: misread, reply below is more applicable.
Arancar Australis
Dead Sun Rising Enterprises
#80 - 2014-02-14 04:11:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Arancar Australis
Keno Skir wrote:
Even if you are mining, you are by way of playing the game agreeing to a possibility of PvP being thrust upon you. We all are, it's in the rules in black and white.

Pointless thread.


No i accept that i may be forced into PVP without my consent, but that does not mean that i agree to it or i would be putting a blaster on my hulk to fight back. Twisted now there's a thought...

I accept the consequence (as a concept) that when i undock and go about what i enjoy doing in this game that i may be attacked and podded by another player, who is following their pursuit of what they deem as being enjoyable in the game. But i do not verbally, mentally or implicitly agree to it.

My action in undocking is to enjoy this game. Your action in undocking is to enjoy this game. How we enjoy it does not rely upon another's consent being given or withheld.