FD is not a state. It is a games developer. The ED universe is not a state, it is a computer game. One cannot 'extrapolate' one from the other to manufacture actual real-world consent. If this consent does not exist in the real world, it does not exist anywhere. Because only living sentient beings can consent to anything. And the living sentient beings aren't in the game, they are in the real world. Your 'extrapolation' is simply nonsensical.
Simple Fix to Combat Logging
- Thread starter Garbarrage
- Start date
- Status
FD is not a state. It is a games developer. The ED universe is not a state, it is a computer game. One cannot 'extrapolate' one from the other to manufacture actual real-world consent. If this consent does not exist in the real world, it does not exist anywhere. Because only living sentient beings can consent to anything. And the living sentient beings aren't in the game, they are in the real world. Your 'extrapolation' is simply nonsensical.
Hey, keep covering your eyes and keep typing, it's not like I'm in a hurry.
Citizens are what constitutes a state, virtual or not.
By playing a certain game there are consent being given, and it's a broad one since it is consent given to the game's universe.
A consent was given via starting to participate in the game, real world politics is a game, too.
Living beings are represented in a game, and while in this status, consent is given to the state one plays/take place in.
Your inability to comprehend is quite nonsensical by itself, to be honest.
Political theory, keyword is political, meaning an aggregation of people and complex association between them. This extrapolation applies appropriately regardless of your comprehension.
While I agree logging into open is giving consent to all that can happen in open. However it is clearly misused by some to blow up ships for no other reason then enjoying watching them blow up, especially those that only target people that clearly have no chance, in short griefing.
Do you give consent to being griefed? Personally no, I don't think so, because in according with EULA and TOS, people are expected to treat others with a measure of respect, and you can easily destroy others for a number of in game fully legit reasons for destroying them, you can be a pirate and steal their cargo, and still be respectful. But griefing? yeah that's not that.
And when you play open, you are not only consenting to what might happen in open, you are also agreeing with the EULA/TOS that you will behave accordingly, which some do not.
And I just don't get it, I like PvP, it should be challenging and risky, that's what is enjoyable about that, but just destroying people for no other reason then enjoying doing so, especially if they are weak targets? personally I'd think that anyone that genuinely enjoys PvP should severely frown upon that action, because the only thing it is going to cause, as proven in many games, is push people away, and reduce the possibilities for actual pvp and other interactions that can happen in open, because open isn't just about PvP, but all interactions that can happen, PvP is part of that, not all of it.
It's okay, when desperate, everything can suddenly become rational by the simple will to make it appear rational.
Edit:
Be back in a bit, got some club activities to turn my attention to.
Last edited:
See EULA/TOS, you are agreeing to follow this when you play in Open (or at all)
But yes, also consenting to what ever might happen in open, but open isn't just about pvp.
Frontier, can and fully legally so, remove your access to open/group if you violate EULA/TOS, as this is an online game, and it isn't legal for them to remove the game itself from you, they should leave you with solo mode.
Last edited:
Thank you.
While I agree with you, currently you are infact giving consent for anything that happens including being "griefed" according to FD.
Are you serious, or have you been watching Tron? You think I've given my consent to become part of a computer game? Nope. I've bought a computer game, and play it sometimes. If I choose, I can play the game at the same time as other people, and see how they are playing too. I'm not however under the delusion that I'm actually part of it.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Quoting the EULA/TOS for something it doesn't say isn't really a good argument...
Hence why I proposed changes and apparently FD are making changes. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=235327
Edit:
Debate club here I come >:3
Last edited:
Not really, because griefing violates the heck of out of the EULA/TOS, the main reason little has been done about it is because of the gray zone of burden of proof, people can make up a reason that is weak but plausible, that's why they are working on a proper consequence / crime and punishment system to handle the gray area, and improve the game overall.
At this point, since you appear to be having difficulty distinguishing between reality and the game, I'd recommend that rather than seeing your law professor, you talk to a member of the medical profession.
Interesting post, will read document, brief scanning looks interesting, there's been a lot of idea's by many, and similar idea's and this seems to sum it up good, but will read completely tomorrow, when I'm not heading to bed.
Because you say so....
Personally, I'd only play solo unwillingly, since it appears that doing so for any length of time leads to people not knowing the difference between it and reality. Not healthy...
When playing a multi-player online game, you are giving consent indirectly, and you most definitely are agreeing to behave according to what is expected EULA/TOS.
Why? because you are playing the game with others, the moment you begin interacting with others there are rules and standard, if you don't want that, play in solo and go nuts.
But the moment there is any interaction between people then there are rules and regulations generally on what you cannot do in such situations.
Lets say in real life, you go play the game "I got a new car" and you decide to play it outside with everyone else that have cars, there are rules you follow when you are around other people.
But lets say you own big track of ground, a race track, what have you, if you play there no one in the outside will really care what you do.
If you invite friends over to play on your track, then you expect them to behave a certain way, not ruining something that is yours.
Hopefully you can see what I am referring to.
Above is written in relation to.
Open mode.
Solo mode.
Private mode.
you may or may not agree on open mode, but that's how society and cultures work, when you are around others. And just because you are around others virtually does not change that fact, that you are around/interacting with others.
So yeah, I'm unsure why you state that EULA/TOS is not a good argument, it is the one solid set of rules that do exist, and that you have by playing the game said that you will not break, making it pretty solid in my book.
It seems though that your approach is the "This is just online it isn't real I am free to do what I want because this is just a game/virtual."? is it? because while it isn't untrue that Elite is a game, and that what you do is entirely virtual, like any game, real, or virtual. What happens in the game affect people.
If the EULA/TOS said anything about consenting to PVP being a requirement for playing in open, it might be relevant. It doesn't, so it isn't...
This is quite an accusation, you are basically saying "I am right and you are wrong" in the post above this too?
The internet is real, very real, games a very real, that they happen on a screen and not with a football in hand, doesn't change that one bit, it is the same investment of energy/time/emotions that people put into them, it is entertainment, it is supposed to be fun, EULA/TOS are things there to ensure it remains such. Yet you are accusing people of not being able to tell the difference? because they have a different opinion then you?
- Status