Question for Open players who don't like PVP/ganking... help me understand

Vetinari

V
Danquememe said:
If you still chose to build your sand castle in the general public part of the beach, even when you had your own private, completely walled off section available to you - where you'd still be able to hear all the other beachgoers and even interact with them, though they could not have infringed on your castle building - then does it change things at all?
Click to expand...


Not really, theres more than enough beach to go round, the people who want to destroy can go over there a bit and do what they like to each other, no reason to come over here specifically just to destroy.

especially as a lot of them complain theyre not allowed on the Private beaches anymore and they can see and hear people having a good time over there so they want to close them down as well
 

Screemonster

Screemonster
Riverside said:
I think you are failing to understand. Not gaining consent does not mean you cannot do something. The game allows for criminal activity & has consequences (bounties gained, notoriety etc).

You are simply using the wrong phrasing in a way that is important. Please take this on board. If you are finding it frustrating to grasp this perhaps it would be better for you to take a moment to consider what I am saying rather than just getting angry.
Click to expand...
Using "consent" in this way to stuff happening in open is really the wrong word. Take the right to privacy, for instance - sure, if someone points a camera through your living room window then they're breaking the law. They are not violating your right to privacy if they take a picture in a public place and you happen to be in the frame of the photograph. By placing yourself in that public area, you have negated any need for anyone to seek your permission to take photographs, as the entire area permits photography of anything in it.
 

Phisto Sobanii

Phisto Sobanii
Riverside said:
I think you are failing to understand. Not gaining consent does not mean you cannot do something. The game allows for criminal activity & has consequences (bounties gained, notoriety etc).
Click to expand...

I'm understanding it fine. In game/in character I absolutely don't have consent. My CMDR attacks another CMDR because he wants to and that's all he needs.

Out of game/out of character I absolutely have consent. Both of us clicked Open Play. We can do as we like to each other.

The debate comes from conflating the two.

Vetinari said:
Not really, theres more than enough beach to go round, the people who want to destroy can go over there a bit and do what they like to each other, no reason to come over here specifically just to destroy.

especially as a lot of them complain theyre not allowed on the Private beaches anymore and they can see and hear people having a good time over there so they want to close them down as well
Click to expand...

A ganker in a ganker Discord decides to go exploring. An explorer in an explorers Discord decides to go ganking.

The ganker might get teased a little. Usually we enjoy their screenshots. The explorer gets ostracized.

You want the beach. You can't have it.
 

Vetinari

V
XloubellXX said:
I hate to argue the point, non-game related, there is such a thing as implicit consent,
Click to expand...

Thanks to the new European law (cant remember the name atm) a lot of people have now come to learn implicit consent and what it means.

Implicit or Organisational or Need to Know can cover specific Consent. A lot of agencies, companies etc now are specifying as far as possible what the implicit consent is as far as possible to cover themselves as in law if challenged they will have to have a very very clear case of why they didnt get specific consent under reasonable circumstances.

If I give consent to my Dr, to share medical info with other organisations to help I dont expect to get marketing from McDonalds telling me they have super soft chairs for my Piles.

The Open login screen information is not ideal is the logical outcome of this either way. Just define 'Encounter' and its the simplest fix of all
 

Danquememe

Danquememe
MishaTX said:
I haven't changed my approach to how I, personally, like to play this game because of all of this, but I most certainly HAVE changed my opinion of those who don't play it the same way I do, and I do really appreciate that. I like to think that I've made new friends this way. If I haven't, then at least we've had an honest, adult discussion rather than just shouting at each other and calling each other names, something of which I'm guilty too.
Click to expand...
Misha, as one fellow "capital class wall of text" writer to another, first off, I just want to congratulate you. That was a beautiful wall. The best wall. Tall, strong... You know, I know people, the best people, wall people - and they tell me that was one of the finest walls they've ever seen. Honestly, an outstanding wall. Truly big, big league. You should be proud, very proud. Outstanding work on that wall, the best.

Not meaning to trump up your comments any further - but sincerely, thank you. That was a great post and I enjoyed it. Thanks for picking up on what I'm trying to lay down in this thread.
 
Last edited:

Riverside

Riverside
XloubellXX said:
By entering the arena you consent to the idea that it is possible.
Click to expand...

Consent is an ongoing thing. If I leave my ship in space I am vunerable to attack. I accept that it is a potential consequence, but I do not consent to being blown up. That I do not consent does not prevent another from popping my ship, but it is a non-consensual act - effectively a crime. In the game there are consequences for that, the game rules take it into account. In addition I may seek retribution (eg find the Cmdr & blow them up, or attack their home system/faction).

Phisto is just using the wrong words to describe actions & consequences.
 
Last edited:

Vetinari

V
Screemonster said:
By placing yourself in that public area, you have negated any need for anyone to seek your permission to take photographs, as the entire area permits photography of anything in it
Click to expand...

In the UK it has been successfully challenged in Court of Law (not sure what stage or appeals happening) against the Police to use facial recognition en masse to identify someone who may be wanted in a public place (They had a van with cameras and signs up in a public street)

But the yanks ruled space originally in ED so.....
 

Riverside

Riverside
Screemonster said:
Using "consent" in this way to stuff happening in open is really the wrong word. Take the right to privacy, for instance - sure, if someone points a camera through your living room window then they're breaking the law. They are not violating your right to privacy if they take a picture in a public place and you happen to be in the frame of the photograph. By placing yourself in that public area, you have negated any need for anyone to seek your permission to take photographs, as the entire area permits photography of anything in it.
Click to expand...

You describe actions & consequences (and how the law - or the rules of a game) define it. Not consent. You can legally take a picture without consent in the example you give, you do not have their consent.
 

Phisto Sobanii

Phisto Sobanii
Vetinari said:
In the UK it has been successfully challenged in Court of Law (not sure what stage or appeals happening) against the Police to use facial recognition en masse to identify someone who may be wanted in a public place (They had a van with cameras and signs up in a public street)

But the yanks ruled space originally in ED so.....
Click to expand...

Sorry, but my taking a picture of you because you happen to be in view of the public place I'm photographing is not at all like the police using mass surveilance. Ruling against the latter in no way impacts the former.
 

[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos

[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos
Vetinari said:
Thanks to the new European law (cant remember the name atm) a lot of people have now come to learn implicit consent and what it means.

Implicit or Organisational or Need to Know can cover specific Consent. A lot of agencies, companies etc now are specifying as far as possible what the implicit consent is as far as possible to cover themselves as in law if challenged they will have to have a very very clear case of why they didnt get specific consent under reasonable circumstances.

If I give consent to my Dr, to share medical info with other organisations to help I dont expect to get marketing from McDonalds telling me they have super soft chairs for my Piles.
Click to expand...

I agree, but implicit consent is still a thing. In my line of work, I am trying to aid someone by giving them something they have requested, I just need more detail, I am not trying to give them something they never asked for.

I was really only making the point that there is such a thing as implicit or implied consent.

Riverside said:
Consent is an ongoing thing.
Click to expand...

Correct and all the time you're in open, you consent to the idea it might happen. Boot on the other foot. I go into open and kill a clean CMDR, then I gain notoriety and a bounty, I didn't consent to that, you gave me the tools to kill someone but I didn't consent to face the consequences for it.
 

Riverside

Riverside
Phisto Sobanii said:
Sorry, but my taking a picture of you because you happen to be in view of the public place I'm photographing is not at all like the police using mass surveilance. Ruling against the latter in no way impacts the former.
Click to expand...

We are discussing the basic concept of consent, do you now understand the (important) difference between actions and consequences, and consent?
 

Riverside

Riverside
XloubellXX said:
all the time you're in open, you consent to the idea it might happen.
Click to expand...

No you are aware that things may happen, actions & consequences. That's not consent. Whether you have permission to do something or not is an important distinction. I'm not really sure what example you are referring to with your IRL occupation, but you may be legally allowed to act without having to gain consent - a medic giving CPR for example could attempt to save the life of an uncooperative patient.
 

Vetinari

V
Well Done Everybody!

I think we managed an entire page, page 49, without the use of the word Carebear and if we are good we can do it on this one too...damn!

XloubellXX said:
I was really only making the point that there is such a thing as implicit or implied consent.
Click to expand...

Yes I know, but at the same time you cant just do it without some form of written consent first that explains the general consent and will include the fact that you may share info. The implied consent comes legally from the fact that the person (me) understands or would understand that this was a reasonable purpose to share info under 'implicit consent'. If you have no agreement with me at all you have no right to the implicit consent (which is actually a legal defence, not a legal right). If that agreement is unclear or worded so as to be ambiguous your 'implicit consent' defence becomes weaker as you should have asked for specific consent. (I work in Mental Health so its that angle, you cant take away the rights and consent without their consent unless legally unable to give consent - you have to be very careful to infer or imply consent and we often recontact and specify or specify a lot of orgs we could share with)

But thats all legal terminology, we are talking forum terminology which is much much more defined and redefined and misinterpreted and misrepresented and mispelt on occasion ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom