News 5 24 - Clarifications to policy regarding consent

NEWS article 5-24:

Dateline 12/12/2003: CLARIFICATIONS TO POLICY REGARDING CONSENT

Theft:

Taking something from another player can be considered consent, regardless of method. This not only includes graverobbing, but theft of money, gems, items and kills. Yes, you heard that last part correctly. Nobody owns a room; that does not change. But, if the intruder insists on interfering with the occupying party's hunting, or begins to take items, skins, or kills that obviously should have gone to the occupants first -- then they (the intruders) ARE operating under implied consent. This does NOT mean that the occupants may shoot first and ask questions later. But it does mean that if they have reasonably requested that the intruders leave the items/critters be, and that request is not honored, then they have the right to seek recompense.

Scammers beware! If you think that you're slick for tricking another player out of some significant coin and/or that special item, please do not be surprised if they decide to take it out of your hide in repayment. Scamming other players out of their coin or items DOES place you under implied consent, do so at your risk.

In addition, items on the ground, being obviously guarded by another player, are grounds for consent if stolen or deliberately destroyed. Interpretation: If you take something that does not belong to, nor was intended for you in the first place, expect to take your lumps without us bailing you out.

Magic:

The use of everyday magic in regards to PvP can be broken down into four categories: Offensive/Harmful, Bonus/Neutral, Remote, and Area Effect.

1) Offensive/Harmful -- These include, but are not limited to, all spells which cause direct harm to the recipient. Use of these spells on a person WILL give the victim consent against the caster. Moon Mages, please note that Mental Blast does fall into this category for definition purposes.

2) Bonus/Neutral -- Spells that do not cause *direct* harm to the target do not provide consent UNLESS they are being used as a means to do harm to the target, harass the target, or in an abuse/theft type of situation. Example: Halt does not necessarily provide consent; however, Halt used to place the target in danger from the environment, creatures, or persons can provide consent against the caster. Empaths, please note that "sleeping" a person MAY result in the target having consent on you if it places them in danger. Moon Mages, please note that Seer's Sense MAY result in the target having consent upon you, depending on what it ends up being used for.

IMPORTANT: The use of bonus/neutral spells on oneself does NOT provide consent to anyone. The use of a non-offensive spell on another player for the purposes of taunting them or aggravating an existing situation MAY provide consent. The use of *helpful* magic on a person (i.e. Rejuvenation, Empathy) does NOT provide consent UNLESS there are extenuating IC circumstances -- which we will absolutely not "what-if" to death here or on the boards.

3) Remote -- Spells cast on a person from a remote location that do not in some manner cause direct harm to the target do NOT automatically provide consent UNLESS they are being abused and/or being used solely for the purposes of harassment or exacerbating a conflict. The use of Locate and Shadewatch Mirror fall into this category. Riftal Summons CAN and in most cases probably will provide consent against the caster.

IMPORTANT: The use of Thoughtcast does NOT automatically provide consent on the caster; that will be determined by its use and content. Much like the gweth system, if you're going to talk tough in somebody's head, be prepared for the consequences.

4) Area Effect -- There are a variety of processes in place that will affect everyone in a room when utilized -- not only spells, but Barbarian roars and Bardic enchantes. If you happen to walk into an area effect, you do NOT have consent against the person who is the source. If one is used for the EXPRESS INTENT of harming you and/or everyone in the room, then that CAN give consent against the caster/singer/roarer.

PREP/TARGET: Targeting someone WILL give them consent on you. PREParing a spell while *directly* involved in a conflict with another player MAY give that person consent to defend themselves IF they have reason to expect that the resulting spell may be used against them.

Ranged:

Aiming a ranged weapon at another player also provides consent; to do so is an obvious threat to that person. If they choose to act on that threat, it is their decision, and you take that chance by taking aim. Interpretation: Don't point a loaded weapon at someone, or cast a spell at him or her, if you're not willing to deal with the consequences.

"Non-physical" attacks:

Advancing someone DOES give the other party consent. They should not have to wait until they have a blade in their chest to defend themselves. If you are advancing on someone, that is a direct threat to their person and they have to right to react in a reasonable and IC fashion.

Any statement, emote or action used in a negative manner against another player has the potential to be considered consent, especially when it is deliberately used to goad the target into a physical encounter. There should be evidence of provocation strong enough to warrant a reasonable person to respond in a negative manner. A single taunt, slap, kick, etc., alone may not be sufficient. However, if a player is repeatedly and openly insulting another player, or KICKing, PUNCHing, SLAPping, etc. -- then that person is operating under implied consent.

In other words, if their target gets tired of the abuse and chooses to react in a more physical manner, they have the ability to do so. If the abuser has been reasonably warned to cease their behavior, and they continue with said actions, then they are giving their target consent. "Hit me again and I will kill you." Abuser does it again, bingo -- he just consented. Interpretation: Don't write checks your player won't cash. Do not expect staff intervention in situations that you have provoked, exacerbated or kept deliberately ongoing. You will be expected to deal with the repercussions of your actions.

Friends / Spouses aiding the "victim":

It is not considered a violation of policy for a player to provide **non-violent** intervention and assistance to the victim of a crime (such as graverobbery). This will include the use of magic or skills to search for, delay, and detain the criminal in order to facilitate the victim exacting revenge and/or obtaining his/her belongings where warranted. A player's preexisting and recognized spouse may however, act on their behalf and be considered to have consent as well, through their relationship to the victim.

It remains against policy for a player to then bring in an "older" and more experienced character on their (or another) account in order to attack their opponent. This is considered mechanics abuse and will be treated as such. Interpretation: Your preexisting spouse falls under your umbrella of consent, but no way are we gonna buy that your 50th circle "brother" just "happened by."

Eye for an Eye:

In the cases of direct player dispute, consent can be called satisfied at a responding death -- and the conflict called to a halt. In cases of theft however, for as long as the thief retains what was stolen, they are operating under implied consent and the victim has the right to try and retrieve their things in an IC setting. This means it is NOT satisfied by one death if the thief retains the items or coins. Deliberately attempting to "walk" a player remains against policy, but short of that -- the thief is accountable for their actions until the goods in question are returned to their owner or the parties mutually end the conflict.

In any PvP scenario, the instigator should not be able to suddenly cry foul when things go awry. Interpretation: Getting killed once does not mean you get a "Get away with theft free" card. You will remain accountable for the consequences incurred by your actions until such time as it becomes unreasonable and disruptive to the general game play environment.

"But I was just RPing!":

Claiming to be role-playing an insane person, serial killer or mass murderer is not an acceptable reason for engaging in unprovoked PvP. While we are working to encourage players to settle their disputes in an IC manner as much as is conceivably possible -- this will never be a reasonable defense. Whenever feasible, we will be looking to utilize and implement IC repercussions. These include things like the justice system, guild-specific punishments etc. Interpretation: Do the crime, do the time.

So when is it truly Unconsented PvP?

Obviously, we cannot cover every possible scenario that will arise. When one player attacks or kills another without a determinable cause, that is potential grounds for unconsented PvP. This includes players getting involved in conflicts that do not involve them in any direct fashion. It covers those who like to bully younger players, inciting them into an altercation without their knowledge of policy or what their options are as far as response goes. If it is clearly obvious that this is the case, please expect that we will pursue the instigator in regard to Disruptive Behavior if the situation is not resolved quickly and to everyone's satisfaction. Attempts to "hide" behind Policy will no longer be tolerated. Interpretation: Pick on somebody your own size who's willing to throw down with you, or expect to find yourself on the wrong side of the law.

END NEWS ITEM