Talk:News 5 25 - Consent policy: questions and answers
General Comments
Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other News subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate news pages.
ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE NEWS DISCUSSION PLEASE READ:
- Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution.
- Do NOT hold debates or conversations.
- You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say.
- Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find.
- To sign your contribution, click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window. (note: if the button is not showing up, the code is --~~~~ to add a signature)
- To sign your contribution, click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window. (note: if the button is not showing up, the code is --~~~~ to add a signature)
- Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save!
Thanks! --Kythryn 17:06, 8 September 2016 (CDT)
Discussion
Overall I think that NEWS 5 25 does a good job of clarifying specific consent situations, however I did find some contradictions between scenarios found in both NEWS 5 24 and NEWS 5 25. It doesn't make much difference to me which rules are chosen moving forward so much as I'd like to see less gray areas like these that can be left open to interpretation.
From NEWS 5 24:
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.
From NEWS 5 25:
But it wasn't harmful ... it was a helpful spell. Is *that* consent? YES
From NEWS 5 24:
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.
From NEWS 5 25:
I stole from you. I therefore gave you consent to retaliate with violence. When you attack me violently, I DO have the right to defend myself. But when you kill me, that's it, it's over. --WHITEBEAUTY (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2016 (CDT)