Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-18, 22:16

  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
MatthewFC

Implicit consent and how far can it go

Question

MatthewFC    9

I try to run a character where OOC communication is next to none, so it's important to know how far can one take mine and others IC actions to mean something like consent and KoS rights.

Let's say that A is on hostile terms with B, but no one of the two has KoS rights on each other yet. A tells B "If you follow me to point X, I'll kill you", and proceeds to point X. Does A saying that grant B KoS rights immediately? If not, when does B gain KoS rights over A? When both are in point X?

It could be part of the question, but I think that we will all agree that if B follows A anyways on the example above, A gains KoS rights over B, isn't that right?

Now, let's extend this example to an extreme point. Instead, A tells B "if you follow me to point X, I'll shot you untill you're bleeding on the ground, and then take your head off on the spot". This is, of course, an implicit threat that A will permadeath B's character. Is the action of B following A an implicit consent that A can perform actions that will otherwise constitute powergaming? And, what is more, is his action of following A, an implicit consent to permadeath his character, should he follow and lose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Guest   
Guest

In order to "permadeath" somebodies character you need to have ooc consent. There is a post on everything relating to Godmodding power gaming etc. As far as KOS, you need to make your intentions clear. I will also notify you that their is a thread on KOS with examples given. I will link them below.

http://www.dayzrp.com/t-godmodding-metagaming-and-powerplaying-what-they-are-and-how-to-avoid-them

http://www.dayzrp.com/t-rules-clarification-kos-sharing-and-baiting?highlight=Lucia

Give these a read buddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
MatthewFC    9

I have already read both of those (and more) but no actual answer to the above scenarios is given. It could be argued that only OOC agreement can grant a person permadeath or modding rights over someone's character, but it has already been stated that one cannot refuse OOC while IC daring the person to do so (see THIS POST) on a past report I had on a powergaming issue.

So this example pretty much is an extension of the fact that OOC agreement is not the only road to modify another's character... Unless it is the only road, and thus that post was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
MatthewFC    9

I'm going to sleep now so just in case I will leave a more in-depth explanation of how I see these situations:

When A declares that he will become hostile if B performs X (going to point X, in the example) he's making his intentions very clear about that performing X will result in hostile reprisal. I do not think the statement alone would grant KoS right from B to A, not anymore than A stating "if you try to shoot me, I'll kill you" because there's no initiation, just a statement informing of a possible outcome that can be clearly avoided to no cost for B.

Thus, a contract is made between both players, that if X is met, then a deathmatch is started. Should B perform X, then the deathmatch triggers. B has a clear option of not performing X, and if the option "not performing X" does not result in any harm to him/her, choosing to perform X shows implicit consent.

Now, this implicit consent, how far can we take it? Can we make it so it also shows consent to modding the other's character? Can A state that if B performs X, he will attempt to mod B's character, and should A be succesful in performing the mod, will A be godmodding/powergaming, or will "B performing X" be considered as sufficient consent? Because, B had a clear way to avoid triggering the retaliation, yet B still chose not to. B can be construed as "daring" A to perform the mod, as part of the contract.

So, tell me what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Tamaster92    14

I do not think the statement alone would grant KoS right from B to A, not anymore than A stating "if you try to shoot me, I'll kill you" because there's no initiation, just a statement informing of a possible outcome that can be clearly avoided to no cost for B.

The problem is, that IS a initiation. You are telling them to do something or die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
MatthewFC    9

The problem is, that IS a initiation. You are telling them to do something or die.

So any statement by A along the formula "If X, then I'll retaliate" constitutes an initiation, even without anything else added? Anything else like raising a weapon, being plainly hostile or "X" not being immediately accomplishable by B...

To give you an ingame example, SoS will rutinely ask players not to totter guns while on their "sanctuary", because if not they might get detained and/or killed. As soon as they ask that, are they granting KoS rights to the person they ask this? Are they shooting themselves on the foot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

To give you an ingame example, SoS will rutinely asks players not to totter guns while on their "sanctuary", because if not they might get detained and/or killed. As soon as they ask that, are they granting KoS rights to the person they ask this? Are they shooting themselves on the foot?

That's the thing, they are asking people to have their gun holstered, not forceg people to. If it comes to that and they threaten anyone who isn't doing so, then it becomes an hostile actions and that grants KoS rights. Ultimately, if you go there and have your gun out when they are asking you not to just so that you can gain KoS rights, you're just being an asshole looking for trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
MatthewFC    9

That's the thing, they are asking people to have their gun holstered, not forceg people to. If it comes to that and they threaten anyone who isn't doing so, then it becomes an hostile actions and that grants KoS rights. Ultimately, if you go there and have your gun out when they are asking you not to just so that you can gain KoS rights, you're just being an asshole looking for trouble.

Ok then, so one of my assumptions was wrong. Any statement by A that explicity includes hostile consecuences can be considered an initiation, thus if A tells B "if X, then I'll retaliate" he's grantig B KoS rights even before B performs X, no matter what X is. Isn't that right?

Thats half the question then! The other half, about the implicit consent to modding... I'm ok if it goes unanswered, because given the above conclussion, it would hardly be applicable. I can give an example why:

A is automatically granting KoS rights no matter what he says if the consecuences are hostile, and I can thus imagine an example of "If you raise your weapon I'll cut your fingers off" will grant KoS rights from B to A, but no serious staff member will enforce implicit consent or modding rights if B chooses to use his KoS rights but fails/is neutralized. A will effectively be powergaming unless B gives separate, OOC consent to make it clear that consent was given.

You can close this now, thanks for the feedback!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Ok then, so one of my assumptions was wrong. Any statement by A that explicity includes hostile consecuences can be considered an initiation, thus if A tells B "if X, then I'll retaliate" he's grantig B KoS rights even before B performs X, no matter what X is. Isn't that right?

Thats half the question then! The other half, about the implicit consent to modding... I'm ok if it goes unanswered, because given the above conclussion, it would hardly be applicable. I can give an example why:

A is automatically granting KoS rights no matter what he says if the consecuences are hostile, and I can thus imagine an example of "If you raise your weapon I'll cut your fingers off" will grant KoS rights from B to A, but no serious staff member will enforce implicit consent or modding rights if B chooses to use his KoS rights but fails/is neutralized. A will effectively be powergaming unless B gives separate, OOC consent to make it clear that consent was given.

You can close this now, thanks for the feedback!

Consequences to non-compliance are a complete separate matter, you must still have OOC permission from the player to permanently affect his character whether or not there is compliance, those are resolved completely independent of each other. Saying that you will cut someone's fingers if he doesn't comply, and then doing so without the player's permission even though there is no compliance is still powergaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As stated above, the moment you tell a person you are going to do harm to them you are giving them kos rights...also to answer the second part of your question, the only person who can permadeath a character is the person who plays that character. You can not force a person to stop playing a character or to kill off their character as it is...their character.

I am glad you recieved the answer you were looking for but if you have any more questions you can always come to Waiting for Staff Help channel in teamspeak to seek more information...

/solving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×