Guy asks, "May I be healed?"

Empath says, "Sure, I'll heal you for a gold."

Guy says, "Okay, that's fine."

Guy gets healed, then runs off without paying.

So the guy agrees to pay X for Y, then runs away with Y without paying X. Consent?

Guy asks, "May I be healed?"

Empath says, "Sure, I'll heal you for a gold."

Guy says, "Okay, that's fine."

Empath starts to heal Guy.

OtherEmpath starts to heal Guy.

OtherEmpath exclaims, "No! I will heal you for free!"

Thus depriving Empath of both experience and custom, in a similar fashion to killing someone's mobs. Consent? Especially if Empath asks OtherEmpath once or more to stop? In this case, it wouldn't simply be an Empath accidentally healing someone's patient unknowingly, but a deliberate act by the second Empath to attempt to deprive the first Empath of experience and money.

-- Player of Szrael --

---

Come to the First Empath Union Meeting, Sunday July 19th at 7PM EST on the Jolly Roger, which will be moored to the Skirr docks in Crossing.

1. maybe
2. lol no

1, yes, but you'd be better off asking for payment in advance.


The undead hordes would like to take this moment to remind you that they are quite happy to eat your brains so that you may test new depart.Please consider it.Hugs and kisses, Team Necro.

Claiming you'll pay for something and then running off once you get the item is, though. That something in this case being healing.

-=Issus=-

>> And neither would it be a legit reason because they didn't pay you after healing.

For now I think I'll reserve the right to return the wounds in the event of non-payment. I think that's pretty fair.

-- Player of Szrael --

>>So the guy agrees to pay X for Y, then runs away with Y without paying X. Consent?

Yes, refer to the scamming policy for more details. Scamming in and of itself is not against (mech abuse/bug abuse/harassment/disruption) policy, but it does grant consent if noticed. The key point to pay attention to here is whether you were negotiating in good faith or being snarky/unserious. If there's no clear indication of your sincerity, then there's not really any indication they were deliberately scamming you and therefore...you're screwed.

>>Thus depriving Empath of both experience and custom, in a similar fashion to killing someone's mobs. Consent?

Yes, as indicated. An obvious agreement between two distinct parties was reached and even acted upon, which was then interrupted by an uninvolved third party. It really doesn't matter if it was deliberate or not (ie, AFK concerns don't necessarily mean some other empath is out to mess with Szrael or the Union).

This concern is a larger grey area, though, because of the way players tend to ask for/respond to stuff in terms of "the room" instead of a specific target. If the requests and responses don't line up in such a way that it's obvious that two parties are talking specifically to each other, there's no patient-stealing going on and therefore no possible rights to consent.

DISCLAIMER: THIS POSTER IS NOT A MEMBER OF STAFF AND HIS INFORMATION IS/MIGHT BE WRONG.

>No.. keyword in the "scamming" clause is significant. Since the example talks about 4000 plats, 1 gold would not be significant.

If an Empath enters into a verbal contract with a client, the closing terms of said contract are necessarily SIGNIFICANT! It doesn't matter if the verbal contract asks for just one silly copper! If this is not true, then NO value is significant because significance is derived from player perception! Don't latch onto some ludicrous example from a purposely exaggerated article which only serves to extricate the GMs from an endless series of whatifs (read: this whole thread).

>>All of the examples used in that NES document are similarly hyperbolic. I really highly doubt that you actually need to meet a minimum of 4000 plat to pursue consent.

You can ignore the number.

It doesn't change the wording though which says that it should be significant. I don't know what the GMs consider significant. I, personally, wouldn't count 1 gold as significant.

But they added the wording so that people wouldn't try killing over a copper. But what they cap at insig is probably up for interpretation.

Intent matters.

I think the intent of an Empath killing someone for stiffing them on agreed-upon payment is pure, policy-wise. It does not violate the spirit of the policy as it is written, in my opinion, and that is what should matter.

Unfortunately, as someone else already pointed out, it probably depends on which GM you get as well.

---

Rev. Reene

Reene: I WILL BECOME MINILYRAS!
Devan: ... I thought you already were.