>As mark is a preemptive measure to detrimental against against a player, if that player can notice a MARK please grant that person consent on the Marker.

Heck, let's combine the first strike idea and just have Mark set you to Open. Much simpler that way.

~ Kougen

A shadowling arches through the air, trying desperately to get its wings working before it sails out the window.

Frankly, it would be ridiculous for slip coin to set Consent Open.

...and yet, I think it would be hilariously worth doing that.

---

The Moose
"My advice? Run to a safe room, then re-roll. It's guaranteed awesome."

scout aware
stalk

Let's just set everyone to open and be done with it.

---

Necromancy brings out the Stupid in us all. -Armifer

It would be really nice if there was something in PROFILE that would show if you've gained consent against someone if they've done something to you that gives consent mechanically.

Like, say someone slapped me and they are closed. Their profile would then show that I have consent against them. It would last however long is appropriate, (I assume killing me would last longer than stealing, which would last longer than slapping).


Repeated offenses would then set them to guarded, and if they STILL keep doing it, open.

---

Ways to fail at RP:

Maikime says, "I imagine now that she's pharmed consent Vashir should be here any time now."

Morkim says, "I don't know why. I'm open too."

>> Like, say someone slapped me and they are closed. Their profile would then show that I have consent against them.

Stuff like slapping you or calling you a whore is only consent if you tell them to stop repeatedly and they keep doing it.

I hate that GMs let people play policy like this but that is the game we're playing.

---

Rev. Reene

"Oh, I'm not omniscient -- but I know a lot."
- Mephistopheles, Faust

I (and others) have been told by GMs that you must warn them to stop repeatedly.

Preferably using the WARN verb at some point.

---

Rev. Reene

"Oh, I'm not omniscient -- but I know a lot."
- Mephistopheles, Faust

Mark should not grant consent. It doesn't mean you'll be stolen from -- in fact, there's a chance it prevents you from being stolen from, if you're skilled enough to give the Thief a challenge. It also doesn't always grant information that's terribly relevant to stealing.

It's nice to be able to size people up in various capacities, and making Mark grant consent would ruin a lot of that.

---

>
You're not used to life as a fish, are you?

>I still want the ability to measure up the mental acuity of a target for WvW purposes without them knowing. :(

I can never remember -- is MB covered by consent now?

---

>
You're not used to life as a fish, are you?

Aha. MB policy has changed a lot since the last time I messed around with it, apparently.

That was my Moon Mage's version of mark.

---

>
You're not used to life as a fish, are you?

<<Any spell cast on someone will give them consent.

FTFY.

---

< You fire an ironwood quadrello at a baby forest gryphon. A baby forest gryphon fails to dodge. The quadrello lands a devastating hit that mashes the gryphon's right eye to pulp with a direct smash to the face, knocking it completely senseless.

>From my experience, Mark completely eliminated any real risk for Thieves in regards to PC stealing and fighting. The day it was released was the first day that I didn't notice a Thief steal from me ever again (outside of friends goofing). Not one Thief has ever started a fight with me since either.

Yeah, I don't really like it for PvP.

Profiles clearly mean nothing {policy wise} when closed peeps can attack open peeps without repercussion from that one engagement.

I don't bother looking any more.

---

< You fire an ironwood quadrello at a baby forest gryphon. A baby forest gryphon fails to dodge. The quadrello lands a devastating hit that mashes the gryphon's right eye to pulp with a direct smash to the face, knocking it completely senseless.

>Profiles clearly mean nothing {policy wise} when closed peeps can attack open peeps without repercussion from that one engagement.

That's a very one-sided concern.

While it is indeed possible it may be abused in that fashion, it is just as easily abused the other way as you wanted if closed meant you can't engage in conflict.

Just because someone stated the PREFERENCE to not engage in conflict, should not automatically become the equivalent of holding a big neon sign saying "HEY! Harass me all you want because the only thing I will do is to repeatedly ask you nicely to stop no matter what you do!"

<<That's a very one-sided concern.

If we have to wait for old-school consent anyways, then what did profile actually do? Nothing for those so inclined. Profiles should not have anything to do with PvP, because they don't mean jack.

<<it is just as easily abused the other way as you wanted if closed meant you can't engage in conflict.

I don't want that, I want people to simply play the game and accept what happens as part of the game. I think the profile system is less than useless for PvP. I think it provides a requirement for more GM involvement when people with differing settings get it on. I think the system (for PvP) should be unceremoniously dumpstered or ignored.

---

< You fire an ironwood quadrello at a baby forest gryphon. A baby forest gryphon fails to dodge. The quadrello lands a devastating hit that mashes the gryphon's right eye to pulp with a direct smash to the face, knocking it completely senseless.

>Don't confuse a lot of whining/misunderstanding/thick-headedness on these message boards with the usefulness of the profile system.

This. The profile system is very useful. There are some useless people who render it less effective than it could be, but on the whole it's a net gain, IMO

---

How blessed are some people, whose lives have no fears, no dreads, to whom sleep is a blessing that comes nightly, and brings nothing but sweet dreams. -Bram Stoker's Dracula

>>We'll disagree. If I need consent to attack another character, I'll wait for it, or escalate it myself (read: give them consent and see what they do), without ever looking at profile.

What if you plan to sneak attack a rival without consent? Or you're playing an evil character and wish to wipe someone out since they're protecting another character without consent?

Checking someone's profile and seeing that they're Open gives you the green light, does it not? If they're not Open, then you have a red light.

If someone's Open, it provides a bigger variety of RP opportunities and quickly seeing it makes everything more smooth. I'd rather not go:

ooc Slaris Hey, my character is going to try to sneak and attack yours in 30 minutes since yours is part of a group that mine has been rivaling. Is that ok with you?

---

Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.

-GM Abasha

>>We used to do this all the time back in the day.

Ewwww

---

Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.

-GM Abasha

The aversion people have in this game to discussing a situation OOCly or even asking permission to do something to another person's character is mindboggling.

Perhaps I'm just spoiled by other MU*s where this is not only common but standard etiquette.

---

Rev. Reene

"Oh, I'm not omniscient -- but I know a lot."
- Mephistopheles, Faust