The Problem of Consent
Consider the following hypothetical implementation of a MU csys:
Using Revive, a KOd character can be returned to a low level of health. Revive requires the consent of all enemies.
Naively, this might seem like a generally good idea. It allows someone who gets knocked out of a fight to continue participating in the scene if they so desire, discourages enemies from focus-firing a weak link, and since enemy consent is required, if anyone doesn't like it they can simply veto it. Is that a good idea? Perhaps consider the following spectrum instead:
Using StealStatus, a positive effect can be taken from the target for the user. StealStatus requires the consent of the target.
Using Revive, a KOd character can be returned to a low level of health. Revive requires the consent of all enemies.
Using 1HKO, a character has a probability to be KOd in one move regardless of health. 1HKO requires the consent of the target.
Using PlayerKill, a character will be forced to be dropped if they lose the current battle. PlayerKill requires the consent of the target.
Does consent really help fix something some people might find objectionable at all? When something requires consent, what tends to happen is one of two things. Sometimes consent is almost never given so it becomes something you don't actually do unless the recipient requests it to begin with (e.g. PlayerKill). On the other hand, in the case of something like Revive, you might get a place where consent is generally given. What happens then is that whenever someone DOESN'T consent, they do so with liability of being labelled a buzzkill, lawyer, or only out to win. Technically, the power to veto whatever requires consent remains, but never (as the designing admin probably intended) as a matter of personal choice without consequence - taking the option to no-consent becomes itself a breach of etiquette. Is there any way, then, to achieve what the designing admin intends in this hypothetical scenario, or is it impossible under practical social situations? I'd be particularly interested what litagemini and/or Leo have to say, since they studied this sort of thing.
Using Revive, a KOd character can be returned to a low level of health. Revive requires the consent of all enemies.
Naively, this might seem like a generally good idea. It allows someone who gets knocked out of a fight to continue participating in the scene if they so desire, discourages enemies from focus-firing a weak link, and since enemy consent is required, if anyone doesn't like it they can simply veto it. Is that a good idea? Perhaps consider the following spectrum instead:
Using StealStatus, a positive effect can be taken from the target for the user. StealStatus requires the consent of the target.
Using Revive, a KOd character can be returned to a low level of health. Revive requires the consent of all enemies.
Using 1HKO, a character has a probability to be KOd in one move regardless of health. 1HKO requires the consent of the target.
Using PlayerKill, a character will be forced to be dropped if they lose the current battle. PlayerKill requires the consent of the target.
Does consent really help fix something some people might find objectionable at all? When something requires consent, what tends to happen is one of two things. Sometimes consent is almost never given so it becomes something you don't actually do unless the recipient requests it to begin with (e.g. PlayerKill). On the other hand, in the case of something like Revive, you might get a place where consent is generally given. What happens then is that whenever someone DOESN'T consent, they do so with liability of being labelled a buzzkill, lawyer, or only out to win. Technically, the power to veto whatever requires consent remains, but never (as the designing admin probably intended) as a matter of personal choice without consequence - taking the option to no-consent becomes itself a breach of etiquette. Is there any way, then, to achieve what the designing admin intends in this hypothetical scenario, or is it impossible under practical social situations? I'd be particularly interested what litagemini and/or Leo have to say, since they studied this sort of thing.