I think the broader conversation of consent is getting a bit confused, and probably doing everyone a disservice by engaging in questions of whether rocks can give enthusiastic consent.
The principle we enshrine in the rules and refuse to allow proposals, contracts, and other instruments to breach is that consent is important as far as it regards people. There are plenty of reasons why it's important that we don't breach consent against people. We want people to freely engage with the game and have a good time, and consent plays a big role in that. I think it's a bad idea to engage in the current discussion of mechanics of consent as though it has meaningful game implications. Set the mechanics aside. It's bad for the game. We don't include consent in the rules because of any mechanical meanings, and we don't invite interpretations or a search for loopholes. We do it because it's the right thing to do on principle. That principle is irrelevant as far as rocks are concerned. On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 11:46 PM kiako via agora-discussion < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Friday, April 18th, 2025 at 1:02 AM, Rowan Evans via agora-discussion < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > But I note that this quote actually makes the same logical problem e is > > trying to reject. It doesn't actually make sense to say "the rock doesn't > > want anything to do with me". > > > > Consent governs a "want to do" vs. "want to not do" distinction that is > > only relevant for entities who have thoughts and feelings, and whose > > thoughts and feelings can be protected by not subjecting them to things > > they would rather not happen. Rocks exist permanently in a state of > absence > > of want (which is different to wanting something not to happen). > > "Want to do" vs. "want not to do" does not cover all states a person might > be in. As you have pointed out, there is a third option, a state of "not > wanting". I can, for example, "not want to eat a burger", but that is not > the same as "wanting to eat something other than a burger". I may just not > be hungry. > > > Thing 1: > > "1. Whether an inanimate object is capable of consenting to being bound > by > > the rules; " > > > > Is either IRRELEVANT or TRUE. > > > > ... > > > > In other words, it's a fool's errand to apply the logic of consent to a > > rock. They have no true or false value on their consent, only null. > > As Agora's definition (R2519) allows consent to be implied by desire > (bullet #4), in the form of "reasonably clear wanting", if we could apply > R2519 to the rock, then the rock does not consent, since it cannot desire, > and the other bullet points cannot apply, so FALSE is still considerable as > an option to statement 1 (and I believe it to be the case.) > > If we instead presume that R2519 does not apply to nonpersons (as is > likely appropriate), we have that the rules are silent on whether > nonpersons can consent, and so then by 217 we must turn to "common > sense"[1]. Outside of our game, consent does not require nor is implied by > desire. Consent is a voluntary, positive affirmation of informed agreement > to a specific event (i.e., action) or behavior (i.e. contract), and does > not require[2,3] an individual desiring the outcome. Since a rock cannot > put forward an affirmation of any sort, it cannot consent, and so once > again statement 1 is FALSE. > > > [1] Among game custom, past judgements, and best interest, but I've > nothing to say on these (and am not aware of any of the former two.) > > [2] Hence why a player can consent to something that they may not want, as > noted by Janet. > > [3] There are some cases where it is expected for there to be both desire > and consent, i.e., "enthusiastic consent", but since a rock cannot want, it > cannot give such a form of consent. > > > I agree with my learned colleague Mischief's observations > > > > ... > > > > Janet says: > > ... > > and then goes on to make some dismissive comments about people's mental > > states. > > Finally, as a more personal note, please be sure to treat your peers as > both humans and equals, even if (especially if) you disagree with them. > Agora is a game, and a collaborative one at that. > > -- > kiako, Archivist, Webmastor >
