*Note: I make this thread on the back of the resent post by Zyloh and the broader need to better define and understand “greifing” as a whole, which will effect the future of Star Citizen. Many people have argued over the definition of greifing, but they all share one common thread – perception. If a person perceives or “feels like” they are being greifed, then they are going to respond as if they are being greifed – often, but not always, meaning that they are not having fun and quit the game at some point. But the exact same behavior can occur to someone who perceives it differently and they will react the opposite way – often, but not always, having fun and playing more. The difference here is consent. A person who is not consenting to PVP is predisposed to view it as greifing, because it's something they don't want to happen and continue to not want to happen. Where as a person who is consenting to PVP is predisposed to view it as “emergent gameplay” and fun, even if sometimes a little annoying, because it's something they invite. Fundamentally, everyone who feels like they are being greifed feels that way because they are not consenting to the behavior in that moment, and just because someone else sees it differently doesn't mean it isn't greifing – because it's about perception, it's about consent, it's about the consent contract. The reason everyone's definition of greifing changes, or is mechanic/game specific, is because it depends on whether or not they are consenting to that specific gameplay and the game's consent contract. For a battle royal the consent contract is simply playing it, where most MMOs have some kind of opt-in consent. Similarly, for Star Citizen, some argue that simply logging into the game is consent and it's never griefing anywhere, while others argue that there should be “safe space” where PVP is effectively controlled – such that consent is made by where you choose to play. I will aim this post at those two sides, understanding that many of the game systems and design choices that have not yet been made or implemented and will ultimately define the consent contract. Regardless of what Star Citizen says, a part of this will come down to how well it works. The question for Star Citizen becomes, what is the consent contract? CIG will have to answer that question with their final design choices, how well they work, and the seriousness by which they apply them. But the answer will directly impact their available player base. The level of success of a MMO is highly dependent on the size of its player base. I would like to address the two consent contracts that emerge for Star Citizen's two possible futures, and notice how they effect the player base. First, let me propose an important distinction that wouldn't be important in other discussions: Star Citizen is not a PVP game. Star Citizen is a simulation with PVP enabled everywhere (eventually). The important difference is in the effort to prevent PVP in large areas of space through the law system, which in turn enables player choice (important). However, if the law system becomes completely ineffective, or a token system, then Star Citizen will be a PVP game, because there will be no effective PVP limiter and in turn no space for players to make a choice. Said another way, if every player is subject to the PVP whims of any other player at all times in all gameplay areas, due to no effective limiters, then at that point Star Citizen does become a PVP game. Right now Star Citizen has 2 consent contracts in its possible future. One that allows for the maximum possible player base, and another that severely constricts the possible player base. Both contracts are viable options for Star Citizen. The first contract is choosing where you play, and the second contract is choosing to play at all. Choosing where you play: If players are allowed to choose where they play and by doing so effectively choose whether or not they want to PVP, then Star Citizen can reach every possible player available to them – non-PVPers, sometimes-PVPers, always-PVPers. This contract will only work if the law system is actually taken seriously, such that it truly does provide the “safe space” that has been promised and talked about for so many years now – the analog to “the Western World” or “the First World,” however you would like to characterize it. Not completely devoid of PVP, but effective safety that is reinforced by effective laws and persistent NPC backup to enforce those laws. I advocate for giving players the choice to play the game without PVP (effectively). Choosing to play at all: If playing the game at all becomes the consent contract, then every single player who does not consent will have no other choice than to not play the game. Every player who does not want to be a raid leader, every time they log in to haul cargo or mine, will have no other choice than to not play the game – because the burden of a PVPer's gameplay is placed on the cargo haulers and miners. Every player who has very little time to play, and needs to be able to get whatever task they have in mind done, without interruption, will have no other choice than to not play the game – because the burden of a PVPer's gameplay is placed on them so they will have no say over how they spend their time. This option obviously cuts a huge chunk out of the available player base, because as we know the PVE community is very large, not everyone puts in the same level of effort or has the same amount of time, and Star Citizen has a bunch of gameplay that all can enjoy – if allowed. Making “playing the game at all” the consent contract not only constricts the available player base but it also does it unnecessarily. Player choice expands the player base such that everyone benefits, including the 'always-PVP' people who will be positively effected – since they will get more people to play with via the 'sometimes-PVP' group that will grow due to player choice. The game may still survive if playing the game becomes the contract, but it will do so with less players than it could have with an effective player choice. There is no need to force everyone to PVP, that's what 'risk vs reward' and 'lawful vs unlawful' space is for. The game's rewards should be balanced such that people who don't want PVP can go about playing the game and enjoying all of its systems, just with a smaller return. And for those who do want PVP, or decide they want to risk PVP in this moment, or simply want a larger return, they can venture out into lawless space for greater rewards and more conflict – consent by play location. I bring this up knowing that it has been the model from the very start, and also knowing that many PVPers seek to make “safe space” as unsafe as possible. The success of those efforts fall on the shoulders of Star Citizen's choices, not the PVPers. Players should be able to make any choice in Star Citizen they want, but it is Star Citizen's responsibility to effectively add the systems that they promised will control those choices - via the above paradigm promised. Though I believe their efforts are heading in the right direction, how effective it is and how determined they are to make it effective remains to be seen. Regardless of which consent path Star Citizen implements, one thing will stay the same, non-consensual PVP is greifing to the person not consenting.