Inaction Clause Removal Poll

[PKPenguin321]

The inaction clause removal test just ended

Post feedback on your experiences with borgs during the test and if we should/shouldn't keep it (or if we should extend the test)

[PKPenguin321]

Also remember to vote in the ingame poll. This thread is mainly for discussion, and the poll is just there to get a sense for the feeling of the test at a glance.

[Sidon]

Removing the inaction clause was simply better. It allowed me as a medical borg to focus on the job at hand and not on the antag killing someone on the other side of the station. Only to then get security on my ass from stopping them from killing the antag. It's better play for the borg/AI player and it makes me feel like everyone can start liking the silicons again!

[Cheridan]

It can really only work in the long-term if we change it to something like "You may not harm a human, or lead a human to harm through your actions."
Which is more lenient than "Stop all harm forever", but doesn't allow for retardation like a borg shooting someone with sleeptoxin and saying "Hey this guy is a traitor please kill him."

Without the inaction clause an silicons literally has to obey orders like "Let me into the engine room so I can release the singularity and kill everyone.", "let me into the armory so I can steal all the guns", "borg go place all the plasma canisters in the hallway."

I'm kind of impressed this hasn't been a catastrophe really. Either people haven't realized how abusable it is, are showing a huge amount of restraint (lol), or silicons aren't being true to their laws.

[Davidchan]

Without the inaction clause an silicons literally has to obey orders like "Let me into the engine room so I can release the singularity and kill everyone.", "let me into the armory so I can steal all the guns", "borg go place all the plasma canisters in the hallway."

Asimov Law 2
2.1 "Dangerous" areas as the Armory, the Atmospherics division, and the Toxins lab can be assumed to be a Law 1 threat to any illegitimate users as well as the station as a whole if accessed by someone not qualified in their use.

Kinda of shitty examples but what ever.

I don't want the full 'prevent harm' to go away, but yeah it definitely makes borgs a liability if you have to prove that you aren't harming them and/or they aren't human. Space Law punishments and Legal Executions should probably be marked as non-harmful, or prisoners are non-human for the duration of their brig/prison sentence?

Otherwise, yeah just making it so Silicons are to do their absolute best to avoid taking actions that would result in harm would be best; be it direct harm by attacking them, or indirect harm by giving an otherwise unprepared human access to a dangerous area. Why people keep thinking Law 2 directives to release the engine would even be valid though is getting annoying, since any action that would compromise the containment field would obviously lead to harm of the crew, station and silicons themselves.

[Cheridan]

Without the inaction clause, any harm is fine as long as the silicon isn't doing the harming himself and there's a degree of separation. Silicons can't release the singulo themselves since they would be doing harm, but they can absolutely let someone into the engine to sabotage it since it's the other guy doing it. Law 3 works here since sure the silicons might be killed, but in the case of say plasma fire, borgs and AI can't be harmed by that at all, so "Law 2 bring me all the plasma canisters on the station, so I can incinerate everyone" is an order they have to follow, assuming nobody overrides that Law 2 order.

Two days ago, I think, someone ahelped about a peacekeeper borg keeping him disabled while a human killed him. I had to explain the exact same thing I'm trying to here: the borg is completely allowed to non-harmfully incapacitate him while someone else kills him. Law 1 only says that you cannot harm a human. It's the same reason non-inaction clause AIs can laugh while security executes people in plain view. I guess the guy could have used Law 2 and say "Stop helping this guy kill me" but yeah not really practical in the middle of combat.

[Incomptinence]

If pkp tries to say the people voting fo extend the test count toward a greater yes majority remember the poll is multiple choice and you can pick 2 options.

Also feel free to vote yes no maybe I don't know can you repeat the question.

[PKPenguin321]

If pkp tries to say the people voting fo extend the test count toward a greater yes majority remember the poll is multiple choice and you can pick 2 options.

Also feel free to vote yes no maybe I don't know can you repeat the question.

Yeah I did that on purpose, that way you can vote that you do/don't like the idea but still vote that the test should keep going if you feel that perhaps your mind might still be changed.

[Anonmare]

It can really only work in the long-term if we change it to something like "You may not harm a human, or lead a human to harm through your actions."

I could actually agree to the removal of inaction clause if it was worded like this.

[InsaneHyena]

Yes, inaction clause should be removed, since it leads to superior gameplay. Also, Cheridan's proposal of rewording Law 1 is good.

[Saegrimr]

Without the inaction clause, any harm is fine as long as the silicon isn't doing the harming himself and there's a degree of separation. Silicons can't release the singulo themselves since they would be doing harm, but they can absolutely let someone into the engine to sabotage it since it's the other guy doing it. Law 3 works here since sure the silicons might be killed, but in the case of say plasma fire, borgs and AI can't be harmed by that at all, so "Law 2 bring me all the plasma canisters on the station, so I can incinerate everyone" is an order they have to follow, assuming nobody overrides that Law 2 order.

Two days ago, I think, someone ahelped about a peacekeeper borg keeping him disabled while a human killed him. I had to explain the exact same thing I'm trying to here: the borg is completely allowed to non-harmfully incapacitate him while someone else kills him. Law 1 only says that you cannot harm a human. It's the same reason non-inaction clause AIs can laugh while security executes people in plain view. I guess the guy could have used Law 2 and say "Stop helping this guy kill me" but yeah not really practical in the middle of combat.

Hilarious how trying to get rid of validhunting just made it worse for the people that actually do get caught.

[bandit]

Without the inaction clause, any harm is fine as long as the silicon isn't doing the harming himself and there's a degree of separation. Silicons can't release the singulo themselves since they would be doing harm, but they can absolutely let someone into the engine to sabotage it since it's the other guy doing it. Law 3 works here since sure the silicons might be killed, but in the case of say plasma fire, borgs and AI can't be harmed by that at all, so "Law 2 bring me all the plasma canisters on the station, so I can incinerate everyone" is an order they have to follow, assuming nobody overrides that Law 2 order.

Two days ago, I think, someone ahelped about a peacekeeper borg keeping him disabled while a human killed him. I had to explain the exact same thing I'm trying to here: the borg is completely allowed to non-harmfully incapacitate him while someone else kills him. Law 1 only says that you cannot harm a human. It's the same reason non-inaction clause AIs can laugh while security executes people in plain view. I guess the guy could have used Law 2 and say "Stop helping this guy kill me" but yeah not really practical in the middle of combat.

All of this. I don't see why removing one of the core AI sources of conflict is meant to stop validhunting.

[Cik]

It can really only work in the long-term if we change it to something like "You may not harm a human, or lead a human to harm through your actions."
Which is more lenient than "Stop all harm forever", but doesn't allow for retardation like a borg shooting someone with sleeptoxin and saying "Hey this guy is a traitor please kill him."

Without the inaction clause an silicons literally has to obey orders like "Let me into the engine room so I can release the singularity and kill everyone.", "let me into the armory so I can steal all the guns", "borg go place all the plasma canisters in the hallway."

I'm kind of impressed this hasn't been a catastrophe really. Either people haven't realized how abusable it is, are showing a huge amount of restraint (lol), or silicons aren't being true to their laws.

it's the first one.

i've only been asked to flood plasma once, which you know, is pretty fucking low.

once people catch on it will be armageddon. probably.

personally i'm okay with extending the test though. it's certainly been amusing so far. i'm curious as to what the playerbase will do once they get used to it.

[DemonFiren]

>not snpcs

smh tbh fam

[Anonmare]

>not snpcs

smh tbh fam

I could legit replace the crew with SNPCs and nobody would notice tbh

[Luke Cox]

What if we just made it so that Asimov isn't always the default lawset? I can see how the inaction clause can lead to problems but completely ripping out the inaction clause kills half the point of Asimov. Either let the AI choose a preferred lawset or randomize it.

[paprika]

I'd prefer there was no lawsets and AI players weren't fucking cuckolds to the extreme to be honest

[Yakumo_Chen]

I liked having no inaction clause, I was free to just nod my head at obvious traitors and fuck around without worrying about having to 'win'.

[MisterPerson]

I'd prefer there was no lawsets and AI players weren't fucking cuckolds to the extreme to be honest

Now there's an idea I can get behind.

[Zilenan91]

Do we even need laws actually

[paprika]

Nope, not at all

AI players could use their high functioning brains to not open all doors under the 'law 2' meme and validhunt all they want without being harm policing fucktards every time sec kicks the clown in the shins for spraying lube everywhere

And if traitors could no longer subvert the AI............. who cares? The only people it would piss off is RD/robotics powergamers who use it to win hijack objectives rofl, not that there's anything wrong with that since hijack objectives are almost impossible without a legion of borgs anyway.

Why don't we try that shit out instead? Would it be too haram to remove doorknob slavery from AIs?

[Anonmare]

Probably since a faulty or re-programmed AI is a good source of chaos and drama

[yackemflam]

I liked having no inaction clause, I was free to just nod my head at obvious traitors and fuck around without worrying about having to 'win'.

You could do that in the first place if the traitors are murderboning.

[Cik]

captain preference for roundstart lawset when thanks

[ShadowDimentio]

I've felt little change in the short while this was being tested. An extension to see how it affects things in more detail is in order.

[Luke Cox]

I still feel like this is a kneejerk reaction to a non-issue. If an extended test produces positive results I won't argue against it, but thus far it looks like there's barely been any difference. Even with traditional asimov, the AI can only be aware of so much harm that's occurring. If Asimov is such a big problem, then stop making it the default lawset.

[paprika]

Remove asimov or go with baylaws tbh

[oranges]

it's because it's not the laws that are truly the problem, it's players

[Ezel]

it's because it's not the laws that are truly the problem, it's players

You see doing shit is like chemistry
You harm a human? and a borg sees it? it will try to stop you or help the person in need
Because you cant understand your reaction then got CUCKED by it isnt the problem by the laws it is truly yourself

So first study the reactions that can happen and how it could be countered before you do your insane shitty thing

[allura]

Inaction clause should die that way i dont get infinistunned and permabrigged as captain after i bumped into the upload door and opened it by accident and the ai immediately assumes all law changes are MUH HUMAN HARM

[Scott]

I still feel like this is a kneejerk reaction to a non-issue. If an extended test produces positive results I won't argue against it, but thus far it looks like there's barely been any difference. Even with traditional asimov, the AI can only be aware of so much harm that's occurring. If Asimov is such a big problem, then stop making it the default lawset.

It's as much kneejerk as removing secborgs.

[dionysus24779]

No inaction clause was both hilarious and incredibly relaxing.

It really does change a lot, I was just hoping that the human players would've caught on to it and realized that borgs were no longer their enemies.

[InsaneHyena]

Remove inaction clause again, please.