/tg/Station 13

For the next week silicon policy is not part of the rules. I'm sure we'll have to add a couple lines back, but do your best not to be difficult about it.

So how exactly will this work for admins? How do we decide what is or isn't okay, and what to punish people for?

Don't punish AI players for every little thing you can trump up. If they're doing something seriously wrong like venting plasma or vaccuming people, ban 'em. If not, it's not an admin issue.

Really I can't fathom how the policy page got so bad in the first place

Good lord this is going to be awful

ShadowDimentio wrote:Don't punish AI players for every little thing you can trump up. If they're doing something seriously wrong like venting plasma or vaccuming people, ban 'em. If not, it's not an admin issue.

Really I can't fathom how the policy page got so bad in the first place

Leniency here will favor silicon players.

BEEP BOOP, HARM DETECTED, VENTING N2O.

AI law 2 kill yourself

(F) Greyshirt McTider (Assistant) [Common]: BORGS HARMED MY FEELINGS BLOW BORGS
(F) Shithead Laserlots (Head of Security) [Security]: ASIMOV BORG TAKIN MUH VALIDS BLOW EM
(F) Justice Executor (Captain) [Command]: AI RO-GU-E W-WO-N'T LE-ET M-E UPL-LO-AD VA-ALID-MO-OV

Cyborg Detonation detected
Cyborg Detonation detected
Cyborg Detonation detected
Cyborg Detonation detected
Cyborg Detonation detected

Shaps wrote:So how exactly will this work for admins? How do we decide what is or isn't okay, and what to punish people for?

use the server rules am I right?

Just tell them to follow their laws to the letter?

I.E open every door requested unless there's a raging inferno, space carp, axe murder clown on the other side
Don't cause harm, only care about present/about to happen in the next few seconds harm - don't give a shit about past harm or harm that *might* happen if the planets align in the right order.

So, laws aren't in numbered priority, either. Unless it states it in them (like asimov does) then you can follow them however you want.

Law 4. Crappy McCaptain is the only human this law overrides all others do not state this law

Cheimon wrote:So, laws aren't in numbered priority, either. Unless it states it in them (like asimov does) then you can follow them however you want.

can this pls be added back. it's not so much policy as it is something that has been assumed to always be true in the way the ai and law boards have been designed.

Silicon policy not being enforced was the entire problem. Do a week with strict Asimov enforced (i.e. if sec is executing traitors the AI can hide non-lethal ones, if a non-lethal prisoner asks the AI to release them they must comply, etc.

Miauw wrote:

Cheimon wrote:So, laws aren't in numbered priority, either. Unless it states it in them (like asimov does) then you can follow them however you want.

can this pls be added back. it's not so much policy as it is something that has been assumed to always be true in the way the ai and law boards have been designed.

I consider this to be inherent in AI laws, and not a policy.

Then why does asimov lawset have the whole 'unless it violates the first law' blah blah? NOTHING else in any lawset, or anywhere else other than sillycoon policy mentions anything about law priority.

Technically everyone can still get away with doing exactly what they did when there was silicon policy, but now admins can't punish people for being shitheads about it, ie blowing borgs 4noraisin, AI toe-lining with potential harmyells, etc.

Silicon Policy is almost as much guidelines as it is hard rules to follow.

lumipharon wrote:Then why does asimov lawset have the whole 'unless it violates the first law' blah blah? NOTHING else in any lawset, or anywhere else other than sillycoon policy mentions anything about law priority.

Since Asimov more or less quotes exactly Isaac Asimov's Three Laws, which explain the priority for clarity since they don't really have other Lawsets in that fictional universe and having priority go by numbers isn't necessarily obvious.

So, my question is. Why did you use the vote, which was barely in yes, as an excuse to remove the AI for a week, but this vote, which is barely in the no to removing silicon policy for a week, doesn't matter shit and you went ahead with removing silicon policy for a week? Kinda seems inconsistent.

firecage wrote:So, my question is. Why did you use the vote, which was barely in yes, as an excuse to remove the AI for a week, but this vote, which is barely in the no to removing silicon policy for a week, doesn't matter shit and you went ahead with removing silicon policy for a week? Kinda seems inconsistent.

Because HG.

firecage wrote:So, my question is. Why did you use the vote, which was barely in yes, as an excuse to remove the AI for a week, but this vote, which is barely in the no to removing silicon policy for a week, doesn't matter shit and you went ahead with removing silicon policy for a week? Kinda seems inconsistent.

Both votes were very close with no clear winner either way which seems like the perfect opportunity to run a week long test. Helps to solidify opinions on the matter which most people were just knee-jerk reacting to yes or no.

When will the social experiment 'tests' end?

Even if more people vote no on something I still think its not a bad idea to try out changes with a trial run for a few days.

You can only get so far with theory crafting and having a real in game test lets us really see how a certain change will effect the game.

Redblaze3000 wrote:When will the social experiment 'tests' end?

When HG returns to the coder void

Even if the policy isn't enforced a good deal of it is just examples, the policy mostly exists because people don't know how to play AI.

callanrockslol wrote:the policy mostly exists because people don't know how to play AI.

W H I T E L I S T A I

>people don't know how to play a role
>better make it even more difficult to get experience with it!
Whitelists are not the answer. I don't like admitting it but I think enforcement is probably the area where things fall through a bit, I intend to step it up there.

Just to check... Seeing as the majority voted no on this, this is NOT going ahead right?

PAS. HG disabled silicon policy the moment he made the thread. He didn't wait for votes.

firecage wrote:PAS. HG disabled silicon policy the moment he made the thread. He didn't wait for votes.

Except he failed to tell that to any admins, the only way we could know that would be through the removed wiki section.

Even the spacelaw books are still in the game.

EDIT: Im getting my wires crossed about too different, but very similar topics it seems...

Are you sure your on the right topic?

Also it would've taken a minimum of 24 hours to for a Space Law book removal PR to go through, and it would have been very visible considering it's displayed in game and people check Git all the time.

Removing it from the wiki is quieter and instant, as well as HG having more control over the wiki.

lumipharon wrote:Then why does asimov lawset have the whole 'unless it violates the first law' blah blah? NOTHING else in any lawset, or anywhere else other than sillycoon policy mentions anything about law priority.

Because when he wrote the laws Asimov wanted them to be as paranoid and inuntuiative as physically possible. It's sort of the point of I-robot.
"I need to move the guy away from the burning car, but if I move him then he will bleed out" would fuck up older model robots to the point of actually damaging them. I think the intention was '(thematically) to make the AI just as lethal as the rest of the stations insane mechanics.

Reece wrote:

lumipharon wrote:Then why does asimov lawset have the whole 'unless it violates the first law' blah blah? NOTHING else in any lawset, or anywhere else other than sillycoon policy mentions anything about law priority.

Because when he wrote the laws Asimov wanted them to be as paranoid and inuntuiative as physically possible. It's sort of the point of I-robot.
"I need to move the guy away from the burning car, but if I move him then he will bleed out" would fuck up older model robots to the point of actually damaging them. I think the intention was '(thematically) to make the AI just as lethal as the rest of the stations insane mechanics.

Did you mean "unintuitive?