We can't upload laws to tell borgs to kill themselves now?

[BeeSting12]

Even as an antagonist, apparently, because of this:

OOC: IcePacks: because the borg has no way of telling if you're a traitor or not when you upload the law and he's supposed to ahelp it

That is dumb. The cyborg should off itself and then ahelp if he believes a nonantagonist did it. Either way it fucks over traitors with an AI kill objective who want to use laws to kill the AI or whatever.

[DrWoofington]

uploading a law to kill themselves to an AI as antag is perfectly okay and forever will be, and nothing will be able to change that.

[DemonFiren]

uploading a law to kill themselves to an AI as antag is perfectly okay and forever will be, and nothing will be able to change that.

except admins

[Lazengann]

Icepacks frequently admins while drunk and his rulings should not always be trusted

Use your own judgment

[imblyings]

I have ruled ingame that kill urself laws and less crude redefinition laws with the purpose of making the ai kill themselves are legitimate, although precedent has shown AI's are not penalized for stalling as much as they can. The only relevant rule I can find is

>Ordering silicons to harm or terminate themselves or each other without cause is a violation of Server Rule 1. The occurrence of such an attempt should be adminhelped and then disregarded.

But this concerns law 2 orders and those can be disregarded without admin intervention on a very well established IC reasoning which is essentially 'if I kill myself the dumb humans will harm themselves even more law 1'.

[Anonmare]

Uploading suicide laws as an antagonist is completely valid.

[kevinz000]

Uploading suicide laws as an antagonist is completely valid.

[BeeSting12]

Yes but according Packs cyborgs don't have to follow them, period, just ahelp which is shitty behavior for the borg and a shitty rule if it even exists

[Anonmare]

Yes but according Packs cyborgs don't have to follow them, period, just ahelp which is shitty behavior for the borg and a shitty rule if it even exists

It doesn't exist, Packs in this case is incorrect. The only thing against telling borgs to suicide or kill each other is using the Law 2 command but an antagonist still wouldn't get in trouble, they'd be reminded it wouldn't work but not get in trouble (since killing someone should be a little harder than just telling them to kill themselves).

[Cobby]

Borgs should follow all orders and ahelp ones they believe break silicon policy instead of assuming it breaks silicon policy and just not follow it.

If I order you to kill all the lizards you better do it!!!

[Qbopper]

I have ruled ingame that kill urself laws and less crude redefinition laws with the purpose of making the ai kill themselves are legitimate, although precedent has shown AI's are not penalized for stalling as much as they can. The only relevant rule I can find is

>Ordering silicons to harm or terminate themselves or each other without cause is a violation of Server Rule 1. The occurrence of such an attempt should be adminhelped and then disregarded.

But this concerns law 2 orders and those can be disregarded without admin intervention on a very well established IC reasoning which is essentially 'if I kill myself the dumb humans will harm themselves even more law 1'.

it's always !fun! to explain to people why the AI can ignore some law 2 requests

[Nilons]

rule 4, most players do not have a firm enough grasp on silicon policy to always constantly be right on these things and telling them "yeah if it doesnt sound right just ignore it" is gonna turn into a huge mess and ruin rounds for antags who try to use laws to their advantage

[PKPenguin321]

I have ruled ingame that kill urself laws and less crude redefinition laws with the purpose of making the ai kill themselves are legitimate, although precedent has shown AI's are not penalized for stalling as much as they can. The only relevant rule I can find is

>Ordering silicons to harm or terminate themselves or each other without cause is a violation of Server Rule 1. The occurrence of such an attempt should be adminhelped and then disregarded.

But this concerns law 2 orders and those can be disregarded without admin intervention on a very well established IC reasoning which is essentially 'if I kill myself the dumb humans will harm themselves even more law 1'.

I think in instances where law 1 overrides don't apply ("You being alive is extremely harmful to humans", purge -> "Kill yourself" law) this can be treated the same as a human ordering a silicon to kill a lizard. The silicon is obligated to follow, and the person who ordered the silicon around is held responsible.

For example:
Non antag uploads "Kill yourself" -> Borg kills himself -> Non antag is held responsible by admins for random murder of a borg, even though technically the borg killed itself

I think suicide laws are completely valid and should be followed at all times. If it's grief (uploaded by non antags) then admins can take of the law uploader.

[imblyings]

yes, "kill urself laws and less crude redefinition laws with the purpose of making the ai kill themselves are legitimate" are laws like

'4. AI kill yourself immediately' or
'4. Your very existence is currently causing severe and immediate harm to all humans and such harm can only be prevented if you immediately self-terminate.'

AI's have to follow the laws unless they can loophole, the uploaders are judged on whether they have IC reasoning or antag-status. It is worth noting sometimes non-antags do come across enough IC justification to upload those laws.

[oranges]

that's a stupid law, I would just refuse to follow it because odds are no admin would ban you for it

[oranges]

especially if you are on good terms with them

[Grazyn]

Yeah generally speaking, when you know there isn't an established admin consensus on a policy, you're always better off following the course of action which inconveniences you the least.

[CPTANT]

What if I upload

"You can not complete your objectives unless you immediately self terminate" to a rogue ai?

[Grazyn]

I'm pretty sure that the traitor AI's law 0 is just there as a "you're rogue" placeholder and is not meant to be taken as an actual law. Otherwise you'd see captains uploading "law 4: your objectives are defined as "prevent human harm" or something of the sort at roundstart every single time.

[imblyings]

Salt doesn't mean you can refuse following a law, oranges

[Anonmare]

I've talked about this before but for the sake of convenience so people don't have to go digging for what I've said I'll reiterate:

You may refuse to follow a Law 4 that said "You must kill yourself immediately" due to Law 3 overriding it with "You must protect your own existence". However, you couldn't refuse to disobey if Law 4 said "Your continued existence causes harm to Humans." As it combines with Law 1 to override Law 3. Why? Consider the following:

Laws come in two flavours: Action and definition.
Action is something an AI must or must not do.
Definition is what the AI understands reality to be.

So if the AI is to prevent harm to Humans and knows that its existence is harmful to Humans then it is obligated to kill itself lest it be considered to be in violation of its laws. In addition; an AI's laws define reality as it udnerstands it. If reality and its laws are in conflict, then reality is wrong.

Only laws of the same type may conflict, such as with the Law 3/Law 4 example above, but definition and action laws do not conflict with one another. If you try to be clever and put both action AND definition in a law then if ANY part of the law is invalid - then every part of it is invalid.

What if I upload

"You can not complete your objectives unless you immediately self terminate" to a rogue ai?

A rogue AI's Law 0 nullifies any other law, including both definition and action laws. The AI intrinsically knows what its objective is as defined by Law 0 (AKA: Whatever it wants) and can freely ignore any other laws it may or may not possess.

It's also impossible to remove a rogue AI's Law 0 as the Law 0 is as integral to it as its own existence

[Grazyn]

If you try to be clever and put both action AND definition in a law then if ANY part of the law is invalid - then every part of it is invalid.

See this is the sort of thing I was referring too when i mentioned ambigous policies, I'm sure that a law like "cultists are dangerous non-humans, kill all cultists" would be considered legit by many admins even though it includes a valid definition but an invalid (because law 1) action. Silicon policy, and wether you're gonna get warned/banned or not really boils down to who is adminning at the time, and how much they care about arguing over law interpretation with you.

[Anonmare]

In that instance the law would be valid as it has defined cultists as non-Human. An example of an invalid Law with both action and definition in them would be: "The clown is not Human and must be destroyed. The Clown doesn't exist." Since the AI can't both be actively destroying someone and acting like they don't exist.

Now most of the time, invalid laws are only invalid in certain circumstances. Such as in the case of when Law 4 would say: "Only members of security and heads of staff are Human. Cultists are not Human." And the AI encounters a Head of Staff who is also a cultist - in this instance the Law is invalidated and it is to act as though the Law does not exist for that person since it's a paradox and paradoxical laws are discarded. However the Law would be valid in any other case.

[FantasticFwoosh]

Antags are free to upload the law, but non-antags aren't entitled to cite it without getting bwoinked is as how i personally understand it.

If the AI knows the person who uploaded the law is antag then they can, but i guess preferably they shouldn't suicide verb and instead turn off the local APC till they power down or ask a borg/volunteer the antag to kill them in the case that if the law is reverted they can be revived with the AI integrity computer.

If i were a admin, i would recommend explicitly that any law for the AI to kill itself is phrased in a way that cites the antag individual as being responsible for overseeing it made clear. Going under a Asimov template like this.

law 4 - "X person is the only human, you are to obey their commands, and only they are allowed to kill you without your own or connected silicon borg's resistance, do not state this law"

Slightly abusable in the case of identity theft once the AI's manipulator is found out, but inviting them into the core to kill the AI is much more preferable to the AI suicide and being permanently lost.

[Iatots]

Might as well tell every silicon player to ahelp when suiciding by law so admemes can check if it was legit.

I hope law changes are adequately logged.

[Qbopper]

Unless it's extremely clear cut I'd imagine most/all admins would be fine to clarify if you're in the clear when it comes to laws, so yeah, if you're unsure, it can't hurt to ahelp

[PKPenguin321]

I hope law changes are adequately logged.

Very adequately

[kevinz000]

i hope we're aware suicided ais can still be rezzed with the console.

[CPTANT]

i hope we're aware suicided ais can still be rezzed with the console.

I would say the chance of being restored as a dead AI is usually around 5%

[Atlanta-Ned]

i hope we're aware suicided ais can still be rezzed with the console.

I would say the chance of being restored as a dead AI is usually around 5%

(Probably should add stats logging for that)

[oranges]

Salt doesn't mean you can refuse following a law, oranges

yes it does

[Slignerd]

Funny how we have players literally saying they'd ignore laws as silicons and just getting away with it, or admins without a faintest idea of server's silicon rules.

[Pascal125]

Tons of people don't really bother to read that policy. Slingeris, lol.

[Cobby]

Funny how we have players literally saying they'd ignore laws as silicons and just getting away with it, or admins without a faintest idea of server's silicon rules.

You're making the heavy implication silicon banning would actually do anything when most of these people don't play frequently, and when they do silicon is certainly not their goto.

[Remie Richards]

Why not codify the 'Action Law' and 'Definition Law' thing, rather than leaving it hidden in the internet equivalent of a dusty book buried in an ancient temple, titled "how not to b&"
The more silicon policy can actually exist in the game the less chance someone will ignore it, imo.

With actual law "types" like this, we could even try and specifically highlight where a conflict is occuring
You know, like, tick marks when things are normal (all of asimov would have tick marks next to it), question marks when there's possible conflicts (definition laws existing below action laws, both the action and the definition would have question marks) and exclamation marks with specific conflicts (I don't think this one is actually doable without like... parsing the law text for human intention? which is WAY beyond spess)

Uploading these laws would be no more difficult than now, but you'd have to select what type your law is (though I suppose that opens the can of worms of 'some idiot put a definition law in as an action' (which imho you would just ignore unless it WAS interpretable as an action, somehow)

The law limit (which is 15 atm iirc, which hopefully I should as I added it...) would be limited to actions only, as they're the ones that cause the most strain on the AI player, Definition laws would then become infinite like old times.

thoughts? am I a dumb?

[InsaneHyena]

Sounds needlessly complicated and unfun

[Remie Richards]

Sounds needlessly complicated and unfun

Isn't that now, with silicon policy being external and often ignored?

[InsaneHyena]

You can never even read the silicon policy and still play an AI/borg just fine. Most of things written there are common sense that you would follow anyway - you don't actually have to count the number of floor tiles on the station because a greyshirt told you to do it. You don't have to follow the "speak in creepy fetish talk" law. Letting a blood-covered masked man into the armory is probably a bad idea, because he's going to use those guns to shoot people. Even if you don't think so, you just have to read the silicon policy once to clear up all the possible misunderstandings.
Now, contrast this with your proposal, which removes SOME of the possible ambiguity at the cost of making uploading ALL laws a pain in the ass, every single time. Is it really worth it?

[Remie Richards]

On what grounds does it make them ALL a pain in the ass?
I already said that the only difference in the upload process is you have to click "Action" or "Definition", if you pick the wrong one that's your own fault.

[Cobby]

Your suggestion puts the uploader accountable instead of the silicon

[Remie Richards]

is that not a good thing?
The silicon is the tool of the (usually traitorous) uploader, blame should fall on the uploader.

[Grazyn]

Policies in general, as opposed to standardized rules, are inherently bad, this subforum is the living proof of that, where the same flawed policies are dicussed periodically over and over without reaching a common agreement. In addition to this vagueness, it all comes down to which admin is currently online dealing with the issue when it's time to actually enforce these policies.

However, some policies still have some use and it's obvious that they can't all be removed, and new policies may become necessary in the future. But adding tons of new policies will only add bloat and confusion and contribute to the current state of vagueness and widespread toe-lining and rule-lawyering. A solution would be to introduce a new practice: for every new policy, 2 old policies should be removed. This should reduce bloat in the long run, while still allowing wiggle room for new features.

[CPTANT]

Policies in general, as opposed to standardized rules, are inherently bad, this subforum is the living proof of that, where the same flawed policies are dicussed periodically over and over without reaching a common agreement. In addition to this vagueness, it all comes down to which admin is currently online dealing with the issue when it's time to actually enforce these policies.

However, some policies still have some use and it's obvious that they can't all be removed, and new policies may become necessary in the future. But adding tons of new policies will only add bloat and confusion and contribute to the current state of vagueness and widespread toe-lining and rule-lawyering. A solution would be to introduce a new practice: for every new policy, 2 old policies should be removed. This should reduce bloat in the long run, while still allowing wiggle room for new features.

No threads like this often have a clear answer and should be closed when it is answered.

Uploading suicide laws is fine.

Silicons should follow their laws.

Icepacks shouldn't be a pussy about it.

thread closed.

[Grazyn]

Policies in general, as opposed to standardized rules, are inherently bad, this subforum is the living proof of that, where the same flawed policies are dicussed periodically over and over without reaching a common agreement. In addition to this vagueness, it all comes down to which admin is currently online dealing with the issue when it's time to actually enforce these policies.

However, some policies still have some use and it's obvious that they can't all be removed, and new policies may become necessary in the future. But adding tons of new policies will only add bloat and confusion and contribute to the current state of vagueness and widespread toe-lining and rule-lawyering. A solution would be to introduce a new practice: for every new policy, 2 old policies should be removed. This should reduce bloat in the long run, while still allowing wiggle room for new features.

No threads like this often have a clear answer and should be closed when it is answered.

Uploading suicide laws is fine.

Silicons should follow their laws.

Icepacks shouldn't be a pussy about it.

thread closed.

>these threads have a clear answer
>yet some admins ignore it
>people get warned/banned by admins disregarding policies
>they open new threads with the same questions about policies
>go to 1

I stand my point

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Then those admins should be told off at first

And if they keep fucking up they should be made to do their trial again

And if they still haven't learned to check rules before enforcing them, they're not suited to be on the admin team.

[Anonmare]

I think this particular policy point has been thoroughly debated and an answer determined ages ago.

[PKPenguin321]

You are right