Killing borgs for following laws

[BeeSting12]

So, with a recent ban appeal involving killing a borg for following its laws, I think it's time that we rethink the policy on that. It's realistic and expected that conflict between security and cyborgs should exist- their jobs often directly conflict, especially on chaotic conversion based modes and when lethal force is needed to stop someone.

"As a nonantagonist human, killing or detonating silicons in the presence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative and without cause to be concerned of potential subversion is a violation of Server Rule 1." -The Rules

I think that killing a silicon should be accepted as a viable way to stop the silicon from interfering with whatever you are doing that happens to conflict. For example, if it's a rev round and a silicon drags away head revs you are trying to execute, it should be okay to kill the cyborg. The catch is this: You must repair it as soon as possible, or when the situation calms down. This seems fair to me because there's two ways to stop a cyborg without killing it:

1) Lockdown. This is not reasonable normally because you have to ask the RD, and he'll ask why, etc which takes forever. Lockdown is only really useful if you don't know where the borg is and it's acted/acting like a shit and you want to stop it.

2) Chain flash. You can't realistically flash a borg forever and deal with whatever mess the borg made while you're flashing him. Telling them to stop sometimes works but more often than not they just run off or cite law one and keep doing what they're doing.

So updated version:
"As a nonantagonist human, killing or detonating silicons without repairing them at the earliest possible time in the presence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative and without cause to be concerned of potential subversion is a violation of Server Rule 1. (You still need a reason to kill one, but as long as you repair it swiftly, it will be treated as critting another human- needs escalation but is okay as long as you heal them.)"

[J_Madison]

I think the issue I've had was overload in situations.

Dealing with one revolutionary head arrested in the brig isn't difficult, but when you've got two of them cornered in the medbay with revs quickly flooding in to prevent their death, you don't have time to react.

And that's when abuse happens, that's when I've got no choice and desperate choice means desperate measures.

But add a borg into the mix, the tides can turn against me. I absolutely will not risk a borg dragging away my one way to win before I die.

Even more so, this can turn to disadvantage. I might be locked in, they might open a way for someone I'm chasing to escape.

I can't risk it. Follow me, lead me, or get out of my way. And I'll kill the borg if I have to.

Nothing should stand in my way in a life and death, victory or loss. I won't have you weighing down on me.

You are invulnerable to traditional stuns and have electronic access. I cannot risk it.

[Rustledjimm]

I was going to make a thread about this situation myself but I think what also has to be looked into is who is liable for a certain order given.

In Silicon policy if a borg is given an order that does not violate it's laws but is in violation of server rules they can ahelp it/the person who gave the order is liable.

In this certain case a security officer was given an order by the Head of Security to take out the borg. Now, you can say that a human can refuse and not carry out the order but this is not strictly true. A security player is very rarely going to be insubordinate to their Head, especially if that Head of Security is screaming about a borg being rogue despite it following it's laws, they will follow the HoS orders not whatever a borg is saying.

So who is liable in this case? The Security officer for following what seems to be a valid order despite the HoS actually being completely incompetent or the incompetent HoS who gave the order?

Personally the HoS should be liable, despite the security officer doing the actual killing/destruction.

[PKPenguin321]

Good revision. Borgs don't go into crit or anything and stunning them tends to mute/deafen them, making it impossible to negotiate or explain anything on your terms. Killing them is harsh but if it's to temporarily resolve a misunderstanding and to explain it to them later I think it's acceptable, especially if they're repaired after.

[Dr_bee]

This rule exists because often times sec would take "flash and kill first, ask questions never" when it comes to borgs trying to stop them from causing harm.

In the example above, what is stopping the security officer from using the very easy to use gulag teleporter? Was him executing the revhead needed in this case?

In the case where he is found in medbay and revs are coming to rescue him then maybe yeah, kill the borg, but otherwise the security officer is in the wrong, has probably turned the AI and other silicons against security, and removed a player from the round for following the rules.

People considering murder as the first option is bad RP and kind of shitty gameplay. The rule existing encourages sec to maybe consider NOT pissing off the borgs by harmbatoning people, or at least to consider changing their laws first.

Explaining the reasoning behind a murder to a borg doesnt matter, laws dont handle nuance on purpose.

[BeeSting12]

This rule exists because often times sec would take "flash and kill first, ask questions never" when it comes to borgs trying to stop them from causing harm.

In the example above, what is stopping the security officer from using the very easy to use gulag teleporter? Was him executing the revhead needed in this case?

In the case where he is found in medbay and revs are coming to rescue him then maybe yeah, kill the borg, but otherwise the security officer is in the wrong, has probably turned the AI and other silicons against security, and removed a player from the round for following the rules.

People considering murder as the first option is bad RP and kind of shitty gameplay. The rule existing encourages sec to maybe consider NOT pissing off the borgs by harmbatoning people, or at least to consider changing their laws first.

Explaining the reasoning behind a murder to a borg doesnt matter, laws dont handle nuance on purpose.

Yeah sure but like asking questions doesn't work when the player just runs off when you say "Stop" or "Let him go." I think it's okay to kill the silicon as long as it is repaired later on. It's the equivalent of critting a player because they stole your stuff.

Asimov was created to create conflict between silicons and security and making that conflict against the rules seems against the spirit of the game to me. If we're talking about roleplay here, I'd say it's realistic to decide to kill a disposable machine that is actively hindering security during a mutiny in which most of the crew wants to kill security, and security is responding in kind due to lack of implants or whatever.

I am aware that explaining reasons to borgs doesn't work and that it's extended, that's why I suggested this.

[J_Madison]

I seldom clone/revive borgs. I drag them back but their cloning/revival process is different.

[Anonmare]

Generally speaking, borgs stop caring as soon as whoever you're executing is dead. At that point, it's a corpse and no longer applicable with Asimov so you can tell it to fuck off and it should (if i's not shit). If it tries to get the corpse revived and is ignoring you saying not to, then yeah feel free to kill it and ahelp it if need be - on the off-chance it's rogue or a shitter.

If it's unavoidable and you have to kill a borg, have the decency to be reasonable in trying to get them repaired if there's no pressing situation that demands your attention more. I've had wardens kill me and then leave me in some bum-fuck alcove without mentioning to anyone that they shut me down, even when I'm not actively disrupting them at that point.

[kevinz000]

if secborgs somehow against all odds stay in i'm going to try to get cyborg cuffs in. it'd be hard to apply but it's better than outright having to kill them.
just stating it here.

[Deitus]

i can only see telling people they can kill borgs to resolve law-related disputes as leading to way more issues than present and a heavy tendency for them to be just destroyed instead of any kind of solution being attempted. and lets be real here, the caveat of "be sure to repair them asap" is not going to happen. it requires 1) someone to care enough to drag them to robotics and 2) the roboticist caring enough/knowing how to repair it. always assume incompetence or apathy and 9 times out of 10 you wont be proven wrong.

the best solution i could think of would be to make something along the lines of "borg cuffs" that stun/immobilize them outside of chainflashing while still allowing them to speak, but
>coders caring
so that wont ever be a thing. just leave it alone, sure it has issues now but i would bet good money that this will only make it worse.

[RandomMarine]

Use the "prisoner transfer centre".
If silicons use metaknowledge of it being an execution chamber, they should be banned.

Also the RD maybe not instantly pushing the lock button shouldn't be a valid reason to kill a law-abiding borg.

[Anonmare]

if secborgs somehow against all odds stay in i'm going to try to get cyborg cuffs in. it'd be hard to apply but it's better than outright having to kill them.
just stating it here.

Do it anyway tbh, as long as there's an option of resisting out of it after a while like normal cuffs.

[BeeSting12]

I actually tried coding cyborg cuffs. I got the part where they were on the dude and then I couldn't figure out how to stop people so I quit and deleted everything.

[Anonmare]

To be honest you could make it something like a remote that applies something like energy cuffs to the borg. All you'd really need to do is make it act like pseudo-lockdown until removed or resisted out of and it's done

[Cobby]

Why don't you just make it so the flash doesn't deafblindstun them instead? Borg cuffs seem really dumb.

As for the policy itself, outside of bloodcult where they can nothing personal the body and nuke ops, you don't NEED to kill people.

If you do, get the borg to leave and "dispose" of the body. Play around it instead of bruteforcing your way just to kill a single, probably detained individual.

It seems kinda shitty the only real ic check to security can get killed by security for keeping them in check.

[cedarbridge]

It seems kinda shitty the only real ic check to security can get killed by security for keeping them in check.

This is my feelings too. Greentext is not sacred but neither are sec valids.

[PKPenguin321]

It seems kinda shitty the only real ic check to security can get killed by security for keeping them in check.

This is my feelings too. Greentext is not sacred but neither are sec valids.

I agree. I think a code solution would be more appropriate, but consider this: With humans if something escalates out of control, at least you can handcuff them or softcrit them to explain things and dissolve the escalation. The only parallel that borgs currently have is killing, so I think the proposed change is acceptable for now at least. It still requires that the borg is fixed after, so if the proposed change is actually followed, you're not dead-dead, just dead for a little bit.

[cedarbridge]

It seems kinda shitty the only real ic check to security can get killed by security for keeping them in check.

This is my feelings too. Greentext is not sacred but neither are sec valids.

I agree. I think a code solution would be more appropriate, but consider this: With humans if something escalates out of control, at least you can handcuff them or softcrit them to explain things and dissolve the escalation. The only parallel that borgs currently have is killing, so I think the proposed change is acceptable for now at least. It still requires that the borg is fixed after, so if the proposed change is actually followed, you're not dead-dead, just dead for a little bit.

The counterpoint is that borgs can be remotely locked from a console but that's not really something that science is really going to get involved in. Its not science's problem if sec wants to get their harmbatons out in front of a borg or not.

[Arianya]

I'm not a fan of the proposed solution because it creates a grey zone a mile wide for players to adopt while removing borgs from the round for literally doing their job as intended.

Just off the top of my head, crises such as revs, nukeops, cults tend to keep sec quite busy for a while, and especially certain roles like the Warden, where they might entirely reasonably claim they're "busy". Now of course, in theory the Warden can delegate to a sec officer, but the sec officer isn't really beholden to listen to the Warden, and he can't be punished by admins for not cleaning up the mess the Warden made. Not to mention that if the borg did something to get killed, its likely that sec isn't really in a rush to bring it back into the round. So now you have a borg kicked out of the round and angrily waiting for someone to repair it and complaining about every delay, real or exaggerated, that comes along.

And that's without getting into what happens if they do try to get them repaired, with anything from "there are no roboticists around" to "robotics doesn't have any materials left" to "i think research are cult/revs/etc and don't trust them enough to go in there myself". As the existing rule is already somewhat (anecdotally, in my experience) relaxed in its enforcement, I just see this opening a wide rift where borgs are forced out of the round, admins are forced to babysit crewmembers to make sure they fulfill their side of the bargain, and the crewmember feels harangued by admins for being busy.

At root, there seem to be two issues, a code issue and a player issue:

The code issue, since its easier to nail this one, is that borgs are difficult/impossible to contain unless the RD is co-operative. The easiest solution to this without wildly unbalancing the power dynamic between sec and silicons would be a unique "impoundment device" that spawns with either the HoS or Warden, melee-range, reasonable channel time, but locks down a borg. The specifics (such as how long the channel is, how long it locks down the borg (permanently? 5 minutes?) are something to be discussed but this would atleast give sec a methodology to restrain borgs if they can disable the borg and get the device holder to the borg and not just at all times in any given situation.

the player issue, and one I've run into myself, seems to be one where sec but crewmembers in general resent silicons disagreeing with their personal view of the laws and especially resent the silicons interfering with whatever they're doing, whether thats harmbatoning a revhead or lasering a traitor with a stand. I'm not sure how this one is best dealt with, but certainly more strictly enforcing the original rule (regarding killing borgs for following their laws) after changes are made to give alternatives would help.

[Incomptinence]

If you can't lock them down you have to kill them. You could hypothetically contain non engineering borgs with a flash and a bit of door hacking to cut the access wire but with secborg on the way out the engineering module is going to return to super dominance.

SEC N AI PLAY NICE WIT EACH UDDER policy is bullshit on both sides. If we are going to keep the cyborgs forbidden from ranged tools they are a non combat threat and bolting sec WHICH IS POLICY FORBIDDEN is the only way base law mechanicals can even try to impede sec. That's probably leading to more near law violating sec assistance than having a sec borg module, complete impotence due to policy.

Sure borgs need to follow their laws. That also means their word is dirt since they are often forced to lie to you.

If the AI and borgs get killed for following their laws that's a tragedy and as long as people don't jump to that state immediately all the time I think we can tolerate a bit of tragedy in game.

I've been bwoinked for just disabling a borg by taking it's battery out and leaving it to run away alive this is one of those kid gloves policies and it's completely out of phase with how the game should be.

If the code was sensible the few ways to restrain borgs by say buckling them into chairs would have been replaced with legit mechanics of restraint so the borg could actually be kept alive to lie to your face without the console holding it down.

[Cobby]

It seems kinda shitty the only real ic check to security can get killed by security for keeping them in check.

This is my feelings too. Greentext is not sacred but neither are sec valids.

I agree. I think a code solution would be more appropriate, but consider this: With humans if something escalates out of control, at least you can handcuff them or softcrit them to explain things and dissolve the escalation. The only parallel that borgs currently have is killing, so I think the proposed change is acceptable for now at least. It still requires that the borg is fixed after, so if the proposed change is actually followed, you're not dead-dead, just dead for a little bit.

OR you could just not harm in the presence of a borg.

They don't need explaning. It's Harm bad/no harm carry on. If the prisoner law 2s them to watch them in perma, let them. Eventually they'll get bored, claim they have a law 1 issue to tend to, and you can take them out.

[BeeSting12]

Yes Cobby, but inevitably, harming in front of a borg will happen. Conflict avoidance is obviously the first step you should be taking, but, if it does happen, I don't think it's fair to cripple security/whoever harmed someone by making them unable to effectively stop the borg.

I feel like IC checks should be able to be stopped, that's the point of them being an IC check and not an OOC check. If we're going to punish security for taking out an IC check when they get in the way then we may as well just send a godmoded deathsquad officer to shoot arrest security whenever they harm- may as well if we'll punish people OOCly for attempting to stop borgs in the only effective and viable way.

PKP said what I was thinking basically- there's no way to stun a borg so that you can talk with him to deescalate the situation, you basically have to lock him down which is not viable in a situation where every second counts or kill him and talk with the MMI once it's calmed down to explain/fix him up.

[Cobby]

There are exceptions of course such as those mentioned previously which is sorta a toss up considering people should change their laws. If you get caught then say you're a changed man or something. Asimov doesn't care about corpses so once he's dead it's basically over.

I understand you don't want to be inconvenienced because harm alarm is going off, but on the flip side harm alarm doesn't want to be inconvenienced just because he's doing his job and has an ooc obligation to. Sec does not have an ooc obligation to kill the bad guys, hence why I tend to favor the borgs.

[BeeSting12]

There are exceptions of course such as those mentioned previously which is sorta a toss up considering people should change their laws. If you get caught then say you're a changed man or something. Asimov doesn't care about corpses so once he's dead it's basically over.

Be honest, what percentage of silicon players actually play that way. If saying that actually worked there wouldn't be a thread for it.

[Arianya]

Yes Cobby, but inevitably, harming in front of a borg will happen. Conflict avoidance is obviously the first step you should be taking, but, if it does happen, I don't think it's fair to cripple security/whoever harmed someone by making them unable to effectively stop the borg.

I feel like IC checks should be able to be stopped, that's the point of them being an IC check and not an OOC check. If we're going to punish security for taking out an IC check when they get in the way then we may as well just send a godmoded deathsquad officer to shoot arrest security whenever they harm- may as well if we'll punish people OOCly for attempting to stop borgs in the only effective and viable way.

PKP said what I was thinking basically- there's no way to stun a borg so that you can talk with him to deescalate the situation, you basically have to lock him down which is not viable in a situation where every second counts or kill him and talk with the MMI once it's calmed down to explain/fix him up.

So your suggestion is that sec should get a free license to valid the borg for having the temerity to be there when you kill people, so long as you make compliant sounds about "Oh yeah, I'll totally get it fixed, just a second, be right with you, hold ooooon, almost readyyyyyy, oh the shuttles here OH WELL"?

Realistically this rule will just disarm what little conflict avoidance exists, because why would I negotiate or try to avoid the borg when I can just flash it and harmbaton it to death as soon as it complains or goes to grab my prisoner?

As much as people complain about "literally no counters", borgs have some of the worst combat experience in the game, considering they get flashed once and then are basically dead since the flash stun lasts longer then it takes to break them with any weapon at all. And even if you somehow fuck up and let them get unflashed, they can't retaliate at all.

If you want to beat an IC check, change the laws or take the prisoner somewhere off-camera, or just avoid shouting "GOT THE REVHEAD GONNA STAB HIS FACE REPEATEDLY UNTIL HE BLEEDS OUT ON THE FLOOR" on sec radio.

The above is something I've seen a majority of sec officers fail to do, both as Warden and as a silicon, because they're so use to having their way that it literally doesn't matter to them if the AI knows that they're harming the shit out of people. Both policy (with regards to what acceptable non-harmful actions an AI can take) and tool limitations ensure they'll never suffer more then the slightest inconvenience for their brazen disregard.

[PKPenguin321]

Reread the proposed policy. It's not really a free valid because you will absolutely still get banned if you don't revive the borg afterwords ASAP.

>"As a nonantagonist human, killing or detonating silicons without repairing them at the earliest possible time in the presence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative and without cause to be concerned of potential subversion is a violation of Server Rule 1. (You still need a reason to kill one, but as long as you repair it swiftly, it will be treated as critting another human- needs escalation but is okay as long as you heal them.)"

[Arianya]

The wording of the rule doesn't contain the same wording that BeeSting used earlier in that same post:

The catch is this: You must repair it as soon as possible, or when the situation calms down. This seems fair to me because there's two ways to stop a cyborg without killing it:

The keywords here are "when the situation calms down". We have several modes that realistically do not "calm down" any time soon, from both cults to nuclear operatives to rev, and I find it hard to believe that the rule would be enforced as written when the very proposal for it includes a "but"

[cedarbridge]

If you want to beat an IC check, change the laws or take the prisoner somewhere off-camera, or just avoid shouting "GOT THE REVHEAD GONNA STAB HIS FACE REPEATEDLY UNTIL HE BLEEDS OUT ON THE FLOOR" on sec radio.

90% of negative silicon/sec interactions in a shellnut. If officers could keep their validboners under control none of this would happen. Instead we get Officer Friendly standing over Grey McButt who was found with an emag unzipping his harmbaton in front of the borg who is obligated to stop him. Then the idiot officer would get 2 valids for 1 because the borg dared to do what its laws require it to do. That's shitty.

[PKPenguin321]

The wording of the rule doesn't contain the same wording that BeeSting used earlier in that same post:

The catch is this: You must repair it as soon as possible, or when the situation calms down. This seems fair to me because there's two ways to stop a cyborg without killing it:

The keywords here are "when the situation calms down". We have several modes that realistically do not "calm down" any time soon, from both cults to nuclear operatives to rev, and I find it hard to believe that the rule would be enforced as written when the very proposal for it includes a "but"

That's pretty pedantic and if a player pulled that excuse on me in ahelps I would tell them to do revive the borg now or get banned, and if they kept pushing it I'd tell them they shouldn't have killed the borg then and ban them. You can always make at least an attempt to revive the borg, even if the halls are swarming with revs. I think as long as you make some attempt in the chaos to fix the borg that's fine.

[Arianya]

I'd be curious what "an attempt" is from your point of view there, because from where I'm standing I suspect its going to lead to a lot of "I dragged it to outside science/sci lobby and shouted at R&D that it needed fixing", which isn't really of much comfort to the borg, nor likely to get it repaired if the roboticists aren't there/have gone missing/etc

[PKPenguin321]

I'd be curious what "an attempt" is from your point of view there, because from where I'm standing I suspect its going to lead to a lot of "I dragged it to outside science/sci lobby and shouted at R&D that it needed fixing", which isn't really of much comfort to the borg, nor likely to get it repaired if the roboticists aren't there/have gone missing/etc

Going with the borg to fix it and getting intercepted by a traitor and killed, making it impossible to fix the borg, but at least you intended to and had tried. This is the first example that comes to mind

[BeeSting12]

I'd be curious what "an attempt" is from your point of view there, because from where I'm standing I suspect its going to lead to a lot of "I dragged it to outside science/sci lobby and shouted at R&D that it needed fixing", which isn't really of much comfort to the borg, nor likely to get it repaired if the roboticists aren't there/have gone missing/etc

Knowing what an attempt is is at the admin's discretion, some admins would lean more toward the "you better fix the cyborg yourself right fucking now" side and others will lean towards "ehhh, as long as it gets fixed within 5 minutes or so."

I feel like dragging it to robotics, making sure the roboticist understands it needs fixing (verbal confirmation from them) is about the bare minimum, better is watching it get fixed, best is fixing it yourself or making sure it gets fixed then talking with it after to make sure it understands why it got killed.

The other way to fix this issue is with a code solution: Either implementing a soft crit type of thing for cyborgs, such as all modules deactivated and they move at a snail's pace, or a way to restrain them.

Here's my idea for restraints: Magnetic Silicon Restraints
Takes five seconds to apply.
Once applied, it acts as a lockdown until taken off or the cyborg resists out. Resisting out takes a minute. Can be reused, 7 are found in the armory- On meta in the slightly less secure outer armory area.

If we do not implement the policy change I've suggested, I'd really like to see a soft crit type feature for cyborgs or the Magnetic Silicon Restraints.

[Dr_bee]

I'd be curious what "an attempt" is from your point of view there, because from where I'm standing I suspect its going to lead to a lot of "I dragged it to outside science/sci lobby and shouted at R&D that it needed fixing", which isn't really of much comfort to the borg, nor likely to get it repaired if the roboticists aren't there/have gone missing/etc

Knowing what an attempt is is at the admin's discretion, some admins would lean more toward the "you better fix the cyborg yourself right fucking now" side and others will lean towards "ehhh, as long as it gets fixed within 5 minutes or so."

I feel like dragging it to robotics, making sure the roboticist understands it needs fixing (verbal confirmation from them) is about the bare minimum, better is watching it get fixed, best is fixing it yourself or making sure it gets fixed then talking with it after to make sure it understands why it got killed.

The other way to fix this issue is with a code solution: Either implementing a soft crit type of thing for cyborgs, such as all modules deactivated and they move at a snail's pace, or a way to restrain them.

Here's my idea for restraints: Magnetic Silicon Restraints
Takes five seconds to apply.
Once applied, it acts as a lockdown until taken off or the cyborg resists out. Resisting out takes a minute. Can be reused, 7 are found in the armory- On meta in the slightly less secure outer armory area.

If we do not implement the policy change I've suggested, I'd really like to see a soft crit type feature for cyborgs or the Magnetic Silicon Restraints.

Soft crit wouldnt matter, there is already a state where all the borgs modules are broken and people still keep beating them until they shut down. It is better to just punish the person who killed the borg for not taking the other choice of NOT HARMING HUMANS IN FRONT OF IT. We shouldnt encourage valid thirsty sec more than it is already encouraged.

[Cobby]

There are exceptions of course such as those mentioned previously which is sorta a toss up considering people should change their laws. If you get caught then say you're a changed man or something. Asimov doesn't care about corpses so once he's dead it's basically over.

Be honest, what percentage of silicon players actually play that way. If saying that actually worked there wouldn't be a thread for it.

I'm assuming 100% because I don't get ahelps about it or otherwise i'd fix it quite rapidly.

[BeeSting12]

Nobody ahelps it because they think it's normal to be bolted down for a silicon for killing someone and, even after the person is dead, not being let out. It's a shitty Asimov player playstyle but an argument can technically be made for it.

[onleavedontatme]

There are exceptions of course such as those mentioned previously which is sorta a toss up considering people should change their laws. If you get caught then say you're a changed man or something. Asimov doesn't care about corpses so once he's dead it's basically over.

Be honest, what percentage of silicon players actually play that way. If saying that actually worked there wouldn't be a thread for it.

I'm assuming 100% because I don't get ahelps about it or otherwise i'd fix it quite rapidly.

You're saying something that is in pretty direct contradiction to the past 7 years of silicon policy on this server.

[onleavedontatme]

I'm actually shocked you somehow managed to form that belief I assumed "asimov can restrain people who have proven murderous" was one of the only things admins and players actually agreed on.

[TechnoAlchemist]

^ double post lol

[Cobby]

There are exceptions of course such as those mentioned previously which is sorta a toss up considering people should change their laws. If you get caught then say you're a changed man or something. Asimov doesn't care about corpses so once he's dead it's basically over.

Be honest, what percentage of silicon players actually play that way. If saying that actually worked there wouldn't be a thread for it.

I'm assuming 100% because I don't get ahelps about it or otherwise i'd fix it quite rapidly.

You're saying something that is in pretty direct contradiction to the past 7 years of silicon policy on this server.

I'm sorry, that post was in bad faith.

But it's true, I don't get (many if any) ahelps about shitlicons

[Arianya]

Nobody ahelps it because they think it's normal to be bolted down for a silicon for killing someone and, even after the person is dead, not being let out. It's a shitty Asimov player playstyle but an argument can technically be made for it.

Sounds like asimovs need stuns and cuffs then, if we want to avoid the "shitty Asimov player playstyle"

Otherwise you're just luring players to their death for playing the role as intended by their laws.

[Scott]

Killing a cyborg player because you want to redtext some antags should be a bannable offense. Cyborgs are players too, not actual robots.

[BeeSting12]

Nobody ahelps it because they think it's normal to be bolted down for a silicon for killing someone and, even after the person is dead, not being let out. It's a shitty Asimov player playstyle but an argument can technically be made for it.

Sounds like asimovs need stuns and cuffs then, if we want to avoid the "shitty Asimov player playstyle"

Otherwise you're just luring players to their death for playing the role as intended by their laws.

That would make it even worse. The types of silicon players that think they can lock you down for killing one guy would think they can perma you for killing one guy. (no joke I've had this happen less than a week ago, I'm pretty sure another admin talked to him though since I was involved)

Plenty of other roles can die doing their job as intended by the rules.

Yet, it somehow becomes an issue when Asimov creates a conflict of interest which is what the creator of the lawset had in mind when making it- Conflicts will happen. But when the inevitable conflicts do happen, it's bannable to fight back against the borg in any meaningful manner.

I'm not asking permission for players to be able to kill, deconstruct, and space the MMI of any borg that follows its laws. I'm asking permission for players to be able to kill the borg and repair it in a timely manner so that they can actually fight back in an effective way instead of an infinite game of "chase the borg" to get the prisoner back or whatever he's taking.

[cedarbridge]

That would make it even worse. The types of silicon players that think they can lock you down for killing one guy would think they can perma you for killing one guy. (no joke I've had this happen less than a week ago, I'm pretty sure another admin talked to him though since I was involved)

I suppose the question is, what do you expect that the AI would do in the case of a killer? Should they lock down the killer or not? Our policy says you may not do this indefinitely but you certainly can lock down/pema an individual for long enough to ascertain that he is no longer a threat to other humans. The reason the policy provides some specific mention of security is because the borg/AI should be able to recognize that even if the officer did hit that greyshirt or even kill him, the role is essential to stoping other forms of harm on the station (in a sort of cosmic irony) and disabling sec would merely enable the other harm. Lets take our scenario this issue seems to be built on. Officer grabs a guy and proceeds to harmbaton him in the brig. Because the officer is an idiot, he does this right in front of a borg. The borg is not asleep so obviously sees the events take place and starts to make a break with the currently prone and bleeding victim. Under the proposed rule, the borg would get flashed and either executed on the spot or manages to be evasive enough to dodge a flash that came too late and avoids death. In one case, we have a player who was killed due to an intentionally strict set of instructions given to his role by a player whose role does not actually obligate him to kill the first. In the second case, we still have your "infinite game of chase the borg." (that's conflict, and the point.) I'm trying to figure out what your ideal case is here. If a sec officer kills a prisoner in front of a borg or attempts to do so, should the borg just submit himself to be executed too and await eventual revival?

Plenty of other roles can die doing their job as intended by the rules.

Everyone on the station can die while following the rules. I don't think that's ever been in question. How many of those other roles have rules rules that oblige the player to die because of some choice made by other player?

Yet, it somehow becomes an issue when Asimov creates a conflict of interest which is what the creator of the lawset had in mind when making it- Conflicts will happen. But when the inevitable conflicts do happen, it's bannable to fight back against the borg in any meaningful manner.

The "Asimov's authorial intent" argument is and has always been a non-starter here. Asimov did not create the lawset for SS13. It was stolen, bastardized and adapted for purposes. That's why we're having a policy discussion about it and why policy exists instead of merely diving Issac Asimov's intent when he wrote his novels. Our silicons are expected to follow a lot of additional rules that inform their following of the laws and their interactions with other players because of those laws.

I'm not asking permission for players to be able to kill, deconstruct, and space the MMI of any borg that follows its laws. I'm asking permission for players to be able to kill the borg and repair it in a timely manner so that they can actually fight back in an effective way instead of an infinite game of "chase the borg" to get the prisoner back or whatever he's taking.

I understand that your goal seems to be that you want to ensure that in cases where a law-obligated borg death does occur that the perpetrator is obligated to get the borg repaired in a timely manner after the incident. I am concerned, like others, that orienting the policy in this way might be seen as carte blanc to just murder a borg for being "annoying" about a prisoner that the officer was too stupid to hide before killing and claim they aren't being obnoxious players because "Well, I can just repair them later anyway. We don't provide a carve-out (in most cases) for humans to kill the lawyer for demanding due process because "I can just clone him after" so I don't think its reasonable for players to expect a carve out to valid a borg for the same rationale.

[Takeguru]

Use the "prisoner transfer centre".
If silicons use metaknowledge of it being an execution chamber, they should be banned.

Also the RD maybe not instantly pushing the lock button shouldn't be a valid reason to kill a law-abiding borg.

>If X uses metaknowledge

You /do/ know all players are allowed to have knowledge of all game mechanics, correct?

[cedarbridge]

Use the "prisoner transfer centre".
If silicons use metaknowledge of it being an execution chamber, they should be banned.

Also the RD maybe not instantly pushing the lock button shouldn't be a valid reason to kill a law-abiding borg.

>If X uses metaknowledge

You /do/ know all players are allowed to have knowledge of all game mechanics, correct?

Using that metaknowledge is not always permissible though. We prevent players from hunting down the OPs shuttle even though players are permitted to reasonbly know that the shuttle can only land in a specific set of locations. We do this because it creates unfun situations.

If the silicons, for whatever reason, are IC clued in that the "transfer center" is not one, then its reasonable to intervene. Without that IC knowledge, the AI and borgs should really just let things be for the sake of not needlessly gumming up the round. I mean, it does require even the slightest bit of RP but I think even the average player can stomach the "the room is what it says it is" level of RP.

[Arianya]

Seriously, just take the prisoner to the prisoner transfer centre, if the borg tries to follow, order it away, if it still insists on following even though you've made no mention of execution/killing the person then ahelp it and flash the borg in the meantime.

I like playing sec as much as the next person but I'm really really wary of any rule like this, especially with the self-admitted variation in enforcement that comes with different admin's views of Silicon Policy

[BeeSting12]

There's always variation in how the rules are enforced. That's what happens when you have 40 different volunteers with varying views on how the rules should be enforced. There's probably variation on how this one rule before it would be changed is enforced.

This amendment to the rule is created moreso for conversion based rounds, although it could possibly apply to others. Truthfully, our silicon policy is basically a text book as it stands now and I'd like to see it much more condensed, although that will not feasibly happen due to the wide variety of situations it must color.

[D&B]

As far as I know and was told by admins, if the borg refuses to follow law 2 orders (as in, "Borg get the fuck out of the perma wing law 2") twice they're free to shoot.

And yes, I was told this by admins since it is nigh impossible to lock-flash a Borg with a prisoner in tow.

[Cobby]

As far as I know and was told by admins, if the borg refuses to follow law 2 orders (as in, "Borg get the fuck out of the perma wing law 2") twice they're free to shoot.

And yes, I was told this by admins since it is nigh impossible to lock-flash a Borg with a prisoner in tow.

I'm ok with this if they start trying to take the person, otherwise there's no harm in being in perma (as long as you reiterate the individual is harmful) so pull up your zipper. It also becomes an admin issue at that point if they let a harmful prisoner out.

[EagleWiz]

As a frequent AI player, when I see non antags killing a borg its almost always because that borg is being an ass (typically playing really fast and lose with law interpretations) , occasionally, but not very often theres a conflict with security trying to harm humans and the borg trying to make them stop, which is an entirely reasonable and not even that common IC conflict. Maybe there's a basil/sybil difference, but I don't see this issue happening often at all.

As for the repair clause, lets realize that most players don't actually know how to repair a borg themselves, and the game modes where the issue of a borg/crew conflict is most likely to happen are the game modes where you might have good reasons to not trust robotics. And lets nor forget that in the case of most conversion antag roundtypes (which seems to be the most discussed scenario) the game usually doesnt last that long and typically a lot of people find themselves removed from the game.

No, you know what the annoying interaction between humans and borgs is? People blowing up borgs when they could just as easily lock them down. Seriously it makes holes in the station and hurts anyone nearby, and anyone in a position to explode borgs should know all of this before they do it. /rant