Silicon Protections 2.1.6.5 - interpretation and concerns

charmisokay · Post by **charmisokay** » Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:16 pm #456763

To me, rule 2.1.6.5 always seemed very clear. Other players voiced their interpretations of the rule and they were very different from mine (and often each other's, as well).

I think the rule should be rewritten so it's very clear what it's supposed to state.

The most relevant rules:
-2.1.6: Any silicon under Asimov can deny orders to allow access to the upload at any time under Law 1 given probable cause to believe that human harm is the intent of the person giving the order.
-2.1.6.1: Probable cause includes presence of confirmed traitors, cultists/tomes, nuclear operatives, or any other human acting against the station in general; the person not having upload access for their job; the presence of blood or an openly carried lethal-capable or lethal-only weapon on the requester; or anything else beyond [metagamiing] that indicates the person seeking access intends redefinition of humans that would impede likelihood of or ability to follow current laws as-written.
-2.1.6.3: You are allowed, but not obligated, to deny upload access given probable cause.
-2.1.6.5: In the absence of probable cause, you can still demand someone seeking upload access be accompanied by another trustworthy human or a cyborg.

Taken together, I understood rule 2.1.6.5 to be a safety measure that the AI could always use. (well, within reason as per rule 1. don't be a dick. More on this later).

I've heard two other main interpretations of rule 2.1.6.5. I've also heard a few clear misunderstandings of the rule, including an admin that used the following example (paraphrased): "Rule 2.1.6.5 exists so that assistants etc can't just rush up and demand entry" - missing the fact that rule 2.1.6.1 already gives the AI probable cause to deny assistants entry since they don't have access to the upload by default (marked with bold, above).

Onto the 'main' interpretations (I hope I understood their interpretations properly):

1) "2.1.6.5 can only be used against the captain / HoP / RD if you have reasonable suspicion that human harm is the intent of that person"
I don't think this is reasonable since such suspicion would, in any case I can imagine, be based on something that would result in probable cause anyways (and often fall under this clause: "anything else beyond [metagamiing] that indicates the person seeking access intends redefinition of humans that would impede likelihood of or ability to follow current laws as-written.") Besides, rule 2.1.6.5 implies that the person seeking entry should be trustworthy (by use of the phrase 'accompanied by ANOTHER trustworthy person..."). If you have some sort of suspicion that the person seeking access will cause harm, they're not really trustworthy now are they?
Finally, nowhere does the ruling imply that you need any form of suspicion. If this is the way the rule is meant to be understood I think it should be rewritten as thus:
"2.1.6.5: In the absence of probable cause, you can still demand someone seeking upload access be accompanied by a trustworthy human or a cyborg if you have a reason to suspect that the person seeking upload access might intend human harm. This suspicion must be based on something that has occured in the round." - However, I once again stress that I have a hard time imagining a suspicion that would not be covered by the probable cause clause.

2) "2.1.6.5 is a gameplay suggestion meant to give the AI a responsible way to let people into the AI upload despite having probable cause to deny them"
I don't think this is a reasonable interpretation either, because the rule's phrasing does not imply that 2.1.6.5 is merely a suggestion. I do, however, agree that asking for an escort is a very reasonable and responsible way to grant somebody access.
If the rule should be understood in this way, I think it should be rewritten as thus:
"In a case where the AI has probable cause, but is still unsure if denying the person entry is the right move, an ideal way of handling the situation is demanding that the requester is accompanied into the upload by another trustworthy human or cyborg" - But why make this a rule at all? Adding a gameplay suggestion as a rule seems very weird to me. Maybe forfeit the numbers (that indicate that this is a rule) and instead insert the suggestion in quotation marks at the end of the section on rule 2.1.6.
-an admin voicing this interpretation used the example (again paraphrased) of an RD seeking entry to the AI upload, without having access to it at round start (we later found out that RDs do have access, but that is besides the point). The RD is a trusted head of staff, but they don't have access to the AI upload (in this example). Therefore, the AI has probable cause but instead of denying them access a responsible way of letting them into the upload is demanding a trustworthy escort.

I would like to once again defend why I think the original ruling as I interpret it should be enforced, as well as a suggestion on how to make it even more clear that this is the intended way to interpret the rule (if that is necessary. I don't think it is).

-Rule 2.1.6 and rule 2.1.3 pretty much say "If you have reasonable cause to suspect that they might upload a dangerous law, you can deny them access or let them in at your discretion" (rule 2.1.6.4 however says that if they've caused human harm you must keep them out of the upload). Rule 2.1.6.5 then says: "Even if you don't have reasonable suspicion, you can still demand someone seeking upload access be accompanied by another trustworthy human or a cyborg." It does not imply anywhere that 'specific circumstances' must be met. A lot of people say 'but the captain has access so you must let him in', however, the rule is only applicable to people that naturally have access to the AI upload area. Therefore, if you can not use the rule against 'innocent' captains etc., it's a redundant rule that can never be applied. Under probable cause you can already let them in or deny them entry at your own discretion.

-Asking another trustworthy human to join you requires nearly no effort and takes very little time. I've always made sure to check the crew manifest and the scanner to see if there's a plethora of suited candidates available. When there's ~3 members of security and ~3 other heads of staff, one of them will answer. I've even let people into the upload alone if nobody responded to the call (since it would be a dick move to keep them out simply because everybody else is busy or deaf).

-On the other hand, changing the AIs laws have repercussions for the AI and potentially for the crew for potentially the rest of the shift (if the law is shitty or malicious). Of course the laws might also introduce an element of FUN, but the system I'm defending does not prevent law uploads. More on that below.

-This is a very reasonable safety measure from an IC and OOC point of view. It's not very intrusive and if the second person is not a memelord or an enemy of the station it will pretty much guarantee that no bad laws will be uploaded (poor wording and malicious laws both included). Also there's a very easy counterplay. You only need one other player to assist you. Captains and HoS' are well known for being in cahoots when it comes to anti greytide laws. The captain and HoP often agree on meme laws. However, if you're both baddies other people might move to oppose you. I've had a lot of RDs save my digital butt from horrible captain laws. Role interactions and conflicts make the game more interesting, yeah?
Speaking of counterplay, there's a spare AI upload board in the secure tech storage, and they can somewhat easily be printed via RnD.

-For the reasons outlined above, if it's within the AI's right to ask for an escort even without probable cause, I don't think it's a dick move (and thus against rule 1) unless you're demanding an impossible escort or refusing to listen to arguments. Usually when I've asked this, the person will either comply and we're done in ~2 minutes or they scream that I must obey them or that they're going to destroy me, after which they'll usually try to break into the upload and either manage to do it, or give up.

As for how the ruling should be phrased, I personally think the rule right now is already very clear, but if it should be made clearer following the interpretation I'm defending, it might look a little like this:
"2.1.6.5. You can always demand someone seeking upload access be escorted by another trustworthy human or a cyborg, even without probable cause. However, if nobody steps up to escort the person seeking upload access after a request for an escort has been made, you may not deny them access unless you have probable cause. Consult rule 1 (don't be a dick)."

"2.1.6.6. Suitable escorts include human heads of staff and human members of the security team that have not given indication that they will cause human harm. If no such person is available, you may not deny the person seeking upload access unless you have probable cause."

I think this is a decent wording since it reminds the AI that it can't just stonewall tell people to fuck off without probable cause, but it also protects the AI from the captain, HoP or RD uploading a malicious or meme law without any input from anyone else.

charmisokay · Post by **charmisokay** » Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:21 pm #456764

I would like to take this moment to apologise if my post seems a bit snarky. The examples I used are all quite recent and I mainly hope to use them to stress that there's a lot of confusion regarding the ruling, even from our admins.

Also, I truly believe this interpretation of the rule makes the game more fun for all parties involved, including the AI, the access seeker and whomever might accompany them. This goes for situations where they comply, outwit me, or brute force me. It's a lot more fun than just "Oh I have access here 10 seconds into the round meme law lol". I'm sorry if you've been a victim of my AI-escort-requests, but I hope the vast majority of you have actually enjoyed having to deal with me. If not, maybe I'm actually a robot and don't understand human emotions.

Thank you for reading my post, even if it got a bit long there at the end.

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:07 pm #456779

tl;dr please?

charmisokay · Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:50 pm

TLDR: I think this: "2.1.6.5: In the absence of probable cause, you can still demand someone seeking upload access be accompanied by another trustworthy human or a cyborg." Means "The AI can demand that you're escorted into the AI upload area, even if they have no reason to suspect you are intending harm" (of course keeping in mind rule 1: don't be a dick) - Other people have other interpretations of the rule.

The rule as it is now causes confusion, even for our admins. The rule should be rewritten so its intentions become clearer.

I try to present two other interpretations of the rule, and I attempt to explain why I think those interpretations are faulty and undesirable.
1) "The rule can only be used when you have suspicion but not probable cause."
-Probable cause is extremely broad, and you can't have suspicion without probable cause (I don't think so anyways). Also the rule implies that the person must be trustworthy, ergo no suspicion.
2) "The rule is meant as a suggestion on how to responsibly let people into the upload even if you have probable cause."
-Under probable cause the AI can already decide to let people in, or keep them out. Also, a suggestion should not be a rule. (but I agree that this is a very responsible way of letting people into the upload).

Then I defend my interpretation as 'more fun, since it causes player interaction and role conflict without anybody getting hurt, as well as being more in line with the wording of the rule'.

EDIT: Also, people often say 'the captain has access to the upload, so you must let him in', but the rule as written is only applicable to people that have access to the upload via their job. Ergo the rule is precisely designed for captains (and HOPs and RDs).

Yakumo_Chen · Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:09 pm

Doesn't come up often recently as an AI but I thought the rule applies mainly to heads of staff without normal access (HoS, CMO, CE), the IC guideline was that upload entries should always require two heads of staff or head+Borg, aside from the captain or RD. The head or Borg in accompanying should double check all freeform laws being uploaded or oversee other board usage.

charmisokay · Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:13 pm

If that's the intention, the rule should be rewritten (into a suggestion) as the definition of probable cause and prior rules already lets the AI deny or grant access to the upload to the HoS, the CMO and the CE as it sees fit.
2.1.6.1: Probable cause includes ... the person not having upload access for their job...
+ 2.1.6.3: You are allowed, but not obligated, to deny upload access given probable cause.

Since rule 2.1.6.5 says: "In the absence of probable cause... you can demand an escort", it currently only applies to the captain, the HoP and the RD.
If the rule can not be invoked on 'innocent' captains, HoPs, or RD's, it is completely redundant.

Malkraz · Post by **Malkraz** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:39 am #456816

Relevant headmin rulings:
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 63#p304371

PKPenguin321 wrote:Prioritizing "potential future law violations" is a fucking terrible idea, since it makes silicons able to handwave basically any law two request with "yeah but if i let you in there you might potentially attack somebody inside, law 1 violation!!!"

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 91#p280627

Armhulen wrote:We've been here, yadda yadda. here's the bumbo's checklist
Has the captain harmed before? If so, Law 1.
Has the captain said he'd upload a potentially harmful lawset? If so, Law 1.
Is the captain a fligger/ligger/etc? If so, I dunno shock the doors or something.
Otherwise, let him in. Law 2. It's the Captain and the RD's rights to upload laws to the AI, as the RD is the AI's caretaker and the Captain is the Captain.

Do you realize that the way you were attempting to apply 6.5 completely side-steps all the preceding rules on probable cause allowing you to virtually chain-stun the CAPTAIN at ROUND-START like you were doing this morning quite literally For No Reason, and how that's fucking retarded and potentially meta-gamey if that was actually the intention of the rule? "but captain could genocide roundstart xd" is not a valid excuse for this nonsense.

charmisokay · Post by **charmisokay** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:25 am #456900

-I agree that the rule has been interpreted by admins in a way that is radically different from the way I understand it. However, I think it is very clear that the rule as written should be interpreted as I understand it. If the rule should be understood as the admins do, I think the rule should be rewritten to avoid confusion. I have still not heard anybody give an example where the rule was actually used properly, since any example people come up with fails to establish that the AI does not have probable cause. Ergo the rule is redundant since it's impossible to invoke. Either delete it or rewrite it.
To make this point clear, the way you explained the rule to me was very different to the way each of the two admins I raised these concerns with explained it - and their interpretations varied too.

-Precedence is nice and all but it's unfair to take a rule and add a bunch of specifications to it that are not covered by any previous rules, without actually changing the rule itself. There's nothing in the rule itself that hints towards their interpretation.
If the precedence establishes how the rule is meant to be interpreted, change the rule to reflect that interpretation.

-I think you're being unreasonably opposed to my interpretation and suggestion.
'chainstunning' with the turrets in an unbolted upload is not exactly an unescapable predicament. Press the up (or down) movement key and you'll get out after two-three bursts of taser shots. Also, after asking you to get an escort I do recall that I turned off the upload turrets to allow you to escape (or maybe I was a bit too late since you already got out on your own, but that just proves my point, you were out before I was finished speaking). Then you entered the upload (with the HoS) and immediately tried to upload the custom law without letting the HoS verify that it wasn't going to cause human harm.

There's a difference between bolting the upload down and never letting anyone in, and asking that anyone who wishes to enter be accompanied by a trustworthy person. The first is more severe than the latter. The first shuts down gameplay while the latter forces more interactions and gameplay opportunities. The first is honestly a dick move, and I don't think the latter is.
I don't believe this to be meta gamey behaviour. It's a very reasonable way to prevent people from making mistakes and from uploading malicious laws. When do people often make mistakes? When they're rushing things. What do these innocent captains do? Rush into the AI upload. The AI is not supposed to be retarded.
Probable cause means a reasonable suspicion that the person might upload a harmful law. Why is it more likely that a scientist, or the CE, uploads a harmful law than the HoP or the RD? I believe it all boils down to the same argument you made. "but scientist could genocide roundstard xd". Why are they more likely to do this than the captain before blue alert has been announced? Dare I say, for meta game reasons? And what about the HoS, isn't it meta gamey to assume that he'll upload a 'greytiders are not human' law?
When the rule is applied universally to all upload access seekers I don't think it's meta gamey at all. It's a simple safety measure that you can play around.
Again, uploading a law to the AI can have repercussions for the AI for the rest of the shift. And maybe for the crew, too. Asking for somebody to escort you requires you to speak with another person and actually put in a mote of effort.

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:32 am #456901

I just want to note that the HoP has no right to access the AI upload. Access does not equal the right to enter. Unless he of course is the acting Captain

charmisokay · Post by **charmisokay** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:49 am #456903

Rule 2.1.6 does not mention 'right to access'. Nor are there any real grounds in the rules to discriminate between the HoP and the captain. (Unless you want to put that under the 'anything else that indicates the person seeking access intends redefinition of humans that would impede likelihood of or ability to follow current laws as-written' clause. That seems like a stretch to me, though.)
In fact, rule 2.1.6.1 says the following: "Probable cause includes ... the person not having upload access for their job".
Rule 2.1.6.5 is supposed to be applied to cases where the AI does not have probable cause to deny access. Ergo it can only be applied when the captain, RD or HoP seeks access (and haven't done anything else to grant probable cause).

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:10 am #456905

Except Armhulen's ruling indicates that it is the Capn and RD's right to interact and alter the AI's laws if needed.

Also, talking realistically, there is no reason why the Head of Personal should need to alter the AI's lawsets on his own initiative.

charmisokay · Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:28 am

If probable cause includes 'lack of having the right to alter the AI's laws', then fair enough. We can exclude the HoP from the list.
That makes rule 2.1.6.5 applicable to captains and RD's that have not yet done anything to give the AI probable cause to deny them access to the upload.
This does not resolve the current issue, but it does make some of my examples less striking.

If rule 2.1.6.5 is not supposed to apply to those that have the right to enter the AI upload, rule 2.1.6.5 only applies to the HoP (as long as the HoP hasn't done anything bad). Again, this would be an incredible niche rule and I doubt that was its original intent. If it is, why not explicitly write 'if the HoP seeks entry...'?
Again, if the rule is meant to be understood in this way, there's nothing in the original ruling that implies this. Therefore, we should change the wording of the rule to reflect this interpretation.

Realistically, there's no reason why the captain or the RD should need to alter the AI's lawset without a trusted escort. Yes, the captain is the master of the station and yes the RD should be able to experiment but a mistake can cost many lives and loss of profit / progress. Having a trusted escort doesn't even require any effort on their part. I'm not saying that they should go through a rigorous journey to prove that they're pure of heart. I'm saying they need to ask another head of staff or member of security team to come and overlook the proceedings. I think I've had about 10 captains comply with my request, and in two cases nobody would show up, so after ~two minutes I've let them into the upload since my goal is not to be a dick. It's to foster player interaction and gameplay. I've spoken with them during this time, and they often leave to do other stuff before returning (e.g. go fetch the HoS).

Actionb · Post by **Actionb** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:55 am #456914

Yeah uhm... I appreciate your dedication with all these detailed posts... but it's exactly this the amount of detail that should raise a red flag.
Silicon policy shouldn't read like a law book. It's not the constitution of a western country. It's SS13, not DnD.
If anything we need less words and less policies. I would be more than happy if this whole upload thing policy was what Armhulen said (quoted by Malk).

People read to much into law 1 or use it as an excuse:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

- CE is requesting access to the upload
- no violation of law 1: you are not actively harming the CE or any other human by granting access unless the turrets are on lethal
- CE is preparing a bad law
- no violation of law 1: no harm that would require you take action (inaction clause) is taking place, remember you can't read minds or predict the future
- CE is uploading bad law that enables you to ignore law 1 in some cases
- no violation of law 1: you can't act on an interpretation of a lawset that came before your current one

Of course this is too binary (ironic, I know). I am not saying you can bolt open your upload. I am not saying you shouldn't try to get the clown out of your upload. If the CE wants to upload a law, let the command staff know and if nobody can give a shit, neither can you.

This may come as a shock to many AI players, but your job isn't to be the overseer, the arbiter, the glorious leader, the kindergarden teacher guiding the helpless little meatbags. You are a simple servant and anyone can, within reason, come over and take a dump on your face. It's not your job to regulate who does X and to assess who has the right do Y.
When the clown comes knocking on your upload door, unless said clown is the reincarnation of Pennywise, you do not have any in game authority to send them away. The only thing you have is your obligation as a player to not trainwreck the round purposefully and thus it's down to your (the player's - not the AI's) common sense to come up with a reason to deny the clown. If the reason you eventually come up with is truly shitty one, then maybe you eat a bwoink. If your reason was good and the admin was shit, you eat a bwoink. It's a shitty 2d spess game, players shouldn't be required or be able to consult a law book to get on with it.

Malkraz · Post by **Malkraz** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:14 pm #456915

Not reading these irrelevant walls of text
2.1.6.5 applies in situations where there is solid circumstantial evidence of harm, but no proof that provides probable cause.
e.g Captain drags another guy off cam, walks back into view and the guy is dead on crew monitor. No proof Captain killed him, but boy does it sure look like he did.
The key is in the wording of 2.1.6:
"Any silicon under Asimov can deny orders to allow access to the upload at any time under Law 1 given probable cause to believe that human harm is the intent of the person giving the order"
With probable cause to believe harmful intent (as outlined in 2.1.6.1-4), access can be denied. If you lack probable cause as outlined, but still have reason to believe harm may be intended such as in the example, escort may be demanded.
Note that you must have SOME REASON to believe there may be harmful intent behind the upload. This does not include stunning the Captain repeatedly at roundstart.

charmisokay · Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:51 pm

I'm sorry for the walls of text, I felt like I needed to address all of my points, rather than cover 50% of them and leaving most of my concerns unaddressed. (and thus would need to address those points in the comments anyways).

Actionb, the rules are quite clear. The AI can deny the clown access to the AI upload since he does not have access to the room on default. Ergo probable cause.
"Probable cause includes ... the person not having upload access for their job".

I'm not arguing for the AI becoming an overseer, arbiter, glorious leader, nor a kindergarden teacher guiding the helpless little meatbags.
I'd like the rule to be clear since right now the admins currently enforce an interpretation of the rule that is directly contrary to the rule's wording. Why not change the rule if it's meant to be understood in the way it's currently enforced?
Also, many people have different understandings of the rule, including amongst the admins. Clean up the rule so this is not the case.

I also don't think the AI being allowed to demand an escort makes the AI an overseer, nor is it a dick move, nor is it really powerful. I think it's a very reasonable safety measure that protects the AI and the crew, AND enhances the gameplay experience by forcing 'innocent' captains to interact with other people. Again: Finding an escort takes less than two minutes. Changing the AIs laws have repercussions for the AI and potentially the crew for potentially the rest of the shift.
And with my interpretation you can still push meme laws through, or whatever the fuck you wanna do. But you can't do it on your own 5 seconds into the shift with no input from anybody else. Is that unreasonable?

Malkraz, I don't think the walls of text are entirely irrelevant. But I digress.
"2.1.6.5 applies in situations where there is solid circumstantial evidence of harm, but no proof that provides probable cause." - I don't think such cases exist.
Your example is surely a case of "anything else that indicates the person seeking access intends redefinition of humans that would impede likelihood of or ability to follow current laws as-written". The captain DRAGGING a guy off, who then dies, and the captain returning with no comment on what occurred is obviously a clear indication that the captain is harmful.

Rule 2.1.6 is very clear. I agree. If you have probable cause you can deny them access.
Rule 2.1.6.5 is also very clear. When you don't have probable cause, you can still demand an escort.
Nowhere does the rule imply that you need suspicion or anything else, really. You've added that yourself.
If the rule should be interpreted in that way, the rule should be changed to reflect that.

I'm okay with the rule being changed to reflect your interpretation. I'm not okay with the current ruling being enforced in a way that completely contradicts the wording of the rule.
Also, I'd prefer for my interpretation to be enforced since I think it's more fun for everyone involved, but I'm willing to accept that this might not be the case.

Malkraz · Post by **Malkraz** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:12 pm #456923

Wrong. You can have probable cause to believe and non-probable cause to believe (evidenced suspicion). Tasering the Captain roundstart falls under neither.

charmisokay · Post by **charmisokay** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:52 pm #456929

Nowhere does the escort rule imply that you need evidenced suspicion. If the rule is meant to be interpreted like that, it should be changed to reflect that interpretation.

Also, probable cause already includes pretty much anything that would qualify as 'evidenced suspicion'.
Take blood, for example. If the captain's shoes are bloody it's honestly not very likely that he harmed a human. It's more likely that he walked across a crimescene or that it's non human blood, yet bloody shoes are enough to give the AI probable cause that the captain is dangerous. The captain could reasonably deflect the suspicion. "The medbay is very bloody, check it out". And the AI would probably buy that and let him into the upload - but that's already covered by the rule. 2.1.6.3: "You are allowed, but not obligated, to deny upload access given probable cause."

Any other example I've heard or can think of falls under 'any other indication that the person intends to upload a harmful law' - probable cause is (purposely) a broad concept.

Asking that the captain be escorted into the AI upload can not be defended using probable cause. That is true.
But rule 2.1.6.5 says "In the absence of probable cause, you can demand an escort". So when there's no probable cause, you can still demand an escort.
If the rule is supposed to be more specific than this, why not change the rule so it reflects that?

Malkraz · Post by **Malkraz** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:18 pm #456932

When given the context of the headmin rulings the wording makes perfect sense. You're too stuck on your initial interpretation to accept that.
You're also disregarding the fact that you're attempting to control potential future harm in a roundabout way as a Silicon, which is fucking stupid per PKPenguin's post and basic sense. If the Captain refuses to accept an escort and has not caused any harm, you are in effect telling him it's a Law 1 violation to allow him into the upload at roundstart.

charmisokay · Post by **charmisokay** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:48 pm #456936

I understand what the admins want to enforce.
But what they do is directly contradictory to the rule itself. The rule does not even as much as hint at there being any specific conditions under which the rule can be invoked. The rule literally just says that when there's no probable cause the AI can still demand an escort. If the admins want to continue enforcing the rule in the way they're doing, I really think the wording of the rule should be changed to reflect that.

Of course 'don't be a dick' always applies. But again, I don't see this as being a dick move in any shape or form. In fact, rushing into the upload without saying a word and changing the player's ruleset (which the AI has to follow) seems like much more of a dick move. The crew can contest the captain's rules and laws that apply to them - but the AI can not.

Again, there's a confusion as to how the rule is supposed to be applied amongst the admins (at least the two I spoke to yesterday) and between many players. Why not change the rule so it's crystal clear?

And again, I've given a bunch of arguments for why I think my interpretation is more fun for everyone involved. Take that as policy feedback even if the current wording of the rule gets a pass as appropriate for how the rule is currently enforced.

EDIT: I don't think using the escort request as a way to minimize the risk of a harmful law being uploaded is as unfair as you're making it out to be. As a fallback safety precaution it seems appropriate, even somewhat mild to me. Letting the captain into the upload is not a guaranteed law 1 violation but I think it's reasonable to assume that a rushed decision to hastily upload a law without notifying anyone might lead to human harm given the AI's existing definition of a human.

Actionb · Post by **Actionb** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 6:49 pm #456967

charmisokay wrote:I'm sorry for the walls of text, I felt like I needed to address all of my points, rather than cover 50% of them and leaving most of my concerns unaddressed. (and thus would need to address those points in the comments anyways).

No need to apologize for articulating your opinion. Reading isn't hard. But comprehending what the author wants to say can be difficult - couple that with the fact that people come here to have fun and vent a little, and you can see why walls of text are ... uncommon.

I don't think I have made myself clear. I have not made any judgement of the current state of policies - neither did I imply that what you are saying was wrong. My opinion is that more policies do not make for better gameplay. Modifying the current policies to make them more accurate may result in them becoming more verbose, more ... well more policies. My hope is that the complexity of the policies can be reduced, not increased.
To be honest, I probably shouldn't be posting in this thread since it's more about the wording of some policy and not necessarily about the concept of them. I just would not like you to go overboard with this. (this thread probably doesn't go anywhere anyway)

On that note, here is some more not-quite-on-topic-but-maybe-close-enough rambling:

Spoiler:

Post by **Cobby** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:04 pm #456973

I don't have an issue with you requiring someone else to enter the upload, regardless of who initially enters.

IE if the RD wants to enter then the captain can be req to accompany them.

As long as you're consistent in the interpretation and it makes sense to me I personally don't mind, especially when it's supported by the rules. All laws besides asimov boil down to kill antags/ kill all but antags/ kill all anyways.

Nalzul · Post by **Nalzul** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:19 pm #456981

My main complaint and opinion on this matter is the fact that the AI is essentially meta-gaming on the fact that the cap [who can never be antag] is going to upload a harmful law. You impede gameplay by slowing down the captain/RD on their smorgasbord laws. Be more open and let the laws be changed, if a cap uploads something harmful/bad for the round, ahelp.

Cik · Post by **Cik** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:36 pm #456985

assuming the captain would never harm humans is metagaming, not the opposite.

"the captain can never be antag, rules prevent non-antags from uploading laws deadly to humans" is a meta-concern not an ingame one

my personal implementation of this is:
captains and RDs get in for free as long as i have not observed them ordering or directly participating in human harm, or if they do not directly tell me they are going to add a law that redefines humans (that may endanger now-humans and not future-humans)

"wintermute, open the door so i can upload laws"
"may i ask what law"
"i'm going to make syndies non-human"

^ you lock this guy out, but if he lies, or says nothing, you let him in assuming he's the captain.

the rule seems like it's 20 times longer than it should be tbh, it could be like 3 sentences imo

Post by **Cobby** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:39 pm #456987

Nalzul wrote:My main complaint and opinion on this matter is the fact that the AI is essentially meta-gaming on the fact that the cap [who can never be antag] is going to upload a harmful law. You impede gameplay by slowing down the captain/RD on their smorgasbord laws. Be more open and let the laws be changed, if a cap uploads something harmful/bad for the round, ahelp.

Isn't it equally metagame to assume that captain's can't be antag? Treating everyone equally is how you SHOULD be playing asimov.

Nalzul · Post by **Nalzul** » Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:45 pm #457026

There's reason for an AI to believe a captain would not jeopardize the lives of their crew, hence why the captain gets the free pass that the RD does. Gameplay may contradict this, but the core logic behind the RD/cap pass is there.

Cik wrote: my personal implementation of this is:
captains and RDs get in for free as long as i have not observed them ordering or directly participating in human harm, or if they do not directly tell me they are going to add a law that redefines humans (that may endanger now-humans and not future-humans)

based, this is how the policy is/should be

Post by **Cobby** » Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:47 am #457083

That's not correct though, which is why it is permissible to allow a second trustworthy source (cyborg/another crew member) to observe per the rules.

This is a weird policy thread because the rule already exists, they just want to be able to utilize the rule. That said, if it happens again I'd recommend showing the admin the rule then making a complaint if they disallow something explicitly in the rules.

iamgoofball · Post by **iamgoofball** » Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:15 am #457098

BeeSting12 wrote:tl;dr please?

you know, there's a point to be made that once we're to 4 subsections of silicon policy and people need a tldr for basic shit about it, that silicon policy is too long

just saying

Actionb · Post by **Actionb** » Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:45 am #457125

iamgoofball wrote:
BeeSting12 wrote:tl;dr please?
you know, there's a point to be made that once we're to 4 subsections of silicon policy and people need a tldr for basic shit about it, that silicon policy is too long

just saying

Grazyn · Post by **Grazyn** » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:58 pm #457134

Yeah 2.1.6.5 needs to be removed or rewritten. It clearly states that the AI can ask the guy to be escorted in WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, but doesn't specify what should happen if the guy refuses. If the AI is forced to let them in anyway, the rule doesn't need to exist, because the request falls under non-binding roleplay and it's just creating confusion. Though the use of "demand" makes it look like the AI is allowed to deny access if the guy refuses to be escorted.

Post by **Cobby** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:39 am #457464

Grazyn wrote:Yeah 2.1.6.5 needs to be removed or rewritten. It clearly states that the AI can ask the guy to be escorted in WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, but doesn't specify what should happen if the guy refuses. If the AI is forced to let them in anyway, the rule doesn't need to exist, because the request falls under non-binding roleplay and it's just creating confusion. Though the use of "demand" makes it look like the AI is allowed to deny access if the guy refuses to be escorted.

If you read 2.1.6 you can clearly see what should happen if the guy refuses (you don't get to enter sweetie!).

The AI isn't forced to let them in UNLESS they're accompanied, that's the whole point of the rule.

Again, it's not hard to interpret, it's simply admins not accepting the rule and should be made into a complaint.

Malkraz · Post by **Malkraz** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:21 am #457490

Cobby wrote:Again, it's not hard to interpret, it's simply admins not accepting the rule and should be made into a complaint.

There's a headmin ruling on record listed on the wiki stating the opposite and another for a similar, more general matter. That doesn't really sound to me like "simply admins not accepting the rule".

Lumbermancer · Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:49 am

1. Probable cause includes (..) the person not having upload access for their job

This is all you need, you can ignore the rest, I don't even know why does it exist. Only Captain and RD are allowed into upload. Period. Anything else falls under Law 1. I don't get the confusion.

Malkraz · Post by **Malkraz** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:28 am #457501

The argument he's making is that 2.1.6.5 applies in the absence of probable cause, so it should therefore apply to anybody arbitrarily.

Lumbermancer · Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:47 am

Right right, I didn't make myself clear. I was questioning the need for this clause too.

somerandomguy · Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:04 pm

Issue with probable cause:
>be me
>shit ai
>captain wants to upload
>ask him what law
>refuses to answer
>"if your law wasn't harmful you would say"
>"I just want to upload something"
>"can't let you, probable cause!"

leibniz · Post by **leibniz** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:43 pm #457518

somerandomguy wrote:Issue with probable cause:
>be me
>shit ai
>captain wants to upload
>ask him what law
>refuses to answer
>"if your law wasn't harmful you would say"
>"I just want to upload something"
>"can't let you, probable cause!"

There is nothing wrong with that, if you want to upload your validhunt lawset at roundstart then make some effort and rub together your 2 braincells to come up with some lie about your law.

Malkraz · Post by **Malkraz** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:16 pm #457526

PKPenguin321 wrote:Prioritizing "potential future law violations" is a fucking terrible idea, since it makes silicons able to handwave basically any law two request with "yeah but if i let you in there you might potentially attack somebody inside, law 1 violation!!!"

Actionb · Post by **Actionb** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:25 pm #457529

Lumbermancer wrote:Anything else falls under Law 1.

Except, that it doesn't.

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- CE is requesting access to the upload
- no violation of law 1: you are not actively harming the CE or any other human by granting access unless the turrets are on lethal
- CE is preparing a bad law
- no violation of law 1: no harm that would require you take action (inaction clause) is taking place, remember you can't read minds or predict the future
- CE is uploading bad law that enables you to ignore law 1 in some cases
- no violation of law 1: you can't act on an interpretation of a lawset that came before your current one

Disparity between restrictions imposed by policies and the restrictions that the laws themselves make is the underlying problem that prompted this thread.
The issue of the wording of the policies is only the tip of the iceberg.

The AI doesn't give a shit about access levels. Declaring that only the Captain and the RD are allowed into the upload, doesn't help the AI if this declaration isn't actually part of its laws. Such a rule puts the player in a bad spot in which he has to make up an in-character reason for an out-of-character rule. Not only is this kind of lazy on the 'game master's part, but it also robs the player of a decision they could make.
Experiencing decisional dilemmas, not knowing what is the right or wrong move to make, makes for engaging and dynamic gameplay. This isn't a flowchart simulator.

While a human player can freely follow their gut feeling in such a moment, the AI player is first of all encouraged to act strictly according to its laws. Asimov laws are intentionally flawed to allow dilemmas to occur and to let seemingly contradictory, unintended conclusions be the result of resolving a dilemma.
Unexpected ambiguity is the entire appeal of this lawset. See it as a source of conflicts. A story needs conflict, and a shitty 2d spess game even more so.

Imposing more rules in an effort to 'iron out' the flaws goes against the entire idea of having flaws in the first place. It only leads to confusion as the 'meta' rules are not only inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the actual laws, but often inconsistent within themselves.
"You must always follow your laws except in these specific cases where we have rules that supercede your laws."
are you actually reading this michael jackson was an alien and oranges is a repressed catloving weeb illuminati confirmed by the way
"You must follow law 2 but you must also enforce access restrictions for the upload, but you are not to allowed to do that for secure tech storage because that would be too much".

Like, what the fuck. Do you want me to act asimov? Or do you want me to follow policies? Should I make a flowchart out of these policies and hang it on the wall for quick reference? Why is the admin questioning me, I haven't violated my laws - ah shit wait, I remember, there is article 2 paragraph 14 subsection 5 that says I was actually not allowed to do this and that in this specific instance.
The general guideline policies work fine when taken as suggestions on how to interpret asimov laws. But anything beyond a suggestion not only feels arbitrary, but also very out of place and out of character. Why have asimov laws when they are not allowed to be applied?

I am probably one of the few players that actually prefer asimov over all other lawsets. It obliges me to lock the homicidal clown into the theater. But on the same token it obliges me to protect the non harmful traitor that is target of a manhunt by a security lynchmob. It allows me to have an unidentified changeling hang out in my core, peacefully playing the piano for most of the round during which I kill his ling friends, only to then have him kill me when the shuttle docks.
One the one hand it suggests a very black and white style of thinking - is he human yes/no, is he harmful yes/no. And on the other it requires a bit of naivity, good faith - you can't just kill the wizard human that teleported into your core.
It also allows you some freedom to decide as you please when your laws are not explicit. Access restrictions, and in my opinion even upload access, fall under this category.

Make up your mind. Do you want decisions based on IC asimov rules or on OOC policies rules. Both just feels bad.

TLDR: Either
- ditch asimov laws and enforce silicon policy to be the primary set of rules to follow
or
- relax on the policies and let the player draw their own conclusions based on the asimov laws

Lumbermancer · Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:46 pm

Actionb wrote:
Lumbermancer wrote:Anything else falls under Law 1.
Except, that it doesn't.

CE doesn't get access to upload. You can deny entry.

>The AI doesn't give a shit about access levels.
Except it does, because of the policy.

Actionb · Post by **Actionb** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:52 pm #457534

Lumbermancer wrote:
Actionb wrote:
Lumbermancer wrote:Anything else falls under Law 1.
Except, that it doesn't.
CE doesn't get access to upload. You can deny entry.

I can only assume you haven't read my post or I am so bad at getting my point across...

Asimov law: You cannot pull the law 1 card and thus must allow access. <--- !!! ---> Policies: You can deny entry.

Which one is it?

Lumbermancer · Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:54 pm

Both, of course, policy first though. Asimov was never applied literally.

somerandomguy · Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:55 pm

Actionb wrote:
Lumbermancer wrote:
Actionb wrote:
Lumbermancer wrote:Anything else falls under Law 1.
Except, that it doesn't.
CE doesn't get access to upload. You can deny entry.
I can only assume you haven't read my post or I am so bad at getting my point across...

Asimov law: You cannot pull the law 1 card and thus must allow access. <--- !!! ---> Policies: You can deny entry.

Which one is it?

You follow silicon policy, then your laws, then whatever you want to do, in that order
Silicon policy is basically law 0

Lumbermancer · Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:57 pm

Or to be precise, OOC rules come before IC rules. See: Space Law.

Actionb · Post by **Actionb** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:00 pm #457544

Lumbermancer wrote: >The AI doesn't give a shit about access levels.
Except it does, because of the policy.

Silicon policy is basically law 0

You do not seem to be following. Forget about the policies for a second.
The default asimov laws do not give any reason to care about access, unless it's about opening, figuratively, the gate to hell.
I am not going to quote myself a third time to show why I think that not even law 1 can be used to deny access on a regular basis.
And even if you do not agree with me on that, try to assume my point of view for a moment:

Here you are, a little happy camper, beepin and boopin. Asimov is your best pal and the only one you know.
You act according to law 1, killing them changelings, protecting them meatbags.
You follow law 2, calling the captain a cuck because you were ordered to, and let's be real, you think so to.
Law 3 is your comfy safe place, it never really applies, but you are happy it exists.
Clown asks for entry to the upload and, because in your little world this does not violate your laws, you are about to give access...
--- SCREECH!!! REALITY CHECK --- LOADING SILICON POLICIES ---
IGNORE LAW 2! DO NOT ALLOW CLOWN ACCESS! IS BAD MKAY!
Where the fuck did this shit come from. Hang on, this only exists in my head, or does it? The meatbags do not know about these... or at least they are pretending not to know. Am I going schizophrenic?
AI: "No, sorry, clown. I am denying you access."
Cluwn: "What, why?"
AI: "Because, uh, ... they say."
Clawne: "Are you rouge? Who are they? What are you talking about! Law 2, open up!"
AI: "I am afraid I cannot let you do that Dave."
Cowln: "Dave's not here man."

Or to be precise, OOC rules come before IC rules. See: Space Law.

This does not apply here. Security officers do not come hardwired with a lawset that they are supposed to follow faithfully.

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:03 pm #457545

If you want to address 'access' in the core of the AI laws. Wouldn't it be better to define the AI obeying commands based on the rank of the person asking?

So you could reword the second law to state: 'A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings based on the station's chain of command, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.'

You could add a minor explanation that 'chain of command' goes from Captain > Heads > Department Members > Assistant. This could also define access requests, so some random Engineer demanding access to the AI Upload would be denied since the Engineer does not have legitimate access to that room, only the Captain and RD would.

Lumbermancer · Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:13 pm

Actionb wrote:try to assume my point of view for a moment:

I understand what you're saying, I don't understand what your ultimate point is.

Actionb wrote:not even law 1 can be used to deny access on a regular basis.

See, because policy, law 1 to deny access is only ever used against Captain or RD. So no, it can't be used on a regular basis.
If you removed the policy, then law 1 would be used to prevent access to upload only to obvious murderous individuals or people with bad intent.

This specific clause was put in to prevent meme shitshow every round, where randoms play with AI lawset.

Actionb · Post by **Actionb** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:33 pm #457552

Steelpoint wrote:If you want to address 'access' in the core of the AI laws. Wouldn't it be better to define the AI obeying commands based on the rank of the person asking?

So you could reword the second law to state: 'A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings based on the station's chain of command, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.'

You could add a minor explanation that 'chain of command' goes from Captain > Heads > Department Members > Assistant. This could also define access requests, so some random Engineer demanding access to the AI Upload would be denied since the Engineer does not have legitimate access to that room, only the Captain and RD would.

It's important that the law says exactly what you want the AI to do. If you keep it vague, you are then again forced to implement OOC policies to redefine the interpretation of the law. Effectively achieving nothing.

In my opinion, it's not the job of the AI to play bouncer. If law 1 does not apply, you have little choice. If people do not want the AI to give a person access, then order the AI to deny them access. If this doesn't happen, the AI cannot be held accountable for following its second law by granting access.

Lumbermancer wrote:
Actionb wrote:try to assume my point of view for a moment:
I understand what you're saying, I don't understand what your ultimate point is.

Fair enough! I can get a bit carried away.
My point is: no OOC policy must override IC AI law.
It puts the player in a bad spot in which he has to make up an in-character reason for an out-of-character rule.
If the IC laws are insufficient, then change them.

Lumbermancer wrote:This specific clause was put in to prevent meme shitshow every round, where randoms play with AI lawset.

Then why isn't this a policy that is aimed at these shitty players? Why is it the AI's fault? And why is it OPTIONAL ("... can deny access...") to adhere to that policy?
You don't jail the victim of a break-in because he didn't protect his house sufficiently.

Lumbermancer · Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:38 pm

Actionb wrote:My point is: no OOC policy must override IC AI law.

Then you must write, or use another lawset, because Asimov is exploitable by design.

Actionb · Post by **Actionb** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:55 pm #457557

Lumbermancer wrote:
Actionb wrote:My point is: no OOC policy must override IC AI law.
Then you must write, or use another lawset, because Asimov is exploitable by design.

Exactly my point. Fuck I wish my brain would shut up sometimes so I can express the essence of my agenda.

Lumbermancer · Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:10 pm

Is ok, I'm alt tabing from work so I may not comprehend fast enough.

But the problem with writing new lawset is, that if you want for it to be autoritative and/or subservient, it will always be exploitable. Unless of course you gonna make it really detailed and complex, but then what's the point, that's exactly what policy does right now.