As in, should you prevent lesser immediate harm even though it may lead to greater future harm? Or "Lesser immediate harm" not being stopped and such is more important than stopping something which might be an issue in the future.Aismov and human harm 2: Lesser immediate harm takes priority over greater future harm.
I've also seen people say that this may justify not doing things which may lead to potential future harm, such as stealing a secbelt from a lizard officer then throwing them into sci, or not bothering about not letting people into the HOP/Captain's office or letting them into the upload or tech storage because they "Arent doing harm yet"
"Humans can be assumed to know whether an action will harm them and that they will make educated decisions about whether they will be harmed if they have complete information about a situation." (Ai policy for aismov)
...Whooo boy, It's bold to assume that assistants arent going to yeet themself into the supermatter or such, or expect to not die when fighting fucking bubblegum one on one. "There are two things that are infinite. The universe, and human stupidity. I'm not sure about the first one."
Opening doors is not harmful and you are not required, expected, or allowed to enforce access restrictions unprompted without an immediate Law 1 threat of human harm.
"Dangerous" areas as the Armory, the Atmospherics division, and the Toxins lab can be assumed to be a Law 1 threat to any illegitimate users as well as the station as a whole if accessed by someone not qualified in their use.
Not a complaint about the rules here themself this time, but about that NOBODY seems to realize that this subprecedent is a thing. I've seen ais let people into really fucking dangerous areas for no good reason a LOT.
When given an order likely to cause you grief if completed, you can announce it as loudly and in whatever terms you like except for explicitly asking that it be overridden. You can say you don't like the order, that you don't want to follow it, etc., you can say that you sure would like it and it would be awfully convenient if someone ordered you not to do it, and you can ask if anyone would like to make you not do it. However, you cannot stall indefinitely and if nobody orders you otherwise, you must execute the order.
Sadly, ais do not stall or complain usually.
Another thing to adress,
Abuse of position; as in being deliberately incompetent or malicious in their position is not allowed. Deliberate incompetence or malice can result in warnings or bans, depending on severity. Example would be a chemist constantly abusing the position to make space lube and lubing hallways, they may be warned and then jobbanned if further abuse happens.
I just... don't see this enforced enough. And it makes me sad.
Character friendships should not be exploitative in nature or be used to gain an unfair advantage. Having an IC friendship with another player does not, for example, justify giving them all-access each round.
There should be more specific examples.
Additionally, It's not official policy, but I've had ahelps denied for ahelping things I wasn't directly involved in as a spectator. I'm not mad at the admin who did it, I'm just wondering, is that something which is supposed to happen? I'm not asking for you to do anything about those past situations. Just asking for info.
Also, If this thread is too much of a clusterfuck, IE "Yeah you need to split this stuff up into different threads", please feel free to tell me to do so and lock it.