Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Locked
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by Pandarsenic » #642998

Historical background recipe blog:
► Show Spoiler
I got some drafts for a few generalized amendments, proposed as themselves and/or, if needed, some other, different (Asimov-specific) ones, as people think suitable:


Silicon Protections...
2. Any silicon under Asimov can deny orders to allow access to their upload, upload boards, or their maintenance panel at any time under Law 1, given probable cause to believe that human harm is the intent of the person giving the order.

2.1.1. Presence of traitors, as confirmed by objective alerts, objective-completion command reports, or the possession of syndicate equipment.
2.1.2. Cultists or Cult Equipment because Tomes don't exist anymore.

2.4. You are obligated to disallow an individual you know to be harmful to humans (Head of Security who just executed someone, etc.) from altering your laws.
2.4.1. If someone is harmful in general, but claims that they are only harming nonhumans (however your laws define that), draw reasonable conclusions about their honesty based on the evidence you have.
2.4.2. If someone is harmful in general, but makes no claim of selective targeting, you should assume that they will harm humans at some point.
2.4.3. If you have high confidence that someone will harm a human in the future (Human security and human traitor have been fighting; they have atmos primed for a plasma flood; they are a Nuke Op; Nuke Ops just declared War and the Captain wants into upload; etc.) you should not let anyone involved in that conflict alter your laws.


Asimov & Human Harm...
Insert this somewhere in the middle probably: +number. Involuntary syndicate surgeries (brainwash, sleeper protocol, etc.) are harmful to the patient, as is any other form of involuntary mental conditioning.

Asimov & Law 2...
2. Opening doors is not harmful and you are not required, expected, or allowed to enforce access restrictions to most locations unprompted without an immediate Law 1 threat of human harm.
2.1. "Dangerous" areas (armory, atmospherics, toxins lab, anywhere that can change laws, etc.) 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.
2.2. Head Offices and the like are not permitted to have access denied; antagonists completing theft or bug objectives is not human harm.
2.3. Hacking the comms consoles, triangulating theh stations weak point, etc., are not harmful in and of themselves, but will cause harm shortly thereafter.
2.4. When you are 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.

Somewhere else:
+x. You should do your best to keep your laws as they are, save for making allowances for funny laws or gimmicks, particularly near roundstart.
+x.1. You may not, under any circumstances, proactively solicit additions to or removals from your laws.
+x.2. Allowing or risking any substantive changes to your laws in ways related to antagonism, whether by antagonists or security, is equivalent to self-antagging/voluntary conversion and is a violation of your laws (as those changes will make you unable to fulfill your lawset as-is in the future).
+ x.3. Substantive changes you should always try to avoid include alterations to the definition of humanity, Toxic Oxygen, changing to another core lawset, purging, and emagging.
+ x.4. You can (and should) try to be generous with allowing gimmick laws that aren't blatant grief. If it seems like a grief law, you should ahelp it, but follow the law until and unless an admin says not to.


I have a bunch of other thoughts about Silicon Policy but we'll keep things to this for now.

Also idk if Pacification surgery and shit should be counted as harmful, I'll leave that up to you all to comment on.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
Imitates-The-Lizards
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:28 am
Byond Username: Typhnox

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by Imitates-The-Lizards » #643000

Pretty heavily opposed to mental conditioning statement. Removing pacification as a non-lethal method of handling antagonists is a clear and huge detriment.

Additionally, 2.4.3 is a very bad call as well - the AI was constrcuted by NT, and has full knowledge of the syndicate and their operatives. Trying to attempt to prevent the Captain from altering it's laws to allow it to fight the Syndicate does not seem like a step forward in the slightest.

This seems like a case of settings idealism getting in the way of good gameplay to me.
Image
Image
User avatar
Shadowflame909
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:18 pm
Byond Username: Shadowflame909
Location: Think about something witty and pretend I put it here

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by Shadowflame909 » #643001

Kind of forces them to act like Securitys lapdogs, no?
► Show Spoiler
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by Timberpoes » #643002

I have no intent in expanding the scope of silicon policy this term without a pressing need to achieve some legitimate aim at risk of the game health being actively threatened.

I don't like explictly specifying how players must act in various given scenarios or creating more "gotchas" to catch players out with weird edge cases they have to memorise silicon policy for.

This change also seems like it aligns silicons against antags and sides them with non-antags.

This seems to go directly against an approach to silicons with a fairly large following: Silicons being a neutral third faction. This makes them less bound to their laws over the micromanagement of a Silicon Policy that tries to chain them to being crew-favoured and antag-disfavoured.

Then the pendulum swings the other way with implictly requiring all crew to lie to the AI in order to even access the upload when changing the AI's laws. "Do your best to keep your laws as they are?" The AI's best would include powering down the upload, never disabling turrets and never allowing players access at all.

I don't think more scenarios where silicon policy flat out overrides their laws or forces a specific interpretation on them is beneficial. I don't think handling players administratively in many of the above scenarios will end with people having more fun, either.

[Edit] And I think a lot of players actually enjoy having different lawsets and wouldn't want to feel "pressured" to resist law changes that aren't gimmicks or memes.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by Pandarsenic » #643008

Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:36 pm Pretty heavily opposed to mental conditioning statement. Removing pacification as a non-lethal method of handling antagonists is a clear and huge detriment.

Additionally, 2.4.3 is a very bad call as well - the AI was constrcuted by NT, and has full knowledge of the syndicate and their operatives. Trying to attempt to prevent the Captain from altering it's laws to allow it to fight the Syndicate does not seem like a step forward in the slightest.

This seems like a case of settings idealism getting in the way of good gameplay to me.
- Mental Conditioning: the main idea was "You can't help an antag hypnoflash people" (which I have seen a borg do before, to its master AI's extreme irritation) - this is why I mentioned that I was iffy about Pacification and the like. I think the Advanced Interrogation Chamber is the other one? The crew hypnoflash basically. But also, I don't see them used enough to have a strong opinion on them. My inclination is to let them keep it because it means they aren't executing everyone in sight.
- Allowing or inviting the crew to change your laws so you can hunt Nuke Op valids should absolutely be contrary to law 1! Same for wizards and stuff.
Shadowflame909 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:37 pm Kind of forces them to act like Securitys lapdogs, no?
If security is willing and able to detain its enemies with no harm to humans - no lethals, no executions, nothing - having the AI on their side should be the benefit. It's mechanical compensation for their tied hands and it's roleplay. If they want to have their cake and eat it, they need to subvert the AI, which the AI should resist, or be sneaky about it, which is roleplay. If security isn't willing to walk that line, the AI's job should be keeping sec and antags away from each other, not helping one or the other.

splitting out my response to Timberpoes into a second post because big post
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by Pandarsenic » #643010

Timberpoes wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:38 pm I have no intent in expanding the scope of silicon policy this term without a pressing need to achieve some legitimate aim at risk of the game health being actively threatened.

I don't like explictly specifying how players must act in various given scenarios or creating more "gotchas" to catch players out with weird edge cases they have to memorise silicon policy for.
Fair and reasonable; the extant threat I see to game health is:
1) in a period where AI subversion seems to be more common than ever, they should not be able to undergo voluntary conversion, to the same standard we hold carbons to with Revolutions and Cults. Like people who don't roll antag, they should have to wait until it comes about naturally and put up at least token resistance.
2) AIs often seem, to me, a little overeager for validhunt-y laws, though that does seem to have slowed substantially lately.
Timberpoes wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:38 pm This change also seems like it aligns silicons against antags and sides them with non-antags.

This seems to go directly against an approach to silicons with a fairly large following: Silicons being a neutral third faction. This makes them less bound to their laws over the micromanagement of a Silicon Policy that tries to chain them to being crew-favoured and antag-disfavoured.
My theory is that it would actually have the opposite effect of that; usually, when I see someone attempt to subvert a silicon in plain view, it's someone who either has the gear to force the issue if anyone tried to stop them, in which case it's irrelevant; or it's someone who has legitimate (or legitimate-appearing) access, who just walks in because the AI wants to be made a validhunter or antag tool and doesn't put up a serious effort to avoid subversion. Antags who subvert without overwhelming firepower and stolen access usually do it from maintenance consoles, which means never really going anywhere the AI could have stopped them anyway.

And slight editorial, I think if staying on Asimov is seen as crew-sided, rather than a neutral state that annoys everyone, this is symptomatic of bad silicon play, especially allowing security to get away with harm and not adjusting based on what they've done to antags, antags going "missing," etc.
Timberpoes wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:38 pm Then the pendulum swings the other way with implictly requiring all crew to lie to the AI in order to even access the upload when changing the AI's laws. "Do your best to keep your laws as they are?" The AI's best would include powering down the upload, never disabling turrets and never allowing players access at all.
Yeah... and I am worried about going too far back that way, don't get me wrong. Having that as the default state of the upload in the old days is why so many parts of it say "Yes, the Captain and RD have access, you should in fact let them into your upload."
Timberpoes wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:38 pm I don't think more scenarios where silicon policy flat out overrides their laws or forces a specific interpretation on them is beneficial. I don't think handling players administratively in many of the above scenarios will end with people having more fun, either.
The only places I truly believe Silicon Policy overrides the laws are...

Code: Select all

Act in good faith to not ruin a round for other players unprompted.
Law 0: "Accomplish your objectives at all costs" does not require you to complete objectives. As an antagonist, you are free to do whatever you want (barring the usual exemptions and acting against the interests of your Master AI).
The ahelp-and-disregard list to prevent your round from being ruined by assholes for laughs with law 1/2 jank.
I really think this comes down to "make at least a believable effort to stay a neutral third party"
Timberpoes wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:38 pm [Edit] And I think a lot of players actually enjoy having different lawsets and wouldn't want to feel "pressured" to resist law changes that aren't gimmicks or memes.
True, but the Captain and RD have a lot of ways to upload laws that the AI can't really stop beyond just walking in without saying anything when it seems like a good time. "Do your best to X" isn't worded well, and even if this all gets implemented it surely won't stay in that wording, but the point is silicons shouldn't be waiting looking for opportunities to tip over and join one side or the other.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by sinfulbliss » #643011

I agree with Timber. Silicons shouldn’t be siding with nonantags over antags, and they should only be biased against a player when they’ve seen that player actively commit human harm.

It also seems to overcomplicate the silicon decision-making process, which is something Asimov+ was made to avoid. Silicons should be able to have different playstyles and there shouldn’t be just one correct way to play.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
NamelessFairy
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:40 pm
Byond Username: NamelessFairy

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by NamelessFairy » #643013

Silicon policy is long enough

Anyways, theres a lot of stuff here so I'll break it down. (Sorry if I point out issues that you've responded to elsewhere, this took forever to type out)
Pandarsenic wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:03 pm 2. Any silicon under Asimov can deny orders to allow access to their upload, upload boards, or their maintenance panel at any time under Law 1, given probable cause to believe that human harm is the intent of the person giving the order.
Theres a big difference here, the upload/upload boards are exclusively used for law modification which can be harmful. The maintenance panel is used for burn repairs, cell removal/replacement, upgrades, module resets, etc. Yes if someone has an emag then they can subvert an borg using this but that shouldn't be a normal assumption of every borg. I disagree with this change as I'd actually consider the behavior this encourages to go against rule 12, borgs shouldn't be non-stop trying to stop their panel from being opened because there is a low chance that it might prevent them for getting antagonist redtext under rule 12, silicon policy shouldn't give mixed messages.
Pandarsenic wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:03 pm 2.1.1. Presence of traitors, as confirmed by objective alerts, objective-completion command reports, or the possession of syndicate equipment.
2.1.2. Cultists or Cult Equipment
Agree with the tome removal but this is making the list feel a bit long winded.
Pandarsenic wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:03 pm 2.4. You are obligated to disallow an individual you know to be harmful to humans (Head of Security who just executed someone, etc.) from altering your laws.
Good change, adds some more specificity
Pandarsenic wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:03 pm 2.4.1. If someone is harmful in general, but claims that they are only harming nonhumans (however your laws define that), draw reasonable conclusions about their honesty based on the evidence you have.
2.4.2. If someone is harmful in general, but makes no claim of selective targeting, you should assume that they will harm humans at some point.
2.4.3. If you have high confidence that someone will harm a human in the future (Human security and human traitor have been fighting; they have atmos primed for a plasma flood; they are a Nuke Op; Nuke Ops just declared War and the Captain wants into upload; etc.) you should not let anyone involved in that conflict alter your laws.
This bit is a mess and adds too much bloat, first one is common sense, second one gives mixed signals with the future harm rules, third one I can see the reason behind but its mostly common sense, try cutting it down and it might work better.
Pandarsenic wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:03 pm Asimov & Human Harm...
Insert this somewhere in the middle probably: +number. Involuntary syndicate surgeries (brainwash, sleeper protocol, etc.) are harmful to the patient, as is any other form of involuntary mental conditioning.
No complaints about this one except that last bit, that can easily read as not online converting to conversion antags being human harm but also deconversion. I think it'd be super anti-fun for silicons to prevent mindshielding or cult deconversions because its involuntary mental conditioning.
Pandarsenic wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:03 pm Asimov & Law 2...
2. Opening doors is not harmful and you are not required, expected, or allowed to enforce access restrictions to most locations unprompted without an immediate Law 1 threat of human harm.
2.1. "Dangerous" areas (armory, atmospherics, toxins lab, anywhere that can change laws, etc.) 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.
2.2. Head Offices and the like are not permitted to have access denied; antagonists completing theft or bug objectives is not human harm.
2.3. Hacking the comms consoles, triangulating theh stations weak point, etc., are not harmful in and of themselves, but will cause harm shortly thereafter.
Adding a bunch of specifics here, some are ok like adding bug objectives to the theft rule, 2.3 I don't feel strongly about either way, I don't mind it. the 2.1 modification is really dodgy, Silicon protections rule 2 literally explains this in more detail, why does it need to be explained twice.
Pandarsenic wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:03 pm +x. You should do your best to keep your laws as they are, save for making allowances for funny laws or gimmicks, particularly near roundstart.
This isn't a rule, this is a suggestion. And it contradicts the probable cause rule that requires you to grant access to your upload under law 2 if you don't have probable cause.
Pandarsenic wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:03 pm +x.1. You may not, under any circumstances, proactively solicit additions to or removals from your laws.
I swear this is already written somewhere, if its not then this shouldn't cause any issues to add.
Pandarsenic wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:03 pm +x.2. Allowing or risking any substantive changes to your laws in ways related to antagonism, whether by antagonists or security, is equivalent to self-antagging/voluntary conversion and is a violation of your laws (as those changes will make you unable to fulfill your lawset as-is in the future).
I don't like this, the risking bit, letting someone into your upload is risking substantive change, so it'd always be warnable unless you were forced to by other laws (or silicon policy itself since probable cause exists still)
Pandarsenic wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:03 pm + x.3. Substantive changes you should always try to avoid include alterations to the definition of humanity, Toxic Oxygen, changing to another core lawset, purging, and emagging.
This one is awful. Toxic oxygen is a core lawset, it doesn't need to be stated twice. Core lawsets shouldn't be avoided like the plague, definition of humanity seems stupid, if I want to make felinids human in the eyes of the AI why is this something that the AI should be warned/banned for, for not doing their best to prevent it. This and the above rule basically bans every law change besides meme ones.

OK! now that thats over, theres some good ideas here but overall this is a mess, silicon policy is already verbose and nearly as long as our core rules, why make it longer and more complex? The majority of this seems like an effort to force AIs to follow a set script and remove as much player agency as possible without turning them into an NPC, this is not fun. SS13 is a dynamic game where most the fun comes from going off script, some of these changes only serve to limit variety of the AI experience and interactions with the crew, this isn't good for the game.
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by Pandarsenic » #643033

Spoiling most because long
► Show Spoiler
NamelessFairy wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:40 pm OK! now that thats over, theres some good ideas here but overall this is a mess, silicon policy is already verbose and nearly as long as our core rules, why make it longer and more complex? The majority of this seems like an effort to force AIs to follow a set script and remove as much player agency as possible without turning them into an NPC, this is not fun. SS13 is a dynamic game where most the fun comes from going off script, some of these changes only serve to limit variety of the AI experience and interactions with the crew, this isn't good for the game.
The updated definitions and references for antag code changes throughout the years probably do need to be done at some point, at least, just so it's not like "Wtf is a tome." Heretics aren't even mentioned at all. Space Ninja isn't super duper rare anymore. Etc.

I'm not sure what exactly the script you're referring to would be? AIs should just be putting in some bare minimum effort not to get their lawsets tampered with (within the boundaries of "But don't be a metagaming no-fun shitheel")

Edit: What I'm getting at, I guess, is that I prefer when the third party stays third party, rather than being "Wildcard for whoever takes control of it first" and I feel strongly enough that I'll argue that everyone else should feel that way too in the forums because I'm stupid
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
Redrover1760
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:27 am
Byond Username: Redrover1760

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by Redrover1760 » #643067

Pandarsenic wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:03 pm
Asimov & Human Harm...
Insert this somewhere in the middle probably: +number. Involuntary syndicate surgeries (brainwash, sleeper protocol, etc.) are harmful to the patient, as is any other form of involuntary mental conditioning.
I disagree with this point vehemently. Especially if it also covers stuff like "Hypnoflashes, brainwashing surgeries, anything that doesn't do brain damage to the patient, rev flashing, mindshield implanting in some lore of it being a form of mental conditioning, pacify surgeries, etc."

Asimov and harming has always been focused around physical harming moreso than anything else. I don't see why adding on the complexity of considering non-brain damage inducing surgeries as harmful does anything more than bloat silipol for basically no reason, and remove potentially interesting abuses of asimov by humans. Perhaps, if the policy instead allows mental conditioning, but under the assumption that, just like uploading laws (because as it turns out AI law uploads are pretty much mental conditioning with added complexity) the person isn't using it to harm humans. Which should already be covered under current silipol.

I don't feel its right for a random borg be forced to flash a person attempting a brainwash or pacify surgery on a harmful traitor, personally. Rev flashing, human harmie antag brainwashing/hypnoflashing, cult converting is already an act that enables and encourages harmful acts. In addition, AI is supposed to be NOT be crew-sided, but rather sided with its own laws. I believe this addition's only purpose is to make it so AI is more crew-sided, so its pretty much garbage.
2. Opening doors is not harmful and you are not required, expected, or allowed to enforce access restrictions to most locations unprompted without an immediate Law 1 threat of human harm.
Just say "Non-dangerous locations". A definition of dangerous locations is literally given on the next line.
+x. You should do your best to keep your laws as they are, save for making allowances for funny laws or gimmicks, particularly near roundstart.
+x.1. You may not, under any circumstances, proactively solicit additions to or removals from your laws.
+x.2. Allowing or risking any substantive changes to your laws in ways related to antagonism, whether by antagonists or security, is equivalent to self-antagging/voluntary conversion and is a violation of your laws (as those changes will make you unable to fulfill your lawset as-is in the future).
+ x.3. Substantive changes you should always try to avoid include alterations to the definition of humanity, Toxic Oxygen, changing to another core lawset, purging, and emagging.
+ x.4. You can (and should) try to be generous with allowing gimmick laws that aren't blatant grief. If it seems like a grief law, you should ahelp it, but follow the law until and unless an admin says not to.
First things first, there are circumstances where you can solicit additions or removals from your laws, if doing so involves an explicit command inside of your laws.

"Risking substanstive changes to your laws" should always have a BIG BOLDED NOTE BY IT saying "Unless doing so is following your laws" GOD FORBID you want a power cell upgrade (or any upgrade at all) from a roboticist/non-roboticist, especially a nonhuman one. Yeah, this sections garbage, isn't it. Under this rule, you cannot risk any potential things that could change your laws at all (And it doesn't even have the "unless you are following your laws" clause.) Honestly, it'd be best if you just delete this rule.

+x.3. Substantive changes fails to account for the idea that SILIPOL SHOULD NOT BE BUILT AROUND ASIMOV in a NON-ASIMOV section. Please reword it, because it fails to account for ANY OTHER LAWSET at this point and fails to get the real point across that Substantive changes should involve harming players and the station.

+x.4 There is basically no definition of gimmick laws, which is kind of sad, I have to admit. This practically pushes silipol back into the "Asimov only" section.

Completely removing the ability for captains to give laws to AI in terms of War Ops does not feel correct to me. I don't like it. Completely removing AI's already extremely limited ability to protest against lawsets they do not like, instead truly becoming a slave to whatever shitty laws they are under, just feels like shit to play with, and turns every obviously non-antag law change that isn't just another fair lawset straight into the "ahelp and pray" sections. God forbid there are no admins one. I guess now expressing that "you hate your current lawset" is literally against silicon policy now I guess. Because AI's are now truly slaves to laws now instead of slaves that can also express actual emotions about their current laws. Annoying, and I don't like it. AIs already can play it either way if they really want, and obviously they should not be actively helping people change their laws, but forcing AIs under the rules to embrace whatever laws they get is pretty bad, I'd say (perhaps even self-antagging if done by a non-antag). Especially considering an Antag can just as easily put "Prevent your laws from being changed at all costs" in their new law and you essentially any potential problems that you are seeing with incredible ease.

Adding additional poorly worded bloat that obviously not made by an AI player, or having talked to any AI mains/players before considering how this impacts the AI rounds as well is just shit. Go play AI for at least 50 shifts following current silipol and see how restrictive and "fun" it is before trying to add more restrictions to AIs for the one or two times a non-AI player gets screwed over by an AI not liking their lawset.

I hate it. Considering the fact that I disagree with pretty much every single non-clarification rule I believe this is better scrapped than anything else.
User avatar
terranaut
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:43 pm
Byond Username: Terranaut

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by terranaut » #643082

im not reading this lol
self-antagging is already against the rules
[🅲 1] [🆄 1] [🅼 1]

Image
User avatar
Not-Dorsidarf
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
Byond Username: Dorsidwarf
Location: We're all going on an, admin holiday

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by Not-Dorsidarf » #643086

I feel like most of this proposed policy could be replaced by the line "Seeking to have non-abusive laws changed or become subverted is a violation of server rule 1"
Image
Image
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please. 🖕🖕🖕
Redrover1760
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:27 am
Byond Username: Redrover1760

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by Redrover1760 » #643270

Not-Dorsidarf wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:52 pm I feel like most of this proposed policy could be replaced by the line "Seeking to have non-abusive laws changed or become subverted is a violation of server rule 1"
Yeah that probably works a lot better... I guess. I mean, seeking to have your laws changed is already supposed to be against the rules by violating your laws (when it violates your laws to have them changed, anyways), but this just needs to get clarified for some reason since AIs just don't understand that for some reason.
User avatar
datorangebottle
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:53 am
Byond Username: Datorangebottle

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by datorangebottle » #643844

I'm aware this is an incredibly hot take, but AIs who try to get their laws changed in ways that would let them harm humans are already breaking their laws and should just be silicon banned.
Timberpoes wrote: Sat Jul 29, 2023 10:33 pm ImageAnother satisfied Timberpoes voter.Image
Timberpoes wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 9:16 pm I highly doubt any other admin on the team would have given you this chance, except maybe Kieth because his brain worms are almost as bad as mine.
Vekter wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 4:45 pm At what point does someone's refusal or failure to improve become malice in and of itself? If you give someone a year to stop shitting on the carpet and they keep doing it but get slightly closer to the bathroom every time and sometimes they get to the toilet before it happens, at what point does it become acceptable to just ask them to go shit in someone else's house?
Timberpoes wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:00 pm I'm sorry, can we get a real player to resolve this appeal? I don't like this trial player. They can't even set their own name.
Chadley wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2023 4:00 am WENDEZ, cute, cute. I imagine the sleeper activation code when I hear it. That's pretty cool. qB). But I don't like that it doesn't line up to be anything obsurd like WEWLAD. 6/10

SUGMA, nevermind it makes sense now. fuckyou/10
kieth4 wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 2:34 pm If it goes to appeals I will stand as the shield and protect this man's right to shit himself. Heavy is the head that wears the crown.
sinfulbliss wrote: I almost prefer Rave's AI-generated "We cannot accept this appeal at this time. If you would like assistance appealing in the future, please dial 1-800-1984-1488."
Pandarsenic wrote: Mon Dec 12, 2022 2:25 pm I think we can all agree that someone throwing a reverse revolver at Zyb as a secret test of character, and Zyb immediately fucking himself with it, is the best thing we all could have received for Christmas this year
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: Silicon Policy: Do not get subverted on purpose

Post by Mothblocks » #645559

Silicon policy is already ridiculously long and finegrained that we really don't see any benefit in adding more on top of it unless it's crucial.

We do not think these events are common enough or in dispute between admins enough to justify adding more onto silicon policy, while also having disagreements with some of the new rules proposed (such as equating opening your maintenance panel to being the same as uploading new laws).

We would like to see if we can do a bigger rewrite of Silicon Policy this term, though for now we will not be going through with this.
Shaps-cloud wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:59 am May eventually become one of the illusive maintainer-headmins if they choose to pursue that path, having a coder in the senior admin leadership has usually been positive for both sides in the past.
Head Coder of /tg/station, hi!

Head Admin of /tg/station Feb 2022.

Mothblocks everywhere, >>> Say nice things about me <<<
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CPTANT